That question and that answer are why a non-records manager type hangs around this neighborhood. BRAVO!!
Larry you know that is going right in my “Data Mapping” file for better understanding of what a Data Map should be, what it looks like and how it works.
Since Electronic Records Management Systems (ERMS ) is now a real thing; I don’t think records management and the back up tape management can be so neatly divided.
Back up tapes have Volser numbers and the IT Systems can track how many times these tapes have been recorded over. These tapes have finite lives where each reuse beyond a certain number of times is asking for trouble. (If those tapes are stored in poor storage environments - lack of environmental control, cycling temperatures and humidity and exposure to magnetic fields then the life span is considerably reduced. )
IT seldom even pays attention to this. In fact, it is probably a records management issue no one thinks is their responsibility. But it defines how stable the tapes are that will certainly be listed on the Data Map. One means to track this is through the offsite tape tracking software.
These software systems can track the tape use, the server it came from, the index of what is on the tape and up to 60 different metadata fields to define the tape contents so it could be part of the Data Map development. Who among you is looking at this?
In researching Case Studies of litigation, the Legal team will pull IT and records management staff in and like Forrest look at that box of chocolates (aka; electronic records) and realize “you never know what you are gonna get.” Over 80% of the cost of litigation is the E-Discovery so you know these tapes are brought into the Data Map. For months after this process begins you will be knee deep in review of records.
In most cases, the legal team realizes early on that RM & IT are so disparate in their approach to this process that immediately they will bring in several consultants to try to unravel the electronic records. Jeanne you have a great opportunity to open the door to a great discussion and you should ask Legal to sit in on the meeting.
Questions like:
1) How close are we as an organization to developing our own Data Map?
2) If we are storing anything in the Cloud, could we be considered negligent because it has an error rate 3000 times greater than tape storage? Who authorized such a ridiculous degrading of our records management program?
3) If we have moved to LTO5 for our back ups and they allow “Drag and Drop” on the tapes, how does that affect us? If we take something from one tape and it moves to a whole other tape, does that create any complications?
4) Is our offsite vendor tracking our tapes in a more precise manner than we are? Are we taking advantage of all the software has to offer in defining our Data Map in advance to reduce our costs should litigation occur? (We sure don’t want the opposing counsel to show up at our offsite storage vendor and learn more about our electronic records than we know.)
A real records manager could probably come up with better questions. But like the box of chocolates you need that “map" that shows you where the carmel turtles are and how to avoid those jelly filled pieces. The Judge just views them all as chocolates.
If you get this one thing right, you will save your company more money than your life time salary if litigation occurs and maybe win the lawsuit as well. Plus you will forever be known as an “Expert Witness!”
Hugh
On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:01 AM, RECMGMT-L automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Backup Tapes
> Date: March 5, 2014 at 12:40:16 PM EST
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Callen, Jeanne M <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>> The question of backup tapes and their destruction certificates has once
>> again come up at our company. I have always viewed the backup tapes as a
>> recovery medium - not a records storage medium - therefore they are not
>> listed on our record retention schedule. On occasion a tape needs to be
>> destroyed and we receive a destruction certificate - should the destruction
>> certificate be added to a schedule if the tapes aren't?
>>
>> Frozen in Wisconsin,
>> Jeanne
>>
>
> I'm sure this topic, like many in RM, will come with a whole host of
> opinions. Some of them will be valid based on whether you operate in a
> public or private setting, others based on how highly regulated you are and
> others yet on how risk averse or tolerant you are.
>
> One thing to keep in mind is if you ever get into an e-discovery situation,
> and you're called upon to produce a data map, your backup tapes will have
> to be included on that... because even though they are intended 'solely for
> the purpose of system recovery', they DO contain electronically stored
> data, and are generated in the course of normal operations.
>
> I think discussing this aspect with your IT/IS staff who are responsible
> for the policy, process and procedures related to generating, maintaining,
> storing and disposing of backups, will be beneficial. If a tape is only
> retained until the data on it is "stale" and it is then replaced with anew
> generation of tape, and these generations are eventually overwritten and
> subsequently destroyed, having knowledge of the fact that content on them
> may be 'discoverable' may change the procedure.
>
> There have been court rulings in favor of and against having to search and
> produce content from backup tapes- and there's no way of knowing how a
> Judge is going to rule - the FRCP sets the guidance on what governs the
> decision, but if the Judge feels a party hasn't done enough to produce
> information and that it MAY exist on those tapes, they can at least require
> a "peek into them".
>
> Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(2)(B) limits the production of
> electronically stored information as follows:
>
> (B) Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored Information. A party
> need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from
> sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of
> undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
> order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the
> information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.
> If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from
> such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
> limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the
> discovery.
>
>
> The guidance that should exist for rotation and deletion/overwriting of
> content on backup tapes should revolve around the shortest time possible
> that the content remains viable for reconstituting the system. If full
> backups are made, as soon as a new one is generated, the content of the
> prior one becomes less valuable. If incremental backups are made, then
> decisions have to be made to determine when the last full backup becomes so
> stale that it would take too much effort to reconstitute from the full
> backup and have to add in all of the incremental data.
>
> As to the question about retaining the destruction notices? My opinion is
> YES, they should be retained, in part because the demonstrate that you were
> following the policy related to the backup rotation/cycling. Secondly,
> because although as you stated they are not "a records storage medium",
> they DO contain records and because you maintain records of the disposition
> of records in other forms, this would be no different. In our case, we
> follow the guidance in NARA GRS 16, item 2 (a) 2 which is to retain for 6
> years.
>
> Larry
> [log in to unmask]
> --
Hugh Smith
FIRELOCK Fireproof Modular Vaults
[log in to unmask]
(610) 756-4440 Fax (610) 756-4134
WWW.FIRELOCK.COM
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]
|
