P.S.
This post is reposted (due to corruption in database) after my return from Asia.
All comments submitted before this reposting are now lost.

One (possible) answer – the devil is in the detail, and assuming that is – one can get hold of the detail.

I wonder whether one can determine ‘the fairest and lawfully’ when one do get hold of the detail. If you’re looking for the detail, then you have used the incorrect word ‘hold’. Well in Singaporean term…

Last October, I attended the e-Discovery Exchange Platform, an event organised by innoXcell, in Singapore (as I was out in that part of the world). I enjoyed a very different ediscovery conference/event.

Singapore, the Lion City, itself needs no introduction, what needs to be said is that when in Singapore do what the Singaporeans do or don’t do. My first encounter was in the MRT (the tube/metro) station. I have heard about the ‘no chewing gum’ stuff but not about the ‘no food/eating/drinking’ in station platform and train. Being blinded by the heat and travel exhaustion I naturally drank a bottle of water while waiting in the platform. This natural action could have set me back S$200 or more! I was lucky I wasn’t caught, so I was told. I also found out that chewing gum is permissible and not an offending action to chew gums. So better chew gums than drink water in trains and platforms in Singapore!

How does this translate into ediscovery setting in Singapore? I have to admit I turned up at the e-Discovery Exchange Platform event unprepared as I joined at the very last minute and only for one day. No matter, I did have some fun and met some interesting folks and had great exchanges. One exchange which I want to remember – is that the term ‘litigation hold’ is not in the Singaporean ediscovery vocabulary. Like don’t assume chewing gum is not OK. For ediscovery to take hold in clean and organised Singapore – use ‘lock down’ and do not aim to ‘get hold’ of the detail (like in the American sense of performing ediscovery). Are the Singaporeans taking hold of ‘creative ediscovery’ (fairest and lawfully?) to the next level ( i.e. like in their city planning or planned city), by having options available (opt-in framework) for dealing with matters involving discovery?

I also heard (during the coffee exchanges) that ediscovery is discovery. My guess is that technical drama in ediscovery is nothing to brag about in Singapore. For the creative Practice Direction, check out for the devil in the detail in the Practice Direction No.3 of 2009.

A Singaporean lawyer also kindly gave me an interesting case report (that challenges the PD right to the detail) to read which I won’t bore you with the detailed analysis.

Mmm.. This blog is posted in UK, dated 2nd February – end of a lunar calendar.  From 3rd February the lunar calendar falls under the rule of the White/Metal Rabbit. I wonder what the Rabbit brings…

Wishing all my Chinese friends and readers a ‘Very Happy and Prosperous New Year’ !

Oh! I just saw me in the front page of the video! (which I just found at the innoXcell event site). A nice way to close this blog.
Thanks!

Can we really distinguish and be able to categorise data into neat buckets (or cells, columns, rows, stacks etc.)? Answer depends on who is distinguishing the data and what the data represent for who. Lots of ‘who’ when it comes to dealing with the reality of data…

This blog was triggered after reading the article, The Fog over the Grimpen Mire: Cloud Computing and the Law, and the recent volcanic ashes quadmire affecting not only the travel industry but also announcement from the ICC on the non- force majeure of the rules of UCP 600 (article 36), URDG 458 (article 13) and URC 522 (article 15), I can’t help but wonder why documents are still needed. No wonder my online banking is never really ‘instant’ when it comes to international payment/transaction – electrons travel but not the paper/document ‘money’. Is ‘money’ real or an illusion? The ‘bucks’ have to stop somewhere and it seems paper is still king in the digital age.

Recently, I was fortunate to have the chance to spend a brief period in the CIETAC office in Beijing and have my first taste of Chinese arbitration-mediation hearing and the administrative work done by the excellent staff in the CIETAC, Beijing. Paper documentation dominants the way the Chinese conduct businesses and invariably paper document finds their way into the dispute resolution mechanism. I am told that the important stuff with document is the red stamp or the seal that shows or authenticate or prove that a piece of document is ‘real’. The seal representing a symbolic proof that the business or transaction is genuine and/or the document has been approved by some high authority or power. In essence the seal is a physical mark – like a signature and yet not quite like a signature more like a symbol recognisable by those who know where the line crosses i.e. the power to draw the line.

Perhaps the Service Level Agreements or the detailed contractual clauses serve as a reminder that the ‘bucks’ have to stop somewhere. The ‘somewhere’ is non categorisable as the ‘act of god’ means different things to different people. Is that why no one really read into the fine print (except those that wrote them?) until the ‘act of god’ becomes a reality to be reckoned with – like in the volcanic ash events?

In my previous work as analyst (system and business) whereby I have to categorise data or model data to fit into a particular business domain or process, I wish I have the luxury to be able to formulate the neat category as described in the article, The Fog over the Grimpen Mire: Cloud Computing and the Law. The author described an approach to the Easter egg business as:
“A cloud computing service that processes data for a small business will have access to four different types of data. First, there is data about the small business’ own customers. For example, the data for an Easter egg business might include a list of past Easter egg purchasers, and information about their purchases. Second there is account data about the small business itself, including its contact and payment details.
Third is data generated by the operation of the services (some of which, for example the internal state of applications, may not be accessible to the small business). Last there is activity data, which tracks when and for which applications the business’ account with the service provider is used.”

What I find interesting is whether such approach to data categorisation can be extended to any business, not only small business. In the context of cloud computing, the law is applicable not only to small business.

Research into trust model(s) in the cloud and a new credit privacy rule (still in draft according to the report) in China.

I have no access to my own websites (the Ning.com social sites are blocked!) and no posting on Facebook and Twitter. Gosh, what next?!

Am I missing much? Strangely…nope. I guess I have been too busy with being a foreigner in a strange country.
Just caught a report at ZDNet about Asia (not blocked!). I reckon China’s lawmakers have no inkling of copying the European model.
No access, no breaches, no privacy challenges so no need for privacy laws?

A Chinese lawyer friend visited me (as I will be leaving town soon – an informal good-bye stuff) this week. Somehow we ended up discussing ‘justice’ in China over several cups of tea and goodies from Hong Kong.

One day I will write more…

Today, I received this article – Personal Information Protection in China – © 2009 Hunton & Williams LLP, New York, New York in my mail. Mmm… the local law in China (for me) is probably a bit like the stuff over tea and cookies which ‘justice’ can’t bite or should I say ‘chew and swallow’. In a way the piecemeal, act-by-act basis of introducing law or any act sounds like chewing and swallowing.

I guess e-discovery related news and information are slowly but surely spreading across boundaries. The spread is further amplified with the recent security related news stemming from China and also news that there are now more internet users in China than in the US. Are you surprised? (Do your google search if you need convincing).

I recently downloaded the online chat application, ‘qq’ with the view to help me improve my mandarin writing and reading. However, I was informed by my Chinese friend that the security aspect of qq is not ‘secure’. She further added that I can buy some ‘security’ if I am willing to pay. Mmm..without going into the details, qq uses a business model unlike Skype or Messenger. I doubt the ‘security’ model (payment application driven) will bypass whatever the higher authority has in place or in mind.
To me, dealing with e-discovery without knowing or being aware of digital forensics and the various security models (and also the underpinning or overarching laws and rules) is like driving across the international borders without a guide (local or specialist person) and/or a Sat Nav device/system. Which is more important, a human guide or a Sat Nav device? I guess the answer is ‘it depends…’?!

It depends on a multitude of human and non-human factors/elements and as shown by the GEC Conference, digital forensics and privacy laws are picked to address some of the challenges underpinning e-discovery in cross-border litigation. A recent publication from Herbert Smith, ‘A Guide to Dispute Resolution in Asia 2009‘ provides some handy information with mention of electronic communications, e-mails, electronic document and electronic filing but no mention of e-discovery. Maybe the next Asian edition/publication will feature e-discovery.