Part of the thinking was that records would be maintained according to the
retention schedule and in full compliance with all laws. Once the retention
schedule has been met the records are disposed of to a third party. This
third party would be outside the jurisdiction of the US. It would be able
to do work based on the records that it would now own. No records would
need to be destroyed and would not be subject to the laws of the United
States. The organization could then have the benefit of the records
continued existence without the risks associated with keeping them.

Ralph Better

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Nine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The only "benefit" I can think of to this is that since other
> countries have different (and usually less liberal) privacy laws, it
> would be more difficult to obtain the records from overseas
> repositories.
>
> The thing is, in time of litigation I can see this looking like an
> enormous dodge. If it were written into company policy beforehand and
> signed off on, that would be some degree of protection, but I think it
> all returns to the question -- why? And that's a question any savvy
> judge or litigator would ask.
>
> Tam Rivera
> Senior Administrative Coordinator
> Columbia Business School
> [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]
>

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]