Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders TorrentSpy to Turn Over RAM
virgil_disgr4ce writes "In an impressive example of the gap of understanding between legal officials and technology, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian 'found that a computer server's RAM, or random-access memory, is a tangible document that can be stored and must be turned over in a lawsuit.' ZDNet, among others, reports on the ruling and its potential for invasion of privacy."
And these guys get arrested for destruction of evidence when they find that the RAM is blank. Un-freaking-believable.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Yeah... uh right. I am sure there is some type of theoretical possibility here, but practically no. RAM has to be constantly "refreshed" to keep the charge high enough to be read. After about ten seconds without power, I doubt any instrument would be able to read the state before power down.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Sure... and I want a unicorn for my birthday... I'm just as likely to get it.
That said, what you've written makes a whole lot more sense.
The question I have is, how feasible is it to log all IP addresses from the RAM and associate them with the transactions in question?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Wholly agree. Another implication in the article is that someone could hit you with a court order, and the moment you were served, if your machine was on, turning it off (or even killing a process or doing something that caused a pageout) could be destruction of evidence.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
It has nothing to do with handing over physical ram. It's about whether you have a piece of information in memory but deliberately fail to ever write it to a log - and whether you can be compelled to add that to your logs.
The more worrying demonstration of ignorance for me is:
"To imagine my information being disseminated without my written or verbal consent is unnerving," she said. "Then again, if I'm doing something I know is illegal, can I protest?"
If you smoke dope in your own home, can you protest if the police break in without any kind of a warrant?
If you like oral sex in any of the states that ban it, can you protest that your landlord installed a hidden video camera to catch it?
If you had depression and were hospitalized for being potentially suicidal, can you protest if the hospital gives the information to a former spouse who's trying to get child custody?
Of course you can damn well protest. Violation of your privacy is not acceptable simply because you're happening to commit a crime at the time.
It's especially not acceptable if you're not even necessarily committing a crime (seizing all server logs of all people using a torrent when only some of them are sharing copyrighted information over it). "Many people in group X are criminals, thus we're pulling all information on group X" is absolutely not acceptable. Imagine if the argument was "Many people in this housing project are involved with drugs. So we're demanding complete phone taps for everyone that lives there and we'll decide who's a criminal once we have that."
The meatspace equivalent to RAM-recording is to require conversations to be taped and those tapes to be produced. Worse (more intrusive) actually, since RAM must be slowed to be recorded. RAM is as ephemeral as air.
I expect an appeal. I understand the desireability and value of the evidence, but rules are rules.
Since all we have is her decision in the case, I'd have to assume that the in court arguments made it around to the fact that TorrentSpy isn't logging connections to their server therefore the logs requested by the MPAA do not exist. The MPAA probably made the argument that the data did indeed exist (it appears the location they chose was in RAM), but it just wasn't being captured.
The order is far closer to an order to maintain logs than it is a request to pull the RAM out of the server and mail in. But being dramatic about how stupidly stupid the MPAA is and Judges and everybody but Slashdot geeks is much more fun than actually reading and understanding a court order.
What is most worrisome about the ruling, if everyone would shut up about physical RAM chips, is that a transient collection of 1s and 0s is considered a 'document'.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
At every point in our technical development, the most functional machines are always compared to humans. Now, the closest machine that can emulate actions similar to our own is the mini(personal) computer and connected devices. This analogy will continue, as machines get more and more functional.
For purely technical reasons, we have a convention now that a person's thoughts are private. We have no technical way of reading a person's active thoughts or dreams trolling their memories. We have different levels of social responsibility for a person's thoughts and actions.
Aside from the technical issues of volatility, this issue is central to what information is public and what information is private. Taking a copy of a computer's RAM, which is technically possible in a running computer using, say and external hard drive, by order of a court, is a very real possibility, and one that has extremely deep implications for what information society deems as "discoverable".
