Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Claims Intel Inadvertently Destroyed Evidence in Antitrust Case

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the ah-the-smell-of-open-court-in-the-morning dept.

AMD 90

Marcus Yam writes "In an unpublished statement to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, AMD alleges Intel allowed the destruction of evidence in pending antitrust litigation. According to the opening letter of the AMD statement, 'Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed.'"

cancel ×

90 comments

Well... (3, Funny)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249532)

...at least they aren't claiming Intel did it on purpose. I would hate to see AMD turn into the next SCO.

Re:Well... (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249590)

I thought Rosemary Woods [wikipedia.org] was dead?

Re:Well... (1)

carlmenezes (204187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255244)

so it's basically AMD with a case of Inside Intel on Intel Inside ;)

Re:Well... (1)

pabster (875594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258632)

They are, unfortunately. When you can't compete any longer, lawsuits are a tantalizing proposition to keep some cash flowing. AMD sure needs it.

That is a bit silly (5, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249592)

Historically e-mail systems were never designed for intensive archiving and ad-hoc searching across the database. In fact, even the current generation of systems require bolt-on archivers to meet the new federal evidence requirements. And I talk to people every day at very large entities that are still using Outlook Express, local mailbox storage, and have no usable archiving system.

Suggesting that the inability to search e-mail in legacy systems is "destruction of evidence" is more than a bit silly in my personal opinion.

sPh

Re:That is a bit silly (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250284)

And speaking of silly...

The Email Server^H^H^H^H^H^H Shop

Investigator: This is an email server, isn't it?

IT Worker: Finest in the company.

Investigator: Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

IT Worker: Well, it's so clean, sir.

Investigator: It's certainly uncontaminated by email.

Re:That is a bit silly (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251006)

Suggesting that the inability to search e-mail in legacy systems is "destruction of evidence" is more than a bit silly in my personal opinion.

Describing it as accidental destruction of evidence though is perfectly accurate, at least from a non-technical legal point of view.

"Through what appears to be a combination of gross communication failures, an ill-conceived plan of document retention and lackluster oversight by outside counsel, Intel has apparently allowed evidence to be destroyed."

That's pretty much what you're describing, right? Large organizations with completely inadequate data retention, which inevitably destroys data irrespective of that data's importance, in large degree because the company just doesn't have a solid plan in place? That's all AMD is alleging, that their system was inadequate to the task, not that Intel deliberately crippled their email system to lose emails they didn't want showing up during discovery. The fact that this isn't uncommon in email systems makes the argument more believable, not less.

If they were alleging deliberate destruction of evidence, that would be a whole different ball of wax.

Re:That is a bit silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18254710)

Most of the larger companies I have worked at, set a policy of 60-90 days retention due storage requirement. The mail server just could not handle data stores over 2GB. And to try to fix a corrupted MS Exchange server, which generally got corrupted by too much data, back then took hours to days. So we were forced to keep local copies if we wanted them.

Data Retention part is True (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18249618)

I work at Intel and the retention policy is VERY short on sent items and equally short for all the other mail folders in the inbox. I hear of people losing emails all the time because of this. Hell, I have lost a few sent emails myself. Also, from what I heard (from friends in IT) that we only keep a backup of 7 days of all the exchange server data only for disaster/worst case scenario reasons.

Re:Data Retention part is True (4, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249668)

That sounds reasonably "advertent" to me...
Almost like a policy of data loss.

Re:Data Retention part is True (2, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249868)

No, it's server resource protection.
If something is needed for archival, then it can be stored appropriately. The simple truth is the bulk of any large org's e-mail is not essential to anything. Why save all of it? make the users save what they need. Personally I like Intel's thought on the issue.
It's not like that can't archive processor designs and such, just why archive spam, inter-office bullsh!t, like love letters, plans for the pub and whatnot (ok, the loveletters may be interesting reading...)
-nB

Re:Data Retention part is True (2, Interesting)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250342)

It's not like that can't archive processor designs and such, just why archive spam, inter-office bullsh!t, like love letters, plans for the pub and whatnot (ok, the loveletters may be interesting reading...)
Because "processor designs and such" do not contain intentions, motivations and business decisions based upon anti-competitive practices. Amidst all that noise is possibly an e-mail gem sent to a distribution group describing some, shall we say, shady business decisions. This e-mail could have spurred multiple replies and conversations that would also be of interest to the court. Obliterating the whole moutainside eliminates any chance of finding those diamonds.

Re:Data Retention part is True (0)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250438)

Having an compatriot who works at the little "i" I personally feel fairly certain that the company is fairly up and up about their business. I'm not saying individuals wouldn't make shady decisions, just that when push comes to shove, the corp. entity tries its damndest to stay clean. I also am of the general opinion that an e-mail such as you describe would not be snuffed, and at least one individual would have a copy. Human nature is to CYA, thus I as a subordinate, if ordered to do something I don't think is right, will keep in my pearl harbor file a copy of the e-mail discussing the action. This covers my ass in an investigation. I am not a unique human, I've got to think the CYA mentality prevalent at my company is very much the same everywhere else.
-nB

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250902)

So next you're going to promote recording all meetings and archiving tapes?

