Judge Thinks Delete Should Mean Delete

leighton writes: "According to The New York Times (free registration required, for those who care about such things), a prominent judge recently wrote an article saying that the delete key should actually delete things, not just hide them away where lawyers and skilled computer geeks can get at them years later. Specifically, he proposes that a statute of limitations be imposed upon electronic messages--that, for example, an obnoxious email you send today could be held against you for six months and six months only." This is an astonishingly insightful idea - since electronic communication has changed the lifespan of casual conversations from ephemeral to permanent, it's possible for the law to change its standards to restore that ephemerality. The judge's original paper is linked off of The Green Bag.

Comments

It is sad, but true.

[Lumpy]

everyone has the ability to delete things via a file shredder, but microsloth and every other OS doesn't want that functionality in the software. Lawyers and the Fed's, I'm sure, are horrified at the idea that someone in the judicial branch of the government would want such a law that would protect the citizens. Imagine.. They couldn't scan the hard drives of employee's computers when they suspect that there was a donut conspiriacy. Business owners couldn't pull up all that deleted email from the ex-employee, etc....

Me? If it's senistive I shred the file - and then it was encrypted to begin with. but then my swap area isnt encrypted, and how about the temp file my word processor used.....

I'd love the law, but the feds will not allow it.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[electricmonk]

every other OS doesn't want that functionality in the software

but then my swap area isnt encrypted

Well, if you used OpenBSD, you wouldn't have to worry about things like that. For example, it has an encrypted swap space, using Blowfish 128bit encryption. Open Source software is likely to come out far ahead on this front, since they are uninhibited by things like slow response time to requests for software features. If there are enough people who want a feature, they just code it right into the OS themselves.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[TomQ]

Its one of the features in KDE2 that I like - the ability to shred files.
What you must realise it is quite easy to remove files if you expend some effort in the task. Overwriting tools have been available for years and the ammount of time required to use them is very small.

My advice would be to shed the files that you really dont want to see again. :-)

That said - It can be quite useful sometimes (as the Justice says) to recover "lost Masterpieces", A coworker of mine was in that position a few weeks ago...

anyway just my 2cents (thats Eurocents :-) tom.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[MakeTheBadManStop!!!]

>Business owners couldn't pull up all that deleted email from the ex-employee, etc....

That's why you run Lotus Notes, and keep backups - everything is stored on the server, and deletes really don't mean delete...

Re:It is sad, but true.

[King of the World]

Open Source software is likely to come out far ahead on this front, since they are uninhibited by things like slow response time to requests for software features

Oh yes. And that's why slashdot gets so excited over a new browser every five minutes - because open source has provided that*1. I'd agree with you that open source is the best for this type of thing but not due to development time, but because it doesn't matter if powerful local encryption*2 it's made illegal as it's free and will spread like DeCSS if wanted.

*1 not intended as a troll. I haven't seen any full release browsers that compete with IE or Opera on windows.
*2 I do mean allowing powerful encryption as opposed to weak. The 128 bit encryption being too powerful and illegal comes to mind. (you can close the door on your house, but you're not allowed padlocks)

Re:It is sad, but true.

[hymie3]

Overwriting tools have been available for years and the ammount of time required to use them is very small.

Overwriting tools are useless when forensics experts arrive on the scene. Even hard drives that have been wiped with the standard I can never remember (wipe with all ones, then with all zeroes, then with alternating ones and zeroes) are still recoverable.

It all boils down to how much is willing to be spent on recovering the data. "Shredding" computer files is not sufficient, especially when prosecutors are motivated by potential millions in settlement (ala Microsoft). Anything short of encrypted swap/file space is asking for it in the long run.

The point of the judge is that if someone has made a reasonable effort to delete something, then it should be considered to be deleted.

Otherwise, anything that you have ever said or typed which has ever been saved on a computer can and will come back to bite you. Ever posted a flame to usenet? Ever sent a naughty picture via email? Ever accidentally clicked on a goatse.cx link? It's been recorded, somewhere.

hymie

Re:It is sad, but true.

[ph0enix]

Well, if you used OpenBSD, you wouldn't have to worry about things like that. For example, it has an encrypted swap space, using Blowfish 128bit encryption.

Good point, but since May 27, 2000, OpenBSD uses Rijndael ; to encrypt the swap file, for faster key setup. (yet an other example of "That was fixed 5 months ago"),

--

Re:It is sad, but true.

[ichimunki]

Okay. I honestly don't understand how even the most expert computer forensics team can recover data that has been overwritten by ones then by zeros. Isn't this like saying that a cassette tape which held a pirated Metallica song and was then recorded over with white noise and then a clear signal is still possible to recover the Metallica song intact? The real problem, as this judge points out, is that a deleted file usually isn't deleted at all, the pointers to it are just removed from the directory tree, which means that the file just needs to be found on the disk and repointed to for recovery.

I agree, though, that this judge's statement is nice --especially in the case of workstations at work, for which most files sit on fileservers or mail servers that get backed up regularly. No amount of deleting or file shredding hits the backup tapes. And I assume many corporations backup to a permanent backup at least once in a while, with incremental or daily backups in between.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[jafac]

Unfortunately, this IS true.

Any data written to magnetic media can be recovered - well, there's a chance, anyway. Every time data is written to a magnetic domain, there will be SOME areas within that domain that remain biased the way it was previously written. For instance, you have a 1 in one spot, then you write a zero; some atoms are still biased towards 1. The reason for this is that the heads in your average ordinary everyday Hard Disk are designed to take an average over a relatively large area of the domain, and read that as the recorded value. The incorrectly biased atoms in that domain are tossed out as noise in your everyday mass-produced hard drive.

A forensics team can pop the platters out, and read them with an extremely sensitive head, and draw-out patterns of previous writes. It's probably extremely expensive, and AFAIK, largely theoretical; I do not know if they're actually doing this, or have ever done this. But I do know that it's possible. (as a former Seagate employee)

There was a /. article on this a while back about how some investigator recovered an erased portion of Nixon's watergate tapes using such a technique.

Now, as far as a single erasure goes, that's the way it works. Multiple-pass erasures increase your chances of obscuring the data, and overwriting with all 1's or all 0's is probably not the most effective means, nor is overwriting with noise, because it's randomness can be extracted by careful analysis. I would say that repeated overwriting of such data with other legitimate data, would be the best way to cover-up the residual domain biases from previous writes. How many rewrites, I couldn't say, because I'm not an expert. Maybe dozens? hundreds? thousands? It might also help to pre-load a drive with data, and overwrite it a few dozen or so times, BEFORE using it to store legitimate data. That way, there will be a noisy background on the disk prior to writing your kiddy porn.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[CleverNickName]

Lumpy said: I'd love the law, but the feds will not allow it.

I have to sadly agree with you. However, this judge should be applauded, for at least making the attempt to apply some of the same common sense protections to people who use computers that already apply to people who use pen and paper. Too bad this judge didn't get the DeCSS case.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[Tackhead]

> Isn't this like saying that a cassette tape which held a pirated Metallica
> song and was then recorded over with white noise and then a clear signal
>is still possible to recover the Metallica song intact?

Actually, its not just like that, it is that.

A good introduction to the field: A 1996 paper on Secure Deletion of Data from Magnetic and Solid-State Memory.

Be warned that this paper was dated 1996. Technology has improved significantly since then. The state of the art in magnetic force microscopy and magnetic force scanning tunnelling microscopy is almost certainly highly classified.

Your audio analogy is excellent. In the case of your cassette tape, it's a virtual certainty that the record head was "off" by a fraction of an inch when it recorded the white noise over your Metallica. (And it went "off" by a different fraction of an inch when you recorded the clear signal on top of it).

So, a forensics dude will use tools to read the fraction of an inch that didn't get overwritten by the white noise, and the other fraction of an inch that escaped the clear tone, and reconstruct most of the Metallica song.

The same thing works with hard drives, except it's a hell of a lot more work.

That having been said, this technology is at the bleeding edge and costs a fortune. It's probably only used in to recover data of interest to national security.

Your typical criminal is st00pid, and your typical FBI goon merely looks at unallocated blocks containing data the criminal thought was erased.

A smart FBI goon will also use a tool to read sectors that have been marked as "bad" - there may be data there that the

A good data shredder, incidentally, will take into account the model of the hard drive and the encoding method used by the firmware - when you write "FF" to a drive, you're not actually writing eight "north poles" in sequence - and write a sequence of bytes geared to "even out" the magnetic flux as much as possible.

That said, even this isn't bulletproof. The last time I looked, the only acceptable standard in the military (and presumably in the intelligence community) for scrubbing highly sensitive data is physical destruction of the media.

If it's your nudie pics or your company's secrets, encrypt the volume or scrub the data when you're done with it. Better yet, do both.

If it's plans for compact nuclear warheads and you want to sell them to the Chinese government, make sure your friends give lots of money to the Democrats. Uh. I meant, "physically destroy the media after you've made the sale".

As long as the media is intact, if the data's important enough, someone will be able to recover it.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[ichimunki]

Thanks for the insights. Sounds like a painful procedure and hardly worth it for most cases that don't involve national security.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[ethereal]

Cassette tapes (like the aforementioned Metallica) are even easier to recover, since the tape doesn't pass over exactly the same area of the head each time you record to it. At the edges of the tape are slivers of media which may be missed by subsequent writes to the tape. I haven't done this recovery, but I have heard it is quite possible.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[A coward on a mouse]

I seem to remember numerous mystery novels and tv shows in which the bad guy was caught when the notepad they made their plans on was found and the detective/hero was able to read the impressions made on the sheets below. While I may not like the idea of the FBI going over my drives with a fine-toothed comb, it seems to me that the standard isn't really any different. Saying that "delete should really delete" is like saying that any evidence which a suspect has attempted to destroy should be excluded. From a legal perspective, it's ridiculous.

From a software design perspective, having delete really delete things can be a nightmare. No matter how screamingly stupid the customer was to delete a given data item, no matter how many annoying warnings you put up that they will not be able to undo the deletion, it is frequently impossible to convince them that your program didn't "eat" their data. Being able to recover "deleted" data after such an event often means the difference between keeping the customer and losing them to someone else whose software doesn't actually delete things.

Re:It is sad, but true.

[drinkypoo]

Your audio analogy is excellent. In the case of your cassette tape, it's a virtual certainty that the record head was "off" by a fraction of an inch when it recorded the white noise over your Metallica. (And it went "off" by a different fraction of an inch when you recorded the clear signal on top of it).

Actually, the audio analogy is fairly lousy, because it's analog, and you need approximately half the width of the tape to get both channels. You could probably get a really poor recording of one channel on one side, possibly, or maybe of different channels on both sides; Enough to recognize that a track is a hard rock/metal track (depending on which era the metallica song is from), or perhaps even tell that it's metallica, but you wouldn't want to listen to the result.

A good data shredder, incidentally, will take into account the model of the hard drive and the encoding method used by the firmware - when you write "FF" to a drive, you're not actually writing eight "north poles" in sequence - and write a sequence of bytes geared to "even out" the magnetic flux as much as possible.

Right, I forget which is which, but a 0 has no change between two bits, and a 1 has a change, or vice versa, in most cases - And there's always a change between the second physical bit of a logical bit, and the first physical bit of the next logical bit. Assuming I have it right, writing out 0101 results in 00101101. If not, it's 01001011. So writing 1111 over the top of 0000 should result (assuming we always start at 0) in 01010101 bring written over 00110011, which changes only half the bits. But you don't really have to know the drive, if you're willing to go through enough randomness. Also, if you know what they used to scrub the data, you can probably figure out what results the process will have had, and calculate around them, so you're better off actually having a good deal of randomness in there as well as the usual computationally-based information.

That said, even this isn't bulletproof. The last time I looked, the only acceptable standard in the military (and presumably in the intelligence community) for scrubbing highly sensitive data is physical destruction of the media.

Personally, I'd opt for scrubbing, demagnetizing, magnetizing heavily, then destruction. It's amazing how much data one can get out of something that's been destroyed, say, by fire. Disassembling the drive and scraping the oxide layer entirely off the media (say, with a sandblaster) could do you some good too, especially since IIRC the platters aren't made of any ferrous material.

Statute of limitations...

[Black Parrot]

Then we'll start seeing things like -

Six months and one day from now, you will be a dumb fuck. Sue me.

--

Re:Statute of limitations...

[scotteparte]

I think it's easy to lose sight of the big picture here... we're not talking about flame e-mails and harassment charges. What if a real criminal deletes evidence? Should it be admissable? At what point does it end? I believe in the weakest sort of internet regulation, but I must accept some accountability for actions, even online.

I propose..

[kinnunen]

I propose that whenever Amazon sues someone for infringing their One-Click-patent, this guy be appointed as the judge for the case. Agree with him or not, but at least more than 2% of his braincells seem to be functioning ok.

--

Re:I propose..

[nstenz]

Hey, I actually thought this was kinda funny... guess the moderators don't have my Saturday-afternoon-just-woke-up perspective on things right now...

Sorry, your honor, Carnivore comes first.

[AFCArchvile]

This would probably be opposed by the FBI, CIA, and NSA, due to the fact that it would undermine the entire motive behind Carnivore: to hold people responsible for their actions on the Internet, and to log e-mails and chatrooms all over the parts of the Internet under their jurisdiction.

Big Brother is watching you, your honor. He is watching us all, and he is preparing to incarcerate me for what I just typed. I'm not afraid, though; I win either way, either as a martyr or a hero.

Re:Sorry, your honor, Carnivore comes first.

[skyrytow]

Carnivore is not designed to go through email archives. I like the judges idea, it has merit to it. I also do not understand peoples reaction to carnivore, the Internet should be free but not lawless. There is a very important differance between the two.

Re:Sorry, your honor, Carnivore comes first.

[nstenz]

Carnivore is not designed to go through email archives.

Perhaps not, but it's quite capable of creating a giant e-mail archive of whatever the FBI decides to capture... Media is cheap these days, and I wouldn't put it past them.

for those who don't want to wait

[chitselb]

There's always "pgp -w"

Every now and then I fill my available disk with several big huge files, the only purpose of which is to soak up all of the available disk. Then I PGP -W the enormous tempfiles into oblivion, effectively cleaning out the leftover data fragments in the should-be-empty sectors.

Re:for those who don't want to wait

[Atlantix]

hopefully you do this several times in a row since there is still a magnetic trace of the previous data present on the hard drive. the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc can just read what used to be there, and what was there before that, and what was there... I think I remember reading somewhere that to truly obliterate data you need to write over it with zeros, then again with ones, and repeat that 6 times!

Re:for those who don't want to wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I just added:

C:\windows\command\fdisk /mbr

to my Autoexec.bat file. It protects against many boot sector viruses quite well.

It's doubly effective if you make the change while your dual boot system is running Linux.

Mount your DOS partition.

mkdir /tempmnt
mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /tempmnt

Edit the autoexec.bat file:

vi /tempmnt/autoexec.bat

add the following line:

C:\windows\command fdisk /mbr

Then reboot the system and tell lilo to load Windows.

Voila! Many common boot sector viruses are eliminated.

Re:for those who don't want to wait

[Malc]

"And if you're using Windows, traces of your files will be dumped all over the system; when I used Word I remember being shocked to find traces of old files inside them"

If you enable fast-saves, doesn't it just log only what's changed, rather than updating the whole file? I seem to remember reading something here on /. a while back that mentioned lawyers getting into trouble after sending out Word documents that still contained information that they thought had been deleted.

Re:for those who don't want to wait

[Atlantix]

actually what was supposed to be blatantly obvious is that running fdisk on the mbr is the REALLY fast way to format a hard drive. forget dual-booting, DOS, and everything else because once you clear the mbr, the computer is convinced you've got a blank hard drive. I once had a hard drive with a couple different partitions on it that I needed to move and resize before installing a new OS. rather than wait for Partition Magic to safely move all the data in those partitions, I just cleared the mbr, and created new partitions. Total time was about 2 minutes.

Dumpster Diving

[MikeMc]

IANAL, but last time I checked, info gleaned from the trash was admissable under certain conditions.

Re:Dumpster Diving

[mpe]

IANAL, but last time I checked, info gleaned from the trash was admissable under certain conditions.

Anyway nothing requires criminals to place incriminating documents in the trash, they could shread, pulp or burn them. Why should electronic documents be treated any differently?

Re:Dumpster Diving

[GeorgeH]

Not in Michigan, IIRC.
--

Re:Dumpster Diving

[SEWilco]

Psst... Hey, buddy... Wanna buy a new mail protection program? You can keep all your email for later reference, but after six months the cops can't use it. Sooner, if they don't notice the file timestamp is odd...

See this directory called "Deleted"? There's all your mail, nice and safe...

Re:Dumpster Diving

[ShootThemLater]

ANAL, but last time I checked, info gleaned from the trash was admissable under certain conditions.

Here in .uk we have a character known as Benjy "The Binman" Pell, who's career is built on rummaging through the rubbish bins of the rich and famous (and more productively, those of their lawyers and agents) and selling stuff to newspapers.

