>Our RIM committee is debating how best to handle electronic records
>destruction, specifically items stored within ECM systems. On one side we
>have legal/compliance with a preference towards deletion (erase) of the files.
>On the other end IT, with a preference towards making the items unaccessible
>through the deletion of the location pointers, as recommended by EMC Centera
>(magnetic WORM storage.)
>
>Has anyone tackled this subject before? Is there a preference for one over the
>other and why?

This is a thorny issue, and there are two sides to it which you have already
identified.  Most/many ECM and ERM systems disallow the physical deletion of
items saved to disc if they use media, which is WORM or some other
non-erasable format. In these instances, the only option is to remove the
pointer which makes locating the item much more difficult, but not impossible.

Through the use of forensic tools, the data is still recoverable, but this
requires a bit of work- however, if you are in a legal proceeding and asked
to provide your data map, copies of policies and procedures, etc and these
indicate that data 'deleted' may actually still remain on the storage media,
you MAY be required to produce it.

There have been a few cases I've read briefs on where this step has been
disallowed in instances where the records were 'deleted' in the course of
normal business and in compliance with an approved records retention policy
that is routinely followed.  

The instances where rulings have gone the other way, on both storage media
and backup tapes being called into question, are those where there was no
approved retention schedule, or where there was one but it was sporadically
applied, OR there was evidence to indicate that records had been purposely
destroyed before the end of their stated retention.

The only way to accomplish a true deletion of the records is to employ
practices where the information is written to the media in a manner where
items of like retention are stored in common sectors (rather than written at
random to discs/platters) and then to copy all sectors that have records
which have NOT MET their retention to new media, then destroying the old
media.  And this process also needs to be documented in your procedures.

Most ECM/ERM systems will allow you to choose the destination of content
being written to storage, so naturally, in storage jukebox environment,
records considered "permanent" could be written to one platter, those with
25 year retention periods to another, etc to limit the number of platters
that would have to be actually destroyed and have data rewritten... but if
your legal/compliance folks want it TRULY destroyed, this may be the only
option.

They might want to consider how defensible they think your RM Policy and IT
Practices are and if they feel they could legitimately argue and demonstrate
that the retention policy is followed rigorously and that because of the
manner in which the system functions, the only option is to delete pointers,
that they should not be required to produce any records that have been
"destroyed in the normal course of business" by deletion of the pointers
alone.   

Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]