Cryptome to be Terminated by Verio/NTT

George Maschke writes "Cryptome, a website concerned with encryption, privacy, and government secrecy, has received two weeks' notice from Verio that its service will be terminated for unspecified "violation of [its] Acceptable Use Policy." Cryptome has a history of making publicly available documents and information that governments would rather keep secret. For the notice, and a public response by Cryptome webmaster John Young, see Cryptome Shutdown by Verio/NTT."

Comments

Already down - thanks slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to wait for two weeks to shut down a site. Just submit it to slashdot
and get it shut down in minutes.

Re:Already down - thanks slashdot

[eneville]

No need to wait for two weeks to shut down a site. Just submit it to slashdot
and get it shut down in minutes. mirrored: http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/e231a81023b07bf39 9b68b2c295e9736/index.html http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/deb36db488f175511 ebd77b98603b50f/index.html

Re:Already down - thanks slashdot

[johnyoung]

Right, Cryptome happily chokes on slashdot, but not to worry, mirrors are available as noted below.

Cryptome and its affiliated sites will continue with another ISP, in the US or elsewhere. Or if necessary, underground, or via means not easily shuttered, or by way of whatever is invented for opposing technologies of information control (credit to Steven Wright, author of The Technologies of Political Control: http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm).

Re:Already down - thanks slashdot

[johnyoung]

1 May 2007. A. writes to Cryptome:

I couldn't help but notice that Verio issued the shutdown notice on the same day that you posted the first information from the Coast Guard Deepwater program debacle.

Is is possible that either the Coast Guard or Lockheed is behind shutting you down?

http://cryptome.org/cg-unmet.htm + Coast Guard Unmet TEMPEST Requirements April 23, 2007
http://cryptome.org/cg-ugly.htm + Ugly Questions for Coast Guard on TEMPEST April 22, 2007
http://cryptome.org/cg-leakage2.htm + Michael DeKort on Coast Guard TEMPEST Leakage April 22, 2007
http://cryptome.org/cg-leakage.htm + James Atkinson on Coast Guard TEMPEST Leakage April 21, 2007
http://cryptome.org/cg-screwup.htm + Coast Guard Big Time Screw Up April 20, 2007

Cryptome answers:

A, you hit the nail on the head. The Deepwater expose, and attempts to conceal it, points to the prime suspect for the shutdown. Verio would not buckle for anything less, based on past practice, and are probably hoping the shutdown would be seen for what it really is: they've been ordered not to disclose anything which would call attention to the Deepwater material and its threat to national security.

The congressional folks may have more to demand answers about trying to suppress Deepwater failures: subpoena Verio, show the defense cartel's dirty fighting is getting dirtier.

The archived Deepwater material will be posted shortly.

any good soul?

[eneville]

Is there anyone who would like to put up some bounty for having this hosted in a country with liberal hosting rules, such as Sweden perhaps?

Re:any good soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

He might want to host it where he hosted it so far, simply because he is aware of the legal dos and don'ts of the current setup.

Re:any good soul?

[rs79]

Why bother?

I was able to read all of the pages peviously withdrawn with the exception of one (the Irish injunction) in minutes without going to cryptome. The rest of the site can also be found in the usual places.

If people are dumb to know about things like this I suspect we sholdn't go out of our way to tell them.

Here's an excerpt from a document withdrawn in 2001:


UNDERSTANDING AND HELPING INDIVIDUALS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEMS

Copyright 1995

LDS Social Services

USE OF THE DOCUMENT

This training document has been prepared for the exclusive use of LDS Social Services to assist staff, interns, and contract providers in their work with individuals having homosexual problems. Because the document is approved only for "in house" use, it should not be reproduced nor distributed to others outside of LDS Social Services.

UNDERSTANDING AND HELPING INDIVIDUALS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEMS

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

For more than 100 years homosexuality has been a topic of scientific and psychotherapy inquiry and debate. Freud and his contemporaries viewed homosexuality as a deviation or "inversion" of natural psychosexual development, the causes of which being as varied and numerous as the theorists espousing them. According to Freud, the deviation resulted primarily from a distorted parent-child relationship which led the child to reject his or her own gender role and identify with the opposite~sexed parent. This view received considerable empirical support later in this century through studies by Irving Bieber and a number of other researchers (Siegelmm, 1987).


But! These things hang by a thread. I would posit that people who want them archived should post them to usenet. A lot. In a world where news postings are routinely made into "google ad blogs" there'll be lots of copies on many servers around the world.

Some people think you can delete things off the Internet. They are fools.

(Note the invalid copyright notice on the above document. You have to say who it's copyrighted by, not just a date. Of course as an excerpt here for academic purposes it's covered by fair use under US copyright law).

Re:any good soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the invalid copyright notice on the above document. You have to say who it's copyrighted by, not just a date.

Not sure what you're on about, but the quoted portion clearly states "Copyright 1995 LDS Social Services". It's one thing to poke holes in another's work, another to hit the mark with certainty.

Re:any good soul?

[iminplaya]

If people are dumb to know about things like this I suspect we sholdn't go out of our way to tell them.

Don't be like that. Those are the people who need the most help. They really can't help it. It was part of their conditioning as they grew up. It actually is very difficult to overcome. Believe me, I know. We all need help more than ever now.

Some people think you can delete things off the Internet.

We show them otherwise and problem solved. But we must show them, however graphically as necessary and by whatever means, that the internet is not to be controlled by any particular person or group. Keep the controls within your own network. Leave the public net alone. We must insure that the individual reigns supreme, at all costs.

Re:any good soul?

[fwr]

It's even worse than that. You don't actually need a "valid" copyright notice in the US anymore. Works are copyrighted automatically. It certainly helps to have a copyright notice. It also helps to have your works registered with the government, but that is usually not necessary unless you are about to sue someone (just like Novell and SCO scrambled to register their claimed copyrights in the Unix source; funny they didn't feel the need to register them before the lawsuits).

Now one can argue that as soon as the owner places a work on a publicly accessible location, such as a blog or on Slashdot, that you implicitly grant others the right to copy that work. That may be a stretch, and would depend on the situation. If the acceptable use policy of the site says that all submissions are reproducible that is much different than if you have a site in which you have to login and pay a fee in order to retrieve documents or other works (think DRM free pay music sites). However, just because some information is "leaked" one way or another, such as the LDS document sited, it does not mean that the owner of the work gave the permission or relinquished their rights. Hence, even the "fair use" of a small part of their work may not pass muster. One could argue that their internal documents on how they treat homosexuality are not only copyrighted, but in fact Trade Secrets, and there is no fair use of Trade Secrets. As long as they took reasonable steps to protect those items the leaking of them does not change their status. So it could be said that the web site should not have published the documents has they done something as simple as read the beginning which indicated they were confidential internal documents.

Re:any good soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be like that. Those are the people who need the most help. They really can't help it. It was part of their conditioning as they grew up. It actually is very difficult to overcome. Believe me, I know. We all need help more than ever now.
 
Are you referring to gay people, or dumb people?

Re:any good soul?

[iminplaya]

ALL people :-) In fact, you look like you could use some help, my son. Meditating and concentrating on your navel might lead you to the path of righteousness. Then just watch the signs...until you get to the...fork..in..the..road. There you will get stuck to see if you are done.

Re:any good soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

But we must show them, however graphically as necessary and by whatever means, that the internet is not to be controlled by any particular person or group.

Corporations and governments have been trying to get the internet "under control" for maybe 10 years now, and they're showing no signs of giving up. They are making progess. I've wasted much time trying to think of a way to put "control" forever out of reach but all my ideas are impractical at best.
The Diamond Age" described a world where a lawless internet brought down governments all over the world, but in the real world governments are hip to that danger and they're "taking steps". I think we should too.

Re:any good soul?

[rs79]

"Corporations and governments have been trying to get the internet "under control" for maybe 10 years now,"

Haha. Longer than that. There was a CIA study in the 1970s about this that concluded as long as there are modems and phone lines nothing about the network can be controlled. But who reads those things anyway?

I understand very well the implications of the US adopting the Berne convention rules on copyright on Jan 1 1990, I was just pointing out that a badly formed copyright notice looks foolish. With a valid copyright notice you could sue for punative/statutory damages but they flubbed it here. How gay.

Implicit right to copy is the reason usenet software can make thousands of copies of your work. You're asking it to make copies of your posting.

Re:any good soul?

[Skreems]

As long as we have the hardware, we can always take back control. It may just mean things like resorting to building a new network from scratch, either wired or wireless. There's always a way, if people want it badly enough.

Re:any good soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think you can delete things off the Internet. They are fools.

They aren't. It's perfectly possible to delete things off the Internet. The RIAA/MPAA is actively doing so. The tools are simply not perfected yet.

The real fools are those gullible enough to think the Internet is somehow magically safe from the Real World. It ain't so: just wait and see.

Re:any good soul?

[poot_rootbeer]

I would posit that people who want them archived should post them to usenet

Google is the only company in the world making any kind of serious effort to create a permanent archive of Usenet, and they already don't even archive binary postings. What happens if Google decides it's not in their interests to maintain that data anymore?

You have to say who it's copyrighted by, not just a date.

No, you don't. You don't even have to SAY it's copyrighted, as it's automatically assumed to be upon creation. Of course, definition of IP rights in theory and enforcement of those rights in practice often differ.

Of course as an excerpt here for academic purposes it's covered by fair use under US copyright law

Good lucking getting a judge to believe that Slashdot is a scholarly forum.

explination

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont they have to tell you what violation you commited?

Every day...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the 'Beacon of Freedom' gets a little dimmer.

Re:Every day...

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Bah. People are slowly waking up to the fact that "freedom" never existed to begin with. How do you like your life - nasty, brutish and short or semi-nasty, unfair and long?

Re:Every day...

[plaxion]

You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?

Re:Every day...

[appelsiini]

Freedom is an illusion, and from jail one can anyway escape. So why bother - if rulers don't mess with us, we could not care less.

Re:Every day...

[k1e0x]

I say government is the illusion.. or better described legal fiction. They are just other men with no right to rule other men.

Re:Every day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Group A believes that it can tell group B what to do
Group B tells group A where to shove it
Group A then tells group C that they (group A) are allowed to tell group B what to do.
Group C and group A then band together to force group B to do what group A wants.

The real problem is the idiots in group C who (1) believe group A at face value and (2) are too complacent to realise that one day they could be in group B.

Re:Every day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, you have to keep hitting "Allow" EVERY SINGLE FRICKING DAY! You'd think they'd at least add a "Apply same answer to all days" option box.

Obviously whoever came up with this "life" thing did not know a think about UI design.

Google cache

[Anonymous Coward]

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CnmiZp3pFhgJ: cryptome.org/cryptome-shut.htm+http://cryptome.org /cryptome-shut.htm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client =firefox-a

Re:SIX (6) Years Old

[ckedge]

Bah, my bad. Everything on that page beloe the very first thing was probably quoted in response to the very first letter. Very poor formatting on Cryptome's part.

text of the page

[Anonymous Coward]

can be found here...

I would have posted it, but it tripped the lameness filter...

No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you mention it, the US actually *was* a democratic country at one point.

That was quite some time back though.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[iminplaya]

What's that have to do with the price of rice? It's a private contract thing, not a constitutional issue.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[kestasjk]

I bet Cryptome was brought down by special request of George W. Bush himself! The guy is an evil super-villian behind everything.

Yesterday I couldn't find my goddamned keys anywhere; I put them right there on the side and the next day they were gone..
Bush won't think twice about shorting your car battery, rusting your bike chain or cutting holes in the bottom your pockets; he's just that evil. My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!
This is another example of Bush working his evil ways through an innocent ISP.

Patriot act blood for oil McCarthy state of fear American dream blah blah blah.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Threni]

Thousands of people around the world have had their families destroyed by acts that Bush is responsible for, and you can rest assured that they will have their revenge. So joke about "blaming" Bush for bad acts now from the safety of your keyboard, if it makes you feel better - it might go some way to balancing out the fear you should feel whenever you fly a plane or enter a tall building. Thanks to Bush, those fears are more justified today than they were before he took office.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with democracy or fundamental rights.

It doesn't?

Ask yourself what's more likely, that Verio decided to drop a customer for some REAL contractual failing that for some reason they do not wish to disclose (when all the correspondance shows that both sides were sorting out everything very professionally and amicably over a long period of time, or that Verio was pressured into it and forbidden to disclose the source of the pressure?

This is VERY much to do with fundamental rights in a democracy. But those fundamental rights are being trodden on every single day, and not only behind the scenes. Democracy and fundamental rights have been left so far behind in this country that those in power no longer even feel the need to cover it up, a lot of the time.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[kestasjk]

This has what to do with Cryptome?

"Bush" is not a synonym for "American foreign policy" or "the American government" or "the Bush administration" as you seem to think it is. If the government requested that the site be taken down, and the site actually didn't violate any of the terms of service, that's fine and I'm interested to hear it.
My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency. People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.
Give blame where blame is due, don't talk to me about "Bush" where it isn't actually him. In the case of Cryptome it isn't actually him; find out if something shady was done, find out who did it, try and get it fixed. Don't get lazy and blame Bush, it gets so tiring.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[tomhudson]

My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!

Unless you're about to "go postal" you should be thinking 1st Amendment, not 2nd.

More on-topic - maybe they should look into moving to ibiblio.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[visualight]

"Bush" is the reason why shit like this is happening here and now. It's entirely reasonable to blame him for an abusive law enforcement agency. Of course you could then blame "us" for letting him into office.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, that must have been some time before the civil war. The war increased the power of Washington and nullified the power of most states - especially southern ones. Democracy in the US got watered down accordingly, since there are no more proper 'checks and balances'.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, Bush is so evil he makes bullets rust.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Threni]

> This has what to do with Cryptome?

I was replying to your comment, which was similarly off-topic.

> My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency.

That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them.

> People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is
> screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.

I can't speak for other people, but I think it's worth going after both the personal ultimately responsible for everything which happens below him AND whoever is responsible.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Bush had anything to do with this site's current situation. I'm sure it'll find another host soon, and/or be hosted via torrents.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[myowntrueself]

No, Bush is so evil he makes bullets rust.

Which is why he gave orders that all US bullets should be coated in pig fat.

Not only does it stop them from rusting but it also sends your enemies to hell if they are Jews or Moslems or Christians (and it happens to be a Friday).

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Achromatic1978]

That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them.

Exactly.

"I'm the leader."

"I'm the commander-in-chief. It's for me to worry about these things. It's for you to go about your business."

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Hijacked Public]

What will their revenge against Bush be?

Say I'm flying to Omaha, I'm somewhere over eastern Nevada when some guy wearing a Semtex brand hat that security somehow missed jumps up and says he is going to blow the place to smithereens. Bush is inside a concrete bunker 4 miles below the surface of the earth. He is watching Americas Funniest Home Videos reruns, laughing at a guy getting banged in the crotch by his 5 year old's whiffle ball bat. Cheet-Os crumbs waft from his mouth with every giggle.

I'm sure that Bush will really feel the hot breath of revenge on the back of his neck as my corpse, on fire, plunges to the earth. And as the NTSB sifts through the sand looking for charred bone fragments to put in a UPS mailer to send to my family, pretending they DNA matched to me, Bush will sit in his underground lair, on a throne woven from $100 bills, and sob.

Or maybe not. Maybe he'll be too busy snorting cocaine off some hooker's thigh. When he or his successor get around to reading their daily briefing they'll call a press conference and announce that this great nation will not tolerate such aggression. With a flip of a cell phone a barrage of ordinance will fall from the stratosphere and annihilate masses of people who live in a place most of us had never heard of before the press conference. It might even kill some of the people who knew some of the people who were originally responsible for the terror.

And when all the smoke settles it will all happen again. Some of us will pretend it was this guy's fault, others of us will pretend it was that other guy's fault. Either way, it will happen over and over and over regardless of who gets revenge on whom.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Threni]

> Either way, it will happen over and over and over regardless of who gets revenge on whom.

It'll happen over and over while there's popular support around the world for the people wh attack those they consider responsible for problems in their part of the world, certainly.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[daigu]

Banter aside, I'll make the argument simple for you.

1. A leader of a country conducting a war of aggression against another has committed a crime against humanity.
2. George Bush has conducted a war of aggression against another country.
C. George Bush has committed a crime against humanity.

We are looking at 600,000 dead between 2002-2006 as the result. Not to mention the thousands of maimed and dead U.S. soldiers. If the 600,000 people that died were people that lived in the U.S., would you be talking about bicycle chains then?

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Raven42rac]

I see what you did there. You're so witty and absurd, please have my babies.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[kestasjk]

That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them. It's so much easier to blame one person for all the country's problems. Much easier than looking for people who are actually to blame.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[cryptoluddite]

And I do blame those people who voted for Bush. A lot.

People say Hilary voted for the occupation, so blame her. Well she's only 1/100th of the senate, but more to the point it passed 77-32, so she is 1/27th responsible. Now say you know somebody in Florida 2k, it was about 550 votes difference so any voters in Florida that voted for Bush is 1/275 responsible. Those who didn't vote are 1/20th as responsible as Edwards.

Or in other words, voters in Florida are almost as responsible for this mess as a senator. So, yeah, we should blame them for this and if you know somebody that voted for Bush you need to remind them ever single chance you get that it's in no small part their fault. Every time then complain about the war ask them why they voted for it. Every time they say how bad the debt is ask them why they voted for it.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country

[Spleen]

I think bullets rusting is one thing we can safely say isn't happening with Bush in Office.

Re:SIX (6) Years Old

[bhima]

No it is *not* 6 years old.

No everything on the page is not six years old.

Go back a reread it.

There is a whole email chain included, on the mirrordot link, stretching back to 2001 (and probably further I did not read the whole chain)

I doubt cryptome will have trouble finding hosting, honestly I'm sort of surprised that they use Verio/NTT

Long Term Ramifications

[nurb432]

Sites like this could simply be 'blacklisted' if no ISP wil pick them up due fears of prosecution.

Good way to restrict 'evil' information dissemination to the masses.

What is next, 'hate' sites being cut loose? Or 'independent freedom talk' being removed from the digital landscape?

Re:Long Term Ramifications

[rhizome]

Sites like this could simply be 'blacklisted' if no ISP wil pick them up due fears of prosecution.

The problem here is not the ISP but with the laws that cause those fears. The blacklisting is done with laws, not AUPs.

Spammers being okay with Verio/NTT, what we see here is an illustration of the kinds of behavior the relevant laws were meant to circumscribe. It's harder to make a legal and business case for a political speech site than it is to send people fake ads.

Re:Long Term Ramifications

[StoneTempest]

There will always be the option to move the site out of the US, and if that option is lost (by whatever means, like the Great Firewall of China) then the US will have much more major problems than internet hosting restrictions.

Re:Long Term Ramifications

[FLEB]

If the information is sufficiently worthy of being disseminated, there are plenty of unstoppable ways to get it out-- P2P, email lists, USENET, even anonymous comment spamming.

Re:Long Term Ramifications

[jp10558]

Well, yes, for the uninitiated. For the people who take about a day to learn about these issues, AnoNet, Freenet, I2P, and TOR all provide methods for distribution significantly more difficult to take down than a website.

mirrors

[e**(i pi)-1]

cryptome has several mirrors. Here is one:
http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/cryptome-sh ut.htm

Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[merc]

Of course, it's VERIO's network, they're free to have whomever they like as customers. I just find it dubious that they're TOS'ing Young for abuse or violations of their AUP when they simultaneously decide to host spamming scum:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver io.net

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Er, I see four listings there. While not anything to be proud of (there shouldn't be any), I imagine most other large hosting companies have at least that number.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[Kijori]

Of course, it's VERIO's network, they're free to have whomever they like as customers. I just find it dubious that they're TOS'ing Young for abuse or violations of their AUP when they simultaneously decide to host spamming scum:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver io.net I think they might be, actually - in several of the emails in the linked conversation between Verio and Cryptome, it warns them that people repeatedly receiving DMCA notices are in violation of the AUP. Doesn't sound like it matters whether the notices are fair or unfounded.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say VERIO is a pretty bad place to host documents that regularly draw DMCA notices. In one of the posted emails, their legal department notes:

If you feel that the complainant has made a mistake you may send us a
counter notification via fax to 303-708-2445. If we receive a counter
notification that complies with the DMCA, we will allow you to repost the
materials in 10-14 business days from the date of receipt of the counter
notification, unless we receive notice that the complainant has filed a law
suit against you. You may also wish to consult an attorney regarding this
matter.

It's pretty bad that they force you to take down anything that anyone complains about, no matter if the DMCA notice has been sent by mistake (or in bad faith, but apparently they don't even consider this). As a Verio customer, you have to take it down for at least 10 to 14 business days, i.e. up to 3 weeks. In some of their other emails, they don't even mention counter notices. And what is that "unless we receive notice that the complainant has filed a law suit" part? It's news to me that filing a law suit would require taking down anything - if a law suit is filed, it's a problem entirely between the complainant and the receiver of the DMCA notice, and if a judge decides that the material has to be removed, he can oder VERIO's customer to take it down, no need for VERIO to get involved (unless they are named in the order). I personally would not want to host anything with VERIO, and most certainly nothing that would ralate to any business of mine, lest anyone could take it down whenever he pleases for at least 2 weeks.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former employee of Verio, I remember well some of the technical staff battling with sales to throw out spammers, while the sales team recruited them in. They represented significant income, and Verio's business people were all about revenue. Many of operations people saw things differently. But when innovative startups are invaded by MBAs...

