Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Safeguards For RIAA Hard Drive Inspection

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the under-watchful-eyes dept.

Music 276

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY v. Arellanes, an RIAA case in Sherman, Texas, the Court entered a protective order (PDF) that spells out the following procedure for the RIAA's examination of the defendant's hard drive: (1) RIAA imaging specialist makes mirror image of hard drive; (2) mutually acceptable computer forensics expert makes make two verified bit images, and creates an MD5 or equivalent hash code; (3) one mirror image is held in escrow by the expert, the other given to defendant's lawyer for a 'privilege review'; (4) defendant's lawyer provides plaintiffs' lawyer with a 'privilege log' (list of privileged files); (5) after privilege questions are resolved, the escrowed image — with privileged files deleted — will be turned over to RIAA lawyers, to be held for 'lawyers' eyes only.' The order differs from the earlier order (PDF) entered in the case, in that it (a) permits the RIAA's own imaging person to make the initial mirror image and (b) spells out the details of the method for safeguarding privilege and privacy."

cancel ×

276 comments

Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Informative)

nibblybits (1091481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829099)

it (a) permits the RIAA's own imaging person to make the initial mirror image
IANAL, but having RTFA, I'd say that statement's a bit misleading. It actually states that an expert agreed upon by both parties will make two copies, make an MD5 hash of the copies, then the defendant has the opportunity to justify that some files are private and nothing to do with the case, and once that's settled:

Plaintiffs shall have access to the Escrowed Image of the hard drive, minus the files as to which privilege has been asserted
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Wouldn't make a lot of sense if they gave them access to the drive minus these files, if they had already initially had access to the whole thing.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Interesting)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829179)

No, it said the earlier order specified that an RIAA's person was to make the image. The new order says agreed upon expert.

And I agree, it does actually sound pretty reasonable.
Regardless, anyone who gets a subpoena from the RIAA should be smart enough to swap out hard drives and install a new OS before the case even gets that far anyway. Assuming they have something to hide. Seems pointless really.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829303)

I would strongly recommend against that, if you make the tiniest of mistakes such as timestamps which lets them show that you reinstalled your OS or swapped out your disk for a fake system after being subpoenaed, you could find yourself at the wrong end of some nasty criminal charges for destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice and so on. If you think psying a few thousand dollars is bad, you should see what a felony conviction does for your life...

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (5, Funny)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829483)

Priveleged file list

1) *.mp3
2) *.avi
3) *.mpg

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (1)

bblboy54 (926265) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829653)

"...if you make the tiniest of mistakes such as timestamps..."

Yes, it has been confirmed that time stamp errors can cost you 12 days in jail [slashdot.org] .

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (4, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829843)

Suppose one were to have a CRON entry that does touch /* -R every night at 3AM? For extra goodness, have it write out 4 random times and then the new time to prevent data recovery of original times. Running every day for a week, it'd be impossible to get the originals. It's impossible to prove anything, including when the script was added, as dates are overwritten constantly. Goodbye timestampiness!

Or if you're real paranoid, just get a laptop body + huge HDD + wireless and bury it in your wall and store your shit on that. Just manually mount the (encrypted) remote volume and supress NFS logging and there's zero evidence that you ever had any files.

Just remember to encrypt everything anyway. And use ext2fs to avoid a journal leaving any "suprises" behind.

And what about disk-copy utilities that duplicate a disk, timestamps and all, except you leave out certain important things (like ~/music/) from the copy? Actually, best to have some classical or nerdcore music, lest the absence of anything prove suspicious.

I guess what I'm saying is, there are many, many ways to foil the MAFIAA. You just have to implement them beforehand, and calmly cover every angle. Trying to do something *after* getting subpoenaed is a bad idea, because then you're hurrying. And as you say, one tiny mistake is all it takes, and people tend to make mistakes when they hurry.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829993)

I guess what I'm saying is, there are many, many ways to foil the MAFIAA

Yeah, but its the lusers they go after, just like with child porn.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18830069)

A) you forgot that there are several timestamps. You should update them all.

B) your script is obvious deliberate destruction of evidence. Since this is a civil case, the RIAA probably gets to make up it's own story about what you were trying to hide.

in other words, you lose.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830089)

you should see what a felony conviction does for your life...
I doubt any of these would be felonies, only misdemeanors.


Not that it couldn't get you in trouble, mind you, but it's probably not as much trouble as a felony could cause.

I guess if you were the sort of person that expected to be sued by the RIAA for this sort of thing, you'd keep your mp3s and P2P working directory on an encrypted drive, one that looks like unused space on the drive so you can't prove there is an encrypted drive, though I doubt that would be very convincing. And in a civil case, you don't have the right to remain silent (!), and they could tell you to give up the key and a refusal could get you a contempt of court charge ... it gets nasty, fast.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (1)

drix (4602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830137)

A lot can happen in the several months between the alleged date of infringement and they day the subpoena arrives. Old hard drives crash and get tossed, spares get pulled from a box you've had sitting in your closet all those years ... and everyone here knows it's trivial to back-date the system clock in the BIOS, at which point looking to timestamps on a fresh install is pointless.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (3, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829379)

No, it said the earlier order specified that an RIAA's person was to make the image. The new order says agreed upon expert.

Verbatim, from the new court order:
1. Kimberly Arellanes ("Defendant") shall make her computer hard drive available for imaging by Plaintiffs on or before March 21, 2007 [emphasis mine]

Clearly the court order says that Sony gets to do the initial imaging.

Step 2 is, "an expert in computer forensics selected by the parties shall make two (2) verified bit-images". That's the second set of images. The initial image is done by Sony.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829417)

Correction - I'm wrong. Parts 1 and 2 of the document are actually contradictory. Part 1 alone makes it sound like Sony makes an image. Part 2 alone makes it sound like the expert makes two images. Reading both parts together makes it sound like the document is flawed.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (3, Insightful)

jakosc (649857) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829479)

I think 1 and 2 are consistent, it's just the numbering in the document isn't the order of events.

How I read it, it's basically:

1) Plaintiff, don't worry, you'll get access to the drive by March 21
2-3) Defendent, don't worry, here's how we'll do it---first, you get to delete your private files

IANAL, but that's how I read it. The summary's a bit confusing, and seems to suggest that #1 in the document has to occur before #2, which really doesn't make sense, as the GP points out.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829575)

Correction - I'm wrong. Parts 1 and 2 of the document are actually contradictory.

No they arn't, you just don't understand what you are reading.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829427)

Simple solution is to simply use something like TrueCrypt. Don't let applications save logs or recent file histories and use portable apps on USB thumb drives where applicable (even TrueCrypt can run in this mode).

Besides being more private, it's also damned cool and lets you bring your programs, files, and everything with you no matter what computer you're on.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (3, Interesting)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829565)

Simple solution is to simply use something like TrueCrypt.

TrueCrypt is pretty neat, but that brings up a question. If you encrypt your entire hard drive, what happens when your computer is taken as evidence? Can you be required to divulge the decryption key? IANAL, but I assume that you can be held in contempt of court (or something) by refusing to offer it up, leading to criminal charges, fines, and/or jail time. In any case, I doubt you can just give the RIAA the bird and say "Nah nah, can't touch this" because your stuff is encrypted.

Does anyone know the details about this? I doubt encryption helps you when it comes to legal matters, unless maybe you can plead the Fifth. After all, by giving up the decryption key you may be incriminating yourself :)

Anyone know?

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Informative)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829605)

IANAL and this is not legal advice, merely a recount of a story

A friend of mine got pulled in by the big guns out here in Australia a little while ago. It was kept very quiet (for which he was grateful) because they stormed into his house to find him sitting at his table drinking a coffee, all his PC's turned off. His TrueCrypted hardisks were useless as he "forgot" the complex key in all the excitement of having his door kicked in by a task force. Probably not legal but can they prove it?

Of course pleading the 5th would just make you look guilty as hell ;)

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (3, Funny)

mikiN (75494) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829937)

Pleading the Fifth:

Judge: "How do you plead?"
Defendant: "Ta-da-da-daaaaaa, ta-da-da-daaaaaa..."

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Informative)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829967)

Can you be required to divulge the decryption key? IANAL, but I assume that you can be held in contempt of court (or something) by refusing to offer it up, leading to criminal charges, fines, and/or jail time. In any case, I doubt you can just give the RIAA the bird and say "Nah nah, can't touch this" because your stuff is encrypted.

IANAL either (so take this with a grain of appropriately sized salt)...

You can refuse to give out your key, but since this is a civil proceeding, the 5th amendment does not apply. If you refuse to give out your key, the judge may hold you in contempt, or may just give the RIAA a default judgment.

Do the smart thing:

TrueCrypt has an option to store the "real" information in the apparently "unused" portion of your truecrypt volume (called 'hidden volume'). There is no way to tell if this unused portion is a hidden volume or unused space. Store the stuff that would get you in trouble there.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (2, Funny)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829433)

So if I had music that I wrote and copyrighted on my own computer hard disk, they then are allowed to copy my music during this process without paying me compensation?

--jeffk++

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829563)

So if I had music that I wrote and copyrighted on my own computer hard disk, they then are allowed to copy my music during this process without paying me compensation?

No, you completely misunderstand. The whole point is that you are allowed to first claim the portions of the disk that are not relevant to the matter at hand.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (1)

Squalish (542159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829809)

"I claim that I pirate no music. In order to let you investigate my hard drive: The music I pirated is not in this folder, this folder, or this folder"

Nothing reasonable about it. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829847)

The new order says agreed upon expert [makes the copy] and I agree, it does actually sound pretty reasonable.

What's reasonable about being threatened with the loss everything and your reputation at random? All to protect some big rich music publishers. Bin Laden is loving it.

