

Site Leaks Microsoft Online Surveillance Guide, MS Demands Takedown Under DMCA - umiaq
http://www.geekosystem.com/cryptome-leaks-microsofts-online-surveillance-guide-ms-demands-takedown/

======
shrughes
And now look at <http://cryptome.org/>

~~~
alecco
multitouch@reddit posted this link:
<http://file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf>

~~~
shrughes
It might just be me or Preview.app, but that pdf seems to have the wrong text
color in many places. It's not consistent with what's in scribd.

------
fauigerzigerk
What I don't get is how merely _alleging_ a copyright infringement under the
DMCA can lead to the immediate take down of an entire website. If I was to
claim Microsoft infringed my copyright, would they take microsoft.com offline
for 10 days?

~~~
pyre
The entire point of that section of the DMCA was to make it easy for rights-
holders to get something pulled from a site. While the DMCA definitely puts
_too much_ power in the hands of rights-holders, the previous method was to
sue the infringer and then wait for a court to issue an injunction (which
could tend to take a while; the courts aren't really known for their speedy
service).

Rights-holders obviously don't like the idea that the infringing material just
sits there being distributed to anyone that wants it while all the legal ducks
are lined up for filing suit and petitioning a judge to issue the injunction.

> _If I was to claim Microsoft infringed my copyright, would they take
> microsoft.com offline for 10 days?_

The big players obviously have the rules bent for them, especially since they
have large legal teams. I assume that if you have a large, highly-paid legal
team, your hosting provider might also let you leave your content up with the
understanding that your legal team will help them out if the DMCA-notice-
issuer comes a-knockin'. Either that, or they make enough money off of your
account to warrant paying legal fees to defend themselves in order to keep you
as a happy customer.

In your example, Microsoft would probably just remove the offending material,
then rush the court documents to get a suit underway so that a judge could
issue a ruling allowing them to distribute it while the matter was decided.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
The issue, it seems to me, is that a rights-holder by that definition is
anyone who _claims_ to be a rights holder. I would expect there to be some
form of plausibility check by an independent person, otherwise there could be
completely frivolous denial of service attacks based on this law.

------
Frazzydee
Why would they host it on Network Solutions? The unfortunate reality is that
we do not always have freedom of speech in fact. Most network hosts are not
going to protect you if they're afraid of being sued.

They should be using <http://prq.se>, the same company that hosts TPB &
wikileaks.

Edit: This post is perhaps ill-informed. Network Solutions is 4chan's
registrar so they can't be that bad.

~~~
Sukotto
It's a sliding scale of fear

4chan is scarier than The Man is scarier than [everyone else]

------
gouki
The more I read news like this, the more I respect organizations like Sunshine
Press (Wikileaks) and the work of individuals like John Young.

------
alecco
Mirror of cryptome.org (minus the zip in question) at:
<http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/>

Most interesting bit: <http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/0001/ms-spy-
takedown.htm>

Network Solutions placed a legal lock on the domain (also mentioned in article
above.)

------
mindslight
Why exactly do people refer to the DNS as 'distributed' ?

The internet needs a better naming system, one under which removal of an
established name _cannot_ happen.

~~~
wmf
Most people who ventured into Zooko's Triangle
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle>) have never been seen
again.

~~~
mindslight
sigh, it's true. Adoption is the hardest part, as DNS/URLs work great right up
until they don't.

~~~
wmf
Adoption is definitely hard, although that wasn't my point. The kind of DNS
replacement that many people want appears to be technically impossible.

------
kellerr13
If microsoft did not publish the document, or they did not register and
establish it as copyrighted material, then I say Cryptome should claim
copyright of the document.

Furthermore, the CALEA requires ISPs to coperate with "LAW Enforcement" of
which Microsoft is NOT. What Law enforcement agency told network solutions to
block the domain?

------
dangrossman
How is it not valid to say that a guide written by Microsoft is protected by
copyright and can't be republished?

If he believes himself that copyright is not intended to protect this type of
material, why doesn't he file a DMCA counter notice so that Network Solutions
is prevented from taking down his site?

No host is going to put themselves on the hook for some customer's
infringement by ignoring the safe harbor rules, regardless of noble intent of
the infringer.

~~~
alecco
<http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/0001/ms-spy-takedown.htm>

> My Counter Notification is attached. > [...] > [Scanned] February 24, 2010
> By email and fax to 703-668-5959

------
pyre
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9587992205>

------
spoiledtechie
site crashed...

