TOP 15 must have computer programs

  • AllSnap – Makes all your programs “snap to” on your screen, for placement sanity!
  • MagicISO Virtual CD/DVD – Create virtual CD’s and mount ISO files. (great for watching movies)
  • Filezilla – FTP client or server, that is unbeatable – and Free!
  • Crimson Editor – Best code viewing program including line numbering.
  • VirtualPC – Create, test, break and experiment with a ‘disposable’ computer.
  • JK Defrag – Keep that PC hard drive running with with a disk defragger and optimizer.
  • 7-Zip – archiver, compression utility with password/email functions. Simply the best.
  • FastStone Capture – Screen capture utility that is second to none. Love the drop shadow effect.
  • Launchy – quick file and program locater and application launcher.
  • Foxit Reader – Dump the bloated Adobe Acrobat, you don’t need it now.
  • TeraCopy – FAST File transfer program for drag and drop, copies and more!
  • CrossLoop – Give or get support over the Internet (screen sharing and collaboration tool)
  • SyncToy – Keep those files and folder in sync!
  • PDFCreator – Print to PDF, capture a webpage to PDF, etc
  • 3C – Color grabber tool that takes the color code(s) right off the page! (RBG/HEX)


Justices will determine privacy of government workers’ messages

Justices will determine privacy of government workers’ messages
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Supreme Court will hear two appeals regarding messages on government work devices
* Privacy dispute centers on police officer who sent “sexually explicit” messages on the job
* Police officer sued city and wireless company for invasion of privacy
* Justices also dismissed claims by former Guantanamo detainees

RELATED TOPICS

* Privacy Rights
* U.S. Supreme Court
* Arch Wireless Inc.
* Guantanamo Bay

WASHINGTON (CNN) — When Ontario, California, Police Sgt. Jeff Quon used his city-issued text messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages, some of a “sexually explicit” nature, did he have a right to expect those messages would be kept private?

The Supreme Court decided Monday that it will determine whether a police officer has a “reasonable expectation” of privacy on his official wireless two-way text-messaging pager.

The justices accepted a pair of appeals on this free-speech and privacy dispute, and will hear oral arguments in the spring.

At issue is how far a government employer may go to monitor the private communications of its workers when they believe that the use of such equipment is being abused.

And the court will explore whether service providers can be held liable for providing those communications without the consent of the sender.

Courts have said that private communications — even when delivered or transmitted through a public portal — are generally protected from “unreasonable search and seizure,” such as handwritten letters sent in sealed envelopes through the U.S. Postal Service.

The department has a “Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy” that gives workers only limited use for personal communications. Quon signed a statement acknowledging that “use of these tools for personal benefit is a significant violation of City of Ontario Policy” and that “users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.”

Quon, a SWAT team sergeant, claimed that he was unaware the city’s overall policy applied to the department and said there was an “informal policy [that] allowed officers to maintain their privacy in their text messages as long as they paid the overage charges.”

The city’s contract with Arch Wireless, now known as USA Mobility, allowed for a 25,000-character limit per month, per device, before overage charges kicked in. Quon acknowledged that he exceeded the limit at least several times and paid the extra charges out of his personal funds, as required by his bosses.

Both sides agree that Quon’s supervisor grew “tired of being a bill collector” of his text-happy officers, and the chief of police ordered a review of the pager transcripts for the two officers with the highest overage, one of whom was Quon.

Officials claimed in court that the review was done only “to determine whether the city’s monthly character limit was insufficient to cover business-related messages.”

It was only in reading the transcripts voluntarily provided by Arch Wireless from its electronic archives that the often-racy messages to his wife, his girlfriend and a fellow officer were revealed, prompting an internal department investigation.

A review of one month found that Quon had sent and received 456 personal messages while on duty, an average of 28 per shift, and only three were deemed work-related. A federal court judge characterized many of the messages as not “light personal communications,” as defined in the policy as generally acceptable, but words that were, “to say the least, sexually explicit in nature.”

Quon sued the wireless company and the city for invasion of privacy. That suit and any possible disciplinary action against the officer has been put on hold pending resolution of the larger legal questions.

A federal appeals court had ruled for Quon. Because “the [police] department opted to review the contents of all the messages, work-related and personal, without the consent of Quon, we held that the search was excessively intrusive in light of the noninvestigatory object of the search,” wrote the three-judge panel.

This case deals within the context only of government employees, and legal and technology experts are divided over its application in the private sector, where employees may enjoy less constitutional protection.

The city of Ontario is in San Bernardino County, about 37 miles east of Los Angeles.

The case is USA Mobility Wireless Inc. v. Quon (08-1332).

• Also Monday, the Supreme Court, as expected, dismissed another challenge from several former Guantanamo Bay detainees over their claims of torture and religious discrimination.

Four British men, all Muslims and onetime prisoners at the U.S. military prison in Cuba, had sued former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon officials, saying they knew of and condoned physical abuse and denial of rights guaranteed under international law.

A federal appeals court had rejected a lawsuit — the second one filed by the men — saying the officials had immunity from such claims.

But in June 2008, the Supreme Court allowed Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their captivity in federal court, and a year ago, the justices urged the lower court to reconsider its decision against the British detainees.

In the government filing this fall, Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the high court to exercise caution in granting what she called “new rights” to detained foreign fighters suing for damages in a military setting. The high court, she noted, had previously told lower courts “to pay particular heed to any special factors counseling hesitation before authorizing a new kind of federal litigation.”

The prisoners alleged that their captors beat them, confined them in painful stress positions and used dogs to intimidate the Muslim men during a period from 2002-04. They also claim being forced to shave their beards and being denied prayer mats and religious texts. One foreign fighter suspect also claimed that a military guard threw a copy of the Quran in a toilet, a major insult to the Islamic faith.

The case is Rasul v. Myers (09-227).

IT & Legal: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

IT & Legal: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Posted by Andrew Conry-Murray, Feb 5, 2009 12:29 PM

A new survey shows there’s a long way to go before IT and legal make a good e-discovery team.

IT and legal teams should be like a Nascar pit crew when it comes to e-discovery: fast, efficient, and well-integrated. Otherwise an e-discovery effort can easily crash.

But a new survey of senior IT managers shows a majority of organizations lack a well-oiled IT/legal team. For instance, 67% of respondents say IT and legal aren’t working more closely this year than last year. And only 21% say e-discovery is a high priority.

That leads to problems when a junior attorney bursts into the data center with orders to drop everything and produce every e-mail for a dozen custodians from the years 2000 to 2003. In three weeks. He’s not going to get a warm welcome.

Another area of concern is that only 29% of IT respondents say they understand the technical specifications of e-discovery products. But they aren’t getting a lot of help from the general counsel’s office on this front. Only 12% of IT thinks the legal team understands the technical specifications.

That makes it hard for IT, which is usually tasked with actually procuring discovery products, to make sure what they invest in will actually help.

This survey data mirrors an interview I did with an IT pro at a large energy company who’s only job is to act as liaison with her legal department.

Did she have a close-knit relationship with the general counsel? In her words, it was more like the Grand Canyon.

Enterprise search software company Recommind surveyed 250 senior-level IT managers at organizations with an average size of 17,000 employees. The company also plans to survey the general counsels at large companies to get some perspective on their IT brethren. This could get ugly.


Laptop searches at border might get restricted

Dec 8, 7:08 AM EST

Laptop searches at border might get restricted


WASHINGTON (AP) — Mohamed Shommo, an engineer for Cisco Systems Inc., travels overseas several times a year for work, so he is accustomed to opening his bags for border inspections upon returning to the U.S. But in recent years, these inspections have gone much deeper than his luggage.

Border agents have scrutinized family pictures on Shommo’s digital camera, examined Koranic verses and other audio files on his iPod and even looked up Google keyword searches he had typed into his company laptop.

