Hi all,
Maybe it's the drugs, but for me the fundamental question here is what part
of an electronic record is the record? Of course the answer is, "it
depends", but I don't know that the RIM profession NOR the legal profession,
courts and case law NOR IT can say with any certainty that the scrubbing of
metadata is, to paraphrase Ambrose Bierce, "felonious, excusable,
justifiable, or praiseworthy." I think this is a good forum to have that
discussion in and I'll be blogging about THAT next week as well. But insofar
as Microsoft offers a metadata scrubbing tool as part of Office, and hasn't
been drummed out of business for so doing, it seems that there are a
significant number of valid reasons for using it beyond the examples cited
below.

Regards,

jesse
[log in to unmask]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:38 AM, WALLIS Dwight D <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dana, the first purpose of scrubbing metadata to repurpose information,
> which, I am assuming will then have new metadata applied, strikes me as
> being a legitimate business practice - somewhat along the lines of a
> form letter. However, using that process to further provide
> justification of a metadata scrub for "posterity" raises concerns, as
> this violates fundamental principles of records integrity and
> authenticity. It would be similar to erasing signatures from contracts
> for posterity.
>
> I can think of a number of instances where a practice like this might be
> justified - for example, in a public health setting where information is
> being exchanged regarding confidential HIV testing, or perhaps even in
> an email box set up to receive confidential whistleblower information.
> These are fairly limited and specific situations. If you have a similar
> need, then that needs to be specifically cited as the business purpose
> for the scrubbing related to "posterity".
>
> Case law is not necessarily the issue I would be concerned with.
> Generally speaking, if a records keeping practice violates fundamental
> records keeping principles without justification for the specific
> practice, risks associated with that practice increase. In my opinion,
> the fact that you are engaging in a records keeping practice to achieve
> purpose A in no way justifies extending that practice to purpose B based
> on a "normal course of business" argument, which appears to be what you
> are describing. There has to be a clear justification for applying the
> practice to purpose B specific to that purpose.
>
> I'll be blunt: if the purpose is related to potential future litigation,
> the red flags I would be raising would shame the Soviets. However, in
> all fairness, I am in a public records environment with its own demands,
> and would be interested to hear of other instances where such a practice
> has been used and justified, as this is a practice/technology that I
> could learn more about.
>
> Dwight Wallis, CRM
> Records Administrator
> Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
> (FREDS)
> 1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
> Portland, OR 97233
> Phone: (503)988-3741
> Fax: (503)988-3754
> [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]
>



-- 
Regards,

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
blog: http://informata.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins

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]