>Actually nothing new here. this was an issue almost 10 years ago, the press
>is just catching up to it. I seem to recall some litigation where one side
>subpoenaed the photocopier harddrives
>
>Trudy M Phillips <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> My goodness.  That is very interesting, scarry and mind  boggling.  Who
>> would have imagined?
>>

True that.  This has been an issue for about 10 years now with fax machines
and copiers, and also the newer MF (multi function) machines.  For a decade
or more now, most of these machines actually aren't photocopiers as we knew
them, but instead imaging machines that store an image of the source
document and then generate copies 'after the fact', which is why the
originals are returned prior to copying starts.  Also, many of these
machines store jobs in a queue and you can recall a job and run it again
without even having the originals in your possession.

As a normal practice here, ALL machines have their RAM zapped prior to being
released for sale or returned for credit against new purchases, and those
that do have an actual hard drive have drives removed.

It's also become a problem in some organizations that work with truly
"classified" materials, PII, PHI, or intellectual property to be able to
find machines THAT DO NOT have this functionality to ensure images ARE NOT
retained in memory to avoid improper use of content.  The only option is to
disable the functionality, but that makes for slower copying, seeing as the
machine can only capture a single image at a time.

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]