Cryptome Log Subpoenaed 536
PaulBu writes "Stopped by on Cryptome tonight... It seems that their logs have been subpoenaed by Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Corruption, Fruad (sic) &
Computer Crime Division. Cryptome's answer was that "logs of
Cryptome are deleted daily, or more often during heavy traffic, to
protect the privacy of visitors to the site." (Good job!)
See here"
"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:4, Informative)
Most software can do that, if not just send the logs to
How about legal requirements to *keep* logs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Such a requirement would not be considered onerous, and if the logs were gone, the Feds could haul you in for that.
Xix.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:2)
Yes, it is very be possible to do that:
cd [log directory]
rm *.log
Would probably be more complicated than that in many systems, but not too much more.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:2)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:5, Interesting)
Logs are useful. I'd also think like with a site like that, they may get some DoS attempts and the like, so it is useful to see where things are coming from.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:5, Interesting)
As already noted by another poster, this is inpertitent to the matter at hand, but raises an interesting question:
If you have a cron job that just happens to delete your logs, say, every 7 days, and you don't do any backups of said logs, and you receive a subpoena, oh, 20 minutes or so before that cron job is scheduled to run...exactly how fast are you obligated to walk over to the machine room to turn that thing off? How liable are you legally for taking your coffee break around then? What is the burden of proof on the prosecutor in such a case?
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:5, Informative)
It's also worth noting that, in some cases, you are obligated to retain documents even though no subpoena has been served: if you have reason to believe that a subpoena will be served on you, destroying related documents may be grounds for an obstruction of justice charge. See, for example, U.S. v. Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir., 1988).
The burden of proof would, in such a case, be satisfied by showing that the subpoena was served before the deletion took place. After that, the burden is on you and your organization to show that the deletion was impossible to stop -- and, no, a coffee break is not an affirmative defense. ;)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as I received the subpoena I took it to my lawyer to decipher the legalese and determine what action was necessary.
Soo.. when a subpoena is served, do they read it to you, and are you obligated to understand it?
In my opinion, if your intent is to protect the privacy of your users, then logging should be turned off in the first place.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but I believe intent probably matters here. If you're honestly trying your best to prevent the expected destruction of the evidence, and you fail to do so, I doubt you'd be held responsible for it. On the other hand, if the evidence is destroyed because you took a coffee break for 20 minutes after receiving the subpoena, and it was destroyed during that time, then you'd probably be in trouble. (You might even be in trouble if it wasn't possible to prevent the destruction -- not making the effort could be damning in itself.)
In the case of computer logs, if you know that the logs in question are about to be deleted by a cron job, you should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent that deletion from occurring. If you try and fail, maybe they'd still crucify you, but I rather doubt it. If you "try" but they can prove you had some passive-aggressive delays that were unnecessary, you might well be in trouble.
I don't think consulting a lawyer about the subpoena would be a defense either -- you should prevent the destruction of evidence first, then consult your lawyer about whether or not to turn over that evidence. If the delay from such a consultation results in the (foreseeable) destruction of evidence, you probably have no defense at all, if you could have prevented that destruction by acting in a timely fashion.
I think the key is knowledge of the subpoena -- if you have knowledge of it, you should act to preserve the evidence. If it is deleted through no fault of your own, and you could not have prevented that deletion after receiving the subpoena, then you're probably in the clear. In the Crematorium example, everyone would probably be in the clear. But suppose instead that the furnace guy knew of the subpoena? Then you may be in the clear for trying to preserve the evidence but the furnace guy may be in trouble for not answering the phone, hiding on a break, etc.
I believe it comes down to knowledge (of the subpoena), intent (to destroy evidence or not prevent its destruction) and ability (if it's possible to prevent the destruction). It would turn on the specific facts of the situation.
But again, I'm not a lawyer, so this certainly isn't legal advice!
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, you may actually want logs for some small period of time. Most site admins like to know how popular their site is, and logs are one way of doing it. Especially since logs show how many lurkers you have, and not just active posters. Another reason to keep some minimal logging going on is if you get DOS'd, since then you might have a fighting chance of getting things fixed before the attack ends.
It sounds like they have a watcher program that deletes the logs when they get too large... which makes the logs useless for the latter purpose. But you can still use them for the first purpose, which is probably all they really want in the first place.
Alternately they could just be deleting them by hand, but I doubt they're that stupid. If that was true it quickly becomes a case of illegally blocking a police investigation, ignoring a warrant, and possibly contempt of court. IANAL.
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"or more often during heavy traffic" (Score:5, Funny)
At present, the answer would be NO.
In the future, with advances in technology, it may become possible to do this.
There is hope. According to Moore's law, cpu power doubles every 18 months. Software becomes more sophisticated by the day. New languages tend to have higher and higher levels of abstraction away from the hardware. It should become possible in the forseeable future.
Check back next year. You might be pleasantly surprised at how much innovation Microsoft will have accomplished by then. You might even find such tools as cron and bash.
