Dubh Aingeal Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 In an impressive example of the gap of understanding between legal officials and technology, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian 'found that a computer server's RAM, or random-access memory, is a tangible document that can be stored and must be turned over in a lawsuit.' ZDNet, among others, reports on the ruling and its potential for invasion of privacy.
Scary Guy Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Well it does depend on the type of ram. I mean if the computer is shut off and it still has the "evidence" in it that's one thing (if it's static ram, which if it's a high end server it probably is) however the chances of that happening probably aren't very good.
Amerist Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 I believe that the order basically says, "Taking into account that RAM--though temporarily--stores 'tangible' documentation of the event, which can therefore be copied and kept." And then goes on to describe not that the RAM should be confiscated, but that the contents of that RAM should be transcribed to disk. I.e. she's basically told them to turn logging on. If allowed to stand, the groundbreaking ruling may mean that anyone defending themselves in a civil suit could be required to turn over information in their computer's RAM hardware, which could force companies and individuals to store vast amounts of data, say technology experts. Roaming the Web anonymously was already nearly impossible. This ruling, which brings up serious privacy issues, could make it a lot harder. The ruling isn't about turning over the RAM, it's about tangibly storing all the contents of that RAM for later review. This, frankly, is almost as impossible a request as saying, "We require the RAM as evidence," since most RAM would just fizzle when the power went out--instead, this sort of decision asks that they document surmounting gigabytes of information to somewhere (hard drive probably) to capture those transient documents and keep them so that they can be used later.
Troy Spiral (13) Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 This is roughly equivalent to some degree of telling the phone company they have to store the contents of every phone conversation that passes over their lines. (would be insanely expensive, for most companies probably they'd just have to close up shop.)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.