Slashdot Mirror
Vista Makes Forensic PC Exam Easier for Lawyers
Katharine writes "Jason Krause, a legal affairs writer for the American Bar Association's 'ABA Journal' reports in the July issue that Windows Vista will be a boon for those looking for forensic evidence of wrongdoing on defendants' PC's and a nightmare for defendants who hoped their past computer activities would not be revealed. Krause quotes attorney R. Lee Barrett, 'From a [legal] defense perspective, [Vista] scares me to death. One of the things I have a hard time educating my clients on is the volume of data that's now discoverable.' This is primarily attributable to Shadow Copy, TxF and Instant Search."
How are you going to wipe out the virtual computer once the computer is into ennemy hands ? ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Because freedom requires commitment and effort.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
As for privacy, to the extent that this sort of thing requires a legal order to hand over the information, I can't really see that it's an issue of privacy. If it is accepted that preserving the rule of law sometimes requires surrendering information that would otherwise be considered private, then that is the end of the matter: the information in such instances has ceased to be private.
If a PC is stolen, that is another matter, but in such cases, encryption can be used to prevent private data falling into the hands of thieves. This arguably makes a PC with appropriate encryption enabled safer than paper records.
Disclaimer: I use Mac laptops, Linux servers, and Windows desktops (in the main). I am *not* a Microsoft shill.
Right, karma to burn. How the hell is this "Informative"? "+5 Groupthink", or "+5 Telling me what I want to hear", sure. But there is no information here at all - Vista does have some "good features", regardless of what some people think. Answering your points specifically
1) Eye Candy: If you don't like it, turn it off.
2) Missing or shitting drivers: I have not noticed, nor do I know anyone who has noticed, Vista not supporting hardware that XP supported. Shitty drivers, well, this is a more reasonable concern, but it applies in my experience only to graphics, and then only to people for whom a 5-10% drop in performance (until nVidia get their ass in gear) is a "shitty problem". It's *vastly* better than Linux in this regard.
3) UAC: You're doing it wrong. I have not seen a UAC prompt that wasn't because I launched an app that required admin priviledges for weeks. Sure, when you're setting up the system, you get them a lot - much like in Linux, where you prefix half the first weeks commands with "sudo". After that, if you're seeing it more than once or twice a week, you need to seriously look at what kinds of software you're running that constantly need "root" access.
As to a sample of "good points"
1) New graphics and sound stack is vastly superior - I can set sound volume on a per application basis, automatically, using an simple interface built right in. No more stupid Flash in Firefox blaring away at 80db when I'm listening to music via iTunes.
2) Integrated search - Works as well as Spotlight for me, and I thought Spotlight was the best thing since sliced bread.
3) UAC - Yes, in my eyes, this is a good thing (and the biggest step forward in Vista). Windows no longer uses an "Admin for everything" model, something most people have been crying out for it do have for years.
Does it add anything *huge* over OS X, or even XP? No. Since when has a new OS release added anything world changing? They have been, since OS X 10.0, Linux 2 and Windows 2000, incremental. Is the DRM stuff a bad route? Yes. Does Vista use too many resources? Well, the idle footprint over my OS X machine isn't significantly greater - I would say it *does* use a too much, but frankly, as my machine is fairly modern, I don't notice. In many operations, it's faster than XP.
Should we all move to desktop Ubuntu? I don't know - I use Linux on servers, but it's still not ready for desktops, in my eyes. A technically semi-literate friend installed it on his Laptop, as someone had preached too him, and it *mostly* worked - except sound, which was a huge pain in the ass, and even I (with years of Linux experience) couldn't make work. Mostly is not good enough (he bought an OS X laptop to replace it, and is very happy). When Linux sorts out these issues, and gets a decent suite of end user software (no, Openoffice is not good enough to be an Office replacement), I might consider putting friends and familiy onto it.
Is Vista the devil? No. It's no worse than XP, and has several significant features that make it better, much like XP over 2000.
Spoken like a true totalitarian. What happens when the laws change and the perfectly legal and moral things I do on my computer become immoral and illegal according to the government? Sorry bud, but I'll hang on to my privacy.
The reality is that most users like the ability to index and search their data, and to recover previous versions of a file, as well as the better reliability offered by transactional file operations. In the general case of a non-criminal user, these features provide far greater benefits than the potential harm of having their activities more effectively analysed by law enforcement officials, in the highly improbable case of a legal order to hand over their data.
The problem with that idea is that you are talking about a technological solution to a cultural problem. That's been discussed here on Slashdot before: so many things have been criminalized that even your "relative safe" stuff could still land you in jail. The bar has been lowered on what the law considers "bad shit".
Personally, if I had any really bad shit on my system I'd probably just have a buried NAS box somewhere on (or even off) the premises. Probably would be best if there were a hardwired connection to it: wouldn't want the Feds to use a sniffer and figure out you have the thing. Oh sure, if they really wanted to they could find it, but why make it easy? Hide the cabling and hide the point at which it attaches to the rest of your LAN. Probably want the box to run a watchdog task that will disable it completely if it detects that specific machines on the LAN have disappeared (as in "having been confiscated".) That way, even if someone performing forensics notices that there was another network drive mapped, by the time they get back to search for another machine it won't be detectable unless they start tearing down your walls.
Of course, you'd be a lot safer not having that bad shit in the first place.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.