Re: [privacy] TorrentSpy Ruling a 'Weapon of Mass Discovery'

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 6/14/07, Fergie <fergdawg () netzero net> wrote:
> If allowed to stand, the groundbreaking ruling may mean that anyone
> defending themselves in a civil suit could be required to turn over
> information in their computer's RAM hardware, which could force companies
> and individuals to store vast amounts of data, say technology experts.

I have heard other experts say that most likely you will have to turn
over evidence on if the court orders you to start collecting it, or
someone goes to seize your computer.

This came out of torrentspy saying to the judge "we dont have our
customers IP's because we dont store them". This bit them in the butt
because, as the prosecution pointed out: they do store them, if only
temporarily, in RAM.

It sounds to me that the defense was trying to play smart with loose
terminology, and it came back to haunt them (and now, most likely us)
also in the butt. If they had stated "we dont _log_ IP addresses" this
might have gone down a different path. (I.e.: Judge do the correct
thing _technically_ and order them to enable logging)

Moral of this story: Pick your words (and friends noses) carefully
when treading on new ground in court. You never know how the judge is
going to misinterpret your arguments. If you make an argument, be
prepared to lose the least amount of ground when it is overruled.

-JP<the often wrong>
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy