Slashdot Mirror
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
PaulBu writes "Stopped by on Cryptome tonight... It seems that their logs have been subpoenaed by Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Corruption, Fruad (sic) &
Computer Crime Division. Cryptome's answer was that "logs of
Cryptome are deleted daily, or more often during heavy traffic, to
protect the privacy of visitors to the site." (Good job!)
See here"
Most software can do that, if not just send the logs to
Trolling is a art,
This will be interesting...
http://130.236.229.26/cryptome-log.htm
You mean like this?
http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:NW6ZES17aTcC: cryptome.org/sec-con.htm+cryptome.org+sec-con.htm& hl=en&ie=UTF-8
From the site:
Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order will be published here or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored.
It'll be intresting to see what happens.
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul Ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
I read this story on Cryptome before the /. effect took hold -- what happened is some jerkoff is sending around fake emails with forged headers which purport to come from a legit company essentially trying to extort money from people to keep their personal data private. Obviously, the DA has a suspect and a grand jury has been empaneled to try to indict the guy behind the joe job, and they are hoping that the perp has been accessing the cryptome site (less likely, but possible, is that it's a fishing expedition and they will simply check everybody who surfed that page during the timeframe in question). The story has almost nothing to do with the true mission of the cryptome site. As far as posting the subpoena, there is a clear notice on the cryptome site declaring their intention to post the contents of all such legal notices unless it is illegal for John Young (a resident of New York IIRC) to post them.
about 1/2 way down the page you get the gist they were looking for anyone who visited the page http://cryptome.org/sec-con.htm
Of course, the page was taken down / slashdotted, I guess. Google to the rescue!
Here it is
Nope. But they certainly did pass a law saying "Thou shalt not commit wire fraud". That's what they're looking for (some guy who is passing himself off as a security specialist and is just stealing people's data), and they think the suspect might have visited one page on cryptome. They only want the logs for that page - they don't give a shit about the rest of the site. Why don't you go read one of the mirrors (or one of the many comments paraphrasing the mirrors) before crying "Big Brother"?
Also, when posting something controversial like this, with headlines that can easily be misinterpreted, the editors should really go make copies of the pages (it's just text - that doesn't require bandwidth) and have them available for viewing so people don't jump to conclusions. Of course, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Of course, if you listen to me, you'll be accepting legal advice from an anonymous coward...
The subpeona specifically states "between 11/7/02 00:00:00 GMT and 11/14/02 23:59:59 GMT." Therefore, as logs are deleted daily, and the subpeona is dated 1/16/03, they have literally nothing to submit. The bottom of the page shows croyptome.org's official response, which was basically, we ain't got none.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
This is what the AG is requesting access logs of, from 11/7/02 to 11/14/02.
It's also worth noting that, in some cases, you are obligated to retain documents even though no subpoena has been served: if you have reason to believe that a subpoena will be served on you, destroying related documents may be grounds for an obstruction of justice charge. See, for example, U.S. v. Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir., 1988).
The burden of proof would, in such a case, be satisfied by showing that the subpoena was served before the deletion took place. After that, the burden is on you and your organization to show that the deletion was impossible to stop -- and, no, a coffee break is not an affirmative defense. ;)
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
Just a quickie, since the Patriot(?) Act (or was it the Homeland Security Act) the CIA now operates in the US.
It means: don't try to followup with a subpoena for my harddrive (in case you want to try to un-delete the logs), cause I don't have it, and don't even know where it is....
John Young has posted quite a lot of information about his log policy before....It's pretty widely known that he deletes them very regularly to prevent this kind of thing.
People have asked why logs aren't just sent to /dev/null - that's because John does scan the logs for "interesting" visitors - see e.g. his previous stories about catching various US departments and agencies (FBI, Whitehouse) looking at his site.
The site is currently down I wonder if it has been slashdotted, or.......
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
The government would like to do that, and have tried to get the ability into law for some time. Such powers as they have come from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and its brethren. However, in spite of widespread worry when that particular Act was passed, nothing much has come of it, mostly because the ISPs turned around en masse and told the government where to go and just how practical it was(n't) to keep all the records they were supposed to have on the terms they were supposed to have them.
We do have problems with Internet-related law in this country, with ISPs being in danger of having no tenable legal position one way or another, but fortunately, thus far the sort of harm we're talking about here has yet to materialise.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There was recently passed an electronic signatures act. I don't recall the specifics, but that's mainly because the legislation didn't either.
PGP can be used to ensure that the sender of an electronic document is who they say they are. This accomplishes the function of a traditional signature.
Anyways, its better than the system my school uses for eSigning. Typing my name is *NOT* acceptable, though they think it is.
-Xoder
New Canadian laws for ISPs include keeping all system logs for a period of no less than 120 days for potential review and subpe...subpeon---subpoena...however the hell you spell it.
Damn, this was about to be a serious post.