Seriously, what ever gave anyone the idea that email "must" be saved? This move to require archiving IMs is equally intrusive and ridiculous, because next they'll require saving all voice conversations... after all, A/V IM is here already, and it's not too great a leap to go from archiving IM to archiving A/V IM to archiving phone calls....

heres why (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254010)

Why would anyone want to store more than they legally had to? All you have to do is read this [wikiquote.org] .

And if you don't think they are hanging corporations (rightly and wrongly), you are kidding yourself.

Re:Data Retention part is True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250758)

Server resource protection? You're seriously saying that a 7 day retention policy is necessary for the good of the servers?

Please.

It's company ass protection.

Email contains most of the valuable company assets - ideas, contacts, and agreements.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251870)

I'm betting that they're using Lotus Notes. 7 days' retention seems a bit excessive for your average Notes server - so they must have a super-powerful Notes server to manage that much data.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

tsalaroth (798327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254404)

Having worked at IBM during their Notes transition, and currently working at a VERY large corp who uses Notes internally, I seriously doubt they only have one Notes server - AND it doesn't take much hardware to retain data for more than a year. This company is already complying with the new Fed laws, and manages just fine with a few dozen servers.

That's not to say that another solution would be more efficient with hardware than Notes, but I highly doubt Intel is hurting for hardware to manage their Notes servers -- if they are truly running Notes.

Most companies that run Notes only do such because they made a decision to run cc:Mail a long time ago, and have been terrified of going any other direction.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

Dread Pirate Skippy (963698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251890)

We do this at the university where I work too... The policy is not, "Get rid of everything after 7 days." Its, "If you delete all your email and complain to us 8 days later, tough." We only keep things for 7 days in case someone needs something restored. If we kept all the email that comes into our system we'd be out of disk space to hold it all in less than a month. Recently several departments here came under a federal investigation related to grant money spending. The investigators required that literally no information of any kind be deleted for any reason until such time as they said it was okay to resume business as usual. In the month or two that policy lasted, we spent thousands of dollars adding disk space to our backup systems to keep everything functioning normally. So, yes, server resource protection.

Re:Data Retention part is True (2, Interesting)

malfunct (120790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252050)

Its actually proper and recommended e-mail retention policy. Anything that is not necessary for business or possibly pending litigation should be deleted after 60 or 90 days. Business necessary e-mail should only be retained until no longer necessary. Anything pending litigation should be turned over to the appropriate legal department for retention. At least this is the policy where I work and it is aided by a managed folder system in exchange. Unfortunately I have no idea how it is set up, I just know I have mail buckets and all mail goes into the short term bucket and its up to me to move the mail to one of the long term buckets so it won't get deleted.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252828)

Everything you say is true: most email is inane, and hard drive space is limited. But email is so small, and hard drive space is comparatively so dirt cheap that there's really no reason not to save at least the email text if not the attachments. The only reason companies have automatic deletion policies is to destroy evidence before any charges are filed or complaints served. Some data retention policies are so strict that employees will regularly lose important email when they fail to copy or print it; at that level of inconvenience, you can't honestly believe that hard drive space is the only consideration in play.

The issue may be "Litigation Hold" (1)

InBoxerRoger (1072494) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253640)

I agree that companies should not have to save every email for all time. But the issue here may be something called "litigation hold." Once you are aware of somebody's intent to file legal action, you are required to preserve evidence. Even if you never saved a single email yesterday, if you heard of legal action today, you MUST save every email that could be used as evidence in legal action. In this case, there was a legal action under way. It was Intel's obligation (as well as AMD's obligation) to save every bit, scrap of paper, or recording that may be valuable to either side. Roger Blog: http://www.deathbyemail.com/ [deathbyemail.com]

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18260556)

Why save all of it?


That's simple... Intel should have saved all of the email because they were under a court order to save all of it.

True (1)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249892)

But if it's policy (written policy) and it's not in conflict with laws then there can't really be any negative outcomes. You just point to the policy and say, 'this is our policy'.
Handy if you are a corporate attorney.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249896)

So what...next we'll require all work related conversations to be recorded and retained for a set amount of time?

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249908)

If you look at any company's data retention policy, it's really just a "data loss" policy. Most are crafted with the thought, "When is the earliest that we can legally destroy this data, and be able to reasonably argue that we aren't liable." Keeping in mind that you could probably be held liable for destruction of data after any time period of retention. It really just comes down to who has the best lawyers.

Re:Data Retention part is True (2, Informative)

cmacb (547347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251674)

That's exactly what it is. My last months with a large government contractor they had numerous meetings with employees to inform them that they were *not* too retain e-mail, even in private caches. They made it clear that the issue was *not* storage space, admin overhead or anything such as that. They were very open in saying that they wanted the e-mail trail gone in case of a lawsuit. Individuals found hording their own copy of e-mail could be terminated with no prior warning. This was before "Sarbox", so I'm not sure if things have changed since (I certainly hope so!)

yeah but for email? (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253548)

I mean, if this was the policy on the file servers then that would be pretty bad. However, SMTP is not a "guaranteed delivery" system so it seems to me that the backup policy should treat it accordingly. Here we used to have a 30Meg limit on our exchange server accounts for ALL content. For many people this basically meant that they had to delete some things at least once a month or they wouldn't have room for new email, and now that the limit is a Gig this is still true for a few people. Unlike IBM we have few enough people that we can afford to keep 3 months of a full Exchange backup, but I dread the day that ever have to get anything off that tape since you can't just restore a message or even just a mailbox, but you have to restore the WHOLE DAMNED information store! If I ever am told that I need to remove the limit on the mailboxes due to storage being cheap, I will only do it if I can keep less backups of it, such as just enough for a complete recovery, much like IBM has here.

