Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Microsoft The Internet Your Rights Online

Cryptome in Hot Water Again 241

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the revel-in-the-bulls-eye dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cryptome in Hot Water Again

Comments Filter:
  • Ballsy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimble@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:27PM (#31265700)
    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.
  • by base3 (539820) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:28PM (#31265728)
    MD5? Magnet link? Not that I would seek it out or anything.
  • Re:Down already (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:32PM (#31265804) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @07:04PM (#31266160)

    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 [www.cbc.ca]
    http://www.thestar.com/article/596268 [thestar.com]

    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?

  • by internic (453511) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @07:09PM (#31266216)

    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?

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @07:48PM (#31266608) Homepage

    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.

  • by grcumb (781340) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @08:39PM (#31267084) Homepage Journal

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

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

  • Re:Down already (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @11:41PM (#31268246)

    "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.

  • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @01:00AM (#31268686) Homepage

    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:Already gone? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @07:41PM (#31279580)

    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.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...