Unfortunately in the Real World, many people who should know better can't even "delete" paper documents, let alone electronic ones. Whether ot not it's admissible in court, some of the stuff he comes up with can be very damaging to people's careers. A legal limitation would be nice, but there's no substitute for educating people about the value and persistence of information and the need to consider this.

Dave

Re:Dumpster Diving

[mach-5]

cool sig :p

Re:Dumpster Diving

[N3MCB]

The case law (as I remember it from my LEO academy) arose from a case were a major drug dealer shredded his incriminating documents and then threw them out. When he put out the trash they were fair game under the abandonment rule (no warrant required) so the police picked them up. The police then put the documents back together. At trial the defense tried to exclude these documents saying that by shredding them the defendant had an expectation of privacy and they were siezed in violation of the 4th ammendment. The Supreme Court disagreed and in part stated that the defendant should have done a better job of destroying the documents. As far as I know this is the case law that has been applied to computer files (but I'm not a lawyer...). I'd like to be able to quote the case names but I'd probably get them wrong off the top of my head - http://www.findlaw.com and search if you want to.

Re:Dumpster Diving

[A coward on a mouse]

Exactly, why should they be treated any differently? As I understand things, if they can piece together the shreds of an incriminating document, they can get it admitted as evidence. If microfilms are put into the fire but pulled out in time to extract the information on them, that information can be used as evidence.

Think of a hard drive as a massive piece of paper. Destroying the paper by burning it is the most secure method of denying access to its contents. Erasing the notes made on the paper with a pink eraser is significantly less secure. Imagine a law stating that documents written in pencil that had been erased could not be admitted to evidence. That's what you're doing when you overwrite a file on your hard drive. If you have truly dangerous and incriminating information to destroy, destroy it! Don't cheap out and try to re-use the media, especially with the cost of media being so low.

For all that we may be encouraged that this judge wants to protect citizens from over-zealous law enforcement officials, we should be more discouraged at his total cluelessness. Really, this statement is proof that the judicial system currently in place is ill-equipped to deal with any issue relating to technology.

dumb dumb dumb

[core10k]

What? That's a terrible idea! The stupid should not be protected from the law.

Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

What about hate speech - even one instance?

What about criminals conspiring to break the law - their emails to each other are inadmissable after 6 months?

Now admittedly the judge deals with both of these examples by saying glibly that there should be no statute of limitations on being a "jerk" or having a "pattern" of illegal communications.

I think that a law to have a "statute of limitations" on things said in emails would have to be so narrowly drafted as to be unenforceable.

Oh, btw, IANAL if it isn't obvious already!

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Renstar]

I believe it meant crimes that you commeteed WITH the email have a statue of limitations of 6 months (racial hate email, etc) conspiracy email would just be part of the conspiracy, plus, if they had enough evidence that you did email something to someone illegal or something like that, they could probably nail you for destroying evidence of a crime for writting 0's to your HD

oh yeah, standard disclaimer, IANAL, IANACow, but...eehhhhhhh too lazy to finish it

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[NecroPuppy]

What about hate speech - even one instance?

One instance usually isn't hate speech, unless it's a blanket statement, which could be argued under egregious behavior, and therefor not protected.

What about criminals conspiring to break the law - their emails to each other are inadmissable after 6 months?

The tone of this, seems to apply more towards civil than criminal law, but again, such criminal activity could also be considered extenuating circumstances.

I personally think it's a good idea, one whose time has come. But, as others have said, it probably won't be implemented.

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Detritus]

What about hate speech - even one instance?

What about it, you stupid <ethnic group> <gender> <religion> <sexual orientation>?

Is that "hate speech"? Is it a thought crime to use a forbidden word?

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Mr. Adequate]

Errr, IANAL either (Surprise!), but I'm pretty sure they can't nail you for destroying evidence if you shred your files BEFORE they come to arrest you. It doesn't become evidence until then.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[King of the World]

What is this "hate speech", define, peasant?

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[NecroPuppy]

Errr, IANAL either (Surprise!), but I'm pretty sure they can't nail you for destroying evidence if you shred your files BEFORE they come to arrest you. It doesn't become evidence until then.

No, then it's obstruction of justice.

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

You wrote:"Is it a thought crime to use a forbidden word?"

No, not a thought crime , just a crime. Assault.

People often confuse assault with battery, which is the hitting part.

There is no thought crime - you can silently think "You stupid ethnic group/gender/religion/sexual orientation" all you want.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

Hate speech incites crime against a group based on ethnicity/sexuality/religeon/etc.

"All male hetro white people should be killed" would be an example of hate speech if I was exhorting you to do it, or saying it should be done. I am not, of course.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

So you're allowed one sexually harrassing email per six months as long as no-one complains!?

Please give an example of when you think this law should apply.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

Expressing a desire to "go postal" is not hate speech.

Explaining to you why Race X is inferior, and inciting you to kill as many members of Race X as you encounter is hate speech and a crime in most countries.

This seems to be exactly the kind of thing the judge is saying should have a six-month statute of limitations.

I disagree. This is exactly the kind of statement that needs a long "Self life" so that when you finally DO convince someone to "Kill those damn Xers" they can nail you on 16,000 counts of hate speech.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

That's EXACTLY the kind of crime I mean, and exactly the kind I think should never "expire", reasons posted elsewhere in this thread.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[La0tsu]

Explaining to you why Race X is inferior, and inciting you to kill as many members of Race X as you encounter is hate speech and a crime in most countries.

Hate speech is not, at least in the US, a crime. Inciting a riot is. Threatening someone is. Instructing someone to commit violence is. However, saying someone is inferior because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, OS preference, or whatever, is not illegal. Saying that you wouldn't mind if they all died in some nasty way is not either, unless you are specifically intending that someone act on it.

One thing that a lot of slashdotters seem to be tripping over is the fact that the judge was refering to deleted files, not all emails. I presume (although I haven't had a chance to read his actual paper yet) that the six month statute of limitations he refers to is from the time the file is deleted, not created.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[NecroPuppy]

So you're allowed one sexually harrassing email per six months as long as no-one complains!?

Actually, that would be considered a pattern, and therefor the proposal would apply.

Cases where an e-mail or whatever would not be held against someone, would be where it was a one time occurance or incident.

(By the way, I'm not racist... With my mixed ethnic background, I can't afford to be; it would be like biting myself in the ass.)

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.
(If you don't get it, don't worry. You never will.)

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[A coward on a mouse]

One thing that a lot of slashdotters seem to be tripping over is the fact that the judge was refering to deleted files, not all emails.

Actually, I think this whole thing has mainly to do with deleted/revised *parts* of documents.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[King of the World]

Bah...

You're surely aware that during apartheid in south africa the very term "hate speech" was used to can up Nelson Mandela several times. He was making the public too rowdy and disrupting power.

I'm not saying you are, but never make a distinction between hate-speech and free speech. This PC crap (and political correctness is above politics; it's a life code) is dangerous.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

But any power can be mis-used. The apartheid government would have thrown N. Mandela in jail for speeding if they'd caught him at it - reckless driving or something. I'm not sure that one example of mis-using a law proves anything.

Also, you are obviously defining "PC" as something that is "crap". But I don't know yet what your definition of "PC" is!

Do you disagree that I should be prevented (assuming you and your family have brown hair) from standing outside your house with a megaphone and holding a "Brown Hair Haters" meeting?

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Callon]

You are totally wrong in everything you say, Mr Coward.

You certainly CANNOT say "whatever you want". Try telling lots of people you are going to kill the president of the USA. Try telling children how much you'd like to cut their heads off. Try it with a police officer around.

Hate speech IS illegal in the US. However, the "test" that is used for speech to be hateful enough is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to meet. "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless actions and is likely to incite or produce such action". Excellent site on the topic.

Oh - and as for the US being a bastion of "Free Speech" - try calling a radio station in the US and saying "Fuck".

I've read Orwell. All of Orwell. I am not talking about THOUGHT crimes here - only actual ones.

Re:Limitations vs. Hate Speech?

[Kharny]

Living in Holland, we have a little more freedom of speech. If you say, for example: I THINK all germans are nazi's, it is called an oppinion. If you say: all germans are nazi's, it is assault. Then again i'd like people to think about what they write, so please don't let these kind of ideas ever become real laws. People already say/write too many things without thinking about consequences.

DOH!

[epodrevol]

There are a million programs out there that will wipe files and overwrite with zeros 'X' number of times. Somebody should tell him about that. If delete really deleted files, think about all the SU 's (thats 'stupid users') that would need an incremental backup of thier PC every 10 minutes.

How do you establish time?

[Matt_Bennett]

When I post something, it pretty much becomes a matter of public record- it is out there, out of my control. The only proof of the date and time I posted it is as ephemeral as the text that I posted. And both can be easily changed by someone leaving no indication that the text has been changed.

Realistically, I don't think we should be held (legally) liable for those things that we post unless it has some sort of secure, verifable, signing mechanism- there is no way to tell who is really posting a message, or what has happened to it after it has left the author's system.

Delete = gone is nice- We have that option when it comes to shredders and incinerators for our paper correspondence, I think the concept has to be a bit more fleshed out to be truely applicable to the digital medium.

Re:How do you establish time?

[nihilogos]

Usually with a watch.

Re:How do you establish time?

[canning]

What should the 'home' key do??

Re:How do you establish time?

[discore]

I think that no matter what way you look at it it has way too much overhead. We're talking a mass re-code and re-evaluation of very old and established specifications.
Great idea, if it was possible I'd be all for it, but like so many other great ideas it lacks the motivation, and probably the money.

Re:How do you establish time?

[King of the World]

>why else would the navy have an ATOMIC CLOCK

Do you want AC here with his finger on The Button?

Re:How do you establish time?

[Wiggin]

What we need to establish time/date/author/... is a central authority that can keep track of all of that stuff for us. and then we can be assured of the authenticity of any email we send. :)

Re:How do you establish time?

[Erasmus Darwin]

If we can only be held liable for securely signed digital statements, you've suddenly added a much more substantial amount of freedom to online communications that doesn't have a real-world counter-part. For example, if an anonymous death threat to the president gets tracked back to you in the real world, you're in deep shit. But under your proposed system of only securely signed messages counting, all but the stupidest of criminals would be given carte blanche.

Re:How do you establish time?

[technos]

Obviously you've been shopping for $12 Acqua digital watches at K-Mart.

Try something a little more upscale! I've never walked out of a real watch shop or jewelry store with an unset watch; They insist on setting it on the premisis beforehand! Even when I have one in for cleaning or adjustment, or a new band, they'll make me stand there while they adjust my intentional three minutes of advance away.

It's a liability thing; If they see the watch working, the customer can't come back in three nights later and claim the watch never worked, and he wants his $500 back, causing them to eat a Submariner with cheese.

Re:How do you establish time?

[BeanThere]

"The only proof of the date and time I posted it is as ephemeral as the text that I posted. And both can be easily changed by someone leaving no indication that the text has been changed"

When I was doing my 1st year at University, our comp sci lab setup was a Novell LAN, which had a "messageboard" feature, on which I sometimes had some interesting discussions with other students.

At one point, somebody (with some tech skills) didn't agree with my opinions; they (presumably) hacked the server (I doubt it was the administrator himself), and changed the text of some of the things I had written. They didn't change too much text, but they completely altered the meaning, and made me look like an idiot.

It's a fairly upsetting experience. I don't know who did it (although I have a strong suspicion.)

Re:How do you establish time?

[A coward on a mouse]

We have that option when it comes to shredders and incinerators for our paper correspondence.

We have that option with hard drives, too. For the amount of pr0n^H^H^H^Hdata you can keep on a hard drive, it's probably cheaper per unit of data to burn your hard drive than it is to burn an equivalent amount of paper-borne war3z^H^H^H^H^Hdata.

A moot point!

[koa]

I think that even IF there was an innitiative to really 'DELETE' something when it was supoosed to be, it really wouldn;t happen anyway. Data manipulation these days, especially by law enforcement isn't exactly -by-the-book- .. IMHO

Lawyers and skilled computer geeks?

[adaking]

How hard is it to double-click the recycle bin? Look at where all those files are. I pressed delete!

Re:Lawyers and skilled computer geeks?

[billybob2001]

You think that deletes the files?

Well if "email to Bill Gates"="delete" in your book...

No registration link

[wangi]

If you refuse to register then use this link:

http://partner s.n ytimes.com/2000/10/05/technology/06CYBERLAW.html

Re:No registration link

[King of the World]

Yeah...

Originally slashdot authors linked to nytimes.com, then a few stories later to partners.nytimes.com, then they haven't done it since.

Methinks they got told off.

Re:No registration link

[jellicle]

Totally dependent on the submitter.

--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

Re:No registration link

[King of the World]

Aww really? That's no fun.

What about backspace?

[Rob Kaper]

But what about backspace? Shouldn't delete also give you back space on your harddrive instead of stuffing items in Trash bins? ;-)

Seriously, why won't they rethink keyboards and actually have both a Trash and Delete key?

This wont work!

[pallex]

Are you telling me the entire legal industry (police, courts etc) will just ignore evidence of crimes just because its 6 months and one day old?

Laughable, just laughable. This will not take off in any country in the world, ever.

Re:This wont work!

[SlippyToad]

There already is a statute of limitations on most crimes. Only on the real biggies (i.e. murder) is there no statute. This prevents the government or anyone else from using a sordid but now forgotten past as a reason to persecute you in the present. Imagine you're thirty years old. You're a member of the workforce, you pay your bills on time, you're a model citizen. Someone unearths a videotape of you shoplifting from a quick-mart 15 years ago, and uses it to ruin your career.

Re:This wont work!

[NecroPuppy]

Are you telling me the entire legal industry (police, courts etc) will just ignore evidence of crimes just because its 6 months and one day old?

Laughable, just laughable. This will not take off in any country in the world, ever.

Actually, if such a law were passed, then yes, it would be enforced. Improperly gathered and mishandled evidence is probably the number one cause for dismissals in court cases.

There are long standing rules of evidence, and most judges don't like them being ignored.

That being said, I still don't think any law like this will be passed, as much as I may want it to.

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.

Re:This wont work!

[pallex]

Yes, but this is like letting a criminal choose their own time-out value! `Ooh, give`em 6 months to catch me/prove it, after that its too late and i`ll tell them how i did it` :)

Very dangerous idea

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past, I've worked for a number of police organisations as a consultant. A very common question is "Can you find out if he's deletedf anything incriminating?", to which the answeer is usually yes.

What usually happens is that the evidence is for far worse crimes than they were originally accused. For example, someone brought in for drunk driving may have a lot of large drugs deals hidden away somewhere. Or evidence of conspiracy with communist agents (One for the secret service)

So what should the police do if they find incriminating evidence like this when looking for something, if they then find that its 6 months out of date? Say "Oh sorry Mr. Evil. We thought you might be guilty, but it turns out that that was last year, so you're probably a decent law abiding citizen now"?

Re:Very dangerous idea

[King of the World]

I've done the same thing for local law-enforcement. But since a few cops were bitchy at me years back and thought I stole these cars I choose whether I find something.

Makes me feel like a big man.

Re:Very dangerous idea

[gibson_81]

well, I guess there's something similar to it in all "western" legal systems ... (at least, there is in Sweden ...)

Re:Very dangerous idea

[KahunaBurger]

So now every time I joke to a friend on how I'm going to rule the world or smoke some crack, that in and of itself could consititute an act? How did law enforcement catch law breakers proir to email and newsgroups? If I am doing something illegal, (like stockpiling nuculear weapons or dealing drugs) then there are many real-world things I have to do. These real-world ACTIONS (buying plutonium, crack, whatever) are the proof they need to look for, not some email talking about stuff I've never did. Speech does not equal action.

Don't be naive. Just because you can't charge someone based only on their words doesn't mean their words are irrelevant. What you say or write can be either proof for the jury after you have been caught, or a pointer towards where to find evidence.

So lets say you are arrested and charged with buying crack, but you claim that you were just standing near the crack dealer and the cop lied when arresting you. Your email stating "I'm gonna go buy some crack tonight" is of course relevant in trying you for that night's arrest.

Or you are being investigated for a kidnapping, and the police find an email saying "I'm going to X to buy crack, that'll make a good lure." The police will go to X and try to get further information about your actions and plans.

They need to look for all evidence, and that includes speech. Your argument is as silly as saying "its the murder thats a crime and not touching the doorknob to get in, so why would police ever waste their time dusting a doorknob for prints at a crime scene?" Its a good thing you aren't actually involved in investigation or law enforcement.

-Kahuna Burger

Re:Very dangerous idea

[jafac]

It's DOCTOR Evil to you. I didn't go through 6 years of medical school for nothing.

And while we're at it...

[levik]

I, for one, think that the ESCAPE key, should allow you to escape. Say I'm sitting at work, bored out of my mind with my boss on my ass, and wishing that I could just get the hell out of there. Escape key should really do what it advertises.

And the space bar.

Re:And while we're at it...

[billybob2001]

Where can I get an automatic keyboard? Mine has 2 shifts!

Several times a day I lose ctrl, need to pause or even have a proper break, and at the end of the day, I go home.

Re:And while we're at it...

[matdesign]

What about the Control key? I for one would love if that worked as advertised.

Re:And while we're at it...

[MakeTheBadManStop!!!]

My favorite is the break key - I hit that, and I'm out getting coffee and a donut!

Home doesn't seem to work right, though.

Now all I need is a foosball key.

Re:And while we're at it...

[compwiz3688]

foosball key = break key? you still use part (or all) of your break time to play, don't you? :)
---
dd if=/dev/random of=~/.ssh/authorized_keys bs=1 count=1024

Re:And while we're at it...

[jimm]

Make sure you're wearing a vacuum suit when pressing the space bar, eh?

This also reminds me of a game called Space Bar, an Infocom-like graphical adventure game. Fun.

Re:And while we're at it...

[levik]

Some of us don't even have access to a foosball table, so the break key doesn't help. Now if there was a day off key, maybe that would be enough time to locate one...

Re:And while we're at it...

[compwiz3688]

I saw somebody sticking a red Panic button onto the keyboard once. I don't know where the guy ripped it out of, but then again you can't press it. I wonder if he ever needed it...

Shift-4 should also really do what it advertises too. I'll get rich very easily. Maybe I'll be able to pay my TAB after all.
---
dd if=/dev/random of=~/.ssh/authorized_keys bs=1 count=1024

Re:And while we're at it...

[compwiz3688]

You'll probably need just the DAY key. The Off key is located on the CPU.
---
dd if=/dev/random of=~/.ssh/authorized_keys bs=1 count=1024

Re:And while we're at it...

[levik]

So then I would need to press the Off key while holding down Day... The ^D-Off mapping...

Re:And while we're at it...

[Richy_T]

And don't press Insert-Page Up-End unless you're reading a book printed on soft paper.

Rich

Re:And while we're at it...

[ZanshinWedge]

Personally, I'd rather have an EJECT key. Not for disks, like a jet fighter. I think that would be cool.

Re:And while we're at it...

[Alternity]

If so then I do not dare imagine what would the Enter or Insert keys do... But I'd sure hit the Break key quite often.


"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...

Re:And while we're at it...

[MakeTheBadManStop!!!]

well, yes, but it saves that step of explaining what the key does ;-)

Re:And while we're at it...

[John Jorsett]

I saw somebody sticking a red Panic button onto the keyboard once.

Ah this brings back memories. I used to do work for the military and got my hands on some neato decals like used on military aircraft. I was particularly fond of the yellow "rescue" arrows. I put put them on the side of my monitor, pointing in my direction.

Re:And while we're at it...

[Alternity]

Yes it is :o)


"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...

Re:And while we're at it...

[_outcat_]

You could use the "Home" key to just go home. ;]

Re:And while we're at it...

[thesteveco]

I'm under the impression that our friends in Seattle have already made progress toward this end. Although they've yet to directly attach the event to the trigger, Windows sure does seem to break often enough to convince me they're trying!

Re:And while we're at it...

[AtrN]

I think I'll order myself a Tab.

H.Simpson

Re:And while we're at it...

[domebot]

Actually you want the CTL-LOCK key, but M$ had that removed from keyboards in the early 80's to avoid just such a thing as you suggest...

Re:And while we're at it...

[MrCreosote]

Hey, my BREAK key just broke....

I propose...

[don_carnage]

...that all keys should mean what they say. "Hmm...I think I'll order a TAB." -- Homer

--

Re:I propose...

[discore]

That'd be awesome, especially with Sun keyboards.
Day going bad? Stop.
Day going good? Again.
Alan Cox wanders into the office? Props Props.

Re:I propose...

[guran]

...like the Taco "Caps Locked" sig 11 out :-)

But how come I don't get to escape to a pause or break when I press them?

Re:I propose...

[EfromVT]

from Simpsons:

(Homer at computer)
Press any key to start.
I see 'esc', 'cutarl', and 'pig up' but there doesn't seem to be any 'any' key.

Re:I propose...

[vsync64]

Mod that up! Best one I heard yet...

will this really be helpful?

[The_Messenger]

This is really an interesting proposal. What USENET, and now the WWW, have shown is that information online never really dies -- I'm sure many of us can go through USENET and mailing list archive services and find embarassing rants and flamewars of yesteryear. My question is, in what context would such a statute of limitations truly be useful? Not in a personal context, surely... and in a legal situation, it might not do much good. For instance, what if the e-mail/posting/whatever contained evidence absolving you of a crime, but was ruled impermissible because it was from a year ago?

What is the judge worried about, anyway -- his wife finding his online porn stash, or e-mails to his mistress? Just use decent encryption and utilities like PGP, and you'll be fine.

This judge really sounds paranoid. What he needs is a secure delete program, an operating system which doesn't store remnants of temp files everywhere, and an sledgehammer to "obfuscate" his disk when he gets a new PC.

---------///----------
All generalizations are false.

Re:will this really be helpful?

[fhwang]

I agree: If it's public communications -- that is, you sent to somebody else, through e-mail or Usenet or IRC or whatevah -- it should be admissable. (It should also be taken in proper context, too: Words are often just that, words. People say all kinds of things that mean nothing. Anybody in law should know that.)

If it's private -- if you composed it on your own machine, and never sent it to anybody -- then, yeah, there should be protections. But in many cases the private sector already has protections that make legal reform unnecessary: As you say, a decent secure delete program should take care of it. I'd guess that the judge is unaware that such things exist, though we should applaud his effort to think about the rights involved nonetheless.

Francis Hwang

Re:will this really be helpful?

[Wiggin]

Somebody please correct me if i am wrong, but i was under the impression that a statute of limitations only meant that you couldn't prosecute someone after the statute of limitations has expired.
(of course the mandatory IANAL)

Re:will this really be helpful?

[Richy_T]

What USENET, [...] have shown is that information online never really dies

It just sits around on backup tape at the dejanews offices.

Rich

Re:will this really be helpful?

[mami]

I don't know, I think archiving usenet and email lists, like Alexa and deja.com do, violate my human right of my posted words being forgotten (ie erased) after a time period of my own choice. This choice is not given, nor granted, nor protected.

It was a hassle to try to nuke old posts from deja.com's archives. Alexas' archives are in commercial hands (Amazon), all this I think is not right.

Re:will this really be helpful?

[kabir]

Just use decent encryption and utilities like PGP, and you'll be fine.

Actually, this isn't always true. If you're encrypting a file to a key that you own (and only a key that you own!) then you are correct, but if you send me an email message which is encrypted to my key then you have no control over what I do with the content once I receive it. Additionally, it is still quite legally possible to supeona your key to decrypt the messages. Sure you can "lose" or "delete" your key, but there are pentalties for defying a supeona.

This judge really sounds paranoid. What he needs is a secure delete program, an operating system which doesn't store remnants of temp files everywhere, and an sledgehammer to "obfuscate" his disk when he gets a new PC.

Once again, this is limited to files which are stored locally. Email, almost by definition, has recipients, which means that you lose control of the content as soon as you send it. That makes a technology solution much more complicated (and perhaps utterly infeasable).

Of course legal remedies have their problems as well...
--

Re:will this really be helpful?

[RickHunter]

...And then gets replaced by advertising when they run short on cash.

"Your honor, I'd like to show that, in this post to comp.lang.c, my client was not advertising the sale of goats for immoral purposes, as these DejaNews backup tapes will prove... Wait a minute... How'd that get in there?"

-RickHunter

But what about those who save their e-mail?

[plover]

Does that mean that if you send it, you think your mail is magically "gone" after six months? If you send it to me, I'm sure to save it for at least six years. Can I not trot out your old e-mail against you?

And what determines how old is old, anyway? The headers? Does this mean my forged e-mail headers are now legally admittable evidence that my offensive letter is seven months old?

I hope this receives more careful thought than other bad recent computer laws, such as the DMCA.

John

Judge's Ideas :

[cluge]

While I agree with what the judge envisions he needs to remember a few things.

• In a large corperation the mail server is backed up, and there is usually a storage schedule for backups. Unless you are getting your mail from home, it's most likely on the back up tapes
• With SO many people complaining that they "accidently" deleted things (thus the need for a "recycle bin" Can you see whats going to happen when you give the secretary at your law office a "REAL" delete key?
• How much overhead does a real delete require?
• People save the silliest things (I have email going back 6 years myself) If a company TRULY wants to prevent e-mails from past generatiosn coming back to haunt them they need to teach their users to delete mail older than x number of days (and destroy backup tapes older than the same also!)

Like anything, the solutions isn't as obvious as those non technical people would like it to be.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[MakeTheBadManStop!!!]

Does anybody really use the 'Bin? Set it to delete on first try, but prompt you - no waste of space, and you get another chance (right away) to see what you are doing... the recycle bin is a bad adaptation of a worse MacOS feature. Any OS that makes me eject a floppy by dragging it to the trash is just not right (not trying to start a war here). OSX (I will pronounce it "oh ess ecks", so sue me) looks pretty good, though there's a few things that seem to be even less intuitive than with the earlier Macs...

I have e-mail from 1995 in Eudora still (one of the big reasons I use it), and all the stuff from before that is all tar.gz'd.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[nihilogos]

What the judge is proposing is a statute of limitations of 6 months on such data. So even if it is backed up somewhere it won't be admissible as evidence.

Of course, inadmissible evidence is extremely useful in persuading jurors from time to time.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[dirk]

What the judge is proposing is a statute of limitations of 6 months on such data. So even if it is backed up somewhere it won't be admissible as evidence

I don't see why electronic data should be any different than any other kind. If I write something down, it will still be admissible in 6 months. Same with something I say. Why should it be different if it's in an electronic format? If I throw something in the trash, is it forever gone? Not a chance. It's perfectly legal for the cops to search my trash, same with electronic files.

As far as true deleting goes, there are numerous programs that will do it for you. Many programs have a "shredder" function, which permanently deletes a file. It's no different than a paper copy. I can throw it away, but if I want to make sure it's really gone, I have to use a paper shredder. Same concept applies electronicly. I can delete it, but if I really want to make sure it's gone, I need to use a "file shredder". Just because it's electronic doesn't make it different.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Millennium]

Oh, boy, the Trash thing again.

That's not how you're supposed to eject disks, anyway. There's a menu that's supposed to be used, and it's in fact called "Put Away" (or "Eject" in OSX). The Trash can thing is just a shortcut.

There was actually a feature in OSX DP3 that didn't make it into DP4, and it's one I miss. If you dragged a disk over the Trash, it would change into an Eject button. Drop the disk on the Eject button, and it got ejected. Much nicer than the drag-to-the-Trash trick, which has initially scared the bejeezus out of every Mac newbie I've shown it to.

Anyone know what happened to that?
----------

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Ominous Coward]

yeah, even worse is when I drag my hdd to the trash, and it pops out... ouch.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Weezul]

Plus, just adding a statute of limitations for email dose not mean that corperations can not use old emails as an excuse to harass a worker.

It would be a lot easier to make a program which emailed a person a program to connect via SSL with your system to read the real email, but did not allow them to cut and paste out of the program. Your system would delete the email after they read it once, i.e. a this message will self destruct type thing.

Clearly, a clever persn could still save the email (screen shot), but most windows users are not that clever. A bigger problem is that it would not work under Linux since Linux mail readers actually have some basic security (not executing code from email), but most Linux users are smart enough to use a screen shot, so it would not do any good anyway. Regardless, it would provide some encryption and security when sending obnoxious emails to stupid windows users.. a good thing.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[MakeTheBadManStop!!!]

Sure, do it the 'real' way... I still think it was funny that trash worked for files on the floppy, too. One time (I never did use macs very often) I 'deleted' a bunch of files from the floppy, to make room for the others... available space > 1MB, file size ~300k... wouldn't fit... little did I know that I had to flush those files out of the trash bin first (you can even eject the disk without really deleting them?!). That and there didn't seem to be any good way to individually delete files in the Trash Bin... (get rid of these, I did that, but keep these others, since this isn't my computer, and some people store things in there...). There was probably a way, but it wasn't obvious.

That eject button thing sounds kind of neat, but why not just right click on the floppy and pick eject... oh wait... only one button... damn.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Vann_v2]

Laugh, it's funny.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Torin_1]

It also helps to read the article. What the judge is saying, is that after someone deletes something, and it s, lets say, 6 months old, even if they can bring the data back, it would be inadmissable in court. I think this mostly applies to a home computer, and you make something in notepad or whatever, and you delete it. 4 years down the road, they are able to pull that data off of the hard drive, but since its so old, it wouldn't be able to be used.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[swb]

I don't see why electronic data should be any different than any other kind. If I write something down, it will still be admissible in 6 months. Same with something I say. Why should it be different if it's in an electronic format? If I throw something in the trash, is it forever gone? Not a chance. It's perfectly legal for the cops to search my trash, same with electronic files.

I suppose the idea is that electronic communications are faster, less formalized and contextual and not practiced in the same way that physical correspondance is.

Personally I'd treat it equal to written correspondance for one year and after that I would give it the same legal weight as a non-recorded verbal conversation recounted from memory. The lack of context from a single email from a long exchange can be as distorting as a recounted conversation from a year ago.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[drinkypoo]

Instead of dragging a file to the Trash, you dragged it to Flame File, and the file location was overwritten with 0's instead of being moved to a different directory.

It was probably written and re-written with zeroes and then ones. This is still not sufficient; You must write and rewrite the space with random bit patterns at least, say, twenty times, or you can go in with an electron microscope and see how the bits were set.

Not that I expect anyone to take my hard disk apart and stick it in an electron microscope.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[Mr. Barky]

I think the Judge's point is that e-mail has become so common that if we don't add this protection normal e-mail conversation is/will become more stifled. Making people overly consious of their e-mail may have a detrimental effect greater than letting people "get away" from something they wrote 6 months after they said it. The permanence and ubiquity of e-mail is something that is significantly different from conversation and also writing (conversation usually gets "lost" immediately and writing tends to be much more careful than "e-mailing".).

Yes, there are programs that really will delete things, but what percentage of users do you think would know how to use them? Maybe 10%? Even if you know how to use these programs, what happens if you want to delete your e-mail a week later? Oopps you admin backed up your files. Now, there's really no practical way for you to delete it.

I find the Judge's ideas quite interesting and definitely worth thinking about and debating.

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[ccg]

"If I throw something in the trash, is it forever gone? Not a chance. It's perfectly legal for the cops to search my trash, same with electronic files."

I'm not so sure about that. I took a pre-law class, and I remember this issue came up. I believe the argument was that, since the defendant had put his trash in a sealed, opaque black trash bag, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, if the cops searched his trash without a warrant, it was an illegal search and seizure, and the evidence would be inadmissable. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the ultimate ruling was on this. Anyone know more about this?

ccg

Re:Judge's Ideas :

[DMoylan]

I'll stick with the best shredder going, Microsoft Windows, every six months I have to do a complete reinstall anyway which is a fairly good wiping of the disk.

how is regular mail handled?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone sends something obnoxious via US mail, can that be held against them for more than six months? If so, having a different set of rules for e-mail is wrong. People should be held accountable for their actions.

Re:how is regular mail handled?

[Hurricane_Bill]

But, if you threw your regular mail in the trash only to find out that 1 year from now it shows up again -what would you think?

People on this board are very computer literate so it might seem common sense that an email can somehow be retrieved after deleting it. There's *lots* of people out there who think they are taking proper precautions when *deleting* a file.

I think it comes down to an issue of privacy. Is it reasonable to assume that 'Carnivore' is not stalking you while you browse the web? I think that's why people are so upset after hearing about Carnivore. is it reasonable for grandma to assume that 'deleting' an email isn't really deleting it?

I haven't really thought much about whether a 6 month limitation would be a good thing, but I certainly think it's an interesting idea. Maybe emails should *really* be wiped from a personal computer 6 months after deleting it. (I'm not talking about company machines, that's different).

Really people

[Bobman1235]

A statute of limitations? Something's either admissable or it isn't. If you send someone an email telling them you're going to kill them and you're put up on murder charges six months later, what makes it any less admissable then? In my opinion it shouldn't ever be admissable considering how easy it is to fake an email, but that's not quite relevant...

As for the "delete" key, anyone who works in sensitive information knows how to fully delete something. A lot of times (in fact most of the times) a normal Windows or whatever user would prefer that their data isn't permanantly lost when they accidentally hit the delete key. There's a reason that stupid "recycle bin" (or the original Trash Can from Mac) ever became popular-- people screw up.

Re:Really people

[radja]

but what if I type it, and decide NOT to send it.. and delete it instead? There are people who would really go for this sort of thing...lawyers mostly...

//rdj

Re:Really people

[theonetruekeebler]

A statute of limitations? Something's either admissable or it isn't.

Yes, it is admissible before the statute of limitations expires, and inadmissible after the statute of limitations expires.

The judge is not talking about criminal law, but civil law. In criminal law, evidence does not "expire", but as you cannot be prosecuted for certain crimes after a given period of time has passed since the alleged offense, the evidence is moot. The idea is that you shouldn't throw a forty-year-old man in jail for a red light he ran when he was eighteen. I should point out that in most jurisdictions there is no statute of limitations on murder and other infamous crimes.

What the judge is trying to do is limit the viability of e-mail in civil litigation. Hypothetical situation: four years ago one of your coworkers made a huge, obsessive, gigantic stink about something, and you end up wasting an entire week chasing shadows as a result. When you tell her she was wrong and wasted your time, she fires off an angry e-mail to your boss. Your boss forwards it to you with a note attached, "What's this about?" You reply, "Remember how I showed you that Foobley component wouldn't work in the Warbley project? She's still bitching about it." He writes back one line: "I figured as much."

After four more years of similar raving nonsense on every single project she's on, nobody takes her seriously about anything anymore. Feeling like there must be some other reason she's been ostracized, she quits the company and sues for sexual harassment. All e-mail records from every employee she has ever worked with get subpoenaed. Your e-mail from four years ago is dredged up. And in it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this bigoted, sexist monster used the vile, derogatory term "bitch" to refer to my client, a person of gender! This degenerate, immature pig used vicious, defamatory language in the workplace, thereby creating a hostile work environment for my poor victimized client. And instead of taking immediate corrective action, this penis-monster's boss, another penis-monster, conspired to agree with the characterization! There was collusion, sexism, and conspiracy at every level of this corporation to single out this innocent victimized woman. Therefore this penis-monster and his employer owe her one million dollars plus another twenty million in punitive damages.

Fun, huh?

Look---I send a lot of e-mail to coworkers who are only two or three cubes away. That way, our conversations can be asynchronous. The fact that we are using a written medium does not mean the conversation is not intended to be casual and ephemeral. The fact that I delete a piece of e-mail means that I consider it no longer relevant; either that I no longer endorse what it says or that I believe its context has disappeared. Say your boss is a Cardinals fan. He starts ridiculing the Braves in front of you and another Braves fan coworker. You tell him right to his face that he's full of shit, and he laughs and asks what the weather will be like in Atlanta for the last game of the series. Later, you send coworker an email that says "He's so full of shit!" You weren't talking about his qualifications as a manager; you were discussing his bogus sports opinions. But taken outside the context of the previous conversation, and your company has grounds to deny you a raise or fire you. After all, there it is in black and white, you saying your boss is full of shit.

I believe these are the sort of situations Hizzoner was referring to.

--

Re:Really people

[falloutboy]

If you send someone an email telling them you're going to kill them and you're put up on murder charges six months later, what makes it any less admissable then?

This example assumes so many things its ludicrous. Threatening to kill someone is a crime. The statue could easily include language that makes death threats exempt.

As for the "delete" key, anyone who works in sensitive information knows how to fully delete something.

Think so? My parents are lawyers. They work with sensitive information all the time, but every time I use one of their PCs I find the recycle bin containing hundreds of files they thought they deleted.

For argument's sake, lets say my mom writes a will for one of her clients. A week later, the client calls, prior to execution of the will (which is essentially making it legally binding) and says "I found another lawyer, you're fired, buh-bye." She would likely shred any existing paper copies and "delete" the document from the computer. A year later, the client dies with a will that excludes his children from inheriting anything. Should the children be able to get a copy of the will from the recycling bin on my mom's PC with which to contest the new will, claiming undue influence or something?

Re:Really people

[ethereal]

IANAL, but wouldn't lawyer-client privilege rules come into play here? Your mom can't divulge legal documents prepared for another party without their consent, can she?

Re:Really people

[falloutboy]

IANAL, but wouldn't lawyer-client privilege rules come into play here? Your mom can't divulge legal documents prepared for another party without their consent, can she?

If that example ever occured, the older will could be used as evidence to have the new will thrown out. The old will wouldn't be any more valid than the new one, having not been executed, but New York law says that children are the first to inherit (assuming no living spouse).

Re:Really people

[Akoma The Immortal]

I agree with you. But, it's the job of the other lawyer to replace those e-mail in the context of the moment. Or the Company lawyer is a jerk and can't do his job.

I think this judge doesn't trust the ability of different lawyers on this matter or perhaps he thinks that the emails in the DOJ vs MS case was over used and if the Justice departement had his way, there had been no case at all.

Regards.

Re:Really people

[bmasel]

As for the "delete" key, anyone who works in sensitive information knows how to fully delete something

Oliver North.

email might not be that permanent

[budcub]

For the past few years, I've been careful to use my work email only for work. Besides the fact its hard enough to manage my personal email without getting it mixed up with work, I don't want to give my employers a tool to screw me with. I don't want to try to explain myself to Mike Wallace and the 60 Minutes cameras over a dumb email I might have sent years earlier. But further back I used work email like a madman, and I seriously doubt my old employer has backup tapes of all their email going back to '94. Their backup system was poor and we'd lose data over a file server crash, routinely. However when I worked at a government installation, I'm sure whatever I wrote will probably outlive me in a archive somewhere.

He's a bit paranoid, eh?

[cdgod]

This is what happens when people in high regard and with incredible responsibility finally realize what the implications of this technology are on their lives. This guy Gets It(tm). He knows that when he is writing a friendly email to another judge it can easily be used against him as bias/prejudice/reason for appeal.
There are two ways of looking at this. This could be good (for those who do not mean any harm). Or this could be really bad. This means that people can now get away with death threats and such (it can't be used as evidence against them) if they don't get caught within 6 months.
I think the length should be 1 year. That way people should REALLY think hard before they write that flame for alt.your-fav-group.your-fav-fetish
There should be a road sign, everything you loggon to the net - "Beware, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, now go have fun!" Hell, I don't remeber what I said posted last week, by /.'s DB sure does.

Cd

Better to encrypt

[theCoder]

If you encrypt all your emails, and keep your private key in a safe location (like in the memory banks of a smart card), it doesn't matter if someone can recover the bytes of a deleted message. If it's encrypted, then it will be unreadable.

This is just one of the numerous advantages to encrypting. We just need to start getting everyone to do it all the time!

Re:Better to encrypt

[Lumpy]

I'd never use a smartcard- too insecure and too fragile. I use my encrypted i-button. I can run it over with my car, drop it in the lake and even heat it to several hundred degrees and it doesn't die. Oh and the development system is peanuts, the computer to ibutton interface is basically free ($15.00 MAX) and the Ibutton can be purchased in onsey twoseys.

Smart cards? cost hundreds to read, you have to buy a batch, and you have to buy development software.

Use an I-button www.ibutton.com

Re:Better to encrypt

[theCoder]

Personally, I've only worked with smart cards, but I have seen iButtons before. They look pretty neat, and do accomplish the same thing that smart cards do (they're really just a different form of smart cards, or maybe smart cards are a different form of iButtons :)

I don't know much about how secure iButtons are, but I do know it's pretty hard, if not impossible, to remove a private key from a smart card. The card generates a public private key pair, tells you (the computer) the public key, but never reveals the private key. Sure, you might be able to hack it off, but I doubt it.

I didn't know that iButtons were that resiliant. It was my understanding they actually had a battery in them to keep the memory active (smart cards use EEPROM, which retains even when not powered). Do iButtons now use EEPROM as well? I would think throwing a battery in the water wouldn't be very good for it (neither would heating it to several hundred degrees :)

But really, I think that both are good, and whichever one suits your needs should be the one you use.

Sorry but ..

[OAB]

This judge is just as clueless as the rest. Why should Delete on a file work differently from delete on text?, and if I delete some text by mistake I really want to be able to get it back, same with files.

Software and hardware-based encryption...

[Swift Kick]

He does raise a interesting point. Why can't we safely delete unwanted files and not have them come bite us later on?
Well, actually, we can. There are several companies out there that provide software and hardware-based data encryption solutions. If privacy and sigil are so paramount to us, we can use any of these to insure our deleted items stay deleted. For example, among these encryption packages, pgp.com has several useful utilities that will 'shred' your free diskspace, to prevent data recovey on Windows environments. A simple google search also yelds rought 34k matches for filesystem encryption under linux and other OSes.
Bear in mind that although you have the right to privacy, when you're working for someone, the fine print often says that anything you write/save/delete/is_on_hard_drive_of_computer_use d is their property. They have the 'right' to examine it and do with it as they please.
I doubt there will be any mainstream OSes with built-in file and filesystem encryption enbled by default, since it would make many people unconfortable. God help us all ;)

Re:Software and hardware-based encryption...

[jafac]

Well, they're not just talking about recovering files whose entries are deleted from the FAT, but contents not yet overwritten from disk.

There's also the emails that were deleted, but backed up to tape and archived offsite for disaster recovery purposes (most companies I know with GOOD backup plans exclude their emails from DR backups, and back them up separately so archives can be purged).

Then there's also the issue I posted about earlier, where they can crack open a hard drive, and read the platters with a super-sensitive read-head, and extract data from the patterns - even when it's been overwritten. This is the really tricky stuff because most people don't know this is out there, so even when they try to use "shredder" programs, data can still be recovered.

what kind of fix does he propose?

[moller]

after reading the article, it seems that the judge only addresses part of the problem (if it is to be considered a problem). As stated above, he suggested that there be some kind of wait period after which deleted digital information can't be used in court. The article says this would be analagous to the information being consigned to the trash, are documents recovered from the trash/dump/wastepaper basket admissible?

Also, when something is deleted, what happens to it? I'm not terribly familiar with the inner workings of any OS (I'm a hardware person), but where does the information go? I mean, does it stay on the harddrive and is simply not referenced until you write over it? Once you write over the information can it be recovered? If I delete 2 GB of mp3's from my harddrive, I am told I now have 2 more GB of free space. Does that mean that the information is gone and unrecoverable without special tools, or it's just hidden and I should be able to get it back, or it's completely gone and the bits have been wiped? Or, are the bits not gone until they are overwritten?

Is there a way to change how an operating system or file system deletes files? Could a program or subroutine be made to go through and fill all dereferenced HD space with 0's or something? Or would the information still be recoverable from under those 0's somehow?

I don't know if suggesting legislation for this would be the best course of action. Especially if there isn't a way of telling when files are deleted. Even if there is a way to tell, what's to stop the people who can recover deleted information from changing the flag that says when a file was deleted (if such a flag exists)? If the only people who can retrieve deleted information are 'experts' and these 'experts' are employed by people with lots of money who are trying to find dirt on someone else...ok, I'm probably being too paranoid never mind.

::sigh:: one of these days I'll contribute something other than more questions.

Moller

Re:what kind of fix does he propose?

[yerricde]

does it stay on the harddrive and is simply not referenced until you write over it?

In most systems, yes.

Once you write over the information can it be recovered?

Law enforcement can get at several layers of deleted data.

Is there a way to change how an operating system or file system deletes files?

Create several large files (to fill up the HD within epsilon), overwrite them several times with random data, and "delete" them.

<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!

Tricky Release

[resistant]

So, send an encrypted email to a litigious enemy, and a copy of it to his boss and all his friends saying, "You're creepy, you eat dead cockroaches, and you smell like spoiled milk." Wait until six months and one day later to release the key to decrypt it. Scot-free! Mua-ha-ha-ha!

Bill Gates thinks so

[lythari]

I bet that Bill Gates thinks so as well. If delete actually deleted things instead of sending them to the trash bin, I don't think the prosecutors in the Microsoft anti-trust could have got their hands on those emails they used against Microsoft.

Re:Bill Gates thinks so

[shirakhan]

The email that the government used against Microsoft were freely handed over by Microsoft to an intern/student researcher writing a paper on the growth of large corporations, or something of that nature. As I understand it, they actually archive this stuff--presumably for the Bill Gates Presidential Library or something. Shirakhan

Serves 'em right

[henley]

If people are too bloody stupid to work out how to delete things properly, or use strong encryption to prevent invasion of privacy, then they deserve everything they get.
</Flamebait>

Discuss.

Actually, I believe you can make a case for this argument with some sensible provisos. Once such that immediately springs to mind is that the information so obtained (regardless of age) should have been obtained both Legally and Ethically (leaving open the argument that Carnivore, Echelon, UK's RIP etc fail at least 1 of those tests).

Personally, I'm in favour of providing technological solutions to technological problems, rather than wrapping-around a legal "hack". In An Ideal World, the technology would transparently handle secure deletion and/or copy-protection (for email) for you, thus negating the need to involve the blood-sucking fraternity in the first place.

<Slashdot-Flamebait>
If this statute of limitations had been in force, the DoJ's case against Microsoft would have been severely weakened (didn't they refer to years-old email from billg spouting anti-competitive tactics? or was that a previous lawsuit?)
</Slashdot-Flamebait>

SO THE JUDGES ARE FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT

[ishrat]

Most often than not the judiciary seems bent on proving people are on the wrong and must be punished. This is one rare insight on their part, not to take emails and comments on the net very seroiusly . Imagine if they just thought we at Slash should be punished for our oh-not-so-propah comments. They do realise that net users aren't actually all that serious as the money seems to portray. We are all having fun and the money just came by and the fun became even more fun. Am I right?

Other keys

[a_festering_bunny]

If Delete really deletes, does "home" bring me home? im sure it saves me tons of money in fuel. And when reading books I'd prefer to press page up and down instead of all that fiddling with pages myself. So if i need to go home from work i just do: "Home" "Enter" tada!! bunny

Re:Other keys

[warpath]

Page Up and Page Down won't help with reading books. You need Page Left and Page Right, I'm afraid. Or else you need to turn the book sideways...

\//

Easier said then done ...

[Megasphaera Elsdenii]

OK, it's easy enough to overwrite the bytes with
^@s, but this prolly won't deter the real spooks.

Due to slight inaccuracies with disk head positioning, their is still magnetisation that can be recovered from the edges of the little area that holds the byte (bit?). This is recoverable
relatively easily from magtape, but I wouldn't be
surprised if the same technique now also applies to high density hard disks.

In other words, if the judge wants to protect us all against this, that'd be pretty difficult to
achieve tecnically.

openBSD Encrypted swap

[Lumpy]

Aha! This is cool, but then is there a way to have the computer pick it's own salt and key each time it is booted for that encryption? that way you cant be hauled into court to reveal the passkey to access that encryption? adding random events into that system will make it almost truely un-crackable and therefore un-litigatable..

that would be really cool.

Re:openBSD Encrypted swap

[rebbie]

Adding random events into the system? Hasn't Micro$oft already done that?

Re:openBSD Encrypted swap

[Yardley]

almost truely un-crackable and therefore un-litigatable..

In Kevin Mitnick's case, having his data encrypted meant the government was allowed to keep his data indefinitely, on the theory that it might contain illegal/contraband content. Even though the content might have exonerated Mitnick and been used in his defense, the judge presiding over the government's case would not allow Mitnick to access it. In fact, Mitnick himself was not allowed to personally access any of the computer data used as evidence against him in the case -- only Mitnick's attorney and expert witness were allowed to at an off-site location under government supervision. Read that again: Mitnick was not allowed to review the evidence the government had against him.

You can read the court transcript here:
http://www.kevinmitn ick .com/trans052098.html#legal_question

--

Re:openBSD Encrypted swap

[ethereal]

Well, it's hardly as open-and-shut as that. The government wanted access to Mitnick's encrypted files because they thought there might be other incriminating evidence in there. Mitnick refused to turn over the password on the 5th Amendment grounds that this would be self-incrimination. Later he wanted access to the files and the government wouldn't turn them over, on the grounds that this would be evidence that he could use but the government could not, since only Mitnick could decrypt it.

I'm not sure what I would have done in his situation, but trials are supposed to operate on the principle that the evidence is available for review by all parties. It's fine with me if Mitnick didn't want to provide possible evidence against him by decrypting the files (and in fact I probably would have done the same thing in his place) but it's incorrect to then say that the government was denying him access to this evidence. The government was denying access to any evidence which would have been only available to the defendant and not to the plaintiff.

Not that I agree with everything about how the trial proceeded (especially the terms of his parole, which would make it almost impossible to live in an industrialized society), but in this case I don't see how he could have expected any different reaction from the court.

differences!

[www.sorehands.com]

Carl is talking about liability regarding email. There are two issues here.

• Liability from something in the email. "Here is a copy of my windows Cd, here is how you install it..."
• Evidence from the email. "Hey Sal, if that guy doesn't pay that 5 large tonight, break both kneecaps this time."

In a case (either civil or criminal) it usually takes more than six months to discover the crime/wrongful act and get to discovering the email. If that was a law, a good lawyer would just delay for 6 months and claim that the emails are not admissible anymore.

Ctrl+Alt+Delete

[cookieman]

This sould mean: delete my Windows permanently...
Sorry Windows not responding :(

Isn't amazing how can I be OT and TROLL in the same comment ?

Re:Ctrl+Alt+Delete

[cookieman]

I forgot something: OT, TROLL and stupid.
Preserve your flamming for somebody else...

Probably a good idea but...

