1 - What sort of effect do information objects like wikis and intranet pages (mentioned on 14) have not only on litigation, but on determining authenticity and reliability? How can we guarantee that a wiki page edited by EmployeeX according to the username was actually edited by EmployeeX? How does this change the burden of proof in prosecution?
2 - Is the "collaboration" promoted on pages 16-17 the embodiment of Cleveland's assertions that access to more information will make a more just and democratic society? Will this need for collaboration yield more fruitful mediation and an avoidance of court proceedings?
1. Should information from different sources be taken into account differently? For example, some information source bears more evidence and is more authenticated than others, though it may has less information. For example, the information on the social media is much more than the information left in the physical settings. But there are so many rumors on social media nowadays. How would the AI system take this into account?
2. Computer technologies are constantly evolving. The latest version of software may not only improve its predecessors, but totally disrupt them. What if a new version of artificial intelligence technology proves its predecessors are wrong or buggy? How should the legal system cope with this scenario when taking advantage of the computer technologies?
3. Along with the second question, to what extent should the legal system depend on the computer technology, especially artificially intelligence? Computer gonna be (actually already is in many aspects) much more powerful than human minds. But computer also lack of emotion and common sense, which is quite important in judging a case. Sometimes, the conclusion drawn from a data point of view probably would conflict with our common sense. How should the legal system cope with this then?
1. Normally I would not comment on the structure of a paper, but Paul and Baron’s article is very, very heavily footnoted. In several cases the annotations nearly entirely eclipse the text of the article. Is this a backhanded comment by the authors about the weight of research that has to go into even the smallest statements by modern writers, and of the need for easier access to records to check citations? Could these annotations be presented more comfortably in an electronic format which could nest them until clicked on or moused over?
2. One great problem facing the legal industry in this article is the inadvertent waiver of privilege. Paul and Baron discuss two proposed changes at the time of their writing. (38) The Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) did pass but is limited to select circumstances. What rules could be created to avoid inadvertent waiver which would not also prevent proper disclosure in documents which must be searched through automated electronic means?
3. The article suggests a useful “archetype scenario” for arrangement of discovery between parties (33-34) which involves collaboration over an agreed-upon list of keywords and timetables. This requires collaboration between opposing parties in a suit. Paul and Baron suggest that this is possible (34, note 134) but has it actually been successful? Is this simply going to lead to a new era of gamesmanship in evidence which can drag litigation out still further?
1. In their article, Paul and Baron discuss the fact that the number of electronic records is escalating to the point that the legal system will have to develop new search and review methods in order to keep up. As an example, they cite the “electronic record keeping system known as ‘ARMS’ “, which, “by the end of the Clinton administration [had preserved] over 32 million e-mails created or received by the Executive Office of the President” (11). While the merits of this system can be guessed, is it really necessary to preserve every email within the White House? Should employees have to give up privacy rights simply because they work there?
2. Paul and Baron also discuss the “elastic”, ever-changing nature of language, referencing Ludwig Wittgenstein, and claim that language is its own ‘form of life’ (23). They support this claim by pointing out that people sometimes “make up words on the fly [and] . . . devise their own private languages for the context in their then current environment” (24). However, this just sounds to me like people are the “life form” and language is just a by-product of that life. Languages like Latin are said to be “dead” languages, but is it truly the language which has died, or just the people who used it? Can language really be considered to have its own life?
3. Further in the article, Paul and Baron describe the steps of the “’meet and confer’ negotiation cycle” (32-6). Of particular interest to me was the fact that even keywords allowable to use when searching documents have to be mutually agreed upon by both sides, and that these meetings have to continue if keywords are to be narrowed down even further. Paul and Baron discussed the future of the legal system in regards to information – do you think there will be more laws in the future which govern the search of electronic documents? How specific should these laws be and how much should a person’s privacy be protected?
I like that you brought up the issue of privacy in your first question. It seems to me that if employees are using their "work email" and are fully aware that their emails will be archived for posterity, they will treat email as a public space- much like social media. It would be very constricting to know that anything you may write to a coworker will be saved and possibly deconstructed and judged at a later date, though.
I think that there are few institutions in which every email should be archived. However, I believe the White House is one.
1. Paul and Baron argue for better technology to search through records during litigation. These new technologies will no doubt be more expensive than current keyword searching technologies. How will these new technologies be paid for? Should the courts put up the funds for better technologies to ensure important evidence isn’t missed? Or should law firms have to pay for the technology?
2.This article reminded me of Cleveland’s article about manual workers being turned into information workers as the manual discovery searches are to be performed by better technology. Will the introduction of new technologies greatly affect the legal workforce?
3.This article argues that lawyers should become better at information retrieval. One thing that we learn in the legal information class here at the iSchool is that many lawyers can’t perform basic information searches in databases, or they choose to not do it and pass this work on to the law librarian. Will law schools adapt their programs to teach lawyers better technology skills to be able to perform these searches? Are there potential new jobs for information professionals to assist in information retrieval during the discovery process of this changing legal world?
I think your points in #3 are very important to discuss, and I found this entire article interesting in the way it asserts that collaborative information retrieval is the solution to the problem, primarily because law school works in the exact opposite way. Occasionally law schools will, in order to keep motivation and academic achievement high, kick the bottom 5%-10% of the class out of their programs each year, which leads to some serious difficulties for law librarians: some students will deface books, or cut pages with relevant information out of them, in order to be one of the few with the "right answer." With that, I think this collaborative approach is pretty revolutionary in such a competitive environment, and I think information retrieval professionals are going to be in high demand not only in law, but in other highly competitive arenas, such as marketing and competitive intelligence, partially because these professionals *haven't* learned how to collaborate and share information, since they've been taught it's against their interests.
The book Information Architecture published by O'Reilly quotes Dean Dillon as saying that he is convinced we need information architecture but that he is not sure we need information architects. I agree with him except that specialists might be needed for irregular situations. In the same vein, should lawyers be required to learn how to search?
1. It seems as if the author's main argument is that there is too much information, and not enough time for lawyers to sift through it all. At one point in the article, the authors state that, "what it means to be a lawyer will change rapidly in the years to come" (p. 3). I think that is a bit of an over-dramatization of the issue. I don't think that the legal profession will inherently change. I believe that lawyers need to acquire the skills to better retrieve information, or that the typical team of lawyers needs to expand to include a law librarian or research specialist, especially in cases where there is a large quantity of information that needs to be sorted. Should research in litigation be outsourced to people who know what they're doing so as to alleviate the perceived 'pressure' on lawyers?
2. The authors give the article the title "Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt". Through doing this, are they attempting to say that with the apparent glut of information, said information will eventually lose some of its value, just as money loses some of its purchasing power in an inflated economy? Can an overabundance of information lead to that information becoming less and less valuable? Or does it just become that much more difficult to find what you're looking for?
3. Conversely, if the authors are claiming that there is simply too much information, couldn't that be of benefit to lawyers? Yes, there is more information to sift through, but there are also more records, logs, databases, etc., which store information that could be relevant to a case. If searched and applied properly, the amount of information available should be of benefit to the legal profession. Maybe lawyers should take courses on how to better access information, or, as I suggested earlier, simply be more inclusive of and utilize more information specialists/librarians.