Re:Data Retention part is True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253020)

The A.C. is right about Intel's short email retention policy. When I started, I assumed that there would be a 3-4 month retention; only to be surprised when rather important emails started to dissapear! I now program Outlook to move all my mail to folders that I manage (and store) outside of the corporate system.

Re:Data Retention part is True (1)

dantheman82 (765429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253580)

Compare this to the policy at the large financial institution where I work. Internet proxy in place, all emails retained (forever from what I can tell), and all IMs logged and Meebo (or other IM sites) and Gmail (and other personal email sites) blocked. It appears to be the difference Sorbanes Oxley makes...

I guess without this sort of thing affecting your business and the possibility or likelihood of withstanding lawsuits, emails would be destroyed much quicker (in the time frame the AC mentioned). Unless I'm missing something...

Interesting that old MS emails have arisen from the dead (so to speak) from 1997 and so on between BillG and other product heads, so obviously they must save their mail. Not sure why they have to or have for that matter...

AMD becoming SCO? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18249638)

With these kind of allegations, it looks like AMD is just crying foul in order to damage Intel in any way they can. I used to be an AMD fan, but with their recent losses in mindspace and processing power to Intel... could be ugly.

don't be fooled (4, Informative)

sharp-bang (311928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249662)

The claim of poor retention is increasingly a stock claim made by plaintiff's lawyers. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure increasingly place a discovery burden on all organizations. Anything and everything electronically stored is subject to electronic discovery, and if you don't have a retention policy that deals with what is subject to discovery when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable", you can be sure the opposing attorneys will point that out, even if it is BS.

3007 (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249792)

They way things are going its going to be illegal to delete emails ever. 1000 years from now people will be reading our emails full of bad jokes, pictures of kittens, and viagra spam.

Re:3007 (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249864)

It seems the ideal way for a company's employees to cloak potentially-harmful email would be to include references to h3rb@1 V1a6ra, p3n15 en1ar6em3nt, and fr33 pr0n in the subject lines and bodies. That way, when the plaintiffs are searching for mail during discovery, it'll get filtered out by their own filters used to separate the "interesting" email from the gigabytes of spam otherwise burying it.

Re:3007 (2, Insightful)

thedletterman (926787) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250252)

Seriously, I've got nowhere near the capital that Intel has, but I have every official email ever sent through my mail servers. Our email policy is "Leave a copy of messages on the server" and "Remove from server when deleted from deleted items". Then they are told to keep official emails at least 30 days, and delete personal emails. Every week, a script archives the mail folders and every month those archives are backed up. I've had to go through emails three years old before to show details of discussions on projects. I think the Federal guidelines of keeping emails is definately smart for business. I hardly think it's worthwhile for ISPs to have to archive tons of spam. Fix the spam problem, and then maybe we'll talk.

Pentium bug (3, Funny)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249802)

The documents were not destroyed on purpose. They were destroyed by error due to the division bug of a Pentium 1 processor.
Sorry, AMD.

YRO?? (2, Insightful)

adam613 (449819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249822)

What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?

Re:YRO?? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250940)

What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?
CmdrTaco thought that "Miscellaneous Legal Issues" was too verbose for use as a topic section, so YRO it is.
 

Re:YRO?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18251134)

YRO was originally about stuff like censorware, but quickly changed to be basically "law.slashdot.org". They haven't changed the name for two reasons:

  1. Slashdot admins are lazy and like to do as little work as possible
  2. Mentioning "law" will remind people of GrokLaw, which is far superior in quality.

Re:YRO?? (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252940)

What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?

It concerns your right to be an AMD or Intel fanboy. If you're an AMD fanboy you have right to smugly assert that AMD's on-die memory controller makes them 50% less of an evil soulless corporation than Intel. If you're an Intel fanboy you have the right so smugly assert that Intel is is evil at smaller die sizes.

Re:YRO?? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255932)

What, exactly, does this have to do with my rights online?

- You have a right, when suing other people, to force them to retain their online correspondence, so that you can use discovery to find evidence against them among it.

- Others have a right, when suing YOU, to force YOU to retain YOUR online correspondence, so that THEY can use discovery to find evidence aginst YOU among it.

- These override the defendant's "right to privacy" as related to his online correspondence in the civil suit.

Make sense now?

Not like Intel is a technology company... (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249842)

... they mostly just sell chips... man these are tough... must be over-fried or something.

