> Ginny writes:
> "While the particular Bank of America and Ameritrade tapes may have been
> older, I am still concerned that IM or the author did not address the
> contingency loss issue."

>And Sharon Burnett responded:
>  The vendor is not addressing the issue and sugar coats the problem.
> What this is telling me is corporate America (and us as records managers)
>  must push to get contracts that have teeth!

No kidding.  The ARMA Storage Guideline is going to be available for
another month to be downloaded at no cost, and I strongly encourage
those of you that haven't downloaded it to do so and check it out...
and as for the "teeth comment", if when you look through it, you don't
feel there's enough teeth, (or even if you do!) PLEASE, PLEASE... send
in your comments to let us know what you think works and what could
work better!!

http://www.arma.org/standards/development/public/login.cfm?DocumentID=99

NOW... as for the article and all... similar to Ginny, I sent in my
comments to the editor and voiced my opinion on the subject.

What I found most appaling is that this vendor who constanly promotes
themselves as a "Leader in Information Management" was involved in
this fiasco last November and was able to keep the word off the street
until February that it happened, and the excuse they gave was that
they were waiting for the findings of a Justice Department
investigation... if this TRULY was 3-5 year old data, I doubt the DoJ
would have allowed them to avoid complying with the California
Database Protection Privacy requirements that they notify any
California Resident whose information has been potentially compromised
within 48 hours that this has happened.  And I've seen the letters
that were issued in March about the data loss that took place in
November.  Wells Fargo wasn't given any protection by the DoJ or
anyone else when it happend to them, what makes Iron Mountain above
the law?

Secondly, after the word did finally get out, there werre a number of
articles where Iron Mountain was encouraging people to use their other
services for transmiting data directly to them, citing that it was
"much more secure" than the physical transportation of backup tapes...
and NOW they tell people to encrypt their data to protect it from
loss?

How about improving their processes and procedures to protect THEIR
CLIENTS from them?? Or how about evaluating the fiscal impact of
LOSING CLIENTS because of not having effective procedures in place to
protect holdings entrusted to them while they're under contract??  Or
at least openly admitting that something went wrong and telling people
what you've done to improve the process to keep it from happening
again?

Maybe a full page ad or two in a few trade journals, or a change of
the tag line is in order.  All they'd need to do is add a "mis-" into
the text =)

Larry

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance