|
|
| Author |
Message |
slynne
|
|
Member Resolution
| 
Feb 9 19:06 UTC 2004 |
In order to avoid an ongoing issue. I would like to propose that any
backups of the baby diary items or jep's divorce items be erased so
that they cannot be restored.
|
| 42 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 1 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:08 UTC 2004 |
I don't know that that is possible, without destroying everything else on
the backup tapes.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 2 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:10 UTC 2004 |
What about a new backup? One that does not contain those items (like right
now). How many backups do we keep before overwriting them?
|
ryan
|
|
response 3 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:12 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 5 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:20 UTC 2004 |
The two most recent backups were a partial backup on 25 October 2003,
and a full backup on 9 June 2003.
I am currently holding eleven tapes, going back to November, 2000, in
off-site storage at my house.
Yes, we should make another backup of the system.
|
jp2
|
|
response 6 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:21 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 7 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Staff does what it can, jp2.
|
jp2
|
|
response 8 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:23 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 9 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:26 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:33 UTC 2004 |
STaff has been too busy discussing various nuisance proposals from jp2 to
perform regular backups.
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:44 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 12 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:56 UTC 2004 |
Scott didn't say the staff were discussing the
proposals *with* you, Jamie.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 42:
|
Feb 9 19:58 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 14 of 42:
|
Feb 9 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I consider this proposal to be a horrid idea. I'm not interested in the items
being restored any more than anyone else who is not, but to deliberately
destroy data just to thwart what could be very valid proposals for item
restoration is a bad idea at best, and a waste of time at worst.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 15 of 42:
|
Feb 9 20:48 UTC 2004 |
Without rehashing too much, let's not forget that one of jep's reasons for
wanting the content deleted was to protect him from possible legal issues.
How do you think it would look if a subpoena was issued for that data?
"Oh, sorry. We intentionally deleted it. But two thirds of us thought it was
a good idea!"
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 16 of 42:
|
Feb 9 20:52 UTC 2004 |
Yeah. Grex is aiding criminal(s) and/or criminal(s') enterprise(s).
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 42:
|
Feb 9 20:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 18 of 42:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
It was not deleted for the purpose of evading or anticipating a subpoena.
The "best way" *this* proposal could be "met" is by performing another full
backup, one of these days, which would be missing the deleted items.
Past full backup media would get recycled, I'm sure, and at that point the
items would be unrecoverable for all time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 19 of 42:
|
Feb 9 21:54 UTC 2004 |
All cusers of GreX are criminals.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 42:
|
Feb 9 23:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 21 of 42:
|
Feb 9 23:21 UTC 2004 |
re: 17
I don't know, but I'll bet Aaron does.
re: 18
That's quite different from what jep said. He was rather clear in stating that
the "harm" he so desperately feared may come upon his child was indeed related
to his words being used against him in court.
It's one thing to make information private. It's something else to destroy
it. Short of a set tape rotation schedule that shows the items were
overwritten during the normal course of data preservation, it would be
difficult to avoid serious scrutiny.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 42:
|
Feb 9 23:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 23 of 42:
|
Feb 9 23:54 UTC 2004 |
resp:0 I say-- no, bad idea.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 24 of 42:
|
Feb 10 00:24 UTC 2004 |
I oppose this proposal. I also think that people who posted in those items
should be permitted to retrieve his/her posts first.
|