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[v1]

I have found that "but you let the OTHER GUYS do it" makes for a poor argument that rarely gets you anywhere.

Saying "we don't allow THIS and THIS" does not bind a provider to applying the rule to all their customers. Instead it allows them to selectively enforce that rule for any subset of their customers that they choose to. This is so if one of the unlucky few that get the hammer does complain, the provider can say "but we told you so, we are just doing what we said we can do." AUPs are not to protect and empower the customer, they are to protect and empower the provider. Good providers provide carefully worded AUPs that exactly cover the behavior they want to curtail, and enforce it with nearly 100% consistency. Bad providers publish loosely worded AUPs that could be interpreted to apply to a good portion of their customers, and then only invoke the AUP when they have some random reason which often has nothing to do with the apparent intended spirit of the AUP.

There is nothing to stop a provider from saying they may terminate your service without notice if you are found to consume oxygen. That's a little blatant, but you get the idea. Just another way of making sure they have an excuse to do as they please and as is their right anyway. Complaining about this practice accomplishes nothing.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet:
http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/networks.lasso [spamhaus.org]

Not in the top-10 list. Kinda easy to pick on them. Any Idea how many IP addresses are in the 'Verio Network'?

I've dealt with them for years now. The have issues, what huge company doesn't?

Let me ask you, are the spammers located in their Shared Web hosting, their Managed or Virtual Private Servers department? how about their Dedicated Hosting? How about their T-1 or OC3 leasing? How about Verio Europe? Did you realize that they sold almost all of their T-1 services to Cogent Communications, but the whois info for the IPs still list Verio? How many other Hosting providers utilize Verio-owned IP addresses?

What are the Abuse Policies for these myriad departments? Are they related closely as say Marlboro and Kraft Mac&Cheese? As close as a Ford Ranger and an Aston Martin Vanquish? As close as a Lamborghini and a Le Baron?

I'm just saying. If you paint with that wide of a paint-brush, you miss details. You are not Bob Ross.

Happy Trees

Freedom to dissent?

[k1e0x]

We don't allow this kind of dissent in Soviet Amerika. If your not with us your a terrorist.

Ok so that's a bit over the top but really what's this coming to? Where do we draw the line on Police state America?

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[EWillieL]

Actually, it's Fascist America. Or Corporatist America.

This guy's book goes into quite a bit of detail.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[Jarjarthejedi]

I honestly don't see what your comments have to do with this discussion. I'm not really surprised you were modded insightful, as insulting the US is one of the new cool things around /. but this is a single corporation making a decision about not allowing a single site due to violations of what it deems acceptable use, nothing to do with the government far as I can see...

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[bhima]

I'm leaning towards "Corporatist", it doesn't have the historical baggage.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[k1e0x]

Ahh so.. anit-government site gets pulled and governments got nothing at all to do with it ehh?

You can put a lot of things on a web site and not get shut down. For example http://timecube.com/

If you step on the wrong toes, piss of the wrong people.. just like any other gang or mafia group, the government will go after you.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[k1e0x]

Corporate America? Corporations are legal fiction provided to rich people by the government, in order to protect them from shady business practices.. They should be illegal, and would not exist without government at all.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[ProfM]

Where do we draw the line on Police state America?

Obviously, you are not a good citizen.

Please review the following propaganda refresher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM

Remember, We're the government, and you're not.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[k1e0x]

No I'm not, I didn't drink the kool-aid in government school. :)

Right a refresher, just like the guy in the ski mask with the black body armor who has a fully automatic weapon pointed at you head.. saying the scariest words known to man.. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else weep for America or despair of what we've become and are becoming as a nation? Freedom of speech and the free flow of information has been stifled.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[Tom]

I think you drew it in Q4 2001, when you opted for the feeling of security (not to be confused with actual security) over freedom.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[kennylogins]

I've been weeping since 2000... I mean go USA.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[Anonymous Coward]

They shut down Epifora first. Oh, I forgot. They're sex offenders. They have no free speech rights, anyway.

Just remember: Hitler started rounding up "deviants" long before he rounded up Jews. You can't diminish the rights of one group without establishing a precedent to diminish the rights of all.

Re:Freedom to dissent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ain't kidding. The Bush Regime hired former Soviet police state commrades to run certain security functions for Fedgov US. Why the hell do you think that all of the 911 legislation was sitting there, already written, and ready to go immediately after 911? Why do you think that they were able to get congress critters to pass the legislation without even allowing them to read it? (Oh, they proclaimed that the congress-press hadn't had time to print up all of the copies, but they were voting on it anyway)

Argh! This sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Cryptome has been an indispensable ally in many wars against secrecy, ineptitude, corruption, and evil-doing conspiracies all over the place. John mirrored a couple of separate batches of stuff I had a minor involvement in, and in both cases the world was made (in a tiny way) a less crappy place by his actions.

It's also a sad day in it's message that there is now, ultimately, no genuine free speech left on the net. If the state really really wants to suppress your message, it can do so. It's slow, labour intensive, and expensive for them to do this, so they don't usually bother; but when they need The System to function, it does.

Re:Argh! This sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a sad day in it's message that there is now, ultimately, no genuine free speech left on the net. If the state really really wants to suppress your message, it can do so. It's slow, labour intensive, and expensive for them to do this, so they don't usually bother; but when they need The System to function, it does.

So, you're saying that Verio should not be allowed to choose whether they host his site or not? Think very, very carefully before you suggest that a company should be forced to host certain content in the name of "free speech".

How is the cause of freedom served by forcing people to do things they no longer wish to do? Isn't the whole point of a free capitalist society that any company has the right to choose at any time whether or not they wish to do business with somebody?

Freedom is alive and well, as is demonstrated by the simple fact that John has the right to find another publisher, and nobody is trying to stop him doing that. Freedom is alive and well, as is demonstrated by the fact that Verio was previously able to choose to host his site, and is now able to choose not to host his site, entirely as they desire, without anyone forcing them either to host it or not to host it.

Re:Argh! This sucks

[Burz]

By your logic, even the most oppressive oligarchy is "free".

As industry becomes the defacto policy-maker by blithely re-establishing the rule of cartels and monopolistic reach, purchasing political loyalty or even installing their own CEOs to government posts, then they will be judged by governmental standards. One of those standards is censorship.

The function of government in the USA has been subverted by a political class of corporatists who, more often than not, literally write the bills they expect their shamiferous Washington lackeys to pass into law.

Please spare us the out-of-touch libertarian cheerleading about the "private sector". There is no more "private", as I'm sure the Dept. of Homeland Security and its infinitely-growing list of "security economy" prison-state contractors would enthusiastically agree.

wrong.

[sethawoolley]

The Berne Conventions eliminated the need to even post a copyright notice. Copyright automatically falls into the hands of the "creator" the moment it is created.

if you want to go after somebody with a DMCA notice on something with no notice and no registration, you can easily register the copyright years later, then go after them.

That's a pretty comprehensive AUP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all spelled out in considerable detail. I wonder if it is applied consistently to all of Verio's customers?

Pcik a new ISP

[DogDude]

So a web site has a problem with their ISP. So friggin' what? Pick a different ISP. There are millions of hosting companies out there. Everybody has problems of one kind or another with their web host, and switches. These guys should pick a new ISP and be done with it. I mean, tell people that Verio sucks for these reasons, but there's no reason the web site should shut down permanently... this whole thing sounds like drama for the sake of drama.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[JustShootMe]

Drama for the sake of drama? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think it's more an attempt to shame Verio. After all, Cryptome has been providing an important public service for years, and Verio shutting it down is not good for their public image.

Personally, I think the energy should be spent finding better hosting. That is one problem with the activist types - any setbacks become a part of a larger conspiracy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And sometimes a cigar will cause a president to get impeached....

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[sphealey]

> So a web site has a problem with their
> ISP. So friggin' what? Pick a different ISP.

Cryptome IS watched by various intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement agencies. Young posted a funny exchange he had once with the "duty officer of the day" at a TLA; the guy told him that a certain document had been released accidently; could it please be withdrawn? Young of course said no, so the guy then said "I guess it is too late for this conversation not to be posted too?" - making it clear that he knew very well how Young runs Cryptome.

So it may be very difficult for him to find another ISP. Maybe one related to Qwest will take him on, but they ISP has to know they WILL come under additional law enforcement pressure just as a result of hosting that site.

sPh

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it relevant, if only because I'm in a position where I often get to choose where my company hosts servers.

If Verio arbitrarily terminates service to it's customers, I won't be choosing them. And I'll be letting their sales guys know why.

(I certainly get an earful if something I've done loses a sale.)

Logical Consequences.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[arcade]

Not to be rude or anything... but cryptome has been around for some years, and should be well known in geek circles.

Your UserID (805747) suggests to me that you haven't been around for long.. maybe you should read up a bit on cryptome? :)

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

Cryptome IS watched by various intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement agencies.

Yes it is, and so now the burning question is which document of the
thousands on Cryptome caused someone at one of those agencies to turn
some powerful-enough screws to make Verio pull the plug without
breathing a word about which document it might be.

We must find what the government wishes to keep hidden and shine a
spotlight on it, because that's how free and open nations remain so.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[DogDude]

Well, that's neat and all, but I still don't see what the big deal is. Pick an ISP. Upload the docs. If that ISP gets freaked out after a bit, do the same. We have a wonderful thing called "DNS" so it doesn't matter how often you change your ISP.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[Reaperducer]

this whole thing sounds like drama for the sake of drama.

Worse. This whole thing sounds like someone taking a minor action from a private company and turning it into an opportunity to promote themselves and their web site across Slashdot and the rest of the internet.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[evilviper]

So a web site has a problem with their ISP. So friggin' what? Pick a different ISP.

You are a loud-mouthed idiot who clearly has no idea what Cryptome is, and didn't bother reading the fucking article to find out.

With the tremendous pressure from the US Government, it's amazing Cryptome has been online this long. There are very few ISPs that will stick their necks out to support such a project, despite numerous visits from the FBI, and it was believed Verio/NTT was one of the great ones for supporting Cryptome... until now.

It would be very interesting to know what leverage the feds might have used on Verio/NTT.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a wonderful thing called "DNS" so it doesn't matter how often you change your ISP.

Of course, if the DNS servers remain under the auspices of the US, how many times must the government convince ISPs to drop the site before they simply make the root nameservers misplace the site forever? Oh, I'm sure someone will show up and tell me how terrible it would be if it was run by the UN or the EU, and how billions of forms would have to be filed in triplicate and with the agreement of at least 150 countries just to get one Request For Censorship submitted for committee reviews and preliminary voting before it can even be scheduled for its first pre-vote review vote.

Re:Pcik a new ISP

[Raven42rac]

What's to stop the g-men from sending another NSL to the new ISP?

Why this site and not others ?

[billcopc]

I find it funny how a site like Cryptome can get shut down, while dozens of KKK, biker gang and neo-nazi hate sites go on with their merry business. That's one fucked up set of priorities they got there!

Re:Why this site and not others ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfiltered information is much more dangerous than KKK, biker gang and neo-nazi hate sites.

National security my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to give your website the boot and we're not even allowed to tell you what you did wrong. We're going to hold you without charge in a detention center and torture you for reasons unknown.

Welcome to the land of the fascists, welcome to the USA.

archive.org

[achenaar]

This sort of thing always makes me want to check the site out for juicy stuff.
archive.org wayback machine cache is my friend.

Re:archive.org

[Anonymous Coward]

archive.org removes sites if asked to (there was a previous slashdot article / comment about this). Don't rely on it.

You're both missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

John Young has always complied with DMCA takedown notices, take a look at all those emails. This time Verio haven't even told him how he's violated their AUP, he's not attempting to shame his hosting company - he's trying to find out if they've been pressured under federal national security legislation. Given the previous emails, Verios silence on the issue would more or less confirm it.

Overreaching national security laws are about to get a little timely publicity methinks.

Re:You're both missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of it all is that if Verio indeed have received a national security letter, then they are not legally allowed to disclose that fact to anyone. Mention that you received one, without even disclosing whom/what it regards, is a jailable offense.

Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weasels

[Marcion]

So the British "intelligence" services, the same ones that said Saddam Hussein had huge stockpiles of WMD that could strike the UK in 45 minutes, can get a website turned off it America? The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?

Come on America, we all used to look up to you as the beacon of freedom, but now your country is being turned into a Tudor monarchy, within a few years there will be no freedom left, will the last one out please turn off the lights when you leave.

Freenet Anyone?

[bazald]

http://freenetproject.org/

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[DeadChobi]

Which is great until Freenet decides to host someone's kiddie porn collection on your computer. Then you get to smile at the nice FBI agents as they escort you to your court date. It's great that someone's thought of encrypting and decentralizing what gets published to the internet, but it's not practical until I can have control over what gets put on my node. Their FAQ handwaves the hell out of this essentially by suggesting that true freedom means I have to host something I find personally disgusting or that will get me in trouble. In other words, I would be substituting one owner for another. Currently I find my government's views on what is acceptable to be a better compromise than Freenet's views on what is acceptable.

Sorry, no dice.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[nuzak]

Aside from the morality and legality of all the kiddie porn on Freenet, such content amounts to a crapflooding sort of DOS attack. A bedrock principle of press freedom is being free to choose what to publish and what not to. Freenet forces you to be part of what is basically an already wrecked commons. Decentralized torrents seem to me to be a much more palatable alternative.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[bazald]

it's not practical until I can have control over what gets put on my node. Their FAQ handwaves the hell out of this essentially by suggesting that true freedom means I have to host something I find personally disgusting No, that is precisely what makes it practical. Nobody gets to say what is or is not acceptable to be published on Freenet. That is exactly what guarantees freedom.

I find my government's views on what is acceptable to be a better compromise than Freenet's views on what is acceptable. Well, you might say that right now, but your government could get worse. In any case, Freenet has no views on what is acceptable. Its members can post what they like. You can encourage people not do download certain content, then discouraging its propagation through the net. Any censorship ability beyond that would destroy Freenet.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[bazald]

such content amounts to a crapflooding sort of DOS attack. I believe that version 0.7 should be a bit more efficient, though I'm really not sure.

A bedrock principle of press freedom is being free to choose what to publish and what not to. Allowing data to pass through your node does not make you a publisher. It makes you a supporter of the transmission of free, uncensored, information. It is a two-way street. You get what you want without interference. So do people with opposing viewpoints. It is necessary to the functioning of Freenet that it works this way. If you could choose not to transmit certain content, so could anyone. Then you too would be unable to get what you want. However, by not downloading certain content, you slow its propagation and make it harder to obtain.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[DeadChobi]

Then it's definitely something I can't get behind no matter how bad the current situation gets.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[Abcd1234]

Ah, I see. You support someone's right to freedom of speech, as long as they say what you want, at which point you'd like the opportunity to muzzle them. Gotcha.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[Abcd1234]

Translation: if the price of protecting the right to free speech is to allow others to say things you dislike, then you'd rather do away with free speech.

How very enlightened of you.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[nuzak]

No dumbshit, I support someone's freedom of speech to be conveyed by other people who are interested in it. I'm sorry this is beyond your grasp.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[jp10558]

I don't buy this would happen... I've read up on Freenet. As far as I know, the local cache is gibberish for which I don't have the key to decrypt. I would guess the government would have to spend an awful lot of time tracking down which cache is serving what content. If that's even possible without grabbing your PC, and then they would basically have to make freenet illegal...

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[DeadChobi]

Actually, you've managed to generalize my statement from being against the exploitation of children to being against freedom of speech when it's something I don't like. If a particular piece of speech is shown scientifically to harm others, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre, I'm all for censorship. The problem I have with Freenet as an alternative to censorship is that it doesn't give me control over what goes on on my computer.

With Freenet I'd essentially be trading one person's idea of what's acceptable speech for another person's. Neither of them are my own. Freenet's idea of acceptable speech is too broad to be acceptable for me.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[Abcd1234]

If a particular piece of speech is shown scientifically to harm others

How does the existence of pornographic pictures harm anyone? Yes, the *production* of said photographs harms children, and that should be punished severely and without mercy, but the photos themselves are merely bits. To rail against them, instead of those who create the content in the first place, is simply treating the symptom rather than the problem itself, which, yes, makes people feel all warm and fuzzy, but does nothing to solve the problem.

By contrast, shouting fire in a theatre causes mass panic as a direct result. There is real harm there. Claiming this is at all the same as pornographic images of children is an entirely flawed argument, unless your claim is that the images incite molestation, and I've seen no studies supporting this position.

And before you make any claims about demand encouraging production, I would point out that, even with all the laws we currently have in place, demand has not waned. So, perhaps it's better to go after the suppliers in the first place.

Re:Freenet Anyone?

[Abcd1234]

Sorry, my second last sentence should read "production has not waned".

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[Marcion]

So our "intelligence" services specifically gave some Libyan a Visa to come to Britain and hopefully be recruited, and he instead set up a terrorist network, what a load of monkeys. Then they tell a US ISP to help cover up the truth that they were actually making Britain less safe. A bunch of public schoolboy hooray henries, sack the lot of them I say, out source it to India.

Re:It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck.

[k1e0x]

Im gonna risk it and respond to this. I think I have found the lowest rated ./ user out there.. believe it or not this is not the first time he has made coments like this.. I'm ahh also going to type like I talk to make ya even MORE pissy.

I'm going to assume from "you're" (har har) comments that ya'are a Republican. Its that or you'r just a spelling natsi.

So at what point do you think we are safe enough? How many freedoms must we loose? Will you allow the government to post guards in shopping malls and night clubs? Do you want CCTV on every corner? Will we implant tracking devices on every man woman and child? Where does it end?? This is not a valid question to ask? ... To me a nation of freedom is not "what your government allows you to do" OR "whar you hide from the government" Its a nation where men do not impose their will over other men.

A free nation means, you can do what you want so long as your not hurting others. You want to smoke pot.. its a free nation, smoke your pot and uhh dude, enjoy it too. You want to look at pr0n, really nasty shit.. I cant think of nobody that would be hurt from that.. you are free in my nation to do this. Want to ride a croch rocket without a helmet you are "free" to do that too.. (dumbass)

Now that "you're" (haha) aware of my illiterate nature.. prehaps you can kill me.. but bewarned Libertarians own guns.

well with that kind of use policy.. no wonder

[fuckeverything]

from their acceptable use thingy: "Other Activities -- Engaging in activities, whether lawful or unlawful, that Verio determines to be harmful to its subscribers, operations, reputation, goodwill, or customer relations." so they pretty much tell you straight away, that they pull your site once they dont like what you are hosting anymore.

Re:well with that kind of use policy.. no wonder

[ScrewMaster]

I doubt very much that Verio, itself, cares one whit about what Cryptome publishes. The fact they're pulling his site in this manner indicates that they are very much under someone's thumb, however. More importantly, if a provider as large as Verio can be influenced in such a transparent manner, I doubt any of the others will be any safer so far as hosting a verboten site is concerned. Really, I'd think he'll have to go out of the country if he wants to keep his site up.

I'm sure that there more than a few inimical foreign powers that would be more than happy to host his site for him.

Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net

[Deagol]

I recently signed up with them. Aside from their quirky/cool pricing scheme, the site's strong stance against censorship and privacy sold me on it instantly. All sites that get the ISP boot for unpopular (but not illegal in the US) should check out nearlyfreespeech.net.

My only relation is a happy, new customer. It may not be the best fit for Cryptome, but there are at least hosting providers that do give a shit about not bowing down to the status quo.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to second that. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is dirt-cheap, technically excellent, and sticks up for its users' rights. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for an inexpensive web host, whether their site is controversial or not.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net

[bromoseltzer]

They may have good intentions, but how big is their legal staff? Small vendors are more vulnerable than the Verios of the world. But the Verios may cave faster, because they're run by businessmen.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net

[birdboy2000]

It's nice, but is there anywhere for those of us who can't afford to pay for our speech?

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net

[poopdeville]

I wouldn't go with NearlyFreeSpeech.net. I had a very bad experience with the owner (Jeff) involving sudden cancellation of every account I had ever worked on.

I was a web developer and recommended NFS to many clients because of the pricing structure and Catalyst support. All those accounts were cancelled in an attempt to discredit me professionally. He went as far as to email my then current client to insult me. Of course, I have a hard copy of our email conversation. All my clients moved to DreamHost at my recommendation.

Petty and rigid. In my opinion, the man is autistic. Or at least a Libertarian (though these are synonymous, no?)

Why he stays in USA

[Frozen Void]

I would suggest he move somewhere safer like Switzerland or Sweden.
This should be done BEFORE making his site.

Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man

[Anonymous Coward]

Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man. When the US AG is politically corrupt it all is, man. The saying goes, your ass is grass, man.

Re:Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sort of relevant to this thread. Yesterday I posted comments on Digg in reply to someone remarking that the Bush administration is rife with people like Tobias showing up in the news over sexual practices. My comment noted that such people are a hazard for security clearances, and since Israel processes all telephone call records, Mossad likely has excellent material to blackmail people in the administration, and Congress, and was likely doing so. They're not fools.

One hour later, my post was pulled by Digg, along with the comment preceding mine and several succeeding comments. I doubt that Digg by itself would have chopped it out, so someone had to have driven the act. Either the Bushites, or even Israeli influence. Possibly, the blackmail theory was true, and dangerous to someone.

Re:Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, 3 of the 4 founders of Digg are Jews after all. Insert appropriate conspiracy theory here.

Re:Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, it's getting weird. This is Monday AM, and sometime in the last couple of hours Digg RESTORED my post and the preceding and following ones by others. (The remainder of the thread had persisted and not been touched.) No, I did not make a mistake. First, the post had been accepted and displayed. Then it was gone. Now it's back. Perhaps my posting on Slashdot made it uncomfortable for someone at Digg to have it publicized that they did it? The mystery deepens. And to you at Digg who will read this, thank you. I guess.

