I came across a very interesting post today. It seems that when Google was requested to present evidence for a case early this year, they alleged that due to the complexity of their e-mail structure they could present it, but that it would be very difficult and expensive to search and find exactly what was needed. I guess it makes sense, since they are so technologically behind the curve…
Leaving any sight of sarcasm behind, this puts into focus a simple -and enormous- truth: the high costs of any e-discovery process, specifically when organizations are requested to search among their data to produce evidence. If Google claims the process is difficult and too costly, any other company should really stop for a second and think on how to tackle this issue.
The first solution that may come to mind would be to improve searching capabilities for finding exactly what is needed. This solution, though, may produce what is called a “false negative” if a relevant file is not found, or a “false positive” if something that is not relevant for the case is found – recent findings suggest that 70% of the total documents revised in an e-discovery process are false positive findings. This proves that the correct approach should be not just having a good searching tool, but -as the columnist mentions- also that organizations should “take available technological measures to preserve documentation for legal proceedings”. Having “the ability to preserve new documents as they are created” is key to this.
This brings me to what we do at Kinamik… which is exactly that! We build a centralized, independent and Secure Audit Vault that serves as a safe for all the sensitive data -such as audit trails-, making them tamper-proof in the process for a future proof preservation. And of course, search capabilities are also available in that audit vault. Well … maybe I should give Google a ring?