Poor AMD (2, Insightful)

wolff000 (447340) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249976)

I am definitely an AMD CPU fan boy but the corp itself I have no loyalty too especially with stuff like this going on. I doubt few major corporations have a valid working archive of all emails sent and received. I worked for a decent size corp for years ,around 1500 employees with email, and server side we retained 7 days at the most. It would cost a ton and if the allegations are true in Intel's case wouldn't help to have those emails anyway. As stated earlier this is just typical lawyer tactics. It still leaves AMD in a not so great light.

Re:Poor AMD (2, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250400)

Why does what AMD's attorneys file in court reflect on the company at all? I doubt these are all AMD staff litigators, and even if they are, they're just doing their jobs. It's not like AMD executives are running legal strategy meetings and writing the complaints.

If you have reason to believe that your opponents have (or may have, or potentially will have) lost (whether due to policy, tampering, or accident) data that may potentially be useful, you make a note of it as early as possible. There are specific windows for making claims in cases, especially when there are potential damages involved. As another poster stated, this is becoming a largely standard claim, much like a demurrer is generally the first response to a complaint, even if the demurrer has virtually no chance of success.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253044)

Why does what AMD's attorneys file in court reflect on the company at all?

Because those attorneys represent AMD in court.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18259468)

That doesn't make the attorneys a suitable analogue for business strategies. The legal process is not comparable to the science of pragmatics.

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (4, Informative)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250626)

The court instructed Intel to retain all email for 1027 case-specific individuals from the data of case initiation ie 2005.

This has nothing to do with leaving AMD in a not so great light; but it does have everything to do with Intel not properly following court orders - Intel even admitted they screwed up!

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 7 years ago | (#18256340)

Very levelheaded. How would the comments read if it were Apple accusing Microsoft, I wonder.

Wait, I guess we already know the answer to that.

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258038)

From me, pretty much the same.

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257332)

The court instructed Intel to retain all email for 1027 case-specific individuals from the data of case initiation ie 2005.

...where did the 3 extra people come from?

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258080)

What 3 extra people? If the article is incorrect in stating 1027 people then I understand your question, but if you are asking why I wrote 1027 - well that is the number that the article mentions twice.

AMD alleges that more than a third of 1,027 case-specific Intel employees did not receive instructions to retain their data after the 2005 case initiation.

According to Intel, 217 of these 1,027

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258198)

No, 3 extra as in 1027 = 1024 + 3 . They came so close to having a nice round number, and missed it by 3.

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (1)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18260502)

LOL :) - thanks for the laugh

Re:Poor AMD - RTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18257860)

I am one of those Intel employees targeted by the retention policy.
The problem is simply one of volume. I am supposed to keep all email, sent and recieved, from the date I got the notice forward. This is GB and GB of email, and it's very cumbersome for all involved. Furthermore, nobody realized until recently that you had to keep SENT email, too. The burden of this falls on the users, not on the IT administrators, etc. There aren't extra systems in place to archive email for all of us. The biggest problem here is that after 30 days, email disappears from your inbox (and it's quicker for sent items). You have to manually move all email into a personal folder to archive it.
We recently had another round of interviews to make sure that we all understand and are complying with the retention policy. Obviously, the outside counsel felt that people were not (I know I wasn't to the full extent of the order). It is simply a problem of volume of mail and lack of structured tools to archive the mail rather than a policy of hiding evidence, etc.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250910)

Yeah, they're just trolling for something they can use to smear Intel. It's amazing to me that the justice system allows trolling like this versus specific requests for specific emails.

What AMD is actually looking for is a "we must crush AMD" type email that looks like bad press for Intel. Of course, in real life all companies say stuff like that in email, including AMD - it's part of the business culture. Like you, this makes me view AMD as a sleazy company one (small) step above patent trolls and spammers.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257048)

It sure is too bad you don't know anything about the case involved as it contradicts pretty much everything you just said. There were specific emails from 2005 back when litigation began that Intel was supposed to hold and they neglected to do so. At the time the emails were not deleted, they were deleted after the court ordered them to hold it. They screwed up, they admitted to it. Not necessarily evil on the Intel front. I've seen cases where email gets lost. In any case, AMD is hardly trolling as Intel has a long history and was even convicted of such practices in Japan back in 2005.

With that said, I work for company that had some ongoing litigation and as a result it became very clear that you are not to make negative comments in email. This goes for complaints about coworkers. In short, anything you wouldn't want to get out don't email. In addition to this we hold on to email indefinitely. Compared to the video and photo storage we have email is trivial even with the gigs we receive in a day. It's just good business to always be professional.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252896)

I work for a global company of about 6,000 employees. We retain all incoming and outgoing e-mails(excluding those designated as spam) for a period of 1 year.

This is a very simple process with Lotus Domino. How many e-mails is that? About 9 million.

Don't tell me it can't be done, I've seen it.

Sheesh (2, Interesting)

GregPK (991973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250088)

I have all my emails dating back to like 1998 on my computer and backed up to 3 different hard drives out of which 1 gets replaced every 2 years. I have it organised by person even. I've yet to have a drive fail on my email computer but I don't want it happening anytime soon. I do delete all spam on a semi monthly basis. Sure my file is large but its handy when looking for old programs or emails that need finding for information thats been lost in the corporate structure. It scares my boss a little in that I have every single email we've ever exchanged for the last 6-7 years. But then again I don't work for a fourtune 500 company.

Re:Sheesh (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250240)

Dude, you need a REAL fucking hobby.

Re:Sheesh (1)

bronzey214 (997574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250414)

Sure, that's you, but could you imagine the space needed to do it for EVERY EMPLOYEE?

Re:Sheesh (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250524)

Considering my email file is over a gig. Yea, that would kinda suck. but hard drive storage is actually kinda cheap.

Re:Sheesh (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251004)

Sure, that's you, but could you imagine the space needed to do it for EVERY EMPLOYEE?
If you think that's crazy, imagine the space needed if someone wanted to archive all web content on the internet and make it searchable? If someone were able to figure that problem out, I'm sure they could make a fortune.
 

Re:Sheesh (1)

bronzey214 (997574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251326)

I'm sure Google is working on that.

Re:Sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253208)

I'm sure Google is working on that.

I'm pretty sure the poster was making a joke by describing exactly what Archive.org, the Internet Archive (a non-profit, FWIW) already does.

According to Wikipedia: "As of 2006 the Wayback Machine contained almost two petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month, a two-thirds increase over the 12 terabytes/month growth rate reported in 2003. "

Re:Sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18252988)

That's nothing compared to the space needed by our policy: "If you need to keep it, print out a hard copy and file it in the file cabinet."

Re:Sheesh (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250848)

It scares my boss a little in that I have every single email we've ever exchanged for the last 6-7 years. But then again I don't work for a fourtune 500 company.

Well, don't ever expect to get a job at Intel!

Re:Sheesh (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251708)

I've done some consulting for them already. :-D Back in the day, with thier connected products division. It's a good thing they killed it because that market got crowded quick. Nowdays, it is pretty much taken over by Microsoft and Logitech owning about 80 percent of the connected point product sales out of retail.

Intel acknowledges losing docs (3, Informative)

strike6 (823490) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250156)

This isn't an allegation. Intel has acknowledged losing documents. URL:http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/bus iness/16843055.htm

Go Down Over This (2)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250292)

When the RIAA claimed in court that one of the people it sued had wiped his hard drive and reinstalled the operating system, the court found in the RIAA's favor despite the sheer lack of any evidence on the hard drive. They claimed that the lack of evidence proved his guilt.

When a government contractor returned the notebook computer he'd been given to perform his job with only the files on it that had been there when it had been given to him (government claiming that he was setting up his own competing business during the time he worked for the government, and they expected to find evidence on the notebook once they got it back, but he used, IIRC, a legal secure delete program) they maintainted that the LACK OF data was proof of his guilt.

Does this just happen to the little guy, or should the court now find fully in AMD's favor here? And in the process, send a strong message to all of big business?

After all, this is the same government being pushed to make ISPs retain even more of your personal Internet activities. Shouldn't the punishments be spread around more equally?

Not all email (4, Informative)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250354)

It's not all email from all Intel employees that must be retained

1027 case-specific individuals at Intel were identified and from 2005 case initiation date Intel is supposed to have all of their email retained; of these 1027 case-specific persons AMD is allowed to stipulate 471 for court scrutiny of data.

These employees, dubbed "custodians," are persons of interest in the legal proceedings.

Re:Not all email (-1, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251020)

And.. that makes it easier? 471 people out of 100,000. It's like trying to herd cats, it's not going to work perfectly.

It's really a shame Intel didn't do this correctly, though. Ideally Intel should just follow the letter of the law and do exactly what is required of them, and not be sleazebags like AMD trying this in the press and trying to innovate by litigating.

As repayment for their abuse of the legal system, AMD deserves to fade into obscurity. AMD likes to make big announcements and sleazy "challenges" in the press, like when they challenged the Xeon back in the day to some kind of kindergarten fight "by the monkeybars". They're oddly silent now on the technical front now, except for making ridiculous claims about Barcelona. AMD has the class of a telemarketing firm run by a guy who tans too much and slicks back his hair with 3 ounces of motor oil every morning.

Re:Not all email (1)

erbmjw (903229) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251480)

Retaining 1027 individuals email from 2005 forward makes it considerably easier than retaining all email for all Intel employees.

And it's 1027 out of approximately 100,000 employees, the 471 is 471 out of the 1027 case-specific individuals

As to "not working perfectly" and "herding cats" - it didn't even work adequately - Intel rep's even admits that they screwed up - from a sheer technical perspective this was/is not a difficult exercise for a firm of this size/type with the resources it has at it's command.

Thus what Intel has done is beyond "really a shame" it is legally, morally, organizationally and ITechically irresponsible.

Plausible Deliability (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250368)

So? When you merely fail to meet your obligation to stop destruction, you're not liable. Just ask New Orleans about Bush/Brown/Chertoff/FEMA. Or Iraq about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Or Bosnia about Serbian genocide [budapesttimes.hu] .

Re:Plausible Deliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250976)

I think you meant to say Serbia on the Bosnian genocide...

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251434)

No, I meant people should ask Bosnia about Serbia's genocide of Srebrenicans. While they're at it, they should ask the UN's ICJ whether accidental genocide is a model for Eurasia.

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251366)

Or Bosnia about Serbian genocide
I don't know much about the other examples you mentioned. But I don't see how this one goes with your reasoning. The link you provided points out that:

"Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide; Serbia has not been complicit in genocide."
and:

the UN's highest court did decide that the Srebrenica massacre was indeed an act of genocide and that Serbia had had the power to prevent it but did not do so

So There was an act of genocide, but it was not perpetrated by Serbia. So how should they be guilty for it?? It would be like my neighbour telling me they will kill everyone in their household, then going to do it. Me knowing that it is occuring does not make me liable for his actions, does it? (even if I could have stopped it the moment he told me).

Am I obliged to stop my neighbour? Am I liable for what he had done? Or was it essentially none of my business? I may get into trouble for knowing about his intentions/the crime but not doing anything about it (This is a bit of a legal gray area), but I don't think I would be responsible for his actions.

All over the world, bad things happen, be it theft, robbery, murder or grand things like war/genocide/etc... perpetrated by people, businesses and governments. And most of the world turn a blind eye to it.

I'm not saying its the right thing to do, or that its moral/ethical/etc... but it does not make you liable.(to the best of my knowledge)

(Trying to get back on topic) The Issue here is that AMD claims Intel destroyed evidence. Now if Intel had started deleting email archives that they kept for years as soon as the case started, then I can see AMD's argument. But if Intel had a long term policy of not keeping archives longer then 7 days at most (for example, TFA says 30-60 days) which was in effect long before the antitrust case, then its not a deliberate attempt at destruction of evidence. You can say it was lost due to incompetence, poor policy or probably a ton of other things, but I don't think you could say it was deliberate destruction.

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252404)

The court found that somehow the Serbian government was not in control of the Serbian army when it genocided the Bosnians. A Serbian government that publicly directed the genocide. That appointed all the army generals and ensured its officers were loyal to their "Greater Serbia at any cost" cause. That recruited its soldiers. That publicly dehumanized Bosnians, blaming them for any number of crimes against Serbia and demanding their destruction. Which the Serbian army then did, often and effectively, right in line with Serbia's policy and propaganda.

The ICJ verdict is a travesty of justice. Serbia was obviously responsible for the genocide that even the court admits. But the ICJ did just protect the US from liability for its many heinous crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

You don't need to be a moralist to know that when your neighbors are getting genocided, you damn well are responsible for helping them if you can. We're not talking about watching a purse snatcher running past you in the street. We're talking about genocide. Once they're done with the first target, they'll get you next. Because they've already destroyed your humanity by getting you complicit in the genocide, as even the ICJ found the Serbian government.

Did you read that right? "Complicit in genocide" There's no turning a blind eye. And even when people do, as in, say, Darfur or any other African tribal extermination or elsewhere, that doesn't make it right. That makes it even more wrong.

I'm referring to a culture of unaccountability. That gets people killed, that gets peoples exterminated. In the relatively trivial case of Intel destroying evidence, just because Intel has a policy to destroy email after a very brief time, too brief to use it for their own purposes, doesn't mean they're not responsible for their destructive act. In fact, their early destruction with continuing value destroyed with them shows their interest in destroying value to protect themselves from evidence. So yeah, they're responsible. Even if it's their policy, they're responsible for the policy.

To show the consistency, even if Bush or Serbia isn't in control of their military continuing to perpetrate awful crimes on people, then Bush or Serbia are responsible for losing control.

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258428)

The court found that somehow the Serbian government was not in control of the Serbian army when it genocided the Bosnians.
Yes, because it was not the Serbian army. It was the Bosnian Serb army. Just because both armies have "serb" in them does not make them the same. Hence the Serbian government had no control, The Bosnian Serb government did, whose leader ordered the siege and massacre (with his military commanders warning him that it would be classed as genocide) and as such is an indicted war criminal (and rightly so).

A Serbian government that publicly directed the genocide.

Actually... Most of the public did not know it was going on. During the war they were fed propaganda by the regime that, among other things, never mentioned the killing. Those that knew what was happening (and that the elections were rigged) attempted to remove the regime in 1991/2 but was crushed by the Army (Funny how none of the western powers felt it wise to help them overthrow the government until 1999, quite a bit too late to stop the war).

Indeed. When the truth came out many normal people were disgusted, and some were (and still are) in a state of denial of what happened. (of course you have the right-wing nuts who still think it was the right thing to do etc.... but they are a minority).

That appointed all the army generals and ensured its officers were loyal to their "Greater Serbia at any cost" cause.That recruited its soldiers.

The Bosnian Serb army comprised of Bosnian Serbs (not the Army of Serbia). Indeed the Army also comprised of Bosnian Muslims, Greeks and assortments of other fighters which joined together. Not exactly an ethnically clear cut army.

That publicly dehumanized Bosnians, blaming them for any number of crimes against Serbia and demanding their destruction.

Partially correct. The propaganda machine did dehumanize Bosnian [muslims]. If the truth was known by enough of the masses, there would have probably been a large-scale revolt. Their destruction was not called for directly. Essentially they were portrayed as attacking and driving out Bosnian Serbs from Bosnia in an effort to make a pure Muslim state, and that the Bosnian Serb Army was in fact just protecting their rights to be there.

