Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blogetery Shutdown Due To al-Qaeda Info

Posted by Soulskill on from the internet-is-serious-business dept.

Archness1 writes "Over the weekend we discussed news that blog host Blogetery.com had been shut down at the request of the US government. Now, it appears the site was shut down because some of the blogs it was hosting contained information on al-Qaeda hit lists and bomb making. According to the article, Burst.net shut down Blogetery of its own accord after the FBI made a request to the host for information on the people who made the posts. '[Burst.net CTO Joe Marr] said the FBI contacted Burst.net and sent a Voluntary Emergency Disclosure of Information request. The letter said terrorist material, which presented a threat to American lives, was found on a server hosted by Burst.net and asked for specific information about the people involved. In the FBI's letter, the agency included a clause that says Web hosts and Internet service providers may voluntarily elect to shut down the sites of customers involved in these kinds of situations.'"

36 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. US Hysterical by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the hysteria is starting to fade a bit but in the meantime departments such as Homeland Security have grown into unwieldy beasts. I hope you Americans reclaim your civil freedoms soon: you know the ones that have been eroded in the "War on Terror." Terror to who? The occasional nut they do catch or the millions inconvenienced every day just trying to get on a plane? Secret lists... I could go on, the point is stop cowering and be Free again.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:US Hysterical by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 9-11 conspiracy theorists might be off their rocker, but they're right about one thing: The hysteria, paranoia, and nationalistic fervor created by 9-11 are a politician's wet dream. The amazing thing isn't how much our society has let our rights be destroyed over the past 9 years, it's how little the people in power have taken advantage of it. For all that it sucks, the average American would have swallowed much, much more under the guise of security and revenge than what has been pushed through. Don't get me wrong, too much was allowed to happen, too many rights shrugged off so that the paranoid could sleep more easily at night (paranoid about terrorists but oddly trusting of everyone else); I'm just saying that it could have been much worse.

    2. Re:US Hysterical by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sounds more like a case of corporations eroding our civil rights, which has little to do with the war on terror, they're always quick to do that to avoid bad PR. That the FBI asked for information and suggested burstnet drop them is not ideal, yes, but let's not act like this is all the US government going paranoid: plenty of companies in whatever country you live in would screw your rights over too even if your government wouldn't ask them.

      That and you're preaching to the choir.

    3. Re:US Hysterical by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please don't think that Freedom is intrinsic. Looking at government is always looking into the business end of a gun. Sometimes that end is painted nice and is reasonable. Other places, not so much: that's why it's important, here, now, to preserve the pretty paint of the US governments business end.

      --
      Shh.
    4. Re:US Hysterical by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are, though. As soon as you enter into a social contract that gives one class of people a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, you give them the ability to remove lots of these "rights". The only thing stopping them from doing it is that same social contract -- the Constitution, etc. It's a "We'll give you the ability to violate our rights as long as you promise not to use it" sort of thing.

      The trouble is that the only thing stopping the ruling group from breaching this contract is the fear that if they do anything egregious then they'll get voted out, and that if they try to not abide by the results of an election then they'll lose support of enough people (including some of the ones they rely on to execute their license to use violence) that they'll lose power anyway.

      Unfortunately, they've gotten good at breaking their end of the social contract and still getting elected.

    5. Re:US Hysterical by blair1q · · Score: 5, Insightful

      t's how little the people in power have taken advantage of it.

      Wow. You missed the entire Bush administration. The USA Patriot Act. Pallets of cash shipped directly from the Mint to Iraq without any oversight. Coordinated domestic wiretapping. The Unitary President. Hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements." Etc., etc.

      Shut your /. window and go dig through the archives of the major newspapers.

      America got raped over the past 10 years because of 9/11.

    6. Re:US Hysterical by Cylix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not if you hit it with a bat first or use a lid.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    7. Re:US Hysterical by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Domestic wiretapping had required a warrant since the original FISA act was passed in 1978. It does not allow the widespread and wholesale tapping of phones and the internet that has happened since 9/11. If there is one thing that disgusts me about Obama, it's his utter and complete flip-flop on the domestic spying issue. As an early candidate for president, he was completely against it. Then when we had gotten the nomination, he voted to immunize telecoms for their part in the illegal wiretapping. Now as president, he completely defends the continued intrusion into all of our lives.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    8. Re:US Hysterical by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fortunately, the US is a democracy

      Unfortunately, it isn't. It's a plutocratic republic where corporations can bribe both major candidates with campaign cash and get any damned thing they want, and to hell with the average person.

      That, and having a polarized two-party system, nobody's really able to do anything even in power.

      There's little real difference between the two parties; the Democrats are tax and spend, the Republicans are borrow and spend. Both are beholden to corporations; the only difference is which corporations. Neither one gives a damn about the Constitution or your rights. Both are for increased copyright lengths and increased penalties for infringing copyright, even noncommercial infringement. You won't find but maybe one or two politicians from either party who would legalize marijuana, for instance, despite the fact that the only people who benefit from marijuana laws are the ones growing, importing, and selling marijuana; both major parties are in lockstep. It makes me wonder how much bribe money the drug cartels shovel to the Republican and Democratic parties.

      And the corporate media has convinced everyone that if you vote Green or Libertarian you've wasted your vote. I say if you vote for a candidate who wants you in jail for smoking pot or sharing MP3s you're a fool.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. CYA by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the agency included a clause that says Web hosts and Internet service providers may voluntarily elect to shut down the sites of customers involved in these kinds of situations.

    The word voluntary has a markedly different meaning when used by law enforcement and government than by the public. As a recent example, the kidnapping of an Iranian nuclear scientist was reported as having left the country "voluntarily". Businesses aren't stupid: If you get a letter from the authorities saying your computer might have terrorist information on it, it's probably best to launch it into space now instead of risking the public hysteria or government's heavy-handed tactics that could land you, your family, and your friends all in jail on "suspicion" of one thing or another.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:CYA by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Businesses aren't stupid: If you get a letter from the authorities saying your computer might have terrorist information on it, it's probably best to launch it into space now instead of risking the public hysteria or government's heavy-handed tactics that could land you, your family, and your friends all in jail on "suspicion" of one thing or another.

      Or perhaps the business thinks that complying with the request is the right thing to do under the circumstances. I know I would likely do the same thing under those conditions -- look at the content and decide whether I want to be hosting it. I would just as surely fight a court order if the content was legit as I would pull the plug if it wasn't.

      It is not beyond possibility that a business owner might decide that, even if were legal to do so (and in this case it's probably not, although we'll never find out for sure) he's not going to offer his services to further the cause of something he finds abhorrent. It's not inconceivable that the government actually convinced him they were factually correct that the site was used by Al Qaeda. The conclusion that he must have been threatened is absurd on its face because it does not account for the many ways that a reasonable person might chose to cooperate.

    2. Re:CYA by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's more plausible, that an Iranian engineer went on a pilgrimage and was kidnapped, broke free and returned to Iran; or that he defected for $5 Million but but decided to return to his family and made up a politically acceptable cover story, given:

      - "Extraordinary Rendition" victims who were released never found themselves in the U.S.
      - the U.S. has shown itself fully willing to imprison people reliable without charge or trial
      - the U.S. has shown itself willing to pay quite well for defectors in the past

      If he were kidnapped he'd be rotting in Kyrgyzstan where laws on torture don't apply, not walking casually into a New York Embassy.

  3. Sounds right. by Nethead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the FBI came to me and told me one of my hosts had bomb making info on it, I'd shut it down too regardless if it was foreign or domestic host, or just even a p0wn.

    I can't see any reason to have that info on a web site. It's not like you're going to make a bigger bomb than the US has. You're just going to get some dumb-ass to blow his hand off.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:Sounds right. by Luke+has+no+name · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see any reason why people should speak out against their government. it's not like you're going to have more money to spend than the US on court costs and advertising. You're just going to go broke and put on a watchlist.

    2. Re:Sounds right. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the GP described and Burst.Net demonstrated was the individual right of the host to not display information they do not approve of. This is individuals censoring their own equipment.

      Nonsense. What Burst.Net demonstrated was their NON-right to shut down a whole boatload of legitimate paying customers, apparently because law enforcement alleged (at the time) that some accounts might have contained terrorist material. That's not the same thing at all.

      They voluntarily shut them ALL down, without so much as a warrant or National Security Letter regarding the alleged terrorist accounts, much less the vast majority who were guiltless. That's not patriotic, or responsible citizenship, or anything of the sort. What that is, is ball-less wimps getting on their knees in front of government goons, and cheating their customers in the process, because they were afraid.

      The IT guy might try to claim that he was doing his patriotic duty, but that's BS. His patriotic duty was to demand a warrant or at least an NSL before turning over private information or closing accounts.

    3. Re:Sounds right. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It says that in several of the State Constitutions. Here's Virgina's: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      The US Constitution also limits Army-related spending appropriations to two years. The people of that era had an aversion to standing armies. History is littered with examples going all the way back to Rome of standing armies that turned on the populations they were supposed to protect.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:Brilliant.... by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, US so much better than China.

    Seriously? Will you please just shut up? I cannot believe you persist in this after Burst.net's CTO explained the situation in the article.

    So because a private company operating under its own volition shuts down its server, that's the United States government's fault and equates them to China?

    The amount of ignorance you demonstrate is downright impressive. The fact that the company had the choice given what the government reported to them shows that the US is not on the same level as China. Tell me, do you need a government approved license to host content in the United States? Go spend sometime on four chan and something awful ... not to see great stuff but to understand just how unfettered stuff is in the United States. Yeah, things like bomb making and child porn get you in trouble. But it's a hell of a lot better than the large compendium of what may or may not get you in trouble in China.

    Get a clue.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. Re:Brilliant.... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hah, it's even better than that. Pretend you're a terrorist, using that blog to communicate somehow - apparently in this case it was to disseminate bomb making information and target lists.

    All of a sudden, the blog you're visiting every day or so gets shut down. What does that tell you? If you're a paranoid terrorist cell, it most likely means that the government has noticed you use the blog to communicate and ordered the hosting provider to shut it down.

    So now you know that the government knows about that communications channel. The government doesn't really know anything besides your IP address, which is pretty useless if you've been using Tor or something similar. Who comes out ahead here?

  6. Re:Brilliant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think you really understand what happened. Burst.net is a hosting provider. They found out that one of their thousands of customers was blatantly violating TOS, and shut it down. Bloggetry was that one customer, but they happened to resell what they bought to 70,000 other people, so when one Blogetery user violated Burst.net's TOS, all 70,000 got shutdown. Blggetery is clearly pathetic here, as they relied entirely on someone else's infrastructure, made no attempt to monitor what they were hosting, and had no backup. They had no "investors", Blogetery is one twenty something year old retard who had no idea what he was doing, and was just offering free blog hosting and collecting Adsense dollars. Burst.net has investors, and made the right and obvious call.

  7. Once In A Lifetime People! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't get any better than this..... They shut it down, they're pandering to federal government. The don't shut it down, they're supporting terrorists. They shut it down, they're giving in to Big Money over an independent 'net. They don't shut it down and they're aiding and abetting anti-American behaviour. They shut it down, they're Killing Free Speech. They don't shut it down and they're......well, to be honest I could go off on 101 diatribes. I've got great Slashdot karma, my comments have a pretty high average, hell...I don't even have to watch adverts or even give them money....and yet I have this weird feeling that I fundamentally disagree with both sides of Slashdot arguments, On both a mathematical and psychological level, this worries me.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  8. Troll? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure why the above is considered trollish, though the tone might be snippy. It's true that US policymakers didn't shut down the blog themselves, but what are you supposed to think if you're a website owner and you get a letter from FBI advising you that material on your website threatens American lives and that you "may voluntarily elect to shut down the sites of customers involved in these kinds of situations." If anything the feds should be doing the opposite -- advise the blog owner to keep open a potentially useful source of information so it could be watched. The guys who want to blow things up are going to find a way to connect with each other and find whatever info they need to build bombs elsewhere; the question is whether they do it with or without their enemies watching.

    1. Re:Troll? by dasunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure why the above is considered trollish, though the tone might be snippy. It's true that US policymakers didn't shut down the blog themselves, but what are you supposed to think if you're a website owner and you get a letter from FBI advising you that material on your website threatens American lives and that you "may voluntarily elect to shut down the sites of customers involved in these kinds of situations." If anything the feds should be doing the opposite -- advise the blog owner to keep open a potentially useful source of information so it could be watched. The guys who want to blow things up are going to find a way to connect with each other and find whatever info they need to build bombs elsewhere; the question is whether they do it with or without their enemies watching.

      *sigh*

      A long time ago, there was a journalist that was anti-KKK.

      Instead of avoiding any mention of the KKK, he revealed their secrets. All the mumbo jumbo, the secret signs, what they believed, etc. He even joined them in order to find out their secrets.

      He probably lead to more ridicule of the KKK than any other journalists.

      Today, he'd probably be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, spreading their information.

      We should reveal what terrorists believe in. As someone once said, freedom of speech is why David Duke is considered a laughing stock in most of the country, while Hitler (in a far more repressive environment) went on to murder millions of the "undesirables". (Not only Jews, the Romani suffered greatly as well).

      Lets here it for freedom of information. Yes, it might inspire a few wingnuts, but the harsh light of day will make it eventually wither and die.

      If you look at how the religious schools that contribute to suicide bombings are run, they have a very tight control of information. They make sure would-be-"martyrs" only hear one version of the truth.

      In the real world, the "truth" is more complex. Most people, when exposed to information, are decent at picking out the chaff.

      We need more freedom of expression in the war against terror.

      Just my $.02.

    2. Re:Troll? by bronney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the terrorists should totally have a "share this" button on the blog. You know, social media and all ;)

    3. Re:Troll? by joebagodonuts · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't care that YOU don't approve of someone host Bomb-making instructions. Who died and left you boss? I'm not so opposed, and I see no reason why your paranoia (or anyone else's paranoia) should be controlling in this matter.

      Look - The people that want to kill other people - they will continue to try and do so. Taking down instructions for making a bomb, or any other information, won't stop them from trying. What is does accomplish is to allow the Government to control information "To keep us safe". But, we have no data to indicate we are any safer, more secure. I don't trust that they will have my best interests at heart. The nature of bureaucracy tells me that if there is any conflict between my best interest and a faceless bureaucrat covering their ass, my freedoms and rights will get trampled.

      To me, it is more acceptable that the information be left online. It doesn't harm anyone. Sticks and stones...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  9. Why stop there? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume DHS will be raiding libraries nationwide, removing books on bomb making, explosives, etc?

    And of course many chemistry texts, especially those which focus on such experiments?

    Then they can go and visit our colleges, universities, and technical schools, so that these institutions can discontinue any teaching of such dangerous and unacceptable subjects?

    This is unfortunate and sad, that our Administration would stoop to such an infringement on our First Amendment. Ignore the futility of the act.

    Let me repeat. This is a First Amendment violation.

    Now the al-Qaeda stuff, if they were posting contact info and such, well, darn. Gotta stop that. No point in aiding and abetting.

    But bomb-making by itself isn't a crime is it? I have a few friends that still live in the woods, and they have a bit of fun with blowing stuff up occasionally, like stumps and old cars. It's their property.

    We're in trouble.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Why stop there? by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Informative

      I assume DHS will be raiding libraries nationwide, removing books on bomb making, explosives, etc?

      And of course many chemistry texts, especially those which focus on such experiments?

      Then they can go and visit our colleges, universities, and technical schools, so that these institutions can discontinue any teaching of such dangerous and unacceptable subjects?

      It's already happening. So many new organisms have made it onto "select agent lists" that I am surprised any decent virology is still being done in the US. Soon we'll be left with no human pathogens outside the list that can be used for research.

      And to do work on something that's on the list, you have to go through a process that takes so long that the student or post-doc would want to be leaving by the time they are cleared to do the work.

    2. Re:Why stop there? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But bomb-making by itself isn't a crime is it? I have a few friends that still live in the woods, and they have a bit of fun with blowing stuff up occasionally, like stumps and old cars. It's their property.

      Ask F-troop.

      The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and (recently added) Explosives seems to think it is, if you didn't get the right certifications and licenses and pay the right taxes.

      Your state may think so, too.

      Explosives are a very useful tool for, among other things, farming. You can remove a stump quickly with a little dynamite, girdle or fell a tree in seconds, dig a ditch in an hour or so with a string of small charges detonated simultaneously. rather than weeks of work with earthmoving equipment or months of backbreaking labor, and I could go on. (There was one guy who got the snow off his sidewalks and driveways in a couple minutes with a little primacord, too.)

      But our federal government has injected its jackboots into this, as well as firearms, since about 1934.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  10. Re:Brilliant.... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    So because a private company operating under its own volition shuts down its server, that's the United States government's fault and equates them to China?

    China. It's the new Nazi. :-) Reductio egg fu yung.

  11. Burst.net have NOT handled this well by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, the Burst.net guys get a request for information about a machine they host which has ~70k users, give or take. Instead of asking the box's sysadmin (who's their CLIENT), they pull the pin, then go on to mutter vague conspiracy-minded commentary such as "getting a refund is the least of his (the site owner/sysadmin) problems" on fora such as WHT (see http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=05a61aabdfcacdb369e1582aff4686a1&t=964013 ) Apparently the fact that he _received_ abuse complaints in the past was grounds to terminate his service; never mind the fact that he had SEVENTY THOUSAND USERS and acted on DMCA notifications and other abuse requests in a timely fashion, which is better than can be said about a lot of sites.

    Had burst.net forwarded the request to the site owner (or even simply given the feds his name, and explained how he fit in) instead of disconnecting the machine, making borderline slanderous statements (such as 'he'll never get his data back' and 'a refund is the least of his worries right now',) they would have come out of this looking reasonably good. As it stands, you'd have to be completely brain-dead retarded to even think about giving them money.

    --
    You're doing it wrong.
  12. Re:Brilliant.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing really diffrent between the USA and China on issues like this is one of attitude displayed.

    China: You will shut this down. You have no choice.

    USA: You should shut this down or we'll make your life a legal hell.

    The end result is the same in either case.

  13. Pretty please! by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can somebody please post al-Queda hit lists and bomb making info here

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  14. Here's a clue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a government "suggests" you do something to avoid an unpleasant government intervention upon you (or your company) and you cave to that suggestion to avoid the response of the suggester; you become an agent of the government in censorship. A private company of its own volition, without any notice from the government turns off a site that violates TOS? Fine, that's barely acceptable C2P censorship, but as soon as the government makes a suggestion? No. Sorry. Unacceptable.

    See the fine distinction?

    Clues cost a quarter eldavojohn and you get this one gratis.

  15. guess it means FBI has enough data now by swschrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    on those guys. or they wouldn't have made the request, including the little line at the end that basically said, "you have a pistol. you know what to do for esprit de corps. we will be back in 15 minutes."

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  16. Maybe one day /. editor's could like do their job? by Liquidrage · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA:
    The Burst.net employee who handled the request erroneously believed that the FBI would want to seize the customer's server and thus the employee cut off service to Blogetery. Marr said the FBI, however, never asked for the server.

    Well, that could clear up some of the shitty posts here.


    Also FFTA:
    Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.

    Now, just my speculation here, but obviously there's a lot of "terrorist" crap all over American servers that the Gov doesn't give two shits about. So maybe in this case the FBI concluded that the information was actual communication from the organization, etc, and not just drivel. If so, good for them for removing it. Removing a "hit list" doesn't violate free speech that I care for. Either way, burstnet made a mistake and one that is probably an honest mistake. Shit happens.

  17. publicizing a gag order by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe the guys at Burst.net are neither villains nor tools.

    As I understand it, when the Stasi want something removed from the net, they typically send a National Security Letter demanding said removal, and forbidding disclosure of their demand. One convenient way to bring light to a secret removal order is for the hosting company to comply with it in a way that maximizes inconvenience to the internet community at large. It's a nice alternative to quietly silencing a blog without due process in open court -- who does that anymore? -- that probably (probably...) won't get anyone from Burst.net thrown into the Gulag, sued into destitution, or disappeared off to Guantanamo for some "enhanced interrogation".

  18. Re:Brilliant.... by Builder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if that's allowed in China, but in the UK people have been convicted under terrorism legislation for possession of documents that may be of use to a terrorist. In one case recently, someone was convicted for owning copies of the anarchists handbook. Not for making anything from it, just for having it.