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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT