VIEWS @ 7556
Everybody wants your money, even when you're in the RED! My grave concern for our quickly deteriorating species continues. Mostly I am aware of the added forces at play when dealing with the online 'services' offered by those who host our websites and 'park' our domains.
All is a major ploy to catch you in the act of confusion. Upon offering reductions, or special offers, the bait is out to catch you off-guard. And while thinking you are NOT committing to something, you - in fact just fell for it. This, I would call clever manipulation. At times I have been in maddening written confrontations, told I had committed myself to something that was a total surprise to me.
These very services continually upgrade their looks, and in the doing, if you haven't been in your account for a while, you may be confronted with a whole new ball-game. The updated looks have brought about subtle changes. What may have been 'OFF' before, you notice now to be 'ON.' The maize has been reconfigured. You go looking for 'settings' and find newly configured 'other' segways to interpretation.
Below is one I just tried out. All settings to my domains are the same: Registrant/ Billing/ Administrative/. Now there is a, to me, new 'Account Administrator' (I guess different from a 'Regular Administrator) So, curious, I filled it out. I 'invited' a person called 'Evert Jan Steen' to Administer my Account (Even though all else was already under my name, identified by identical information and contact information) ..... This is the email I received:
"Dear Evert-Jan Steen,
You are receiving this message because Evert Jan Steen wants to add you to their list of Account Administrators. As an Account Administrator, you'll be able to manage products and services such as domains or hosting, assigned by Evert Jan Steen.
Before you can be added to this list, however, you must log in at the following Web page (help is available at this page to walk you through the steps necessary to get started). Please note that if you do not have an account with GoDaddy, please follow the instructions to create a NEW account."
Then there is an active long LINK:
"As soon as you are logged in, you'll be added to the sender's list of Account Administrators. At that point, Evert Jan Steen will be able to assign specific resources to your name."
"After Evert Jan Steen assigns your permissions, you can manage any assigned hosting accounts by logging in to:" ( lengthy active link)
"Should you have any questions, please contact Evert Jan Steen or our support team":
You see, what's happening here is a service made available to 'another' 'new' individual to possibly run the 'active' affairs for the possibly 'dormant' and 'other' 'ADMINISTRATOR' on record, like a hands-on, rather than an 'unassuming' Administrator.
ANYWAY, the lesson learned here is: Visit your important 'others' on a monthly basis, so as to avoid any surprises that may have come to face you when time has run out!
PS: While doing a bunch of other commitments, I am still working on getting my new Blog together: The Self-Representing Litigants Network.
Soon... and thanks to those who are reading this; wish I would have more comments...:)
Monday, 21 April 2014
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
93. CONFIRMATION BY HIGH-TECH TELEPHONE :)
VIEWS @ 7471
I can hardly believe it! While having my 2 cups of organic - in response to my Canada-Post-sent letter with questions - I had a call from Ottawa Divisional court yesterday morning. Yes, Mr. Steen, except for the 150 page Exhibit Transcript 'hard-copy' + electronic CD *, all required documents have been filed! (I remind the reader again, early in proceedings, I was instructed NOT to email that department)
* I have just been informed by its transcriber, both Defense and Court have now been served the missing Exhibit. And, with a court date set for September 10, @ 2 pm, this now fully completes my end of this transaction. I cross my fingers...
So, as I can now afford to momentarily pull myself away from those highly-focused details of text, edit, print, serve, and file etc., my mind is taking me to review and mull over these last years - once again.
It takes me to revisit the OJ Simpson fiasco, the fitting of the gloves. I reminisce on the 2001 Odyssey film, with Hal the computer. That takes me to the Kasporov vs 'Deep Blue' Computer Chess battle of 1997, in which the computer won! Hold on, there's a method to this pattern...
Facts are - courts are overburdened. Fact is - Humanity is fickle. Even some who have sworn allegiance! So I'm thinking the following:
The Courts and its officers are there, on paper, to abide by the laws they have been licensed to uphold, within their jurisdictions!
These officers are bound to interpret the facts of a case. The relevancies of the facts as they relate to the issues at hand!
Doing this uninterrupted for many years, one can appreciate - being human - that over time, a certain je-ne-sais-quoi - vulnerability or looseness of adherence to the ipsos of the factos - could possibly creep in.
So, my recent musings took me to the following:
- Take a 'Contract' for example
(there are hundreds of thousands of contracts every year that run in to trouble).
- A Contract is a finite document; it says what it says - clearly. Good ones are plain and to the point; even the uninformed should be able to understand them.
A Contract's text would unlikely use phrases like "we do not make any promises" or, "you will be lucky if we have it done by the specified completion date." Be cautious when you read: "We tend to surpass our clients' expectations", or, "We guarantee our product 100%."
Contracts that read: "Furthermore to the aforesaid suggestions, whereby the unincorporated No-Name group you herewith contract, renders absolutely no assurances of any kind to which we are able to commit ourselves to. We will however try to do our very best within the circumstances we are presently working under, to fulfill our obligations." Blah, blah :)>
So, assuming you have an all parties signed contract, with a defined completion date, and a set of objectives clearly spelled out, with at the bottom paragraph stating: "Whereby the parties are legally bound hereby," why could a Computer program not decide the claim's outcome?
All you need is the 2 documents.
- The Claim states: "They didn't fulfill the contract."
- The Statement of Defense argues: "We did fulfill the contract."
It would neither require a 'Hal' or 'Deep Blue's' genius to figure it out! Presto. Judged by Computer!
Next Case. And if you did NOT like its verdict - Appeal in front of a human Judge.
I'm suggesting we put that thought in our pipe and chew on it...
I can hardly believe it! While having my 2 cups of organic - in response to my Canada-Post-sent letter with questions - I had a call from Ottawa Divisional court yesterday morning. Yes, Mr. Steen, except for the 150 page Exhibit Transcript 'hard-copy' + electronic CD *, all required documents have been filed! (I remind the reader again, early in proceedings, I was instructed NOT to email that department)
* I have just been informed by its transcriber, both Defense and Court have now been served the missing Exhibit. And, with a court date set for September 10, @ 2 pm, this now fully completes my end of this transaction. I cross my fingers...
So, as I can now afford to momentarily pull myself away from those highly-focused details of text, edit, print, serve, and file etc., my mind is taking me to review and mull over these last years - once again.
It takes me to revisit the OJ Simpson fiasco, the fitting of the gloves. I reminisce on the 2001 Odyssey film, with Hal the computer. That takes me to the Kasporov vs 'Deep Blue' Computer Chess battle of 1997, in which the computer won! Hold on, there's a method to this pattern...
Facts are - courts are overburdened. Fact is - Humanity is fickle. Even some who have sworn allegiance! So I'm thinking the following:
The Courts and its officers are there, on paper, to abide by the laws they have been licensed to uphold, within their jurisdictions!
These officers are bound to interpret the facts of a case. The relevancies of the facts as they relate to the issues at hand!
Doing this uninterrupted for many years, one can appreciate - being human - that over time, a certain je-ne-sais-quoi - vulnerability or looseness of adherence to the ipsos of the factos - could possibly creep in.
So, my recent musings took me to the following:
- Take a 'Contract' for example
(there are hundreds of thousands of contracts every year that run in to trouble).
- A Contract is a finite document; it says what it says - clearly. Good ones are plain and to the point; even the uninformed should be able to understand them.
A Contract's text would unlikely use phrases like "we do not make any promises" or, "you will be lucky if we have it done by the specified completion date." Be cautious when you read: "We tend to surpass our clients' expectations", or, "We guarantee our product 100%."
Contracts that read: "Furthermore to the aforesaid suggestions, whereby the unincorporated No-Name group you herewith contract, renders absolutely no assurances of any kind to which we are able to commit ourselves to. We will however try to do our very best within the circumstances we are presently working under, to fulfill our obligations." Blah, blah :)>
So, assuming you have an all parties signed contract, with a defined completion date, and a set of objectives clearly spelled out, with at the bottom paragraph stating: "Whereby the parties are legally bound hereby," why could a Computer program not decide the claim's outcome?
All you need is the 2 documents.
- The Claim states: "They didn't fulfill the contract."
- The Statement of Defense argues: "We did fulfill the contract."
It would neither require a 'Hal' or 'Deep Blue's' genius to figure it out! Presto. Judged by Computer!
Next Case. And if you did NOT like its verdict - Appeal in front of a human Judge.
I'm suggesting we put that thought in our pipe and chew on it...
Thursday, 3 April 2014
92. WHEN IS ANYTHING A 'FACT' + 'RELEVANT' ?
(Copied From: LEXOLOGY.COM)
VIEWS @ 7,4440
VIEWS @ 7,4440
When is an e-mail a business record?
- Davis LLP
- Kelly Friedman
- Canada
- March 27 2014
Following my previous post, “E-mail Use Policies Must Be Meaningful,” it was pointed out to me, quite rightly, that a difficult part of implementing an e-mail use policy is defining what is a “business record.”
In my earlier post, I suggested that a best practice with respect to an e-mail retention policy is to help users decide whether an e-mail must be declared to be a record. I gave an example of having a drop-down menu which asks the user whether the e-mail has any specific attributes. I hope this post sheds some further light on that practice.
What Do I Mean by “Business Record”?
“Business record” is defined differently by different stakeholders for different purposes (isn’t that just like a lawyer to say!). Here are just a few definitions to work with:
- According to ISO Standard 15489-1, a record is “information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuant of legal obligations or in the transaction of business.”
- According to the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, “records are evidence of what the organization does. They capture its business activities and transactions, such as contract negotiations, business correspondence, personnel files, and financial statements, just to name a few.”
- According to the Ontario Evidence Act, “'business' includes every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling, operation or activity, whether carried on for profit or otherwise:” and “'record’ includes any information that is recorded or stored by means of any device.” In the litigation context, whether a business record is admissible in court as evidence of an act, transaction or event will depend upon whether it was “made in the usual and ordinary course of any business and if it was in the usual and ordinary course of such business to make such writing or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence or event or within a reasonable time thereafter” (section 35). (I will not digress onto the topic of admissibility of evidence right now, but I cannot promise to stay away from the topic in the future.)
Fundamentally, when designing a records retention policy, for e-mail and other types of documents, it is practical to think broadly of a business record as recorded information that holds some value to the organization. It is the information’s value that turns the information into a business record that the organization will want to retain, use and dispose of when appropriate. Remember, the format (whether e-mail, text message, Word document, voice recording, etc.) or storage mechanism (on a phone, in a filing cabinet, on an e-mail server, etc.) is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a business record. Value is key.
Why Do I Care if an E-mail is a Business Record?
Quite simply, you need to dispose of nonessential e-mails as soon as possible so that they do not make it inefficient to access what is truly important. For example, an e-mail wishing you Happy Holidays is considerably less important to your company than an e-mail in which a contractor agrees to perform services at a specific price. Most litigators can tell you horror stories of having to sift through reams of nonessential information to get at the documents with real value as evidence in a proceeding.
How Do I Know if an E-mail is a Business Record?
Each organization should be able to define a “business record” for its business using value-based criteria. Consider the following value-driven reasons for classifying an e-mail as a business record. A business record in your company might be any recorded information related to any of the following:
- Operational decision-making
- Business planning or policy formulation
- Financial decision-making, reporting, analysis
- Customer service
- Human resources activities
- Compliance with legislation and regulations (such as privacy and tax legislation)
- Managing other legal risk (such as the requirement to preserve information relevant to ongoing law suit or regulatory investigation. Usually, legal will circulate a “legal hold” memo to tell people when certain information needs to be preserved.)
Most of these criteria should make the list for records in any organization, but unique circumstances should be considered to add to the list. Once the organization identifies the value-based criteria, it is then possible to train employees to identify business records and have IT create a drop-down menu that asks a number of questions about value (such as, Does it relate to a business transaction? Does it contain employment information?). If the answer to each value question created by the organization is NO, then the e-mail should be deleted after being read
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BLOGGER'S NOTE:
If a rock hits you on the head, does it matter if the tree falls without making a noise? The rock will hurt, regardless its origin. And, when you can prove its trajectory, establish from whence it cometh, its - who's who, it is evidence and becomes FACT!
E-mails are a record; their relevance, and "value-based criteria" rhetoric for a court's debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)