Re:Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man

[tsdw]

no .. you made a mistake occams razor you know?

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[NormalVisual]

The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?

I don't think that's what happened. I suspect what happened was that someone in the US government saw something they didn't like, and sent a National Security Letter or other such silliness to Verio. Verio of course can't legally disclose that, but given that Verio had been always been very forthright with John Young in the past but is being tight-lipped about the situation now, I think it's quite possible that something like this is behind Verio's actions.

Gotta love living in a nation where the government makes you do their own damn police work against someone else against your will, and then threatens you with jail if you say anything about it.

They only have half a class C subnet

[laing]

I'm sure that they are great. I wonder if Global Crossing's TOS can coexist with theirs. I also wonder how big they are and how much support you would get given that their entire Internet presence consists of one half of a class C subnet (about enough for 125 dedicated IP addresses). Of course more than one web site can be hosted from a single IP and server but that's not practical for large sites.

Re:They only have half a class C subnet

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course more than one web site can be hosted from a single IP and server

Actually, as long as it's just http and not SSL, reverse-proxies from a single IP to multiple servers is quite easy, and perfect for anything but very high bandwidth sites, though it makes ssh and ftp very creative (though I could see sshing to a separate server that automounts your home from whichever real machine via NFS)

Reading through the FAQ though, I wonder if nearlyfreespeech.net's considered getting a *.nearlyfreespeech.net (or hell, just a self-signed "*" cert) SSL cert and giving customers the option of using that. So far, I've confirmed that apache+mod_ssl just Does The Right Thing when using a *.example.com cert on multiple virtual hosts on the same IP, provided that only one cert is used for that IP. (The only issue is that when adding a new vhost to that cert, even though it's the same certificate, apache must be completely stopped and started again) I also managed to configure lighttpd likewise after a few hours of contemplating what exactly I wanted to ask it to do (the standard "easy virtual host" feature wouldn't work)

Re:It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck.

[k1e0x]

Just because you are 'libertarian', it doesn't mean you can screw your language heh.. No, just being human gives me that right. ;-) Enjoy.

Tor?

[_Knots]

Is there any technical, legal, or other problem with moving the Cryptome server onto the EFF's Tor network as a hidden service? This would, AFAICT, make it difficult for the ISPs from finding out that they hosted the server (modulo traffic analysis attacks on Tor)... even given those, it would at least provide plausible deniability?

Are the DVDs still available? I'm perfectly happy to pay for it if they are.

Re:Tor?

[AdamThor]

After the rectification of the Vuldranai the traveler took the form of a large, moving Tor. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the meketrek supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Sloar! Many Shubbs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.

Re:Tor?

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

*giggle* - I haven't heard that in a long time, and I'm not sure if I ever read it in print. Thought you were squawking gibberish for a second.

Surprised it took so long

[PingXao]

If you don't control it, you don't own it. At the risk of entering the realm of Conspiracy Theory, and with tinfoil hat firmly in place, I think it's pretty clear that "they" want to control the flow of information on the internet. Watch and see: the Great pr0n Crackdown is right around the corner.

Re:Surprised it took so long

[Datamonstar]

Pr0n-ibition?

"Hate sites"

[Anonymous Coward]

Been done, over and over. Too many ISPs have clauses against "hate" in their AUPs already. And even those that don't will often bow to outside pressure, as happened recently with the host of vnnforums.

Re:"Hate sites"

[nurb432]

I was being sarcastic.

Perfect place for Cryptome content...

[OpenSourceForAll]

...put it on a gopher server! No one would ever find it, but it would be preserved for all eternity! (Actually, I'm somewhat serious here, despite the bangs...)

Evil, evil brits!

[PresidentEnder]

So the British "intelligence" services, the same ones that said Saddam Hussein had huge stockpiles of WMD that could strike the UK in 45 minutes, can get a website turned off it America? The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?

First they invent global warming as an issue (Margaret Thatcher, of all people). Then they give us bad intel, embroiling us in an unwinnable quagmire of a war. Now they attempt to close down our only source for real information! Somebody is still upset about the events of the late 18th century.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[coaxial]

The whole use of National Security letters strikes me as if Gonzales was reading The Trial, and said, "Now there's an idea!"

The "one stop shop" aspect is important.

[Kadin2048]

I was able to read all of the pages peviously withdrawn with the exception of one (the Irish injunction)

Does anyone maintain historical archives of Cryptome in more liberal jurisdictions (Sealand, etc.) that have the withdrawn documents in them?

The problem isn't that the documents will become impossible to access -- there are lots of ways to disseminate something if people really want to read it -- but the problem is the elimination of a "one stop shop" for controversial information. That makes it much harder to access, and probably results in many fewer people being exposed to the material, since it's scattered all over the place.

Somebody get this man a beer.

[Kadin2048]

Yes it is, and so now the burning question is which document of the
thousands on Cryptome caused someone at one of those agencies to turn
some powerful-enough screws to make Verio pull the plug without
breathing a word about which document it might be.

Bingo. As this is sort of the "$64,000 question," I'm surprised few people have asked it in the thread so far.

There obviously was something on cryptome that someone really, really didn't like, and decided to get medieval about. ... So the obvious question is: what was it they didn't like?

Re:Somebody get this man a beer.

[Niggle]

So, post half of the stuff on one site, half on another.
See which gets taken down.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Shouldn't take too long to narrow it down.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[Sj0]

I wonder, if EVERYONE outsourced their spies to India, would any Indians rat on their coworkers/counterspies?

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect what happened was that someone in the US government saw something they didn't like, and sent a National Security Letter or other such silliness to Verio.

I bet you're right. I wonder what it was? I'd love to make whoever thought drafting a security letter to Verio to try to suppress it regret having ever drawn additional attention to the matter.

Dosen't matter anyway

[Datamonstar]

Sadly, this doesn't matter as much as it might once have. Cryptome has obviously been compromised in some fashion, either being bought I've been going to the site for years, getting hooked on it once I read about a corporate espionage Keylogger called DIRT.

Lately, however, the site has produced very little that isn't public domain already. Don't get me wrong, it's still a good site to quickly find things the government has already "told" us, or is commonly believed knowledge, but what happend to the Cryptome that published a list of active British MI6 operatives and refused to take it down?

Two countries for safe long-term mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out long-term mirrors of this US website that will resist the alleged extremely powerful US censorship pressures must be outside US jurisdiction (and allied ones too).

There are only two realistic options: Russia or China (both of which have low-cost (and some free) high-bandwidth hosting services).

Get a friend who speaks the language to help set it up (assuming you don't speak the language), but pay for it yourself (if it is not a free one).

Re:Two countries for safe long-term mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancel that advice - it was premature. I remembered the name of the site from years ago as just a place with DVD/CSS stuff. Having looked at it again just now, I notice there is other stuff that seems inappropriate for foregin hosting.

National Security Letter

[Zelucifer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a NSL require immediate takedown? Or at least the removal of a specific page. It seems like a webhost would be in legal jeopardy if they received a NSL and didn't act within a very short period of time.

Questions...

[sycodon]

For all you Slashdotters out there who lament the loss of this site and future postings of secret documents.