In regards to your question #2, I don't necessarily perceive information overload as information losing value, but I do appreciate your analogy to an inflated economy. It does cause one to question the reality of this. I found that the article, though, was emphasizing, as you suggest with your final question in that string of questions, that information becomes more difficult to sift through, therefore making it harder to find what you need. That's not to say a system cannot be developed, but rather that we need those in the profession need to collaborate to achieve their end needs. I'm not familiar with law, though, so this concept of collaboration between opposing councils seemed insane. Needless to say, regarding law at least, I feel like the relevant information will be retrievable regardless of the growing flux of information, it's just a matter of knowing how to effectively find it. It won't lose value, but rather become increasingly more difficult to search.
1) Interesting questions are raised by the case example of the insurance company that maintained “an opaque data storage system” and then claimed that requests for data retrieval were an undue burden. (31) As search technology advances and makes it easier for opposing council to find potentially damaging information, it seems likely that corporations will attempt to protect their information by making their data-storage systems more “opaque.” Is there a way for the legal system to combat this potential abuse?
2) One possible reason for the extreme proliferation of e-documents is the fact that workplace emails, in addition to replacing letters and memos, have also replaced verbal conversation to some degree—which means that an overwhelming number of intra-office emails are irrelevant chatter. The article discusses many means of weeding through information, but does not discuss the possibility of culling irrelevant information from the record. Is culling even feasible, given the possibility for abuse and the fact that relevant information may not appear to be relevant at first?
3) The article mentions that keyword-based searches are relied upon too heavily and are often insufficient (returning only 20% of relevant documents in one case). The solution suggested seems to be the gradual adoption of more advanced search techniques and the establishment of precedent in using them. I wondered if there might be ways to empirically evaluate the efficacy and accuracy of various search methods—perhaps by assembling “sample” data pools and testing which search techniques comb through them most efficiently—and if these empirical observations might be of use to the legal system in determining which search systems should and should not be used.
1. On page 10, in this information epoch, now there is the equivalent of two thousand four-drawer file cabinets full of paper records, rather than there used to have one that of cabinet, all contained in a cubic foot or so in the form of electronically stored information. The author described this as a sea change. Is that means the more the better? It is true with information retrieval technology people can find their information more efficiently, will it still bring other irrelevant information to make things more complicated?
2. On page 14, the author gave an example that Professor Cass posits that many of the department's internal documents are "Wikis"-- web pages that are highly secure but can be freely edited by anyone who has access to them. Did they preserve the older edition of former page? What if the new edition was wrong? Or if they preserved it, would it a huge waste of space?
3. On page 26, the author provides some information retrieval methods applying to the practice of law. There are two problems I think we should notice. First, people who use information retrieval to optimize the system should also be familiar with legal field. Second, we should update the system with the development of "new words or vocabularies.
1. On page 3, in the section labeled as [6], the authors write "... lawyers must embrace creative, technological approaches to grappling with knowledge management as information inflation continues apace." With this evolution of information having such an impact on the world of law, would future lawyers benefit from some level of cross-pollination with iSchools? While I can't make or feel a need to make an argument of the idea that law schools completely merge with the field of information science, wouldn't a good way to change the culture of a profession be with some outside influence as students?
2. Page 12 states that in 2009, NARA predicted it would receive over one billion emails over the course of the next decade as permanently accessioned records of the government. If email is already proving to be such a beast to organize and search in an efficient manner, have they begun to even attempt to formulate a plan to deal with social media?
3. Page 26 provides support for my first question by stating "Next, lawyers must have a better understanding of information retrieval science, and the ways in which information can be searched." My question is, if we're discussing both the nature of information, and are grappling with technology have there not been more collaborative projects WITH scholars of law? We have law librarians, sure. But our other article by Eppler and Mengis mentioned the fields of marketing, accounting, organization, and management information, when everything in this article suggests lawyers are struggling with information overload just as badly, if not moreso (particularly when you take into account the right to a speedy trial).
1. After reading this article it sounds like Paul and Baron are just making a case for a law or case researcher whose sole job it is to find pertinent information for specific legal cases. The amount of information that is being stored currently is very large and I don't believe that the recording of this information is going to slow down in the near future. While I have no doubt that searching techniques and expertise will get better, the research skills required to find any and all information pertinent to a legal case seems like it would be too much for a lawyer to take on in addition to their other responsibilities. 2. The management of knowledge that Paul and Baron is essentially the title of the research position that I mentioned in the previous question. The authors recognize that as inflationary period of information continues lawyers will need to continue to increase their knowledge and ability to deal with information management. If the sea of information is going to continue to increase it seems only sensible that lawyers delegate the responsibilities of information management to others specifically trained in this area of law. 3. The authors speak about cooperative behavior. They also point out that this cooperative behavior might exist of a previous relationship and a small amount of trust exists between the parties. This is something that I'd be interested in seeing if it would actually work. While the benefits of the cooperation is obvious, I find it hard to believe that opposing sides of a legal case would work together.
1. I have to say this paper itself is a perfect example to show how information overload undermined the acts of human beings and make them not in the mood of reading. So many footnotes dominated pages made me frustrated when I was reading the article because generally footnotes are not as important as authors' points. My question is the guys who are talking about dealing with information overload are creating overload, is this a strong evidence to support the hypothesis that side effects of information overload is an inevitable and unchangeable tendency?
2. In the paper, the author talk a lot about the downside of information overload for the lawyers, especially in information retrieving and managing. However, It's weird for me to hear such a voice. In fact, As a information student who had been working in a great search engine company, I'm fully aware of how the information enhanced lives of all job types. Lawyers can gather more information than ever before litigation by which they could come closer to the fact than old days. In this point, could we say that information overload provides a new chance for lawyers to explore to things they want to know but are hard to know?
3. In this paper, the authors argue for better tech of information retrieval and more understanding of lawyers on collecting information due to information overload. However, I think the authors pointed out the destination while forgot to pave the road to it. Is it possible or necessary to build a system for lawyers to overcome information overload? Isn't information overload is an universal issue for all the jobs?
1. Paul and Baron repeatedly state that collaboration and cooperation are necessary in the discovery process, even mentioning goodwill and trust in Paragraph 56. This seems ideal as long as the defendant has nothing to hide. However, if the defendant is hiding something, wouldn't it be in his best interest to impede or mislead the search process?
2. It seems that the authors are unclear about whether it is the lawyers that have limited search skills or whether the search technologies are inadequate. Paragraph 36 essentially states that lawyers need to use computers, not people to search databases. The Blair and Maron study indicates that the lawyers were inept in their search strategies. Is it the lawyers or the technology that they feel need to be brought up to speed?
3. The discussion of privilege was difficult to understand, especially Paragraph 59. What are privilege waivers and why would they force parties to forego attorney-client privilege?
1. George illustrate the information inflation with an example that nowadays probably close to 100 billion e-mail are sent daily. However, is it object to use the amount of email to measure the amount of information? As we know, a lot of trash of information is produced every day, and some of them has been filtered by email service provider.
2.George mentions that the status quo for the legal profession is to use “keywords,” without more, to ferret out electronically-stored information in large corporate and institutional database. I learned from another class that the lawyer didn't use keyword searching before, so what are the limits?
3.The scenario author listed in this article is faced by any other industry area. Now, every industry has noticed the power of information, and try take advantage of it. They have to adopt new technology, understand new information structure. So what is the special aspect in legal system?
1. I really enjoyed this article, because it synthesized a lot of the macro issues that have been stewing in my mind since we started the class, especially regarding the similarities and correlations between what the authors call "information inflation" and some current theories in evolutionary biology - and even beyond that into philosophy generally, or even theology (insofar as it can even be separated from philsophy, which I'd argue is unnecessary). Specifically regarding cumulative systems, evolutionary (or, in this case, perhaps technological) "dead ends," and collaboration as an organizing principle (as opposed to - or even as another form of - competition, and/or the flip side of Darwinian natural selection pressures - OR "social Darwinism," which isn't really natural selection at all). I'll just stop here before I need a drink.
