×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Lawful Spying" Price Lists Leaked

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the reading-your-terrible-manga-poetry-on-the-cheap dept.

Privacy 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

245 comments

You've got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344666)

I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation. Shoulda thought of that earlier, huh?

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344702)

Awwww. I feel sorry for Yahoo.

/end sarcasm

I hate corporations. I hate them with every fiber of my being.
Although I still like them better than government

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0, Troll)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344834)

I hate corporations. I hate them with every fiber of my being.

And I've got to wonder how you make a living. With such a high ID, though, I've got to wonder if you still live w/ Mom and Dad, or are maybe in that fantasy world known as University.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345182)

"And I've got to wonder how you make a living. With such a high ID, though, I've got to wonder if you still live w/ Mom and Dad, or are maybe in that fantasy world known as University."

Some of us have brains and skills to not need corporations. Looks like you're not one of those gifted talented and smart people, now are you, you condescending piece of shit?

Re:You've got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345206)

Some of us have brains and skills to not need corporations.

Never mind the multitude of corporations responsible for the manufacturing of your computer... Or the ones running your network connection... Nope, don't need corporations at all. Build everything with my own two hands from scratch!

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345404)

Some of us have brains and skills

Some of us have the brains and skills, but choose to spend our time on technical work instead of the managerial overhead required by sole proprietors and partnerships.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345288)

yes because making money justifies stepping on civil liberties.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344926)

I hate corporations. I hate them with every fiber of my being.
Although I still like them better than government

Corporations are legal fictions created by governments, so no need to feel conflicted. It's what makes regulatory capture so poisonous, and kills the negative feedback required for a balance of power.

But, hey, what's destroying a system of government or two when there's a Rockefeller empire to be made in oil?

Re:You've got to be kidding me (4, Informative)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345470)

Good point. Maybe you should have linked to regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] so the mods would have a clue what you were talking about. We know the telecoms and government are in each others pockets, but Yahoo?

If we allow corporations as legal persons they should be subject to dissolution for certain abuses. That should satisfy both pro-civil rights liberals and pro-death penalty conservatives.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345930)

Good point. Maybe you should have linked to regulatory capture so the mods would have a clue what you were talking about.

heh, yeah, the Rockefeller mods are out in force today. I suppose it is too much to expect a basic knowledge about the history of Standard Oil.

We know the telecoms and government are in each others pockets, but Yahoo?

Once a corporation goes public and is involved in significant M&A they're at the government's mercy. The TARP scandal has brought out just how strongly the screws get put on.

If we allow corporations as legal persons they should be subject to dissolution for certain abuses. That should satisfy both pro-civil rights liberals and pro-death penalty conservatives.

Sure, any corporate charter can be suspended or revoked. It just never happens, except very minimally at the local levels.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344704)

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.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345570)

"...and should only be handled by professionals."

I for one think that the government does NOT qualify.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344716)

They're just hoping someone will pay them to be quiet. $250 seems about enough.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (5, Funny)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344764)

I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation.

I AM shocked!

Only $30 per? Really?? Violating my privacy is bad enough, but the insult to my dignity is despicable!

Come on, guys! You're billing the government! Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!

Re:You've got to be kidding me (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344804)

Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!

All of the sudden I've got this image in my mind of an elderly Jewish guy, "You don't think they actually spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"

Re:You've got to be kidding me (4, Insightful)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344866)

"You don't think they actually spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"

That depends on how heavily invested the committee chairman is in the hammer and toilet seat industries.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345094)

Nice. I was just going to watch Independence Day today!

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1, Flamebait)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344886)

Only $30 per? Really?? Violating my privacy is bad enough,

Did you actually read the document (especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders)?

Of course you didn't...

Re:You've got to be kidding me (5, Funny)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345008)

True, but in my defense I was more focused on getting a +5 Funny .

Re:You've got to be kidding me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345936)

I thought reply #30345008 was funnier than your original reply but it got modded "+5: Informative". Where's the logic that?

Re:You've got to be kidding me (2, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345230)

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:You've got to be kidding me (4, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344838)

They have a document describing search warrant compliance, and here you have /. misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder!'