Even if you can defend the witch hunt, this detail is still abusive. They are only interested in specific files and should be able to make a tool that extracts them transparently. Just imagine making a list of all the files that you want to delete.

Re:Initial image by agreed experts, not RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829815)

How does the RIAA know what files are illegal?? If I rip CD's that I own and have itunes encode them into .mp3 not protected .aac or .wma files, how do they know which is which? Am I missing something here?

Piracy just hurts the little guy. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829119)

As a record store owner, my business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.

I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.

The business strategy worked. People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.

Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three discs world wide is a pirate. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of music in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the music industry, from artists, to record companies to stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.

A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.

"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."

"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."

I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the record industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.

"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.

"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.

So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable record store will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the CDS to begin with, then they won't be able to copy them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.

I have just written a letter to the RIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to a hotline, similar to TIPS. Once we know the size of the problem, the police and other law enforcement agencies will be forced to take piracy seriously. They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?

This evening, my daughters asked me. "Why do the other kids laugh at us?"

I wanted to tell them the truth - it's because they wear old clothes and have cheap haircuts. I can't afford anything better for them right now.

"It's because they are idiots, kids", I told them. "Don't listen to them."

When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?"

I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. "I don't know, Jenny. I don't know."

When my girls ask me questions like that, I feel like my heart is being wrenched out of my chest. But knowing that I'm doing the best I can to save my family and my business is some consolation.

Some people are offended by my blacklist system. I may have made my store less popular for pirates and sympathisers, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to save my industry from destruction. I am inspired by artists such as Metallica that have taken a stand against the powerful pirate lobby. When everyone believes 2 + 2 = 5, to simply state the truth, that 2 + 2 = 4, is a courageous act.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829157)

Sounds like an RIAA troll to me. Yeah, like the RIAA is trying to help small business.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

AC5398 (651967) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829373)

Definitely troll. The exact same post has been posted and reposted for years.

There is a recent article on the Toronto Sun website - it reminded me of the Slashdot as soon as I read it. Sam the Record Man still exists on Yonge Street, despite the implication in the article that it doesn't.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

serialdogma (883470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830051)

And since when a has feeding the trolls and brining them to more attention been considered a good thing?

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829181)

Copy&Paste trolls suck... expecially when spewing the EXACT SAME thing in each topic about similar issues.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18830121)

Copy&Paste trolls suck... expecially when spewing the EXACT SAME thing in each topic about similar issues.

Some shit about exact comment previously being posted...

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829195)

Yay, anonymous propaganda trolls.
Too bad I have no mod points.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829217)

>> "I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market."
>> "I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of."

Damn those lieing stealing Christians!! I'll bet the mormons are twice as bad. I mean, they believe in Jesus twice, once in the Old World and once in the New World!

I'll bet those "Marilyn Manson" or "cop-killer rap" listening kids probably aren't smart enought to even use a computer. So maybe you should think about changing your "demographic" again if you want to make money? ;-)

I love this line... (0)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829221)

I wanted to tell them the truth - it's because they wear old clothes and have cheap haircuts.

This is great stuff.

Is it an RIAA troll or is it someone parodying an RIAA troll?

Only the RIAA knows.

Re:I love this line... (3, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829257)

Let's take a poll.

My vote: it's the troll. It's too stupid to do a parody of anything.

Re:I love this line... (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829537)

One man's troll is another man's parody.

I do think it's likely that it's someone working for the RIAA.

It's a testament to their cluelessness that they would hire someone to write such a ridiculous shill-piece.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829251)

Last time on slashdot, "iTunes is a monopoly". This troll got a (Score:4, Funny).

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829277)

That's only if other RIAA trolls get mod points.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0, Offtopic)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829267)

To take your post seriously (though I think it is a troll) you seem to imply that the nice "family" demographic you cater to are predominantly pirates, who thus have no use for your store except when purchasing a cool disk that is not yet online. There are other possibilities. Perhaps some of your erstwhile customers find merit in being able to cheaply purchase the specific tracks they like online rather than purchase expensive albums full of dross, in which they have no interest, aggregated with the one or two tracks they actually want.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829297)

It's definitely a troll. It keeps reappearing, in the same words, in different places. There is nothing these guys won't stoop to.

And notice that it's an off-topic troll, to boot.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829341)

It's definitely a troll. It keeps reappearing, in the same words, in different places. There is nothing these guys won't stoop to. And notice that it's an off-topic troll, to boot.

It's very clearly an instance of sustained irony.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829313)

There is one thing you could do to solve your problem. Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere, then take your entire fucktarded family. Have all of them jump off to their deaths, and after that jump to yours. Problem Solved.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829377)

If you pirates cannot handle the punishment that is finally being handed to you here is what you can do about it. You can go save Darwin the trouble and end it all by running a hot bath and slitting your fucking wrists fucktards.

GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR
WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MOD POINTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!!!

EVEN BETTER ALL FUCKTARDED
SHITDOT SHEEPLE SHOULD
SLIT THEIR FUCKING WRISTS!!

