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?

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.

I was stranded for nearly one and half hour in a no power train yesterday and couldn’t help hearing several angry and frustrated mobile exchanges between couple of businessmen with the South East HQ customer services. The angry exchanges were mainly triggered because there were no communications (appeared to be no guard on the train either!) to the passengers on what was happening. The lack of visible actions on the train and the lack of reassurance from the HQ certainly did not help to calm the nerves of the passengers in a hot, broken down train in busy Waterloo tracks.

Is it difficult to relay basic information to passengers (who are entitled to be informed) the behind the scenes activities between the train driver, the engineers and HQ? I guess ‘the need to know’ (or walkabout alerting services?) by/to the passengers is not high on the HQ customer services list. No wonder train fares increases every year to pay for ‘unnecessary or avoidable’ situations – just a thought – but a rather annoying thought when one missed several business appointments!

In this age of ‘speedy and accessible’ communication (mobile connectivity etc.), customer’s expectation and fulfilment still pose challenges.

Is it also the same in the ediscovery/edisclosure world? I hazard a guess – a doubtless assertion (with the assumption that access to power/data is obtainable) – that the behind the scenes activities between the technical folks and legal and management team are exchanged too late to avoid aggros and costs. (Hence early confer/meet if this is available to parties).

In ediscovery/edisclosure, one of the behind the scene and less talk about (or blogged or written about) is evidence. This is highlighted by the use of generic term such as ‘information exchange’ in international disputes. The ‘e-words’ including ‘evidence’ are potentially culturally sensitive to use. Imagine having to describe the ‘e-evidence’ to all parties without getting cross-wired or inflicting cross-eyed to reviewers?!

For me, the term and usage of evidence in the context of international disputes requires behind the scenes re-assessment to make sense to me when dealing with ediscovery/edisclosure.

I guess evidence is also being re-assessed by folks in Asia. The ADR in Asia Conference 2009 in Hong Kong on 15th September has a topic: Interim Measures and Evidence – Emerging practices and movements.

Will e-disclosure surface under this topic?
I certainly would love to hear from folks who will be attending the Conference in Hong Kong this September. I will be in Peking University and may not be able to do the trip.

Enjoy!