RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:22:23 -0500
Reply-To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From:
Marko Sillanpaa <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
I like looking at situations like this with regular real world scenarios.

If for instance a robbery occurred and across the street from the break-in
is a security camera.  The police would issue a subpoena to see the tapes.
The owner of the tapes would need to furnish them.  This law became muddy
for a time as cell phone moved subpoena's across state line but
communications bills addressed this cross state issue. Also if there was a
surveillance system in the home of the victim, those tapes would be
admissible.  There is no expectation of privacy when committing a crime.

So in short a device that records audio may or may not have caught on tape
a crime committed against the owner.  If the owner was alive would they
asked for this audio?

So then comes the Apple argument.  Apple was asked to develop a "back door"
a very different scenario.  It seems here that Amazon is not being asked to
develop any new "feature" but instead to share audio that they may be in
possession of already.  Audio that the user had to agreed that Amazon could
use to improve their product.

-----------------------------------------------------
Marko Sillanpaa, CIP, ECMᵖ, SMGᵖ
www.BigMenOnContent.com
[log in to unmask]
925-997-6969

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM, mwhaider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It seems to me that the easy answer is to NOT record the information sent
> or received through ECHO.  Once you record it you must treat it as a
> "record" and set policies for managing that information.  Unfortunately the
> user may not want it recorded but ECHO may automatically record it
> regardless of the users request and this is where the problem lies - in the
> hands of the "providers".  Why do they want to record it?  What is the
> purpose?  Does Google charge by the number of answers?  My opinion - if
> Google records it must be discoverable!  So choose your poison.
>
> We constantly talk about the volume of data accumulating and this is why -
> it seems to be easier to record than let the "noise" disappear.  I suppose
> that every Google search I've made is probably stored by Google in the
> cloud. When these clouds break we will have a global flood:)
>
>
> Mary
>
> Mary W. Haider, MBA, CRM
> Records & Information Manager and Consultant
> [log in to unmask]
> 865-983-1371
>
> 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]
>

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