Slashdot Mirror

His blog was unavailable for a while but it came back online several days ago.

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/

and the line of blather you're pushing is pretty damn far off the mark

Is it?

http://www.exyoung.com/Journalism/WindFarm.htm
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/NEWS02/807100355/1003/NEWS02
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1434788/wind_farm_project_could_double_in_size_developers_expect_to/
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48596
http://www.iberianature.com/spainblog/2008/06/wind-farm-construction-in-capercaillie-habitat-paralysed-by-judge/
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16203
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/12/31/wind-farm-plans-pose-big-threat-to-harbour-porpoise/
http://renewableenergylaw.blogspot.com/2005/02/kansas-wind-farm-faces-another-lawsuit.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/22/windpower.greenpolitics?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875711/

I'm not even trying hard. Just put

court halt "wind farm"

into Google. No FOX News involved. And no, these aren't the NIMBY cases; I skipped those. These are enviro's killing wind development over "rare grasslands", various birds, etc.

The evidence for the intolerence of "all the greens" for basically any development at all, including so-called "renewable" energy is obvious. Pull your greeny head our of your ass and pay attention.

Nope, it's a 20% product (something developed by an engineer under their "spend 20% of your time on your own projects" policy).

Coincidently I remembered where I was reading that and it also listed the university they demoed it to last year.

It was on Google's own blog post announcing it.

Google tends to buy finished products, if this was someone elses work, it'd have been a lot more polished before it went 'public'. See Picassa, Google Earth, or Feedburner for the caliber of products they tend to buy. Their 20% stuff tends to be launched extremely rough around the edges (like Lively) and either polished up, as Gmail was, or discarded when there turns out to be not enough interest (dev or user wise), as Google Browser Sync was.

It is strange, isn't it? The Trinity must be a tumultuous entity with the Father and Son battling it out over what the commandments ought to be. (I guess "honoring thy father" isn't accepted by Jesus.) Is the Holy Spirit the referee for this match? Thank you, Marcion.

While I strongly object to the telecom immunity provisions, I support the substantive amendments to FISA regarding the wiretapping provisions. Of course, I would certainly vote against the bill as-is.

The rationale for amending the substantive provisions of FISA is pretty straightforward: the original statute had a bug where purely international communications passing through the US could not be bugged on US soil without a warrant, but if you tapped the very same cable in int'l waters, it was legal. This distinction makes no sense whatsoever -- the location of the wiretapping equipment should not be relevant.

Secondly, neither the original FISA nor any other provision of law ever prohibited interception of a foreign to foreign phone call, even if the physical interception happens on US soil. That same foreign-to-foreign communication would require a warrant, however, if it was written in a email that was retrieved from storage inside the US. Again, a distinction that makes no sense -- the mode of communication ought not to be relevant.

Thirdly, the new bill still provides that a court order is necessary if a target is inside the country OR a US citizen. In fact, the old FISA did not require a warrant to target an American citizen outside the country, whereas the new bill does -- an expansion of protection for our citizens traveling abroad.

If anyone wants to show me any provision of this bill that provides for the warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens, I'd be glad to see it. Until then, that characterization is unfounded. See the analysis at Balkinization (who opposes the reforms, btw, so you can't accuse me of getting information from a friendly source!): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html

Of course, it's utterly contemptible that Pres. Bush didn't go to Congress in 2001 and get the law fixed instead of just ignoring it. That fact, however, is strictly independent of the merits of the reforms. Simply pursuing a goal illegally (immorally and in unbelievable disregard for the rule of law) does not actually materially change the merits of the goal itself.

Nahhhh... my site wasn't down. Internet Law & Regulation, which hosts many of the *pdf litigation documents, was working on some problem with its servers. In the interim, I was taking the documents and hosting them on my own law firm web site. I'm delighted to report, by the way, that ILR straightened out its problem, and all the litigation documents are working fine now.

Nahhhh... my site wasn't down. Internet Law & Regulation, which hosts many of the *pdf litigation documents, was working on some problem with its servers. In the interim, I was taking the documents and hosting them on my own law firm web site. I'm delighted to report, by the way, that ILR straightened out its problem, and all the litigation documents are working fine now.

Of all the noble and respected philosophers you could have quoted, you quote from an early 1980s rock concept album envisioned by a dude now widely reviled for the pomoposity of his lyrics?

One tendency I'm starting to notice, among people in general, is to accuse others of doing exactly what they are guilty of. In this case you are the pomopous one, I've never heard of Roger Waters being widely reviled. There are other examples of this behaviour, of course, Microsoft accusing their competitors of 'stifling innovation' springs to mind.

Secondly, where's your quote from a 'noble and respected philosopher'? I can't think of any off-hand that have spoken out against the nanny state. Kafka maybe?

On a related note: this kind of censorship will soon be seen in Soviet Great Britain, when David Cameron wins the next election (unfortunately).

Coincidentally enough, I was in a bookstore yesterday looking at this book and considering whether or not to buy it. As someone interested in Web 2.0 (technology and economics), I thought that I might pick it up and give it a read. Also, the book was already discounted.

My impression after scanning the TOC and leafing through random pages was a sense of the author attempting to pander to that crowd who is interested in adding the Web 2.0 check mark to their business. It's kind of like a digital "keeping up with the Joneses," a "been there, done that, bought the tee shirt" attitude without any real sense of commitment to the basics behind the movement which is mainly an almost evangelical fervor for federated democracies that support collective intelligence and the long tail.

Coincidentally enough, I was in a bookstore yesterday looking at this book and considering whether or not to buy it. As someone interested in Web 2.0 (technology and economics), I thought that I might pick it up and give it a read. Also, the book was already discounted.

My impression after scanning the TOC and leafing through random pages was a sense of the author attempting to pander to that crowd who is interested in adding the Web 2.0 check mark to their business. It's kind of like a digital "keeping up with the Joneses," a "been there, done that, bought the tee shirt" attitude without any real sense of commitment to the basics behind the movement which is mainly an almost evangelical fervor for federated democracies that support collective intelligence and the long tail.

Either way, the population isn't going anywhere (until the pubs cause wwIII), so we should NOT be using food grade arable land to grow biomass for fuel.

Europe currently has negative population growth. It's not unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to follow suit over the next century or so. While I wouldn't expect a precipitate fall in population, growth should level off (see http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/tables.html for recent history and some projected statistics for the next forty years).

Your point only applies if we get to the point of having a shortage of food grade arable land. If we're only using 50% of the potentially arable land, this doesn't seem like a long term problem. What we're hitting now (causing increasing food prices) is that it is not free to start cultivating the land because the infrastructure is not there. I.e. we're facing short term shortages rather than actual long term limits.

It's also worth noting that the US uses significantly more grain than other countries. The global average is one pound of grain per day, but the US uses five. If the US backed down to two pounds of grain per day, that would still leave three pounds of existing grain that could be used for biofuels.

It's also worth noting that biofuel produced from waste (e.g. the stems and stalks rather than the edible grains) can actually make food cheaper (by increasing the effective yield per acre or hectare and better amortizing the cultivation costs).

There is not a single word in Otter's "analysis" which comes from any of the cited documents. He appears not to have actually bothered to read them.

In fact, the RIAA and MediaSentry have consistently taken the position in UMG v. Lindor for 2 years that MediaSentry is NOT an expert and did NOT use technical expertise, but did "what any Kazaa user can do". They did not make this statement once or twice, but probably in the neighborhood of a dozen times. I culled just 3 of them.

Within weeks of making that statement in Lindor, Mr. Mullaney had made the exact opposite statement in the Michigan proceedings, saying MediaSentry was a technical expert which utilized its technical expertise in obtaining the evidence, just like a physician, a surveyor, a geologist, or a chemical engineer.... (all of which are clearly expert witnesses who would be subject to expert witness disclosure in federal litigations).

Any person who actually read (a) Mr. Mullaney's letter in the Michigan case, and (b) the three documents in the Lindor case, would have to agree with that statement.

Apparently Mr. Otter has some kind of grudge against me, and -- like his soulmates in the RIAA -- is willing to fabricate facts in order to 'make his case'. Mr. Otter please read the documents, and then please apologize.

MediaSentry isn't licensed to perform PI work in, for example, Oregon. This bit them in the ass in a relatively well-known case. Ask NYCL for details -- he covered it on slashdot.

