Category Archives: Computer Forensics

“Smart” Cars and Hackers – We Should Have Seen This One Coming.

06 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cybersecurity, Identity Theft

≈ Comments Off on “Smart” Cars and Hackers – We Should Have Seen This One Coming.

Tags

, , , ,

Markey Report Reveals Automobile Security and Privacy Vulnerabilities, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/markey-report-reveals-automobile-security-privacy-vulnerabilities/

New standards are needed to plug security and privacy gaps in our cars and trucks, according to a report released today by Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). The report, called Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk and first reported on by CBS News’ 60 Minutes, reveals how sixteen major automobile manufacturers responded to questions from Senator Markey in 2014 about how vehicles may be vulnerable to hackers, and how driver information is collected and protected. . . .

Continue reading →

Seventh Circuit Denies Neiman Marcus’ Rehearing of Data Breach Class Action.

29 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Computer Forensics, Computer Virus, Cybersecurity, Identity Theft, Malware

≈ Comments Off on Seventh Circuit Denies Neiman Marcus’ Rehearing of Data Breach Class Action.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Seventh Circuit Denies En Banc Review For Data Breach Class Action, Privacy & Information Security Law Blog posted by Hunton and Williams

https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2015/09/29/seventh-circuit-denies-en-banc-review-for-data-breach-class-action/

Plaintiffs, Neiman Marcus cardholders, brought a class action against the store for damages caused by a 2013 data breach. Hackers accessed customers’ credit and debit cards, as well as other personal information. The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled that the individual Plaintiffs and the class action against Neiman Marcus lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The link takes you to the Seventh Circuit’s opinion explaining how Plaintiffs prevailed and why it reversed and remanded the case. Neiman Marcus filed for rehearing. The Seventh Circuit followed its usual habit, and denied it.

The Seventh Circuit’s analysis of its reasons ruling that Plaintiffs had met the three requirements for Article III standing is well worth the read. An added bonus is the link to the 2014 edition of The Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, -CCE

Who Has Your Back – Digitally Speaking?

04 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by in 1986 Electronic Communications Act, Computer Forensics, Cybersecurity, Intellectual Property, Internet, Legal Technology, Public Domain

≈ Comments Off on Who Has Your Back – Digitally Speaking?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Report – Who Has Your Digital Back? by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/report-who-has-your-back/

Technology is changing literally all the time. Unfortunately, the law does not. Congress has yet to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. For example, there is no law that emails stored longer than 6 months has the same protection emails stored less than 6 months.

To date, there are no NSA reforms for surveillance of online communication. It is possible that Congress will go farther and mandate “back doors” to allow government to access more digital information. Reports of hackers accessing our financial and private information are no longer surprising. Although companies assure us that our information is secure, is it?

These matters go the heart of digital privacy issues for companies and individuals and FOIA requests. Some of you will be surprised how vulnerable we are. -CCE

The ABC’s of Fielding Data.

29 Monday Jun 2015

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Discovery, E-Discovery, Fielded Data, Legal Technology, Metadata, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on The ABC’s of Fielding Data.

Tags

, , , ,

The Virtues of Fielding, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/the-virtues-of-fielding/

I am a member of the typewriter generation. With pencil and ink, we stored information on paper and termed them ‘documents.’ Not surprisingly, members of my generation tend to think of stored information in terms of tangible and authoritative things we persist in calling ‘documents.’ But unlike use of the word ‘folder’ to describe a data directory (despite the absence any folded thing) or the quaint shutter click made by camera phones (despite the absence of shutters), couching requests for information in discovery as demands for documents is not harmless skeuomorphism.  The outmoded thinking that electronically stored information items are just electronic paper documents makes e-discovery more difficult and costly. It’s a mindset that hampers legal professionals as they strive toward competence in e-discovery.

Does clinging to the notion of ‘document’ really hold us back? . . .

Continue reading →

Another Major Hack. Checked Your Law Firm’s Cyber Security Lately?

