Protecting Against Intentional
Electromagnetic Interference
Perhaps the most significant piece of legislation impacting data governance is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 802 of this act defines penalties for altering or deleting important business data and documents. Additionally, this legislation supports the records preservation rule defined in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Rule 240.17a-4).The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Rule 240.17a-4) states that electronic storage media must preserve records in a non-rewritable, non-erasable format. Sarbanes-Oxley requires organizations to implement a robust data retention solution, but it is not the only legislation driving data retention requirements. According to research conducted by Enterprise Strategy Group - in its report titled “Digital Archiving: End-User Survey & Market Forecast 2006-2010” - digital archive capacity will increase nearly tenfold between 2005 and 2010. Total worldwide digital archive capacity in the commercial and government sectors will grow from about 2500 petabytes in 2005 to more than 27,000 petabytes by 2010. And they state that the major factors driving this growth will be regulatory compliance, corporate governance, litigation support, records management, and data management initiatives. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), in its publication of NFPA Standard 1600 – Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs (2007), Annex A, identifies Intentional EMP as a hazard that should be considered in any comprehensive risk assessment for Business Continuity Programs.
Emprimus • 1660 S Hwy 100, Suite 130 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 |