You think the Oregon Attorney General hurt their feelings?

hey NYCL, Re: your second link Oral argument was scheduled for 1st July, a week ago. Any news on the outcome? (Or do we have to wait a while?)

If you're referring to Capitol v. Thomas, oral argument on the "making available" issue was rescheduled for August 4th, 10 AM, Duluth, Minnesota, federal courthouse, Courtroom 1.

I don't know if, in your dilligent efforts to keep the /. crowd informed of developments, you have to pick & choose what you think is worth submitting,

I do pick and choose what I submit to Slashdot, and the Slashdot editors only select some of my submissions. The best way to stay on top of everything is to follow my blog.

but if you do, can I pre-flag the outcome of this development for submission? That the whole 'making available' theory, after having been accepted, could be subsequently chucked (presumably invalidating the entire outcome of the case), looks like it might be a significant nail in the coffin of the RIAA's war on the public.

Absolutely that is one of the most important things going on, and I will definitely submit it to Slashdot when I learn of it. However, that will be covered by the mainstream press as well, and Ars Technica and Wired and everyone.... So if I happen to be in court or something the day the news breaks, I might well get scooped by people who are professional journalists. Me, I'm just a country lawyer.

Years ago I was a juror on a civil trial. At one point, the defence counsel had one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs on the stand. He read off one of the claims that attorney had made in the case and asked him if he'd ever argued anything contrary to it. "No, of course not." Then, the defence attorney read into the record part of a brief from another case where the witness had argued the exact opposite of what he now claimed. I won't say it's common, but it's not exactly unheard of.

The RIAA lying is quite routine in these cases. These people will say anything at all if they think it will help their case. Of course it's starting to catch up to them. In Maine, e.g., a Magistrate Judge suggested they be sanctioned for some lies they told, and a judge in Minnesota has recently learned that he was misled by the RIAA liars -- er, lawyers. And I have a hunch the contradictory lies noted in the posted articles will come back to haunt them as well.

Years ago I was a juror on a civil trial. At one point, the defence counsel had one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs on the stand. He read off one of the claims that attorney had made in the case and asked him if he'd ever argued anything contrary to it. "No, of course not." Then, the defence attorney read into the record part of a brief from another case where the witness had argued the exact opposite of what he now claimed. I won't say it's common, but it's not exactly unheard of.

The RIAA lying is quite routine in these cases. These people will say anything at all if they think it will help their case. Of course it's starting to catch up to them. In Maine, e.g., a Magistrate Judge suggested they be sanctioned for some lies they told, and a judge in Minnesota has recently learned that he was misled by the RIAA liars -- er, lawyers. And I have a hunch the contradictory lies noted in the posted articles will come back to haunt them as well.

And here's Greenwald's trashing of that explanation.

It's funny that you mentioned that. Last year, the rover team announced that it would have to discontinue the Mars rover program due to funding cuts. The two rovers would have to be put into permanent hibernation until later. The shortfall was $4 million of the annual $20 million budget of the program. Some estimates put the cost of Iraq at $17 million per hour. Maybe it was the bad press, but NASA then came back and said it would find the money somehow.

It sounds like you've never seen high-definition content on your new-fangled TV.

Speaking as the owner of a recently-procured 52" 550 Samsung LCD, let me tell you: Yes, upscaled DVDs look great, in the grand scheme of things. But they look look like complete, blurry trash compared to well-produced HD content. And I'm not just talking about Blu-Ray (which can be quite good) -- even the Tonight Show, received with a (nearly) free UHF antenna looks amazing in 1080i.

That said, I'm not about to go out and re-purchase my DVD library on Blu-Ray in compensation for this. But it's a big enough difference that I generally do consider buying new movies on Blu-Ray instead of DVD, and depending on the nature of the film, I'm very happy to spend the extra cash. Having seen the difference, it was totally a no-brainer to pick up a basic HD package when we decided to get cable TV.

YMMV, but you don't have much to lose by putting that antenna together and having a go at seeing what you've been missing. It worked fine for me, 40 miles from the broadcast towers, just sitting on a table in my living room a few feet above ground level.

