8 Responses to Mary Mack Grills Me on Hash, Nervous Bates Stampers, Trial Lawyers, Angry Ostriches, Tolkien, Judge Scheindlin, Malcolm Gladwell, Jack Nicholson, Pretend Lawyers, Volunteers for America, and Much More!

  1. […] Mary Mack Grills Me on Hash, Nervous Bates Stampers, Trial Lawyers … […]

    Like

  2. R. Mullen says:

    Thank you SO much for this!

    By revealing the beautiful minds of people [the IT crowd ] who really enjoy the intersection of computers and the law, you’ve made it easier for the rest of us to hold somewhat normal conversations with our less-dorky brethren. [ sheepish grin ]. REALLY look forward to meeting you!

    On hashing: I think the distinction between hashing a collection and hashing a file is at least a little [ really freakin’ ]important.

    The main benefit of hashing a collection is to look for modification. It’s a way of answering the question : “are ye still the way I left ye?” It doesn’t tell you ANYTHING about where a file has been or who had access to it.

    My guess is that collection-level chain of custody will lose relevancy with cloud computing, because what is important is not the location of the file (or pieces of it), but the contents of the file and the identification of people who had access or exercised dominion (e.g. by modifying it). A collection hash won’t tell you much about the integrity of the original collection, just whether or not it has changed.

    A file hash is beautiful because it can follow a file through infinite litigation matters. If a company starts early, it can eventually get doc review to the point of only doing “diffs” and then lawyers will have increased (and most importantly) *trackable* legal metadata around a file.

    Here’s my thought for the day:

    I don’t know if “differential hashing” (for lack of a better phrase) is technically possible without being hackable, but the cool factor would be off the charts. Imagine being able to algorithmically designate a lead document and then auto-hash derivatively off of that based on conceptual similarity! [ Yum! ]

    The hash part (not the conceptual part) is relatively “easy” and can be done on the corporate server level without employee involvement. Further, it would be a simple matter to provide separate Bates-hashes in the event [ pigs fly and ] two different docs from two different firms carried the exact same hash [ flip that coin 340 billion billion…times ]. It would take at most a few days to work through several TB of data and could be used to mark the inevitable porn and personal stuff employees insist on making doc reviewers look at time and time again.

    Can’t see any reason why courts wouldn’t find that an awesome proposition. And it would work it’s way right through the Socha EDRM model all the way to court where… :

    Attorney : “Yer Honor, I’d like to show the witness Exhibit # 7d7c4a4c485735546f315536634b464a405c31474a7e573e6577397068547979″…

    Opposing Counsel : “Wait! Do you mean Exhibit # 7d7c4a4c485735546C315536634b464a405c31474a7e573e6577397068547979″…
    ??”

    Attorney : “No. I mean Exhibit # 7d7c4a4c485735546f315536634b464a405c31474a7e573e6577397068547979! Counsel is well aware that Exhibit # 7d7c4a4c485735546C315536634b464a405c31474a7e573e657739″ was ruled inadmissible, which means the jury won’t get to hear about it. I said Exhibit # 7d7c4a4c485735546f315536634b464a405c31474a7e573e657739 and that’s what I meant!”

    Jury : “ZZZZZzzzzzzz”

    Solution : “Tinyurl” them and use a bar code, no problem. It’ll make it easy to “show” opposing counsel the document (using the bar code) and the judge can then flip a switch making it appear on the jury’s monitor (think of it as a judicial video game) once the admission ruling has been made.

    Like

  3. […] I was interviewed this week by Mary Mack, the Corporate Technology Counsel for Fios. People that heard the webinar seemed to like it, so this week’s blog is Part One of my off-hand remarks. Naturally it is slightly edited, visually enhanced, hyperlinked, with secret thoughts to self revealed. Since this project came in at over 9,000 words, I decided to break it up into two parts. There is only so much of my big mouth <and secret thoughts> anyone can tolerate in one sitting. If you want the hear the banter for yourself, you can download the original audio interview as a free Fios webinar. Thanks to Mary for the not-so-difficult grilling and to ever-pleasant Debbie Caldwell at Fios who set it up. No doubt this example of what it is like to talk to me for an hour about e-discovery will discourage anyone else from attempting such a conversation. Continue reading…. […]

    Like

  4. S.K. Brown says:

    Are there any plans to offer an RSS feed for this site? I find it very informative and amusing.

    Like

  5. […] or some of them at least, that occurred to me during this interview, much like I did with the Mary Mack interview. I will skip over the interview introductions and get right to the […]

    Like

  6. […] that make me look good. Also, as I have done before in such interviews, most famously in the brutal Mark Mack interview, I once again share a few of my <Secret Thoughts> to try to make the reading […]

    Like

  7. Very engaging topic. It’s long though but enough to have a little understadning of the logic behind eDiscovery.

    Like

  8. […] to Jackson Lewis and Ralph Losey as he joins the firm tomorrow.  My secret thought is that Jackson Lewis will emerge as an ediscovery powerhouse as Ralph takes the reins of their […]

    Like

%d bloggers like this: