With the continuous growth of unstructured data in the business environment, taking decisions to archive and delete content of business or legal value is a challenge. You can simplify data management decisions by categorizing and organizing data based on classification policies.
If your company has the Veritas Information Classifier service enabled, the service can apply classification tags to Enterprise Vault.cloud's incoming emails that match the enabled policies in the Veritas Information Classifier. Advanced eDiscovery users can then search for the emails that are tagged with the classification tags, during investigations and eDiscovery.
Administrators with the classification administrator role can access the Veritas Information Classifier from Archive Administration, to enable the policies that your organization wants to use. Each policy specifies the conditions that an email must meet to be assigned one or more related classification tags. The built-in policies address many of the regulatory requirements and corporate standards for which you may want to classify emails.
For example, you can help meet privacy regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), through the policies that detect personally identifiable information. The Personally Identifiable Information (PII) policies look for content like credit card numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, passport numbers, and driver's license numbers. When an email that is incoming to Enterprise Vault.cloud matches the criteria for the policy, the associated PII classification tag is assigned in the email header. Advanced eDiscovery reviewers can search for emails with the assigned PII tag. In this way, classification can help to reduce the number of emails to review as part of meeting your organization's regulatory requirements.
For information on how to configure classification policies and classification tags, see the help that is provided with the Veritas Information Classifier.
For information on working with the emails that contain classification tags, see the Advanced eDiscovery User Guide.
A jury on Thursday ruled against Project Veritas in a federal civil case over the methods used by the conservative group in a sting operation targeting a Democratic political consulting firm. Democracy Partners was awarded $120,000 in damages after the jury found that Project Veritas had violated wiretapping laws and fraudulently misrepresented itself. The group and its founder, James O’Keefe, had argued that its operatives were journalists engaged in legitimate news gathering. But the jury found that an operation carried out by a former employee, Allison Maass, “breached a fiduciary duty” after she secured an internship at Democracy Partners under false pretenses. Using secret recordings and other materials, Project Veritas then released videos which Democracy Partners said were designed to embarrass Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump’s election chances.
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
A far-right activist group known for its flimsy ethics must pay $120,000 to a Democratic consulting firm after it lost a lawsuit over wiretapping and misrepresentation.
On Thursday, a federal jury in Washington found Project Veritas liable for targeting Democracy Partners, Reuters reported. The group is known for engaging in hidden recordings and other deceptive “sting operation” like tactics.
Democracy Partners said in its suit that a Project Veritas operative named Allison Maass infiltrated the firm during the 2016 presidential campaign by lying about her name and background to get an internship. While working there, Maass secretly recorded video and audio of Democracy Partners members to embarrass the firm, according to the complaint.
Democracy Partners, along with co-founder Robert Creamer, said Project Veritas used “heavily edited” footage in videos that falsely suggested the Democratic firm conspired to incite violence and schemed to promote voter fraud.
The firm said in a statement that the jury verdict will help discourage Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe “and others from conducting these kind of political spy operations ― and publishing selectively edited, misleading videos,” according to Reuters.
Project Veritas lost a separate legal battle in March after a federal judge tossed out a defamation lawsuit it filed against CNN.
O’Keefe said in a statement that Project Veritas plans to appeal Thursday’s verdict.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.
Project Veritas, the conservative “investigative journalism” outlet known for shoving hidden cameras anywhere they can fit them, reportedly violated wiretapping laws.
That’s according to a ruling in a federal civil case this week where jurors determined Project Veritas operatives fraudulently misrepresented themselves when conducting one of their so-called investigations into a Democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners. The jury awarded the consulting firm $US120,000 ($166,584).
The alleged sting operation dates back to 2016 when Project Veritas operative Allison Maass reportedly released secret recordings depicting, in Veritas’ presumed mind, evidence of efforts by Democracy Partners to incite violence at Trump rallies. A lawyer representing Democracy Partners adamantly denied that view, according to Politico, and claimed the consulting firm lost organising contacts following the release of the surreptitious recordings.
Maas reportedly joined Democracy Partners as part of an unpaid internship using a fake name and a fabricated resume. That act of subterfuge, according to the jury, “amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation,” according to Politico.
“Hopefully, the decision today will help discourage Mr. O’Keefe and other from conducting these kinds of political spy operations — and publishing selectively edited, misleading videos in the future,” Democracy Partners said in a statement.
James O’Keefe, the group’s founder, said they would appeal the jury’s decision on his YouTube channel. In his statement, O’Keefe argued the ruling could have meaningful implications for investigative journalism broadly and could restrict the ways reporters gather information on their subjects.
“This case is not about whether you ‘like’ Project Veritas [or] Project Veritas’ actions or methods,” O’Keefe said. “Today we mourn the loss of an important journalistic independence. The idea journalists should be free to investigate who they deem appropriate in the legal manner in which they deem appropriate.”
This isn’t Project Veritas’ first brush up with law enforcement. Late last year FBI agents working with federal prosecutors reportedly searched two locations linked to Project Veritas and its leader. Those searches were reportedly tied to the ways the organisation obtained and leaked the private diary of Joe Biden’s daughter in the months leading up to the 2020 presidential election. Ironically, the raids were condemned by many of the very same civil liberties groups and news organisations Project Veritas has spent years trying to catch with their pants down. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and even The New York Times editorial board all released statements opposing the actions.
Undercover journalism as a concept dates back centuries and has led to consequential, society-level changes. While veteran undercover reports often work with imperfect, but nevertheless strict ethical and moral guidelines concerning representation and honesty, Project Veritas has a storied track record of throwing those traditional journalists’ concerns out the window all in the name of owning the libs.
A jury has awarded $120,000 to a Democratic political strategist targeted in a 2016 Project Veritas sting exposing the group’s campaign tactics, prompting the guerrilla journalism outfit to announce it will appeal.
The jury found Thursday that Project Veritas violated federal and Washington, D.C., wiretapping laws and fraudulently misrepresented itself during an undercover operation in which an investigator used a false name and biography to obtain an unpaid internship with Democracy Partners.
Robert Creamer, co-founder of Democracy Partners and owner of Strategic Consulting Group, thanked the jury for its decision. All three were named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
“Hopefully, the decision today will help to discourage Mr. O’Keefe and others from conducting these kinds of political spy operations – and publishing selectively edited, misleading videos in the future,” he said in a statement.
The weeklong trial was closely watched for its implications on undercover newsgathering, a practice with a storied 150-year history that has increasingly fallen out of favor with mainstream outlets over concerns about using deception to find the truth.
Mr. O’Keefe, who has feuded with the media establishment over tactics since founding Project Veritas in 2011, characterized the verdict as a defeat for journalism and the First Amendment.
“The jury effectively ruled investigative journalists owe a fiduciary duty to the subjects they are investigating and that investigative journalists may not deceive the subjects they are investigating,” said Mr. O’Keefe. “Journalism is on trial, and Project Veritas will continue to fight for every journalist’s right to news-gather, investigate, and expose wrongdoing – regardless of how powerful the investigated party may be. Project Veritas will not be intimidated.”
Mr. Creamer sought more than $1 million in damages after explosive hidden-camera footage released in October 2016 showed Democratic strategists discussing voter fraud and planting paid agitators at Trump campaign events.
Mr. Creamer, who is married to Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the Hillary Clinton campaign, while strategist Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director for Americans United for Change.
Project Veritas investigator Daniel Sandini, posing as fictitious Democratic donor “Charles Roth,” told Mr. Creamer that he had a niece named “Angela Brandt” who wanted to volunteer for campaign work while on break from college.
In reality, “Angela Brandt” was Allison Maass, who used a hidden recording device to gain information about Democracy Partners and Strategic Consulting Group, a member of Democracy Partners owned by Mr. Creamer, that subcontracted with a contractor for the Democratic National Committee.
Mr. Creamer said he lost contracts after the undercover footage showed operatives discussing voter fraud and describing how they used paid agitators to provoke Trump supporters outside campaign rallies to gain media coverage, a practice known as “bracketing.”
The jury ruled in favor of Project Veritas on a claim of violating federal and Washington, D.C., wiretapping laws because the investigator “was a participant in all conversations she recorded,” said Project Veritas.
“The verdict represents a setback in journalistic integrity — effectively allowing subjects to dictate the way in which a journalist gathers and reports the news. Project Veritas will appeal,” said the organization.
Project Veritas also said that it has “continually refused to settle the case as it has done nothing wrong.”
The case was heard in the Perryman federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.
Veritas Enterprise Vault.cloud™ is a cloud-based archiving service that lets your organization store, manage, supervise, and discover all of your business-critical communications. Once your organization enables the service, it can journal a copy of all the messages that are sent and received within your organization to Enterprise Vault.cloud.
Archive Administration is a web-hosted interface that enables administrators to configure and manage Enterprise Vault.cloud and perform the following tasks:
Provision and manage Enterprise Vault.cloud archive accounts.
Configure and manage the archiving of content sources.
Assign and manage user roles.
Manage archiving options and policies.
Manage retention policies and tags.
Configure classification for all content that meets the enabled classification policies.
Manage the Email Continuity option.
Generate usage reports.
Recent updates to Archive Administration include the following enhancements:
With the Import Data feature in Enterprise Vault.cloud Archive Administration, you can import legacy email into the archive. Every company has existing emails, whether located in the active user mailboxes, personal stores, document management systems, or other communication libraries. You can consolidate some or all of these legacy email sources into your archive.
Delegates can now view the mailbox folder structure. Administrators can control whether the delegates can view the mailbox folder structure using Manage.
Administrators can manage account provisioning remotely. You can sync users from either Exchange Online or CloudLink. If users exist in only one environment, their archives will not be overwritten or removed when they are synchronized by either Exchange Online or CloudLink.
Administrators can configure the Privilege Delete archive options and determine whether Discovery Administrator is enabled to delete emails in Advanced eDiscovery permanently.
With the enhancements in the built-in administrator roles, you cannot edit the System administrator role's permissions. Only the Share Export, obtain Export, and Privilege Delete permissions can be edited for the Discovery Administrator role.
With the enhancements in reports, administrators can now create a Advanced eDiscovery Report and a Mail Reassignment status report. The 7-Day Rolling Attachment Summary and 7-Day Rolling by User report are no longer available. The Messaging Report now shows charts for the Number of emails imported and the Size of emails imported and contains a Summary for the selected period.
The passwords must be minimum of 8 characters long for enhanced security instead of the earlier policy of 6 characters long passwords.
Office 365 Sync provisioning has been enhanced to include more options, such asand .
Information about the changes that were included with earlier releases of Archive Administration is provided elsewhere in this help.
For full details of all the updates in each release of the Enterprise Vault.cloud service suite, see the Enterprise Vault.cloud release notes.