Cryptome in Hot Water Again 241
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.
Re:Ballsy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
both wikileaks and cryptome should periodically make torrents of all their contents and release them to the world. That is a good idea.
The smaller they are the easier they fall (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Executioner (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:The smaller they are the easier they fall (Score:1, Insightful)
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).
But it *is* copyrighted, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same Wikileaks... (Score:3, Insightful)
That appears to be nearly dead for lack of funding? Generosity is good, but probably not on one's deathbed.
Re:Move on...nothing to see here... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep. This thing only has legs because Microsoft are being a dick about it. Otherwise nobody would care.
summary of document (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Down already (Score:3, Insightful)
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:new mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably what the "and the rest being transferred" part is about...
Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Down already (Score:1, Insightful)
Not meant for hiding secrets, but definitely meant for preventing illegally made copies of a creative work.
FTFY
Slashdot is funny (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
What's the big deal? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Down already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Down already (Score:3, Insightful)
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:But it *is* copyrighted, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [copyright.gov]:
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:Actually somewhat reassuring (Score:1, Insightful)
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.