Microsoft action takes down Cryptome

[Tyler Durden]

Is it back yet? (I haven't checked in several hours).

I suppose the argument could be made (though not here) that, in a contract,
one party has the right to in effect hide what they do with the information a
customer gives it. On the other hand, unless that agreement has been
specifically made in advance, the default should not be that my information
can be handled in a way that is kept secret from me. (Yeah, obvious on
Cypherpunks I guess...)

Interesting that Microsoft has backpeddled so quickly away from this...at
least it indicates they have a clue. (Which is better, stupid and ruthless or
smart and ruthless?)

-TD



> From: rah at shipwright.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:01:22 -0400
> Subject: Microsoft action takes down Cryptome
> To: cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
>
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10459676-38.html?tag=nl.e703>
>
> CNET
>
> Politics and Law
> February 25, 2010 9:57 AM PST
> Microsoft action takes down Cryptome Web site
> by Lance Whitney
>
>
> The Web site Cryptome, which publishes sensitive corporate and government
> files, has been taken down by its provider after Microsoft complained of
> copyright infringement over the publication of one of its documents.
>
> Cryptome often posts documents detailing the surveillance activities that
> companies and government agencies perform on behalf of law enforcement
> officials. These documents, which Cryptome refers to as "lawful spying
> guides," explain what information companies reveal about its customers when
> requested by legal authorities. Many of these documents are specifically
> written for law enforcement officials to guide them on obtaining customer
> information from a company--what to ask for, how to ask for it, and how to
> analyze it.
>
> After one such document, Microsoft's Surveillance Guide, appeared on the
> Cryptome Web site, Microsoft asked the site's owner, John Young, to take it
> down, alleging copyright infringement. After Young refused, the site's
host,
> Network Solutions, sent him a notice citing the Digital Millennium
Copyright
> Act (DMCA) and telling him to get rid of the copyrighted material, or his
site
> would be removed. Young still refused, and so Cryptome was taken offline
> Thursday.
>
> After the take-down, an alternate site was quickly set up under the name
> Cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net, and most of the documents from the old site
have
> since been re-posted. Young has also included mirrors to other Web sites
where
> people can still read Microsoft's Surveillance Guide. A notice on the new
site
> says that "Network Solutions shut Cryptome.org and has placed a 'legal
lock'
> on the domain name, preventing its transfer, until the 'dispute' is
settled."
> So Young can't use the Cryptome domain name.
>
> In his initial response to the actions of Microsoft and Network Solutions,
> Young filed a counter-notification on Wednesday, backing up his belief that
> publication of Microsoft's file does not infringe upon any copyright.
>
> "The file has not been removed because Microsoft has improperly claimed
> copyright violation for the file, which provides information that allows
users
> of Microsoft products to protect their privacy and personal data security
> against abust of trust by Microsoft," wrote Young in his letter.
>
> At this point, the ball is in Microsoft's court. Under the terms of the
DMCA,
> Network Solutions has to reinstate the Cryptome site in another 10 to 14
days
> unless Microsoft responds with a notice of litigation. In short, if
Microsoft
> wants to pursue this, it has to take Young to court.
>
> The threat of a court case might worry most people, but Young seems to
welcome
> it. "We're now waiting to go to court with Microsoft," he told CNET. "We
hope
> they'll do it rather than backing off. We think this is an important issue
> that needs to be litigated."
>
> Young said he wants to challenge the abuse of copyright claims by Microsoft
> and other companies, which he believes are being used in an improper way.
> Copyright infringement is meant to protect intellectual property, noted
Young,
> but he feels the documents he publishes on his site don't fall under that
> category.
>
> Further, since these documents concern the public and they're available to
law
> enforcement, Young believes they should be publicly available, either
through
> the Freedom of Information Act or by other means. Companies and law
> enforcement officials would naturally argue that these documents should
remain
> private so they're not available to criminals. But Young feels the majority
of
> customers and other people affected by these documents are not criminals.
>
> Young also pointed out that most companies do publish law enforcement files
> and similar documents for the public to see. It's only a few companies that
> keep them private. Yahoo is another firm that filed a complaint against
Young
> for posting an internal document. But he said he stood firm against the
> company.
>
> "Yahoo tried to bluff us into taking a document down claiming copyright
when
> they didn't have one," Young said. "There are other firms abusing this
because
> it's very cheap to just send out an e-mail to an ISP for a take-down rather
> than go to litigation."
>
> Young also believes that the response from Network Solutions to take down
the
> file or get shut down is solely the provider's doing. "Network Solutions
has
> set up a draconian response, which is to try to scare you into taking a
> document down as though it's required by the DMCA. But it turns out there's
a
> lot of latitude in the DMCA. So [Network Solutions] is abusing it as well
as
> Microsoft."
>
> Young said he believes the documents that he publishes are indications that
> companies are bending over backwards to placate law enforcement officials
> because they're afraid of being targeted by them. And he feels that
> Microsoft's Surveillance Guide goes much further in holding the hands of
law
> enforcement than the typical document.
>
> How does Young draw the line between publishing a document that's truly
> sensitive and private versus a document that the public may have a right to
> view? "That's all we do, is walk that line," he said. "We can spot it
pretty
> well. We've been following the DMCA since the time it was proposed and the
> time of its passage. And we've seen the increasing abuse of it."
>
> Young said that most of the documents he posts are sent to him from people
who
> have gotten access to them. But many are already available on the Web. The
> Microsoft document came from a Web site that specialized in training law
> enforcement.
>
> Despite Young's desire to go to court to prove his point, the latest word
from
> Microsoft is that the company may be backing down. A Microsoft spokesperson
> sent CNET the following comment:
> "Like all service providers, Microsoft must respond to lawful requests from
> law enforcement agencies to provide information related to criminal
> investigations. We take our responsibility to protect our customers privacy
> very seriously, so have specific guidelines that we use when responding to
law
> enforcement requests. In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken
> down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed. We are requesting
to
> have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document's removal."
>
> When informed of Microsoft's response, Young seemed disappointed at the
> prospect of not going to court. In an e-mail response, he said: "My
position,
> upright, of course, we want Microsoft to take the lead on opening up all
> lawful spying guides and that is likely to require court action so
Microsoft,
> Net Solutions, Google and the others can say they are doing so under duress
of
> the court and public opinion--that way law enforcement cannot accuse them
of
> violating confidential agreements too easily."
>
> He further said that DMCA needs to be modified to avoid including
> non-criminals in broad copyright dragnets aimed at actual criminals.
>
> "And the draconian procedures worked out among ISPs and copyright holders
need
> to be relaxed or subject to challenge," he added. "These procedures appear
to
> be private, to save costs, and to speed results by bluffing, and are not
> required by the DMCA."
>
> Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web
> developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft
> TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites.
You
> can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET
Blog
> Network, and he is not an employee of CNET.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/