Laws Regarding Electronic Data & Recordkeeping
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The rapid enactment of the recent sweeping laws regarding electronic data and recordkeeping have been lauded by some and decried by others as ôoverkill.ö This paradox is largely due to the disparity of benefits of the laws to each specific arena where they have an impact. Compliance Week and Raisch Financial Information have teamed up to develop a Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) scorecard for tracking SOX performance across the Russell 3000 public companies; they found that 1 in 13 public companies has financial controls that its auditor finds shaky,ö and that the top offenders are computer hardware and software, metals and mining, and consumer services (Shread, 2005). The pharmaceutical industry, for example, actually requdsted the laws tn promote security and assist with their need for guidelines in migrating to a paperless environment. The technology industry, however, is overwhelmed with the demands of the new legislation. The 21 CFR Part 11 regulation is a force to be reckoned with, because in order to comply with it, many companies will be forced to make major, expensive changes, such as acquiring new hardware or software systems, making wholesale changes to existing policies and procedures, retraining employees, and ferreting out undocumented procedures so that they can be documented. Companies of all types need to be ready to perform a Part 11 gap assessment on all of their systems that are subject to electronic data requirements and make whatever changes are necessary t
. . .
er for decisions about retention and deletion to be made. That involves a hefty management burdenùalthough systems can be set to automatically follow deletion rulesö (Henry & Hayes, 2002). Unfortunately, relying on deletion rules virtually guarantees that exceptions to the rules will arise and some wrong emails will be deleted; this could have disastrous consequences. ôEmail cannot be managed with either de facto mailbox size limitations, nor by deleting everything after a certain period of time. E-mail, in and of itself, is NOT a record type, itÆs the content, not the format, that determines if the communication is record.ö (Unknown source) Some companies are just keephng everything sdnt or received to avoid having to make those decisions (Letting Go of Email, 2005). This necessitates some type of automated system for storing and retrieving emails, at least.
The reality is that the email retention laws are a management nightmare for all but the best-run businesses, and they will end up costing everyone money. However, it is also true that given the importance of the information contained in emails, some form of legislation governing it had to be developed.
The optimum way of complying, in my opinion, would be to start by
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Letting Email, Robert Frances, Sarbanes-Oxley SOX, Social Security, Retrieved April, Fitch Spector, Currency OCC, Finally Dell, Henry Hayes, , april 21, retrieved april, 21 2005, retrieved april 21, april 21 2005, privacy policy, email retention, privacy policies, fitch spector 2003, dellÆs privacy policy, personal data, address phone, data name, hardware software, data name address,
Approximate Word count = 1595
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