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Previous slashdot story (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't that how the UK does it? (Score:2)
No, it's not (Score:3, Informative)
The government would like to do that, and have tried to get the ability into law for some time. Such powers as they have come from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and its brethren. However, in spite of widespread worry when that particular Act was passed, nothing much has come of it, mostly because the ISPs turned around en masse and told the government where to go and just how practical it was(n't) to keep all the records they were supposed to have on the terms they were supposed to have them.
We do have problems with Internet-related law in this country, with ISPs being in danger of having no tenable legal position one way or another, but fortunately, thus far the sort of harm we're talking about here has yet to materialise.
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Why bother? Pass legislation that requires ISPs log all traffic instead. They're more likely to comply with such a law (and unlike most laws, such as the anti-spamming and anti-telemarketing laws, this is a law where the Government does want compliance!) than end users.
Better yet - why burden the ISP with the added expenses (and bad PR!) of logkeeping at all? This solution would require no new laws; it'd merely have HomeSec allocate a portion of its budget to install a packet sniffer with a hella-fast RAID array at the chokepoints - and log the URLs (and SMTP headers, and USENET headers, and P2P requests, and Freenet requests) themselves.
China's doing it all wrong - the way to deal with threats to internal security isn't to block citizens' access to information, it's to allow access to information - and log the hell out of it! I mean, knowing that Xin Sixpack typed "Falun Gong" at google.com and got blocked when he tried to visit the front page of some website isn't nearly as useful as letting him go to the site, and then watching every click he makes, to find out what (specifically) he's interested in.
Looks like their logs are gonna be ... (Score:4, Funny)
(Agent-Referer: slashdot.org, etc)
Cool! Hi Attorney General, Sir! I'm a good little consumer!
Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I support the government's position on this: "It's secret - national security, you know. Nothing to see here, move along."
I'm glad that Cryptome deletes log files. Though most here probably support Cryptome's stance, I doubt that today's slashdotting is going to be welcome.
Re:Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:2)
Re:Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
He can tell the Attourney general of MA to pound sand. However, if a warrent for his arrest is issued in MA, then he can be arrested if he comes here and is caught (which never happens)
Or... if he is ever arrested for any reason in NY, then even after being bailed out, the NY police will alert MA (since states share info on who they have warrent for) and the NY police will hold him for the MA police to come pick him up (I think for up to 90 days)
This happened to a friend of mine about 2 years ago. He had a warrent for his arrest in Waltham, MA (missed a court date) and lived in RI. RI police picked him up for something unrelated (long story). After a month he was bailed out, but wasn't released. After being bailed out, the RI police informed him that they were holding him for up to 90 days because MA has a warrent out for his arrest and they are holding him for the MA police to come pick him up.
(amusingly he missed his court date and had a warrent issued for his arrest because he was in a RI holding cell and thus couldn't come up to MA for his hearing).
In short, yea he can tell the AG to pound sand, he can even come into MA with little to no fear of ever being caught (police here have better things to do than pull people over, and we don't play that dangerous game of letting the cities patrol the highways so they have more incentive to pull people over than keep traffic moving safely). But... he better be sure not to get arrested anywhere else in the US.
-Steve
Re:Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:3, Informative)
Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order will be published here or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored.
It'll be intresting to see what happens.
Re:Good move, hope they don't get in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
we dont log the ip's (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:we dont log the ip's (Score:3, Interesting)
A good way to do this (which the above guys might be using) is to translucently log critical information, much like the techniques in the Translucent Databases book. In this case, information like the client IP address can be md5 hashed before being logged. In this way, if you need to investigate a particular IP address because of a court order or an attack, you can md5 the neccesary address and know what to search for. And if you're just analyzing patterns in your logfiles, the md5's will still uniquely identify client IPs so that you can see the real flow of events. You can also store the logs a while and not have privacy concerns. The md5'd addresses prevent the logs from being used as a wholesale database of private information, since you'd have to reverse md5 (computationally infeasible) seperately for every customer IP to get the original data back.
Of course I'll play devil's advocate to myself here. There's only 2^32 IP addresses (less than that because of private space and whatnot, but it's good to overestimate anyways), and each takes 4 bytes to store. If you stored the full md5 hashes with offsets as IPs, you'd be looking at a 64GB fool-proof solution. 64G of disk space in a database is not a hefty requirement by any means. Pre-computing 4 billion md5 hashes of 4 byte strings and writing them all to disk would take some time, but not an excessive amount. If I had the free space at home I could probably build this pre-cache of IP md5's in a few weeks tops. So the government could definitely do it.
A potential stop to this sort of precaching would be to mix in more data before hashing. For instance, store the current datestamp down to 1-hour resolution into the hash as well as the IP. You'll then need to know the horu you're looking for to index a specific IP address, and they'd have to do all the same computation and storage once per hour forever to keep the ability to index your hashes back to IPs. While you're at it, each site could also through their own primary IP address into the hash, so that several sites using this same scheme would have to be indexed seperately by the government. Toss in a random tidbit that nobody knows, like the programmer's dog's name or something, and you're set.
Re:we dont log the ip's (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If you are logging referrers or other information, that can be used to track down some people. For instance, what about people clicking on links in their webmail? Some of those webmail urls contain a lot of information, and all you'd have to do is subpoena the webmail provider to get the ip/personal information of those people.
Logs subpoenaed? (Score:5, Funny)
"We have a summons for your log file."
"Uh, would you like us to send an admin to court with the log files?"
"No, just tell the log file to show up in court on the date indicated on the summons."
Instead of deleting whole log files.... (Score:3, Redundant)
Then you still have proper log files so you can create reports on traffic, bandwidth, and all the other goodies logs are intended for.
They still have to produce logs (Score:2)
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
http://130.236.229.26/cryptome-log.htm
Simple Fake Email (Score:5, Informative)
Law enforcement is always weeks behind (Score:5, Interesting)
When I used to work at an ISP, whenever we were summonsed for log files they'd always be for records that were weeks or months old. Most of them were from the "CyberSmuggling" division of US Customs.
Right now I maintain a high traffic site that doesn't store more than 4 days worth of logs on each web server (each day is about 2GB). One time they subpeona'd us for logs that were literally 3 months old. Hah.
Re:Law enforcement is always weeks behind (Score:2, Insightful)
You do perform daily backups? No?
Re:Law enforcement is always weeks behind (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what they're after... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the page was taken down / slashdotted, I guess. Google to the rescue! [216.239.57.100]
Huh!? (Score:4, Funny)
vi /var/log/httpd/smokinggun.log[ENTER]
256iwww.ago.state.ma.us[ENTER]
[ESC]
[SHIFT+z]z[SHIFT+z]
Ahh, Sir! Here I've got it, see? '/var/log/httpd/smokinggun.log'!
Eh, ahum...
Re:Shouldn't be a valid search warrant (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, the document in question is NOT a search warrant, it is a subpoena, which lacks MANY of the protections built into a searchwarrant. In fact, in many jurisdictions, the issuance of a subpoena does not require ANY judicial action or even a sworn statement that supports a finding of probable cause that the material sought is even relevant evidence of the crime under investigation.
In short, this IS a fishing expedition and cryptome SHOULD obtain Massachussetts counsel to put in a "special appearance" to contest the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury over itself and to prosecute a motion to quash the subpoena for lack of 1) personal jurisdiction, and 2) relevance of the logs to the investigation.
Send them the logs one line at a time... (Score:4, Funny)
this could take a while
DON'T SLASHDOT CRYPTOME (Score:5, Insightful)
so don't lay waste to his site if you don't have an interest. it's coming straight out of his wallet.
Re:DON'T SLASHDOT CRYPTOME (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DON'T SLASHDOT CRYPTOME (Score:4, Insightful)
Then quit reading comments if you're so sick of it.
Wait was that an obvious answer? Of course it was. The statement is quite true because there are many people who host websites out of their own pocket by a personal server. Here's the problem though. Slashdot and similar sites with high traffic link to the page in order to keep their visitors interested and to sell ads. Why is it okay for Slashdot to make money on someone elses misfortune, but stealing oil from a middle eastern country isn't? Slashdot makes money from people who come to their site (they show their access logs to companies and say "look at how many people come to out site, your ads will be seen billions of times", don't believe me, look at the top of this page) and there are many web hosters that provide a monthly allotment that then charge for bandwidth after that limit is reached or will simply disable the site.
So because slashdot wanted to make more money someone who has a personal webpage has to suffer. The argument of "don't want to pay for it, don't put it on the web" is moot. I've had a personal webpage hosted on a personal server for nearly 6 years and I know damn well that my site is not high traffic. So why should I expect at all to ever have a million billion hits in a 5 day period? I shouldn't unless someone from slashdot wants to make sure they look original and want to bash the hell out of my server when I know damn well that google has a cache of mysite. Google being a server that is used to high traffic already and has their own way of recouping the costs.
How are the personal websites supposed to recoup the costs? HOW? So why don't we just start robbing banks for slashdot, if the banks didn't want to be robbed they wouldn't have unlocked their front doors for business. Or how about anyone who owns a business, since they let ANYONE in their store it should be their fault if someone comes in and breaks everything, right?
You know what I'm sick of? Morons like you who think it's cool to be a heartless asshole.
No problem Sir! (Score:3, Funny)
Perspective needed (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as these are all of the facts, then everything is as it should be, and this avenue of investigation has unfortunately (for those being extorted) been a dead end.
If there is an attempted reprisal against Cryptome, that's bad.
If the request against Cryptome was generated as a result of some Carnivore-style sniffing, that's bad.
If incidents like this mandate some sort of necessary electronic records retention, that *may be* (but may not be) bad.
I don't think anyone truly proposes that the Internet be utterly lawless. The very real fear is that extensive silent monitoring is possible, and an electronic police state could be built under our noses. Some guidance and provisions need to be made to help catch people who do criminal things over the Internet. Some crimes may be entirely virtual, with no physical evidence at all, only bad effects on innocent people. It's right to fear the slippery slope, but AFAIK only the NRA has the sheer clout to veto virtually any legislation. I'm sure we don't.
