Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site (Wired)
Wired reports that Microsoft has pulled Cryptome off the net. "Microsoft dropped a DMCA notice alleging copyright infringement on Cryptomes proprietor John Young on Tuesday after he posted a Microsoft surveillance compliance document that the company gives to law enforcement agents seeking information on Microsoft users. Young filed a counterclaim on Wednesday arguing he had a fair use to publishing the document, a full day before the Thursday deadline set by his hosting provider, Network Solutions." Wired is also hosting the document in question at the moment.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site (Wired) Posted Feb 25, 2010 2:42 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] No, Wired reports that Network Solutions, not Microsoft, took Cryptome off the net (in response to a Microsoft complaint). Microsoft didn't have the power to do this on its own.
Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site (Wired) Posted Feb 25, 2010 3:20 UTC (Thu) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] LWN accurately summarizes the Wired headline.
Mirror Posted Feb 25, 2010 6:02 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link]
The maintainers have mirrored it at: http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/ which also contains various details related to the shutdown by Network Solutions.
Mirror Posted Feb 25, 2010 13:06 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
The actual microsoft-spy.zip file isn't there any more, but a quick search shows it being hosted at various places now including wikileaks http://file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf
I wonder if people realize all this data is being collected, stored and shared with various agencies around the world.
It's the Internet, what did you think would happen? Posted Feb 25, 2010 16:29 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] I downloaded it too, along with a photo of Barbra Streisand's house. "We've come up with this document on Best Practices for Sharing Information with Law Enforcement, and we'd like to publish it." "zzzzz...huh? What? You want to publish that? Nobody's going to read something like that!" "No, seriously, we really want to get this information out there." "Hmmmm...."
Mirror Posted Feb 25, 2010 21:07 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
MS already withdrew the takedown request. Cryptome.org is back up.
I certainly see no downsides here. Posted Feb 25, 2010 6:34 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
This will work perfectly for Microsoft, who will suffer no PR repercussions for this approach. Nor will other sites proceed to host the suppressed documents in a deliberate attempt to bypass this abuse of the legal system. After all, there is no precedent in internet history for legally suppressed documents or information being spread far and wide as an act of civil disobedience. Clearly, Microsoft and Network Solutions are in no danger of risking legal reprisals, or even facing uncomfortable questions, after this well thought out and measured action.
Also, my nose is on fire, and I have fifteen wild badgers living in my trousers.
I certainly see no downsides here. Posted Feb 25, 2010 8:24 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
Thank you!
I certainly see no downsides here. Posted Feb 25, 2010 13:24 UTC (Thu) by nofutureuk (guest, #3116) [Link]
Spider Jerusalem speaking!
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 8:17 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]
DMCA notices are made under penalty of perjury, aren't they? In the US, that's a felony with a potential prison sentence of up to five years...
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 10:01 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
I keep hearing that, but has anyone ever been prosecuted for filing a false DMCA notice?
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 16:59 UTC (Thu) by jebba (✭ supporter ✭, #4439) [Link]
> I keep hearing that, but has anyone ever been prosecuted for filing a false DMCA notice?
Yes.
A number of years ago Diebold, manufacturer of voting systems in the USA (with a die hard Republican CEO), sent ISPs takedown notices (including to me via my ISP at the time, Rackspace). Some folks counter sued and won, making Diebold the first company to be found guilty of this. Of course, they merely lost a bit of money and it was years after the event, so for Diebold it was just a minor business cost.
I don't have time to track down the documents, but it was related to Indymedia and IIRC the EFF represented them. Here is some info I wrote up back then giving the back story:
http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-chicago-working/2...
-Jeff Moe
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 19:53 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
The only thing covered under the perjury claim is that you are authorized to speak for the copyright holder. The only way to get in trouble is to not actually speak for the copyright holder. Such as the Diebold case where they didn't own the copyright on the material they DMCA'd. In many of the DMCA abuse cases there is copyright involved and the actual owner is involved in the DMCA notice so there can be no penalty.
See the kicker here is that if you do actually own the copyright, even if the use if fair use or otherwise legal there is no penalty for doing a DMCA take down because the perjury clause doesn't cover that the take down is actually legally valid, only that you speak for the copyright holder. Had Congress actually required the perjury statement to cover that you actually have legal standing there would be far less abuse, but on the other hand had Congress included that it likely wouldn't have passed because copyright organizations don't want to be penalized for engaging in what amounts to SLAPP actions. And they certainly don't want to admit that fair use exists, something they would like to stamp out.
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 14:30 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
Well, on its face the document is copyrighted so its publishing is quite possibly infringing. Good luck pushing a bad-faith DMCA notification claim on that one.
"2007-2008© Copyright Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. [...] No
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 15:51 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]
Did you get the written permission of Microsoft Corporation before posting that? ;)
Perjury? Posted Feb 25, 2010 14:32 UTC (Thu) by cladisch (✭ supporter ✭, #50193) [Link]
A DMCA notice typically says:
> ... I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Microsoft would get in trouble if it didn't have exclusive rights to that document. However, a "good faith belief" does not guarantee that the recipient is actually infringing, or that the document the notice speaks about is actually identical with the document on the recipient's web site.
Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site (Wired) Posted Feb 25, 2010 14:53 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Having read the document of which the article refers, I must say that there really isn't anything much in it worth talking about. Most of it is pretty obvious, Microsoft stores your data when you use their servers. Some bits about how long they save things are interesting. This kind of stuff really should be in the privacy policy that users of the services should have access to.
Microsoft Takes Down Whistleblower Site (Wired) Posted Feb 25, 2010 19:50 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]
|
|
||||||||||||