Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Rumor · Jun 15, 2007, 05:50 PM

US ruling makes server RAM a 'document'?: News - Software - ZDNet Australia

I um well uh wtf??

Big Mac · Jun 15, 2007, 05:54 PM

Yeah, great huh? That's what happens when laymen make legal rulings concerning technology.

Rumor · Jun 15, 2007, 06:00 PM

I'm not sure what they think they can get out of it or how it could possibly help/hurt any court case.

ghporter · Jun 15, 2007, 06:22 PM

Look at the context; the judge is saying basically that a file that hasn't yet been stored is still a file and subject to subpoena. Take a look at the case the ruling is about. Torrentspy is saying that they're not handling any "files" because it's all in RAM, and the copyright holders are saying "you're handling the data in a form that may as well BE a file, so let's all just call it a file." The judge seems to have agreed with the plaintiffs. I can't disagree either. If you're intentionally using a volatile storage medium to skirt the law in terms of file handling, then your volatile storage is going to have to be subject to the same requirements as your hard drives.

voodoo · Jun 15, 2007, 10:49 PM

I don't buy it.. things in RAM are sometimes (most of the time in fact) completely out of the control of the user. When I surf the web I have no direct control over what goes into the computer's RAM.

Only indirectly, by choosing what parts of the internet I receive information from.

I can only discern, accept or refuse said information *after* I receive it, thus *after* it has been written into RAM.

In other words, illegal information can be transmitted to my computer without my authorization and I should not be held accountable for it. Whatever the circumstance may be.

So if it is a legal 'loophole' in some cases.. besides what good is RAM anyway as evidence? Yank the plug and wham-o it is gone forever. No trace, no evidence it was ever there in the first place.

Thus, this is both impractical and dubious regarding personal rights and privacy IMO.

V

irunat2am · Jun 16, 2007, 01:10 AM

Wham-o!!

Jawbone54 · Jun 16, 2007, 01:24 AM

Quick! Someone had better Email the judge!
I'm sure he'll be flabbergasted...

Gamoe · Jun 16, 2007, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

The judge seems to have agreed with the plaintiffs. I can't disagree either. If you're intentionally using a volatile storage medium to skirt the law in terms of file handling, then your volatile storage is going to have to be subject to the same requirements as your hard drives.

Individuals and businesses should have a right not to keep records if they so choose, regardless of the intension, and particularly for something like file sharing, which is not a matter of "national security" by any means,-- though I'm sure it could easily be spun as such.

I think we all know that the contents in RAM are indeed not documents, but incidental traces of which a computer requires to process the data in real-time. If this company is indeed doing anything illegal, there must be other means which are less detrimental to personal liberties than that of declaring the contents of RAM a legal document that can be subpoenaed.

irunat2am · 08:04 PM

blah

Big Mac · Jun 16, 2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Take a look at the case the ruling is about. Torrentspy is saying that they're not handling any "files" because it's all in RAM, and the copyright holders are saying "you're handling the data in a form that may as well BE a file, so let's all just call it a file." The judge seems to have agreed with the plaintiffs. I can't disagree either. If you're intentionally using a volatile storage medium to skirt the law in terms of file handling, then your volatile storage is going to have to be subject to the same requirements as your hard drives.

Respectfully, you're wrong on this one, gh. Data in RAM is not stored in any file format. Data in RAM is machine readable not human readable, ephemeral, constantly changing. And data in RAM could at any particular moment contain snippets of networking, program or OS code. RAM is not file storage space (unless you're using a RAM disk, which servers definitely are not), and there can be no expectation that it should function that way. Moreover, the contents of RAM update so often there's no mechanism to capture all of the stream at any one time; even if there were, the contents would quickly fill up any permanent storage (especially on a highly utilized bank of servers). Plus, even If such a thing could be done, the contents of what got recovered would be largely meaningless. The media cartel has gotten a nonsensical order out of this judge.