Use multisession Puppy for legal reasons?

Message

#1 Post by **Flash** » Wed 13 Dec 2006, 18:19

I took this excerpt from this article.

changes to U.S. federal rules that went into effect earlier this month require parties involved in federal litigation to provide electronic information as part of the discovery process. This means once a lawsuit has been filed (or perhaps even anticipated), deleting or overwriting files that pertain to it will be as illegal as shredding paper documents.

Multisession Puppy cannot erase anything from the DVD (or Blu-Ray) disk. Neither can a drive failure destroy the data, as it would if it were a hard drive. Multisession Puppy would seem to be the leading candidate to use anywhere this law might apply.

Gn2 · #2 Post by **Gn2** » Wed 13 Dec 2006, 20:43

That applies primarily to pending /anticipated or on-going patent litigation suits
OR multiple use of prorietary source code contrary to EULA
agreements agreed to when software first used.

Other situations - if/when being audited - such as RMA, RIAA or Redmond sniff around.
Porno traffic
National securty

Redmond monitors Web for pirated software.Nothing to do w/OSS software.

The computers & all relevant hardware are siezed, very thorough disk analysis employed -

#3 Post by **Flash** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 04:21

Actually the new rules apply to any federal litigation.

See here, here and here for more details.

Gn2 · #4 Post by **Gn2** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 05:09

Hmm - perhaps - In excited states of Hew Hess WTHay !
OTOH
Just as a FYI it would first be needed > even in USA court - Proof of INTENT to destroy evidence

Except if you are a "Political Detainee" in Guantanamo Bay prison

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document ... 80005829F3

If anything to hide - YMMV...... who knows

Ignorance (of laws & all codes ) _ same as anywhere > applies

#5 Post by **Flash** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 05:20

Actually if you had read the references you would know that lack of intent is no excuse. The court says that it is up to you to protect the evidence once it is part of a lawsuit. It's your fault even if you didn't mean to destroy the evidence.

These new rules are for civil cases, not criminal ones.

Gn2 · #6 Post by **Gn2** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 05:39

Flash PLEASE just for once - why do YOU not read & limit missed - quoting" ??

Ignorance (of laws & all codes ) _ same as anywhere > applies

Intent non-withstanding > Ignorance of laws or otherwise.... is no defense
Mind, in areas where US LEGISLATION may be "interpreted"
What other nation habitually rules Jury verdict - Not criminally guilty - yet be "successfully" found liable of same charges in "civil"? court cases !

#7 Post by **Flash** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 19:56

Gn2, I know you can write well. I've seen it. So don't complain about the results when you willfully write with a style full of obscure references and abbreviations, not to mention peculiar grammar and sentence construction. In case you aren't aware, it is difficult to read.

Why you choose to write this way is a mystery to me. It doesn't bother me; I just ignore it, but I have reason to believe that your peculiar writing style in this forum confuses newcomers who don't know better. For their sake, please make the effort to make your meaning clear, as I know you can. Thanks.

Gn2 · #8 Post by **Gn2** » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 22:33

Thank you for comments .
Your reasons are well known to all
(By the way , a sentence as well a line ends at a period.)

PaulBx1 · #9 Post by **PaulBx1** » Mon 25 Dec 2006, 23:09

Intent non-withstanding > Ignorance of laws or otherwise.... is no defense

Actually, this is not quite true. I believe I have read that Blackstone (among others) said this, while adding the qualifier saying something like "laws that everyone is bound to know" which has been interpreted in the courts as malum in se crimes. Here is an example: http://www.acca.com/public/amicus/wlfandersen.pdf

Flash, I am a bit confused about your notion that multisession Puppy should "be the leading candidate to use anywhere this law might apply." First, you appear to be assuming that the law is legitimate, while to me it appears to violate the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches (AKA "fishing expeditions"). Second, even if the data cannot be lost by a head crash, etc., the CD or DVD can simply be burned. So my impression is to agree with you that yes, multisession is a good thing to use in such jurisdictions, but only because it allows a person so easily to hide his personal dealings from illegitimate government snoops.

On the other (more practical) hand, any time one is caught up in the broken US "justice" system, one is thoroughly screwed anyway, no matter one's (theoretical) rights. Burning a DVD is not going to help. Picking up a rifle starts to look reasonable.

...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms... what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

Gn2 · #10 Post by **Gn2** » Mon 25 Dec 2006, 23:38

Hi Paul

The "otherwise" lost to all ?
It is truely a loss to all - the originating founders of U.S.A. were so far-sighted & clearly understood principles of democracy -
Now they are circumvented by those who have sworn allegiance to defend rights of all segments of society and most vulnerable.

The only true defence .... seems to be what all politicians fear most -
An enlightened populace.
My most fervent wish - some day NO "party system" of Gov't !
Not only in North America -EVERYWHERE

And where is one "experiment " to be found - oddly enough - in the newly formed structure of the Inuit of Canada.
Poetic justice ? Only time may tell.

amish · #11 Post by **amish** » Fri 29 Dec 2006, 17:46

freedom can't be Secured, per se.
it can be supported, reinforced, encouraged, and even legislated, but that legislation is ultimately an agreement on paper and nothing more.

freedom comes from practicing freedom... if everything is illegal, the only way to be free is break the law. the best term for this is "civil disobedience." so, you still have the option, albeit illegal option, of destroying anything that is yours. it's a question of what you consider your rights... and it's your decision.

of course, you can always make things "easier" on yourself SOMETIMES by coloring in the lines. do i pay a parking ticket and not fight it in court? probably. or maybe not.

when a country (cuba, turkey, n korea, america) becomes too oppressive, people escape to a place that is more reasonable, if lucky. we're not there just yet, we USED to be the place to go to get free, but all the agreements on paper that are made these days are about having less, not more.

John Doe · #12 Post by **John Doe** » Fri 29 Dec 2006, 17:58

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/2 ... n-of-2006/

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Use multisession Puppy for legal reasons?

Use multisession Puppy for legal reasons?