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.

Comments

Already gone?

[tomalpha]

Looks like DNS has already gone...

Searching for cryptome.org. A record at G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. [192.112.36.4] ...took 31 ms
Searching for cryptome.org. A record at D0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. [199.19.57.1] ...took 9 ms

Nameserver D0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. reports: No such host cryptome.org

Re:Already gone?

[Eristone]

According to the take down notice and response from Network Solutions, they do this for 10-14 days because cryptome.org refuses to take down the "offending" document. If there's no legal response to the DMCA Counterclaim from Microsoft (response being the filing of litigation) in the next 14 days, cryptome.org will be released back into the wild.

Re:Already gone?

[TJamieson]

Yep, the host already caved. Wikileaks is already mirroring the document; I don't want to hotlink the PDF and melt their servers :)

Re:Already gone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The document is already available via wikileaks.

Re:Already gone?

[yenne]

Young says there is a “NetSol ‘Legal Lock’ on the domain name to prevent it being transferred to another ISP until the “dispute” is settled; All Cryptome pages other than the home page now generate a 404 message.”

It astonishes me that anyone still uses Network Solutions. Their extensive list of blocks for transferring domain services (read: anytime you'd actually want to, you're prevented) is mind-boggling.

I had several domains with them back when they were the only game in town, and every transfer has been a nightmare that usually involves paying for another year of service before a transfer is approved.

Re:Already gone?

[HeronBlademaster]

and every transfer has been a nightmare that usually involves paying for another year of service before a transfer is approved.

GoDaddy does that, but they treat it like an early renewal; that is, they take the existing expiration date, and add a year to it. So technically you're paying when you do the transfer, but you're also adding a year to the expiration date, so really you're just paying ahead of time.

Could that have been the case?

Or... did you mean Network Solutions charged you to let you transfer the domain away from them? Because that would be utterly absurd.

Re:Already gone?

[dgatwood]

It astonishes me that anyone still uses Network Solutions. Their extensive list of blocks for transferring domain services (read: anytime you'd actually want to, you're prevented) is mind-boggling.

Agreed. It astonishes me even more, however, that an organization like this would do so, and doubly so that anyone in their right minds doing anything more than a personal vanity site would use the same provider for both hosting and domain name registration. That's just asking for a hard-to-fix DMCA shutdown of the site, loss of the site due to the ISP going bankrupt, loss of the domain due to any number of billing disagreements with the ISP that are unrelated to the domain name registration, etc.

AFAIK, the DMCA does *not* provide for locking the domain registration of a claimed-infringing site, only providing for the takedown of the content. However, if your ISP decides it is easier to kill your DNS and lock the domain to prevent transferring it than to muck with your server account, you're stuck. Why? Because you are using the same provider for hosting and (massively overpriced) domain name registration. Don't DO that.

If I were one of these folks, I'd register my domain in a neutral country. For example, you can register .com domains with Gandi.net in France or with NameForName in Russia, or... well, here's a list of ICANN-accredited registrars, most of which support the .com registry. Find one in a country that has as few ACTA-like agreements with the U.S. as possible. Even with the exchange rates as bad as they are, those two I mentioned still charge less than half what NetSol charges for a domain name, with the added security of making it much harder to attack the domain itself with a mere DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Already gone?

[yenne]

Or... did you mean Network Solutions charged you to let you transfer the domain away from them?

Yes. I transferred several over a couple years, but one that sticks out in my memory was a case where Network Solutions policy would not allow me to transfer a domain because it was scheduled to expire soon. Not expired, just expiring within 30 days or so. Believe it or not, the restriction was right there in their service terms that I didn't bother reading.

In another case they claimed I didn't respond properly to a transfer request and I had to start the process all over again even though I never received anything.

This was all within a year or so after the deregulation chaos when Network Solutions was losing many of their customers. It's quite possible they've improved their customer relations since then, but the bad flavor still lingers in my mind.

Re:Already gone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rapidshare link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/355462676/27390163-Microsoft-Spy-Guide.pdf.html
MD5: F688C4406D3A3FB76F72248630FEA270

Re:Already gone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some google searching: inurl:microsoft-spy

Re:Already gone?

[cawpin]

Believe it or not, the restriction was right there in their service terms that I didn't bother reading.

That doesn't matter as it violates ICANN policy. A registrar cannot limit your ability to transfer a domain at any time.

Re:Already gone?

[petermgreen]

Am I supposed to sue? can I even sue given that ICANN policy is not an agreement i'm actually a party too? Not to mention that a lawsuit would cost far less than just paying up unless there are a huge number of domains involved!
Am I supposed to as ICANN to sue to release my domain? if so is there a chance in hell of them actually doing so?

Re:Already gone?

[petermgreen]

If I were one of these folks, I'd register my domain in a neutral country. For example, you can register .com domains with Gandi.net in France or with NameForName in Russia, or... well, here's a list [icann.org] of ICANN-accredited registrars, most of which support the .com registry
While I do see advantages to this I also see major disadvantages. If someone does try to go after your site with lawsuits they can probablly do it both in the US (where you are resident and where the registry is based) and in your "neutral country" (where the registrar you are using is based).

I could easilly see this ending with needing to fight two paralell lawsuits in different countries!

I agree with keeping them on different providers though, it won't save you if the domain host deliberately takes down your domain for some reason but it does reduce the chance of that happening and protect you against all manner of other things that can go wrong.

Re:Already gone?

[TheLink]

Anyone know the original IP address(es) of cryptome.org?

I haven't been to that site for a while, so it's not in my logs...

Re:Already gone?

[LandruBek]

as few ACTA-like agreements with the U.S. as possible

You mean, secret agreements with undisclosed provisions, negotiated in private? Um, in that case how *could* anyone know about them -- or whether they even exist?

Re:Already gone?

[Threni]

The site is back up now - Microsoft withdrew their complaint - presumably because everyone who wants the document now has it, and they didn't want to be known as the people who brought Cryptome down (or even the people who brought cryptome down for a few days until they found another ISP).

Re:Already gone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I supposed to sue? can I even sue given that ICANN policy is not an agreement i'm actually a party too? Not to mention that a lawsuit would cost far less than just paying up unless there are a huge number of domains involved!

Sue? Why would your first reaction be to sue? You can tell them they are in violation and see what happens. If they still refuse should next I would contact ICANN and tell them about the violation. Suing shouldn't be your first reaction. Maybe you just wonder if there's legal ground. I doubt it. ICANN could sue, but I seriously doubt it would go that far, assuming ICANN cares. If they don't care, then nothing's going to change.

Re:Already gone?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Question, but as the internet is surely not meant to violate copyrights (heh ...), do you have permission from the author of said document to distribute it ? And since you're posting a link, do you have permission to help someone (even an unknown) distribute it ?

In other words, is such a link legal ?

Re:Already gone?

[dimeglio]

If it's illegal in your country does it make it illegal on the entire Internet?

Down already

[Spad]

Looks like it's been taken offline already.

Re:Down already

[Monkeedude1212]

Yeah Network Solutions took them down after Young's counter-response. Wikileaks is hosting it now.

Basically the issue is that Microsoft has a handguide to do some pretty questionable stuff (IP Extraction is mentioned). They can keep it protected from being publicly viewable by putting a copyright on it. Young says that Copyright was not meant for hiding secrets. I agree.

Re:Down already

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:Down already

[MidnightBrewer]

Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a work. This is exactly what copyright is for, whether you like Microsoft or not.

Re:Down already

[khallow]

Keep in mind that this probably was a legal copy of the work. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Microsoft's work is newsworthy. There is a fair use for such things.

Re:Down already

[Anonymous Coward]

Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a creative work.

FTFY

Re:Down already

[flatrock]

I'm not aware of any fair use rulings that have ever allowed for the broad publication of a complete copyrighted work.

His justification appears to be that although Microsoft is required to comply with the law, they should publish exactly how they comply so that people are more capably of avoiding the governmental eavesdropping.

Basically he's arguing that while complying on the surface, Microsoft should be helping subvert the law at the same time, which would likely land Microsoft in some pretty serious legal trouble.

The public has a right to know what the law allows the government to do. It doesn't have a right to know the specific implementation.

Such back doors do often result in some security risks, however, believe it or not you don't have a right to do penetration testing on someone else's system, even if you use that system.

Re:Down already

[jbengt]

How the hell does allowing copyright on a secret document help "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" ?

Re:Down already

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:Down already

[ClosedSource]

Don't confuse the sales pitch with the enforceable part of the law. I'm sure the opening statement in the Patriot Act sounds great too.

Re:Down already

[mrchaotica]

"Promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts" was never meant to be a "sales pitch;" it was genuinely the intent of the law. In fact, James Madison only barely convinced Thomas Jefferson to write it into the Constitution in the first place, using the argument that too few creative works would be created otherwise (we know this from the letters they wrote to each other discussing the subject). I'm sure that if either of them knew how that clause would be interpreted today, they would never have even considered writing it.

In fact, had the Founding Fathers been alive today, they'd probably be part of the free culture movement themselves -- note how Ben Franklin chose not to patent any of his inventions, for example.

Re:Down already

[mrchaotica]

Oh yeah, and how Franklin also invented the public library, for that matter!

Re:Down already

[marcosdumay]

Copyright is for creating a carrot, so that people will follow it and write.

Re:Down already

[marcosdumay]

Well, if that is what is written ou your Constitution, then the enforceable part of the law couldn't say anything different, to the penalty of being invalid...

Isn't that what a constitution is for?

Re:Down already

[Nazlfrag]

Yeah, it's not like the idea of public libraries is thousands of years old or anything.

Re:Down already

[VON-MAN]

Please, grab a brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_library

Ballsy

[MonsterTrimble]

For Wikileaks to offer to host Cryptome - especially with thei recent troubles.

Really, what we need here is a torrent feed with all the latest stuff.

Re:Ballsy

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Ballsy

[Anonymous Coward]

both wikileaks and cryptome should periodically make torrents of all their contents and release them to the world. That is a good idea.

Re:Ballsy

[bill_mcgonigle]

That is what WikiLeaks was doing before they started begging for money for the past 3 months.

Wikileaks used to be cool. They'd post stuff about government abuses, chicanery that corporations were doing to screw the customers and/or the public, etc.

Then at some point they adopted a "no more secrets" manta that would make Ben Kingsley proud. They started posting random copyrighted stuff that wasn't publicly available, private groups' passwords, etc. That's not a mission I'd donate to, I'm not in the "no more privacy" camp at all.

So, does this manual that Cryptome put up reveal any dark secrets, or is the complaint justified here? I wouldn't bet either way without reading it.

Re:Ballsy

[AVee]

So, does this manual that Cryptome put up reveal any dark secrets, or is the complaint justified here? I wouldn't bet either way without reading it.

No, it outlines the procedures for getting data about hotmail and live users from Microsoft, it shows examples of what data is provided, what each piece of data means etc. It also tells what information is stored and how long and which type of warrant/court order is required for certain types of information. An interesting read, but nothing that shocked me so far (I didn't read all of it yet).
On the other hand, I can't really see why MS goes out of it's way to prevent this document from being public. It's the kind of documentation they could just as well publish on their own website, everything in there is, as far as I can see, simply the result of what's in the law. If you have a problem with that, complain to the ones that made the law...
The only thing in there which MS probably doesn't want to be published are a few phone numbers and email addresses and frankly those should have been redacted out.

Mirror of the offending document?

[base3]

MD5? Magnet link? Not that I would seek it out or anything.

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[ak_hepcat]

"http://file.wikileaks.org/files/" + "microsoft-spy.pdf"

Just, you know, in case?

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[klingens]

The mirror-site cryptome put up is http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/
However, they took the offending document down and wrote "for the MS Spy Guide send email to ..."

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[base3]

Thanks!

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[Anonymous Coward]

MD5: f688c4406d3a3fb76f72248630fea270

I don't understand why it's supposedly confidential - there's nothing sensitive in it whatsoever, it seems to match up perfectly with their privacy policies, and even confirms that (for example) they do not log the content of Messenger conversations.

I am amazed that after all this time, all those secret and quasi-secret documents published, cryptome was finally destroyed by this, however. What Wikileaks does today was to a large extent pioneered by John Young. But it appears copyright has finally trumped free speech in the US - the astute will note that in fact, Netsol's response is, though pigheaded, in perfect compliance with the DMCA 512(g)(2) counter-notification proposal (in the actual DMCA as enacted in the US, counter-notifications cannot take effect immediately, it must stay down for 10 days!).

I hope John Young's creation comes back, hopefully unstoppable, but it is a crushing blow for a long-standing privacy and free speech campaigner that he may have to move the servers out-of-jurisdiction to actually exercise that free speech.

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[e9th]

Just wait until the US adopts the ACTA.

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[bmetzler]

There is no evidence in the story that suggests that Microsoft logs messenger conversions. For all you know the chat logs most likely came from the PC's of the persons involved in the case.

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[Nikker]

You have to admit it is a bit freaky when you get to the Xbox section of the document. They have timestamps & IP's for how long you are in the 360 dashboard, how long you played a game and its title, your Xbox serial number, credit card number and anything else linked to the account. Lucky for me I don't have a 360 but to say there is nothing sensitive might just be your opinion.

Re:Mirror of the offending document?

[AVee]

Very well possible, I do log all my conversations. It could also be the result of wiretaps, I don't think it's encrypted in any way. Or perhaps MS does log those messages, if that's the case they at least didn't document the procedure to retrieve those in this document.

Wikileaks mirror

[TheSHAD0W]

Wikileaks may not be mirroring Cryptome.org in its entirety yet, but they are hosting the "offending" material. Download and redistribute!

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

i read this material... what is so offensive about it?

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[TheSHAD0W]

Why do you think I put the word in quotes? :-P

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[Darkness404]

Because it shows that "law" enforcement officers are basically able to use whatever records they want from Microsoft, not only via a textdump from a server somewhere, but with a nice GUI and little concern of user's privacy. Myself, I'd want to use an e-mail provider that first off didn't keep logs, but if they did, they wouldn't provide a nice GUI for "law" enforcement and that they would make it quite hard for them to reduce privacy. This document shows Microsoft is exactly the opposite.

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[interkin3tic]

i read this material... what is so offensive about it?

Probably offensive to some, but funny to me is the fact that this guide for law enforcement is still chock full of marketing language, it reads somewhat like a sales pitch. They describe what all their services are in language only a parent or company describing it's own products would use, and they're using it in a document meant as a guide to law enforcement. Their description of Xbox live for example notes that it is the "premier" online gaming service for the Xbox and Xbox 360.

I can imagine a conversation between the guy tasked with writing up typing up a guide for law enforcement and the head of marketing:

Gary Grunt: You wanted to talk about the draft for the criminal compliance handbook?

Mark Marketing: Yes Gary. "Xbox live allows customers to interact online..." A bit dull don't you think?

Gary: I don't follow...

Mark: Damnit Gary, I want you to punch it up a bit. How about talking about our amazing and exciting "Achievements" system! In fact, where are the adjectives!? The superlatives?!? Xbox live is the BEST online gaming system available! We want the world to know!

Gary: But this isn't for the world to read, it's a secret document!

Mark: Well then we want law enforcement to know how great our services are!

Gary: Yeah... this really isn't an advertisement

Mark: Not with that attitude Gary... Not with that attitude...

Gary: (sigh) Okay, why not? It's not like this isn't a page of useful information buried inside 16 pages of stuff they could look up on wikipedia anyway. I'll make some changes.

Mark: Make sure to mention that they can play their CIA friends at guitar hero from the comfort of their own couch and get a gold membership for just 10$ a month!

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[Darkness404]

There is a difference of "We're gonna give you the information" and "We're gonna give you the information with a nice GUI filled with access logs and every little detail easily accessed". If I'm going to have my logs legally given away, I want them to be as unfriendly to anyone attempting to violate privacy, not organized in a nice GUI.

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[AVee]

Gary: Dammit, if they want this to be an ad, an ad it will be. And a highly publicized one as well.

Re:Wikileaks mirror

[NeoSkandranon]

Making the information you supply via a subpoena difficult to use on purpose is a bad idea.

Mirror and Donation Link Here

[chill]

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.

Re:Mirror and Donation Link Here

[nurb432]

And get put on a watched list...

Re:Mirror and Donation Link Here

[kozmico]

Network Solutions has removed the block. The site is back up: http://cryptome.org./

new mirror

[TheSHAD0W]

A mirror of the site is now up, with partial content available and the rest being transferred.

Re:new mirror

[dave562]

The mirror site doesn't have a working link to the document referenced in TFA.

Re:new mirror

[X0563511]

That's probably what the "and the rest being transferred" part is about...

Re:new mirror

[Foofoobar]

Yeah but everyone needs to make sure they get their copy so they can redistribute. Information needs to be free.

The smaller they are the easier they fall

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[Darkness404]

The smaller they are the easier they fall

Of course. The same thing is true for every legally dubious act. Look at how many businesses will settle out of court, look at how many people choose to settle out of court against the RIAA who uses questionable tactics.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

You're misunderstanding what this part of the DMCA actually does. It allows someone whose copyright was infringed to ask the ISP to identify the infringer, so that you can pursue the infringer in court.

If the ISP complies with the DMCA process (which also allows the ISP to put the material back up once the alleged infringer has been identified), then the ISP is guaranteed to have no liability. There is no general requirement to take down the material.

If the ISP doesn't comply with the DMCA process, then the ISP *might* have liability, but even then probably doesn't (IANAL).

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[slimjim8094]

Does Google even *have* upstream providers any more? I guess so... but none that'd be stupid enough to cut them off.

What Google should do is light up enough of that dark fiber to *own* it's datacenter-to-datacenter links. Then they could easily become their own Tier-1 provider.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[Attila Dimedici]

The same thing is true for any law. The more wealth/power you have, the less negative impact that the law will have on you.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[Nethead]

Google (ASN 15169) has peers. The company that I'm working for is turning up over 20 10Gb peerings with them across the US.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[steelfood]

A big player would get sued and expect the suit. The little player would cave before the lawsuit happens.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[russotto]

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?

No part of the DMCA requires an upstream provider (that is, a 17 USC 512(a) service provider) to disconnect a user. Only hosting providers (17 USC 512(c)) and search providers (17 USC 512(d)) are required to take down material. Google is presumably self-hosted.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[dredwerker]

I dont agree with this - it seems to hit quite hard in the middle of the spectrum. If you have nothing then what can the RIAA do. Take your 5 year old pc - it will have cost them more. Nobody can sue you if you are poor. Its only when you get a house/responsibilities and a career that the law is able to take that away. You can lose your freedom/family if you are poor but thats about it - cant take money they dont have.

The rich most definitely have things/freedoms to take away - they might have good lawyers but even then they would prob settle out of court as it would be cheaper and any allegation is damaging to the very rich.

Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall

[petermgreen]

Afaict becoming a tier-1 provider (that is a provider who doesn't have to buy "transit" to get to the whole internet) requires more than just private datacenter to datacenter links. Afaict it also requires sneaky tactics and a gameplan for how to use those tactics from the start.

That is because becoming a tier-1 provider requires persuading all the existing tier-1 providers to peer with you. But of course a provider is likeky to be reluctant to peer with someone they are currently selling transit to....

Confirmed.

[headkase]

Whatever is in that document, thank you Microsoft for 100% confirming it is what you said. Now, http has heads. You *can* cut them off. Where there is a disconnect between morality and law however is called corruption and that needs to be measured in each case: anyone care to measure here? So, you can cut off all the http heads. What good will that do you? You think Cryptome doesn't have contacts? Doesn't have people who are in the know and know what they are looking for? Microsoft just gave them some free advertising that they have it. Everyone who wants it already does have it by now. And in a shortish while after some corrupt wrangling the http head will come back up and start serving again until the next grand advertisement occurs. But always, occuring in parallel to all this are the things without heads: it will take a great deal more corruption in law to silence those.

Re:Confirmed.

[Monkeedude1212]

The H in HTTP is actual Hydra.

Re:Confirmed.

[headkase]

But it's called FTP ;)

Did Young file a counter-notice?

[John Hasler]

n/t

Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Executioner

[BlueBoxSW.com]

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?

Wikileaks

[Arancaytar]

In a gesture of goodwill Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.

That's nice of them, but honestly I'd like it if they started hosting their own site again, too.

Hosting via Twitter

[dangitman]

Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.

This Twitter stuff is getting out of control. First it starts as 140 character messages, now they're hosting entire websites with it.

Re:Hosting via Twitter

[copponex]

Yeah. Twitpache and TwitQuery are bloated already. I'm using Twithttpd with Twython.

Re:Hosting via Twitter

[Chelloveck]

This Twitter stuff is getting out of control. First it starts as 140 character messages, now they're hosting entire websites with it.

Yes, but each HTTP request or response has to be no more than 140 characters. That means that the HTTP response pretty much consists of 139 characters of header and a single character of content. It takes a looooonnnnggg time to download...

Re:Hosting via Twitter

[tchdab1]

for 16-pixel animations, twitflash is the only way to go.

Twitter hosting

[Homburg]

Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.

Hosting 140 characters at a time?

Re:Twitter hosting

[MaxVT]

Hosting 140 characters at a time?

The bandwidth is truly unlimited, however, so it's a good deal. Just use really small files.

Move on...nothing to see here...

[LDAPMAN]

Having just skimmed the doc, I don't see why anyone would care. The information available to law enforcement is actually less than I had expected.

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[Dunbal]

I agree - I just read it and it seems that Microsoft is stating what it retains, and what process (subpoena, court order, search warrant) is required to access which information.

I think the REAL issue is the fact that the Cryptome site was shut down over this because DMCA was mentioned even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. This thing only has legs because Microsoft are being a dick about it. Otherwise nobody would care.

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just skimmed the doc, I don't see why anyone would care. The information available to law enforcement is actually less than I had expected.

Actually, I suspect that Microsoft are flat-out lying. There was a murder case in Toronto, Canada where a teenage girl persuaded her boyfriend to murder another girl:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/03/13/rengel-trial.html
http://www.thestar.com/article/596268

Much of the evidence was in MSN chat logs between the girl and her boyfriend. This Microsoft document claims on page 13 that "Microsoft does not log the content of communications between users".

So if it isn't logged, where did all this evidence come from?

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[Predius]

Local logs on their machines? MSN may not log at the main server, but many clients certainly log locally.

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[Teunis]

from experience - MSN does not log chat details but - afaik - they DO log times/IP addresses and a few other critical details. I don't know all of the particulars but it came up in a case I got involved with (because I -do- log everything and someone else did something criminal that I logged....)
(case closed some years back. Particulars don't matter outside that I'm very happy they perp was caught. Was exposed to somewhat of what MSN does. I also note that the RCMP and FBI are friendly if you deal with them reasonably *grin*)

Re:Move on...nothing to see here...

