On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:17:53 -0400, Peter Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Kimo Crossman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:46:15 -0700, WALLIS Dwight D
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for all the interesting questions,
>>
>> >Kimo, who will ensure document integrity and preservation in this
>> >scenario? Google?
We treat them as access copies no requirement for 100% solution, could
always be reloaded - in previous email revised timeframe to 10 years min

>
>holy moly  have you been reading any of the threads on the list concerning
>the management of email, e-records, storage. Your comment sounds like a
>standard IT comment and is a reason why many organizations get into trouble
>when litigation comes around

This is government - there is no public interest in ever protecting
malfeasance from lawsuits.

>
>sorry but it still takes a human to set up that "automated solution" there
>is no plug and play e-records solution

Sure, when the city develops a comprehensive solution - as so many
governments need to do, that can be used.


>
>sorry I can't go on, your ultimate faith in Google is amazing. No written
>agreement, trust them to do the migration, trust them to protect PII, trust
>them, trust them. Sorry but it ain't going to work Cholly
>
>If I lived in SF I would definitely be raising a stink that what is being
>proposed may not be what SF needs

I'm not trusting Google - based on your input I'm putting access versions
online in google groups.

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]