While I'm sure you're trolling, I feel I should point out that, 1) I agree with you, and 2) this has apparently been fixed, on Linux:

        http://agnimidhun.blogspot.com/2007/08/vi-editor-causes-brain-damage-ha-ha-ha.html

Agreed, the cars will not go away. However, the USA imports 2/3 of the oil used to power its fleet of automobiles. Shortly after the US economy collapses (2009? 2008? 2012 at the latest), the oil exporters will no longer trade oil for (then worthless) dollars. At this time, the cars will still be there, but they won't be moving. This will mark the end of the American love affair with the automobile.

Enjoy your car while you can, and take a road trip soon. Pretty soon, there will be no more road trips in the USA.

Overwhelming evidence suggests the above statements are true. Overwhelming evidence also suggests that most people will deny it right up until it happens, and possibly for some time afterwards.

Suggested reading:
The Five Stages of Collapse
Jay Hanson's Die Off Resources
Scientific references about peak oil

You couldn't be more right! In the mad rush to "go green," folks have lost their logical and analytical minds. How much will all of this wave power cost, and how will it be transmitted? This is like the story about Germany closing 17 nuclear power plants by 2020 and wanting to put wind farms in the North Sea instead. I read that story at http://www.economicefficiency.blogspot.com/

If Google can assert its legal terms just by publishing them (on something less than its homepage), then users can assert their own terms of privacy protection just by publishing them! What do you think? --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-privacy-policy-terms-of-service.html

If Google can assert its legal terms just by publishing them (on something less than its homepage), then users can assert their own terms of privacy protection just by publishing them! What do you think? --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-privacy-policy-terms-of-service.html

Considering that there were roughly 20 million C64s made, we are a long way off before working c64s become difficult to find. Hell, I managed to find one new in box a couple months ago:
http://mynerditorium.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-old-stock-in-box-c64c-arrives.html
http://mynerditorium.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-in-box-1541-ii-and-other-goodies.html

That being said, your basic premise is correct. A day will come within the next couple generations when it will be difficult to get your hands on a working system. I'd have to guess that the disk drives will be the first things to go. The good news is that there are quite a few drive emulation alternatives out there at the moment. However, nothing beats the clickity clack of a 1541.

Considering that there were roughly 20 million C64s made, we are a long way off before working c64s become difficult to find. Hell, I managed to find one new in box a couple months ago:
http://mynerditorium.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-old-stock-in-box-c64c-arrives.html
http://mynerditorium.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-in-box-1541-ii-and-other-goodies.html

That being said, your basic premise is correct. A day will come within the next couple generations when it will be difficult to get your hands on a working system. I'd have to guess that the disk drives will be the first things to go. The good news is that there are quite a few drive emulation alternatives out there at the moment. However, nothing beats the clickity clack of a 1541.

Why not superconductor based energy systems eg http://overunityenergy.blogspot.com/

Reading one of the comments made early in the process suggests that she was the person paying for the internet connection used in the infringement (a connection used off and on by her relatives). At the time of the infringement, however, there wasn't even a computer in the house, and supposedly, the infringement was done by someone accessing the (unsecured) wireless router.

http://goodtobeblue.blogspot.com/2008/01/magic-pony.html/

And if you read Beckerman's response at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/07/ms-lindor-opposes-riaa-attempt-to.html then you'd have your response. He clearly lays out how any prejudice is solely plaintiff's fault. Further, he points out the defendant is an individual not accountable for anyone else's actions, and that discovery was completed 2 years ago but that the palintiff waited until the end to complain about discovery. Further, the complaint is to the wrong judge and filed in the wrong fashion, with additional defects. All of those flaws in the plaintiff's argument make it unlikely sanctions are either warranted or will be granted.

Thank you for RTFA.

Although the primary base numbering system in machete is unary, base three has it's advantages, especially in flux between the numbers three and six. See the enneagram.

Why read Slashdot -- go straight to the source of all your Google and MIT press releases:

http://googlepress.blogspot.com/

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/

...except that it's *not* over. That was a pre-print and it's still evolving. Check the latest comments on Noncommutative Geometry's blog, which is the last URL in the original post.

What would be interesting to find out is if the **AA attorneys had internally discussed the issue of private investigator credentials before the public or defendants raised the matter. Because if the **AA lawyers knew and didn't say anything to the Judges, they'd be looking at sanctions.

1. They're not smart enough to have thought about it on their own.

2. Tanya Andersen's lawyer thought about it for them in October 2005, so they've been on notice since then.

3. So yes they have exposure to sanctions, big time.

4. Or maybe worse, because they are aiders and abetters. If you hire a hit man you're equally guilty of the murder. We're talking criminal law here, because the use of unlicensed investigators is a criminal matter.

It looks as if the RIAA's reputation in court is at last cracking. They've been getting away with a lot of crap an individual couldn't do, because courts have been more believing in the professionalism of corporate lawyers and corporate lawsuits. Courts are no longer taking the RIAA's professionalism for granted.

Yes I think you're right. For a judge to publicly acknowledge that he made a "manifest error of law", because he was misled by the RIAA's lawyers, is extraordinary.

Besides, let's not forget that 6 years ago, extreme-right-wing nationalist Le Pen ended landed in the second turn of the presidential elections whereas lots of people expected a Chirac vs Jospin (Socialist) second run. It seems that 5 years after, the nationalists were only too happy to give their votes to the neo-con Sarkozy. The guy did not even need to make a pact with the Front National (contrary to what Berlusconi did with Fini) but still his policy is getting tougher everyday on individual liberties, and police pressure is getting stronger on everyone -- except his son.

More and more people are getting pissed at him (and the reasons mentioned by polls analyst Jean-Daniel Lévy are all but ridiculous), but there are not enough checks and balances in the constitution of the French Republic to get rid of a fscked-up president, except the rare cases where he can be proved to be a traitor to the nation.

Here is an excellent blog about French politics for those who are interested.

It would be nice if Microsoft's biggest security "feature" is asking the user to confirm any operation that could conceivably cause a problem. Oh, well, at least they can blame the user now... after all HE allowed it.

The one time I tried to use IE7 and MSN search (to look up TV remote control codes) MSN search returned a link that hijacked IE7 to a site trying to play porno movies and because of the constant message boxes claiming "Microsoft" found security problems and should I let it install a "fix" (probably Javascript trying to get me to install malware). The message boxes wouldn't go away and I couldn't even shut down the browser without killing the whole app from the task manager. (By the way, I checked the first several pages of Google's results to see if that fake link showed up, and it wasn't there. MSN is useless, too.)

I would have never in a million years thought that IE7 would be that horrible. It's like it's 1998 all over again. Microsoft does nothing but FAIL. I've been using Firefox (with NoScript, AdBlock+, etc) since it was Phoenix 0.4 or so and I had literally forgotten how horrible IE used to be... and still is. In all those years nothing like that has ever happened to me with Firefox.

I'm convinced Microsoft just needs to give up. They have become completely worthless and literally have nothing else to offer.

More details and ranting if you're interested: http://conceptjunkie.blogspot.com/2008/04/microsoft-needs-to-die.html

Well, since it is the Fourth of July, thanks for letting us know the fight goes on and that there will be some fireworks.

Definitely the fight goes on, and there will continue to be lots of fireworks.

See the first result on google for "phonon.dll":

http://raviratlami1.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-download-and-install-phonondll.html

Can't say much for a group that named their phone after the Spanish word for booger (moco)

Well, Nissan did it too.

Product names that aren't so good in spanish haven't stopped Mazda or Kia

Being Irish I wasn't too proud of the results of the referendum we had for the recent Lisbon Treaty.
I hope that we can redeem ourselves by scuppering that twat's plans again but for the right reasons this time round..
Sarkozy should stick to diddling his wife and not with our affairs.
How about enforcing stricter bathing laws at home? Or roll out general guidelines for grooming?
(tongue firmly in cheek)

Prof. Li has posted a fourth version of his proof on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0090v4. According to this comment on Connes's blog http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2008/06/fun-day-two.html?showComment=1215144000000#c3090911722072092520, Li has made changes to the equations that Tao and Connes identified as problematic. The saga continues.