[sjbe]

What the judge suggests seem to be a good idea, but it isn't quite so simple upon further reflection. There are some communications that should not be subject to any statute of limitations, just as there are are some serious crimes that should not be subject to one. The tough part is in deciding which is which and what sorts of emails should be subject to later scrutiny and which should be dismissed as a product of another "era". I suspect it would be difficult if not impossible to come up with a clear standard for which is which.

Besides, putting aside all "paranoia" about our government for a moment, there is something to be said for being responsible for one's actions. Taking a moment to think about what you do and say is never a bad thing. Despite the protections we enjoy, our past can come back to haunt us sometimes. Better be sure what you are doing is important enough to justify that happening.

Personal Responsibility

[JohnTheFisherman]

God forbid we should take responsibility for what we actually said!

Let's reduce the statute of limitations on murder to a few months, because it might have been done in the heat of the moment, and everyone f's up every now and then.

The recycle bin

[yerricde]

The Delete key queues files for deletion. The recycle bin actually deletes the file and (if you have privacy utilities installed) wipes it.

Seriously, why won't they rethink keyboards and actually have both a Trash and Delete key?

I think there's a (Shift+Delete? Ctrl+Delete?) key shortcut that does this.

<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!

Re:The recycle bin

[Abcd1234]

delete == stick in trash bin
shift+delete == really delete

FYI... :)

"Shredding" Data Files

[jfunk]

Delete = gone is nice- We have that option when it comes to shredders and incinerators for our paper correspondence, I think the concept has to be a bit more fleshed out to be truely applicable to the digital medium.

Right click on a file you want to delete in KDE2 and select the "Shred" option.

Watch the resulting progressmeter. Pretty neat, huh?

If you don't have KDE2, try out wipe.

Re:"Shredding" Data Files

[RichDice]

That's a good start, but it doesn't address the issue of copies of your email that may be made along the transmission path between you and your correspondant. Heck, it doesn't even address the issue of your correspondant _not_ 'shredding' his/her copy of the email.

This would get a little bit better if we started using peer-to-peer email-like technologies, just now starting to appear on the collective radar screen...

Cheers,
Richard

A better idea

[cronack]

IMO would be for the law to recognize that digital information (in this case, email) is inherently insecure and modifiable, and therefore should not be considered valid as evidence of anything under any circumstances. Think about this. Do you remember email messages you wrote or read six months ago? Probably not. Especially if you read/write a large volume of email. If someone were to fabricate a message that appeared to have been created/sent a long time ago, the person who apparently authored the message may not be able to remember and therefore refute the evidence. Essentially, you could fabricate evidence that is nearly irrefutable because neither the author nor recipient could remember well enough to testify that it is/isn't what they wrote/read. Just my $1/50.

I agree, electronic evidence is no different

[NuclearArchaeologist]

What's the problem with electronic evidence? The same burdens of proff should apply to it as have applied to any other collected evidence. Eliminating it, just because it's old is stupid. Eliminating it because it can not really be tied to the accused is sensible.

Here is a word to all you incompetent criminals, tough luck. Creep says, "That letter with the char marks on it should be thrown out!". Judge says, "Bullshit."

This is a seperate issue from unreasonable searches like Carnivore. We should not let one bad decision force us into even less reasonable laws. Reasonable searches should not be impeeded.

If it's not admissible...

[yerricde]

Are you telling me the entire legal industry (police, courts etc) will just ignore evidence of crimes just because its 6 months and one day old?

No, the courts will.

<O
( \
XPlay Tetris On Drugs!

My company does this..

[Some Id10t]

I happen to work for a large organization (75,000 employees) that has a 60 day email rentention policy.

Any items left in your Inbox or any other server-based mail folders are deleted if they are over 60 days old. Plus there is a "policy" that states that the emails are "no longer valid" after 60 days.

The reasoning behind this, I was told, was so that the company could not be sued or have other legal action taken against them for an email written more than two months ago.

Sure makes completing really large projects difficult, though. I can only remember things for 8 weeks!

I don't seriously see this happening in government though. Does the judge mean to apply this to Criminal cases? Civil ones?

Re:My company does this..

[Some Id10t]

Except that many employees probably keep a CYA cache of old emails, which will be discoverable despite whatever self-serving policy the company has made.

Yes, I do that myself, as a matter of fact. Interestingly enough, the policy update was sent via email.. so the question is, is it still valid ? :-)

DeCSS

[graystar]

So would that mean that DeCSS in an email wouldnt be illegal after six months? t=0 illegal t=6 legal mmmm

you have the wrong idea.....

[bdavenport]

he's not talking about posting of stories to public forums. read the article and then the paper. he's overwhelmingly talking about items contained on our personal HDDs: email, notes, papers, spreadsheets...ie personal stuff.

the expectation of his paper is to raise the idea of "when does something you deleted die?" his fear is that it doesn't. ever.

but as a general question: what makes email i delete any different that voice tapes i erase, which later can be recovered? are we going to excuse Nixon now? where do we draw the distinction between media types?

Re:An Internet with laws is not free.

[AFCArchvile]

Eventually, the governing power will become too corrupt for its own good, and will start passing intolerable laws. Then we will have to rise up against them. But right now, the governing power has not been given the tools to smite us down. We are free, for now.

semantics

[White Shadow]

Ok, after reading through the proposal, it just seems that the guy was confused with what the delete key means. So because it doesn't do what he thinks it should do, he wants everyone to go change how applications implement the delete key. Last time I checked, the delete key is just a key on the keyboard and it can do whatever the applications programmer wants it to do. If I write a program that uses the delete key to bring up a menu, that's perfectly fine and I see no problems in doing such a thing. By no means should the key that happens to be labeled delete have only one function. That would severely undermine the usefulness of computers if each key could only do what it's told.

It seems to me that the real problem is that people are just uneducated of what the delete key really does when the user "delete's" a file. There are programs out there that will really delete files completely for you, so the option is still there. There is no reason why everyone should make the default behavior one way or another, let the user decide by educating the user of his or her options.

Personal problem with the judge?

[marcop]

"Should there be a statute of limitations on being a jerk?" he asked. "Maybe the answer is no. I thought I would toss [the idea] out."

and

Recognizing that anyone is entitled to make a mistake or to think a less than perfect thought,

I get the feeling this judge personally offended someone via email then that someone found out about it later on. Clue to judge... a person will always be a jerk until they change their attitude.

Why would we need that?

[jawtheshark]

Why would we need a *real* delete key? We have Windows for that: I mean, most lusers use a flavour of Windows anyway, which crashes at least heavily enough once a year to kill all your data. Mostly you have to reformat your drive, and don't have a backup handy anyway. So *once* a year you start from a clean slate...

<CONSIPRACY MODE=ON>
This is just a trick to show that all criminals use Linux because their boxes don't crash and incriminating material never vanishes...thus Linux must be the evil tool of criminals and hackers (oops, I mean crackers). It must and shall be eradicated!
</CONSIPRACY MODE=OFF>
:-)

Re:This is great

[SlippyToad]

I think that's a good point, actually. I wish people would pay more attention to how easy it is to fake emails, dates, and generally everything on a computer. It provides plenty of reason to simply deny anyone using computer evidence in a court of law. It's too easy to fake dates. Without some form of agreed-upon date and time stamping mechanism, it will always be so. I know that if I were ever taken to court on the basis of electronic communications, I would simply pull out my programming tools and fake emails from the judge and jury in the courtroom saying all sorts of uncomplimentary things. What we need as a digital society is some sort of central clock, with a public-key encrypted stamp on it so that it can be verified as a genuine date from the real clock. It would have to be completely open, not under the aegis of anyone like the FBI or NSA.

Gnome-Terminal

[discore]

I noticed the other say that Gnome Terminal has an option for "Secure Keyboard." How does this fancy little option play into a more "secure" delete key?
I honestly don't know that much about that the secure-keyboard option even does, I'd assume throw a small crypto on things somewhere in between the I/O of the ps2 port and the terminal.

Re:Gnome-Terminal

[British]

IIRC the "delete" key on the Apple // computers actually did a backspace.

Why do we keep protecting them...

[Grumpman]

from their own ignorance?

As soon as they pass a law to 'make delete mean delete' someone will demand that they have their files/emails be recoverable. I agree with the spirit of the judge, but realistically, the problem has never been the software. It's the user. Don't try and make the software idiot proof (insert your own idiot cliché here). But teach the helpless ignorant bastards how to zero fill their own drive and the reproductions of their actions.

archiving

[mach-5]

What about archiving? Does this mean that when I delete my e-mail it is gone forever? I would assume that. If that's the case, the mail would have to be removed from the archives as well in order to make it completely gone. Would this mean that "legally" sysadmins couldn't make backup archives of e-mail and user space too? This would imply that a MORE redundant raid system is the only legal backup...no more tapes.

one question

[moller]

Create several large files (to fill up the HD within epsilon), overwrite them several times with random data, and "delete" them.

Epsilon?

Google, caching, deja

[ultrabot]

This should also apply to outsiders (like google) that save pages (that have been removed by their authors) and present them to the outside world, while no offering the option of deleting them. Dejanews should also be prosecuted: they allow deletion of your own posts, but not replies to them.

For example, I should not be allowed to make my own public mirror of slashdot, completely disregarding Taco and all the poster. Neither should google. I could make a script that would collect the data "randomly" (with a surprising accuracy), but that should not be a concern.

Ignoring privacy should be a crime, not a business model.

Re:Google, caching, deja

[discore]

I think its more geared to permenantly getting rid of text that was never that public in the first place. Compared to something millions could read if they wanted to. For example if you have to write down your pin numbers in vi, then after you have it in a safer place permenantly delete it.

Re:Google, caching, deja

[ultrabot]

I think its more geared to permenantly getting rid of text that was never that public in the first place. Compared to something millions could read if they wanted to.

Yeah, but "public" is a relative term. A website might be intended to cater for needs of a smallish group, and when the message has got through, the admin should be able to just delete it and assume it is gone for good (except for those who saved it to their local computers for personal use, which doesn't violate copyrights).

Hmm, I guess this might be a case for another law proposal... but it might be easier to "slip it in" in the same package with the proposal being discussed. At least this topic must be subjected to big public discussion, before it's too late and all the unencypted emails are available to your mother at a public website.

This aspect of privacy is actually closer to the heart of the man on the street, with no major criminal inclinations... for whom embarrassment/social damage is a more serious concern than being sued by the feds.

Read the article before you post

[scotpurl]

The judge quite clearly states, "perhaps six months for an isolated message." Isolated, not part of a larger, longer investigation.

And a little further on:

"If, to the contrary, there was an objective continuation of the challenged conduct, or a continuing pattern of wrongful acts, the cyber statute of limitations would be tolled as any other."

Re:Read the article before you post

[91degrees]

So what does this mean? If somebody writes "The US government must be brought down" in an email then deletes it, and 6 months and a day later the US government isn't brought down, but someone using undelete accidently dredges it up, they shouldn't be accused of a crime, but if its less than 6 months when this is discovered then they should.

Re:Read the article before you post

[NecroPuppy]

So what does this mean? If somebody writes "The US government must be brought down" in an email then deletes it, and 6 months and a day later the US government isn't brought down, but someone using undelete accidently dredges it up, they shouldn't be accused of a crime, but if its less than 6 months when this is discovered then they should.

Actually, it isn't a crime either way, as there is no law against sedition in the US.

You can talk about bringing down the government all you want, and it isn't a crime. However, that talk could be used as evidence against you if you were to actually do something.

Case in point, the Unibomber Manifesto. If he had just written the thing, it would have been shrugged off; sure, he may have gone into the FBI's 'nut' file, but there wouldn't have been charges filed. But since he did blow things up, it could be used against him.

NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.

Re:Read the article before you post

[scotpurl]

Me not lawyer, just geek, but I'll still try to interpret.

Two years ago, you're manufacturing Meth in your basement. You get the mix a little hot, it combusts, and you manage to put the fire out before your neighbors notice, and before structural damage. "Geez," you think, "what a risk. I need to find a different hobby." You give up the Meth biz, and go straight. You delete all the recipees and customer lists from your computer.

You've now got a great job, life is good, and you decide to call your girlfriend for dinner. Problem is, you're in Philadelphia, you're dressed in black, and you're walking past the hotel where one of the WTO exec's just happens to be staying. The police grab you, throw you into a van, and charge you as being a leader of a some vague somethingorother directed against the WTO. They sieze all your belonging, and start snarfing through your hard drive(s).

They find and reconstruct enough of your old meth client list and sales receipts to charge you as a meth dealer, and a fragment of an old deleted JPG image of your sister's new baby, but since this is Philly, and since the kid's getting his nappies changed (and is naked), you're also going to be charged as a child porn king.

With a statute of limitations on deleted files, none of that is admissible, and you walk. In the current state of things, you'll be spending 10-25 in a Pennsylvania prison.

Re:Read the article before you post

[tomknight]

Hey, that's what being a criminal's about....

If you had the same stuff on paper and were careless/stupid enough not to delete it then the same would happen.

If you have broken the law, and get caught (and have your naughtiness proved against you) you suffer. Period.

Shredder

[Alternity]

Just as people can get shredders to destroy their paper correspondance, there are some softwares that you can get which make your deleting much more permanent. What it does is hash and scramble the content of your file several times before finally deleting it. So while there might still be some way to retrieve the file chances are that what you can read from it has no sense at all.

Now for e-mail it's another story but I'm pretty sure that the same process could be implemented in a mail client. Anybody looking for a cool project to do? :o)


"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...

permanent my nutsack

[Lord Omlette]

Do we have any copies of the first electronic communications from 30 years ago? No. Why? The media broke down. Ya, do we have books from thousands of years ago? Oh hellz yeah

If there's a statute of limitations on electronic communications, is that implying that email is illegal in some way? ^^;;
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

As my Pappy used to say...

[fermi's ghost]

"Never put anything on a computer that you woulnd't want to see printed on the front page on the New York Times."
- Covert Charlie

Practicality

[TheTomcat]

From a practical standpoint, it is incredibly simple to forge a timestamp. If this document is about to "expire", I could just update the timestamp (touch for instance).

The only practical way I could think of in the 30 seconds I devoted to making this work is through a trusted third party that stores timestamps in a secure manner, and can be used as a reference. But don't expect people to have a third party stamping mail for them. I certainly wouldn't trust this 'generally trusted' party.

Re:Practicality

[awol]

Or alternatively you could just swear that the message was created at time X. Just like other evidence.

Oh yeah I recall having that conversation/email tirade back in January

Bang, who needs a timestamp when one has corroborated testimony. Not every problem needs to solved in a technical way.

Re:Practicality

[cowbutt]

How about this:

1) Send hash of document to be timestamped to timestamping agency.

2) Agency takes the hash, adds a timestamp to it and signs the resulting product.

3) Agency sends the hash/timestamp/signature tuple back to you.

3) You append the tuple to your document.

The agency doesn't need to store the timestamps, just be trustable (in terms of security and a reliable clock source) and have a private/public key pair.

Re:Practicality

[Asgard]

Already done: The PGP Digital Timestamping Service will let you email it anything, (such as just a hash, or the whole file if you are brave) and will return a timestamped hash of it. It posts the hashes (never the original) to usenet and keeps them in it's own archive for historical tracking.

You can also use it to send the equivalent of a 'certified' email, whereby it will give you a proof-of-posting certificate for a given email. It doesn't guarentee the email was ever received or read, but it could be better than nothing.

To all Slashdot Readers

[Srin Tuar]

-----------------------------------
Date: 04-05-2000
Original message:

FsCK ALL YOU YOU
-----------------------------------

Seems a bit disingenuous

[alecto]

for some among us, including myself, to say that technology should result in shorter copyrights--acknowledging the quick obsolesence of digital media (e.g. 8 bit game ROMs, C-64 software) while simultaneously demanding new rights against discovery because a particular medium (e.g. email) happens to be digital.

While different in scale, this idea sounds to me a bit like a law that would disallow introduction into evidence of a written plan for a murder, because the defendant had attempted to burn it. And if it was burned, it should stay burned.

Good spirit, but no execution

[morganew]

While the idea is massively flawed (wait six months and you get out scot free?) it has some interesting overtones. Possibly what is more interesting about it is information that has become part of the public domain by dint of the way the information is passed.

For example, an email message will never really disappear, even if the reciever and sender both delete it. The email server is backed up, and you probably have the stuff backed up on a separate computer in your office that you don't even know about.

So unlike the old days of a letter only likely having two parties, anything you send electronically is almost by definition in the public domain.

Interestingly enough, the mail has always been very protected. ...the whole "its a federal crime to open someone else's mail". At some point there will be a higher emphasis placed on protection of email.

I think what the judge is speaking about is not email used in the commission of a crime, but mail NOT used in a crime; email used instead in strictly the expression of ideas. And those ideas may become out of favor.

Again, history is replete with examples of this, just think of the blacklisting of folks who took an interest in socialism during the 40 and 50s. McCarthy used everything he could find against them, including old notes and roll call lists.

In my opinion, what he is speaking to is not something that is strictly found in electronic communication, but of all forms of communication.