Seems like a rational fear to me.

Re:You've got to be kidding me (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345580)

If there are search warrants/subpoenas involved then why does Yahoo get to bill the government anyway?

Isn't it contempt of court to refuse to hand it over in the first place?

Re:You've got to be kidding me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345978)

The problem isn't necessarily a "should have thought about something". The problem is that Yahoo as well as any other service provider is required by law to retain records and make them available to the authorities when requested. The fee's are a provision of the law that allows the service providers to recuperate expenses for doing so.

So tell me, if the law required you to do something that would make your customers cringe, would you not want them to know about it or the extent you have to comply? Or would be be stupid and just put everything in the open while your competitor can play dumb, keep his shit a secret, and take all your shocked customers from you?

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344700)

... I guess I expected a little more respect from a company I let throw advertisements at me all day and get rich off of it.

If they won't respect us, why should we respect them?

Everyone install Ad Block Plus and mail dog turds to these fools!

Get what you pay for (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344708)

Time for paid services with explicit privacy protection. There is a good business case for this, I think, but will require thoughtful way to market to the masses. Any ideas?

Re:Get what you pay for (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344728)

Yeah. Forget about it. It's impossible to verify. That doesn't make impossible to sell to the nearest sucker though.

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344994)

Yeah. Forget about it. It's impossible to verify. That doesn't make impossible to sell to the nearest sucker though.

Not true. If it wasn't owned by Yahoo, they'd have no standing to send a DMCA takedown letter.

Which is not to say it's the most recent version of the document, or that it's actually the one they use (rather than an early draft before some zeroes were added), but you can be fairly confident it is a Yahoo document.

cause nobody *EVER* abuses the DMCA takedowns (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345144)

Aside from the numerous instances documented in older Slashdot stories, the EFF has a nice list http://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas-and-takedown-demands [eff.org] of examples where a corporation's lawyers sent DMCA takedown letters alleging infringement by content they later admitted they do not own.

At this point only a District Attorney would prima facie "be fairly confident [the subject of a DMCA takedown letter from Yahoo] is a Yahoo document."

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344768)

People will use whatever's free, and probably say they have "nothing to hide!" The truly paranoid (which I say without intending any negative connotation) will run their own services. Unfortunately 90% of the email addresses you communicate with probably end in gmail.com, hotmail.com or yahoo.com anyway. That data is available on the other end, if in much more fragmented format.

I agree with your idea, but I honestly don't think the masses will go for it. If enough concerned people do, it could be worthwhile.

As a sidenote, your idea reminded me of rsync.net [rsync.net]'s privacy policies.

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344798)

That's a good point - network by definition seems to mean leakage. But I wonder if there is still value for partial privacy...

Re:Get what you pay for (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345670)

Here's a few good reasons that "nothing to hide" is a crock of crap:

1. The government is run by humans, which almost by the definition of the word are inherently fallible.
2. The government, also by definition, has the power to disrupt your life/put you in jail/confiscate your goods,
3. The above two combine to form a chilling effect upon your rights being exercised as you see fit.
4. Just as with quantum mechanics, the government cannot snoop without causing side effects in what they're snooping on.

So plenty of people have a darn good reason to not want government nosiness even IF they are not breaking the law.

Re:Get what you pay for (2, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345122)

Yes: you're an idiot to think that even the most expensive "explicit privacy protection" paid services won't comply with warrants.

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345722)

Hope you feel better now that you've got that out of your chest.

But there are privacy concerns other than law enforcement issues - namely, advertising and marketing use.

Re:Get what you pay for (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345942)

namely, advertising and marketing use.

And what do they have to do with "lawful spying", the topic of this article? That's right: nothing.

Tempest in a tea cup (5, Funny)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344724)

If you actually read the documents (I know, that's too hard), you'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo! can provide in compliance of subpoenas, search warrants and court orders.

Oooh, if the cops get a search warrant, they can look at your Yahoo! friends list. It's the end of liberty as we know it!

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (2, Insightful)

el_jake (22335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344758)

But this "search warrant" give you a lot more than just Mr. John Doe at some street.. It gives you all the Doe's at a specific month who visited some URL. That is freaking privacy intrusion. Goodbye Yahoo.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (2, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344850)

If you don't like judicial powers, take it up with your representative and senators.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (1)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344858)

You act like this is new. That's what search warrants do, they give the government a warrant to search through your stuff. Weird how that works, eh?

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344986)

The privacy intrusion does not start with the search. It starts with retaining the information.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345096)

Nothing compels Yahoo to keep logs for as long as they do. That's what bothers people. That and that Yahoo wanted to keep it a secret from their users.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345916)

The log retention periods are published/announced publicly by most big companies. Google, yahoo and M$ included. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9027924/Yahoo_joins_Google_Microsoft_in_changing_privacy_policy?source=rss_news50

And why are you jumping on the Companies here? Yahoo has to provide information when it is required by LAW. And where exactly did you find a company that does 0 retention of your data? If you are not really aware, now all companies are also required to store/archive their email for 2 years for the similar legal purposes.

"Nothing compels them to store your information as long as they do?"

Really? Are you being practical here? These are internet companies that are providing free services for u..

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345044)

But this "search warrant" give you a lot more than just Mr. John Doe at some street.. It gives you all the Doe's at a specific month who visited some URL. That is freaking privacy intrusion. Goodbye Yahoo.

Who exactly were you planning on using for email or IM that will ignore a subpoena from law enforcement? What good will it do you unless everyone you communicate with also uses such a provider? What about your connection to that provider?

If you become interesting to law enforcement, you're living in another world if you think they won't consider it worthy of further investigation that so many connections from your ISP are to an email provider (or, if paranoid a VPN endpoint) in another country known to be un-cooperative with your local law enforcement.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (2, Insightful)

jschottm (317343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345266)

It gives you all the Doe's at a specific month who visited some URL.

If the government suspects that a URL is being used to do illicit communications, how else do you expect them to figure out who was trying to get the message? Particularly if they're clever enough that rather than having an URL of someserver.com/alqaida/people_we_will_kill.html, they've used steganography to embed the information in an otherwise harmless looking file?

The question is not whether such search warrants have been granted, it's whether it has been done so in an abusive manner. And that's not covered in this document.

Pricing makes it creepy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344818)

It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities. It is that they have a pricing scheme for it. Maybe this is common practice, but it sounds like instead of fighting for the user, Yahoo is rolling over and perhaps even jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck by selling out someone's confidential information.

End of liberty as we know it? No. Scary, when combined with the US government's increasingly arbitrary conditions for search warrants if you're a "terrorist"? Yes.

Re:Pricing makes it creepy (4, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344956)

If you get 1000 requests a month from various law enforcement agencies across the country, that's an awful lot of man hours to dedicate to these requests. If you have a fee in place to cover costs in the first place, it ensures that a surge in requests doesn't drain the budget of the department in charge of sorting them out.

Re:Pricing makes it creepy (2, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346016)

It also assures that some LEA can't carry out a vendetta by flooding them with 1000000 requests a day.

I do wonder how a surge of requests would be handled by a department that has a fixed staff. Would there be a backlog and delay? Could they have an "expedite" fee?

Re:Pricing makes it creepy (4, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345784)

It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities. It is that they have a pricing scheme for it.

Think that one through. If there were no price list posted for the information, then any fool in a bureaucracy can request it and get it. However, government bureaus being what they are, if you put so much as a $50 price tag on the information, you may be requiring said bureaucrat to jump through many hoops and have their actions questioned and tracked. This tiny fee will likely annoy them and stop a very large proportion of inquiries.

A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty.

I salute Yahoo's putting at least a speed-bump in the way. It's something.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344874)

You are allowed to charge to comply with a search warrant?

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345020)

You are allowed to charge to comply with a search warrant?

If you fall under 18 U.S.C. 2706, yes.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345038)

If you want to read the document and assume nothing nefarious is going on, it is easy to take that view. The document never specifies what a law enforcement entity is, or what the guidelines are for what warrants are needed to get information. The document also describes prices for getting information on groups. I haven't used Yahoo! groups for close to five years, but I'm probably still listed as a member of a few. Has anyone uploaded any child porn to these groups since then? Check out this summary of the document:http://elwsoftware.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement/ [elwsoftware.com]

A major company (Yahoo!) offers volume discounts to law enforcement "entities"! $20 for the first ID, $10 for additional IDs. Seems more like Yahoo! is selling this info to me.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (4, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345232)

Now go re-read them, especially this clause:

> Requests for Airfone call record information via Subpoenas, Search Warrants,
Court Orders, Summons, and National Security Letters

Do you see that "National Security Letters" part? That's for the Patriot Act, which requires no court order whatsoeve and for which revealing to anyone that you've received such a notice is illegal. There is, so far, no required judicial oversight for such orders: it's an amazing loophole for unscrupulous federal agencies, including those which have no business in domestic investigations such as the NSA, to use. And since companies such as AT&T have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement in secret, warrant-free wiretaps with their whistleblower exposed secret fiber-optic taps on core network trunks, rest assured that you have _no_ way of assuring that these monitoring tools haven't been misued.

It's nice to see the pricelist, though, so we have an idea of just how cheap and easy and wholesale such orders are.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (4, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345830)

How would you know that a supposed National Security letter you got was real?

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345258)

OK, I spoke too soon before I read the document. The document appears to contain approximations for the cost of supplying the requested information which they are required to be reimbursed for according to the document itself.

Subpoena != search warrant (3, Insightful)

LandruBek (792512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345522)

Right, and ooh, a subpoena is SO hard to issue! No judge need be involved; prosecutors get to write them themselves -- motivated, perhaps, by nothing more than a hunch.

There's a huge difference between a warrant and a subpoena.

Re:Tempest in a tea cup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345532)

no. but it sure does cool down the idea of "freedom of association"... but hey, if you say it's all good, it must be all good.

Takedown demand contradiction? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344738)

How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?

"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time."

Re:Takedown demand contradiction? (3, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344784)

How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?

According to the U.S. Constitution (I got this from wikipedia [wikipedia.org]), the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The problem seems to be that the actual legislation covers creative works that were never intended to be shared with the public. Such documents, like the ones in question, are within the scope of copyright law but not the spirit.

But as far as I know, courts have been unwilling to strike down current copyright laws just because they're less than perfectly efficient in achieving the Constitution's justification for them.

Re:Takedown demand contradiction? (3, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345340)

A confidential internal memo detailing plans for building a new type of engine could "promote the Progress of Science"; ergo, it deserves copyright protection. It also details trade secrets that could damage the company it belongs to; ergo, it deserves to be treated as confidential. Using this example, I'm having a hard time understanding your complaint.

Re:Takedown demand contradiction? (2, Informative)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345456)

like the ones in question, are within the scope of copyright law but not the spirit.

No. This is a list if facts, and as such not copyrightable [wikipedia.org]. Things like phone book numbers, lists of addresses, dates, and price lists (as this is) are not copyrightable. But it also should be remembered that we have the most pro-corporation government in history, and this could change if there was enough congressional interest - as both the Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA shows even though there is little or no public benefit in doing so.

Re:Takedown demand contradiction? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345992)

Make the procedural demand for the plaintiff to show how a copyright on this document would "... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and seek for the court to find that the document's copyright is not valid. If the court declines to do so, appeal the specific decision itself. This is all typical delay tactics all lawyers are trained to do. IANAL.

Re:Takedown demand contradiction? (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345298)

How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?

That's pretty easy. Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. If you don't disclose the work, then it's both copyrighted and confidential. Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question? It's not very difficult.

The Yahoo list isn't much of anything. (2, Informative)

rdunnell (313839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344788)

If you read it, you'll see that it's basically an explanation of what information they do and do not have, how their various properties work and what information they store, and how much it will cost an agency to have certain information requests addressed. It doesn't represent some sort of sinister pipeline of information directly from their users' keyboards to the "evil government." If anything it's useful to everyone because it shows exactly what they do and don't save, and it might act as a deterrent for the casual or clueless investigator who watches too much CSI and thinks sending a request off will instantly pinpoint the bad guy by backtracking his DNS through the GPS IP address of his netbook's MAC module or whatever.

