4 ms·

> The judge also backed off on an order that Hotz “retrieve” the code from anybody who he may have forwarded it to. Good to see the judge is knowledgeable in t

> The judge also backed off on an order that Hotz “retrieve” the code from anybody who he may have forwarded it to. Good to see the judge is knowledgeable in this area! I'm sure this will end well.

tptacek 16y ago
If, by "end well", you mean "the judge readily conceded that there was no practical way for this to happen and apologized for the ill-thought-out demand", then know (by reading just a few sentences further) that this already happened.
- logjam 16y ago
  Uh, "readily conceded?" The judge took several weeks to finally realize that she made an "ill-thought-thought out demand" to "retrieve the codes".
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Several weeks is milliseconds in legal hearing time. Have you ever taken something simple to actual civil court before? It doesn't look like this got dragged out; the defense objected to the request, the judge reconsidered, and then apologized. What more can you reasonably ask for?
    - mtarnovan 16y ago
      I could reasonably ask for the judge to have the common sense not to make such an outlandish request in the first place.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You just made a comment at least two other people made before you, so I'll let my answers to those stand here too.
        mtarnovan 16y ago
        I was just answering your pseudorhetorical question in a semi-satirical way.
- jerf 16y ago
  It's a little disturbing the order was ever made, though, because the fact that information can't be retrieved isn't some unique computer complication, it's just generally true. There aren't any media in which you can uncommunicate. (A couple of computer media try to hack it in but they can't recover copies either.) If I were being tried by a judge who did that, I would realize that I've basically already lost, pretty much no matter what happens next. (Which in this case is probably a null issue. This is an open-and-shut DMCA violation. I disagree with the DMCA but that doesn't change the fact that it's an open-and-shut DMCA violation.)
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I'm not even a little bit disturbed the order was made. I'm thrilled that the judge backed off and apologized for making the request. Tells me that she's actually listening to the defendant; will be helpful down the road.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    There's not much detail about the order, but it seems reasonable to me. Don't interpret code strictly as the bits, but possibly as media. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, unless you're the kind of person who makes corrections like "it's not a movie, it's a DVD containing a movie". "Defendant gave the code to person X. He should get it back." Here, "the code" could reasonably be a USB stick, a printout, or whatnot. If the request didn't make clear it was distributed over the internet, why would the order?
- gisenberg 16y ago
  The order being made at all is what I'm most concerned about. This is an important case about technology with a judge that demonstrably does not understand technology. Perfect recipe for a lose-lose situation.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    First, we're probably hyperventilating about the extent to which this request was nonsensical. It could have been an oversight on the judge's part, or there could have been a rationale behind the request that simply didn't turn out to be reasonable in hindsight. We may never know, because the judge (properly) conceded the point quickly. Second, it is not the job of a judge to "understand technology". We may not even want judges that are specifically steeped in technical knowledge. What we need them to be is fair arbiters of the law and of the ways the law allows facts to be introduced into evidence.
    - vilya 16y ago
      Surely in a case which revolves around technology like this it's reasonable to expect the judge to have some technical knowledge? The job of a judge is to interpret the law as it applies to a particular case; if they have no knowledge of the context in which the case has arisen they could very well come up with a bad/nonsense interpretation.

tptacek 16y ago

If, by "end well", you mean "the judge readily conceded that there was no practical way for this to happen and apologized for the ill-thought-out demand", then know (by reading just a few sentences further) that this already happened.

logjam 16y ago
Uh, "readily conceded?" The judge took several weeks to finally realize that she made an "ill-thought-thought out demand" to "retrieve the codes".
- tptacek 16y ago
  Several weeks is milliseconds in legal hearing time. Have you ever taken something simple to actual civil court before? It doesn't look like this got dragged out; the defense objected to the request, the judge reconsidered, and then apologized. What more can you reasonably ask for?
  - mtarnovan 16y ago
    I could reasonably ask for the judge to have the common sense not to make such an outlandish request in the first place.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      You just made a comment at least two other people made before you, so I'll let my answers to those stand here too.
      - mtarnovan 16y ago
        I was just answering your pseudorhetorical question in a semi-satirical way.
jerf 16y ago
It's a little disturbing the order was ever made, though, because the fact that information can't be retrieved isn't some unique computer complication, it's just generally true. There aren't any media in which you can uncommunicate. (A couple of computer media try to hack it in but they can't recover copies either.) If I were being tried by a judge who did that, I would realize that I've basically already lost, pretty much no matter what happens next. (Which in this case is probably a null issue. This is an open-and-shut DMCA violation. I disagree with the DMCA but that doesn't change the fact that it's an open-and-shut DMCA violation.)
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm not even a little bit disturbed the order was made. I'm thrilled that the judge backed off and apologized for making the request. Tells me that she's actually listening to the defendant; will be helpful down the road.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  There's not much detail about the order, but it seems reasonable to me. Don't interpret code strictly as the bits, but possibly as media. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, unless you're the kind of person who makes corrections like "it's not a movie, it's a DVD containing a movie". "Defendant gave the code to person X. He should get it back." Here, "the code" could reasonably be a USB stick, a printout, or whatnot. If the request didn't make clear it was distributed over the internet, why would the order?
gisenberg 16y ago
The order being made at all is what I'm most concerned about. This is an important case about technology with a judge that demonstrably does not understand technology. Perfect recipe for a lose-lose situation.
- tptacek 16y ago
  First, we're probably hyperventilating about the extent to which this request was nonsensical. It could have been an oversight on the judge's part, or there could have been a rationale behind the request that simply didn't turn out to be reasonable in hindsight. We may never know, because the judge (properly) conceded the point quickly. Second, it is not the job of a judge to "understand technology". We may not even want judges that are specifically steeped in technical knowledge. What we need them to be is fair arbiters of the law and of the ways the law allows facts to be introduced into evidence.
  - vilya 16y ago
    Surely in a case which revolves around technology like this it's reasonable to expect the judge to have some technical knowledge? The job of a judge is to interpret the law as it applies to a particular case; if they have no knowledge of the context in which the case has arisen they could very well come up with a bad/nonsense interpretation.