Protect your data

June 10, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IL staff writer Rebecca Berfanger wrote this post.

The June edition of the Evansville Bar Association newsletter, the E-Summation, had a brief article explaining how even copiers might have data chips that store information, including images of anything that is scanned on them, and that attorneys should be aware of this. Bottom line: Just because you take your copies and originals with you, it doesn’t mean no one else can access those images later.

This makes sense, as I’ve used the copier at our office to make PDFs, and many copiers have this capability as a way to save time and paper when trying to e-mail a document or when posting something online as a PDF.

While Susan Vollmer, the executive director of the EBA, said she wasn’t aware of a specific case of this occurring to any lawyers in southwest Indiana, she included it in the newsletter because an attorney member of the organization sent her a message about the concern, including a link to this YouTube video

There was also an attorney who mentioned this at the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference on June 4 at a CLE session about security for law firms. That session was led by Lincoln Mead, IT director of the Utah State Bar Association, who was also one of the speakers at the Tech Camp June 3.

While most of what Mead said at the June 4 session was about how to protect information coming in and out of a law firm – including various types of server hardware, how to detect viruses and spyware, and security concerns that larger firms would generally hire an IT department to keep an eye on – he mentioned that printers might store information without a user’s knowledge.

After he mentioned this, an observer in the room also brought up the issue of copiers holding information. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to flag him down afterward, so it’s possible it was the same attorney who sent this information to Vollmer or someone who may have read or heard about this from the E-Summation. Or it’s possible someone may have accessed information he had scanned at what he assumed was a secure copier.

Another security tip anyone can benefit from: Anything that stores information shouldn’t leave the building, except in teeny tiny pieces, Mead said. He suggested that if firms want to donate old computers to schools, non-profits, or anyone else who could benefit from them, they should. But first, they should have a day where the kids come in and, with hammers, destroy any chips that might have information on them, even if the data was erased already.

He also suggested that when firms shred old documents, they not only shred, but that they burn or pulp the bits of paper, whichever their state allows, as a way to ensure no one else will ever access confidential information.

Have you used any of these methods to protect information? Will you consider it from now on?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT