My code is ‘Code is messy’.

February 25, 2011 – 8:10 pm

I have been re-mulling over lots of stuff lately as projects I have ‘killed off’ resurfaced, and projects that I have been working on got ‘killed off’ due to ‘messy’ events. For me the word ‘messy’ aptly describes the turbulence in some parts of world and strangely it’s a word that I frequently use in my daily life. Messy table, messy hair, messy shoes, messy road, messy train, messy file folders…which indirectly contributes to my healthy state of mind as I see mess as healthy mess. Life is messy!? I bet folks (brave and courageous) who are rioting on the streets or online have the concept of being messy in a very life turning way; so messy is a healthy state to be in especially if one is claiming/reclaiming one’s rights or freedom.

I have long discovered that projects don’t come in nice, neat packages; they are messy in a nice, messy way. One can always clean up a mess or leave the mess as it is. One thing for sure the mess will not go away in its own accord (even if it is designed to self de-mess there will still be debris left!).

I started this blog in the middle of downloading a theme from the WordPress site and their ‘Code is poetry’ got me mulling again..
According to Lawrence Lessig, ‘Code is law’, however given a choice of ‘Code is poetry’ I prefer ‘Code is poetry’. Saying so, I rather stick to my code, ‘Code is messy’ as it’s the stuff of living messy life that makes life interesting or/and worthwhile.

Another of my mulling over ‘why I am blogging this here’?!
Put this to test when dealing with ediscovery stuff (from people, process, technology etc);
Hands up if you get ‘code is poetry’, hands down if you get ‘code is law’ and hands midway (with V sign?) if you get ‘code is messy’?

Now back to messing around with WordPress theme…

By | Posted in 2011, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Data, data on the screen (or in the cloud)

February 2, 2011 – 2:28 am

Who is the fairest & lawfully of all?

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!

By | Posted in Asia Pacific | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)

Trends and the missing dots

October 18, 2010 – 9:36 am

I rarely twitter/tweet unless I want to follow-up something – a twitter recorder/alerter?
I guess I am not a savvy Twitter user and have not found a good reply to even a simple question as ‘what is Twitter?’

I was recently asked (by a non techie) ‘what is twitter?’ I said ; An online system for you and your friends to announce stuff like; ‘I’m off to bed’ or ‘so and so did this/that’ in 140 characters. She didn’t get too excited with my answer!

Anyhow, I did tweet on the Fulbright’s 7th Annual Litigation Trends Survey Report and also IBM’s acquisition of PSS Systems. Both events worth following up to help me connect up the dots – in simple terms from people to process to technology to the court.

In the Survey Report under Electronic Discovery, there was a survey question which asked all respondents; To what extend do you believe the legal guidance regarding a litigant’s duty to preserve electronic and other material in anticipation of an investigation or litigation provides sufficient clarity regarding the scope of material that must be preserved?. The majority of respondents say it is not sufficiently clear.

I wonder whether this question if surveyed again next year will produce the same result. My guess is that it will, even if the UK respondents have grasped the newly amended CPR -PD31B Disclosure of Electronic Documents.
As regards the scope of preservation, the amended PD31B states; ‘As soon as litigation is contemplated, the parties’ legal representatives must notify their clients of the need to preserve disclosable documents. The documents to be preserved include Electronic Documents which would otherwise be deleted in accordance with a document retention policy or otherwise deleted in the ordinary course of business’. Note: not just preserve documents but ‘to preserve disclosable documents’.

The PD31B further provides guidance/direction on ‘what constitute reasonable search’.
Clear enough to connect all the dots as required for ensuring a defensible disposal?

Interestingly there is a question in the Electronic Documents Questionnaire; ‘Do you have a document retention policy? This question seems to be seeking for a simple need to know to a complex policy. Like being asked ‘Do You Twitter?’. Yes/No, so !?

Perhaps a better question is; what kinds of procedures or industry standards/models/practices are in place to address data retention needs? I guess it depends on what the PD31B question is intended to review or capture.
Maybe I will suggest this question (not the PD31B question) for the Fulbright’s 8th Annual Litigation Trends Survey.

Next reminder – to blog about another missing dot which I raised here which appeared to be addressed by folks at CGOC.

By | Posted in 2010, Britain, CPR | Comments (0)

Practice Direction 31B – PD 31B

October 7, 2010 – 2:18 pm

The 53rd update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is effective from 1 October 2010 which also introduces changes to e-disclosure.
Note from the justice.gov.uk site;
Part 31 Disclosure and Inspection of Documents and new PD31B Disclosure of Electronic Documents

A new Practice Direction is introduced to regulate the approach practitioners should take when considering material relevant to a case which is stored electronically. In particular it aims to focus the parties on the sources of electronic material and give guidance to those with less experience of dealing which such issues. This will apply to cases that are or likely to be allocated to the multi-track. The rule change supports the new Practice Direction by confirming that the questionnaire may be treated as a disclosed document. Note: Form N150 is amended to support this change.

A typographical error in PD31B (Question 8 in the questionnaire) has been identified.

Please Note: Question 8 in the questionnaire should read:
8.

If the answer to Question 6 or 7 is yes, state whether (a) attachments to e-mails (b) compressed files (c) embedded files and (d) imaged text will respond to your Keyword Searches or other automated search.

For the contents and details of this Practice Direction click here

By | Posted in 2010, Britain, CPR, Rules | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

The ‘problem’ being ‘non-issue’ or ‘the issue’ or a ‘multi-million dollar issue’

October 7, 2010 – 10:06 am

The opening statements from eDiscovery Advice from A Fellow Traveller;
I am not an eDiscovery expert, and I am not selling eDiscovery services.
This post is for the masses not the specialist. It is from one fellow traveller to another fellow traveller.

Mmm… I guess the specialist will also read it, perhaps more drawn to the ‘multi-million dollar’ problem. There are still IT folks, even IT security folks (from my own recent exposure at a recent gathering) who are not aware of ediscovery and they are ‘specialist’ in their own fields and in terms of ediscovery they are amongst the ‘masses’.

From another fellow traveller to others, I feel that the ediscovery space has been over-sold or over-rated or even over-exaggerated by (ediscovery) specialists on the few multi-million dollar cases. What about those cases where ediscovery were also ‘the issue’? For me, I certainly would relish more facts or stories from cases whereby ediscovery is a ‘non-issue’. These stories may not be ‘hot hot’ for the press or the masses but from a problem solving angle, it may reveal stuff which even the specialist have not thought about.

For me, ediscovery is about solving problems or involve problem solving. Even in simple problem, there will be questions and answers. So even if ediscovery is a ‘non-issue’ (a simple problem?) what is/are the problem(s), questions and answers?

I guess asking questions or more constructively, knowing what questions to ask and who is/are around or available to ask are ‘issues’ in ediscovery. Hence, I like the post by Dave Healey, with lots of questions.

Finally, put someone you trust, who is diligent, and who is on the case, in charge of eDiscovery, and task them to actively monitor the process on a daily basis!

Who? – another issue in ediscovery!

By | Posted in 2010, Community, individuals, Process, US | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

A bit of fund raising and summer fun!

June 26, 2010 – 12:26 am

Hello folks/friends/readers/bloggers/guests,

I have 2 social websites running under the Ning platform (social websites-CMS) which will not be free after 20th July. So here’s an extreme blog (or fund raising blog) to help me continue to maintain my Ning sites (both non profit making).

All enquiries are warmly welcome.

Get a T-shirt printed with your favourite quotes/graphics/slogan/logo etc. Also you can select the existing designs at the CafePress Shops at both sites.
Hurry will stock last at www.adrtribunals.ning.com and/or www.ancient-arts.ning.com

I will do my best to create your personalised T-shirt with your instructions (within the design confinement of CafePress Shop).

Have some fun shopping this summer!

Thanks,
Cher

By | Posted in 2010, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (1)

Internet Sovereignty

June 9, 2010 – 5:38 pm

My time in China is nearly drawing to a close… time for me to leave Beijing. Leaving Beijing does not mean my special interests in ‘most things Chinese’ will cease. I adore ‘most things Chinese’ and the past months of living in Beijing have stretched not only my mandarin learning capability but also my ability to cope with the environment i.e. from air to information to food (the basic necessities of life?). I must admit I did not cope too well with the air and the food (except Peking Duck which I love!).

However, being a student and living nearby the beautiful Peking University campus compensated for all the not so nice stuff or inconveniences associated with living in Beijing. What inconveniences? Mmm..No Facebook plus no access to blogging sites. I am now more aware of what is the meaning of ‘information gap’ (or may I say – information control?). Actually I am more aware but this awareness does not contribute to my general well-being. Does the lack of information affect one’s general well-being? This question pops up as I read the news ‘Freedom of expression on Internet guaranteed’ especially this statement;
‘The Internet has an “irreplaceable role in accelerating the development of the national economy” and will continue to impact daily work, education and lifestyles, the paper says.’
From this I am deducing that my general well-being will be impacted.

This blog will mark not only my varied, different lifestyles in Beijing but also that the internet has crossed over to the sovereignty realm.

Anyhow, I am joining the Sina blogging sphere and hope to improve my mandarin and also improve my general well-being.
I also hope to get back into the ediscovery sphere once I am back or cross over the other side of the Internet.

By | Posted in 2010 | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

price discovery and ghosts

May 11, 2010 – 10:16 am

I am just about to dash out to do some ‘price discovery’ or price investigation of camera (aiming for an SLR) in the Zhongguancun shopping mall. Simply can’t resist posting the link to the Bloomberg Businessweek article -
‘Ghosts Scared Bear Stearns, Lehman to Death: Susan Antilla‘.

Gosh! not ‘act of god’ but ghosts.. Ingenuous or ingenious reporting and/or responses from the Financial Crisis Inquiry stuff?!

Both companies – ‘lock, stock and barrel’ -have joined their ghosts but luckily I am still around .

p.s. I have worked with both in the past, I must be the lucky ghost :-)

By | Posted in People, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

social networking

April 26, 2010 – 7:18 pm

Just for my own reckoning, my Ning sites (as listed under this blog) will most likely disappear from online or hidden behind the cloud(s) of Ning after the 4th of May. Ning is changing their policy on free social networking.

Should I explore other free social networking CMS?

Mmm..Will see.

By | Posted in Technology, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (0)

A reckoning with reality

April 26, 2010 – 7:03 pm

Is there such a thing as ‘reality’? I guess the answer depends on where one draws a line or whether a line can indeed be distinguished and/or drawn.

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.

By | Posted in Asia Pacific, Data, Process, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)