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0, Offtopic)

Heembo (916647) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829955)

Look moron, I legally pay for TV shows off of iTunes, and I save myself the hassle of not having to watch inane commercials. I also now legally download the one or 2 good tracks off of iTunes instead of wasting my money buying overprices CD's at your BS shops. Can you blame me? The world is changing and CD is dead. DEAD DEAD DEAD. Time for you to get a real job when you are done filing for bankruptcy. (If you have any ACTUAL skills)

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0, Offtopic)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829383)

Nice little bit of fiction there AC.

I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to.

"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back."
Perhaps your problem is that when said families actually come into the store you insult them with words that you'd never hear in a Christian rock album.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829401)

God, this is beautiful stuff. Keep on posting you crazy diamond.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829467)

How many times will the Anonymous Cocksuckers repost this fake "confession" VERBATIM ? Every single RIAA article on /. gets at least one copy of this made-up filth.

"I grabbed the little shit by his shirt." ... and child services shut you down for abusing a minor.

"Why do the other kids laugh at us?" ... because your dad's a cheap excuse for a man

"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic]" ... how can you sic-quote a spoken conversation ?

"I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of." ... the only people who'd pirate Christian rock would be Christian believers, how's that for hypocrisy ?

It's sad enough that someone feels the need to publish such bullshit. It's even worse when supposedly wise and literate community members regurgitate the same hogwash week after week. Maybe slashdot should have some kind of high-IQ Captcha... something to weed out the highly-opinionated lowly-educated myspace/facebook weenies. We've always had trolls, but at least the old trolls were funny, like me :)

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (2, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829579)

Well, this comment has been posted since 2005 on Slashdot. Exactly the same in 2 other /. news posts:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22As+a+record+stor e+owner,+my+business+faces+ruin.+CD+sales+have+dro pped+through+the+floor.+People+aren't+buying+half+ as+many+CDs+as+they+did+just+a+year+ago.%22&hl=en& client=safari&rls=en&filter=0 [google.com]

Well, you cold have at least updated your 12 year old record store and 'last year'.

Next to you being an RIAA shill, if you DO have a store, you deserve to be out of business. Or bring some Dimmu Borgir into your 'christian' store.

Re:Piracy just hurts the little guy. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829625)

boo phuckin hoo. Dinosaurs don't roam the earth any more, we don't ride horses to work and don't trade in beaver pelts and gold dust. Change your business model or die..

Dude, thats just sick... (4, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830027)

and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.

You mean that people are actually ripping and sharing Christian rock??

Thats just *sick*.

Tell them to piss off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829139)

Besides that I avoid knowingly listening to and downloading anything that RIAA can claim rights too. I'd tell them to go fuck themselves. But then again I shouldn't have anything to worry about. Still the invasiveness of it all would piss me off. Give them a drive that is filled with random data and claim it's encrypted and you forgot the key. But that might insinuate you're trying to hide something, so I'd just tell them to go fuck off and try to extort protection money from some other shmuck...

and it seems to be in vogue/season/fashionable to go on a shooting sprees lately... any one wanna make a bet if the RIAA reps will become targets soon? Not that I would encourage such behaviour, but I'd have a hard time coming up with reasons to feel sad if such a thing were to occur...

Re:Tell them to piss off (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829189)

but I'd have a hard time coming up with reasons to feel sad if such a thing were to occur...
How about the predictable knee-jerk reactions and new attacks on freedom that these events always cause?

Re:Tell them to piss off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829319)

How about the predictable knee-jerk reactions and new attacks on freedom that these events always cause?

Yeah that's true, but I also think it's true that people who are using events like this to usurp more power and wealth will have no shortage of events to use as excuses for the necessity of such things, even if they have to stage and manufacture these events themselves.

Naturaly of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials ...and of course don't forget the Reichstag fire which Hitler was able to blame on the communists and justify his seizure of power. Or top secret US plans like Operation Northwood such as staging false terror attacks on the US population as justification to make war on the patsy country they choose to blame/involve some how... and okay this is drifting off topic, but it all goes hand-in-hand Nazi's, bullies, monopolies, and mafia thugs. A lot of BS and lies...

Some things I wonder about are.... (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829141)

1. Who pays for the neutral expert?

2. Who makes the deletion of the privileged files?

3. How are the privileged files going to be deleted?

How do you find an expert? (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829339)

I know lots of people who could take an image of a disk and come up with an MD5, but I can maybe think of one person who i know that is sufficiently recognized that he could be considered a computer forensics export.

I'm sure if I suggest someone as a neutral expert, the RIAA will discredit them and likely leave one of their guys as the only choice.

There may well be a market here though. I'm available for a small fee and largely neutral :)

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829407)

I have a similar question, possibly related. I have no less than 12 systems at home. On the very remote chance that I should even be accused by the RIAA, how would they know what system to look at, or which drive (I have quite a few) to look at for evidence. Who pays for that? Do they come in and simply confiscate everything? I might have hacked the DVR and moved my music there. I might be an upgrade junky and have upgraded every system that I own on a regular basis, including wiping the drives clean of any previous data. How do they figure they can tell the difference between my habits and someone trying to hide data?

Are my computing habits putting me at risk if they should ask about my online activities? Should I be afraid? Should I be hiding stuff now?

I don't download music or movies, but how do I prove that without having to go through such huge measures as going to court? The existence of MP3 files on my hard drive does not mean I've been downloading. If I buy a used system that has music files on it, am I guilty?

My belief is that they don't have a right to look at it at all without hard evidence that I've been downloading illegally. The police are the only ones given the ability to search with probable cause only. Discovery for court purposes is one thing, do they search each defendant's home top to bottom to find any hidden hard drives? Do they 'interview' neighbors and friends to see if there is a missing hard drive they are just 'holding'?

To me, this whole hard drive evidence thing is illegal in itself. What if a virus infected my machine as was being used to pass illegally downloaded files? What happens if the defendant's lawyer declares all data on the disk to be private, other than the OS files?

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829549)

My belief is that they don't have a right to look at it at all without hard evidence that I've been downloading illegally. The police are the only ones given the ability to search with probable cause only. Discovery for court purposes is one thing, do they search each defendant's home top to bottom to find any hidden hard drives? Do they 'interview' neighbors and friends to see if there is a missing hard drive they are just 'holding'?
Remember that if you are involved in a case directly with the RIAA, you are dealing with a civil matter. There is no automatic presumption of innocence per se. All the RIAA has to do is convince the judge that there might be evidence on the hard drive in order to have the drive enter the case. For copyright infringement of material online, it's not a hard thing to prove.

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (4, Interesting)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830045)

do they search each defendant's home top to bottom to find any hidden hard drives?

I'd been thinking about this and had more or less decided it would be a good idea to by a wireless hard dive (like this: http://www.whatlaptop.co.uk/YRtBdcdoWel2Yg.html [whatlaptop.co.uk] ). I might even really go wild and rip some of the plasterboard off a partition wall and wire it straight in to a ring main. Replace the plasterboard and repaint and you'd virtually have to pull the building apart to find it (unless you used RF direction finding) - and that's if you knew it was there. I can't imagine your average cop/lawyer realising.

But would it be a fire hazard?

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830135)

Just thinking about what you said, I'm going to keep dozens of hard drives in a box, and *IF* the **aa should ever wonder about what I've been doing, I'm going to hand them boxes of hard drives. None of them with anything useful on them. That is beautiful. Make it very expensive for them to even look and see what is available to look at. Fsck, I've got old full height 4GB SCSI drives for them to fumble with ... :) I bet I've got some old 300MB drives to deal with too.

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829645)

Why not just save yourself the trouble?

http://www.truecrypt.com/ [truecrypt.com]

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829769)

I was wondering that too - what is proper technical procedure for removing files from an image? Is it enough to simply zero out the bits allocated for that file? What if it's cached or backed up somewhere else on the drive?

From the hypothetical point of view of a technologically knowledgeable guilty party, I would look for some way to store the copyrighted files steganographically in something that can reasonably be considered private, and request that it be deleted from the image. Then again, if I'm using steganography, I probably wouldn't need those files deleted anyway.

Details are absurd because Big Picture is. (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829805)

1. Who pays for the neutral expert? 2. Who makes the deletion of the privileged files? 3. How are the privileged files going to be deleted?

If media files are all the RIAA trolls are interested in, it would be easy enough to make a script to extract them. Standard tools like find and tar do exactly that and do it well. Fancier tools could be made to look for id tags if the RIAA is paranoid about people changing filenames. It is this list of files that should be agreed on and only that should be coppied for examination beyond the "neutral" party.

Asking for more is just abusive but that's what this is all about, isn't it? "A few dollars a song is all we ask," they tell us, "isn't everything we can take away worth more than that?" Muggers use similar logic when they brandish their weapons.

While the change from "The RIAA gets everything it wants, so shut up." in these tiny details is nice, there's a long way to go before anything like justice is served and these searches start to look reasonable or lawful. Everyone in my house has a computer or two. The burden of identifying each and every file that might be embarrassing or abused is well beyond the average user. Even if you can do that, the details of the deletion are still troubling. I'd say that the RIAA system that makes the original mirror is something that can't be trusted to begin with and all bets are off from the first step.

Unreasonable searches are disruptive and dangerous. The easiest way to see what a powerful weapon this can be is to imagine if MLK were alive today. The kinds of people who tapped his phones and told him to commit suicide [wikipedia.org] would be demanding his computers. Those who want to avoid harassment must give up many modern conveniences and efficiencies. The threat of revocation make the tools useless anyway. All it takes to end up on the list is an ISP.

The only thing less reasonable than the "evidence" or motivation for these trials are the harsh penalties provided by law. Everyone of us faces the complete loss of property and livelyhoods at random, all to protect an industry from obvious technical obsolescence.

Re:Details are absurd because Big Picture is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18830071)

Ali-Baba, the keyboard is missing! [slashdot.org]

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829823)

1. They better both pay equal amounts, or the neutrality is somewhat in question. The court should get to appoint an expert from a list of candidates submitted by both parties, to make it a little more impartial.

2. With MD5 hashes of everything and a redundant, untouched copy of the disk, it shouldn't matter to the plaintiffs who deletes the files. Hopefully, the respondent can get another computer expert to help out with their lawyer present and go through a list of files, including caches and swap files, that should be deleted as privileged data. Since this is an RIAA copyright case, every file except the ones in the P2P directories should be privileged, although I don't know how that argument would stand up in court. I assume that the plaintiffs could challenge the extent of deleted privileged data, but they should need a good reason to be looking at anything but the P2P software, it's directories and logs, the registry (assuming it's Windows), and reasonable parts of the OS logs (limited to the dates in question, or thereabouts).

3. Do they have the option of making a third copy of the disk, omitting the sectors that the privileged files resided on? That's far more secure and prevents the plaintiffs from attempting expensive data recovery on the drive with "deleted" files. What the ruling really should have specified was a list of MD5 hashes of each filesystem block, and then a hash of the entire list. That would ensure that when files were being deleted, only the blocks they were on would no longer match the hash, and the rest of the files could be verified as being from the original drive. Maybe they did do that, I don't know the details.

Re:Some things I wonder about are.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18830007)

Contrary to the opinion posted here already, my understanding of Texas pre-trial procedure as it relates to this question goes something like this:
1. Costs go to Plaintiff - defendants are entitled to costs relating to the production of evidence, and where the court has ordered an expert to be retained, plaintiffs (seeking the evidence) are obliged to pay for costs to satisfy the courts order regarding the method of that production (retention by agreed upon expert, associate escrow costs, imaging costs etc.) This is part of why the plaintiff is required to make the image copies, not the defendant. The court has agreed the drive to contain discoverable evidence, and such duplication costs (even if it were production of documents) is borne by the plaintiffs. The notable aspect is that the court has determined as a matter of law that the drive is not itself discoverable, but contains discoverable evidence, no doubt a file to file cabinet analogy is applicable here. Retreival and excisement of non-discoverable information is the issue.

2. Good procedural question - but the defendant will most likely provide a list of files it asserts are privileged. This assertion is default, and must be challenged (plaintiff cannot look at a file, decide it is pertinent, and then move based on that to make it discoverable/admissible). There is an ethical requirement that discoverable information be freely turned over, and it is backed by sanctions on both plaintiff and counsel.

3. Privilege does not in this case seem to mean that the files are necessarily deleted, but marked as privileged. think of when privileged information is accidentaly transmitted to opposing counsels office... a problematic situation, ethics demands return of the documents, which do not become discoverable just because they were found, this gets into a more problematic issue relating to the drafting of discovery requests, in short - sanctions are a primary deterrent (as far as the courts power goes) to preventing counsel from inappropriately limiting evidence provided based on an arbitrary construction of the terms of a discovery request.

hope this is useful to some extent...

Digital Forensics - a tough issue (5, Interesting)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829145)

Digital forensics is a very tough issue as laws are somewhat immature and judicial precedence over what is acceptable and what isn't, isn't set yet. What is considered in plain sight on a hard drive? These questions haven't been fully answered yet and it is going to take at least one high profile case before it is done. And always remember to use a write blocker when examining somebody else's hard drive. Even booting into Windows will change the timestamps on a lot of files which might allow the theory of the evidence being planted.

Re:Digital Forensics - a tough issue (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829211)

speaking of mature, have ashley kate and mary olsen are now fuckable in all 50 states! This means you slashdot readers can rape them without having to worry about spurious "sex with a minor" charges. Heck, it's not even sodomy if you do them up the poop chute!

Where's Mr. Tuttle when we need him? (4, Insightful)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829271)

It's like reading a procedures document from the Ministry of Information Retrieval.

You just KNOW that the creepy bureaucratic gnomes who write up this stuff are going to have a hand in designing the "revised Internet" that's made the news lately.

Your computer has been used to violate article IV of the The Working Artists' Protection Act. Please unlock your front door, sit on the ground, place your hands behind your head and wait quietly. Attempts to flee, contact the press, or hire legal counsel is a violation of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. III Act and may result in detention in an Overseas Protective Facility.

Wait a sec. Who makes the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829281)

Still somewhat of a win for the RIAA. If defendants during discovery had to produce a list of documents that "we don't want plaintiffs to see" and produce everything else, that'd be a prohibitively expensive task for the defendants and still presents a huge pressure to settle.

"Hey ol' buddy ol' pal ol' chum. We didn't find the songs we were looking for. But we DID find some neat info about you in your cache..."

But "Metallica.mp3" is my financial records! (3, Funny)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829331)

Think they'd buy it?

Re:But "Metallica.mp3" is my financial records! (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829933)

Well, if it were me, I'd just rename that file to something appropriate for financial records before letting them get their filthy little paws on it.

