RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:49:15 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Rich-

This is another classic case of "cart before horse" logic on the part of an
organization/agency.  And please don't take this as any criticism of you
personally.

The concept of allowing, encouraging, or suggesting the use of a technology
for business purposes without first issuing a policy about how or what it
should or should not be used for is ill planned.  I'm not saying let's
ignore or 'not embrace' the technology, but there was seemingly PLENTY of
time before the use began to determine what the policy about it would be.

I'm 100% with you in that the use of personal equipment and accounts for
business purposes, whether it's a public or private entity is a BAD
DECISION.... but it's especially problematic in a public records
environment.  There was a multi year UGLY court case in the Bay Area
regarding this with use of privately owned computers and email accounts to
conduct public business and the exposure of commingled records when the
systems and content were subject to a subpoena. http://bit.ly/dapcYM 
(Tossed out on strange technicality that the newspaper failed to name
council member individually in suit)

Until there are systems in place to adequately capture the content, the use
of these technologies for conducting public business should either be
disallowed or kept to an extreme minimum, and certain types of
business/transactions should be completely against policy.  There should be
a clear policy stating what publicly owned equipment and communications
systems should be used for, and mention of 'allowable personal incidental
use' in the policy, along with a statement notifying employees there should
be no expectation of privacy when using this equipment... AND the employees
should be required to review and sign a copy of the policy prior to
beginning use.  That was the hammer in the Quon v. Arch Wireless case that
hit the Supreme Court. http://bit.ly/dBEBZl 

Good luck closing the barn door, and high hopes you can roundup the livestock!

Larry
[log in to unmask]
[Yes, it's really me =) ]

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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2