What is Digg?279 Comments
- waza8501, on 10/11/2007, -8/+742WTF
- buddyw, on 10/11/2007, -6/+400I say we just send them the ram and let them figure out how 'volatile' their request is.
- psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -7/+328Your honor, I present our evidence, a 20 ft stack of papers full of 0's and 1's.
I can see this going really when. Judges should be requires to at least remotely grasp a concept before they do something so stupid. This would get infinitely expensive, and extremely impractical. - chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -12/+318Exhibit A: 010000001110010011101010111001101101000011010010110111001100110100011100100110111101101111011011010010000
- psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -7/+306That should pretty much sum 90% of the replies.
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -5/+215Another case of a Judge ruling on things they really have no technical understanding of...
- kent1146, on 10/11/2007, -15/+224Exhibit B: 09f911029d75e35bd84156c5635688c0
But then again, it's a number like Exhibit B that caused this retarded ruling to come into existence in the first place. - kahlessreborn, on 10/11/2007, -8/+200What the problem with handing in your RAM is the Judge wants it, its volatile memory anyway. The minute they pull it to hand it in any evidence stored on it is gone. Its government sanctioned destroying of evidence : )
- Easty, on 10/11/2007, -7/+180The judge only wants it so he can pimp his mad overclocked l33t rig.
- zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -7/+173So this means turning off your computer is destroying evidence? So much for saving electricity...
- roachcoach2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+162Can you imagine the comedy at the court though?
100 dump trucks full of paper turn up.
Judge goes nuts, asks what it is, is told its "ram logs" for an 2 hours worth of server time. Ask where she wants the rest :o)
And if I was torrentspy I would, right now install those little background cancer crunching/DNA sequencer programs and tell them to use all available RAM when possible.
Then hand those astronomically big logs over and laugh.
Of course, lest we ignore the "little" players in this - its not just ISP's ooooh no every office with a PC on it will presumably fall under this.
This is comedy gold. - jtrost, on 10/11/2007, -5/+152RAM is most comparable to a marker board. Would a judge force people to keep records of EVERYTHING they ever wrote on a marker board? If there is anyone with common sense in our judicial system this will be successfully appealed.
- adgreene, on 10/11/2007, -7/+128Dear Judge,
You are dumb.
Sincerely,
Digg - troglodytejb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+92Can someone explain this to me? I'm not even sure how it would be possible to log 100% of RAM data traffic. Consider: writing to RAM is far faster than writing to HDD. Logging RAM would have to be done by writing to the HDD, probably as data is written to the RAM. It seems like you'd never, ever catch up, and in addition you'd run your drives into the ground...
Can anyone shed some light on how a RAM logging process might work? This ruling is asinine either way, but I can't see it even being technically POSSIBLE! - MetalUnderShock, on 10/11/2007, -10/+94Then again our senate believes the internet is run through a series of tubes. (Thanks Stevens) This isn't all that unexpected.
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/11/2007, -6/+88New title: US Judge doesn't know ***** about what he's ruling on.
This ***** happens way too often. - shifty2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+83i read the title, clicked the link and was surprised that it didnt take me to theonion.com or bbspot.com
now, im cleaning up the blood that shot out of my ears from an explosive aneurysm after reading the article - erikerikerik, on 10/11/2007, -10/+88well, a few solutions.
a) Pop out the RAM and hand over a uncharged stick of ram.
"Their you go, 1 Document (stick) of useless ram."
b)Keep all of the dump stacks and chop down a large forest to print all of the information on.
c)Upgrade to LongHorn server and chop down an even larger forest to part all of the information on.
==================
On another note, I would consider ram to be where 'thinking' goes on. not 'storing' of information. but who knows. maybe my middle school teacher was wrong. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+74This judge thinks she's being cool and edgy. In reality she's talking out of her ass. It's 100% undoable; it'd take us all back to the era of computers using tape and reel.
Once someone explains to her the concept of a gigabyte, hopefully she'll understand what she's ruling. Meanwhile, don't expect this one to hold up for a millisecond in a higher court. This "Weapon of Mass Discovery" is a dud.
[I'm sure the [MP|RI]AA lawyers all have smug looks on their faces now, just wait until they realize the ruling means they have to store every bit that flips in RAM on paper too. Then they'll be rushing to the courtroom to get things overturned]. - gutistg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+68Call her and leave a message saying:
01010111011010000110000101110100001000000110000101110010011001010010000001111001
01101111011101010010000001100111011011110110100101101110011001110010000001110100
01101111001000000110010001101111001000000111011101101001011101000110100000100000
01100001011011000110110000100000011011110110011000100000011101000110100001100001
01110100001000000110100101101110011001100110111101110010011011010110000101110100
01101001011011110110111000111111 - bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -6/+69Sequestering RAM as evidence of a computer transaction makes as much sense as sequestering a bottle of air as evidence of a verbal conversation.
The real fun comes when a judge orders the review of RAM contents! - cactus476, on 10/11/2007, -4/+55So if someone knocked out a power line that was running the server, would they be charged with tampering with evidence?
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54this is utterly retarded. the judge's ruling is equivalent to ordering individuals to write down or otherwise record every insignificant detail in their lives or anything that crosses their senses just because these parcels of information temporarily pass through their short-term memory although 99.99% of it is instantly discarded. it's not only incredibly impractical, but it would also break privacy policies such as which Google has just recently enacted to ensure sensitive user info isn't permanently stored.
as a web developer this is really disconcerting to me. as an insurance and privacy policy, the online store that i developed for our company does not store users' credit card information to reduce the risk to users, particularly of identity theft, in the case of a server break-in. this ruling, however, would require that all that information be permanently stored since anything that the store processes passes through the RAM at some point. so if someone shops online regularly, not only will their shopping habits be permanently recorded wherever they shop, but their full credit card info would be forever stored at hundreds of different online servers. who in their right mind would ever shop online if this is the case in the future? even if an online store has an SSL certificate and you trust their security policies, having your credit card information be permanently stored for every single transaction you make on hundreds of different servers is terribly dangerous. - mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -5/+51Call and tell her how you feel! (Found at http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2365671_1?noconfirm=0)
(213) 894-2921 - himey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+51But the program needed to write the log files would use & change RAM....Which would have to be written to the log....Which changes the RAM....Which has to be written to the log.....etc....
A server doing nothing else but just logging the contents of RAM would produce mountains of log files. - PaulOwen, on 10/11/2007, -6/+50I'm sorry to say that here in the UK we have even stupider judges ...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007220614,00.html - HondaWang, on 10/11/2007, -7/+50This is why we shouldn't have technologically retarded people deal with tech-related issues. It's the equivalent of Ted Stevens running the internet, which he is.
- sizzzzlerz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44I just put in a order for some Weyerhauser Paper company stock. This could make me frickin' rich!
- akeema, on 10/11/2007, -4/+42Oh crap, you got me. let me power down this machine and give you the RAM. Let me know what you find ok!
- Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43@erikerikerik (#7206944)
And when you say print, you aren't kidding. Lawyers and courts want everything printed on paper. Electronic documents will not suffice. - Beaver6813, on 10/11/2007, -7/+44@buddyw
I agree, they should just be sent the RAM straight outta the computer they're asking about and let them see how much use it is then. - Minkoff, on 10/11/2007, -6/+42RAM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
- sekhui, on 10/11/2007, -7/+42what a dumb bitch.
- jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36This article and the description is totally misleading. The judge did *not* say that TorrentSpy has to somehow record everything in RAM, or that other companies have to start recording information.
The judge only said that in this case, TorrentSpy has to enable the website logging features in Microsoft IIS, and then produce those logs. Nothing more.
The judge also allows the defendants to hash or encrypt the IP data, and specifically *prohibits* the plaintiffs from using this information to identify the individual users of TorrentSpy.
Here's the opinion. Please read it. The judge is actually quite sophisticated about the technical issues.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2007/Torrentspy.pdf - bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -7/+37i was thinking a similar notion... run prime95 all day long, then when you have 3 forests worth of printed RAM logs, all you have is the binary equivalent of very large numbers, their factors, and a judge whose head is then hurting.
- cbdgr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31ok, let me just unplug my computer and put in the ups
- akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32We need a ruling that this judge needs to document everything she ever thinks while deciding a verdict. It's only fair to have all the information that she considered inside her head put onto paper rather than just handing down a paraphrased ruling.
I guess a few hundred pages with DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH written on them wouldn't be very useful either though. - smergs, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31This story just made my day. I love stupid people. They make me laugh.
- aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -7/+31What's the problem. If the feds wanted by ram, I would gladly open the case, pull it out, and give it to them.
- ChromaVita, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28You should have invested in Dunder-Mifflin
- darthbob, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28So how are they going to access a volatile memory source?
- b0wl0fud0n, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27Here's some contact info from http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/
Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian Magistrate Judge 20, 3rd Floor Los Angeles - Spring Street
Court clerk: Nancy Hackney
Telephone (court clerk):213-894-2921 - No1nose, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Now the government will mandate a 2nd/3rd power supply connected to internal/external battery backup just to maintain the RAM for these cases.
- Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22I can't wait until someone demands that he read and review every page of the evidence.
- CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19I'd just send the RAM to the judge via the tubes.
- MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18Hit CTRL + ALT + DEL and it's contempt of court
- circeus, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21Just more proof of why judges and lawmakers should be required to take a freshman level introduction to computer science course.
- jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13"If they have to archive everything that goes through the RAM, computers would get 95% slower"
They DON'T have to archive "everything that goes through the RAM." They only have to turn on the server logs. Read the judge's opinion. - jacobsor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15@ KnightWhoSaysNi
Sorry to disagree, but the judge says exactly what RAM is. See page 6 of her opinion. ("RAM is a form of temporary storage that every computer uses to process data. ... If the website's logging function is enabled, the web server copies the request into a log file, as well as the fact that the requested file was delivered.")
TorrentSpy complained that it would be impossible to turn over the server loggging, because they didn't normally create server logs and doing so would create too much data. The judge essentially said this was a ***** excuse, they could just turn on the logging functionality built into IIS and produce the logs. See pages 16-21. That's all that the order requires. - NatieB, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17They should just bring the judge a printer that's perpetually printing out himey's infinite loop scenario.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is