[jonbryce]

From either the girl or the boyfriend's computer most likely.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[maxume]

Well, if you know about the DMCA, then you know that your hosting provider is going to be interpreting the law (roughly, they are going to be complying with DMCA takedown notices).

So it isn't a wild idea to presume that someone paying Network Solutions trusts them to interpret the law.

But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[SOdhner]

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.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[_bug_]

So their claim is legally correct and everything, isn't it?

IANAL, but an argument for fair use could be made. You could argue Cryptome's publication of the document is news worthy and being used for the purpose of criticism and comment.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[plover]

Google for the Clams and OT III. Same thing happened to samizdat.
 

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[jweese]

This really doesn't have much to do about copyright being fair. He should be claiming that the document is newsworthy, which would allow him to have it posted even under the DMCA. IANAL

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[DerekLyons]

Yes, Microsoft's claim is legally valid. No, newsworthiness is not one of the fair use criteria, so Cryptome has no leg to stand on.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[qubezz]

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):

• Registration contact info and IP address used to register (available by subpoena)
• IP access logs, usage logs, billing information (only subpoena needed)
• Full message contents of emails over 180 days old (only subpoena needed)
• Address book, contact list, internet usage logs, email headers (available by court order)
• Complete disclosure of all contents of all emails including email contents less than 180 days old (search warrant required)

Duration and scope of retention of email information by Microsoft:

• Registration details and IP address used to register: retained for entire life of account,
• Emails (headers and contents) - any currently stored on servers (no detail given about retention of deleted emails)
• Windows Live ID (used to log in) - last 10 connections, IP addresses used, and all sites accessed with that ID

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.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[qubezz]

I was going to reap the massive financial rewards due to the creator and copyright owner of such a wonderful work as the above post....However:

I now license any entity to use full or partial text of the above post in any way they feel fit including publishing it in any forum or venue, or creating any derivative works in any capacity without any credit to the author being required, in a spirit as close to 'public domain' as legally possible. The express exception to this license is Microsoft Corporation or any of its subsidiaries or agents, who are expressly forbidden to retain or store the contents of my work in whole or part in any medium print or electronic, nor possess, use, or employ any derivative works, nor allow transmission of the work in any form through any venue under their control.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[slashqwerty]

No, newsworthiness is not one of the fair use criteria, so Cryptome has no leg to stand on.

Fair use is based on a court ruling that attempted to balance copyright with the first amendment. It was later codified into law with a four-point test. Straight from the US Copyright Office:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

1) The non-profit news reporting character of the use is certainly an important factor.
2) The material directly affects the rights of millions of people.
3) Because of the nature of the work and the author's failure to make it available through other channels he had to use the whole thing.
4) The author has no intention of ever selling the work. Even if they did they would not get much for it.

Congress has the power to "promote the progress of...the useful arts" by granting copyrights. Protecting this work from distribution will not do that thus congress does not have the authority to grant a copyright on it.

Microsoft of course wants this document to remain secret. Ironically, to bring this matter to court they have to officially file for copyright which will include depositing a copy of it in the Library of Congress.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[c]

> So their claim is legally correct and everything, isn't it?

Well, assuming a document you never intended to publish is treated as being under copyright rather than, say, a trade secret.

c.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[qubezz]

No, I have just allowed them certain rights of distribution per the TOS that I probably clicked-through at some point a decade ago. They still can't claim it as their own work or keep me from distributing it myself.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[Bartab]

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.

What what what now?

Newsworthiness should allow you to quote small portions. Fair use, and what not. Nothing in lets you post up the article in its entirity.

Plus, I'd argue about the "newsworthiness" in the first place. I've read the pdf, and there is nothing in there I didn't expect - OR ALREADY KNOW from reading agreements.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[Bartab]

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.

Yes, it's a list of facts. Yes, you cannot copyright simple facts.

Yes, you may copyright a work that is just a list of facts. No, that doesn't mean the facts themselves are copywritten.
No, the pdf document in question is not just a list of facts. As pointed out elsewhere, it's a significant portion of marketroidspeak.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[Bartab]

Anything you create, including shopping lists, notes to your spouse, and your diary is copywritten. Automatically. Without needing notification of the gov't or on the article itself.

Berne convention. Look it, and the associated laws in your home nation used to enforce it, up.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[DerekLyons]

1) The non-profit news reporting character of the use is certainly an important factor.
2) The material directly affects the rights of millions of people.
3) Because of the nature of the work and the author's failure to make it available through other channels he had to use the whole thing.
4) The author has no intention of ever selling the work. Even if they did they would not get much for it.

1) News reporting does not allow breach of copyright.
2) Is utterly irrelevant to the test.
3) Cryptome is using the whole work, and thus fails the test.
4) Regardless of the profit motive, they are still distributing the entire work, and thus fail under 3.

Congress has the power to "promote the progress of...the useful arts" by granting copyrights. Protecting this work from distribution will not do that thus congress does not have the authority to grant a copyright on it.

[[Citation needed]]

Microsoft of course wants this document to remain secret. Ironically, to bring this matter to court they have to officially file for copyright which will include depositing a copy of it in the Library of Congress.

The requirement to deposit a copy with the LoC was dropped decades ago.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[shutdown -p now]

The newsworthiness of the document ...

Can you tell what, exactly, do you find newsworthy about the document?

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[brillow]

I am pretty sure all you have to do to copyright something is just to put it in a fixed form and maybe say "Hey this is copyrighted." There is no "filing" for copyright. You sound like a complete ass.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[brillow]

Never meant to be published? It WAS published. MS "published" it when they wrapped it up in a pdf and sent it to people. You need not sell something to publish it. I can publish a book with an inkjet, paper, and a stapler. I can write "copywrite me 2010" on it and you can't distribute it.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[c]

> Anything you create, including shopping lists, notes to your spouse, and your
> diary is copywritten. Automatically. Without needing notification of the gov't
> or on the article itself.

Probably not shopping lists unless you live in one of those stupid jurisdictions which allow copyrighting collections of facts. Facts like, as another commenter has pointed out, a price list of services to law enforcement or some kind of procedure manual.

I'd also point out that in many places, registration is necessary if you want to bring legal action over the work.

There's copyright, and then there's copyrighted enough to justify a take down, and unfortunately the laws are tilted towards protecting dubious works and claims.

c.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[evilviper]

1) News reporting does not allow breach of copyright.

In the US, freedom of speech, and of the press, trumps damn near all else. There are only a few narrow exceptions to the two, and this isn't one of them. The fact that the two are cited in fair use rules is more a reflection of this, than the CAUSE.

Additionally, from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

And

Article 26(Use for Current News Report) In the case of reporting current events by means of broadcasts, newspapers or by other means, it shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute, perform publicly, or communicate(transmit) to the public a work seen or heard in the course of the event, to the extent justified by the information purpose."

3) Cryptome is using the whole work, and thus fails the test.

Amount is not the be-all factor. Fair-use can, and often enough does, apply to ALL of a work.

ie: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

Considering that Cryptome is spot-on for the other 3 factors, I can't imagine a judge would take such a lawsuit seriously.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[DerekLyons]

If Cryptome was spot on for the other three categories, you'd have a point. But they aren't spot on for any of the tests. If you can't imagine a judge would take a suit seriously, you need to take your blinders off.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[slashqwerty]

I am pretty sure all you have to do to copyright something is just to put it in a fixed form and maybe say "Hey this is copyrighted." There is no "filing" for copyright.

While it is correct that copyright takes hold the moment a work is fixed in a tangible form it is also irrelevant to what I said. From my original post:

Ironically, to bring this matter to court they have to officially file for copyright which will include depositing a copy of it in the Library of Congress.

While I concede the copy is actually deposited with the copyright office the rest of my statement is correct. Again I quote the copyright office:

Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work

Registration is also required to claim statutory damages. Unless Microsoft has already registered the work they can only claim damages for the actual value of the work which is nothing.

You sound like a complete ass.

As a general rule, name-calling tends to reflect more strongly upon the person doing the labeling.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[slashqwerty]

You need a citation for the constitution? Fine. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:

The Congress shall have Power...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Whether or not the work in question promotes the progress of useful arts is certainly a subjective issue that a court will have to decide. You may question if the courts would even consider such an argument. They have certainly done so before. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.

The requirement to deposit a copy with the LoC was dropped decades ago.

While I conceded in another post that the copy is deposited with the copyright office, the copyright office is actually part of the Library of Congress. However, it is possible to deposit an unpublished work and have it kept out of the LoC catalog.

Since I suspect that wasn't the point you were trying to get at I suggest you read that other post before you respond.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[slashqwerty]

Why was this modded troll? The parent post is correct. Also, one of the legal advantages copyright registration confers is the ability to actually file suit and enforce the copyright which is what the grandparent post overlooked.

Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right?

[evilviper]

But they aren't spot on for any of the tests.

Is Microsoft making a profit off of selling this document? Is Cryptome making a profit off of it? I really can't see any rationale for your above statement.

Is this the same Wikileaks...

[Improv]

That appears to be nearly dead for lack of funding? Generosity is good, but probably not on one's deathbed.

Re:Is this the same Wikileaks...

[Teufelsmuhle]

You're right. The best way for a non-profit short on funds to attract attention and additional contributions is to cease fulfilling their charter.

Re:Is this the same Wikileaks...

[Improv]

Which they have done.

summary of document

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:summary of document

[jonbryce]

I guess the most noteworthy thing is that the IP address used to create the account is kept forever. I'm sure we read a few weeks ago that Yahoo do the same.

Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[internic]

I'm confused...I thought the way the DMCA safe harbor provisions work is that in order to be immune, the provider must take down the content when a DMCA notice is received, but if the customer files a counter-notice then they can put it back up and they're off the hook (at least until they get a court order). So why are they taking it down in this case?

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[2short]

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.

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[DerekLyons]

I'm not much of a fan of Network Solutions generally, but in this situation, they are not the bad guy.

Yep, and Microsoft is in the clear too.
 

Cryptome made their choice to stand on principle and force the system to shut the whole site down.

I'd be more impressed if the principle they were standing on wasn't "we are above the law because we believe ourselves to be above the law".

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[mdmkolbe]

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.

IANAL, but I thought after a counter-notice the host was not required to take it down. Every explanation of the DMCA that I've seen says that the DMCA merely sets maximum time before take-down and before put-back but not a minimum as your post implies. Do you have a cite showing that the DMCA sets a minimum time before put-back?

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[internic]

Since I asked the question in the GP, I looked up what I believe is the applicable part of the US Code. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512 states that a service provider will not be liable for taking down material in response to a copyright infringement notice as long as (among other things) the provider

... replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.
[Emphasis Mine]

So now we know.

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[mdmkolbe]

Yeah, that explains it. Though now it sounds like the DMCA is an even greater way to harass someone that I thought. Simply having to post counter-notices is bad enough, but that the counter notice doesn't have effect for 10 days is downright scary.

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[internic]

I had the same thought. I was under the same impression as you, that there was not minimal take down period, so that the material could be restored as soon as a counter-notice had been filed. Moreover, I guess I didn't really realize that if the copyright holder then files suit, the material is taken down again. This sounds like a great way to harass or silence someone with a guilty-until-proven-innocent system.

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[2short]

The DMCA is a big multi-faceted law, and some of the facets, in my opinion, suck.

But I don't think this particular part of the DMCA is actually that bad. Both the notice and counter notice require that the person filing make declarations under penalty of perjury.

If someone just wants to harass you by forcing your provider to take down stuff you clearly have the rights to put up, they have to commit a felony every time they do it.

Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works

[2short]

I was summarizing just the part I thought was relevant. There is a maximum time they they may wait (presumably to give their customer the chance to file a counter-notice). During this time, Cryptome sent them a response that wasn't a proper counter notice. NS left the site up and replied to Cryptome explaining what they needed for a counter notice, and their options as far as taking down the one file or not. Cryptome then sent them a proper counter notice, which also declared that they would be choosing not to take down the one file. So you are correct, no counter notice is required to take it down; but the only reason to wait before taking it down is to see if their customer wants to take down the one file.

After that, they must put it back up in 10-14 days, unless MS obtains an injuction.

Many posters here seem to assume NS would want to be against Cryptome in this. But the law assumes they may be motivated to be on the side of their customer, which in fact they seem to be.

The DMCA has plenty of bad parts, but this part always struck me as pretty reasonable. If someone will declare something theirs under threat of criminal prosecution if they are obviously wrong, it gets taken down without tying up the courts. If the other guy will declare otherwise under the same threat, the first guy gets a small window to actually take them to court, or it goes back up. Cases with legitimate disagreements wind up in court as they should; neither side can abuse the system very badly without opening themselves to prosecution.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[urulokion]

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.

Pick the right registrar

[Rijnzael]

Of course being hosted in the United States is one problem if you want to be an indiscriminate whistle-blower, but an even more serious problem is picking a registrar hosted in the United States. Not only are you and your server host accountable to the DMCA, but so is the company that has the permanent on-off switch to your site's name. When I registered domain names that I thought might ever contain the slightest bit of content that could get me in hot water via the DMCA, I made sure to register my domain names through a registrar which hosts much more notable sites with content in contravention of DMCA. So, I ran a whois on the most notable site I could think of which completely disrespects copyrights (ThePirateBay), and registered my domain names at Key-Systems, http://dd24.net/ being their consumer-facing site. They might be a bit more of an expense (being that I incur a foreign transaction fee with every registration/renewal), but I think the peace of mind in knowing you won't be losing your domain name due to copyright disputes is very worth it.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[Wesley Felter]

Maybe you haven't looked at their site lately (I wouldn't blame you); NetSol has been providing hosting for years: http://www.networksolutions.com/web-hosting/index.jsp

Is Legal Lock appropriate?

[erroneus]

Isn't legal lock supposed to be used in cases where the domain name itself is at issue? By refusing to allow the name to be transferred, they are actually censoring the content.

I would be interested to learn if this is an appropriate use of legal lock and if NetSol is entitled to do this. If not, what recourse could be taken?

Actually somewhat reassuring

[slimjim8094]

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

Re:Actually somewhat reassuring

[jpmorgan]

It contains semi-private phone numbers that Microsoft would rather not have widely disseminated.

Re:Actually somewhat reassuring

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What is supposed to be interesting about this?

[ink]

I found it disturbing that they logged every packet on your Live account for the lifetime of the account (glad I don't use it); but the rest of it is pretty run-of-the-mill.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[erroneus]

If you read the article, you would know that they did file a counter-notice.

Network Solutions not only took their site down, but locked the domain to prevent it from coming up somewhere else. This is an extremely aggressive move and one I suspect violates their own terms and conditions and may be actionable under the law.

DMCA and DNS

[Sloppy]

DMCA notice/counternotice rules are clearly about hosts. It's not about directories, names, pointers, etc.

DNS registrars should be able to safely ignore DMCA notices. If they voluntarily cut off service when there's no compulsion to do so, then they're not serious businesses nor legitimate entities in the internet community.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to do business with Network Solutions due to slimey "customer service" issues, but this even goes deeper than that. C'mon, folks, quit using bogus registrars.

I use and recommend gandi.net due to their track record of just plain not fucking around with their customers. Over the years Gandi has earned their reputation. My only reservation about Gandi is that I haven't kept up-to-date on all the consequences of their being under French jurisdiction, but my tea leaves tell me that I pretty much want to use someone in the EU (with the obvious exception of the United Kingdom).

Scary subtext

[sjames]

Yes, it's bad that MS is abusing copyright as a secrecy tool, and certainly bad that they're hiding information that should be public, but the subtext supporting all of this is worst of all:

The subtext that cooperation with law enforcement has become something to be ashamed of.

Re:Scary subtext

[Entropius]

More relevantly, shame is in the eye of the populace.

If we don't know what they're doing, then we don't know if it's shameful or not, and that in itself is shameful.

If the cops are arresting drunk drivers, that's legitimate. If the cops are arresting people for unpopular speech, that's shameful. But if they're arresting people and not telling anyone about it, that's even worse.

Re:Scary subtext

[sjames]

More to the point, enough of the general population have made their opinion of law enforcement clear enough that MS would rather not admit in public that they freely cooperate.

In other times, MS would proudly proclaim their cooperation and the general public would applaud it.

When law enforcement behaves sufficiently counter to the public will that cooperating with them is seen as shameful by a significant portion of that public, it's a serious social problem, particularly in a country whose government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people.

Re:Scary subtext

[NeoSkandranon]

"The public will" is not necessarily in the right, either. It just is what it is.

Re:Scary subtext

[sjames]

True enough, but considering that law enforcement is supposed to be in service to the public in the U.S., acting THAT contrary to the public will is unconscionable.

The next step in that path is when the "good guys" come into such disrepute that the public begins cheering for (and even actively assists) the "bad guys".

Torrent for M$ document

[*ThE jEsTeR oF dArKn]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5391023/microsoft-spy.pdf

Let FOIA requests begin

[turtleshadow]

If anything cryptome can now hit up US.Gov with numerous FOIAs for any documents relating to this document or relationship of law to Microsoft and get it again. If it is copyrighted, yet given to the US government it should be able to be opened up this way. I wonder how it will come back redacted or not. There may be precident with some national legislation that is copyrighted and transparency in US government.

Twisted Irony

[Phizzle]

Microsoft is able to narc on you better if you are a Premium customer, so the more you pay them the more they compromise your privacy!

