On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote: >> Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of >> the >> original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server >> access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that >> RAM albeit >> working memory is no different then other storage and must be kept >> for >> discovery. This is generalized because (as I understand) the >> defense was >> arguing "logs are not turned on -- they do not exist" and that >> was met >> with "of course the running program has this information in RAM >> and you are >> disposing of it" ad nauseam. The only saving grace for the ruling >> is that >> it is not a higher court. > > Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious > interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that > "but it exists only in RAM" is not a defense, and rightly so.
hang on .. let me take it out and give it to you .. I'm thinking this seems to get into v-chip territory, or otherwise providing a means for agencies to track information that might have passed through a system .. err, for the safety of our children and such :P _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
