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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Already gone? (Score:5, Informative)

    by tomalpha (746163) * on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:24PM (#31265658)

    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? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Eristone (146133) * <slashdot@casaichiban.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:27PM (#31265706) Homepage

      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.

    • by TJamieson (218336)

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

    • new mirror (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:34PM (#31265832) Homepage

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

      • by dave562 (969951)

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by X0563511 (793323)

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

      • by Foofoobar (318279)
        Yeah but everyone needs to make sure they get their copy so they can redistribute. Information needs to be free.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by yenne (1366903)

      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? (Score:4, Informative)

        by HeronBlademaster (1079477) <heron@xnapid.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:11PM (#31266248) Homepage

        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: (Score:2, Informative)

          by yenne (1366903)

          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 recei

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by cawpin (875453)

            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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:44PM (#31266580) Journal

        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 [icann.org] 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.

  • Looks like it's been taken offline already.

    • Re:Down already (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:32PM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zappepcs (820751)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MidnightBrewer (97195)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by khallow (566160)
          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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by flatrock (79357)

            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 lega

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jbengt (874751)
          How the hell does allowing copyright on a secret document help "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" ?
          • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by mrchaotica (681592) *

              "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 e

  • Ballsy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MonsterTrimble (1205334) <monstertrimbleNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:27PM (#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.
    • Re:Ballsy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:31PM (#31265788)

      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.

      • 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 m

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by AVee (557523)

          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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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.

  • MD5? Magnet link? Not that I would seek it out or anything.
  • Wikileaks mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:32PM (#31265794) Homepage

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

  • by chill (34294) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:32PM (#31265800) Journal

    http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/ [siteprotect.net]

    $25 will get you 2 DVDs with 54,000+ articles, spanning June 1996 to February 2010, mailed anywhere in the world.

  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:35PM (#31265850) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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.
    • 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.

      • by Nethead (1563)

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

    • by steelfood (895457)

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

    • by russotto (537200)

      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 materia

  • Confirmed. (Score:4, Funny)

    by headkase (533448) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:37PM (#31265866)
    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.
  • by BlueBoxSW.com (745855) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:43PM (#31265940) Homepage

    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?

    • by urulokion (597607) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:15PM (#31266302)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wesley Felter (138342)

        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 [networksolutions.com]

        • by grcumb (781340)

          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 [networksolutions.com]

          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.

        • by acoustix (123925)

          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 [networksolutions.com]

          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.

  • Wikileaks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:43PM (#31265942) Homepage

    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.

  • by dangitman (862676) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:45PM (#31265950)

    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by copponex (13876)

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

    • by Chelloveck (14643)

      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...

  • by Homburg (213427) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:46PM (#31265952) Homepage

    Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.

    Hosting 140 characters at a time?

  • 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.
  • by SOdhner (1619761) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:55PM (#31266058) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:11PM (#31266242) Journal

      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: (Score:2, Informative)

        by DerekLyons (302214)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by slashqwerty (1099091)

          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 [copyright.gov]:

          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 fo
      • by Bartab (233395)

        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.

    • by qubezz (520511) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @08:06PM (#31267264)

      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.

      • by qubezz (520511)

        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 a

    • by c (8461)

      > 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.

  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @05:57PM (#31266088) Homepage Journal

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

  • by 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

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      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.

  • by internic (453511) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:09PM (#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 2short (466733) on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:54PM (#31266666)

      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.
      • 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".

      • by mdmkolbe (944892)

        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by internic (453511)

          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 [cornell.edu] 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 pe

  • 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 domai
  • 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?

  • by slimjim8094 (941042) <slashdot3NO@SPAMjustconnected.net> on Wednesday February 24, 2010 @06:33PM (#31266482)

    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

  • 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, qui

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    I would NEVER think of violating MS' copyright.

    That would be wrong.

  • Slashdot is funny (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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?

  • ... 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.

  • 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.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...