The Bosnian Muslims did commit many crimes against Bosnian Serbs as well. Ranging from Forced Drinking of Battery acid, to torture, rape, murder and filmed decapitation (Pictures of this exist, I'm sure you can find them on the net). The Propaganda machine really spun these crimes, to the point where it seemed that it was the Bosnian Muslims doing most of the killing, which was used to justify the war in the eyes of the public.

It seems a common misconception that in a war, only one side ever commits "crimes". This is very rarely the case. More often than not both sides are to blame. In the Bosnian War, All the sides (Bosnian Croats, Muslims and Serbs) committed brutal atrocities against one another. The only difference was that the Bosnian Serbs had gained access to most of the existing countries (Yugoslavia) weaponry, so were more powerful.

Which the Serbian army then did, often and effectively, right in line with Serbia's policy and propaganda.

I pointed out the Army bit already. As for Serbia's Policy. Officially it was none of their business, and this is unfortunately what many people did. They swallowed the state propaganda, either out of ignorance or out of fear of reprisals (many people who were critical of the regime/war would "disappear" or have an unfortunate fatal accident).

The unofficial policy is of course not noted down, but is generally assumed that the Bosnian Serb Army needed support, and the Serbian Government essentially wrote them a blank cheque for military hardware. It is generally assumed that the Serb Government knew about what was going on. And had the power to stop it, but didn't. hence they were "Complicit in genocide". That does not mean they did it themselves.

The ICJ verdict is a travesty of justice. Serbia was obviously responsible for the genocide that even the court admits. But the ICJ did just protect the US from liability for its many heinous crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

The ICJ is nothing more than a kangaroo court. Until *all* world leaders (inc Bush, Blair, etc...) are equal in the eyes of the court, it will be seen as a political tool, nothing more.

Saying that, if the ICJ did find Serbia guilty, that would have been a travesty of justice. The case was brought not against the leaders, government or the military commanders, but against the state, and everyone in it.

That would be like holding the entire population of the USA guilty for (fictional example) a siege of Basra (and subsequent massacre of its populace) done by U.S equipped and supported Iraqi troops (and with the U.S.A's knowledge), rather than holding Bush and co responsible.

You could argue it serves the populace right to be held guilty, as they voted in Bush. But what about the 48+ percent who didn't vote for him? Should they also be penalised? Its not exactly fair (especially if the election was rigged, and far fewer people actually supported the government).

A well known example of a country who was pernalised as a whole ("collective punishment") was Germany and reparations after WWI. As the Germans felt they were unfairly burdened with the guilt and responsibility for the war (both those who supported the war, those neutral and those against), they grew bitter and angry , until Hitler came along and channeled this into one of the most brutal war machines of the 20th Century.

You don't need to be a moralist to know that when your neighbors are getting genocided, you damn well are responsible for helping them if you can. We're not talking about watching a purse snatcher running past you in the street. We're talking about genocide.

Ok, I admit my example was a bit too shallow. I was merely trying to point out the culture prevalent in humanity of "not seeing" things that happen to others. It goes from the lowest levels (you not reporting a crime, bearing witness to a murder, etc...) to high levels of collective denial as to what happens in other places, even on your doorstep (metaphorically speaking). I'm not saying that every human is like that, but I.M.O most are.

Once they're done with the first target, they'll get you next. Because they've already destroyed your humanity by getting you complicit in the genocide, as even the ICJ found the Serbian government.

Me? How can you be complicit is something you don't know is occurring? As I said, Many people didn't know what was going on. Many didn't believe the genocide happened until yr2000+ when the serb media actually showed footage of the killing. As for the leaders... well, if they knew of it, then yes, they are complicit in genocide and I have no problems with them going to trial for it.

Did you read that right? "Complicit in genocide" There's no turning a blind eye. And even when people do, as in, say, Darfur or any other African tribal extermination or elsewhere, that doesn't make it right. That makes it even more wrong.

I'm not denying Genocide Happened. I'm not even denying that those who knew about it but did nothing shouldn't be punished. My point is that people who were deliberately kept in the dark about what was happening should not be punished because their unelected, totalitarian leaders decided to support other madmen who wanted to play warmonger. The Genocide Ruling stated that the state as a whole (government and population) was not guilty of Genocide, but that those in power who knew what was going on but didn't stop it are. This is the first ruling from the ICJ which I actually agreed with. For it cleared the state as a whole of a crime, and pinned the blame where is belongs, which can now be dealt with individually.

I'm referring to a culture of unaccountability. That gets people killed, that gets peoples exterminated. In the relatively trivial case of Intel destroying evidence, just because Intel has a policy to destroy email after a very brief time, too brief to use it for their own purposes, doesn't mean they're not responsible for their destructive act. In fact, their early destruction with continuing value destroyed with them shows their interest in destroying value to protect themselves from evidence. So yeah, they're responsible. Even if it's their policy, they're responsible for the policy.

