http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/US-ruling-makes-server-RAM-a-document-/0,130061733,339278641,00.htm
Some judge just ruled that server RAM is a "document" that must be turned over as evidence in a trial... wtf? Yeah, sure judge, here, just let me pull out my RAM and hand it to you... Oh, I'm sorry, all the data just disappeared, whoops, my bad
.
I saw that on /., funny stuff. although the /. people tried claiming it would result in invasion of privacy which I found even funnier.
Some people are idiots when it comes to computers... One second...
[Edit1]
Found one!
[Edit2]
Found another one!
I happened to notice it on Digg, but seriously, wtf? That would mean it would be necessary for companies to back up RAM as well as hard drives. :/
elfprince13 wrote:
I saw that on /., funny stuff. although the /. people tried claiming it would result in invasion of privacy which I found even funnier.
The invasion of privacy comes into effect because under this new judgment companies must keep running logs of what is in their RAM, essentially forcing companies to keep logs where they otherwise wouldn't have. Logs of things such as who is connected (IP), what they do, where they go, etc... That is where the invasion of privacy comes into play, and it is a very real concern.
And, of course, all encrypted documents are stored in an unencrypted state in RAM - that alone makes this a serious privacy and security breach. Imagine if a bank or credit card company was sued - they are going to have a lot of highly sensitive, very personal information in their servers RAM that would be in an encrypted form on any sort of long-term storage...
Gotta love our government.
Government (gov·ern·ment) [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‑er-muhnt] n
1.A large group of unintelligent people responsible for the management of something too complex for their low IQs to comprehend.
meh... INHO I think this is just another means for the gov't to micromanage and spy on us. I thought our country was founded on the belief of "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness"?
[/rant]
Couldn't agree with you more.
I think you are a tad overly paranoid keith, but are you overly paranoid enough? (If you didnt get that I will slap you)
Paranoia isn't a bad thing...
@Pseudo (laughs)
I'm not paranoid. I mean, sure, I think the gov't's out to get us, but I'm not paranoid.
*sigh* I still think that this RAM thing is 100% idiotic. Although if they show any RAM-involved cases on People's Court or Judge Judy....(laughs at the thought of what could happen)
Quote:
I thought our country was founded on the belief of "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness"
Actually, originally it was life, liberty, and the right to own property... hehe
Of course, breaching our privacy is nothing new... I mean, the government is no stranger to that. In fact, we don't actually have a right to privacy. It's just something implied in the Bill of Rights. If you don't believe me, go read the Constitution and all of its Amendments... you won't find any mention of privacy. It's drawn from a couple sources, including the no quartering of troops... but we don't have that right. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has given us privacy, however (Think Andrew Jackson here), the executive branch doesn't have to follow the Judicial branch's rulings...
Therefore, this "invasion of privacy" isn't at all anything we should find unusual...
This is just going to lead to chaos, isn't it? I can honestly see a large bit of fussing being covered in the news.
Yes, privacy is implied. Therefore, we have it.
This will never make the news... Keep in mind that the United States Media is cares more about Paris Hilton being in jail than our current political state. (I kid you not... CNN was covering something political, then cut to show a video of Paris Hilton being put in a police car)
[About Alex's post]
Lolz...I guess I am just being a bit paranoid then. Heh, ah well.
Foamy, you posted that twice...
And since it's implied, it's easy to dismiss...
See, for example, Kerm is implying that you should be allowed to use these forums... he does this by not banning you. But I could easily dismiss that and delete all of your posts because I feel you don't have the right to use these forums...
I guess it is true. Nothing in life is every truly guaranteed.
alex10819 wrote:
Foamy, you posted that twice...
And since it's implied, it's easy to dismiss...
See, for example, Kerm is implying that you should be allowed to use these forums... he does this by not banning you. But I could easily dismiss that and delete all of your posts because I feel you don't have the right to use these forums...
Yes, sorry about the double post. That stupid 403 error... <_<
And the constitution would be nothing without the protection of implied rights. I'm horrible with history/current events, but didn't the European Union try to list out all the specifics in a constitution? Then it couldn't cope with changes of time and became pages upon pages of useless crap.
