Slashdot Mirror
Cryptome in Hot Water Again
garg0yle writes to tell us that Cryptome appears to have stepped in it again with a recent leaked document concerning Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook." "Microsoft has demanded that Cryptome take down the guide — on the grounds that it constitutes a 'copyrighted [work] published by Microsoft.' Yesterday, at 5pm, Cryptome editor John Young received a notice from his site’s host, Network Solutions, bearing a stiff ultimatum: citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Network Solutions told him that unless he takes the 'copyrighted material' down, they will 'disable [his] website' on Thursday, February 25, 2010. So far, Young refuses to budge." In a gesture of goodwill, Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.
Looks like DNS has already gone...
Wikileaks may not be mirroring Cryptome.org in its entirety yet, but they are hosting the "offending" material. Download and redistribute!
http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/
$25 will get you 2 DVDs with 54,000+ articles, spanning June 1996 to February 2010, mailed anywhere in the world.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
A mirror of the site is now up, with partial content available and the rest being transferred.
I just want to make sure I fully understand the situation. This is something written by MS and being hosted in its entirety by someone else without permission, right? So their claim is legally correct and everything, isn't it?
Written by MS: Yes
Hosted by someone else w/o permission: Yes
Legally correct claim: ???
The newsworthiness of the document makes for a very strong defense against any copyright claim and that's the rebuttal Cryptome made in the DMCA reply.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Local logs on their machines? MSN may not log at the main server, but many clients certainly log locally.
I just read the document and it's really kinda reassuring. They lay out exactly what they require in order to disclose exactly what information, and they don't say anything without a subpoena (gets you name/address/email older than 180 days). Anything more interesting than that requires a court order (for address book/friend list/email to-from) or a search warrant (new email).
Plus, they detail exactly what they do and don't keep - for example, they don't have messenger logs.
Frankly, I thought they had more info than that. They really keep very little info aside from what they need to actually deliver the service.
YMMV due to the Patriot act, etc - but I don't see why MSFT would lie in a confidential document
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The provider must take down the content within a certain time of receiving a notice. After they receive a counter-notice, the content stays down for 10-14 days, during which the original notifier must file a lawsuit. If they don't, the content goes back up.
Before taking anything down Network Solutions suggested that Cryptome file a counter notice, and pointed out to them how to do it. They pointed out that if Cryptome took down the one file for the 10-14 days, they would not have to take down the rest of the site. Cryptome sent a counter notice which specifically indicated they would not be taking down the file. Upon receipt, Network Solutions took down the site, as they clearly explained they would be required to by law.
I'm not much of a fan of Network Solutions generally, but in this situation, they are not the bad guy. They are impartially following the law. Their letter even goes so far as to helpfully lay out Cryptomes choices. Cryptome made their choice to stand on principle and force the system to shut the whole site down. I assume Cryptome figured the resulting publicity would do more for their fight than taking down the file and keeping their site up, and I also assume they are right.
The document is mainly facts. Facts themselves can't be copyrighted (if they could, you wouldn't be able to learn the scores of sporting events without paying). As such, it would be possible to create a new work containing all of the facts that are available in this document and publish that. Attempts to take down your work would be very easy to defend against. In truth, showing that a new document created using only facts that are now public is very similar to the original work, one could make an argument that a copyright claim is of little merit.
Such a document could look like this:
Microsoft has online services that retain data on user's connections and the contents of their communications, and that data is available to law enforcement.
Increasing quantities of information will be disclosed depending on whether law enforcement provides Microsoft with a subpoena, court order, or search warrant. This information appears to be available through a handy web interface to the agency requesting the information. Microsoft doesn't clearly state the procedure or availability for non-law enforcement agencies (such as those bringing civil suit) to receive their retained information through court actions.
For Email services (hotmail, msn, live), information retained by Microsoft (and the legal instrument to receive it):
Duration and scope of retention of email information by Microsoft:
Similar information is retained for instant messaging, windows live spaces, msn groups, windows live domain administrator, online file storage services, and even the xbox live service, although this author is to lazy to detail them.
Notice: The above work (30 minutes of artistic time needed), is protected under copyright of this poster, even though no notice of Copyright is required after 1989, and even though this work is entirely a list of facts regarding how Microsoft retains data and discloses it to authorities.