Re:But "Metallica.mp3" is my financial records! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829965)

Maybe you should rename all your mp3s to .xls

Re:But "Metallica.mp3" is my financial records! (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830019)

Reminds me that I must record my slamming with a metal stick on a metal plate. I will record 2. I will only put the first one online, because I like it more. One I call A, the other B. As I also have wood (a and b) I will call it metallicA.mp3

The next part is to wayt for the RIAA to sue me and then counter-sue the hell out of them.

Why a broken hash? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829335)

Isn't MD5 "broken"? Why choose such a hashing method when SHA-224, 256, 384 or 512 are all available and safe from collision attacks?

Re:Why a broken hash? (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829437)

In this instance, that doesn't really matter. People don't deliberately keep large piles of pointless bits or stuff with a bunch of useless bits at the end on their hard drives. It'd be blatantly obvious what is a collision-attack file and what isn't. If it's an MP3 with a large bunch of bits tagged somewhere to make the MD5 match, then it's a plant.

Re:Why a broken hash? (1)

plasmoidia (935911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829637)

People don't deliberately keep large piles of pointless bits or stuff with a bunch of useless bits at the end on their hard drives.
They don't? If it is an image of the entire hard drive (or even just one partition), I would expect there to be random bits in the unused sections. I guess it depends on what the "image" is. Is it a pure binary image or just a copy of all the files on the disk?

Re:Why a broken hash? (1)

daveb (4522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829505)

Why choose such a hashing method when SHA-224, 256, 384 or 512 are all available and safe from collision attacks?

IAMAL nor a forensic investigator - but I believe that any investigator worth their salt wouldn't care and might even agree with your suggestion.

However MD5 is perfectly fine for checksum to verify file integrity. Remember - they are not talking about using MD5 to encrypt the data - they are using it to make a "finger print" of the image so that there can be no claim of tampering with the evidence. As such - it MIGHT be possible to have a collision, but the use of a collision is pretty limited. The chance is pretty remote of setting me up by replacing my pictures of my cat LuLu with metalica-album.mp3, and having the file checksums be the same.

Re:Why a broken hash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829525)

I recall an article about a guy who got out of his running a red light ticket because the MD5 hash of the camera could not be verified.

oops wrong Re:Why a broken hash? (5, Informative)

daveb (4522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829557)

After babbling mindlessly I thought I'd do a quick check.

I'm wrong - in fact I get the feeling that it's now important that MD5 is NOT used. NIST (an authority when it comes to forensic investigations) do *not* recommend the use of MD5 checksums. The grandparent was perfectly correct. A decent summary (sorry PDF) is here [nist.gov]

Some Wining (0, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829511)

To me, this just illustrates the absurdity of the whole thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Moved_My_Cheese [wikipedia.org]

Change Happens
They Keep Moving The Cheese
Anticipate Change
Get Ready For The Cheese To Move
Monitor Change
Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old
Adapt To Change Quickly
The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese
Change
Move With The Cheese
Enjoy Change!
Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!
Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again & Again
They Keep Moving The Cheese.


Re:Some Wining (1)

skeeterbug (960559) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829685)

"...more crime is committed in the cities, where more people tend to be black..." - pudge
you must live in a city, then, based upon your crime against reason, detailed above. you can do one of three things: 1. cite your empirical evidence that excludes everything but skin pigment as the (primary) cause for increased rates of crime. 2. admit that there are a myriad of social factors that have worked against the black community to cause the marginally higher crime rate compared to other races (hmmmm, what could that be? dagnabbit, there has to be something going on here, right?). 3. admit you are about 6 beers short of a 6 pack. you know, your elevator doesn't get off the ground floor. before posting inciting words, get educated first. no, inciting isn't a derivative of insightful.

Re:Some Wining (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829837)

The first I heard of "who moved my cheese" was when I had my sorry arse dragged into a confrence room by big blue to watch the video. I find it more than a little sad that the book is still on the best sellers list.

Re:Some Wining (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830039)

Sorry for the brain trigger. I'm hopelessly behind the times. Based on the "hiking-up-the-pants" test I find myself doing lately unconsciously (I'm actually considering suspenders, that's how bad it's gotten) I've come to the realization that I'm already an old fart. Also no longer to coherent statement...stuff, like.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was. Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me.

Grampa Simpson's writers were good with that one as...um, hey, get off my lawn!

Who moved my cheese? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830041)

Who reads this bullshit? It's god damned insulting to anybody with an IQ over 30.

It should be:

Shit happens.
Who removed my brain?

Anybody who finds any of this... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829539)

Anybody who finds any of this in any way, shape, or form to be even remotely acceptable is truly mad. Neither the RIAA or anybody else has any right at all to search the victim's hard drive. Make no mistake, the "defendant" here is a victim of what any normal, reasonable person would call a criminal act. And this time I believe the perpetrators should be locked up. Unfortunatley, that might mean cutting loose some dangerous pot smokers, and we can't have that, can we?

