About 5yr. log retention

[John Young]

Jim Choate wrote:
>
>Actually your cite is the wrong one. It has nothing to do with a court
>issuance. There has never been a question in that regard. As I said in a
>earlier note, destruction of evidence is a crime which is well covered. As
>soon as you have any reason to believe it's evidence (actually whether a
>cop or other agent advises you of such or not) it becomes illegal for you
>to alter or destroy it. Tampering with evidence is a crime and always has
>been.

The citation was given as the basis of the news story. And it shows that
there is no five year retention requirement, only that the law is five years
old.

But that is trivial compared to your claim that you decide what is evidence
and that it then becomes illegal to alter or destroy it. That appears to be
playing cop without the authority. 

Now, you've made no bones about doing that in the past, apparently to 
protect your own ass and your fragile operation.  Maybe you are under
threat to out cop the cops. Certainly, fruadulent operations have to worry 
about being exposed.

And, no doubt there are many sys admins and operators worldwide who 
believe that it is their perogative to finger their customers to the fuzz -- 
as with the big ISPs around the world madly trying to please the authorities 
so their businesses will get favorable treatment, or at least not become
a target for investigation. 

A local comic might say all such people need killing.

The lilly-livered sys admins who betray people's trust in their systems 
are a plague on the Internet, all braying about the need to secure their
systems from bad users, and all of them -- along with their bosses
and investors who are rushing to kiss the authorities asses even when
the authorities know what the cheaters fear -- need to be exposed and 
pilloried.

You, Jim, have repeatedly confessed to being a law and order rat fink. 
But I understand, son, that's just good business for a crooked cop.