It is obvious that many people believe it is OK to leak secret information as long as it is "for the greater good". But the question of what is the greater good often depends on your political leanings.

So I ask...

What is the greater good?
What kinds of things do you think should not be leaked?
Who do you think has the appropriate knowledge to decide?

And last, what should happen to someone who decides incorrectly?

Discuss among yourselves.

Re:Questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

And this has to do with cryptome, how? Cryptome doesn't leak anything. They publish things already leaked. Or do you honestly think they have secret level clearance.

I use a common sense approach: There are very few things that even "need" to be secret. There are fewer things that need to be secret + a compromise of the secrecy is irreparable. I would say an exact military attack plan to be carried out tomorrow needs to be "secret". All of the types of things that may seriously need to be secret are able to be kept secret for an amount of time that is necessary. Chances are, once it is leaked - the secrecy isn't needed any longer except to save face, cover up and try to pretend things didn't happen. IF the secret is leaked via an abuse of someone's position - go after those people, stay away from cryptome. If you don't see an issue with the one's who are most at risk of being politically and professionally harmed being able to decide what information is "secret," then ypu are foolish.

So I ask...
What really needs to be secret?
Why do you trust information with them and not us?
What real, cognizable harm would be proximately caused by a site like cryptome.org

I'm sorry, I don't trust a government that needs to operate in secret. Outside of a few, limited timesensitive military issues - there is no need for secrecy.

Re:Questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

What kinds of things do you think should not be leaked?

Personal information about private citizens, and that alone. The entire idea that the government gets to have secrets is an obscenity. Certainly that results in certain inconveniences, but that is the price of freedom.

Wrong again.

[sethawoolley]

It's not a valid copyright notice that enables statutory damages: it's registration of the copyright. And the mitigating factor you might be referring to is a claim of innocent infringement, which couldn't be claimed merely because the date is missing from the copyright notice and the name isn't on the same line. It's obviously copyrighted. The formality of the date is mostly to let people know how to find out who to arrange royalties with since it maked it easier to look up (which is no longer so relevant anymore due to computerized indices).

Reason Why Cryptome Was Spiked

[Anonymous Coward]

30% of all IP ranges have been reassigned to either Unallocated or Nonregistered status within the past two weeks, including, but not limited to:

41.0.0.0 - 41.255.255.255
117.0.0.0 - 117.255.255.255 through 120.0.0.0 - 120.255.255.255
122.0.0.0 - 122.255.255.255
128.0.0.0 - 128.255.255.255 through 131.0.0.0 - 133.255.255.255
134.0.0.0 - 134.255.255.255 through 188.0.0.0 - 188.255.255.255
191.0.0.0 - 191.255.255.255; 197.0.0.0 - 197.255.255.255; 198.0.0.0 - 198.255.255.255 and 223.0.0.0 - 223.255.255.255

Re:Reason Why Cryptome Was Spiked

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this by any chance have something to do with the missing White House emails, and the Ohio election results hosted on RNC servers? Weren't gwb43.com and georgewbush.com on servers in one of those ranges?

Stupidity! - Just leave the US now!

[Anonymous Coward]

It really isn't that hard - move the site to somewhere outside the reach of the greedy lawyers and the DMCA-scared ISPs of the USA!

I've heard good things about The Netherlands, the ISP called LeaseWeb in particular. They don't give a hoot about DMCA complaints of any kind, and they even provided a temporary home to The Pirate Bay following the illegal raid by swedish police last year. TPB is back in Sweden of course as they're not violating any swedish law.

Cryptome needs to continue and they need to disclose even more secrets. Only by hacking away at the wall of secrecy erected by so-called 'law enforcement agencies' and 'intelligence agencies' can we the people control what they do and bring them down when they get too much power or influence.

yes they always do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to burier the information so they can actually violate they very same laws that tell to obey without you noticing it. Some laws where meant to be broken. And that is one of them.

Awww, cute!

[Builder]

Spoken truly like a person who's never migrated a major site from one ISP to another. The legal issues alone are enough to make my hair fall out and that's before we start to discuss new SLAs, etc.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[NormalVisual]

The whole use of National Security Letters strikes me as just more confirmation that the executive branch just doesn't care about that "goddamned piece of paper", hasn't for years, and that Congress and the judiciary doesn't have the nads to keep them in line like they should.

Our government's "national security" efforts are undermining everything the country was supposed to stand for anyway.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[asninn]

Just as an idea, maybe ISPs and other organisations should include a standard "this notice was not sent due to a National Security Letter" disclaimer to every notice they sent where this is actually true; then, if you receive a notice where this line is missing, you could deduce that that particular notice was indeed sent due to them having gotten one.

Of course they couldn't actually tell you that it's true if you asked them about it, but can the feds force them to lie? It's an interesting question - can you be punished for NOT making a particular statement?

Even if you can, ISPs could still "leak" this information by putting the above disclaimer only on notices where a National Security Letter was indeed sent, but not on those which were sent for other reasons. The state might still not like that, but I find it hard to see how you could prevent "leaks" from occuring at all unless you'd also give the state the power to regulate/forbid/mandate certain speech even in situation where no National Security Letter was sent.

I guess it really is true that there is no such thing as "a little censorship" (or, equivalently, "a little bit of violation of the right to free speech"). Not that NSLs aren't already unconstitutional, anyway, of course...

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[coaxial]

Jesus christ! My smartass comment is maked as "informative." God the mods suck. (Yeah yeah, I know the dumbass "funny" doesn't give you karma claptrap. Who cares! It's like that for a reason. Anyway I've had excellent karma sense the day the scores were replaced with names. Oh Signal 11, how I miss your karma whoring ways.)

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas

[JeanMarcel]

Here's my guess. Verio's legal department cost to respond to removal requests is higher than the fee paid by John Young for hosting services.

My .02$

Verio/NTT Server

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like their web server might not even make it to the terminate date given all of the traffic the site is now getting.

Verio's stated reasons

[treesloth]

Maybe I just missed it, but I'm not seeing anywhere that Verio has stated their reasons for shutting down the site. Have they done so and I just missed it? I'm not sure that this is a clear case of censorship, and I admit that I'm a little skeptical when someone starts screaming "censorship". But I also get skeptical when someone claims that information flow is completely unimpeded, so maybe I'm just an all-around skeptical bastard. Anyway, silence on the part of a host is not conclusive, since some simply won't reveal customer information, which includes TOS violations.

Anyway, my question is just as I asked... has Verio stated their reasons for doing this?

Re:Verio's stated reasons

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Nope, they haven't. It is likely that they can't release it either. ISPs who get requests from governments of countries they operate in usually can't ever publicly reveal the reasons for it. I know this because I used to work in one and got requests like this all the time. We would honor requests from Europe as well as the US because we had offices there. Usually the site owner knows why they got "magically" shut off. Oftentimes they will leave the site up until the governmental agency says it is OK to shut it down. This is so the federales have a chance to move in on the perp without spooking them into running first.

PS - of all the cases I worked on, I never morally felt bad about any of them, or felt like I was impeding on anyone's freedom of expression. They were all bank fraud/phishing or kiddie porn cases. Some may differ here on /. , but I sleep well at night knowing that I helped get some nasty people off the street.

PPS - the above comments are not directed at cryptome specifically, but more of a general overview and my feelings on it.