2. The authors spend a great deal of time demonstrating that legal researchers can no longer manually review evidence (the math regarding Phillip Morris was really interesting), and this made me consider the relevance of this quandary for *all* information professions, or, really, all workers, and end users more generally. What do we do in the face of exponentially increasing information (a concept they briefly treat in point #12 on page 9). This is another point that brings me back to questions currently circulating in my metadata class, particularly regarding library and archives professionals' "buy-in" on new metadata theory and systems. How can we possible keep up? We can't. As they say here on page 3, "Have such tools been adequately tested or proven? No. But there is no choice but to shape new tools, and new processes for using them."
3. At the end, in "A View to the Future," on page 39, the authors declare, "No one knows if, or when, civilization's new inflationary period will end..." This are mega meta concepts, and I wonder if the answer has to be, "How can it?" I think it's important that we grapple with these questions so that we understand the stakes of what we're doing, despite our sometimes reticence about engaging with such philosophical queries and, ultimately, unanswerable problems. I now want to read some of the literature coming out of computer science, especially in bioinformatics.
1. Paul and Baron’s discussion of the changing landscape of the legal profession because of information overload made me think about the Evans article and how archives should transformation their current practices. If the abundance of documents and information are having such fundamental changes to these professions, how many other professions are considering or implementing dramatic change? If fundamental changes are happening in most professions, how does this flood of change affect our society as a whole, or just our daily lives? It seems to me that our lives could be dramatically affected by the decisions of a few professions and we may not be conscience of the change because of our ignorance to how the profession operated before. 2. I liked the idea of information overload forcing adversaries to work together for their mutual interest, such as opposing counsels. Is information overload such a large problem that it has become our common enemy? 3. The amount of data discussed in this article was inconceivable to me. While we often hear of information overload and have anecdotal evidence from our lives, the thought of having a billion documents to review confounded me. If the amount of information is growing exponentially can we ever keep up? The article discusses ways the authors believe the legal profession can combat this issue, but even with programs that can automatically sort and organize documents for us, can we really keep up or are we just lying to ourselves? This also makes me view information professionals as needing to be increasingly diverse in knowledge and skill sets in order to help the wide-ranging number of professions and their unique facets adapt to the changing information landscape.
1. While reading about “search protocols” I couldn’t help but think of the potential for abuse by corporations or individuals who attempt to sidestep future discovery of emails by using "code words" to discuss certain issues within email and attachment documents. As the volume of information grows how can we be certain we know what we are looking for? Although this issue was stated, it didn’t seem to have any idea about how to increase retrieval beyond the 20% that was mentioned.
2. I am curious if there is standard protocol when dealing with archives of emails and other documents within private and government circles? It would seem to be an incredibly labor-intensive task if lawyers and assistants are forced to deal with decades of accumulated file formats all created on different and outdated operating platforms. They mention in the article that meetings are made to discuss legacy media issues but at what point would it be considered burdensome to both parties?
3. I am wondering about the possibility for trade secret leakage during the litigation process as a result of an increase in the amount of information that Paul and Baron are proposing? How can a corporation possibly give more access to information while still protecting internal assets? This would seem to be a major issue
1. The author points out that there must be a change in the culture among litigation lawyers. The culture has been followed for 30 years consistently. Is it possible to instigate a change in such a long standing tradition? 2. As one of the solutions to information inflation, the author points out that the litigators must be far more collaborative than they have been in the past. If that happens, and there arises contradicting ideas, how can we ensure that the collaboration will result in a positive change? 3. The author discusses about the ending of the inflation period. If information is infinite, I highly doubt if there will be an end or leveling off. And in this case, if computer power in the form of human intelligence can surpass the capacity of human mind, how can knowledge management be achieved, given that knowledge is a human phenomenon?
1. This article is the most interesting one that I have ever read. It has 41 pages, but almost half of this article is footnotes. I was so surprised when I found this. I mean this article is a good example to represent what the ‘information inflation’ is. However, ironically, the author wants to find a way to solve the problem of information overload. So could the problem really be solved?
2. The author mentions that technology, such as ‘digitization; e-mail; the World Wide Web…’ (p6), has ‘swirled into an information complex…’ (p7). To some degree, it is right. For example, in the new Gmail in-box, there is an assortment of folders for different types of emails, including a main in-box, one for social networking and one for e-commerce promotions. It seems that can help me manage my emails. However, some junk emails which would have been in spam box, such as advertising, now are in the e-commerce promotions inbox. So I think the new Gmail causes the information overload. What do you think?
3. The author says ‘lawyers must have a better understanding of information retrieval science, and the ways in which information can be searched.’(p26) But I think today’s information retrieval technology is not good enough to help people deal with information overload. Sometimes, we cannot find what we want after retrieve or we need to filter the retrieval results further to get our expectations.
1. Is the recent evolution in writing the only reason of information inflation? I prefer a more comprehensive opinion that the evolution of creating, storing, and organizing information, as well as the development of modifying and searching information caused the information inflation. The author mentioned some technologies in the article, such as digitization, e-mail and World Wide Web. In my view, they are not only writing technology but also technology that involves information management and information sharing,
2. Although human beings can instantaneously write to millions, people's reaction speed is increasing and the way people processing information become more and more efficient. We usually have purposes when search or reading information records (such as e-mail records). No matter we face how large in quantity of information, we could find what we want before browsing all of them. Just like when we search a recipe in a search engine, it is fine to have too many feedbacks because they are similar. Thus, we will never use $2 billion to read the e-mail record.
3. Since lawyers only played the roles to perform “searches”, it is absolutely important for them to develop skills for appropriate ”keyword”, but not necessary to learn too many search methods and even concepts (such as “recall” and “precision”). In my opinion, it is those information engineers’ work to develop a better search engine and build information recommending system to help lawyers find the information they want. Instead, these lawyers might need to learn how to use those systems and tools in a more efficient way.
The article makes the case for cooperation between those involved on both sides of a legal dispute(17). Presently should a defendant request it, the prosecution must disclose a long list of relevant information as it pertains to a case. In the event that evidence is not shared, there is a chance of misconduct. Even with the advent of Rule 16(f) and the requirement for a consensus, it still seems like its a murky area with the vast amounts of available information would it be possible to prevent misconduct? Or would courts have to make allowances for missed nuggets of information?
The Treppel v. Biovail case involved the court issuing its own search search terms to be used in discovery. Do the “court ordered “search protocols””(20) also include which search methods or information retrieval systems are utilized? If so, is there a system in place for judges to maintain a current understanding of retrieval concepts?
In that same vein, the article mentions being able to “reliably evaluate or “benchmark” competing solutions”(26) in regards to information retrieval. Would every trial involving these large amounts of information need to sift through each kind of different information retrieval method at any given moment? And would only control tested methods be valid?
1. Paul and Baron said that NARA “expects to receive over one billion emails over the course of the next decade as permanently accessioned records of the government” (12). Along with NARA, billions of emails are sent by other companies as well. I’m wondering, when do we or other companies decide when to finally throw something away permanently? At what point does a record finally become useless and why is it that we seem to hoard so much information “just in case”?
2. Since this article is dealing with the legal system, I wonder if the internet and all its vast resources have made it easier for lawyers to request information or if they have as much trouble as other information-heavy fields do wading through all the information inflation and overload?
3. On page 37, point 61 talks about the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007. “The ACPPA would prohibit the government from forcing organizations into: (1) disclosing information protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine; (2) refusing to contribute to the legal defense of an employee; (3) refusing to enter into a joint defense strategy with an employee…” I don’t know much about law, but how would the ACPPA be affected by or affect the act of a subpoena?
1. On page 4, the author indicates that there has been only one transformative advance in the original writing technology--the movable type printing press. However, it is obvious that the rate of information inflating is much faster than before. So, my question is what else factors are influencing the information inflation rate, except the printing technology?
2. In [38], it is mentioned that "Inflation causes both an outward expansion of the quantity of information, and reveals a dynamic of innovation-of relentless diversity of new form." To what kinds of innovations does the author refer here?
3. From this article, we have learned the necessity of building or improving a legal system to meet the inforamtion inflation.And also, the author introduces many new approaches to have a more structural system to enhance the retrieval efficiency.However, he does not analyze the practicability and cost of these methods. Would lawyers be willing to spend valuable time and energy establishing this legal system?
1. So far from what we have read, collaboration is the key to dealing with information overload. Both the Eppler and Paul/Baron articles suggest using the countermeasure of collaboration in order to avoid becoming buried in the quantity of information that one must go through in order to have full access and understanding of the topic information. Usually when subject areas get too large there is room for specialization within the topic area. But we are now seeing a push from specialization to generalization?
2. When discussing information seeking behaviors, users tend to change their query as they move through search results. The search results themselves can lead to new discoveries, keywords or ways of thinking about the topic, so many users berrypick through search queries and results. But Paul/Baron suggest that lawyers need to confine their search terms, methods and locations prior to starting. This seems very counter-intuitive from what we have already learned about how non-librarians or professional researchers search for information. They clearly site that lawyers currently are not expected to have this skill set, and that it is too much in addition to their required knowledge base. So why do Paul/Baron still expect them to be skilled researchers?
3. "Clearly, parties will need to act in a more sophisticated and transparent fashion to disclose electronically stored information in their possession" p.21 With this in mind, many local, state and federal agencies are limiting what and how long they keep information, particularly electronic correspondence. Is the essence of discovery retained here? One would have to know quickly what was being discussed in order to make a request for open records and obtain that information and correspondence. Are governments starting to violate their ethics of discovery? Are we purposely moving to a policy of not retaining information so that it cannot be discovered?
1. In this article the authors are discussing the problems that the legal profession faces due to the new forms of information that are overwhelming legal researchers and some methods for dealing with this problem. In the Evans article the author suggests that one method for dealing with an influx of too much data is to use crowdsourcing to help manage large amounts of data. Would a crowdsourcing effort like the one the Evans suggests be workable in the legal context? Would it help with the massive amounts of data that lawyers have to deal with or would it hurt them?
2. One of the methods for dealing with massive amounts of possible digital evidence that the authors suggest is to use sampling. Sampling would be used to determine if a very large database had any data relevant to the case. Is it safe to assume that a sample of data from such a database is a reliable example of the contents of that database when one single document could make all the difference in a court case?
3. One of the major assumptions that the authors make is that even in an adversarial system such as the legal system that because cooperation is the best method logically that all parties will cooperate. This is not always the case though because it is a lawyer’s duty to defend their client and many of them would cheat if they could to do so. How would you go about modifying the authors’ methods to minimize a lawyer’s ability to cheat and hide a document or documents?
1. I understand the authors call for a change in the law profession, and particularly how litigation is approached and performed. Ultimately, however, their argument leaves me wondering--does becoming more collaborative really necessitate the increased use of computer technology? Can this more collaborative ideal be achieved in any other fashion? 2. I found the idea behind the search methodology/philosophy discussion a little paradoxical (p. 23-5). With the increased demand for information (and feeling entitled to have it), it becomes easy to believe that the more specific one is with the query, the better the yield of relevant information. With that, all relevant/important material is expected to become available since one took the time to carefully and thoughtfully conduct the initial search. I agree with the authors that it's wise and in good practice to be more open and creative when searching for information, however I'm not sure how widely accepted that is--and what it would take to prove that true to someone who may think otherwise. 3. If the amount of information/documents produced by conducting litigation work is so large and problematic--has a way to generate less been considered? If is this an accepted and unchanging aspect of the profession, as it was developing, shouldn't a method to effectively work with it have been created? This conversation about managing the increased volume of documentation (as the profession and work continues to evolve) seems a little delayed to me.
1. On page 24, the author writes that “in searches of larger data collections, some consideration should be given to employing “fuzzy” search logic in connection with any search technique to be employed, including keywords”. The article seems to be addressing ways in which litigators should account for information overload and how they should search in order to bring back best results while sifting through the mass of information. That being said, I’m not sure how this concept of “fuzzy” search logic fits in to the end goal, or exactly what is meant by “fuzzy” search logic.
2. The author suggests that “the volume and forms implicated in e-discovery require new strategies if there is any hope of accomplishing the task of finding responsive information in finite time periods (15)”. Obviously, then, this is a field where information overload, or inflation, has a very direct effect. Even by making changes, though, do you believe that inevitably the process of law will change or is it adaptable, just a manner of doing those things which the author suggests, such as emphasizing collaboration?
It is sad that lawyers are foiled by scale, access, and search methodology even though they have money and people to perform the search, while consumers also have a hard time identifying relevant information in their own computer hard drives and servers even though they created the content. Neither the content seekers or creators know how to find the content.
1. After reading Paul and Baron’s article, I cannot help thinking that there might be a place for MSIS candidates such as ourselves in law firms. How do ischool students and law students, information professionals and lawyers currently interact? Is there some sort of cross-pollinated profession that might benefit lawyers grappling with information overload?
2. Paul and Baron did an excellent job of describing the inconceivable amounts of data lawyers and government officials must wade through. Can the beast of information ever truly be tamed?
1. Because of the emergence of the “Information Ecosystem,” the authors describe writing these days as “akin to a new ‘form of life.’” (pg 7) What does that mean, exactly? Does it seem an accurate description for writing in the digital age?
2. The authors propose that lawyers will have to become familiar with methods and concepts drawn from computer and information science in order to evaluate what search techniques to employ. How reasonable is this proposal? Will it prove easier to teach information retrieval to other professions or rather to, perhaps, contract with something like an information-retrieval specialist? Just curious as to whether info overflow will lead to more generalists or specialists in the future.
3. In this article it is a given that the amount of information in the world is just going to continue to pile up (or, more specifically, that certain organizations like the White House will save all written communications), but I wonder if one day this will have to be reconsidered. The authors propose only responses to the problem of amassing data, but maybe we will also develop ways or technologies for discarding some information? Possible/Impossible?
1. I found it strange that an article about information retrieval in a legal setting never once mentioned legal librarianship. Given the constantly growing corpus of information, wouldn't this particular branch of the information field be especially necessary and important?
2. What might a future look like in which schools of law and information had significant overlap in materials/student populations? Should we be training new lawyers (and jurists) as information professionals?
3. One thing that kept coming to mind in reading about retrieving information from email and the like--as we come to better understand this explosion of information, and as we continue to utilize technology like email and instant messaging, might it be beneficial to develop applications or other technologies that better organize the information products we create?
1 - What sort of effect do information objects like wikis and intranet pages (mentioned on 14) have not only on litigation, but on determining authenticity and reliability? How can we guarantee that a wiki page edited by EmployeeX according to the username was actually edited by EmployeeX? How does this change the burden of proof in prosecution?
ReplyDelete2 - Is the "collaboration" promoted on pages 16-17 the embodiment of Cleveland's assertions that access to more information will make a more just and democratic society? Will this need for collaboration yield more fruitful mediation and an avoidance of court proceedings?
1. Should information from different sources be taken into account differently? For example, some information source bears more evidence and is more authenticated than others, though it may has less information. For example, the information on the social media is much more than the information left in the physical settings. But there are so many rumors on social media nowadays. How would the AI system take this into account?
ReplyDelete2. Computer technologies are constantly evolving. The latest version of software may not only improve its predecessors, but totally disrupt them. What if a new version of artificial intelligence technology proves its predecessors are wrong or buggy? How should the legal system cope with this scenario when taking advantage of the computer technologies?
3. Along with the second question, to what extent should the legal system depend on the computer technology, especially artificially intelligence? Computer gonna be (actually already is in many aspects) much more powerful than human minds. But computer also lack of emotion and common sense, which is quite important in judging a case. Sometimes, the conclusion drawn from a data point of view probably would conflict with our common sense. How should the legal system cope with this then?
1. Normally I would not comment on the structure of a paper, but Paul and Baron’s article is very, very heavily footnoted. In several cases the annotations nearly entirely eclipse the text of the article. Is this a backhanded comment by the authors about the weight of research that has to go into even the smallest statements by modern writers, and of the need for easier access to records to check citations? Could these annotations be presented more comfortably in an electronic format which could nest them until clicked on or moused over?
ReplyDelete2. One great problem facing the legal industry in this article is the inadvertent waiver of privilege. Paul and Baron discuss two proposed changes at the time of their writing. (38) The Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) did pass but is limited to select circumstances. What rules could be created to avoid inadvertent waiver which would not also prevent proper disclosure in documents which must be searched through automated electronic means?
3. The article suggests a useful “archetype scenario” for arrangement of discovery between parties (33-34) which involves collaboration over an agreed-upon list of keywords and timetables. This requires collaboration between opposing parties in a suit. Paul and Baron suggest that this is possible (34, note 134) but has it actually been successful? Is this simply going to lead to a new era of gamesmanship in evidence which can drag litigation out still further?
1. In their article, Paul and Baron discuss the fact that the number of electronic records is escalating to the point that the legal system will have to develop new search and review methods in order to keep up. As an example, they cite the “electronic record keeping system known as ‘ARMS’ “, which, “by the end of the Clinton administration [had preserved] over 32 million e-mails created or received by the Executive Office of the President” (11). While the merits of this system can be guessed, is it really necessary to preserve every email within the White House? Should employees have to give up privacy rights simply because they work there?
ReplyDelete2. Paul and Baron also discuss the “elastic”, ever-changing nature of language, referencing Ludwig Wittgenstein, and claim that language is its own ‘form of life’ (23). They support this claim by pointing out that people sometimes “make up words on the fly [and] . . . devise their own private languages for the context in their then current environment” (24). However, this just sounds to me like people are the “life form” and language is just a by-product of that life. Languages like Latin are said to be “dead” languages, but is it truly the language which has died, or just the people who used it? Can language really be considered to have its own life?
3. Further in the article, Paul and Baron describe the steps of the “’meet and confer’ negotiation cycle” (32-6). Of particular interest to me was the fact that even keywords allowable to use when searching documents have to be mutually agreed upon by both sides, and that these meetings have to continue if keywords are to be narrowed down even further. Paul and Baron discussed the future of the legal system in regards to information – do you think there will be more laws in the future which govern the search of electronic documents? How specific should these laws be and how much should a person’s privacy be protected?
I like that you brought up the issue of privacy in your first question. It seems to me that if employees are using their "work email" and are fully aware that their emails will be archived for posterity, they will treat email as a public space- much like social media. It would be very constricting to know that anything you may write to a coworker will be saved and possibly deconstructed and judged at a later date, though.
DeleteI think that there are few institutions in which every email should be archived. However, I believe the White House is one.
1. Paul and Baron argue for better technology to search through records during litigation. These new technologies will no doubt be more expensive than current keyword searching technologies. How will these new technologies be paid for? Should the courts put up the funds for better technologies to ensure important evidence isn’t missed? Or should law firms have to pay for the technology?
ReplyDelete2.This article reminded me of Cleveland’s article about manual workers being turned into information workers as the manual discovery searches are to be performed by better technology. Will the introduction of new technologies greatly affect the legal workforce?
3.This article argues that lawyers should become better at information retrieval. One thing that we learn in the legal information class here at the iSchool is that many lawyers can’t perform basic information searches in databases, or they choose to not do it and pass this work on to the law librarian. Will law schools adapt their programs to teach lawyers better technology skills to be able to perform these searches? Are there potential new jobs for information professionals to assist in information retrieval during the discovery process of this changing legal world?
I think your points in #3 are very important to discuss, and I found this entire article interesting in the way it asserts that collaborative information retrieval is the solution to the problem, primarily because law school works in the exact opposite way. Occasionally law schools will, in order to keep motivation and academic achievement high, kick the bottom 5%-10% of the class out of their programs each year, which leads to some serious difficulties for law librarians: some students will deface books, or cut pages with relevant information out of them, in order to be one of the few with the "right answer." With that, I think this collaborative approach is pretty revolutionary in such a competitive environment, and I think information retrieval professionals are going to be in high demand not only in law, but in other highly competitive arenas, such as marketing and competitive intelligence, partially because these professionals *haven't* learned how to collaborate and share information, since they've been taught it's against their interests.
DeleteThe book Information Architecture published by O'Reilly quotes Dean Dillon as saying that he is convinced we need information architecture but that he is not sure we need information architects. I agree with him except that specialists might be needed for irregular situations. In the same vein, should lawyers be required to learn how to search?
Delete1. It seems as if the author's main argument is that there is too much information, and not enough time for lawyers to sift through it all. At one point in the article, the authors state that, "what it means to be a lawyer will change rapidly in the years to come" (p. 3). I think that is a bit of an over-dramatization of the issue. I don't think that the legal profession will inherently change. I believe that lawyers need to acquire the skills to better retrieve information, or that the typical team of lawyers needs to expand to include a law librarian or research specialist, especially in cases where there is a large quantity of information that needs to be sorted. Should research in litigation be outsourced to people who know what they're doing so as to alleviate the perceived 'pressure' on lawyers?
ReplyDelete2. The authors give the article the title "Information Inflation: Can the Legal System Adapt". Through doing this, are they attempting to say that with the apparent glut of information, said information will eventually lose some of its value, just as money loses some of its purchasing power in an inflated economy? Can an overabundance of information lead to that information becoming less and less valuable? Or does it just become that much more difficult to find what you're looking for?
3. Conversely, if the authors are claiming that there is simply too much information, couldn't that be of benefit to lawyers? Yes, there is more information to sift through, but there are also more records, logs, databases, etc., which store information that could be relevant to a case. If searched and applied properly, the amount of information available should be of benefit to the legal profession. Maybe lawyers should take courses on how to better access information, or, as I suggested earlier, simply be more inclusive of and utilize more information specialists/librarians.
In regards to your question #2, I don't necessarily perceive information overload as information losing value, but I do appreciate your analogy to an inflated economy. It does cause one to question the reality of this. I found that the article, though, was emphasizing, as you suggest with your final question in that string of questions, that information becomes more difficult to sift through, therefore making it harder to find what you need. That's not to say a system cannot be developed, but rather that we need those in the profession need to collaborate to achieve their end needs. I'm not familiar with law, though, so this concept of collaboration between opposing councils seemed insane. Needless to say, regarding law at least, I feel like the relevant information will be retrievable regardless of the growing flux of information, it's just a matter of knowing how to effectively find it. It won't lose value, but rather become increasingly more difficult to search.
Delete1) Interesting questions are raised by the case example of the insurance company that maintained “an opaque data storage system” and then claimed that requests for data retrieval were an undue burden. (31) As search technology advances and makes it easier for opposing council to find potentially damaging information, it seems likely that corporations will attempt to protect their information by making their data-storage systems more “opaque.” Is there a way for the legal system to combat this potential abuse?
ReplyDelete2) One possible reason for the extreme proliferation of e-documents is the fact that workplace emails, in addition to replacing letters and memos, have also replaced verbal conversation to some degree—which means that an overwhelming number of intra-office emails are irrelevant chatter. The article discusses many means of weeding through information, but does not discuss the possibility of culling irrelevant information from the record. Is culling even feasible, given the possibility for abuse and the fact that relevant information may not appear to be relevant at first?
3) The article mentions that keyword-based searches are relied upon too heavily and are often insufficient (returning only 20% of relevant documents in one case). The solution suggested seems to be the gradual adoption of more advanced search techniques and the establishment of precedent in using them. I wondered if there might be ways to empirically evaluate the efficacy and accuracy of various search methods—perhaps by assembling “sample” data pools and testing which search techniques comb through them most efficiently—and if these empirical observations might be of use to the legal system in determining which search systems should and should not be used.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. On page 10, in this information epoch, now there is the equivalent of two thousand four-drawer file cabinets full of paper records, rather than there used to have one that of cabinet, all contained in a cubic foot or so in the form of electronically stored information. The author described this as a sea change. Is that means the more the better? It is true with information retrieval technology people can find their information more efficiently, will it still bring other irrelevant information to make things more complicated?
ReplyDelete2. On page 14, the author gave an example that Professor Cass posits that many of the department's internal documents are "Wikis"-- web pages that are highly secure but can be freely edited by anyone who has access to them. Did they preserve the older edition of former page? What if the new edition was wrong? Or if they preserved it, would it a huge waste of space?
3. On page 26, the author provides some information retrieval methods applying to the practice of law. There are two problems I think we should notice. First, people who use information retrieval to optimize the system should also be familiar with legal field. Second, we should update the system with the development of "new words or vocabularies.
1. On page 3, in the section labeled as [6], the authors write "... lawyers must embrace creative, technological approaches to grappling with knowledge management as information inflation continues apace." With this evolution of information having such an impact on the world of law, would future lawyers benefit from some level of cross-pollination with iSchools? While I can't make or feel a need to make an argument of the idea that law schools completely merge with the field of information science, wouldn't a good way to change the culture of a profession be with some outside influence as students?
ReplyDelete2. Page 12 states that in 2009, NARA predicted it would receive over one billion emails over the course of the next decade as permanently accessioned records of the government. If email is already proving to be such a beast to organize and search in an efficient manner, have they begun to even attempt to formulate a plan to deal with social media?
3. Page 26 provides support for my first question by stating "Next, lawyers must have a better understanding of information retrieval science, and the ways in which information can be searched." My question is, if we're discussing both the nature of information, and are grappling with technology have there not been more collaborative projects WITH scholars of law? We have law librarians, sure. But our other article by Eppler and Mengis mentioned the fields of marketing, accounting, organization, and management information, when everything in this article suggests lawyers are struggling with information overload just as badly, if not moreso (particularly when you take into account the right to a speedy trial).
1. After reading this article it sounds like Paul and Baron are just making a case for a law or case researcher whose sole job it is to find pertinent information for specific legal cases. The amount of information that is being stored currently is very large and I don't believe that the recording of this information is going to slow down in the near future. While I have no doubt that searching techniques and expertise will get better, the research skills required to find any and all information pertinent to a legal case seems like it would be too much for a lawyer to take on in addition to their other responsibilities.
ReplyDelete2. The management of knowledge that Paul and Baron is essentially the title of the research position that I mentioned in the previous question. The authors recognize that as inflationary period of information continues lawyers will need to continue to increase their knowledge and ability to deal with information management. If the sea of information is going to continue to increase it seems only sensible that lawyers delegate the responsibilities of information management to others specifically trained in this area of law.
3. The authors speak about cooperative behavior. They also point out that this cooperative behavior might exist of a previous relationship and a small amount of trust exists between the parties. This is something that I'd be interested in seeing if it would actually work. While the benefits of the cooperation is obvious, I find it hard to believe that opposing sides of a legal case would work together.
1. I have to say this paper itself is a perfect example to show how information overload undermined the acts of human beings and make them not in the mood of reading. So many footnotes dominated pages made me frustrated when I was reading the article because generally footnotes are not as important as authors' points. My question is the guys who are talking about dealing with information overload are creating overload, is this a strong evidence to support the hypothesis that side effects of information overload is an inevitable and unchangeable tendency?
ReplyDelete2. In the paper, the author talk a lot about the downside of information overload for the lawyers, especially in information retrieving and managing. However, It's weird for me to hear such a voice. In fact, As a information student who had been working in a great search engine company, I'm fully aware of how the information enhanced lives of all job types. Lawyers can gather more information than ever before litigation by which they could come closer to the fact than old days. In this point, could we say that information overload provides a new chance for lawyers to explore to things they want to know but are hard to know?
3. In this paper, the authors argue for better tech of information retrieval and more understanding of lawyers on collecting information due to information overload. However, I think the authors pointed out the destination while forgot to pave the road to it. Is it possible or necessary to build a system for lawyers to overcome information overload? Isn't information overload is an universal issue for all the jobs?
1. Paul and Baron repeatedly state that collaboration and cooperation are necessary in the discovery process, even mentioning goodwill and trust in Paragraph 56. This seems ideal as long as the defendant has nothing to hide. However, if the defendant is hiding something, wouldn't it be in his best interest to impede or mislead the search process?
ReplyDelete2. It seems that the authors are unclear about whether it is the lawyers that have limited search skills or whether the search technologies are inadequate. Paragraph 36 essentially states that lawyers need to use computers, not people to search databases. The Blair and Maron study indicates that the lawyers were inept in their search strategies. Is it the lawyers or the technology that they feel need to be brought up to speed?
3. The discussion of privilege was difficult to understand, especially Paragraph 59. What are privilege waivers and why would they force parties to forego attorney-client privilege?
1. George illustrate the information inflation with an example that nowadays probably close to 100 billion e-mail are sent daily. However, is it object to use the amount of email to measure the amount of information? As we know, a lot of trash of information is produced every day, and some of them has been filtered by email service provider.
ReplyDelete2.George mentions that the status quo for the legal profession is to use “keywords,” without more, to ferret out electronically-stored information in large corporate and institutional database. I learned from another class that the lawyer didn't use keyword searching before, so what are the limits?
3.The scenario author listed in this article is faced by any other industry area. Now, every industry has noticed the power of information, and try take advantage of it. They have to adopt new technology, understand new information structure. So what is the special aspect in legal system?
1. I really enjoyed this article, because it synthesized a lot of the macro issues that have been stewing in my mind since we started the class, especially regarding the similarities and correlations between what the authors call "information inflation" and some current theories in evolutionary biology - and even beyond that into philosophy generally, or even theology (insofar as it can even be separated from philsophy, which I'd argue is unnecessary). Specifically regarding cumulative systems, evolutionary (or, in this case, perhaps technological) "dead ends," and collaboration as an organizing principle (as opposed to - or even as another form of - competition, and/or the flip side of Darwinian natural selection pressures - OR "social Darwinism," which isn't really natural selection at all). I'll just stop here before I need a drink.
ReplyDelete2. The authors spend a great deal of time demonstrating that legal researchers can no longer manually review evidence (the math regarding Phillip Morris was really interesting), and this made me consider the relevance of this quandary for *all* information professions, or, really, all workers, and end users more generally. What do we do in the face of exponentially increasing information (a concept they briefly treat in point #12 on page 9). This is another point that brings me back to questions currently circulating in my metadata class, particularly regarding library and archives professionals' "buy-in" on new metadata theory and systems. How can we possible keep up? We can't. As they say here on page 3, "Have such tools been adequately tested or proven? No. But there is no choice but to shape new tools, and new processes for using them."
3. At the end, in "A View to the Future," on page 39, the authors declare, "No one knows if, or when, civilization's new inflationary period will end..." This are mega meta concepts, and I wonder if the answer has to be, "How can it?" I think it's important that we grapple with these questions so that we understand the stakes of what we're doing, despite our sometimes reticence about engaging with such philosophical queries and, ultimately, unanswerable problems. I now want to read some of the literature coming out of computer science, especially in bioinformatics.
1. Paul and Baron’s discussion of the changing landscape of the legal profession because of information overload made me think about the Evans article and how archives should transformation their current practices. If the abundance of documents and information are having such fundamental changes to these professions, how many other professions are considering or implementing dramatic change? If fundamental changes are happening in most professions, how does this flood of change affect our society as a whole, or just our daily lives? It seems to me that our lives could be dramatically affected by the decisions of a few professions and we may not be conscience of the change because of our ignorance to how the profession operated before.
ReplyDelete2. I liked the idea of information overload forcing adversaries to work together for their mutual interest, such as opposing counsels. Is information overload such a large problem that it has become our common enemy?
3. The amount of data discussed in this article was inconceivable to me. While we often hear of information overload and have anecdotal evidence from our lives, the thought of having a billion documents to review confounded me. If the amount of information is growing exponentially can we ever keep up? The article discusses ways the authors believe the legal profession can combat this issue, but even with programs that can automatically sort and organize documents for us, can we really keep up or are we just lying to ourselves? This also makes me view information professionals as needing to be increasingly diverse in knowledge and skill sets in order to help the wide-ranging number of professions and their unique facets adapt to the changing information landscape.
1. While reading about “search protocols” I couldn’t help but think of the potential for abuse by corporations or individuals who attempt to sidestep future discovery of emails by using "code words" to discuss certain issues within email and attachment documents. As the volume of information grows how can we be certain we know what we are looking for? Although this issue was stated, it didn’t seem to have any idea about how to increase retrieval beyond the 20% that was mentioned.
ReplyDelete2. I am curious if there is standard protocol when dealing with archives of emails and other documents within private and government circles? It would seem to be an incredibly labor-intensive task if lawyers and assistants are forced to deal with decades of accumulated file formats all created on different and outdated operating platforms. They mention in the article that meetings are made to discuss legacy media issues but at what point would it be considered burdensome to both parties?
3. I am wondering about the possibility for trade secret leakage during the litigation process as a result of an increase in the amount of information that Paul and Baron are proposing? How can a corporation possibly give more access to information while still protecting internal assets? This would seem to be a major issue
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The author points out that there must be a change in the culture among litigation lawyers. The culture has been followed for 30 years consistently. Is it possible to instigate a change in such a long standing tradition?
ReplyDelete2. As one of the solutions to information inflation, the author points out that the litigators must be far more collaborative than they have been in the past. If that happens, and there arises contradicting ideas, how can we ensure that the collaboration will result in a positive change?
3. The author discusses about the ending of the inflation period. If information is infinite, I highly doubt if there will be an end or leveling off. And in this case, if computer power in the form of human intelligence can surpass the capacity of human mind, how can knowledge management be achieved, given that knowledge is a human phenomenon?
1. This article is the most interesting one that I have ever read. It has 41 pages, but almost half of this article is footnotes. I was so surprised when I found this. I mean this article is a good example to represent what the ‘information inflation’ is. However, ironically, the author wants to find a way to solve the problem of information overload. So could the problem really be solved?
ReplyDelete2. The author mentions that technology, such as ‘digitization; e-mail; the World Wide Web…’ (p6), has ‘swirled into an information complex…’ (p7). To some degree, it is right. For example, in the new Gmail in-box, there is an assortment of folders for different types of emails, including a main in-box, one for social networking and one for e-commerce promotions. It seems that can help me manage my emails. However, some junk emails which would have been in spam box, such as advertising, now are in the e-commerce promotions inbox. So I think the new Gmail causes the information overload. What do you think?
3. The author says ‘lawyers must have a better understanding of information retrieval science, and the ways in which information can be searched.’(p26) But I think today’s information retrieval technology is not good enough to help people deal with information overload. Sometimes, we cannot find what we want after retrieve or we need to filter the retrieval results further to get our expectations.
1. Is the recent evolution in writing the only reason of information inflation? I prefer a more comprehensive opinion that the evolution of creating, storing, and organizing information, as well as the development of modifying and searching information caused the information inflation. The author mentioned some technologies in the article, such as digitization, e-mail and World Wide Web. In my view, they are not only writing technology but also technology that involves information management and information sharing,
ReplyDelete2. Although human beings can instantaneously write to millions, people's reaction speed is increasing and the way people processing information become more and more efficient. We usually have purposes when search or reading information records (such as e-mail records). No matter we face how large in quantity of information, we could find what we want before browsing all of them. Just like when we search a recipe in a search engine, it is fine to have too many feedbacks because they are similar. Thus, we will never use $2 billion to read the e-mail record.
3. Since lawyers only played the roles to perform “searches”, it is absolutely important for them to develop skills for appropriate ”keyword”, but not necessary to learn too many search methods and even concepts (such as “recall” and “precision”). In my opinion, it is those information engineers’ work to develop a better search engine and build information recommending system to help lawyers find the information they want. Instead, these lawyers might need to learn how to use those systems and tools in a more efficient way.
The article makes the case for cooperation between those involved on both sides of a legal dispute(17). Presently should a defendant request it, the prosecution must disclose a long list of relevant information as it pertains to a case. In the event that evidence is not shared, there is a chance of misconduct. Even with the advent of Rule 16(f) and the requirement for a consensus, it still seems like its a murky area with the vast amounts of available information would it be possible to prevent misconduct? Or would courts have to make allowances for missed nuggets of information?
ReplyDeleteThe Treppel v. Biovail case involved the court issuing its own search search terms to be used in discovery. Do the “court ordered “search protocols””(20) also include which search methods or information retrieval systems are utilized? If so, is there a system in place for judges to maintain a current understanding of retrieval concepts?
In that same vein, the article mentions being able to “reliably evaluate or “benchmark” competing solutions”(26) in regards to information retrieval. Would every trial involving these large amounts of information need to sift through each kind of different information retrieval method at any given moment? And would only control tested methods be valid?
1. Paul and Baron said that NARA “expects to receive over one billion emails over the course of the next decade as permanently accessioned records of the government” (12). Along with NARA, billions of emails are sent by other companies as well. I’m wondering, when do we or other companies decide when to finally throw something away permanently? At what point does a record finally become useless and why is it that we seem to hoard so much information “just in case”?
ReplyDelete2. Since this article is dealing with the legal system, I wonder if the internet and all its vast resources have made it easier for lawyers to request information or if they have as much trouble as other information-heavy fields do wading through all the information inflation and overload?
3. On page 37, point 61 talks about the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007. “The ACPPA would prohibit the government from forcing organizations into: (1) disclosing information protected by the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine; (2) refusing to contribute to the legal defense of an employee; (3) refusing to enter into a joint defense strategy with an employee…” I don’t know much about law, but how would the ACPPA be affected by or affect the act of a subpoena?
1. On page 4, the author indicates that there has been only one transformative advance in the original writing technology--the movable type printing press. However, it is obvious that the rate of information inflating is much faster than before. So, my question is what else factors are influencing the information inflation rate, except the printing technology?
ReplyDelete2. In [38], it is mentioned that "Inflation causes both an outward expansion of the quantity of information, and reveals a dynamic of innovation-of relentless diversity of new form." To what kinds of innovations does the author refer here?
3. From this article, we have learned the necessity of building or improving a legal system to meet the inforamtion inflation.And also, the author introduces many new approaches to have a more structural system to enhance the retrieval efficiency.However, he does not analyze the practicability and cost of these methods. Would lawyers be willing to spend valuable time and energy establishing this legal system?
1. So far from what we have read, collaboration is the key to dealing with information overload. Both the Eppler and Paul/Baron articles suggest using the countermeasure of collaboration in order to avoid becoming buried in the quantity of information that one must go through in order to have full access and understanding of the topic information. Usually when subject areas get too large there is room for specialization within the topic area. But we are now seeing a push from specialization to generalization?
ReplyDelete2. When discussing information seeking behaviors, users tend to change their query as they move through search results. The search results themselves can lead to new discoveries, keywords or ways of thinking about the topic, so many users berrypick through search queries and results. But Paul/Baron suggest that lawyers need to confine their search terms, methods and locations prior to starting. This seems very counter-intuitive from what we have already learned about how non-librarians or professional researchers search for information. They clearly site that lawyers currently are not expected to have this skill set, and that it is too much in addition to their required knowledge base. So why do Paul/Baron still expect them to be skilled researchers?
3. "Clearly, parties will need to act in a more sophisticated and transparent fashion to disclose electronically stored information in their possession" p.21 With this in mind, many local, state and federal agencies are limiting what and how long they keep information, particularly electronic correspondence. Is the essence of discovery retained here? One would have to know quickly what was being discussed in order to make a request for open records and obtain that information and correspondence. Are governments starting to violate their ethics of discovery? Are we purposely moving to a policy of not retaining information so that it cannot be discovered?
1. In this article the authors are discussing the problems that the legal profession faces due to the new forms of information that are overwhelming legal researchers and some methods for dealing with this problem. In the Evans article the author suggests that one method for dealing with an influx of too much data is to use crowdsourcing to help manage large amounts of data. Would a crowdsourcing effort like the one the Evans suggests be workable in the legal context? Would it help with the massive amounts of data that lawyers have to deal with or would it hurt them?
ReplyDelete2. One of the methods for dealing with massive amounts of possible digital evidence that the authors suggest is to use sampling. Sampling would be used to determine if a very large database had any data relevant to the case. Is it safe to assume that a sample of data from such a database is a reliable example of the contents of that database when one single document could make all the difference in a court case?
3. One of the major assumptions that the authors make is that even in an adversarial system such as the legal system that because cooperation is the best method logically that all parties will cooperate. This is not always the case though because it is a lawyer’s duty to defend their client and many of them would cheat if they could to do so. How would you go about modifying the authors’ methods to minimize a lawyer’s ability to cheat and hide a document or documents?
1. I understand the authors call for a change in the law profession, and particularly how litigation is approached and performed. Ultimately, however, their argument leaves me wondering--does becoming more collaborative really necessitate the increased use of computer technology? Can this more collaborative ideal be achieved in any other fashion?
ReplyDelete2. I found the idea behind the search methodology/philosophy discussion a little paradoxical (p. 23-5). With the increased demand for information (and feeling entitled to have it), it becomes easy to believe that the more specific one is with the query, the better the yield of relevant information. With that, all relevant/important material is expected to become available since one took the time to carefully and thoughtfully conduct the initial search. I agree with the authors that it's wise and in good practice to be more open and creative when searching for information, however I'm not sure how widely accepted that is--and what it would take to prove that true to someone who may think otherwise.
3. If the amount of information/documents produced by conducting litigation work is so large and problematic--has a way to generate less been considered? If is this an accepted and unchanging aspect of the profession, as it was developing, shouldn't a method to effectively work with it have been created? This conversation about managing the increased volume of documentation (as the profession and work continues to evolve) seems a little delayed to me.
1. On page 24, the author writes that “in searches of larger data collections, some consideration should be given to employing “fuzzy” search logic in connection with any search technique to be employed, including keywords”. The article seems to be addressing ways in which litigators should account for information overload and how they should search in order to bring back best results while sifting through the mass of information. That being said, I’m not sure how this concept of “fuzzy” search logic fits in to the end goal, or exactly what is meant by “fuzzy” search logic.
ReplyDelete2. The author suggests that “the volume and forms implicated in e-discovery require new strategies if there is any hope of accomplishing the task of finding responsive information in finite time periods (15)”. Obviously, then, this is a field where information overload, or inflation, has a very direct effect. Even by making changes, though, do you believe that inevitably the process of law will change or is it adaptable, just a manner of doing those things which the author suggests, such as emphasizing collaboration?
It is sad that lawyers are foiled by scale, access, and search methodology even though they have money and people to perform the search, while consumers also have a hard time identifying relevant information in their own computer hard drives and servers even though they created the content. Neither the content seekers or creators know how to find the content.
ReplyDeleteHow did the establishment of mega-firms create new problems in the discovery process?
ReplyDelete1. After reading Paul and Baron’s article, I cannot help thinking that there might be a place for MSIS candidates such as ourselves in law firms. How do ischool students and law students, information professionals and lawyers currently interact? Is there some sort of cross-pollinated profession that might benefit lawyers grappling with information overload?
ReplyDelete2. Paul and Baron did an excellent job of describing the inconceivable amounts of data lawyers and government officials must wade through. Can the beast of information ever truly be tamed?
1. Because of the emergence of the “Information Ecosystem,” the authors describe writing these days as “akin to a new ‘form of life.’” (pg 7) What does that mean, exactly? Does it seem an accurate description for writing in the digital age?
ReplyDelete2. The authors propose that lawyers will have to become familiar with methods and concepts drawn from computer and information science in order to evaluate what search techniques to employ. How reasonable is this proposal? Will it prove easier to teach information retrieval to other professions or rather to, perhaps, contract with something like an information-retrieval specialist? Just curious as to whether info overflow will lead to more generalists or specialists in the future.
3. In this article it is a given that the amount of information in the world is just going to continue to pile up (or, more specifically, that certain organizations like the White House will save all written communications), but I wonder if one day this will have to be reconsidered. The authors propose only responses to the problem of amassing data, but maybe we will also develop ways or technologies for discarding some information? Possible/Impossible?
1. I found it strange that an article about information retrieval in a legal setting never once mentioned legal librarianship. Given the constantly growing corpus of information, wouldn't this particular branch of the information field be especially necessary and important?
ReplyDelete2. What might a future look like in which schools of law and information had significant overlap in materials/student populations? Should we be training new lawyers (and jurists) as information professionals?
3. One thing that kept coming to mind in reading about retrieving information from email and the like--as we come to better understand this explosion of information, and as we continue to utilize technology like email and instant messaging, might it be beneficial to develop applications or other technologies that better organize the information products we create?