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."
Take the chips out of the machine and send them to the other side.
"Please sir, hand over your motherdisk."
Maybe she meant 'hard drive'? The majority of the people I supported while working IT during college used the terms RAM and hard drive interchangeably.
-gb
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...
You are correct, so the only viable solution is to remove the RAM with out turning off the machine!
-Rick
PS: KIDDING!!!
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Here is a working link to the article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html
I wonder if its floppy or hard ram?
Sure, I'll unplug it and send it to you right away, your Honor!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
As the TFA explains, the judge means that the RAM would become a legal document, and that any information put on it would have to be retained for later examination, and that if this ruling were extended to things like SOX, a SOX-complying company would have to keep transaction logs or images of their RAM so that the state of the RAM at any point in the past could be accounted. EEep.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Keep in mind this is a magistrate judge, which is one step below a trial court judge (who is already generally below 2 levels of appeals courts). Magistrate judges work on a very fact-specific level, so I don't think this ruling would make even persuasive authority. I think I cited a magistrate judge like once, and that was just because the subject was so obscure I couldn't find anything else...
Even if they had the information off the ram, there's no way to tell what context they're running the information in.
1001011010100100 - Well with this information I have no choice but to rule the defendant innocent... oh wait...
1001011010100101!! That changes everything! - I have no choice but to rule the defendant guilty !
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Damn! I knew we should have stopped referring to 'pages' of memory.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
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."
he still couldn't understand this udderly basic principle
Moo.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
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
When I was a kid, RAM was made of flip-flops and I had to go to school with three feet of snow, and it was uphill both ways. Oh boy.
Nowadays, BosstonesOwn (794949), RAM is made out of capacitors and they have to be "refreshed", that is, some circuit re-reads/re-writes the same values all over many times per second. One second without refresh, and all the data is gone for ever and ever and ever.
BEFORE: a flip flop has an input, a clock, and an output. when you put 0 in the input and pulse the clock once, the output is now 0; if you put 1 in the input and pulse the clock, the output now has 1. This is how one bit of memory is stored. Also know as SRAM, this kind of memory is fairly large in terms of integrated circuits (like 20 transistors in-die), is reasonably fast, and it's still found in L0/1/2 caches of microprocessors, in quantities in the range of Megabytes.
NOW: you have a capacitor, if you put 1 in its input (that is the same pin as its output) it retains this one for a fixed period of time (T). if no-one tries to read this bit in, like, T/2, a circuit in the memory reads this bit, and if it's 1, writes again 1 in its input. Also known as DRAM, this kind of ram is smaller per-bit (one capacitor in-die, 40-60 times smaller than a bit of SRAM), but the memory itself has to add in the end the size of the refreshing circuit, it's slower (because read cycles must be synched in time with refresh cycles), and is found in the "RAM" socket of your motherboard, in quantities in the range from hundreds of Megabytes to Gigabytes.
So, DRAM _really_ clears, i.e., if unplugged when plugged again it's all beautifully zeroed.
Ok??
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
While industry experts lamented the judges decision in this case, this newest revelation, that computer RAM should be turned over as part of discovery, proves that she has no concept of the issues she is addressing in her court. This provides fertile grounds for appeals as she is obviously dealing with issues she cannot even comprehend.
The fact that she has ordered the defendant to CREATE evidence (log files), in order to turn it over to the plaintiff as part of their discovery request is absurd.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I am sure that there will be a lot of "snicker" replies -- how can the magistrate be so stupid...
But this is an interesting idea. RAM holds information, specifically the IP addresses in this case.
"Sorry, we don't have the IP address available; they are never recorded". To which the reply is: "They ARE recorded. In RAM. So copy RAM".
Why this is a useful result: It means that it *could* become illegal to build a computer that has "unreadable" memory, because *that* memory may be where information needed by a court is being kept, and it needs copying.
Which means that "secure writeable storage" for DRM becomes illegal (at least on computers).
But, back to the topic, the magistrate is dead on. Of course, the RAM could simply be dumped onto a hard disks, lather, rinse, repeat. I don't think INTERPRETATION of the document was discussed!
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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
The SonicBlue / ReplayTV case in 2002 involved an order by the court to ReplayTV to create the technology to record information about subscribers for purposes of determining how much usage was violating the TOS and the law.
From the defendant's brief in that case, which makes it quite clear that the information does not exist and would involve an affirmative duty to surveil:
Federal Rule 34 Neither Requires Nor Authorizes An Order To Create Records That Do Not Exist.
