Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Dallas city official e-mails to be deleted after 90 days
To try to deal with an overburdened computer system, the city of Dallas will start deleting e-mails after 90 days. While some say the move is necessary in order to free up space, others say it will endanger important information that needs to be kept for things like public information requests.
Posted by Alex B.
Email
|
Print
|
13 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Dallas City Council member Ron Natinsky announces regional center
-
»Former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill and his wife are convicted in City Hall corruption trial
-
»Dallas City Council denies HIV/AIDS funding, opens door to higher infection rate
-
»Dallas council passes booting ordinance in favor of Deep Ellum community activists
-
»Dallas City Council members visiting schools on Monday, August 24
an event
|
a restaurant
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
a deal
|
a pet
|

Mike Orren, says:
Preposterous. Average email is < 10k.
There is no good reason to ever delete a government-account email. Backup systems are cheap and getting cheaper by the day and I seriously doubt the city email servers are much more secure than a lot of cloud solutions.
At best, this is bureaucratic ineptitude at its highest level. At worst, it's an intentional effort at opacity.
Staff
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
::opacity.
Usually the result of extreme density.
No kidding. If Google can give away 7Gig --- and let's just do the Fry's Ad Math of a Terabyte going for $100 this week.
Yeah- smell of rat all over this one.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jtmbls, says:
I don't see why the government does not have to follow the Sarbanes-Oxley Act just like publicly traded companies. Even though the 90 day period is in line with the least compliant option of "Save Nothing". At least they would be required to save certain information.
Anonymous
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
Over on Frontburner, someone who actually knows what they're talking about <a href="http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2009/06/03/leading-off-deleted-e-mails-item-ctd/">agrees with me</a>.
Staff
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
90 days?
Criminy -- have you ever seen ANYTHING happen through a city department in 90 days?
Heck, your parking tickets take longer to wend their way through the system than that.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Scott Doyle, says:
others say it will endanger important information that needs to be kept for things like public information requests.
Or, you know, law suits. Doyle sees what they're doing there.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
winkydo, says:
i think this has more to do with the idea that 3 months is less liability than 3 years of data.
wikipedia defines 'data retention' as "A data retention policy weighs legal and privacy concerns against economics and need to know concerns to determine both the retention time, archival rules, data formats, and the permissible means of storage, access, and encryption."
you cannot just throw a fry's hard drive at a corporate email system and think you have reliable data storage. but at the same time, i'm sure EMC had some very good end of 2nd quarter deals they could have extended dallas for storage space. i think the problem here is that the real reason for the policy is being hidden behind political tape.
Anonymous
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
::throw a fry's hard drive
I think you'd be surprised. How many terabytes do you need on a NAS for friggin' email? Now - don't slap videos and useless crap around your mail system. But tell me that isn't more actual text/powerpoint data than even bureaucrats can generate in three months.
And for the price of half a lawyer for the year following this snafu, they could have landed a snazzy autoload tape carousel.
Of course it's liability.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
You'd be surprised how much e-mail a busy office can generate. And yeah, data retention is complicated - if your backup solution is the aforementioned Fry's hard drive, you've already failed at your job even before the hard drive locks up and grinds through the platter.
But just because it's complicated doesn't mean it's incredibly difficult. A competent IT department could set up a reasonably cheap on-site backup solution, or outsource it to a professional service, or as a combination of the two, use something like Amazon's S3 - which is DAMN cheap. I uploaded stored 10 gig of data in the first month, and it cost me $1.29. Uploading another 10 gig, and storing the combined 20 gig cost me just a bit less than $5. After that, uploading somewhere between 1 and 2 gigabytes a month, it's still costing me less than $4 a month, and the whole process is completely automated, running on a cheap box running a free operating system.
And e-mails, being text, can be compressed pretty efficiently, so their costs could be even less.
The only downside is that Amazon charges more to download data than to upload it, but since I'm sure that 99% of all e-mails more than 6 months old will never be read again anyway, it doesn't seem to be a big concern.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
::Amazon's S3
Forgot that entirely! So you like it, eh? Never found anyone that actually followed through on it. Good to know.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
It seems to work okay, but I haven't really tried to restore anything from that backup. I'm fairly certain, though, that if my drives were to fail, I'd need to opt for the physical delivery option, since I think that would be faster and cheaper than downloading 20 gigs of stuff.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Jason Rice, says:
Yeah - no matter what happens in the future, for raw bandwidth, nothing beats a stationwagon at 60 mph filled to the brim with exabyte tapes.
Verified
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
shoshanac, says:
As defined by the Local Government Records Act, a "local government record" means: ANY document, paper, letter, book, map, photograph, sound or video recording, microfilm, magnetic tape, electronic medium, or other information recording medium, regardless of physical form or characteristic and regardless of whether public access to it is open or restricted under the laws of the State, created or received by a local government or any of it's officers or employees pursuant to law, including an ordinance, or in the transaction of public business". Any document created or received by a City employee MUST be retained and disposed of according to the schedules adopted by the City and the retention period for a record applies to the record regardless of the medium in which it is maintained- i.e. paper or electronic version. E-mails are records and subject to record retention requirements! If a record is maintained electronically, the electronic data, as well as the hardware and software necessary to access the data, must be retained for the retention period assigned to the record, unless backup copies of the data are retained in paper or on microfilm for the retention period. If the City of Dallas adopted the following record retention schedule by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, then unless a record is "exempt from destruction request requirements", records CAN NOT be destroyed without the consent of the records management committee. Destruction of local government records contrary to the provisions of the Local Government Records Act of 1989 and administrative rules adopted under its authority is a Class A misdemeanor and, under certain circumstances, a third degree felony. Anyone destroying local government records without legal authorization may also be subject to criminal penalties and fines under the Open Records Act. So go figure Dallas, figure it out!!
Anonymous
6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal