Cryptome in Hot Water Again 241
garg0yle writes to tell us that Cryptome appears to have stepped in it again with a recent leaked document concerning Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook." "Microsoft has demanded that Cryptome take down the guide — on the grounds that it constitutes a 'copyrighted [work] published by Microsoft.' Yesterday, at 5pm, Cryptome editor John Young received a notice from his site’s host, Network Solutions, bearing a stiff ultimatum: citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Network Solutions told him that unless he takes the 'copyrighted material' down, they will 'disable [his] website' on Thursday, February 25, 2010. So far, Young refuses to budge." In a gesture of goodwill, Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.
Already gone? (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like DNS has already gone...
Re:Already gone? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Already gone? (Score:5, Informative)
The document is already available via wikileaks [wikileaks.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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)
A mirror of the site is now up [siteprotect.net], with partial content available and the rest being transferred.
Re: (Score:2)
The mirror site doesn't have a working link to the document referenced in TFA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably what the "and the rest being transferred" part is about...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Down already (Score:2)
Looks like it's been taken offline already.
Re:Down already (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
I think a more practical solution is to demand a written statement of "what is going in the products" you buy. Burying a back-door in an unknown place in the source code isn't a disclosure even if you are given the source.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and how Franklin also invented the public library, for that matter!
Ballsy (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, what we need here is a torrent feed with all the latest stuff.
Re:Ballsy (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, what we need here is a torrent feed with all the latest stuff.
The thing is, you still need a reliable person to go through it. That is what WikiLeaks was doing before they started begging for money for the past 3 months. There is still always the weak link, and that is the humans need to verify the leaks. Torrents may solve the distribution problem, but lacks absolute security and anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
both wikileaks and cryptome should periodically make torrents of all their contents and release them to the world. That is a good idea.
Mirror of the offending document? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"http://file.wikileaks.org/files/" + "microsoft-spy.pdf"
Just, you know, in case?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The mirror-site cryptome put up is http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/ [siteprotect.net] ..."
However, they took the offending document down and wrote "for the MS Spy Guide send email to
Wikileaks mirror (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you think I put the word in quotes? :-P
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
i read this material... what is so offensive about it?
Probably offensive to some, but funny to me is the fact that this guide for law enforcement is still chock full of marketing language, it reads somewhat like a sales pitch. They describe what all their services are in language only a parent or company describing it's own products would use, and they're using it in a document meant as a guide to law enforcement. Their description of Xbox live for example notes that it is the "premier" online gaming service for the Xbox and Xbox 360.
I can imagine a conversa
Mirror and Donation Link Here (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And get put on a watched list...
The smaller they are the easier they fall (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what this says about the degree of power different entities have when they choose to resist DMCA requests. Would Google's upstream provider(s) ever dare to take Google offline should Google decide not to comply with a particular DMCA request like Cryptome's provider has done? I suspect not. There must be an advantage to being a big player on the Internet, and a clear disadvantage under the DMCA to being as small as Cryptome. It's easier to be bullied when you're Cryptome, which somehow makes the DMCA seem even worse than I once thought it was.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google (ASN 15169) has peers. The company that I'm working for is turning up over 20 10Gb peerings with them across the US.
Re: (Score:2)
A big player would get sued and expect the suit. The little player would cave before the lawsuit happens.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
The H in HTTP is actual Hydra.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Young file a counter-notice? (Score:2)
n/t
Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Executioner (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone else a little wary of Network Solutions acting as a judge, jury, and executioner?
Is this their role? Should this be their role?
What information do they release regarding their processes and decisions?
Do you trust a corporate entity with such a track record of being difficult to deal with, to interpret the law?
Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution (Score:5, Insightful)
Its appalling, and an abuse of the DCMA takedown notices in every aspect. The takedown procedures are in place to provide a legal safe harbor for the company hosting the content.. The takedown notice is to allow the contested content to be removed to minimize any damage. The takedown period in which the the content is removed it allow time for the copyright to get to court to get a temporary restraining order to keep the content offline. The Counter-Notice allows the person who put up the content to get it back online if they believe they are in the right.