Use TrueCrypt! (5, Informative)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829581)

Assuming you really do have something to hide, using an encrypted volume embedded within another encrypted volume could be very useful. TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] supports nested encrypted file systems and since TrueCrypt uses no headers to demarcate its volumes, it is not possible to determine if an additional volume is embedded within a TrueCrypt volume. In effect, it provides plausible deniability of the existence of a 2nd embedded volume if you're forced by court order to decrypt the main volume. (stick some Creative Commons licensed mp3 files in the main volume though, just to throw the RIAA the middle finger a little more.)

Better yet, support non-RIAA artists at sites like Magnitune [magnitune.com] . The quality of music I've found there is proof positive that the RIAA no longer has a legitimate purpose in the music industry.

My tips for installing TrueCrypt [aggiegeeks.com] on Fedora Core 6.

Re:Use TrueCrypt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829797)

The problem with that is so much information is stored all over Windows. Even if your mp3 folder is encrypted you'll have references to filenames in the registry (OpenSaveMru), filesharing programs settings, the swap, playlists... I'd imagine trying to claim that shared songs didn't come from your computer would be difficult. While they might not be able to get at the actual files it would be easy to infer that the songs in question are stored on your computer. So long plausible deniability.

Too bad you can't encrypt your entire OS with Truecrypt.

Re:Use TrueCrypt! (1)

Grym (725290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829903)

Yeah that 16GB Truecrypt volume with only 5 MBs of word documents in it don't look the slightest bit suspicious.

-Grym

Re:Use TrueCrypt! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830097)

Yeah that 16GB Truecrypt volume with only 5 MBs of word documents in it don't look the slightest bit suspicious.

Hey, encryption uses a lot of overhead. :)

In Unrelated News (2, Funny)

ztransform (929641) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829595)

RIAA employees were discovered with a "significantly disturbing" volume of porn on their own machines. When questioned they denied that the material was sourced from hard drive mirror images..

simple protection is the best (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829663)

encrypt the filesystem, claim the drive is cactus and thats the reason it won't read. anyone have thoughts on this? would it be a fesible defence and is there a way to pull it off on a technical level. i'm guessing encrypted filesystems identify themselfs, would it be possible to hide the fact it's encrypted?

Safeguards I use (5, Interesting)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829693)

1.A loaded S&W .357 for use on the RIAA trolls trying to gain access to my house.(Under Ky Law I may defend my personal property using deadly force if I deem it necessary)
2.A good self destruct device (easy to built and arm) for the hard drive(renders it absolutely useless to any forensic expert,since it physically destroys the platters.)
3.I use an external drive to store the MP3 and other multimedia files on.Easily hidden,(like the old Varmit XL1000 CB Linear amps of decades past)
Anyone wanting to seize my machine will pay dearly for trying.I just don't give a damn anymore since I had the nervous breakdown last year.
That way,If the RIAA does get the machine,it will turn to scrap before they can get it 2 miles away.Paranoid? Sure,but with the corruption of the courts these days,these steps are needed.

Re:Safeguards I use (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829741)

1.A loaded S&W .357 for use on the RIAA trolls trying to gain access to my house.(Under Ky Law I may defend my personal property using deadly force if I deem it necessary)
KY state law doesn't allow you to shoot a deputy sheriff for serving a search warrant. And that's what this would be.

2.A good self destruct device (easy to built and arm) for the hard drive(renders it absolutely useless to any forensic expert,since it physically destroys the platters.)
of course, now you've tampered with evidence (the small sound of an explosion may give it away), which is an actual crime as opposed to the copyright infringement which is not.

Re:Safeguards I use (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829773)

That's right.But of course I need just 2 seconds,too.Like I said,I don't care anymore.

Re:Safeguards I use (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829851)

And try to prove there was any evidence there in the first place.
Also a backup HD with a clean system takes less than 30 seconds to put in (it's run weekly to keep it updated).And the machine can be bolted to the desk.
Theoretical situations,no matter how wild they seem,have a knack of showing up.
Besides the music I listen to has been out of print for decades.I have them on vinyl LP records with a real good turntable.I don't buy Commercially made music CDs at all.never have,never will.I have purchased DRM-free indie music on occasion,making sure that the artist/group/label is not a member of the RIAA.
Too tired tonight,getting scatter-brained and the anti-depressants have wore off.

Um, drop it... (1)

Cap'n Crax (313292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18829969)

Sure, here's my hard drive (trips over chair leg)...

WHAP! (Noise made as hard drive is dropped and violently falls onto floor)

Of course you would want to make your OWN image of the drive beforehand, and store it somewhere safe, like a safety deposit box at your bank or somewhere....

Re:Um, drop it... (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18830081)

yes, so that the bank/saftey-deposit box holder can be subpoenaed for the drive image...

I hate lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18829977)

What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?

One's a scum sucking bottom-dweller, the other one's a fish.

My Safegaurds For RIAA HDD Inspection: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18830049)

drive nuker
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...