Not surprisingly, Plaintiffs cite no authority for such an order. It is well settled that a party is not required to create, either in paper or electronic form, data that does not currently exist within its possession. Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 445, 448 (D. Kan. 2000) (party "cannot be compelled to produce documents which do not exist" ). Rule 34 "only requires a party to produce documents that are already in existence." Alexander v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 194 F.R.D. 305, 310 (D.D.C. 2000) (emphasis added). "A party is not required 'to prepare, or cause to be prepared,' new documents solely for their production." Id. Plaintiffs misunderstand Rule 34 and the law relating to the discovery of data compilations. It is true that Defendants may be required to produce both hard copy documents, and electronic data, that are stored in Defendants' own files and computers. But, with the sole exception of the limited my.ReplayTV.com information discussed below, the information sought by Plaintiffs is not "electronically stored" on Defendants' computers. It does not exist anywhere yet. It does not even exist on individual consumers' PVR hard drives, much less on Defendants' computers. And if the information is created, and a program written to log it in the future, it would exist on a consumer's personal property, not on ReplayTV's computers.
Rather, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to order Defendants first to write a program to implant in a consumer's ReplayTV unit in order to create and store the data, and then to write software to collect the data from consumers (without further notice to them) and disclose it to Plaintiffs. Neither Rule 34 nor case law obliges Defendants to take these extraordinary steps.
--originally provided by Mike Godwin in SonicBlue discussion, Cyberia-L
a r b o r l a w -- legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
You have been misinformed if you take the slashdot summary at face value.
And you have been misinformed if you RTFA.
The judge's decisions responds to most of the comments posted here, and the lawyers comments naively repeated by the author of the article.
Instead, read the decision (RTFD) that the article links to.
Although she mistakenly says websites have RAM, she definitely knows what RAM is, if you read her analysis about why the RAM should be turned over. She doesn't want the chip, she wants the ip address that temporarily pass through the website server's RAM.
Based on existing case law from other copyright cases, whatever passes through a computer's RAM is a tangible copy, if only a temporarily one. According to the rules of discovery, the defendant must produce this copy because it is within their control. It is within their control due to the fact their provider uses the a web server (Microsoft's), and this server has the capability of logging ip address that temporarily pass through the computers RAM.
So "turning over the RAM" actually means "hand over the documents that are temporarily stored in the RAM by simply turning on the logging function of the webserver." The judge is simply following existing case law and discovery procedures.
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).
Not in modern DRAM. Modern DRAM is basically [sic] a capacitor.
Sure, forgetting about the whole row and column stuff, and the sense amps...
However, due to the natural resistance of silicon there is always some leakage current leaving the capacitors.
Incorrect. Capacitors lose charge because dielectrics are not perfect insulators, and thus some current actually leaks through from one plate to the other.
This means that RAM left alone for more than a few tenths of a milisecond will lose enough voltage to drop to a logical 0
Disturbingly wrong. Most manufacturers specify that a row of DRAM must be refreshed at least every 64 milliseconds. In fact, Wikipedia cites a pdf saying that some information can be retained for up to minutes in a cell of DRAM - though you will get some bit errors.
TO prevent this, RAM is constantly refreshed- the ram chip will spend spare cycles writing its own value to itself.
Actually, the memory controller will issue a refresh command to the DRAM chip. This is probably what you were thinking about before...a row refresh must happen every 7.8 microseconds or so (depending on the RAM chip). But, that's because the refresh operation only refreshes a single row. The DRAM chip usually has an internal address counter, so you just say "refresh the next row" and the DRAM chip already knows what the "next row" is, and afterwards it increments it so the next time you issue the refresh command, it refreshes the next row. If you execute these refresh operations every 7.8 microseconds, then in 64 milliseconds you will refresh every row of memory on the DRAM chip.
Oh, and by the way, reading from any cell of DRAM will refresh the entire row that cell is on, because reading from DRAM is a destructive operation. Therefore, there's actually a row of latches at the bottom of the columns, and the values from those latches are placed back into the capacitors while the bit of interest is being shuffled out onto memory bus.
Writing to a cell also requires reading the entire row, which means that writing also refreshes that row.
:(){
i am kinda late to the fray, but the actual ruling doesn't seem to concern itself with the technical aspects of RAM, instead, it addressess the argument "does TorrentSpy have electronic recordings of their server logs", and, as far as read, it seems to say "yes, because data is in RAM for a while, and RAM is an electronic media built for the purpose of storage and retrieval of information, albeit short-term one, and TorrentSpy can read the data during that time".
The whole argument is there in the first place because TorrentSpy seem to allege they don't have logs because the logs are not on disk, but in RAM, which is transient and not an electronic medium.
So, to my IANAL eyes the ruling says "if you are in the US, and you have been issued a court order to store all your electronic communications, you better do so and don't come up with excuses which are lame technically."
I respectfully decline to comment on whether this ruling is good, bad or ugly.