05 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, Disaster Preparedness, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Another Major Hack. Checked Your Law Firm’s Cyber Security Lately?

Tags

, , , , ,

The Real Reason You Need Cyber Liability Insurance, by Brian Focht, The Cyber Advocate

http://tinyurl.com/p8y5k2y

Another day, another hack. Yesterday brought news that four million current and former government employees may have had their personal information stolen by Chinese hackers.

Of course, this comes on the heels of what has been a staggering 18 months of hacks. Starting with the Home Depot and Target hacks, we’ve been barraged with story after story about major companies and retailers being hacked for their customers’ data. It’s not just big companies and big-box retailers, though. Law firms are increasingly the target of hackers, due to a combination of factors including relatively lax security and large quantities of organized, valuable information. . . .

Continue reading →

Teensy Change To Rule 41 Would Change Scope of Technology Search Warrants.

22 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Law Enforcement, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Rule 41, Search Warrants

≈ Comments Off on Teensy Change To Rule 41 Would Change Scope of Technology Search Warrants.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Small Rule Change That Could Give the U.S. Government Sweeping New Warrant Power, posted by Richard Salgado, Legal Director, Law Enforcement and Information Security, by Sabrina I Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://www.bespacific.com/small-rule-change-give-u-s-government-sweeping-new-warrant-power/

‘At the request of the Department of Justice, a little-known body — the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure — is proposing a significant change to procedural rules that could have profound implications for the privacy rights and security interests of everyone who uses the Internet. Last week, Google filed comments opposing this change. It starts with the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, an arcane but important procedural rule on the issuance of search warrants. Today, Rule 41 prohibits a federal judge from issuing a search warrant outside of the judge’s district, with some exceptions. The Advisory Committee’s proposed change would significantly expand those exceptions in cases involving computers and networks. The proposed change would allow the U.S. government to obtain a warrant to conduct ‘remote access’ searches of electronic storage media if the physical location of the media is ‘concealed through technological means,’ or to facilitate botnet investigations in certain circumstances. The implications of this expansion of warrant power are significant, and are better addressed by Congress. First, in setting aside the traditional limits under Rule 41, the proposed amendment would likely end up being used by U.S. authorities to directly search computers and devices around the world. Even if the intent of the proposed change is to permit U.S. authorities to obtain a warrant to directly access and retrieve data only from computers and devices within the U.S., there is nothing in the proposed change to Rule 41 that would prevent access to computers and devices worldwide. The U.S. has many diplomatic arrangements in place with other countries to cooperate in investigations that cross national borders, including Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). Google supports ongoing efforts to improve cooperation among governments, and we are concerned that the proposed change to Rule 41 could undermine those efforts. The significant foreign relations issues associated with the proposed change to Rule 41 should be addressed by Congress and the President, not the Advisory Committee.’

Time For A New Office Computer?

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by in Apple, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Time For A New Office Computer?

Tags

, , , , , ,

Give Away your Computer, Revisited, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court

https://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/give-away-your-computer-revisited/

This is the fourth in a series revisiting Ball in Your Court columns and posts from the primordial past of e-discovery–updating and critiquing in places, and hopefully restarting a few conversations. As always, your comments are gratefully solicited.

Give Away Your Computer 

[Originally published in Law Technology News, July 2005]

With the price of powerful computer systems at historic lows, who isn’t tempted to upgrade? But, what do you do with a system you’ve been using if it’s less than four or five-years old and still has some life left in it? Pass it on to a friend or family member or donate it to a school or civic organization and you’re ethically obliged to safeguard client data on the hard drive. Plus, you’ll want to protect your personal data from identity thieves and snoopers. Hopefully you already know that deleting confidential files and even formatting the drive does little to erase your private information—it’s like tearing out the table of contents but leaving the rest of the book. How do you be a Good Samaritan without jeopardizing client confidences and personal privacy? . . . .

Continue reading →

All Types Of 2015 Internet Privacy Protection Sites.

14 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by in Clouds, Computer Forensics, Computer Virus, Cybersecurity, Document Retention, Health Law, HIPAA, Law Office Management, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Technology, Technology

≈ Comments Off on All Types Of 2015 Internet Privacy Protection Sites.

Tags

, ,

Guide To Privacy Resources 2015, by Marcus P. Zillman, LLRX.com

http://www.llrx.com/features/privacyresources2015.htm

The Guide to Privacy Resources 2015 is a comprehensive listing of privacy resources currently available on the Internet. These include associations, indexes, search engines as well as individual websites and sources that supply the latest technology and information about privacy and how it relates to you and the Internet. These resources and sources will help you to discover the many pathways available to you through the Internet to find the latest privacy sources and sites. . . .

Huge Cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase and Wall Street – How Far Does It Go?

05 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Cybersecurity, Encryption, Identity Theft, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Huge Cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase and Wall Street – How Far Does It Go?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Hackers’ Attack Cracked 10 Companies in Major Assault – NYT, by Matthew Goldstein, Nicole Perlroth, and David E. Sanger, New York Times, posted by Sabrina Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog

http://tinyurl.com/o3vf8fq

We have heard of other hacks on that stole information from credit/debit cards and other financial and personal data. This is far more serious. It was first discovered in July, and the investigation is ongoing.  Initial reports of the damage and who caused it have changed as the investigation progresses. -CCE  

‘The huge cyberattack on JPMorgan Chase that touched more than 83 million households and businesses was one of the most serious computer intrusions into an American corporation. But it could have been much worse. Questions over who the hackers are and the approach of their attack concern government and industry officials. Also troubling is that about nine other financial institutions — a number that has not been previously reported — were also infiltrated by the same group of overseas hackers, according to people briefed on the matter. The hackers are thought to be operating from Russia and appear to have at least loose connections with officials of the Russian government, the people briefed on the matter said. It is unclear whether the other intrusions, at banks and brokerage firms, were as deep as the one that JPMorgan disclosed on Thursday. The identities of the other institutions could not be immediately learned. The breadth of the attacks — and the lack of clarity about whether it was an effort to steal from accounts or to demonstrate that the hackers could penetrate even the best-protected American financial institutions — has left Washington intelligence officials and policy makers far more concerned than they have let on publicly. Some American officials speculate that the breach was intended to send a message to Wall Street and the United States about the vulnerability of the digital network of one of the world’s most important banking institutions.’ . .  .

Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Rules Gmail Account Can Be Accessed For Investigation, by evanino in Evanino Blog

http://www.evanino.com/federal-judge-rules-gmail-account-can-accessed-investigation/

In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.

A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.

Contrary to previous rulings

This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.

A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.

The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’

However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

Experts must scan emails, not Google employee

Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.

‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.

Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.

He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.

Canvas Fingerprinting – The Online Computer Tracking Device Almost Impossible To Block.

23 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Cybersecurity, Identity Theft, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Canvas Fingerprinting – The Online Computer Tracking Device Almost Impossible To Block.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Meet the Online Tracking Device That is Virtually Impossible to Block, by Julia Angwin, ProPublica

(This story was co-published with Mashable.)

http://tinyurl.com/mbqqrw

Update: After this article was published, YouPorn contacted us to say it had removed AddThis technology from its website, saying that the website was ‘completely unaware that AddThis contained a tracking software that had the potential to jeopardize the privacy of our users.’  A spokeswoman for the German digital marketer Ligatus also said that is no longer running its test of canvas fingerprinting, and that it has no plans to use it in the future.

A new, extremely persistent type of online tracking is shadowing visitors to thousands of top websites, from WhiteHouse.gov to YouPorn.com.

First documented in a forthcoming paper by researchers at Princeton University and KU Leuven University in Belgium, this type of tracking, called canvas fingerprinting, works by instructing the visitor’s Web browser to draw a hidden image. Because each computer draws the image slightly differently, the images can be used to assign each user’s device a number that uniquely identifies it.

*      *     *

Like other tracking tools, canvas fingerprints are used to build profiles of users based on the websites they visit — profiles that shape which ads, news articles, or other types of content are displayed to them.

But fingerprints are unusually hard to block: They can’t be prevented by using standard Web browser privacy settings or using anti-tracking tools such as AdBlock Plus.

The researchers found canvas fingerprinting computer code, primarily written by a company called AddThis, on 5 percent of the top 100,000 websites. . . .

10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Bad Legal Writing, Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Copyright, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Discovery, Encryption, Evidence, Finance and Banking Law, Fraud, Google, Government, Identity Theft, Intellectual Property, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Legalese, Malware, Management, Patent Law, PC Computers, Plain Language, Presentations, Search Engines, Trial Tips and Techniques, Trojans, Video

≈ Comments Off on 10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Top 10 Legal TED Talks, by Tim Baran, Legal Productivity Blog

http://www.legalproductivity.com/op-ed/top-10-legal-ted-talks/

Have you heard of TED? It began in 1984 as a conference and now covers a wide range of topics in more than 100 languages.  Think of it as a massive brain trust that shares great ideas and information.

Each of the law-related TED talks listed in this article are worthwhile on their own: (1) four ways to fix a broken legal system; (2) eliminate legalese by using plain English; (3) how to beat a patent troll; (4) how the Internet will change government; (5) laws that choke creativity; (6) copyright law; (7) why eyewitnesses get it wrong; (8) how technology could make crime worse; (9) the Internet and anonymity online; and (10) how great leaders inspire. -CCE

Is It Time For A “Bring Your Own Device” Policy for Your Law Office?

01 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Clouds, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, Disaster Preparedness, Emails, Encryption, Google, Intellectual Property, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Blogs, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Mac, Management, Marketing, Passwords, PC Computers, Social Media, Supervising Support Staff, Tablets, Technology, Using Social Media

≈ Comments Off on Is It Time For A “Bring Your Own Device” Policy for Your Law Office?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mobile Device Security for Lawyers: How Solos and Small Firms can Ethically Allow Bring Your Own Device, by Will Harrelson, Curo Legal Blog (with hat tip to Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog!)

http://tinyurl.com/lrrnp7g

The Start of Bring Your Own Device Policies

It really is the iPhone’s fault. Yes, Apple is to blame for designing the most desirable piece of technology of the last decade. So desirable, in fact, that employees of all stripes requested (and, often, begged) their IT departments to toss the increasingly-‘corporate’ Blackberry out the window and allow the use of their personal iPhones for corporate emails and calls. As a result, we have been living in the age of ‘Bring Your Own Device’ where employees use a single personal mobile phone (or tablet) for both their personal email, texting, and social media while also using it for work email, word processing, and other enterprise applications.

Before the Bring Your Own Device era, a company’s greatest out-of-office security concern was an employee who left a briefcase in a taxi. Today, the worry is an employee misplacing a device the size of wallet containing almost limitless amounts of data that criminals or hackers would easily and quickly exploit if given the chance. Clearly, there is an obvious financial motivation for all businesses to protect their own or customer’s sensitive data.

However, lawyers face particular ethical consequences if they fail to take reasonable efforts to either investigate the technologies that they implement or protect their client’s confidential information. . . .

Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

30 Monday Jun 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Employment Law, Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Requests for Production, Technology

≈ Comments Off on Why Defendant Former Employers Do Not Get Mirror-Image of Plaintiff’s Personal Computer.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Proportionality Prevents Mirror Imaging of Family Computers, by Joshua Gilliland, Bow Tie Law’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/osvw3ws

The Defendants in employment litigation sought the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers three years after she had been terminated. The crux of the eDiscovery centered on the former employee forwarding emails from her supervisors email to her personal account, which the Defendants claimed were lost by the Plaintiff. The Court denied the motion to compel. Downs v. Va. Health Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74415, 6-11 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2014).

Judge James G. Welsh did a very nice job of summarizing ESI relevant to a case,proportionality, and the rules for conducting forensic analysis on an opposing party’s hard drive. The Court held the following:

(1) Nothing in the record suggests any willful failure, fault or bad faith by the plaintiff on her discovery obligations that would justify the requested computer forensics examination;

(2) The “mirror-imaging” of the plaintiff’s family computers three years after her termination raises significant issues of confidentiality and privacy;

(3) There was no duty on the part of the plaintiff to preserve her family computers as evidence;

(4) Principles of proportionality direct that the requested discovery is not sufficiently important to warrant the potential burden or expense in this case; and

(5) On the current record that the defendants have failed to justify a broad, and frankly drastic, forensic computer examination of the plaintiff’s two family computers.

Downs, at *9-10, referencing McCurdy Group v. Am. Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 831 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assocs., Inc. v. BBP & Assocs. LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51264, *8 (D. Md. Apr. 9, 2013). . . .

 

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, Authentication, Bates Numbers, Computer Forensics, Databases, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Federal Judges, Federal Rules of Discovery, Federal Rules of Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Judges, Legal Forms, Legal Technology, Native Format

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A Guide to Forms of Production, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://ballinyourcourt.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/a-guide-to-forms-of-production/

Craig Ball’s Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production! Although Mr. Ball says there is much he wants to re-organize and rewrite, I can’t wait to dive in.  You will find the hyperlink to the Guide when you go to the web site. Thank you, Craig Ball! -CCE

Semiannually, I compile a primer on some key aspect of electronic discovery.  In the past, I’ve written on computer forensics, backup systems, metadata and databases. For 2014, I’ve completed the first draft of the Lawyers’ Guide to Forms of Production, intended to serve as a primer on making sensible and cost-effective specifications for production of electronically stored information.  It’s the culmination and re-purposing of much that I’ve written on forms heretofore, along with new material extolling the advantages of native and near-native forms.

Reviewing the latest draft, there is much I want to add and re-organize; accordingly, it will be a work-in-progress for months to come.  Consider it a “public comment” version.  The linked document includes exemplar verbiage for requests and model protocols for your adaption and adoption.  I plan to add more forms and examples. . . .

2014 Best of Legal Tech from Jim Calloway.

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Apple, Apps, Cell Phones, Clouds, Computer Forensics, Dashboards, Emails, Encryption, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, PC Computers, Tablets

≈ Comments Off on 2014 Best of Legal Tech from Jim Calloway.

Tags

, , , ,

The Best of Legal Tech for Solos and Small Firms 2014, by Jim Calloway, Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mjqjp9a

This month’s Digital Edge podcast covers ‘The Best of Legal Tech for Solos and Small Firms 2014.’

John Simek is our guest, who is the business partner and spouse of my podcast teammate, Sharon Nelson. Together with Michael C. Maschke, they were the authors of The 2014 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide: Critical Decisions Made Simple, published by the American Bar Association. I was quite honored to be asked by them to write the forward for the book.

We discuss all sorts of technology for solo and small firm lawyers, including practice management software, workstations and cloud-based services. Enjoy the podcast.

Craig Ball Revisits Gigabytes.

15 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Computer Forensics, Databases, Discovery, E-Discovery, Excel, Legal Technology, Microsoft Office, Word

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball Revisits Gigabytes.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Revisiting ‘How Many Documents in a Gigabyte?’, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/npc3jn3

[I]’m happy to point you to some notable work by my friend, John Tredennick. I’ve known John since the emerging technology was fire and watched with awe and admiration as John transitioned from old-school trial lawyer to visionary forensic technology entrepreneur running e-discovery service provider, Catalyst. John is as close to a Renaissance man as anyone I know in e-discovery, and when John speaks, I listen.

Lately, John Tredennick shared some revealing metrics on the Catalyst blog looking at the relationship between data and document volumes, an update to his 2011 article called, How Many Documents in a Gigabyte?