Re:The Yahoo list isn't much of anything. (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345490)

What makes it sinister isn't so much what it says, but that it's supposed to be secret in the first place, and the takedown notice now that it has been divulged. I prefer to know what my rights are in the first place, thankyouverymuch. There's this idea that we can't let people know the rules of the game, since bad guys would then exploit them. Admittedly there is some truth to this; look at how corporations freeload by playing games with the tax codes. But what is the alternative? A lawless state where everybody lives with the vague threat of "stay in line or something bad might happen."

Since there is no copyright notice... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344828)

... or other confidential markings in this document, I don't feel there is any reason not to public disclose this document all or in part. In fact, I will do that just now...

For email:
"Yahoo! retains a user’s incoming mail as long as the user chooses to store such messages in their mail folders and
the user’s email account remains active. Yahoo! retains a user’s sent mail only if the user sets their email account
options to save sent mail and has not subsequently deleted specific messages."

For messenger:
"For Yahoo! Chat and all forms of Messenger, Yahoo! has log information regarding the use of the services. Yahoo!
maintains a “Friends List” for users of Yahoo! Messenger and can determine from its logs the time and date that a
user logged into Messenger or Chat (in the prior 45-60 days) and the IP address used. Yahoo! also can retrieve
from its Chat and Messenger logs the names of the chat rooms that the user accessed and the Yahoo! IDs of the
other people with whom a user communicated through Messenger during the prior 45-60 days. In order to search
these logs, a Yahoo! ID and a specific time frame, preferably no more than three days, must be provided."

For flickr:
"If provided with a Yahoo! ID, Flickr URL, or Flickr NSID, Yahoo! has the ability to produce subscriber information for
the account-holder. As long as the Flickr account is active, Yahoo! has the ability to produce content in the account
– with associated upload IP addresses and date and time – as well as the email and Groups information for the
account."

For groups:
"Yahoo! maintains information about Group moderators, as well as an activity log for each Group. The Group activity
log is a transactional log that indicates when members have subscribed or unsubscribed from the Group, posted or
deleted files or polls, or other similar events. Not all Group activities are logged, however. For example, the reading
of messages or downloading of files or photos is not logged.
Although the Group Message archive maintains messages sent to Group members, the message archive does not
contain any attachments to the messages. Yahoo! does not maintain those attachments in any form.
For current Groups, Yahoo! retains information relating to the moderator, members, and the active contents of the
Files, Photos, and Messages sections. If a Group has been deactivated or deleted, information about the Group
may be preserved for approximately 30 days, after which the information may be deleted."

For geocities and other premium web services:
"For web-hosting
and domains, Yahoo! will have basic Yahoo! registration information about the user who posted the page. Yahoo!
also will have the active files that the user has uploaded to the website, including the date on which the files were
uploaded, and the domain-based email that is available to the user. Deleted email is not available."

And here is how much it costs:
" Basic subscriber records: approx. $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter
    Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx. $20 for a group with a
    single moderator
    Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx. $30-$40 per user
    Contents of Groups: approx. $40 - $80 per group"

We (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344870)

We the people is a law enforcement agency.

Re:We (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30344988)

We the people is a law enforcement agency.

We the People ought to be enforcing the Common Law, but ... hey, who's on Idol tonight?

Re:We (2, Insightful)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345086)

In the US, the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong, Constitutional or not.

In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline. Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.

Re:We (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345156)

In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline. Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.

In other words, mob rule. Awesome.

Re:We (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345362)

To quote Jefferson:

[quote]God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."[/quote]

The fact is, stability in our governmental system was never the plan. Jefferson was right on this count - we got the stability, and Liberty died.

Whether or not you think that our current system is better, I simply don't see how you can deny that it is not what our Founders envisioned.

Re:We (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345800)

Jefferson seems to have not been quite a fan of revolutions 20 years after he said that, at which point he was the president.