Re:Twisted Irony

[Mephistro]

Microsoft is able to narc on you better if you are a Premium customer, so the more you pay them the more they compromise your privacy!

Yours is an extremely informative and insightful post post and explains -as requested by many previous posts- why MS doesn't want this doc to go public.

Re:Is this part of the Microsoft document valid?

[ushering05401]

The no transmission part kinda seems silly... They should only be handing these things out in completely dark rooms where recipients have been patted down for low light vision assist equipment. Then they need to recollect the docs before any light is allowed in or doors are opened to allow people out.

Without these precautions there is a chance the copyrighted information on the page may come into contact with visible spectrum radiation, potentially violating the no transmission clause. Imagine if someone's occular nodes were oriented in such a way to receive visible spectrum radiation that had previously contacted the copyrighted material.

Either those rubes don't understand that words printed on a page don't transmit themselves or this is entrapment by Microsoft.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[grcumb]

Maybe you haven't looked at their site lately (I wouldn't blame you); NetSol has been providing hosting for years: http://www.networksolutions.com/web-hosting/index.jsp

True, but the GP's fundamental point is still valid:

The DCMA required only the contested content be removed in any case. Network Solutions removing access to [the] entire web site is very troubling. And it may even have opened them up to a lawsuit themselves.

[Emphasis mine]

They've actually made the domain unavailable, which is more troubling, because it means that email and other services will fail, too. Regardless, NetSol is out of line.

Oh great, now _I_ have stepped in it

[Sloppy]

Network Solutions was cryptome's web host?! Hm.. then I guess they were on the hook after all.

Even so, I gotta take a cheap parting shot: they're still slime, so using them for hosting is just as bad an idea as using them as a registrar.

Re:Oh great, now _I_ have stepped in it

[urulokion]

Yes. They were on the hook. But all they had to do was to remove access for the one file. But no the removed the DNS infor for cryptome.org. They breaks a huge swathe of things. At a minimum E-mail, the entire web site. And any other service and sites dependent on that domain or any sub-domain of cryptome.org. It should nothing less then a court order to shutdown a DNS domain. I really host that Network Solutions gets they a$$ets handed to them by Cryptome.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[acoustix]

Maybe you haven't looked at their site lately (I wouldn't blame you); NetSol has been providing hosting for years: http://www.networksolutions.com/web-hosting/index.jsp

That is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the website is also hosted at NetSol. There are plenty of people who (are stupid enough to) use NetSol as a domain registrar, paying their ridiculous fees and then host the site on another provider.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[grcumb]

I wish we could moderate something to remove a recent post....

Ignore parent. It's incorrect. Read this informative post instead, then mod it up.

Nothing like a good book!

[Chris Tucker]

I look forward to reading it. Online, of course!

I would NEVER think of violating MS' copyright.

That would be wrong.

Slashdot is funny

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Slashdot is funny

[dch24]

Don't worry too much. After you have added GPL code to your programs, they'll be GPL too.

But you can still copyright them.

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This will teach them...

[theNetImp]

... to host DNS where their website is hosted. I host my domains on godaddy, and my sites are elsewhere. If for some reason any of my sites were ever taken down. They could be brought up within hours elsewhere.

Re:This will teach them...

[cpghost]

If a registrar pulls the domain from the registry, it doesn't help you that DNS is hosted elsewhere. Your only chance in this situation is to have backup domains with another registrar, preferably domains that are handled by a different registry altogether (i.e. a different ccTLD or gTLD), and educated your visitors to memorize those backup domains as well.

The Microsoft PDF file isn't shocking

[Nimey]

Basically it summarizes what data Microsoft collects from its users - a list of IP addresses you've accessed their services from & when, plus any particulars you've provided them, such as name, date of birth, etc.

Also anything you've uploaded to their servers may be fair game in the event of a subpoena.

Nothing surprising if you've got much sense, really.

have to wonder...

[mgbastard]

Did this make it up to the chain to their General Counsel? I'd think this would be noteworthy enough to make for at least a few minutes with Brad Smith before they go strong-arming Cryptome.

That it comes from their outsourced piracy protection people smells like they did not.

I mean are they really wanting to make precedent out of it? You would think Microsoft would presume that Cryptome and the EFF, etc., would fight the DMCA being used in this way.

I have to conclude that the contractor acted above their pay grade on this one...

Re:have to wonder...

[mgbastard]

And wired.com posted the microsoft document in its entirety in a piece on this situation... nice legs on this. Not having their PR department ready with a release on it also points to it being a flubbed operation by their contractor.

All corporations do it

[BhaKi]

I think the number of people who use Microsoft's online services is less than the number of people who use Google's online services. We should be more concerned about Google's tie-ups with Feds and NSA.

ALL cloud-delivered service cos should reveal

[davide marney]

Just read the MS document, and concur with other comments here. Knowing the document's contents actually RAISES my level of trust, since it lays out precisely the conditions under which private information will be revealed (basically: go through the court system), and what information is available.

All companies who deliver cloud-based services should reveal this information to their customers. There is absolutely no reason to keep it secret. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo: man up, and make it official.

Seeing how Network Solutions is utterly mis-handling this situation is destroying my trust in them by the bucket-load. I am seriously considering moving my domains off of them. I certainly wouldn't want to be strong-armed just because I made some big company like MS mad!

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[urulokion]

I assumed that Cryptome wasn't hosted at Network Solutions (ugh!). But I still stand by my post. All NetSol has to do was to block access to that one files. They didn't have to remove the entire web site. I guess that speaks to the competence of Network Solutions web hosting.

Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution

[Wesley Felter]

If NetSol received a takedown for a site that they do not host, they should ignore it, not lock the domain. Unfortunately I'm having trouble figuring out definitively where Cryptome is hosted since the traceroute ends somewhere in Savvis's backbone, but the IP address is in a block assigned to NetSol.