Network Solutions is NOT the hosting company. It's merely a DNS registrar. NetSol has no legal liability what soever. They went WAY beyond what is legally required. The DCMA required only the contested content be removed in any case. Network Solutions removing access to entire web site is very troubling. And it may even have opened them up to a lawsuit themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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:
[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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish we could moderate something to remove a recent post....
Ignore parent. It's incorrect. Read this informative post [slashdot.org] instead, then mod it up.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Network Solutions as Judge, Jury, and Execution (Score:5, Interesting)
If you read the article, you would know that they did file a counter-notice.
Network Solutions not only took their site down, but locked the domain to prevent it from coming up somewhere else. This is an extremely aggressive move and one I suspect violates their own terms and conditions and may be actionable under the law.
Wikileaks (Score:5, Funny)
That's nice of them, but honestly I'd like it if they started hosting their own site again, too.
Hosting via Twitter (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Yeah. Twitpache and TwitQuery are bloated already. I'm using Twithttpd with Twython.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Twitter hosting (Score:5, Funny)
Wikileaks has offered to host Cryptome via their twitter feed.
Hosting 140 characters at a time?
Move on...nothing to see here... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - I just read it and it seems that Microsoft is stating what it retains, and what process (subpoena, court order, search warrant) is required to access which information.
I think the REAL issue is the fact that the Cryptome site was shut down over this because DMCA was mentioned even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having just skimmed the doc, I don't see why anyone would care. The information available to law enforcement is actually less than I had expected.
Actually, I suspect that Microsoft are flat-out lying. There was a murder case in Toronto, Canada where a teenage girl persuaded her boyfriend to murder another girl:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/03/13/rengel-trial.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.thestar.com/article/596268 [thestar.com]
Much of the evidence was in MSN chat logs between the girl and her boyfriend. This Microsoft doc
Re:Move on...nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)
Local logs on their machines? MSN may not log at the main server, but many clients certainly log locally.
Re: (Score:2)
From either the girl or the boyfriend's computer most likely.
But it *is* copyrighted, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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]:
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:But it *is* copyrighted, right? (Score:4, Informative)
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):
Duration and scope of retention of email information by Microsoft:
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google for the Clams and OT III. Same thing happened to samizdat.
Is this the same Wikileaks... (Score:3, Insightful)
That appears to be nearly dead for lack of funding? Generosity is good, but probably not on one's deathbed.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they have done.
summary of document (Score:2, Insightful)
Document is a 22 page pdf, about 1.7 MB, size is partly due to a few semi-useful diagrams from some PHB's powerpoint presentation. It's not anything super technical.
sha1 checksum is 15d4c4c7ea3aa93e128bb5756deb72f4e22926f3.
A quick glance didn't reveal anything terribly surprising in the document. It discusses things like how long they retain stuff like user IP addresses for hotmail (answer: 60 days). Also there is a special phone number for emergency requests like those dealing with murder threats. Regular
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Didn't think this is how the DMCA works (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Didn't think this is how the DMCA works (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and Microsoft is in the clear too.
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Pick the right registrar (Score:2, Informative)
Is Legal Lock appropriate? (Score:2)
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?
Actually somewhat reassuring (Score:5, Informative)
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 and DNS (Score:2)
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
Oh great, now _I_ have stepped in it (Score:2)
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.
Scary subtext (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
More relevantly, shame is in the eye of the populace.
If we don't know what they're doing, then we don't know if it's shameful or not, and that in itself is shameful.
If the cops are arresting drunk drivers, that's legitimate. If the cops are arresting people for unpopular speech, that's shameful. But if they're arresting people and not telling anyone about it, that's even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, enough of the general population have made their opinion of law enforcement clear enough that MS would rather not admit in public that they freely cooperate.
In other times, MS would proudly proclaim their cooperation and the general public would applaud it.
When law enforcement behaves sufficiently counter to the public will that cooperating with them is seen as shameful by a significant portion of that public, it's a serious social problem, particularly in a country whose government is su
Let FOIA requests begin (Score:2)
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.
Nothing like a good book! (Score:2)
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)
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?
This will teach them... (Score:2)
... 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.
The Microsoft PDF file isn't shocking (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it disturbing that they logged every packet on your Live account for the lifetime of the account (glad I don't use it); but the rest of it is pretty run-of-the-mill.