I agree about the culture of unaccountability issue... But I would argue that your example was a bit off. The situation with Intel is that nobody knows what is going on apparently (due to a breakdown of communication etc...) which resulted in the (non-deliberate) destruction of evidence. The Situation in the Bosnian war was clear cut. We know who made the order (the president of the Bosnian Serb republic) in a case of "the end justifies the means", which commander knew (and even mentioned) that it would be classed as Genocide, then went and did it anyway, while being supported by a third-party in the form of a ruthless dictator who turned a blind eye to what was going on (up to a point, then even he pulled support because of all the killing). .

To show the consistency, even if Bush or Serbia isn't in control of their military continuing to perpetrate awful crimes on people, then Bush or Serbia are responsible for losing control.

And I hope I explained to you my point. That the republic which actually committed the atrocity was not the republic you said it was, and that they were in fact different, separate entities. As such the accountability ends with the leader of the Bosnian Serb Republic, not the republic of Serbia (which was the one who was in court). You argued*(1) that the ICJ ruling which cleared the serb republic of Genocide is proof of a culture of unaccountability where horrible crimes go unpunished, but I set out to explain to you some of the more intricate details of the case, and how the ruling does not prove unaccountability for crimes. Indeed the ICJ is placing the accountability exactly where it should be, pointing at the very people who made the order, and who are currently one of the most wanted men in Europe.

I personally hope they catch them. Even if the ICJ will not give them a fair, non-politically motivated trial. They will have a chance to explain themselves and the thinking behind them ordering one of the worst massacres since WWII (plus the "prison" in the Hague reminds me more of a hotel rather than a criminal detention centre).

My apologies for the tangent. I understand that it was probably not your intention when first posting to continue so much about one of your examples. Its just that I have had heard many times repeated what you said, both by western media and people who live there (and on slashdot). As someone who has devoted many many hours to the study of the Yugoslav civil war I wanted to engage in a debate to work out how come there is a marked difference in our opinions on the matter.

*(1): This appeared to me to be your argument, apologies if I am mistaken. P.S: My god this is a long post.... lol. But its nice to hold a topic where it does not descend into a flamewar.

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Perky_Goth (594327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18265952)

Well, that certainly explained that decision for me, so, it was worth it.

Re:Plausible Deliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18252236)

Fucking loser. Won't you ever give it up?

Without conspiracies, derangement, general mean-spiritedness, and of course hatred, what human life is left in you?

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252470)

Fucking Anonymous Coward wants me to give up talking about their favorite genociders. Thinks "human life" means ignoring the conspiracies, derangement, meanspiritedness and hatred they love.

Now you can go back to quibbling about some Intel email, and pretend you're not responsible for voting in the killers you're still defending against the humans. Fucking Anonymous dead Coward.

Re:Plausible Deliability (2, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18256186)

When you merely fail to meet your obligation to stop destruction, you're not liable. Just ask New Orleans about Bush/Brown/Chertoff/FEMA.

Actually, ask them about Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin.

Making the disaster plan, and executing the plan for the first three days WITHOUT external help, was the responsibility of the locality. FEMA assistance wasn't supposed to be counted on until the fourth day - and even then it's just materiel and money to HELP the state and locality run THEIR plan, not a federal takeover of their responsibilities.

Guess what day they showed up?

Under the Posse Comitatus act the fed can't even send in people without permission from the governor (or a declaration of war against a rebellion). (That's why they gave a bunch of supplies to groups like the Salvation Army to take in - groups which the local officials then blocked from going to the area.)

Re:Plausible Deliability (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257078)

Where's some documentation that N'O was supposed to expect 4 days on their own without FEMA?

yuo failB! it (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250434)

Worse and worsep. As Jesus Up The

I've lost mail... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250840)

At home, not so much, maybe a year's worth when I was switching between Windows and MacOS (pre-X), but I'm fairly certain except for that one year or so, I've got pretty much every email worth keeping somewhere on my Mac. (Outgoing emails are sent on my PC, so I've got that there - my Mac mostly just archives email). By worth keeping, it's stuff like mailing lists and other stuff other than spam.

At work, though, I've inadvertently lost several years worth of email (at least 3+ years). Outlook archived them faithfully, and I moved the archives to the fileserver. I then compressed the pst file with WinZip. No problem so far. Problem is, I then encrypted them using an Authenex A-Key, which encrypted fine, and test documents encrypted and decrypted fine. Unfortunately, it appears binary files aren't quite restored correctly (or were stored incorrectly) and WinZip claims the files are corrupted. I'm guessing the test files were just tolerant of the errors introduced, but I don't know. I suppose I can try again...

Might as well find them a monopoly (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253024)

It should be possibly to judge legality of a regular company by observing their actions, no matter what their intentions are

Steve Jobs to Linus: "Hey, lets collude and force Microsoft out of the market"
Linus: "Sure, done deal!"

Not much to worry about there.

If a company can break the law just by having specific intentions, we might as well consider them a monopoly and take remedial actions. In case of Intel, they could be required to spin off chip design into a separate company from manufacturing. As Microsoft's judge pointed out, this is better for a company's combined net worth than extensive regulation. It could even improve the bottom line, as chip foundry would get more business by offering its capacity on equal terms.

fago8z (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253350)

Gone Ro&mEo and

mod UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18254538)

leaving core. i [goat.cx]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...