My sense is he fears what we now refer to as "thought crimes", and while I think the spriti of what he is saying is great, there isn't much we can do legislatively, except for making some kind of admonitions against using old information without the author's permission. Unfortunately the folks most likely to punish us with that already have ways around any law like that: The fourth estate can always use first amendment protections to take illegally gained email and publish it (though some of the tobacco stuff has been interesting on this); and the government has the power of the subpoena. So basically, its a great core idea, but not a practical solution.

Re:the judge is onto something.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, no! I said something funny and got modded down... if only I could delete it... damn, this delete key doesn't work.

Microsoft Pocket Judge?

[Cylix]

How many e-mails were used during the Microsoft vs DOJ trials? How much information was gleamed from dated sources that really did help the prosecution. Remember, with corporations, discovering and prosecuting a crime are rarely speedy things.

If something stated in an electronic message contains enough wrong doing to prosecute the sender... why should we invalidate this due to time.

Is there a statute of limitations placed on real letters and internal memos? If not, then why should we pose additional restrictions on electronic messages.

As far as delete is concerned... the function of the delete key is not the hardwares fault... it simply a scancode of numeric value that is sent upon keypress. The interpretation of that scancode is left to your operating system. Sooo... if you don't like the operating system... you may need something that better suites your needs.

Re:Microsoft Pocket Judge?

[A coward on a mouse]

As far as delete is concerned...

I like that. Will the judge go after the computer vendors because the "home" key does not take him home? or because after hitting the "escape" key, he finds himself still trapped in a long and boring hearing? I can imagine a class action suit on the behalf of horny Japanese angry because the "insert" key doesn't result in coitus. (The word commonly used to translate "insert" has a sexual connotation in Japanese.)

Judge hubris

[Mr. Lost]

He wishes he was the language police and since he's a judge, he thinks he knows everything.

The meaning of words changes over time. In the context of computers, the word "delete" has a very specific meaning.

This comment from the bench speaks much more about the madness of our current judicial system than it does about computers or programming.

Two sides to the matter

[Bolero]

I understand what the judge is envisioning, and I have to say that I agree with it and I disagree with it. (I love duality...)

I don't like it because it is possible that a crime could be commited where the only evidence is in a digitally signed email sitting on some guys harddrive. If a statue of limitations is passed on the admission of emails (or other digital documents) into a court of law, that effectively changes the statue of limitations for crimes to 6 months if the only evidence is an electronic message. For instance, murder has no statue of limitation, but if the only evidence is an email... well then the statue of limitations suddenly becomes 6 months. I don't know if I like that idea.

There are also aspects of this idea I like. I like the idea that correspondence not meant for public consumption will not be legally admissable after six months. We all have said things in private that were stupid and that we regret later on.

Either way, I think that this should only apply to personal correspondence. If someone posts to some type of public forum (such as /.), those records should be available for as long as the administrator of the site sees fit.

We have to be responsible for the things we say in public.

Astonishingly bad idea for online business...

[Midnight Ryder]

What a bad idea when it comes to businesses who make thier living online. There's no real boundry set here for the ideas - just the other day, it became 'legal' here in the US for an electronic signature to become a legally binding contract. This includes web forms, faxes, and yes, email. Now, if email becomes 'null and void' after a 6 month period, then what the heck... it kinda makes that worthless!

However, this gets into another debate - why should there be a difference between something you write in a magazine in the real world (or any other pen and paper medium) and email? You are held responsible in the real world for your actions, and I really do believe you should be held responsible for the crap you do on the Internet. Why should it be different?

Re:Just you wait

[AFCArchvile]

I didn't say that I'm already a martyr or a hero, I said that I'm taking action which might lead to one of those. Take off those blinders and read the post without alternating glances with your gilded, titanium bound copy of "Kernel Hacking, 5th Edition."

That's what hd wipes are for...

[Yottabyte84]

I have a program called eraser that does a guttman (sp?) wipe of any files you don't want read. it does 35 wipes of any file you want of hd free space. Nothing that I know can recover that. And if I wanted I could make it do as many wipes as I like. (Let's see the feds recover that file I ran 255 wipes on)

This could get messy....

[beth_linker]

First, a point of clarification. It doesn't look as though e-mail that one actually sends qualifies as "deleted." It sounds like this proposal covers the draft that you wrote before you sent it (the one in which you referred to your boss as "that pompous windbag") which currently might be used against you if it was found on your computer (even though you removed the phrase in question from the version you sent).

On a related note, it would be great if deletion were just as simple as emptying the trash bin in Windows every now and again. However, a lot of incriminating data can be found in the nooks and crannies of file formats like MS Word (yes, I know this wouldn't be a problem if we all used Linux or BSD but we don't). Your non-incriminating copy of a file might still contain a buffer full of incriminating text that you had carefully erased.

My personal opinion on this sort of thing is that it really depends on the nature of the crime. If one actually hurts someone, deleted information relating to that should be fair game. However, if the act of deletion makes the data harmless then it should be ignored. For example, if I write an e-mail message to a co-worker that could be construed as sexual harassment, but I cancel before sending it, it would be unfair to use the leftover draft of the unsent message to demonstrate a pattern of harassment. Similarly, if I write a letter in MS Word and delete a paragraph about how the recipient and I should kill my husband, but I delete the paragraph before I print and mail the letter, the file recovered from my hard drive should not be used as evidence of conspiracy to commit murder. The key question seems to be does deleting the data effectively reverse the intent behind creating the data? If it does then one shouldn't be held accountable for it, but if not then it should be fair game.

Re:This could get messy....

[GigsVT]

Similarly, if I write a letter in MS Word and delete a paragraph about how the recipient and I should kill my husband, but I delete the paragraph before I print and mail the letter, the file recovered from my hard drive should not be used as evidence of conspiracy to commit murde

There is an important legal concept that blows your whole argument away. You can talk about committing a crime all you want, so long as you don't act in a way to further the crime. You can even conspire with others to commit a crime, so long as there is no action toward the end of committing the crime, except talking about it.

If you go out and buy a gun, after talking about killing your wife/husband with a gun, then that is attempted murder. If you just talk about it, but never make an action toward completing it, then there is no crime. There is a grey area, such as, suppose you talk about killing your wife, then drive to a gun store and don't buy anything. It would still probably be enough to convict you, but it is more of a grey area.
-

Slashdot President

[hymie3]

Instead of "I smoked, but I didn't inhale" it will be "Yeah, I clicked on that goatse.cx link, but I didn't look at any of the pics." Or, how about "I have no recollection of writing an email requesting Natalie Portman/hot grits stories."

And, of course, "I did not have a first post with that web site."

hymie

Why treat electronic documents differently?

[werdna]

I dissent.

1) This is a recipe for disaster, where one can spend even more money litigating the virtual ephemerality than one spends on discovery. (We already spend more money on discovery than we do in preparing trial materials on the merits.) Still further, we can defeat this by simply replacing archives with "deletions," knowing that we can recover the data if we want it, but defeat discovery by claiming it was "deleted." Rather than create legal fictions in lieu of reality, why not simply put on those who intend to destroy things the burden if doing it well?

2) Even if it were practical, why are we treating discarded information differently from other non-discarded information? Why should we be permitted to go into the deep archives of a building to find smoking gun memoranda long thought destroyed, but not into the interstices of a hard disk?

3) It would be one thing to say, "no, we won't permit discovery." It is another thing to create some special-purpose exception to an exemption to a rule, knowing the rule to be filled with unanticipated consequences.

But the real problem I have with this proposal is more fundamental -- the proposal has the effect of concealing the truth without any other clear benefit.

It rewards a guy who meant to conceal some truth, probably reliable evidence in view of the effort, by concealing it after he screwed up in trying to destroy it.

There exist a host of rules (materiality, hearsay, best evidence, the exclusion rule for profits of an illegal search) during legal proceedings that keep evidence from finders of fact, but those rules tend to support other policies, such as reliabiity, civil liberties, and even oxymoronic judicial efficiency.

This proposed rule exists solely to make relevant, reliable evidence inadmissible. That doesn't, at least to me, seem just.

Re:Why treat electronic documents differently?

[Gogl]

While some of your objections are relevant, there is a bigger issue at stake in my mind. I congratule whoever this judge is for simply NOT being an idiot when it concerns computers. It's about time, and I'll tell you what scares me:

Okay, the next president will end up appointing 3-4 supreme court justices most likely. We already have a relatively conservative court, a la Reagan. If we get G.W. as president the court will be soooo extremely anal retentive for the next 30 years that things will be ugly. Think DMCA. I wouldn't be surprised if they make it illegal to link to copyrighted material or crap like that. 9 old white men who know nothing about computers scare the crap out of me. The fact that there are some judges who at least sort of get what's happening is very good news.

And it's more then copyrights. It's the whole globalization of the world due to the internet. Imagine, for example, if a French citizen who is physically located (legally) in Britain, using a computer owned by a Chinese company to download from a server located in the US a certain file that is illegal in the US, France and China but not in Britain. What happens?

And of course, non computer issues are important too. Abortion will come back, as well as some other things. Basically the fact that some judges aren't stupid is good. And if G.W. is elected and the Bush supreme court starts making *ahem* stupid declarations I'll have to seriously consider leaving this country. Very scary stuff.

Brightness?

[superid]

And if I turn up the brightness on my monitor, will irc users suddenly get smarter?

SuperID

Wiping up after yourself

[cbull]

I know I've gotten into the habit, on my Win9x system, of using either PGP Wipe or Norton Utilities' WipeInfo to delete files that I have even the slightest concern about. Both also give you the ability to "securely" wipe free space on your drive, which I also do occasionally. I hate the fact that I even have to worry about it. But there have been enough incidents of little things coming back to haunt people that I'm not going to chance anything. I particularly do it at work, since so many companies have the potential to track what you do. I'm not going to give them anymore info than I have to. :)

Power protects power

[mrgil]

The idea here is to protect corporations and government agencies, not citizens. If there's something on my hard disk that they want for whatever reason, they'll do some handwaving and get it, because laws are selectively enforced. This idea is presented as if it might help the little guy, but its transparent intent is to immunize institutional criminals, the Firestones and the White Houses, etc.

Absolutely ridiculous...

[nphinit]

If you said something via email, you said it. It doesn't matter that it was via email. Email is just as valid a form of communication as anything else. Why do you support trying to make internet communication "less real" and "less important"?

'Tid always the stupids.....

[Free Bird]

Does this judge really not realize that there are tons of nullifiers out there? Even randomize-nullifiers exist. If you do things well, you can't recover a deleted file. Just remove the filesystem entry, nullify it, write a few iterations of random data and nullify it again. There's no need for this nonsense!

However, stupid people like the judge DO need a recycle bin to keep them from destroying important documents.

As for the e-mail stuff, I agree that one shouldn't be confronted with stuff from years ago that is out of contest, but if we were to find an e-mail right now from O.J. to his lawyer saying he did it, would we ignore it? I don't think we should!

Schneier says...

[SilverDollar]

Bruce Schneier wrote (in applied crytography or secrets & lies, I forget which) that to erase truly sensitive information, he recommended over-writing it with all ones and all zeros about 10 times. Further, given the current state of the art in electron tunnelling microscopes (or something like that) this may not be enough. yikes!

I've got one, too

[OlympicSponsor]

I ordered it from one of those stupid "Things You Never Knew Existed" catalogs, as I recall. It's not a real keyboard key, it just looks like one. I stuck some tape on the back and now it's an integral part of my day: Won't compile? PANIC! Memory leaks? PANIC! Boss wants to see me "for just a minute"? PANIC!
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Re:I've got one, too

[compwiz3688]

really? omg... i gotta get me one of those...
---
dd if=/dev/random of=~/.ssh/authorized_keys bs=1 count=1024

Using "bad" evidence

[mOdQuArK!]

I'm not sure that I've really liked the practice declaring perfectly good evidence "inadmissible" in court - the idea that a rapist, murderer or CEO could be legally freed (and immune to further prosecution for that crime because of the double-jeopardy rule) because the judge or jury has to "ignore" a real piece of evidence really annoys me.

It seems to me, that if even if the evidence was collected illegally, as long as there is a high degree of confidence of its authenticity (e.g., the law enforcement hasn't cooked it up to try and frame the suspect), then it should be used.

_BUT_, the individuals responsible for collecting that evidence illegally should be punished in proportion to the manner that the illegal collection was performed (if they tortured a suspect for instance, then they should be charged under a criminal offense like anybody who tortured another person).

Not sure what to do if you're not sure who collected the illegal evidence (anonymous tipsters) though.

Re:Using "bad" evidence

[A coward on a mouse]

It seems to me, that if even if the evidence was collected illegally, as long as there is a high degree of confidence of its authenticity (e.g., the law enforcement hasn't cooked it up to try and frame the suspect), then it should be used.
....
Not sure what to do if you're not sure who collected the illegal evidence (anonymous tipsters) though.

I can tell you what unscrupulous law enforcement officials would do with the system you describe: they would say that all illegally obtained evidence was obtained through anonymous tipsters. It may be that people getting away with crimes because of techicalities annoys you, it annoys me, too. However, the inadmissability of illegally obtained evidence is the only thing that stops unscrupulous law enforcement officials from routinely obtaining evidence illegally.

Re:Using "bad" evidence

[GigsVT]

I'm not sure that I've really liked the practice declaring perfectly good evidence "inadmissible" in court - the idea that a rapist, murderer or CEO could be legally freed (and immune to further prosecution for that crime because of the double-jeopardy rule) because the judge or jury has to "ignore" a real piece of evidence really annoys me.

Those technicalities are usually minor things like oh .... the 4th or 5th amendment. Hell lets repeal all the Bill of Rights, at least another rapist or murderer will never go free.
-

SOL should confirm with others

[7dragon]

I am currently suing a former employer. The statute of limitations on the action is 1 year. Some email is critical evidence to the case. The SOL should be a minimum of 1 year to conform with the SOL on any possible complaint that might rely on the email as evidence.

Frankly, I think the guy is an idiot. Some lawyers have this wild hair up their collective butts where they get to be judges and all of sudden that start "making policy from on high".

A bunch of egotistical bullshit in my opinion. Email doesn't need a SOL. The case it's related to has its own SOL. If you have a case you have evidence. If the case can be brought to complaint within the statutory time frame then all evidence should be valid for that frame.

Friggin' lawyers....

Legislating Pi to be 3

[goliard]

This is different from legislating Pi to be three, how?

The electronic record exists. Cope.

What needs to happen is not a change in evidentiary procedure, but a shift in western culture. When juries and judges are themselves familiar with what their own electronic traces are, then they will view the electronic traces of others in more reasonable proportion.

Re:Legislating Pi to be 3

[platos_beard]

From what I read the judge was NOT advocating legislative or judicial action to enforce features of software design -- if he had, I'd be quite ready to rant about it myself.

Judge Rosenbaum points out that the incompleteness of deletions (as they stand now) is affecting the legal system and indirectly, everyday activity. Lawyers are going to go after any electronic record they can get and use it to their best advantage. Everybody has to cope with that and they do cope by restricting what they put in electronic writing. Judges and juries understand already what the status of such "deleted" records really is, but are you going to trust that a lawyer won't be able to make it appear more damning than it is? I'm not.

This de facto self-censorship of electronic discussions is what Judge Rosenbaum thinks is a bad thing that could be improved by making sure that "delete" means "delete."

It's unlikely to happen, but he has a point.

Re:Legislating Pi to be 3

[goliard]

You missunderstand my point. The idea of changing evidenciary procedure (which would be a legislative act, necessarily, yes?) would be to create a legal fiction to the effect that file traces on hds did not exist after 6 months (or other arbitrary date).

But they do exist. And creating a legal fiction that they don't exist (in the context of a court of law) would have to have extraordinarily compelling arguments behind it. I truly cannot grant that "because people aren't adjusted to the affordances of the medium" is such.

The suppression of evidence on the grounds that it was illegally procured (such as in an unwarranted search and seizure), has a much more compelling reason: it is the only way to put teeth into the 4th amendment.

But we have no right not to be recorded when we ourselves press the "record" button on a tape player. We have no right not to be recorded when we ourselves commit our words to paper. To think we have a right not to be recorded when we ourselves put our words on digital media is absurd.

To put that into the law is to privilege electronic media in a way that they are not in reality.

Consider: The judge might have well argued that, for instance, nothing writen on paper may be considered evidence after a fixed length of time. What he is doing is suggesting that we create a class of communications media which is especially privileged, for the purpose of advancing the free exchange of ideas, e.g. that we have a medium in which things may be said with more impunity (in this case from being used as evidence) than in other media. To make an analogy, what if he argued that there should be specially privileged public spaces, in which slander laws do not apply, so that there be more free flow of information? What he suggests is no less radical.

As interesting as that idea is, it is a massive change to both civic and cultural life in the US; it impacts all branches of government and the lives of every one of its citizen. It is literally revolutionary.