Alain Connes, a leading French mathematician whose work forms part of the foundation of Li's claimed proof, believes that the proof is flawed -- so much so that he stopped reading it. Here's his comment (on his blog): http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2008/06/fun-day-two.html?showComment=1215071400000#c8876982000013974667 Li will have to respond to this. Expect fireworks.

you could punish the users of this crappy code.

The users of this crappy code are almost certainly happily unaware of any problem they may be causing. I have used and recommended AVG for a number of years to people I have had to reinstall Windows due to the amount of true crapware they are infected with. I upgraded to version 8 a couple of months ago and wasn't even aware of the feature until I pulled up a google search and noticed the little green check marks. I quickly located and disabled the feature because it slowed my browsing down but I could see how someone could see this as a valuable tool. You want to punish someone for using a tool that will most likely prevent them from becoming part of a botnet yet again because the tool maker has added a good feature in theory that has a negative side effect. Doesn't most medication have a long list of possible undesirable side effects? So which is worse, a horde of zombie computers controlled by malicious hackers or a bunch of unknowing PC users who's AV software pre-checks the web site they are thinking about going to and telling them whether it is safe or not? I know which I'd rather be if I were technically challenged.

Sorry AVG user, your antivirus is abusive and wastes our resources. Disable AVG and come back.

Actually all you need to do is uninstall the link scanner feature.

Makes this article all the more interesting...

"according to Ofcom, they [anyone who doesn't want to pay for broadband] are excluded from broadband ... we all know the next step: the rest of us will be forced to finance broadband for the digitally excluded."

Some interesting details from the case (summarized from the linked pdf document in the Wired article)

Note: The English Premier League is a co-plaintiff in the case.

What the plaintiffs want produced:

a. All the source code for both youtube.com and google.com (lol)--because they think the search is optimized to find copyrighted content first. --> Result = DENIED

b. All the source code for google's new VideoID search algorithym (search by content rather than tag) -> Result = DENIED

c. Copies of all videos that have been previously removed, so that extent of prior violation can be ascertained --> Result = GRANTED

d. Contents of youtube's logging database (some 12TB of data) --> Result = GRANTED. Note Google was sited as a refutation by the plaintiffs! -- Google Software Engineer Alma Whitten, Are IP addresses personal?, GOOGLE PUBLIC POLICY BLOG (Wilkens Decl. Ex. M).

e. Contents of Video Meta information databases- tags, comments, flags etc. --> Result = DENIED

f. Database Schema --> Result = adsense schema = DENIED, Video schema=GRANTED

g. "Private" videos and meta data --> Result = DENIED

Google should fight this tyrannical ruling.

Why would they? They argue themselves that IP addresses are NOT personally identifiable information. Google only cares when they don't make money on sharing that information. Giving it away for free undermines their business.

What would be the purpose of this?

The stated purpose by Viacom is to get numbers for how often infringing videos were viewed, and compare that to how often non-infringing videos were viewed.

Google claimed that it would be too expensive to give them that information (they'd have to go through all the data themselves to summarize it). Viacom countered that Google could just give them a raw dump of the database, and Viacom would do the analysis.

Google then claimed that this would violate privacy concerns, because of usernames and IP addresses. And the kicker here, is the judge used Google's own publically argued policy against them:

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-ip-addresses-personal.html

"Are IP addresses personal? [...] The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot [identify you]."

Are there people that still think Google is looking out for their best interests?

But this judge is a fucking catastrophe for allowing them to rape the viewers privacy.

The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies -- that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.

It seems this wouldn't be an issue if Google wasn't collecting the info in the first place, claiming said information is anonymous and not a violation of your privacy, and then turning around in court and changing their story.

Google's Blog claims that they started taking steps to anonymize their logs a year ago, keeping "only" 18 months worth of identifiable data, to be implemented "within a year's time".

It seems likely that this wouldn't have been soon enough for any of this material to have been anonymized before Viacom's suit, since it was filed the same month they made this announcement.

Not only that, but it might be illegal to do so. As I understand it, once something is relevant to legal proceedings it is illegal to destroy "evidence." Not sure as IANAL, if that is only true in criminal, not civil cases.

We once raced to a state border to avoid being served with lawsuit papers so we could destroy all our working papers and then allowed ourselves to be served once that was done.