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.
Really, what we need here is a torrent feed with all the latest stuff.
The thing is, you still need a reliable person to go through it. That is what WikiLeaks was doing before they started begging for money for the past 3 months. There is still always the weak link, and that is the humans need to verify the leaks. Torrents may solve the distribution problem, but lacks absolute security and anonymity.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
both wikileaks and cryptome should periodically make torrents of all their contents and release them to the world. That is a good idea.
I wonder what this says about the degree of power different entities have when they choose to resist DMCA requests. Would Google's upstream provider(s) ever dare to take Google offline should Google decide not to comply with a particular DMCA request like Cryptome's provider has done? I suspect not. There must be an advantage to being a big player on the Internet, and a clear disadvantage under the DMCA to being as small as Cryptome. It's easier to be bullied when you're Cryptome, which somehow makes the DMCA seem even worse than I once thought it was.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Anyone else a little wary of Network Solutions acting as a judge, jury, and executioner?
Is this their role? Should this be their role?
What information do they release regarding their processes and decisions?
Do you trust a corporate entity with such a track record of being difficult to deal with, to interpret the law?
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? I'm not saying I like Microsoft but I just want to be clear on the details which seem to imply that whether or not this is a *nice* thing to do it at least fits the standards for a DMCA notice. Please correct me if I've misunderstood.
That appears to be nearly dead for lack of funding? Generosity is good, but probably not on one's deathbed.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Yep. This thing only has legs because Microsoft are being a dick about it. Otherwise nobody would care.
Document is a 22 page pdf, about 1.7 MB, size is partly due to a few semi-useful diagrams from some PHB's powerpoint presentation. It's not anything super technical.
sha1 checksum is 15d4c4c7ea3aa93e128bb5756deb72f4e22926f3.
A quick glance didn't reveal anything terribly surprising in the document. It discusses things like how long they retain stuff like user IP addresses for hotmail (answer: 60 days). Also there is a special phone number for emergency requests like those dealing with murder threats. Regular old subpoenas are supposed to go through a non-emergency process.
Except for a few things like internal Microsoft phone numbers, I didn't see anything in the document that had much reason to be confidential. Stuff like the 60 day retention policy really belong in the published privacy statement (I don't know if it's already there).
Ahhh, the Internet at it's very finest. Social consciousness outing the bad guys. On the other hand, might just be someone who doesn't like MS. Either way, it's misuse of copyright AND this points out the real value of the DMCA, which of course is not to protect the people in any way shape or form. At least, that's how I see it.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
That's probably what the "and the rest being transferred" part is about...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Its appalling, and an abuse of the DCMA takedown notices in every aspect. The takedown procedures are in place to provide a legal safe harbor for the company hosting the content.. The takedown notice is to allow the contested content to be removed to minimize any damage. The takedown period in which the the content is removed it allow time for the copyright to get to court to get a temporary restraining order to keep the content offline. The Counter-Notice allows the person who put up the content to get it back online if they believe they are in the right.
Network Solutions is NOT the hosting company. It's merely a DNS registrar. NetSol has no legal liability what soever. They went WAY beyond what is legally required. The DCMA required only the contested content be removed in any case. Network Solutions removing access to entire web site is very troubling. And it may even have opened them up to a lawsuit themselves.
Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a creative work.
FTFY
So all that stuff earlier this week where everyone was cheering because the GPL is legally enforceable was just a cover, right? I mean, every single post in this thread is endorsing breaking copyright law. But every single posts in those threads were endorsing protecting copyright law.
Weird!!!!!
Tell you what slashdot. Whenever you have an article where you endorse breaking copyright law, I'm going to go ahead and break copyright law. By taking GPL code and using it in my closed source programs.
Deal?
Just read the offending doc. Seems pretty innocuous to me. MS would be required to provide all of this info by law. This just explains the data so MS doesn't have to hold the detectives hand every time they receive a subpoena from law enforcement. If your concern is that DMCA is being used to suppress information rather than prevent distribution of copyrighted material, just restate the information in your own words. Problem solved.
How the hell does allowing copyright on a secret document help "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" ?
I think a more practical solution is to demand a written statement of "what is going in the products" you buy. Burying a back-door in an unknown place in the source code isn't a disclosure even if you are given the source.
I would have to agree with you about the document. I can see why MS would want to keep it out of public view, as it's target audience is law enforcement officials and not the general public. I would disagree with some posters that it's just a bunch of facts crammed into it which would make it un-copyrightable, as they show the interface they provide to officials for data that they subpoena or have a court order for. If you ask me, it's better than just giving them the raw log files, because then they would have access to everyone's information not just the person named in the court order.
If I was them, I would be pissed too, I wouldn't want my confidential documents floating around for everyone to see, especially ones that could potentially unjustifiably have a negative effect on PR.
As far as networksolutions, if they were in fact the host of the site, then it would be on them to drop the site, although I don't see why they would kill the entire domain, which is an issue. It's a risk the site took though hosting it through network solutions. I know if I was hosting a leak type site, I wouldn't host it through netsol, or godaddy or anywhere like that for that very purpose. There are plenty of registrars/hosts that don't bend to the will of lawyers at the drop of the hat, and use their policies as a selling point. A little research, and a little more change out of their pocket, and this wouldn't even have been news. Well, I guess unless you read Slashdot, it probably really isn't that big of news anyway, heh.