On 7/14/06, Rachel Howse Binnington <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I saw this on the BBC website and thought ya'll might find it interesting,
> especially the comments of the Iron Mountain Representative:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5175568.stm
>
> "Mostly it is old archives that were not required currently, business
> records. . . In most cases we wouldn't even know because most people they
> use paper documents in boxes - commercial business records." He added: "We
> are just interested as anybody else to know what could have caused it. It
> was a fair-sized warehouse but it was full."



I always find it "interesting" how a certain vendor characterizes the losses
of their clients and what they feel their personal responsibility is related
to those losses.

If you recall when some data tapes were lost in the not too distant past,
and it should be easy to recall, because it happened a couple of times in a
short time frame (at least those losses that were publicized) they felt that
the data was likely not compromised, but it SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENCRYPTED...
and that became their mantra after the losses, that everyone should start
encrypting their data, or better yet, using their "trusted service" to send
them the data live and online instead of sending all of those antiquated
tapes all over the place...  I mean, I'm sure this is a much safer
solution... and after the tape losses, I'd certainly be looking to get
involved in another business venture here.

Now, I'm sure that if businesses had their records on fireproof paper, or
had decided to store everything in vaults, they would have been protected
and this wouldn't have happened.  But as you read about the fire in Ottawa,
there was a comment made by the service provider that the fire protection
systems met standards... including in-rack sprinklers.  However, it didn't
sound as if the facility itself did.  And obviously, the business practices
left a little to be desired, if the reports coming out about someone using a
torch on the roof to repair a leaky pipe that resulted in embers burning
through starting the fire was the actual cause.  600,000CF of records on the
upper floor of a building with no firewalls to separate the contents into
250,000CF volumes?

As many members of the NFPA232 Technical Committee have attempted to
convince the commercial storage industry, sprinklers alone ARE NOT ENOUGH to
stop a fire once one starts... and they ARE going to start.  In fact two of
them did in two days... and that's reminiscent of what happened in New
Jersey in the past.

We never saw a formal report on those fires, the only thing I've ever seen
is they were suspected to be arson, or "of a suspicious nature", but none
the less, the clients lost all of their holdings in those fires as well.

And what of the Bow, London fire?  The numbers I've heard are 1.6M CF of
records stored in a newer facility... I wonder what the construction
standards were there and if they followed the NFPA232 "Standard for
Protection of Records" guidance about compartmentation, fire detection,
sprinklers, having a facility inspected by a Fire Marshall, annual fire
drills, copies of the fire plan kept off site, etc...

Maybe yes, maybe no... but after all, these were nothing more than "archives
of inactive business records".  Of course, clients DID SEE FIT to pay
monthly storage charges, fees for servicing the contents, fees for
accessing, and a firm to manage their information assets as though they
obviously were of some great value to the owners, otherwise they wouldn't
have entered into a contractual agreement with a service provider to store
them.

Well, we'll just have to see how it plays out in the court of public
opinion... and maybe in the court of law.

Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance