On Sunday 04 September 2005 10:37, Dylan wrote:
On Sunday 04 Sep 2005 18:11, Randall R Schulz wrote: ...
Even assuming this claim is valid, why on earth would anybody go to these lengths?
OK, one of my close friends is head of IT auditing for a major City law firm. Recently, a dispute arose between two of their clients over a clause in a contract. Basically, one party claimed a rewording had not been authorised. Several hard drives and backup sets were analysed by a third party data recovery outfit who recovered a complete edit trail of the relevant documents. Some parts had to be extracted from over-written temporaray files because intermediate copies of the documents had been deleted and didn't occur in the nightly backups. This being a law firm dealing in contracts amounting to many millions of pounds each, they keep copious backups. The fact the intermediate documents were deleted may or may not be a matter of criminal investigation. The edit trail of the documents in this case are currently being considered by other lawyers to assess whether they can be upheld in court. So, to answer your question - the claim IS valid, and when millions of pounds or criminal action can rest on the validity of a document it becomes worth going to those lengths.
So you're advocating people destroy record to evade legal liability for their actions?
...
Randall Schulz