You prefer an unstable government? (1, Troll)

ShinmaWa (449201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346022)

Yes... two centuries of a stable government has provided among the highest standards of living and opportunity, but you'd rather throw that away for a government that gets bloodily overthrown every few years such as the paradises that are Afghanistan... and Somalia... and Haiti.....

You, sir, are a complete moron who has no idea how nice you have it and how bad unstable governments really are.

Re:We (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345352)

If it were up to the people to police Congress, do you honestly think things would be better?

I'd stick around for your answer but my DVR is almost full and I have to start watching the rest of The Biggest Loser before I run out of space.

Re:We (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345428)

"The people" wouldn't be apathetic to the political process. I don't know if that would yield a better result or not, but I believe it would.

And yes, it would be bloody. When Americans lost the desire and ability to stand up and put their own lives and fortunes on the line, then we lost what it was to be an American in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. I think that's very sad, as the American system was a grand experiment and a noble cause - certainly not without its problems, but also certainly the best we've ever devised.

Just look at today --- almost two and a half centuries later, the bastardized descendant of that system still provides the highest standard of living and opportunity to be found anywhere in the world.

Obvious tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344906)

streisandeffect. Some people never learn.

and what makes you think /. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344928)

and what makes you this /. does not collect data and market it to pay their own bills?

no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30344990)

Luckily, the last time i used yahoo was in 1997

yahoo!!! (1)

chtank (83512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345076)

Yahoo,hummm, tried them early on, did not like, will not use yahoo anymore. I fact, I was asked to use facebook, don't like them either, am about to unload them, too. It is like "texting", a total distraction and unsafe for any driver. I think I will remain with html, e-mail, and my blog (which I have neglected to keep up). I have no use for all the toys of Microsoft. In fact, I have had problems with meta on xhtml as on Bluefish and have gone back to html 4.01 without meta at all, but do use CSS. Too much junk is a bane to we dinosaurs.

Shame (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345184)

Yahoo wrote in its objection letter that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it “to ’shame’ Yahoo! and other companies — and to ’shock’ their customers.”

It's hard to shame someone who doesn't already feel that they have something to be ashamed of. I guess we know Yahoo understands it's behavior to be shameful but continues to do it.

Re:Shame (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345652)

Yahoo is a company; shame doesn't enter in to the equation. Only how profitable one option is over another.

Uhhhh (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345870)

I think everyone here is very much missing the point: They are providing these pieces of information in response to lawful orders like subpoenas. They do not have the ability to say no to those, it is illegal and they would get in trouble. So why the price sheet? Because the law does not require that third parties spend money to cooperate with the police. You can bill them for the costs incurred. Hence, for large companies that get requests all the time, having a price sheet makes sense. That way there's not any debate about it. They say "Ok you want us to do X, it is going to cost you $Y."

I fail to see the big deal here. If Yahoo was offering to sell private information on the open market, ya that would be a problem, and would get them sued. They aren't. They are complying with discovery orders that they have no choice to, and charging for it as they are allowed to.

This is outrageous. (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345208)

This is outrageous.

If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit.

Re:This is outrageous. (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345320)

If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit.

Yes, they would. But what does that have to do with this story?

Re:This is outrageous. (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345558)

Yeah right, the same people who did not go ape-shit for warrant-less wire tapping, are going ape-shit on yahoo giving the govt your data when presented with a warrant.

Come again? (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345702)

The fuckers are making US pay for our own data.

Selling us back our own shit.

Our taxes pay the cops, they milk the cops in exchange for OUR data.

Somebody sue these fuckers already...

     

I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30345726)

What it charges China and the EU? I am guessing that America is still getting screwed and paying top dollars for this, while both EU and China pay bottom prices. I mean, none of you really though that this was reserved JUST TO US GOV., Did you? It was Yahoo AND MS that sold information to the CHinese gov that put away one of their citizens. And yes, Yahoo and MS BOTH SELL to eu GOVs. Quietly, but they still do it.

A copyright notice is optional ... (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345752)

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 (2, Interesting)

Gracenotes (1001843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30345776)

It's the law, apparently, at least if you're not a common carrier. From Yahoo's compliance guide,

Federal law (See 18 U.S.C. 2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children.

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").

A governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...