IMHO it's better to participate and make sure proper safeguards are built-in rather than to fight a retreating veto battle.
Re:Perspective needed (Score:3, Insightful)
The big problem is that they want ALL of Cryptome's logs relating to a specific page. This is grabbing logs of the activity of many people, not just one person.
It's like saying "I'd like a wiretap on everybody who lives in South Minneapolis because I think some of them are drug dealers.". That just doesn't fly.
If they narrowed down their request to one or two class C IP blocks, that would be a lot better and less worrisome, though it still has the same problem, just on a smaller scale. Then you're just tapping the phone of everybody on a particular street because you think one of them is a drug dealer.
If they were available... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) if I have a client request a restore of backed-up data, I bill them T&M for the procedure (especially if tapes have to be retrieved from off-site storage). Does the government ever pay for such a service?
2) If I'm subpoenaed, to what effort do I have to go to make the data usable to the prosecutor? Can I hand over a DLT? Can I print out the log files and hand over multiple reams of paper? Can I provide them the data on media without an obligation to provide them hardware to read that media (say, a really old syquest)?
This subpoena says "bring with him/her all logs recording the I.P. addresses and/or users who visited" but makes no mention of an obligation to provide them in the format most usable to the AG.
And a third thought, I'm curious as to how a Facsimile was delivered to a voice number :-)
Clues (Score:4, Interesting)
2. What is Cryptome doing on Verio anyway? It's a filthy spammer host.
Re:Clues (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing that any client is doing on Verio -- not getting thrown off.
John hosts a lot of data which is unpopular to lot of people. An ISP which was any less reluctant to dispose of a paying customer would have tossed John some time ago.
Cryptome logs (Score:5, Informative)
John Young has posted quite a lot of information about his log policy before....It's pretty widely known that he deletes them very regularly to prevent this kind of thing.
People have asked why logs aren't just sent to /dev/null - that's because John does scan the logs for "interesting" visitors - see e.g. his previous stories about catching various US departments and agencies (FBI, Whitehouse) looking at his site.
The site is currently down I wonder if it has been slashdotted, or.......
I'm no lawyer, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This subpoena was issued from Massachusetts for an agency in New York. Not far, but far enough.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh forget it.
This has -got- to be a troll.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
"That's the price you pay for living in a "free" society. Deal with it...the founding fathers did."
<div class="sarcasm">
Yeah, because the founding fathers never would have done anything under, say, a pseudonym.
</div>
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Flamebait)
I bet you support the 'Fatherland' security act as well.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Its not a leap of faith to look at how our government is increasingly trying to invade and monitor its citizens' privacy and think back to how the Russian government and KGB operated in its prime.
We should be monitoring our government. Not the other way around.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
And the US, feeling that "Parentland" was too unweildy, but still wanting to be politically correct...
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fundamental problem with freedom. If you want freedom, your neighbor has to expect that same freedom, even if he is a bigger criminal than you.
Of course, everyone is a felon. Most people just haven't pissed off the correct person yet.
Who are the criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Who exactly are the criminals they are protecting here? people like me who read the site? Did someone pass a law while I was sleeping: "Thou Shalt Not Read Cryptome"?
This kind of behavior should definitely be considered a "chilling effect". The
Re:Who are the criminals (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. But they certainly did pass a law saying "Thou shalt not commit wire fraud". That's what they're looking for (some guy who is passing himself off as a security specialist and is just stealing people's data), and they think the suspect might have visited one page on cryptome. They only want the logs for that page - they don't give a shit about the rest of the site. Why don't you go read one of the mirrors (or one of the many comments paraphrasing the mirrors) before crying "Big Brother"?
Also, when posting something controversial like this, with headlines that can easily be misinterpreted, the editors should really go make copies of the pages (it's just text - that doesn't require bandwidth) and have them available for viewing so people don't jump to conclusions. Of course, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
Asking for student records: old news (Score:2)
You mean like this? [immigrationlinks.com]
It's already happening.
Re:Who are the criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
Using your own convenience store analogy, imagine that, as part of your police department's procedures for tracking down rapists, they regularly subpoenaed the video tapes of convenience stores in the area, looking for precisely the dirty magazine browsing you describe. Knowing this, people will be even more nervous about flipping through them.
But you might not think of porn browsing as an inalienable right, so a different example may be needed.
Imagine now that your local library is required to keep track of which patrons check out which books. Upon request, any and all police agencies can check out a suspect's reading history for the last five years, to see if they match some "profile."
Would that make you the least bit leery of checking out books on obscure or politically charged issues? If so, congratulations. Your chill has now been put into effect.
Re:that's what Enron should have done (Score:5, Insightful)
and what companies will be doing with all their records to covere up illegal and unethical business practices. Great job
But then you say:
I think there is a big difference between arbitrary searches and those for an actual case in which a warrent is issued (regardless of this particular case). I certainly hope that everyone here is not thinking that the courts should NEVER be able to gain access to logs
Seems that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. You say "regardless of this particular case", but what if this particular case is valid (don't know since the site is
btw, the issue with companies like Enron are much more complex since many of their incriminating documents, whether paper or virtual MUST be kept around for accounting/legal reasons. The auditors are "supposed" to be making sure this is happening and a company shouldn't pass audit if it is not. This is why there is so much last second destroying of documents, can't do it as you go (unless you've absolutely bought off your auditors) since this will immediately cause trouble.
Re:that's what Enron should have done (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. We're hell bent on keeping our hard-won freedom and not turning into our enemy.
You cannot have both ~100% safety and freedom at the same time.
One problem... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
We, as true Americans, aren't obligated to collect and archive every little drop of information about ourselves, our neighbors, and our customers on the off chance that it may someday be useful to law enforcement in solving or preventing a crime. Especially when you consider that the potential for abuse of randomly-collected information is much higher than the potential for its utility.
As has been said elsewhere, if they deleted the logs regularly (i.e., not in response to a subpoena), it would be hard to pin "obstruction of justice" on them. Naturally, IANAL and all that. But that would be like pinning an obstruction charge on a janitor for sweeping the hallways like she does every night because this time some evidence was swept up.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this sarcastic? (Score:2)
I hope it's sarcastic. If it's not sarcastic, you're failing to consider a lot of important issues that this country was founded upon.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Logs typically get compressed nightly, and deleted frequently.
I've maintained sites that literally filled GBs of disk with log data. And it gets much more expensive (CPU cost) to process huge files. Typically, you end up picking some time frame which you compress the files at, and maintain a regular deletion cycle.
Of course you would also create reports for management and marketing, but those reports contain very few specific details like IPs, and lots of details about counts per page/directory/product item.
You really can't maintain an interesting site without frequent log deletion. I'm surprised they took the "protect the privacy of our users" route- it would be a Bad Thing [TM] to have someone get a court ruling made that websites must save all logs for a period of 5 years or something equally insane.
Anyone worth their salt who is doing anything bad is using a proxy anyway.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Interesting)
What if the logs were to enforce the dmca (dcma, whatever)? What if it was used to help track down a person who was stalking someone else? What if it was used to track down a terrorist?
What about a law that bans all guns? One place did it and gun usage went up. Old addage of banning one thing makes all users outlaws or something.
Point is, Preventing one crime can cause another.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:2)
Didn't Ben Franklin say something about giving up essential liberties? Like privacy?
If "the terrorists" are able to take our freedom and privacy from us they have already won. They just haven't buried us yet.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Insightful)
True americans value their freedom. A police state is not free.
BTW 9/11 was not the result of a lack of information problem. They had all the information they needed to stop it. 9/11 was the direct result of a failure by the FBI use properly use the information they already had. Do a little research on what we knew and when. You'll learn that we had all the info we needed to catch these guys.
The current wave of laws and privacy invasions, have just about nothing to do with preventing terrorism. They are thinly veiled ways of using the fears of unwitting Americans (like you) to give up their freedoms, so they have more power and you have less.
Try not to be such a dolt. How exactly are your server logs going to prevent another 9/11? You're going to have to stretch your imagination pretty far to come up with a way your server logs could have stopped 9/11. Now ask yourself: What other things could these server logs be used for? In the case of a site like cryptome.org, you can think of a lot of shady things the gov't could do once it gets its hands one them, most of them a lot more plausible than stopping another 9/11.
You are an embarassment to true americans. Do you think Columbus, the pilgrims, the pioneers, etc. were as terrified as you? No, they wanted freedom and were willing to risk a little safety to have it.
A supreme court judge once said that the safest societies in the world are totalitarian dictatorships.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not it wasn't. 9/11 was a direct result of US foreign policy, most of which the US population is completely obvious to. They don't teach it in school, and there aren't any movies about it, so you can all be forgiven for this lack of knowledge. More so now that Bush has flat out lied to you and said the old classic "they hate freedom and democracy".
The USA (amoung other countries) has started, aided and funded coups and wars that resulted in democratically elected governments being replaced with ruthless dictators. Who do you think got Saddam into power? Then sold him masses of tanks and the equipment to build weapons of mass distruction (the idea being he'd be attacking the Iranians)? Who is aiding Israel in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinions from their own homes? Who put the vicious Saudi government in power, and is defending them right now with your tanks, troops and finances? This is what the terrorists don't like, and they have said this many times.
If you want to stop terrorists attacking you, first learn what is being done in your name around the world, then let your politicions know that you aren't happy with them killing children to secure better access to oil, for the benefit of their corporate "sponsors". It's a much cleaner solution that asking for log file retention.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the government here will under no circumstances take responsibility for the present situation. Right after the attack I was scoffed at for suggesting that this just might have been our fault, and that chasing terrorists was just treating the syptoms and not the cause. In all the media hoopla since then, not ONCE have I see US foriegn policies questioned. Not once.
If you stick your nose in other people's business long enough, it will get bloodied. Ours got broken, but we still haven't learned our lesson...
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting off topic here; my original post was to point out the fact that we are attacking the symptoms of a larger problem. Oh well, in for a penny...
9/11 was a direct result of religious whackos hi-jacking planes on suicide missions. Blaming the US is like blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts
Excuse me? Haven't you asked yourself by these terrorists hate America pretty much exclusively? Not Canada, Austrailia, pretty much all of Europe, who all have similar ideals and economic and political to the USA. Why is that? It certainally doesn't tie in with the "freedom and democracy hating" nonsence we are being fed.
All the US wants is for other countries to be free so they'd buy more goods and services
Bin Laden has gone on record stating that his aim is to remove the US troops from Saudi Arabia. The troops there are backing up a dictatorship government, hated by most of the people. Where does this fit in with your "US wants other countries to be free"? Why have they done the opposite in more places than they have created freedom? I understand that you may actually believe that, given that you probably haven't read much history. You really should try to get out of that self-delusional world though. We aren't the good guys are represented in the movies. Sure, if you spend your whole life watching them, growing up with images of our troops liberating people and Bruce Willis saving the world, but the historical facts do not match that image. Remember, the Nazi's used films of the same type with the same purpose.
As for the terrorists, they have no other recourse, if they complain about their country they disappear, get tortured then are never seen again. They want the freedom we take for granted. Unfortunatly, they have gone down the route of terrorism to attempt to achieve that goal.
The Saudi dictatorship was put in place by a military coup supported by the USA. The democratic government was ousted to make way for one that was more willing to work with the US. Note that the Saudi women are treated exactly the same as the Taliban treated them, yet you don't see a call for a war in Saudi Arabia. However, Afganistan is now being controlled by people who used to work with George Bush in a private company, but yeah!, we went there to free the women, right!?! The recent Afgan war was to remove the Taliban because they weren't giving the US concessions on anything, such as the construction of a pipeline to a neighbouring country with vast oil reserves. The Taliban were friendly with the US for a very long time, the top officials were over in Texas and Washington on many occassions. It is only when the contract to build this pipeline went to Argentina instead, that the Taliban suddenly became "evil" in the public eye. The war in Afganistan had been hinted at prior to 9/11, and using that tragedy as propaganda to have this war is downright disgraceful and an insult to the thousands of innocents who lost their lives that day.
Other examples of immoral acts...how about creating Saddam Hussain? Again, a perfectly valid government was dispossed with US assistance to put him in power. The idea was that he would fight Iran, who were not very friendly to the US. He was supplied with weapons, vast amounts of credit and the equipment to make weapons of mass destruction. Again, the idea was that he would attack Iran. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, they asked the US Ambasidor what their opinion was on the matter, to which they were told that "the US has no opinion on that".
I suggest you learn some world history before engaging in these discussions. History is not what happens in movies, nor is the education received in school of much use. You ain't gonna get this stuff from your leaders either, and more worryingly, the media seem to be "ignoring" it.
This is what pisses me off most about the west, but more so the USA. We claim to be bastions of "freedom", "truth", "democracy", but we live in a place where the goverment can look at your web/e-mail usage (remember Nixon? How could you forget that lesson so soon?), politicions openly lie about the causes of these terrorists (so much for "truth") and where the leadership of a country is controlled by how good their advertising campaign was, funded by private individuals who's interests become a part of national policy.
I put it to you that west as we see it is merely an illusion. We are just as regressive as many of these "evil" countries, and the population is led around using hate and fear. Go watch Bowling for Columbine [imdb.com], although it does focus on the issue of firearms, it makes good points on the use of "fear" in the US (the UK is pretty much the same) as well as some US indiscressions that our leaders would rather you didn't know about.
I'm glad that there are people out there with the same thoughts as me, e.g. Michael Moore, the creator of the above film. The one great thing about our society is that myself and others have the freedom to discuss these issues, without fear of reprisal. Well, guess what...with all this new net monitoring trends, that freedom will soon be gone. Right now, this post will probably be getting modded as "interesting" by these spy systems. And I'll bet that in a few years, people will be afraid to speak their minds on these sort of subjects as it will become a permanent entry on their file, which will give them all sorts of problems getting visa as they may have "terrorist tendancies". Sounds a lot like the Soviet Russia system we were brought up to hate.
So, if you want to shoot me down and stick your head in the sand on this stuff, fine. Don't expect me to be happy about your apathy, and don't come asking for help when pretty much all the freedoms you used to enjoy are gone or you have lost a family member with all the violence going on.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Funny)
This is way off topic... but I'll bite:
9/11 was the result of an act of cowardice by religous kooks bent on trying to impose thier faith on the rest of the world. Fortunately, they will not get to fly an airplane again.
$G
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Long ago our founding fathers were forced to decide for those they led, which is more important life or freedom? The answer was sewn onto early flags and raised as a battle cry "Give me liberty or give me death" We must remember they were yelling that against a very powerful enemy who could indeed give either of those. However the combined spirit of all early americans (with a lot of unacknowledged help from natives) was able to fight off british rule. So, should I be willing to let the govt. read my logs, tap my phone etc...
Hell, no!
Re:And round we go, again (Score:4, Interesting)
Light/dark, good/evil: they are NOT opposite sides of the same coin, no matter what Superfriends or the Masters of the Universe taught you.
BADNESS isn't something in its own right that must "balance" goodness, as if "too much" goodness would be a bad(!) thing. QED.
You'd probably say that if everything in the world were red, there'd be no color in the world.
(I think IHBT)
Re:And round we go, again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And round we go, again (Score:3, Funny)
I therefore propose that we eliminate all evil. How? By eliminating good.
We can start by having the government establish a system whereby everyone is constantly monitored for any evil. People guilty of wrong-thinking should be sent to re-education camps. Failing that, they should be eliminated. By taking these measured, reasoned steps, we can eliminate crime and all other forms of evil.
Only good will remain. (Or will it? Would such a "good" society be worth living in?)
Re:When was the FIRST first post? (Score:2, Funny)
First Post (Score: 1)
by CmdrTaco
Hemos, come here, I need you
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because, sometimes we have to prevent even the smallest of our liberties from being taken away. Otherwise, we may miss them, or worse, have more taken away. Not saying that everyone who overreacts is bad, but sitting idly and not speculating is much much worse.
Do you trust the travelling salesman?
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But why does everyone immediately assume the gub'mint is trying to nail someone to a wall unjustly here?
Experience, knowledge of history, common sense, and a deep concern over the "I'm in charge, now bend over" mentality that many attornerys general seem to be adopting.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Government does NOT grant freedoms. The people have them by RIGHT. The people have granted (albeit altered by judicial fiat) the *government* limited, enumerated powers. That is all.
PEOPLE are NOT agents of the government and are therefore NOT REQUIRED TO TRACK OTHER PEOPLE. That is a police state, a la the Soviet Union et al.
Regarding this:
"You cant have the freedoms granted by the government (laughable as they may be at times) without also following whatever rules make those freedoms a reality.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Interesting)
People keep weblogs for a good reason, but that reason isn't to tattle on visitors. That weblogs can be used for that purpose is repugnant to many that keep such logs. This would then be perceived to be a corruption, by the government, of something that otherwise is relatively harmless.
Of course, in tune with your comment, there isn't currently (in the united states) any requirement that people maintain logs. However, those that do must legally provide them, should they be subpoena'd. That this is so is probably the point of contention, as it could be perceived as government snooping, especially since a site like cryptome is bound to have a wee bit of traffic that disagrees with the current administration's invasive tactics.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of 'chilling effects'? Do you have any idea just how noxious this idea is to freedom? One of our fundamental principles has always been that you are free to think and read anything you wish; that information (with a very, very few exceptions) should not be suppressed in this country. No matter how noxious the current government may find the spread of some ideas, some of them are undoubtedly going to be right. There is little that makes authority figures more uncomfortable than the truth.
And finally.... freedoms ARE NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. I hope you're not a US citizen... if you are, you should just pack up and move to China. Government can only grant privileges. You have rights, many of which are enumerated in the Constitution (but it was never meant to be an exhaustive list) that cannot be taken away by the government. Instead, we grant the government certain limited powers which it uses on our behalf for the greater good.
They work for US, we don't work for THEM. The fact that you could be mixed up on this issue is scary. The fact that you could be modded up to +5 is even more frightening. What the hell is going on in this country??
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Insightful)
ther is nothing wrong with what they did in the line of an investigation. the fact the needed a subpeana means that checks and balances are in place.
Tracking in and of itself is not a problem. the problem is how the government handles that data.
I got bad news for you, the Government will do this, you should be working to ensure proper controlls are put into place so the governmant can't abuse it.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is, at its heart, no difference between philosophy and politics.
A government which infringes on basic human rights loses its legitimacy. Ergo the founding of our republic. Need I refer you to the source material? [archives.gov]
You are saying that there is no arguing with whatever is written in whatever document is held to be the law of the land. However, our history tells us otherwise. Common sense, and a shared sense of basic principles overrides any governmental decree.
You may claim this means moral relativism, or leads to anarchy, but yet I am right, and it has not. Rather, it led to the founding of our country. The principles and mechanisms by which such basic priority operates are fluid and unreliable, but the world is not a CPU.
I'll repeat what Malor said, because it's absolutely correct, and understanding its meaning in the very core of your being is essential to your dignity as a human being. "[basic] freedoms ARE NOT GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT."
I'll reiterate my earlier point, because I can already hear the pedants clawing at their cages. This does not mean moral relativism. Just merely that we are never "bound" in any legal sense by a "government" which infringes on basic human rights which have been held, across most of earth's cultures, to be fundamental and universal. If you want to pretend there is no agreement on what a human right is, don't waste our time, or pretend it matters that there is no absolute agreement. Take a look at, for instance, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] if you're confused.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, approximately 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence and the 10th Amendment disagree with your position, so I guess it's *you* who need to go back to your high school civics class.
The Bill of Rights grants nothing to the People that they did not already have under "natural law" which was the leading theory in legal philosophy at the time. Does the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people" mean anything to you? How about "government by the consent of the governed"?
When it was written the framers of the The Bill of Rights couched it ENTIRELY in "reservation of rights" language with the intention of making it crystal clear that these rights were fundamental and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing them. This position is made even more clear by the 10th Amendment which explicitly reserves all rights and powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the States and to the People.
The intention of the framers of the US Constitution was to create a limited government that had only those powers necessary to fulfill its unique functions as a national government and "granting rights" to the people is NOT one of those functions.
If you read the history of the framing of the Bill of Rights, you will discover that there was MAJOR disagreement whether it was even necessary given the fact that the Constitution granted such limited powers to the federal government. However, after a number of the larger states, including Virginia and Massachussetts, made it clear that they would NOT ratify any Constitution that LACKED a Bill of Rights, the delegates to the convention agreed that something akin to the English Declaration of the Rights of Man would not hurt anything (more on this to follow, below).
The difference between the Bill of Rights (which RESERVES rights safe from government interference) and the English Declaration (which does, indeed, grant rights) is that in the US all political power arises from the People, while in England (at least in theory) all power flows from the Crown. This fact lead to the arrogant conduct of George III which led, in turn, to the revolution, and the colonists, having recently wrested liberty from the Crown by force of arms, were not kindly disposed to giving it back to another central government founded on the same principles, ergo a written Constitution was necessary to delineate the limits of government power.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:4, Insightful)
and if you are worried about government comming down on you for speaking out ...
don't speak out
sorry but that is ridiculous reasoning.
Jonathan
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The gub'mint (cute) did not take the pictures of the spam kings house. We as Americans have a right not to have the government spy on us (that is why the CIA works outside US only). People can spy on each other and it is a civil matter but the government is NOT to do it.
Re:Just a thought.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a ridiculous arguement. ALL information belongs in the public domain and is only 'leased' temporarily under copyright. If you believe otherwise you need to actually READ some copyright law and not just take Hillary Rosen's corruption of it at face value.
Information which is clasified under "National Security" is basically the same thing, but with different reasons. However, the governemnt is an agent of the people, and anyhting which 'belongs' to the government in reality belongs to the people INCLUDING ALL OF THE GOVERNMNENTS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION! One should always be extremely suspicious of anyone who tries to hide your own property from you. All too often classified information NEEDS to be brought into the public domain precisely because someone in the government doesn't want it to be.
A lot of the people here who are complaining about this are probably the same people who defend the guy who took pictures of the Spam King's house. You cannot have it both ways.
Absolutely I defend the guy who took pictures of the Spam Kings house. He did absolutely nothing wrong.
As for having it both ways; I really don't think it's OK to punch people in the face, but if you punch me in the face, your god damned right I'm going to punch you back, and no I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.
You cant have the freedoms granted by the government (laughable as they may be at times) without also following whatever rules make those freedoms a reality.
You have the relationship completely backwards. People have rights inherently, they are not granted by the government. The government has NO rights inherently, and is granted rights by the people that submit to its rule, namely the right to abridge CERTAIN of the peoples INHERENT rights in the interest of the common good.
Official mirror of cryptome.org (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nl.cryptome.org [cryptome.org]
and
http://www.at.cryptome.org [cryptome.org]
If you want to mirror the whole site:
ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/mirrors/cryptome.org [zedz.net]
Re:Damn, that was a good site (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly you have no experience with with the United States judicial system. After the state of Mass. has managed to sieze all of their servers so they can 'check' for the log files, and keep them for years, post this comment again.
Look out the window, man! Haven't you noticed the police state outside?
Re:Damn, that was a good site (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, but see, they *won't*. That's the whole frigging point. I'm sure you know that if your house is involved in a drug related crime, it will be siezed and sold by the government, right? Even if it's without your knowledge? Even if it's without your *consent*? There have been cases of 80 year old grandparents that have a visiting grandson sell a couple of joints to the wrong people. Those 80 year old people find themselves with no place to live in less than a week.
What's that? There's nothing wrong with the system?
Okay, did you know that in New York, if your blood alcohol is over the legal limit, your car will be siezed, and sold? How about: if you refuse a breath test, it will *still* be siezed and sold? Wait, it gets better! What if you refuse the test, and then take the blood test, and you weren't drunk *at all*? Whoops! Still sold!
Of course, right now, you can be arrested, held for an indefinite ammount of time, not charged, and not allowed to see a lawyer, so long as someone is accusing you of being a 'terrorist'.
Now, you seem to think there's nothing wrong with this particular instance. Okay, what is the website being accused of? I assume someone's being arrested and charged, right? Oh wait, what's that? They haven't? So, demanding to see the logs is okay? And even better, for you, siezing their computers is okay? Holy shit!
I am thinking logically. What's your problem?