Comments on: TorrentSpy ruling a 'weapon of mass discovery'
You may have to surrender what's in your RAM if sued. Legal experts say decision may cost businesses big bucks and threaten Web privacy.
You may have to surrender what's in your RAM if sued. Legal experts say decision may cost businesses big bucks and threaten Web privacy.
January 3, 2010 9:30 PM PST
January 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST
January 3, 2010 3:10 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
performing "maintenance" on the UPS battery. Oh dear, all the
evidence is gone as the server shuts down.
Can RAM be encrypted......?
whats next the processor? (better check the cache)
this is great, love the drama in C|NET's News.com story
The issue isn't whether or not TorrentSpy is illegal, but 1) if they have a duty to disclose information about an illegal activity, and 2) by acting to hide information about illegal activities, are they now complicit as well.
An imperfect analogy is... what if an AOL user downloads child porn. Does AOL as the ISP have an obligation to turn over their IP logs? Sure it does. Even though AOL isn't party to the illegal activity, it still has obligations. Suppose AOL purposefully erases logs related to these child molesters; what now?
Similarly TorrentSpy has information about which IP addresses are sharing which files. If those files are being shared illegally, then TorrentSpy can be compelled to turn over information.
TorrentSpy tries to be clever by "turning off" its log files. Yet the information is really still there (in RAM.) So after all the legalities, TorrentSpy will be compelled to turn its logs back on, and then disclose the contents of those logs.
There is similiar precedent in the Grokster case. Grokster tried to be clever by having certain information passed through them in encrypted form, so they claim "no knowledge" of what is happening. But this strategy backfired, because the court instead viewed this encryption step as tacit acknowledgement from Grokster's part that illegal file sharing was happening.
So with TorrentSpy, the court sees that the only reason the logs are turned off is because TorrentSpy knows full-well illegal sharing is happening. Instead of just being a site that monitors trackers, they've become an involved actor, and maybe legally complicit in the act of illegally sharing files.
The program that takes a snapshot of RAM is in RAM, right? How do we know that RAM snapshot program takes a snapshot of the RAM after every execution? The OS, which is also in RAM, doesn't schedule programs so that all they do is one RAM write and then switch to another. So how do we know that what is in RAM is everyone? And what about swap files, than is an extension of RAM, do we have to take a snapshot of them too?
You have to then write the size of your memory to the hard drive, which is always slower than RAM. And if you had 4 GB of memory, you are looking at filling up a 1 TB in hours (because HD are slower). If a HD was as fast as RAM, a 1 TB HD would fill up in seconds. The whole process would make the Intel 4004 chip seem as fast as lightning.
It is technically impossible. A tech savvy judge wouldn't cave in because the RIAA or MPAA says it is possible. They would laugh and tell them to fight piracy some practical way. I don't have a problem with RIAA and MPAA fighting piracy, my problem with them is how they fight piracy.
restart your server, make RAM snapshot, give it to MPAA/RIAA
there we go!
Yeah, and it has links to torrents. Using the DMCA, I think even mentioning that a site like this exists is illegal. Or it was some type of added enforcement they wanted to add.
I remember there was one bill going around that would make it illegal to own anything that would enable the copying of copyrighted material. So I snail-mailed a blank CD to my legislators, including a nicely worded letter about rejecting that bill, and notified them that by even have touched that CD, they would also be in jail along with most of America for having handled something that enables copyright enfringement.
Anyway, I there is legal content on Bittorrent. So just my visiting the site does not make you an automatic crimial. Heck, that's where I've gotten tons of open source software when their mirror sites are slow. When the latest Ubuntu came out, the only had a web/ftp download first and not the bittorrent, so I went to torrentspy and downloaded it there blazingly fast. And then left my copy up for 2 weeks to help others get it fast.
Do you detain everyone who goes to the grocery store in the shady part of town. Sure, there's a "house of ill-repute" next door, but just because a person visits that shopping center, are they condemed as a criminal?
Simply because it was stored in memory... visual memory, short term memory, long term memory, etc.
Ridiculous. To me "store" means I am keeping it for future use... If I am using it right then and never again, that is "Using" not "Storing".
Ma'am, you are most certainly right about that.
Your ruling on RAM and the requirement to archive its contents for use in litigation against the very people that are being prosecuted is; one, a violation of their 5th ammendment rights against self incrimination; two, imposes an unacceptable financial burden on the people you impose this on; and three, shows you are not competent to have opinions on legal matters (or any other type for that matter) relating to information technology.
How does one hand over whats in RAM??? Unbelievable.
To quote: "Let me just pop it out of the slot and give it too you."
:)
Magnets won't work on the RAM, though.
As a result, the court could order the target to turn over any relevant evidence they had, but could not require them to collect information that they did not already store. A very basic principle.
TorrentSpy argued that by turning off the web server's logging functionality, they avoided storing the information and therefore could not be compelled to turn it over.
The judge argued that even though they turned off the LONG TERM storage (the log) the information was still stored SHORT TERM in the RAM. He did not propose that TorrentSpy could be compelled to "turn over the contents of their server RAM", he said that since they were storing the information anyway (for however short a time) they could be compelled to present the same information in a report when ordered to do so. In effect the judge said "Since you are storing the activity information anyway, I can order you to turn the logging back on so that the specific information I am asking for is not destroyed. Then you can send to the court the specific information from the logs which the order covers."
An odd part of the decision is his assertion that some of the information requested "stays in the RAM for up to six hours". Possibly a reference to the fact that the server caches some information in RAM for operational reasons?
- Hmm...
- by ethana2 June 14, 2007 12:12 PM PDT
- That would probably have some kind of residual data images, depending on the technology. So you could just give them a random snapshot when they request it. Here. *deactivates server* *clears IP data* *takes ram snapshot* *reactivates server*
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (56 Comments)"Well, I don't see any IP logs... here's an openoffice instance... Hey! .odt's can be read in plaintext. Now I know why they like them."
"What's it say?"
"&%*$ you, MaFIAA. Over and over. No IP's here."
"We'll have to get a court order to allow us to install malware on their machines or linetap them or something..."
"Wouldn't that take longer than suing their children out of college funds?"