"Lawful Spying" Price Lists Leaked 245
ogaraf writes "Wired has a story about how the site Cryptome.org leaked the price lists for 'lawful spying' activities of Yahoo and other companies, and subsequently received a DMCA takedown notice from Yahoo. The documents, however, are still posted online, and in them you can learn, for instance, that IP logs last for one year, but the original IPs used to create accounts have been kept since 1999. The contents of your Yahoo account are bought for $30 to $40 by law enforcement agencies."
Re:You've got to be kidding me (Score:1, Interesting)
Just like "releasing the photos will inflame the enemy and put our people in danger". The truth is a dangerous weapon and should only be handled by professionals.
Takedown demand contradiction? (Score:2, Interesting)
How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?
"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time."
Re:You've got to be kidding me (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you actually read the document (especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders)?
I'm not clear who you're accusing of not reading. Because there's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.
Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversight Part of the issue here is they're selling this data to law enforcement in the absence of any warrant or court orders narrow or otherwise. Collecting data on people without a warrant is spying and these companies are making money off of it.
Re:Why are people boycotting yahoo? (Score:3, Interesting)
A copyright notice is optional ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If a copyright notice is optional, then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted. It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked, and has only been corrected after the fact. If they did copyright it prior to dissemination, then there has to be at least something to show this.
Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming, if Cryptome's copy of the letter is accurate, that the document is in fact copyrighted. So how is it that he knows this to be the case? Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted? Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted? He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof, or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted, in order to be convincing. Otherwise, he is not very convincing at all.
The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted. How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof. WHERE'S THE PROOF?
Cost reimbursement: it's the law (Score:3, Interesting)
The law is available here [cornell.edu]. It's a requirement for law enforcement requesting information, not the organizations providing it (except that the amount is "mutually agreed by the governmental entity and the person or entity providing the information").
So, the guide is a means for law enforcement to interact with Yahoo (and the law) in a standard, easier way. Does it make it more likely that investigators would ask Yahoo for documents if Yahoo makes it easy, as opposed to cooperating as little as possible? Probably. But Yahoo has no reason not to cooperate.
Re:Tempest in a tea cup (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be evil (Score:2, Interesting)
While watching a presentation by a Google engineering exec a few months ago, I got the impression that selling information about Google users was at the core of Google's strategic vision. Maybe I was extrapolating too far from limited data. I'm cautiously favorable about Google as a company, and "don't be evil" is just the mindset that's needed for a company that has that much power. But nearly every institution, cultlike, has the denial of its worst evil built into its expressed ideology. Microsoft is all about innovation, authoritarian governments all call themselves "democratic republics", etc. Google seems to have the potential to go either way.
Yes I realize that the main discussion is about Yahoo, but I think Google is more important, since they're a better company.
Re:Get what you pay for (Score:3, Interesting)
Just what is privacy?
Re:Tempest in a tea cup (Score:5, Interesting)
The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".
I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lead. Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process.
Nice one (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears to be an intractable, maybe fatal flaw in our system.
That's because you see it as a system, rather than choice, what we choose to do, what we collectively decide society should be. All power is lost at that moment we accept that as truth, and people become passive victims of the sharks that know how to exploit any system.
It's not sustainable for the longer term though. Either your country goes bankrupt, or faces similar fates in the hand of the criminal lyers that have held you in chains for so long, and you again realize you can choose. Or you decide to start believing in change and support those who have integrity and wish the best for the nation (ie. a true president with the best intentions, rather than just corporate and religious-fundamental interests).
Well put post btw. But things are not that hopeless as you put it!
Re:Tempest in a tea cup (Score:3, Interesting)
The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".
It seems really easy to sidestep this. Take the NSL to a judge, or use it as evidence to sue. If they come after you for revealing the existence of an NSL there is your proof that it has impacted you and you have standing. If the courts rule that states secrets are justified, and that your action was indeed illegal then you are basically in trouble -- you have admitted blatantly violating the law and will probably be imprisoned. But if you should win and you can have it ruled the law was unconstitutional then the law you violated has no power anyway (the constitution in the US granting the government limited powers). So challenging it is risky, and would take someone with very strong principles (and a strong stomach) to see it through, but it is not the Catch-22 you make it out to be.