Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
IANAL, but last time I checked, info gleaned from the trash was admissable under certain conditions.
Marco...that was Portugese.
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!
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.
Seriously, why won't they rethink keyboards and actually have both a Trash and Delete key?
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"?
And the space bar.
Ñ'
...that all keys should mean what they say. "Hmm...I think I'll order a TAB." -- Homer
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
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.
--
I like to watch.
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
John
Like anything, the solutions isn't as obvious as those non technical people would like it to be.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
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.
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.
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.
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. /.'s DB sure does.
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
Cd
This
He does raise a interesting point. Why can't we safely delete unwanted files and not have them come bite us later on?e d is their property. They have the 'right' to examine it and do with it as they please. ;)
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_us
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
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
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
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>
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
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
"We will give her back her....OLD NOSE!!!" - spaceballs
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
- 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.Fight Spammers!
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!
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
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.
this is a left handed sig
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.
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!
Will I retire or break 10K?
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?
(Note: There are no x's in my email address.)
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?
/* Half alive and half dead too, work is for suckers and the sucker is you. - "Half-life" by Local H*/
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.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
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."
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.
:o)
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?
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
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.
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...)
/.), those records should be available for as long as the administrator of the site sees fit.
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
We have to be responsible for the things we say in public.
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?
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
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."
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
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.
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.
IIRC the "delete" key on the Apple // computers actually did a backspace.
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.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
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.
"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"
/. a while back that mentioned lawyers getting into trouble after sending out Word documents that still contained information that they thought had been deleted.
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
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.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
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 . . .
...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.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
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.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
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 based on user account deletion
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
--
<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>
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.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
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?
You can't handle the truth.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
--
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.
...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.
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.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
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.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/