While I'll be the last person to say all is well in this country, I will be convinced that this is a good idea only by some pretty amazing philosophical underpinnings, with which this idea as of yet most certainly has not been presented. A vague ascertion that this will remedy self-censorship (so would repealing the slander and libel laws) doesn't cut it.

The creation of a legal fiction -- to yet further divorce law from reality, to yet further sculpt what juries see and hear -- is never a good thing; it is at best the lesser of two evils.

And it is the equivalent of legislating pi to be three.

Re:Legislating Pi to be 3

[platos_beard]

So I missed your point. Cope ; )

Ok, he's not wanting action to enforce software design, but he does want to change legal behavior. Is this legislative action? I don't think so, but IANAL. I think there's all kind of information which is suppressed in court without explicit legislation suppressing it, not just illegally obtained material, but irrelevant material, hearsay, prejudicial material... This would just be one more category.

A legislative action would be overkill, but if the judicial change can be made in the normal legal channels -- a lawyer makes the case the some year-old deleted data should not be admissible, the judge agrees, the ruling suvives several layers of appeal and it becomes incorporated in standards of evidence -- then I don't have a problem with it and it certainly isn't legislating a fiction. (It does seem rather unlikely.) In fact I'd say it is the judicial system (I promise, last time I'll use any form of the word) "coping."

Sometimes they do . . .

[hawk]

One day at Iowa state, while leaving the den o the quantitative geneticists (I worked for one of them) in Kildee hall, I noticed a bit of plastic on the floor. As I got closer, it turned out to be a computer key. And sure enough, it was the escape key, which had taken its mission a bit too seriously.

I found it hysterical, but realized that there were tragically few people with whom I could share my amusement . . .

disappearing email...

[mother pussbucket]

A company called Disappearing, Inc. has a solution to the email problem. It's somewhat convoluted and requires you to be online to their servers to read email sent using their encription. If you're willing to put up with the hassle, they allow you to send an email which becomes unreadable after a time period you specify. Basically, they encript it and store the key on their server (just the key, not the message). After the set time period, the key is deleted and the message is unreadable (without serious cracking). The recipient must be online to read the message (has to be able to access the key) but doesn't need to install software.

I don't work for Disappearing (I think I found them through /. or Ars Technica). They are a private company and, depending on your level of paranoia, may be up to no good. Their business model seems to be aimed at selling the server software to businesses; providing the free net-based service as a come-on.

--

Re:disappearing email...

[Greg@RageNet]

Two words...

cut.paste.

Any 'timebombed' message will be vulnerable to this attack, as much to the chagrin of RIAA and MPAA any digital data is perfectly reproducable in any state/format the original exists in and can be copied an unlimited number of times. If it's in a format where it can be read then it can be copied.

I don't understand how 'delete' helps either; the other 4 or so people a message goes out to may choose to save the message and therefore it's still available as evidence. Some people save email forever. Some of these out of UI ineptitude, and some like me archive and compress it for CYA.

-- Greg

Re:disappearing email...

[Dan Kegel]

I work for Disappearing, Inc. too.

Our product is for use between cooperating parties who know it's not in their interest to subvert the system.
It won't help you if you're sending mail to hostile people.
If both sender and recipient refrain from making unsecure copies of the mail, our product does in fact reduce the number of readable copies of a message to zero when the expiration date arrives.

Software is available

[rvern]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought saw something in the news recently where a software company is releasing a product that will permanently erase data from your hard drive when you want it to. If you recall, when you delete a file, all that is really done is the link in your FAT on the hard drive is erased, not the actual file. So the file still exists, but your computer just doesn't know that it is still on your hard drive. This really wouldn't be all that hard to code... instead of erasing the FAT link, write dummy bits over everything in the file, then erase the link in the hard drive's FAT... problem solved. Don't let others solve your problems if you can solve them first :)

Step back from the keyboard...

[Cplus]

...pick up your things, walk out the door, and go home. Take a nap, think about things for a while, not important things, relaxing things. Feel all thoughts that you have about any "central authority" drifting away. It's important that you understand that we can never trust you again, but don't let it get you down, another couple weeks of rest and you might function normally again.

I think most have missed the point

[Luminous]

I've read a lot of messages responding to this article stating police authorities wouldn't ignore evidence of a crime that was 6 months plus a day old. The judge on the other had was essentially stating he believed when you deleted something, it should be destroyed completely. He was also intelligent enough to know that immediate deletion was a bad thing, that there should be some durability to it. But after 6 months, the file should be completely gone, scrambled via one of many technological means.

Instead of a trash bin it would be a shredder and you can set the time of when the files would be atomized completely. Thus there wouldn't be any evidence for authorities to find in the first place.

Now, is this something we really want? I don't know. But I do suspect tech criminals already scramble their files.

Not quite six months strictly speaking

[LinuxParanoid]

The judge's recommendation is a little more subtle. Six months and a day later, he suggests that your email isn't admissible if it is the sole piece of evidence. But if there is a continuing pattern of conversation or if there is evidence you are acting (not just talking) in some way as to substantiate your threat, the statute of limitations reverts to the time period currently proscribed by law.

It's a nice idea. It caused me to reflect on all the times I haven't posted on USENET or other places under my own name for precisely the reasons he's mentioned. Fear of my words coming back to haunt me (due to technical inaccuracy or being taken out of context, read by a future boss, etc.) has definitely led me to post less at times. Then again, maybe this is a good thing. ;-) But I agree; lack of a time horizon for computer-mediated communications definitely leads to self-censorship, something we should be wary of.

--LP

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Murphy's eLaw

[dywebmaster]

Wait just a second! Did anyone tell him about Murphy's eLaw? What? No body told you, either?!

Murphy's eLaw #1

The files you thought you deleted (i.e., your browser history, old highschool love letters, and other such atrocities) never really go away. In fact, alot of times they get printed on WAN printer on the other side of town!

Murphy's eLaw #2

The logs for your server can never, ever, be re-constructed. Even if it was you who accidentally erased it! (don't tell your boss there was no hacker!)

to be continued...

Re:Just you wait

[meadowsp]

You're going to die for the cause of getting rid of carnivore? My man, there's a lot better causes to get worked up about in this world.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So does this imply...

[GreenCrackBaby]

...that if I commit a crime and they catch me because I left a partial fingerprint somewhere, BUT I can prove that I tried to wipe all my fingerprints away, that they have to let me go?

Not getting it

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading some replies, I have to say the Slashdotters don't Get It(TM). The judge is not saying that everyone should go back and recode. He is not saying that if you threaten someone then actually do harm to them, that after 6 months it would be inadmissible. What he is saying is the law should recognize that people are imperfect and that email is not formal correspondence. Email should be treated as a passing conversation. Sure I may threaten you in an email, but there is no way to tell from a printed word that I was joking. If I really did have a problem and the threat was serious, then there would be some sort of physical, real-world evidence of that to back it up. For example, maybe I'm stalking you, leaving threatening phone messages, egging your house, etc. The point is there will be ACTION to tie it all together. What the Judge is trying to stop is that I jokingly threaten you in an email, then years later that email is dug up out of the blue and used to charge me with attempted assault with no other evidence to back it up.

Re:Not getting it

[Lord Omlette]

So if I threaten you non-stop via email, go silent for a few years as I train my ninja skills, then kill you, the email shouldn't count as evidence? What exactly constitutes joking?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

Expectations vs. Reality

[interiot]

I think the intent is to provide the service that the user expects.

There are two ways to match reality with expectations: bring reality closer to expectations (through legal and/or technical measures), or bring expectations closer to reality (through education).

Certainly it'd be nice to be able to permanently delete some things sometimes. But in general, it might hamper the industry if we force them to implement everything the user expects (and burn tax dollars for enforcement). Alternatively, the government could simply educate the user as to what's really happening, and explain to them how to get the desired results if they still deem it necessary.

This is one nice feature of a sensational press. The wider the gap between expectation and reality, the more of a scandal it will be when the press exposes it. So the press is encouraged to work hard to find the widest gaps and "educate" the citizens about them. And the citizens don't end up paying taxes for strict enforcement of relatively minor gaps. They just "pay" by viewing advertisements, and they only "pay" for the things that really matter to them.
--

Engineer Replies

[pimp]

Does it strike anyone else odd that a judge is trying to define a computer function? I understand what he's trying to do by suggesting the statue of limitations, but c'mon. What if the roles were reversed?

<parody>
In a related story, prominent Silicon Valley computer engineer John Q. Programmer has written an article that legal briefs, should be brief.

Mr. Programmer has written, "Too long have we be burdened by misnamed legal 'briefs.' Brief should mean brief." He went on to write, "I am proposing a technical solution to this problem, we should develop a data structure to hold all legal briefs in a data field of char[256]."
</parody>

Right....Sure....Uh Huh

[DrStrange]

Well first off the judge didn't do his homework. Its not like there's some switch that can be flipped and all of a sudden the memory where a file was stored is filled with zeros when its deleted. The idea of just altering the record that points to where the file was in memory is engrained into almost every filesystem on the planet. We would need to change code in the filesystem to do a "real" delete and that would take time and effort. I kinda doubt this judge wants to do it. Also, even though its been brought up before in parts...people who really want to delete things permanently know how to do it. If you don't know how...then don't keep anything incriminating on your hard drive.

Re:Right....Sure....Uh Huh

[SuiteSisterMary]

Its not like there's some switch that can be flipped and all of a sudden the memory where a file was stored is filled with zeros when its deleted.

Actually, any system rated above 'tinker toy' does, in fact, have the ability, built in, to zero out both memory and disk space upon delete. This is called a 'security feature.'

Re:2nd yes!

[Yardley]

This is a horrible idea. It's just like making reverse engineering illegal under the DCMA, since technology is so advanced. Or making certain frequency listening devices illegal because some cell phones don't encrypt their communications. Legislation is no the answer. Legislation is the problem.

--

Enter should let you enter- what about Return?

[roman_mir]

Insert will insert
Delete will delete
Enter will enter
Escape will escape
but what about Return, what about Return
Space will make space
And a Tab will tab text
Shift will shift your stuff
but what about Return, what about Return
Control will control something
Meta will do whatever
Caps Lock will lock our caps
but what about Return, what about Return
Home will get you home
End will put an end to this song
F1 will certainly help you
but what about Return, what about Return
PS. Speaking of which, what should Break break, and why doesn't Scroll Lock locks the scroll?

Implications for DOJ vs Microsoft

[CACondor]

Could the government have made as strong a case (or any case at all?) if there were a 6 month statute of limitations on e-mail?

Where's the "any" key?

[La0tsu]

And I could sure go for that Tab right about now...

Ejecting floppys on a Mac

[Mr. Piccolo]

Aren't you supposed to just push OPTION-1 or soething like that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why did you delete that?

[rossjudson]

There's a secondary discussion here. I found myself in a strange situation about a year ago where I was being asked by various legal types and federal types exactly WHY I had deleted email. This was not a friendly discussion; there were legal and business issues involved. I usually just delete things whenver and wherever I feel like it. For the case in question, there hadn't been any intent whatsoever: I just had an overfull inbox and deleted everything older than a month or two from some of my folders. This didn't seem to satisfy them. "Why didn't I consider the consequences of these deletions?" I was asked. "What was I trying to hide?" "Do you recall the contents of those deleted emails?" "Why do you delete anything at all?"

The implication presented to me was that by deleting my email, I was hiding something.

So the next time you hit the delete key, remember that a lawyer might ask you a year after the fact why you hit it, what right you thought you had to hit it, and what you were trying to hide by your deletions.

And me? I just continue to do what I've always done -- whatever I feel like doing minute to minute. If I change my pattern now, hell, I might be guilty of something. Can't evidence that!

Maybe on wrong,

[corian]

But didn't features like "undelete" and "undo/redo" get added to software because people wanted the possibility of taking back something they did by mistake?

Doesn't good user interface design specify that users will likely hit, for instance, the "delete key" by mistake, and thus that the option to undo this decision is a good thing for user satisifaction?

--craig

Re:i know of one

[ToddN]

I use it to wipe my browser cache and history folders..... just because I can.

Slashdotters just don't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that most of the folks here failed Reading Comprehension 101. The judge is talking about scenarios like the following:

1. I'm pissed off at someone and write an insulting and scathing letter to them. I save it to the hard drive.

2. After a few minutes, I calm down and "delete" the letter. I then write a new, more civil, letter and send it.

3. After a few months, my relationship with the recipient degrades even further. They file suit.

4. During discover, they sopoena (sp?) my computer and discover the original ("deleted") letter. The letter I never sent.

The question is, should that "deleted" letter be used against me in a court of law? The judge is saying, "no", it's the same as writing a draft and tossing it into the trash.

I have no idea what most slashdotters are rambling about.

Re:Slashdotters just don't "get it"

[YoJ]

If the prosecution found such a (paper) draft in the trash, would it be considered admissable? It would be. So why should electronic documents be any different? I think it would be telling that the person chose to delete the document rather than send it. That shows they didn't agree with its contents. But I don't see why that should make the evidence inadmissable.

WHY CANT YOU READ?

[MemeRot]

What determines how old it is in a relevant way is..... THE TIME YOU DELETED IT! Sheesh, people are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If you still have the email i sent to you saved, then yes it's perfectly admissible.

But we're not just talking emails. Any files. Your personal files. If they were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.

Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.

And what many people are proposing is that the law is fine, because they are personally skilled enough to delete their files. So when did technical skill start to mean that you have more legal rights than others?

And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT EMAIL!

[MemeRot]

This is not just about email. And it's not about whether the key should really delete it. Its about whether the law should TREAT it as if it's really deleted. People are acting like he said that after 6 months your email or file or whatever vanishes. No. After you DELETE it, 6 months from then no one can come digging around and find its magnetic traces. If the file still exists, then this rule wouldn't apply at all.

If your files were on paper they could be destroyed to the point where they are no longer evidence. This is not possible with electronic documents. But the law can treat it as if it is.

Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.

And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.

No. Are you illiterate or something?

[MemeRot]

Only if the recipient deleted it on the first day. This isn't a date after a file is created. It's a date after a file is deleted.

Say someone writes you a lover letter, completely out of the blue. Several, and they wont' stop when you tell them to. If they're on paper, you can burn them when your wife's divorce lawyer tries to take a look at them. But not if they're electronic. Not everything that LOOKS incriminating actually indicates a crime took place. There are other valid reasons for not wanting others to look at them.

And of course the file may not be yours. Ever bought a used computer? Sure you may have reformatted the hard drive. But what if the former owner had all his KKK letters and kiddy porn on there? Well to the cops it will sure look like that should be evidence that's admissible - against you, whether it's yours or not. Should the sins of the former owner be visited on the new owner, even unto the 7th generation? After 7 reformats and wipes the illegal files of the first owner will PROBABLY no longer be there in readable form.

Why just electronic data?

[aardvarkjoe]

In my opinion, the rules for admitting evidence shouldn't change based on whether it's stored electronically or not. So, I think this rule may be reasonable (although I question the logic that just because you try to get rid of something, it can't be held against you ... sort of like saying that if you tried to get rid of a body and flubbed it, you still wouldn't be held responsible...) it had better apply to both paper documents and electronic. Otherwise, criminals will simply turn to the internet because of the extra safety factor.

are you a troll? or do you ride the short bus?

[MemeRot]

It's people like you who would be protected by this idea that delete should actually delete..... did you really now know that it didn't?

If you really want to protect your data

[drinkypoo]

And you're running a MICROS~1 OS, then encrypt it using E4M. Save the files directly to the encrypted "volume" and voila.

Now what I want very much to know (perhaps I should ask slashdot, ha ha) is whether you can refuse to give your encryption key up on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Look at it this way: Your encryption key may incriminate you. But mine is a phrase of more than five words, it's not just a meaningless jumble of letters. (The longer the better, as long as it's not easily guessable, right?)

So I've been thinking, if you had a good lawyer, you might be able to plead the fifth and get out of giving up your passphrase. Keep this one in mind at all times :)

If you're on a platform that doesn't have an encrypted filesystem, then be very careful. Swap and temp files (vim creates both) will be written to your disk and will leave their traces until they have been overwritten by something else. Encrypting files when you're not using them won't help you if there's fragments of unencrypted data lying around your hard disk.

are you telling me.......YES!

[MemeRot]

that the entire legal system will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz we tortured it out of the guy?
yes.

are you telling me the legal profession will ignore evidence of a crime just cuz the evidence was obtained illegaly?
yes.

now can you tell me why if i have a letter in one hand, and a word document in my virtual right hand, when i burn the letter it ceases to become legal evidence, but when i try my damndest to destroy the .doc file it will never ever cease to be legal evidence? assuming they both say the same thing? the law shouldn't treat virtual documents any more stringently than it treats real ones, and real ones can be destroyed.

ARGGH!! YOU'RE LYING!!!

[MemeRot]

What the judge is proposing is a statute of limitations of 6 months on such data. So even if it is backed up somewhere it won't be admissible as evidence

NOOOOO!!! If it's backed up then it hasn't been deleted! If rich uncle john writes a will leaving everything to his parrot, and i find out about it and burn it to get the inheritance that would work. UNLESS he had another copy somewhere. See how that's exactly the same thing here? The pile of ashes is no longer a will. The deleted file should no longer be considered a file. BUT if it exists elsewhere, then this idea would have no impact whatsoever.

And your paper shredder function may not work. The detection equipment is getting more and more sophisticated. What if you used such a program and they STILL found enough magnetic traces to reconstruct the file? You have no choice but to take it on faith that those programs will actually do what they say. Whereas if you have a physical document, you can be sure of it yourself.

Re:No. Are you illiterate or something?

[Decimal]

I thought that formatting the hard drive turned all of those incriminating patterns of 1s and 0s to blocks of 0? Wouldn't a defrag mess it up if it was still there anyway?

Key Names...

[LordBlaa]

I know, i was trying to move my computer the other day.. i kept pressing the shift key over and over, it didn't budge, so i hit it. It fell over. So i pressed return. nothing happened. i thought it might need some help, so i pressed carriage return. nothing happened. i thought my keyboard was broken, so i phoned the manufacturers.. apparently it's *meant* to be like that!!

Blaa

PS, i'm sure with some thought i could have slipped the Win key, caps lock, control, and especially break in, but i have to go now.. :)

Would this be legal

[Digital Eco Freak]

I'm not sure the government could pass such a law. As I understand it, email has been ruled to be the property of the person owning the system. For the government to set an arbitrary time limit for people to use their property, in court or otherwise, seems like an unconstitutional taking of property. The government could not say that after a set time limit printed memos are meaningless or could not be used in court.

Suppose an employee stole some money or property from an employer, and sent an email about it over a company email system. The employer owns that email system, and should have every right to use it to reclaim their property, just as they could use company paper records.

You could try to draw a line between corporate email and personal email, but that line can get very blury. Suppose someone wrote from a personal email account to a corporate one.

I think the answer to this is to get the general public to pay more attention to privacy, and demand that their ISPs not keep any records of their correspondence. At work, if you are using your employer's email system, you will have to work out with them whether or not it will be kept private, but they are the ones paying for it, and it really isn't fair to legislate how they can use it.

In the end, it all comes down to people knowing what they are dealing with. If you are on a company email system, you just don't have a realistic expectation of privacy. On a private account, that privacy will only be there if you demand it and fight for it.

Re:No. Are you illiterate or something?

[mattdm]

Nope. Formatting doesn't overwrite anything -- it just marks it as erased. But even overwritting the data doesn't necessarily help -- it's still possible to retrieve it. You have to overwrite it multiple times with random patterns to make sure it's really gone.

--

I can see his point

[kat__8]

Since "delete" actually means "throw away but save a copy just in case" then I can see the judges point. People tend to forget that everyone does and redoes(is that a word?) lots of email and letters and drafts of pretty much everything. To be persecuted (sp?) for something you wrote and may not have meant seems a bit harsh.

Its sort of like garbage picking. Getting in trouble for something you threw out. The whole point of throwing things out is because you dont want it, right?

How about an option....such as "Do you wish to permanently delete this file or save a copy in an archive"

OK,thats enough out of me.

Re:No. Are you illiterate or something?

[MindStalker]

While its a very specialized job that takes very specilized equipment, there are ways to look at the individual magnetic sections, and tell what the charge used to be, then tell what that bit was before that, and before that, suppositivly we can go back as far as 7 changes, before its completly lost.

Re:No. Are you illiterate or something?

[cduffy]

That's not a format but a wipe. Completely different operations. Even a wipe isn't entirely secure, though.

With magnetic media, the position of the head on the track tends to drift; so while the new value may be laid down the middle, the old bits are often still detectable off to the sides if you've got the equipment to do so.

There are other means of recovery also.

So a modified Hushmail...

[cduffy]

...with a Java viewer would do what you want. Put that's not security. That's fake security. Making people *think* their email can't be recorded (when it really can by anyone marginally clever) is worse than not doing anything at all.

Evolve...

[stiefvater]

I disagree with the judge.

First, it's just plain silly. Delete will never be delete again. The world has changed - accept it.

Secondly, it's for the good anyway. After a few nasty surprises, our culture will adapt, and we'll learn to be more careful before we mouth off. And we'll become more forgiving when someone does mouth off. I hope. -k

(Almost) Complete disagreement

[xant]

Part of the reason the statute of limitations exists is due to the ephermerality of evidence. Seven years after the fact, it becomes too difficult to prove that someone is really guilty, so it's not worth pursuing further -- better to close the door, as you would on an unreproducible software defect, rather than allow the unsolved cases to simply accrue and accrue. At the same time, it also becomes easier to falsify traditional evidence over time, or to claim you had evidence which no longer exists (and thereby win points with a jury).

These concerns don't exist with computerized data -- rather, they exist, but they are not related to time. You can falsify evidence at any time on a computer, so the problem becomes securing the evidence IMMEDIATELY after the investigations begin, rather than allowing hackers to mess with your forensics. Once that is done, you can be sure of the data's truthfulness (if not its bit-by-bit integrity) over any amount of time. When you're talking about Usenet and email, this task becomes even easier, because you've got redundant copies of the data distributed throughout the world -- you can only falsify a finite number of copies.

Finally, he proposes imposing a law to make a precise and literal system ephemeral and arbitrary. This goes against the grain of what computers do, and thus philosophy should teach us that it's doomed to failure.

For these reasons, I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on computerized data.
--

Re:a good way to delete

[GigsVT]

To the AC that called you a dumbass: It isn't always apparent that C/C++ is going to destroy a files contents, iostreams are kind of weird sometimes. One ios:: flag can make a world of difference.
-

Here's a perfect example: 'Word' fast save

[ch-chuck]

as described here.

Basically, if you edit a Word doc with the 'fast save' feature ON, your recepient may be able to see the previous version (using 'strings' for ex). Real world example, create a doc offering someone $30,000 and save it. Then edit the offer to $22,000 and email it, they could dig into the doc and find your previous figure and hold out for a better deal, knowing you were thinking of offering more. W/ fast save, the changed are just appended to the file. I tried it and it's true.

ephemeral email vs ephemeral conversation

[dan501]

It should be up to the lawyers to argue, and up to the judge to decide if a piece of email was intended as official or casual. A 6 month expiration doesn't make sense.

If an executive at a company says something atrocious at a meeting - when he's speaking as an official representative of the company. Handing down policy. That's one thing. Whereas a conversation with the same executive in front of urinals is quite another and not open to litigation.

Likewise, when Bill Gates emailed folks to cut off netscape's air supply, he was speaking in an official capacity. He was dictating a corporate policy which was relevant in court. I gather that this proposal would prevent those emails from being admissible - that sucks.

I realize there are problems with leaving it up to a judge to decide in what context a message was sent. Just as an astute judge should be able to decide that if I tell my webmaster that I'll kill him if the web page goes down again. Somebody has to decide these things... that's why they call them judges.

It's the context, not the medium that's important. A casual conversation or a casual email or a casual winpopup message (super ephemeral!) or a casual anything should be viewed as such.

A policy dictating winpopup message should be treated as the serious piece of lawsuit-bait that it is.

It's the meaning, not the medium!

Re Blame the trash bin?

[paulio]

If delete actually deleted things instead of sending them to the trash bin, I don't think the prosecutors in the Microsoft anti-trust could have got their hands on those emails they used against Microsoft.

Don't blame the trash bin. The trash bin is not what is causing the files not to be deleted. Even before there was ever a concept of a trash bin, files already weren't being deleted. They were just marked as deleted, their space marked ready for reuse. The data was still there, completely unerased. It's just that without a trash bin you didn't really notice.

Note: emptying the trash also does not erase the data. Again, it just marks the files deleted, their space ready for reuse.

Even erasing the data doesn't really mean anything. Getting paranoid, the FBI and others have the technology to read your data even after it's been written over. Tiny traces of your data's magnetic fields still remain on the hard disk. Someone who knows how to get at them can get at your data anyway. The government's standard for erasing data when you are really paranoid, is writing over the data ten times (I think) with 0s and 1s before it is considered really ereased.

Re:Re Blame the trash bin?

[nstenz]

I'm pretty sure DoD standards mandate writing over the data 7 times. I'm not sure if it's 1's and 0's or if they use some specific algorithm... probably #2. I never really had anything worth hiding with that sort of delete, but it's fun to play around with utilities that do it anyhow. =) Remember PC Tools 7 for DOS? It was so wonderful to have encryption and a disk defragmenter and a secure delete and decent undelete, blah blah blah... Ahhh, those were the days. Of course, now I can find freeware on the 'net to do the same instead. *grin*

Atleast this judge understands what 'delete' means

[caveman]

Here I go, thinking aloud again. Someone reach for the volume control...

Talk to most people who consider themselves proficient computer users, and they will be horrified at the sort of thing you can find lying around on disks.

How many times have you allocated a large file on disk without writing to it and found all sorts of interesting things lurking in there with 'strings'?

There are of course many ways that users and programmers can prevent information leakage on multi-user systems this way. Erase on allocate, erase on delete, etc. However, how many word processors are in the habit of doing the same with memory, doing the equivalent of mlock() on the document pages, (the techniques employed by MS word seem to be to gobble all your memory, thus leaving nothing to allocate ;-)).

I've noticed, that when we ran our product on windows NT, a simple fopen()..fseek(several hundred megs)..fwrite()..fclose() took forever, because it seems to insist on writing all the intervening blocks. Could this be a security thing (and how do I turn it off? or is it a bug).

Back to the subject, Joe public would be horrified to find that his data doesn't go away when he thinks it does. Methinks encrypted filesystems are the answer (different file, different key).

rubbish

[onShore_Jake]

saying that the delete key should actually delete things... WTF does that have to do with how long an email can be "held against you" whatever that means.
I also must disagree with "This is an astonishingly insightful idea". Of course if actually was able to see the article (/.ed) i could comment on that instead the foolish poster of the story

What "secure keyboard" does in gnome-terminal

[Jimithing DMB]

I beliebe the secure keyboard option is intended to prevent other X clients from receiving keyboard messages destined for the terminal window.

For instance, if I wrote an X client to capture all keyboard events and record them to a log file and then ran the client on your X server I could log all of your keystrokes and get your passwords. This is why it's important not to allow remote clients or even clients running on the same machine but as different users to connect to your X server.

For stupid users who might not have their X set up right (or for stupid distros that have incorrect settings) the secure keyboard option allows you to lock the keyboard into that terminal window. Try it, you'll find that no matter which window is focused the keyboard events go directly to the terminal window. With that said, I do not consider the option to be an alternative to a properly configured machine. For your own safety, keep your machine up-to-date with the latest bug fixes for your distribution.

I don't like this.

[seebs]

Sorry, but no. *IF* I delete it, sure, take it off the record.

But if I want to *KEEP* my mail, then it should be my right to do so, and have it remain legally real forever.

If someone sends me a confirmation that they've cancelled my order, should they be able to bill my card six months later, knowing that the confirmation is "no longer legally valid"? Total bullshit.

Re:Dangerous, not dumb

[A coward on a mouse]

Right on! Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because the MPAA doesn't like fair use doesn't mean fair use should be repealed. Just because the nerd community doesn't want their questionable pr0n and war3z to get them in trouble doesn't mean that the rules of evidence should be changed to keep that from happening.

Small Minded

[NSupremo]

This Judge isnt thinking very hard is he. We will always develop a technology to recover what we once thought was lost forever.

NO WAY IN HELL

[horos1]

No way in HELL should this be instituted. If it applies to individuals, it will eventually apply to corporations (and hence the military, NSA, and... Microsoft) Speaking of which, how the hell would they ever have brought up the case that they did *without* email? "well your honor.. the email here directly states... objection! that email has gone through its statute of limitations" etc. etc. etc. I'm not crazy about email staying around forever, but the benefits to freedom far outweigh the disadvantages. horos

Things like this shouldn't be regulated

[lemonlime]

I think this would be a useful widget, but I don't think it should be required by law. Personally, I *like* the idea of being able to retrive things I accidentally delete. It seems to me that this guy is trying to make a name for himself, or perhpas go down in history as some sort of high-tech law maker, standing up for the common man, et al.

This also makes one wonder what this judge has been doing on his computer to want to do this... ;)
--
Cognosco: (Latin) To examine, enquire, learn

It all depends on whose ox is being gored...

[david duncan scott]

"Intellectual property has been overrun by technology -- get used to it! Information wants to be free, and any legal system that doesn't recognize the impact of cheap, pervasive digital storage is just pissing into the wind -- the world has changed."

"The standards that apply to paper should apply to files -- it shouldn't make a difference just because they're digital."

Exercise for the reader: reconcile the above two positions. Blush if appropriate.

(Mind you, if you have an old, incriminating email from somebody in the RIAA, it could get interesting.)

how does this differ from paper documents?

[Preposterous Coward]

Let's say that, back in the Dark Ages before computers, I got into a tiff with my boss. I sat at my desk and wrote out, longhand, a letter that said "Hey you stupid asswipe, I'm gonna kill you." Then I decided that giving him this memo wasn't such a career-enhancing move after all, so I tossed it into the trash.

Is there a statute of limitations on printed paper? If not, I can't see why there should be one for electronic documents. After all, when I threw that thing in the trash I clearly meant to dispose of it so that nobody could ever read it. But surely if it ever *were* recovered from the trash, it could be used against me.

Moral of the story: In the real world, if you *really* want to get rid of something, you don't just throw it away -- you shred it. Same with computer documents. Now, it's possible that with NSA-type technology somebody might be able to recover my message despite my every attempt to eliminate it. To me that's the interesting question: If I really took the effort to eliminate those bits but they were recovered by extraordinary means, should they still be admissible? But to simply say "Delete means delete" is as about as useful as saying "Wastebasket means wastebasket". I pity the fool who thinks that deleting an e-mail makes it go away, just as I pity the fool who thinks that throwing away a paper document means it's gone forever. (I don't know about you, but I always shred or tear up anything remotely sensitive before I put it in the trash.)

This is not a well-thought out proposal

[DavidBrown]

Essentially, the Good Judge has found a technical problem - those darn incriminating e-mails that Ollie North deleted to cover his hiney over Iran Contra were in fact still in the system. Instead of urging a technical solution "Delete means Delete", he urges a legal solution that is entirely outside of the traditions of the law.

He's not really urging a statute of limitations on e-mail. Rather, it seems he is proposing that e-mail messages that are greater than 6 months old should not be used as evidence. I think this is wrong.

It's one thing to parade the horribles such as the flamebait message you wrote years ago coming back to haunt you when you apply for a job at Microsoft's Linux division 8 years from now, but what about this: Even today, emails are being used as evidence prove the existance of contracts - I believe that proposed changes to the Uniform Commerical Code deal with this sort of thing. If you can say that the slander you wrote six months ago shouldn't be considered in court, then why should they admit as evidence the e-mail from Bill Gates offering you shares for coming over to the dark side?

Also, why should the law ignore old e-mails when it embraces old letters? Heck, under the "ancient documents" rule, old documents can be admitted to evidence over hearsay objections.

If the judge wants to protect us from our old messages, then our legislatures to pass laws to compel OS and application publishers to provide a secure delete function.

Don't miss the main point.

[TheLink]

Forget the delete thing - that's unlikely to be technically practical.

What we should hold on to is something you said a long time ago shouldn't be held valid forever.

People change. Some get wiser. Some actually repent.

Digging up a private conversation and taking it as valid 30 years later is unfair.

Let's not have a hell on earth where our mistakes keep getting replayed to us over and over and over again.

Let there be more mercy - let God be the final judge for things like this.

But of course if the person repeats/revalidates the statements then that's different.

Cheerio,
Link.

What about the writer's reasonable expectations

[justin_cave]

Why not set the legal standard as a reasonable person's expectations of the useful length of a message? It seems to me that the problem here is that people use e-mail both for the very ephemeral and for more long-lasting purposes, and that a single standard would be doomed to failure. If I digitally sign a message to enter into a contract, I expect that message to be retained basically indefinitely. If I send my boss a message questioning the legality of a chunk of code in our software, I expect that message to cover my butt as long as the underlying issue is legally relevent. If I send my boss a message questioning his intelligence in relation to his NCAA-tournament picks in the office pool, I expect that message to be irrelevent much sooner. One of the problems with relying on events such as deletion is that this is rarely an action that I have sole control over. Programs (Word) may retain some of my deletions as part of the file for some time. System admins may back up my system in mid-stream and capture the deleted text. Messages sent to a small group, i.e. a mailing list, may be subsequently archived and made available to a much wider audience with a very different context. Recipients may delete messages regularly or store them for years on end. Rules of evidence should not be influence by these actions which are not under my control. One of the nice aspects of human to human correspondence is that the brain naturally applies these sorts of algorithms, remembering the important stuff while purging the silly. When we communicate to each other via various technological devices, paper, e-mail, telephone, we naturally assume that this sort of filtering is going on. The law should recognize these reasonable expectations just as it does with various privacy rules.

Re:Encryption not trustworthy either.

[vsync64]

So encrypt from stdin. Duh.