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

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

On 6/17/07, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:43:39 EDT, Dude VanWinkle said:
>
> > 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.
>
> The obvious response is to go out and get a bus analyser, and hook it up,
> and give them the contents of RAM.  Every load. Every store.  Sure, it may
> require handing over several terabytes per day if you have a nice meaty
> CPU (4 3Ghz Xeons, or similar).
>
> Oh. They wanted *only* logging? Well, they should have *asked* for that then.
>
> :)


good tactic V,  :-)

although something tells me giving the RIAA/MPAA the entire contents
of your RAM might bite you in the pants down the road (what does THIS
email say...)

One could also argue that if the MPAA/RIAA wants it, you are
eventually going to have to hand it over (after they buy the judge a
new condo in florida).

Still I think that passing "too much data" to a _lawyer_ would be
something I would pay to see. Considering the size of relevant legal
material compiled for any case, It would be nice to see you deliver
the 2TB of data printed out on paper and hauled in on 23 Tractor
Trailers to the courthouse :-)

It would _almost_ be worth the small forest you would have to bulldoze
to make the paper

-JP<who enjoyed the fact that the gmail reply options appropriately
turned Valdis' :) into a >:) way too much>
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy