http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html?tag=nl.e550
Essentially, this judge has held that the contents of a server's RAM
has to be preserved just like any other "document".
This sounds almost as clueless as the "internet is a bunch of tubes"
moron.
-- Ed Leafe
Gawd! I really thought the height of stupidity was displayed when Senator
Ted Stevens (Alaska, too much solar wind whipping over his skull for too
many years) explained to the nation that the Internet is like a series of
tubes. In this TorrentSpy case "moron" really does not adequately describe
the level of intelligence apparently present when this judge handed down his
decision. As I see it the term "moron" is actually associating the person
who handed this order down with some relative amount of intelligence as
compared to others in society. This is certainly not the case, as there is
clearly no relative level of intelligence present - there is absolutely none
whatever that can be used as a "compare other". All this is going to do is
drive up the legal costs of the two parties, much to the pleasure of the
attorneys involved I am certain. Hmmm, let's just fan the flames of
conspiratorial thinking for a bit now...
Gil
p.s. - I likely would have used "moron" at first blush also, but you get my
drift <g>...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com
> [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com]On Behalf Of Ed Leafe
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: [NF] You RAM is a document?
>
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html?tag=nl.e550
>
> Essentially, this judge has held that the contents of a
> server's RAM
> has to be preserved just like any other "document".
>
> This sounds almost as clueless as the "internet is a bunch
> of tubes"
> moron.
>
> -- Ed Leafe
> -- http://leafe.com
> -- http://dabodev.com
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
There should be specialized judges for for computer
technology.
a friend of mine was screwed by a computer-retarded
judge.
--- Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> wrote:
>
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html?tag=nl.e550
>
> Essentially, this judge has held that the contents
> of a server's RAM
> has to be preserved just like any other "document".
>
> This sounds almost as clueless as the "internet is
> a bunch of tubes"
> moron.
>
> -- Ed Leafe
> -- http://leafe.com
> -- http://dabodev.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/B058E469-0E13-4236-86F5-5C32B9321CA9@leafe.com
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
>
Good idea re: having a "sub-species" of judges familiar with (computer)
technology, so competent rulings can be handed down. I would vote for me
<g> (lord help us all <g>)!
Gil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com
> [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com]On Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: [NF] You RAM is a document?
>
>
> There should be specialized judges for for computer
> technology.
>
> a friend of mine was screwed by a computer-retarded
> judge.
>
>
>
>
> --- Ed Leafe <ed@leafe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html?tag=nl.e550
> >
> > Essentially, this judge has held that the contents
> > of a server's RAM
> > has to be preserved just like any other "document".
> >
> > This sounds almost as clueless as the "internet is
> > a bunch of tubes"
> > moron.
> >
> > -- Ed Leafe
> > -- http://leafe.com
> > -- http://dabodev.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> > Subscription Maintenance:
> > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> > OT-free version of this list:
> > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> > Searchable Archive:
> > http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> > This message:
> >
> http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/B058E469-0E13-4236-86F5-5C3
2B9321CA9@leafe.com
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
On 6/18/07, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There should be specialized judges for for computer
> technology.
>
> a friend of mine was screwed by a computer-retarded
> judge.
Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of
technical aspects of a case - that's what the experts are for.
However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There was a recent case in
the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what a website was...
--
Paul
I think judges should have some basic knowledge of what they are ruling
on so he can make an intelligent/reasonable ruling. This ruling, if I
understood correctly, hinges on the fact that TorrentSpy doesn't log
users. It would seem since they are being sued, and there is the issue
of discovery why didn't the judge order them to turn on their logs
instead? If she had any basic idea of how RAM really works I don't see
how she would have ruled the way she did. I know people that still
don't know the difference between RAM and diskspace (That other memory
:)). Once I've explained the difference, they have a better
understanding of why some things are saved and others are not if their
computer locks up or reboots.
It just seems wrong that any business should have to dump money into a
process that is being used so that they can incriminate themselves.
It's one thing to subpoena documents that already exists, it's quite
another to have to create the incriminating evidence for the one suing
you.
Regards
Rodney
> -----Original Message-----
> Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of
> technical aspects of a case - that's what the experts are for.
> However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There was a recent case in
> the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what a website was...
==============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, disclosure, copying, downloading, or other use of the information is prohibited and unauthorized, and may be unlawful, regardless of address or routing. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender immediately and permanently delete and destroy the original and any copies of this message, including any attachments.
==============================================================================
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 03:31, Paul Hill wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There should be specialized judges for for computer
> > technology.
> >
> > a friend of mine was screwed by a computer-retarded
> > judge.
>
> Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of
> technical aspects of a case - that's what the experts are for.
> However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There was a recent case in
> the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what a website was...
Hi Paul!
Have to hook that judge up with Al Gore, who could explain the tech side of it
in a couple of years.
--
Regards,
Pete
>I think judges should have some basic knowledge of what they are ruling
>on so he can make an intelligent/reasonable ruling.
>
To paraphrase the May 19 2007 Economist. The legal system is in danger of
being overloaded by the problem of electronic discovery.
In the discovery process both parties of a lawsuit share relevant documents
and this has become mostly about retrieving computer files. Companies being
sued are having to pay large teams of lawyers tons of money, for months on
end, in order to wade through every email ever sent by or within the company
just to determine which docs have to be handed over to plaintiffs.
Rules need to be made clear and judges need to familiarize themselves with
relevant technology so informed rulings can be made. At the moment the
rules are unclear and the costs are rising.
Software designed to make quicker searches of relevant documents would seem
to be a real opportunity for enterprising developers. Graham.
I know you meant it as a gratuitous dig at President Gore but...
I'm sure Al Gore could explain it to the judge.
Unlike the current resident, Gore actually knows something...
Of course, that's assuming that it could be explained to this judge at
all. Many (most?) judges don't have a broad enough intellect to grok
subjects other than the dismal, arcane, specialized arenas of law,
drinking and golf.
Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 03:31, Paul Hill wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/07, Michael Madigan <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There should be specialized judges for for computer
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> a friend of mine was screwed by a computer-retarded
>>> judge.
>>>
>> Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the ins and outs of
>> technical aspects of a case - that's what the experts are for.
>> However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There was a recent case in
>> the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what a website was...
>>
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> Have to hook that judge up with Al Gore, who could explain the tech side of it
> in a couple of years.
>
I would hope he knows something. Al Gore invented the
Internet.
--- Chet Gardiner <chetdude@chetgardiner.com> wrote:
> I know you meant it as a gratuitous dig at President
> Gore but...
>
> I'm sure Al Gore could explain it to the judge.
>
> Unlike the current resident, Gore actually knows
> something...
>
> Of course, that's assuming that it could be
> explained to this judge at
> all. Many (most?) judges don't have a broad enough
> intellect to grok
> subjects other than the dismal, arcane, specialized
> arenas of law,
> drinking and golf.
>
>
>
>
> Pete Theisen wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 03:31, Paul Hill wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/18/07, Michael Madigan
> <mmadi10699@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There should be specialized judges for for
> computer
> >>> technology.
> >>>
> >>> a friend of mine was screwed by a
> computer-retarded
> >>> judge.
> >>>
> >> Technically a judge shouldn't need to know the
> ins and outs of
> >> technical aspects of a case - that's what the
> experts are for.
> >> However, I agree that screw ups do happen. There
> was a recent case in
> >> the UK where a judge admitted he didn't know what
> a website was...
> >>
> >
> > Hi Paul!
> >
> > Have to hook that judge up with Al Gore, who could
> explain the tech side of it
> > in a couple of years.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/467820EC.1050300@chetgardiner.com
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
>