“They literally searched everywhere and every device they could,” said Shommo, who now minimizes what he takes on international trips and deletes pictures off his camera before returning to the U.S. “I don’t think anyone has a right to look at my private belongings without my permission. You never know how they will interpret what they find.”

Given all the personal details that people store on digital devices, border searches of laptops and other gadgets can give law enforcement officials far more revealing pictures of travelers than suitcase inspections might yield. That has set off alarms among civil liberties groups and travelers’ advocates – and now among some members of Congress who hope to impose restrictions on the practice next year.

They fear the government has crossed a sacred line by rummaging through electronic contact lists and confidential e-mail messages, trade secrets and proprietary business files, financial and medical records and other deeply private information.

These searches, opponents say, threaten Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure and could chill free expression and other activities protected by the First Amendment. What’s more, they warn, such searches raise concerns about ethnic and religious profiling since the targets often are Muslims, including U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

“I feel like I don’t have any privacy,” said Shommo, a native of Sudan who has been in the U.S. for more than a decade and plans to apply for citizenship next year. “I don’t feel treated equally to everybody else. I feel discriminated against.”

Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, asserts that it has constitutional authority to conduct routine searches at the border – without suspicion of wrongdoing – to prevent dangerous people and property from entering the country. This authority, the government maintains, applies not only to suitcases and bags, but also to books, documents and other printed materials – as well as to electronic devices.

Such searches, the government notes, have uncovered everything from martyrdom videos and other violent jihadist materials to child pornography and stolen intellectual property.

While Homeland Security points out that these procedures predate the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, civil liberties groups have seen an uptick in complaints about border searches of electronic devices in the past two years, according to Shirin Sinnar, staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus. In some cases, travelers suspected border agents were copying their files after taking their laptops and cell phones away for anywhere from a few minutes to a few weeks or longer.

Such inspections appear to amount to “a fishing expedition” by border agents, said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates.

These objections led the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to file a Freedom of Information request to obtain the federal policy on border searches of electronic devices. When the government failed to respond, the groups filed a lawsuit this year. And lawmakers began demanding answers.

So in July, amid the mounting outside pressure, Homeland Security released a formal policy stating that federal agents can search documents and electronic devices at the border without suspicion. The procedures also allow border agents to detain documents and devices for “a reasonable period of time” to perform a thorough search “on-site or at an off-site location.”

The problem with this policy, argues Marcia Hofmann, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is that the contents of a laptop or other digital device are fundamentally different than those of a typical suitcase.

As Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who is co-sponsoring one of several bills in Congress that would restrict such searches, put it: “You can’t put your life in a suitcase, but you can put your life on a computer.”

Susan Gurley, executive director of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which filed its own Freedom of Information request to obtain the government’s laptop search policy, noted that border searches pose a particular concern for international business travelers. That’s because they often carry sensitive corporate information on their laptops and don’t have the option of leaving their computers at home.

And for many travelers, the concerns go beyond their own privacy or the privacy of their employers. Lawyers may have documents subject to attorney-client privilege. Doctors may be carrying patient records.

Tahir Anwar is an imam at a mosque in San Jose, Calif., so his laptop and iPhone contain confidential information about the mosque’s members, including their personal e-mail messages.

Anwar has traveled abroad 12 times over the past 2 1/2 years and he has been detained upon returning to the U.S. every time. Border agents have searched his laptop and once took away his cell phone for 15 minutes.

Now when Anwar travels, he simply leaves his laptop behind and deletes e-mail off his iPhone before crossing the border, synching it back up with his computer after he gets home.

“People tell me their innermost secrets,” Anwar said. “I tell people to e-mail me, so a lot of personal information is in my e-mail. If people find out that this information is being looked at, I can’t serve my purpose and people won’t come to me.”

For its part, the government argues that some of the most dangerous contraband is transported in digital form today – making searches of electronic devices a crucial law enforcement tool.

Among the successful searches the government cites from recent years: In 2006, a man arriving from the Netherlands at the Minneapolis airport had digital pictures of high-level Al-Qaida officials, and video clips of improvised explosive devices being detonated and of the man reading his will. The man was convicted of visa fraud and removed from the country.

“To treat digital media at the international border differently than Customs and Border Protection has treated documents and other conveyances historically would provide a great advantage to terrorists and others who seek to do us harm,” Jayson Ahern, the agency’s deputy commissioner, said in a statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution in June. Homeland Security did not send anyone to testify.

Amy Kudwa, a spokeswoman for the department, also stressed that a tiny fraction of 1 percent of all travelers are singled out for laptop searches at the border. She added that Homeland Security does not profile based on religion, race, ethnicity or any other criteria in conducting such searches.

So far, only a handful of court cases have addressed the issue.

Federal appeals courts in two circuits have upheld warrantless or “suspicionless” computer searches at the border that turned up images of child pornography used as evidence in criminal cases.

But late last year, a U.S. magistrate judge in Vermont ruled that the government could not force a man to divulge the password to his laptop after a search at the Canadian border found child pornography. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Vermont is appealing the decision to the U.S. district court.

Now Congress is getting involved. A handful of bills have been introduced that could pass next year.

One measure, sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, would require reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to search the contents of electronic devices carried by U.S. citizens and legal residents. It would also require probable cause and a warrant or court order to detain a device for more than 24 hours.

And it would prohibit profiling of travelers based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., is sponsoring a bill in the House that would also require suspicion to inspect electronic devices. Engel said he is not trying to impede legitimate searches to protect national security. But, he said, it is just as important to protect civil liberties.

“It’s outrageous that on a whim, a border agent can just ask you for your laptop,” Engel said. “We can’t just throw our constitutional rights out the window.”

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Free Enterprise Grade Forensic Software! NetWitness

http://www.informationweek.com……=212100055

Homeland Security: We can seize laptops for an indefinite period

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has concocted a remarkable new policy: It reserves the right to seize for an indefinite period of time laptops taken across the border.

A pair of DHS policies from last month say that customs agents can routinely–as a matter of course–seize, make copies of, and “analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, re-enter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States.” (See policy No. 1 and No. 2.)

DHS claims the border search of electronic information is useful to detect terrorists, drug smugglers, and people violating “copyright or trademark laws.” (Readers: Are you sure your iPod and laptop have absolutely no illicitly downloaded songs? You might be guilty of a felony.)

This is a disturbing new policy, and should convince anyone taking a laptop across a border to use encryption to thwart DHS snoops. Encrypt your laptop, with full disk encryption if possible, and power it down before you go through customs.

Here’s a guide to customs-proofing your laptop that we published in March.

It’s true that any reasonable person would probably agree that Customs agents should be able to inspect travelers’ bags for contraband. But seizing a laptop and copying its hard drive is uniquely invasive–and should only be done if there’s a good reason.

Sen. Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, called the DHS policies “truly alarming” and told the Washington Post that he plans to introduce a bill that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches.

But unless Congress changes the law, DHS may be able to get away with its new rules. A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that an in-depth analysis of a laptop’s hard drive using the EnCase forensics software “was permissible without probable cause or a warrant under the border search doctrine.”

At a Senate hearing in June, Larry Cunningham, a New York prosecutor who is now a law professor, defended laptop searches–but not necessarily seizures–as perfectly permissible. Preventing customs agents from searching laptops “would open a vulnerability in our border by providing criminals and terrorists with a means to smuggle child pornography or other dangerous and illegal computer files into the country,” Cunningham said.

The new DHS policies say that customs agents can, “absent individualized suspicion,” seize electronic gear: “Documents and electronic media, or copies thereof, may be detained for further review, either on-site at the place of detention or at an off-site location, including a location associated with a demand for assistance from an outside agency or entity.”

Outside entity presumably refers to government contractors, the FBI, and National Security Agency, which can also be asked to provide “decryption assistance.” Seized information will supposedly be destroyed unless customs claims there’s a good reason to keep it.

An electronic device is defined as “any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form” including hard drives, compact discs, DVDs, flash drives, portable music players, cell phones, pagers, beepers, and videotapes.

Bill would limit Homeland Security laptop searches

The Homeland Security Department has declared its right to seize laptops at the U.S. border indefinitely, but legislation introduced Thursday is intended to curb that power.

U.S. Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), introduced the Travelers Privacy Protection Act in response to the DHS policy allowing customs agents to detain a traveler’s laptop for an unspecified period of time to review its contents, even absent of individualized suspicion.

“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that upon their return to the U.S. from traveling abroad, the government could demand the password to their laptop, hold it for as long as it wants, pore over their documents, e-mails, and photographs, and examine which Web sites they visited–all without any suggestion of wrongdoing,” Feingold said. “Focusing our limited law enforcement resources on law-abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion does not make us any safer and is a gross violation of privacy.”

The legislation would require DHS to form reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before searching electronic devices carried by U.S. residents. The DHS would also be required to provide probable cause and a warrant or court order to hold such a device for more than 24 hours. The bill also limits what information acquired through electronic searches the DHS can disclose, and it requires the department to report on its border searches to Congress.

The DHS refused to send a witness to a Senate hearing in June, chaired by Feingold, regarding searches of electronic devices, but it provided a written statement defending its policy. A ruling in April by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also defended the agency’s right to conduct the searches without reasonable suspicion.

Similar bills, such as the Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act and the Border Security Search Accountability Act, have been introduced this year in the House.

Portrait Of A Computer Forensic Examiner

InformationWeek

Portrait Of A Computer Forensic Examiner

While data can be recovered from any computer, expert Ives Potrafka believes that corporate IT departments have far less control over what happens on PCs used for work.

By Thomas Claburn,  InformationWeek
Ives Potrafka, a forensic examiner with the Center for Computer Forensics, sees a lot of data theft. Those responsible tend to be ex-employees, either starting up a company while employed or going to a competitor and taking trade secrets.

According to Potrafka, when insiders steal corporate data, they tend to do it via noncorporate e-mail accounts or using external storage media.

Potrafka spent four years as a Special Agent, Computer Forensic Examiner, and Internet Investigator in the High Tech Crime Unit in Michigan Attorney General’s Office, and served as a law enforcement officer for 24 years. “Certainly, hacks take place. … Those are the ones that makes the papers,” he says. “But it’s more common that it’s insider-related and employee-related.”

Nowadays, Potrafka tends to work for clients in civil actions, though he still works on the occasional criminal case. A lot of his work involves e-mail analysis and keyword searches.

“A few years ago, we did a case for a major banking corporation where the president of the corporation and the majority of the staff, all within a two-to-three day period, resigned and went to another bank,” he said. “We got a call on a Saturday from IT at the bank asking us to come look at some computers at the bank on Monday. Rather than wait until Monday, we came in on Saturday night and started looking at them and by Monday morning, we had found out that the president plugged in an external hard drive to his computer two days before he resigned.”

The bank’s attorneys then filed a legal demand to see that hard drive, Potrafka said. When they received it, they found stolen files.

Encryption can be an issue, but it isn’t a common problem. “If a file is truly encrypted, without the key, you’re not looking at it,” Potrafka said. “But very honestly, we don’t see much of it.”

Potrafka participated in a homicide investigation several years ago in which he was asked to construct a timeline that showed when a murder victim had been using her computer.

“It was a case where the husband came over and killed his ex-wife,” he said. “She had been connected to America Online. And the America Online records showed she was online the entire time, from like 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. until 7:50 am the next morning, when her son found her deceased. We were asked to look at the computer and show when she was really using it. …Working with Microsoft and America Online, we were able to show that she stopped using the computer about 10:50 p.m., which is about her estimated time of death. It kind of blew a hole in the husband’s defense.” Potrafka was also involved in industrial espionage case involving the sale of trade secrets to China.

“We were asked to analyze an engineer’s laptop computer and desktop computer and his PDA,” he said. “We were able to show where he had been taking trade secrets out of the country, actually, and selling them to China.”

Potrafka said he sees a lot of trade secret theft. Such cases, he said, often involve fired or departing employees who take contact lists, price lists, or plans when they leave. He said he works closely with clients to encourage them to preserve their data, because bringing in new employees to work on the same computer as someone who just left the company overwrites what the former user of the computer was doing.

The blurring of boundaries between work and home life poses a problem for forensic investigations, Potrafka said. While data can be recovered from any computer, corporate IT departments have far less control over what happens on personal computer equipment that’s used for work. “When the sales manager leaves and he has been working at home, it’s not so easy for IT to go and look at his home computer,” he said.

The ideal scenario from an IT perspective, Potrafka said, is for companies to provide and own the equipment that workers use at home.

Investigating Windows machines is the easiest, said Potrafka, because more tools have been developed for Windows forensics. “When you’re getting into the Apple Macintosh world and the Linux world, the investigations become more complex,” he said.

Major forensic software packages include EnCase Forensic (Windows, Linux, AIX, OS X, Solaris), Forensic ToolKit (Windows), MacForensicLab (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows), and Blackbag Technologies (Mac OS X), to name a few.

So what should you do if you think your company’s security has been breached? InformationWeek has published an independent analysis on the topic. Download the report here (registration required).

IT And Legal Make A Great Team. Yeah, Right.

Posted by Andrew Conry-Murray, Sep 26, 2008 03:46 PM 
While technological challenges abound in e-discovery, IT’s biggest hurdle may be getting in-house attorneys to meet them half way.

On the TV show Alias, field agent Sydney Bristow always worked closely uber-geek Marshall Flinkman, who augmented her talents for disguise and ass-kicking with gadgets and hacking tips.

I’d always imagined that IT and in-house attorneys would have a similarly close relationship when it comes to electronic discovery. After all, IT has the technical skills to find and produce the electronic evidence that the attorneys rely on to prosecute or defend a case.

Turns out that just like Alias, my picture of this relationship was fiction.

Earlier this week I spoke with an IT professional at a large U.S. utility company whose job is to facilitate e-discovery efforts between IT and the legal department. Her job is to collect information from custodians and get it to the attorneys.

This year alone she’s collected evidence in 10 to 15 matters, and has worked on many other cases that haven’t required production of evidence.

But when I asked her if there was a close-knit relationship between IT and legal, she said “It’s the Grand Canyon.”

“They are intelligent people,” she says of her counterparts in the counsel’s office, “but the frame of mind they have is computers aren’t something they need to think about. Once you start talking about the technical side, they get that look in their eyes like ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about.’”

That’s a shame because IT must also rely on the expertise of the legal folks to ensure they are properly collecting and preserving information.

For instance, this IT expert manages the practice of self-collection, in which custodians gather up relevant information. But self-collection can also be fraught with danger. Custodians may overlook critical information, or hide or destroy it to protect themselves. More likely, they may alter critical metadata in the collection process — something that opposing counsel or a prickly judge could raise hell about.

The IT pro says that if IT and legal were more tightly coupled, they could work together to address such problems. “They would know more about this stuff and understand the need at the beginning to say ‘Here’s why self collection is inadequate, here’s the precedents why.’” From there, IT could find the right tools for the job to meet appropriate legal standards.

If your organization is involved in legal discovery, do IT and legal team up like super spies, or are they separated by a wide gulf? Let us know.

Information Management

Ogilvy (advertising firm) Gets More Efficient At Moving Huge Files
Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide is highly dependent on its ability to quickly move large digital files around the world, so the advertising and marketing company’s IT group introduced Web Transporter 1.0, a desktop digital asset transfer and distribution system. People drag and drop assets onto the Transporter, which delivers the assets in the background, up to a file size of 20 GB. Web Transporter automatically reads off a centralized rules engine and follows full business continuity rules, with meta information from these assets residing in more than one location on the Transporter grid.

Web Transporter ensures that each asset is given a digital fingerprint; if the system recognizes an exact match on the grid database, the file won’t upload, thus saving valuable computing resources and bandwidth. The system instead generates a URL based on the existence of the file already online.

Next Page »