On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >That "but it existed only in RAM in my servers" should not be a defense > >for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue > >of what constitutes discoverable evidence. > > But only if you were told you needed to retain the data in the > first place. How can you be faulted for not keeping data you > did not have a use for and nobody told you should be kept.
That's the "whether web site access logs be retained is a political (statutory) issue" part. Not knowing the law isn't a defense either. The order quite clearly refers to the log data in question as "relevant" (e.g., page 11) -- presumably it is because some law said so and the defendant should have known it. Or perhaps the judge isn't merely technically illiterate. > >Should web site access logs be retained? > > If you have them (note that with a load balancer front-end, it is > unclear whether such logs do actually exist) The loadbalancer may > know who accesses the data but only the backend may know which > data is accessed. If the law says you should have them and this is implementable at reasonable cost, then you should. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