I think the real issue here - the one that would be fascinating to discuss - is for senescent beings (and computers are marching that way closer and closer), is there a line that we should not cross and allow other beings (humans, computers when we agree they are sentient) to have truly private thoughts? According to the mentality of this ruling, no any information you can grab is fair game. It bodes very poorly for future generations with highly advanced MRI devices that can read thoughts.
Courts are trying force administrators of systems that do not log activities to start keeping logs.
There are many problems with this:
Technical: RAM contents are not permanently stored due to the technical nature of RAM. This judge wants to change that.....essentially storing everything that passes through RAM.
Cost: Why should the owners and operators of systems bear the cost of copyright enforcement? As a system administrator, what do I gain by spending my company's money on lots of disk and tape to keep logs for the RIAA? Why is that my responsibility?
Responsible party: If my users agree to only use my systems for legal purposes and they break that agreement, why am I required to provide anything to any third party? If they violate my TOS, I should be able to kick them off my network. The RIAA and their civil case should not involve me or my network. Their gripe is with the end user. If they need my help to pursue their case, then they don't have much of a case.
SARBOX forces companies to keep all emails and IM records as potential evidence. What's next? Recording every spoken word just in case someone needs it in court?
The burden of proof should be on the accuser - not on the accused.
-ted
Wanna bet they'll charge them with destruction of evidence if they actually comply with the order and pull the chips from the computer?
You were apparently right about the link getting slashdotted. Nevertheless, while the theory (bit flips have a side effect on the physical material that can be detected with sufficient effort) is at least plausible, I don't think it leads to anything resembling a practical solution:
While I object to some of the conclusions that the court has drawn in this particular case, I am far more concerned with the broader implications of the paragraph starting line 20 of page 24, referring to the the US Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-22). "First, the court concludes that this statute is not implicated because, as to electronic communications, it only prohibits interceptions during transmission (not while in electronic storage, i.e. RAM), and the disclosure of electronic communications intercepted during transmission. See Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.302 F.3d 868, 878-879 (9th Cir. 2002). This is true even though storage is a necessary incident to transmission." This is an explicit writ authorizing anyone the legal right to record any and all information that passes through the RAM on their computer. I.E. if I own webserver X, I am within my legal right to log all information, or a portion thereof, that passes through my system, by virtue that it will reside, however briefly, in that system's RAM. This includes data for which my server is not the intended recipient, as it has still been electronically stored on my system. For example, I could record the addresses of all emails that route through my server. And since this recording is my property, my consequent sale of said information to interested third parties is completely legal. This also means that any gov't agency that so desires this information can acquire it via a straightforward civil information discovery request, bypassing the more stringent requirements to obtain a valid wiretap warrant. The implications of this ruling for the future of data protection and security are frightening. While I am confident that it will be overturned or at least limited in the future, the potential for abuse is mind-boggling (like most things governments seems to do these days).
It is illegal to demand a document be created. The judge declared that the IP logs did exist at some time, even if only in RAM, so they must be produced. Not capturing the contents of RAM before it changes is destruction of documents. The only way around this would be a literal interpretation of the details, such as producing the contents of all RAM, without context. Just the strings of 1s and 0s, as that is how the "document" is stored in RAM. The implication is that the raw contents of RAM will not be produced, but instead the data that they are seeking will be distilled from the RAM and formed into a standard file. Such additional work is not necessary and it is illegal for the judge to demand. It is akin to the judge ordering you to present your address book because it contains the number of your bookie and holding you in contempt because in addition to the "b"s (where everyone lists Bookie under "b"), you included the As, Cs, Ds, etc. You *may* do the additional work, but there is never a legal requirement. If they don't like it, they can sift through the data themselves. If they didn't want the contents of the RAM, they shouldn't have subpoenaed it.
Learn to love Alaska
I suggest TorrentSpy create a memory dump off the RAM and give the printout to the judge. Since the data keeps changing, they can also ask the judge when they need to do another memory dump.
The excuse that RAM is volatile is hardly lame, it's just the way computers are built and no amount of judicial yammering will change it.