Beta
×

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!

Microsoft Says It Never Meant To Knock Cryptome Offline

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the to-err-is-corporate dept.

Censorship 176

CWmike writes "Microsoft withdrew on Thursday its demand that Cryptome.org yank the 'Microsoft Global Criminal Spy Guide' document from the site, and said it had never intended for the whistleblower's domain to be knocked off the Web. 'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman. 'We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document's removal.' The document, a 17-page guide to law enforcement on how to obtain information about users of Microsoft's online services, including its Windows Live Hotmail, the Xbox Live gaming network and its Windows Live SkyDrive storage service, was published by John Young, who runs Cryptome.org, on Feb. 20. Earlier this week, Microsoft demanded that Young remove the document from his site, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. When Young refused, his Internet provider shut down the site, and Network Solutions, the registrar of Young's domain, put a 'legal lock' on the domain name. The last prevented him from transferring the URL to another ISP. Computerworld blogger Preston Gralla dug into the document today in his 'Leaked Microsoft intelligence document: Here's what Microsoft will reveal to police about you' post."

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Openness (5, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277450)

While I completely agree that using DMCA to pull of the site is an asshole move, the documents also gave reassurance about privacy policies used in those services, mainly that MS isn't logging chat between people in Messenger and that when you move the email from their servers to your local computer email box, it isn't kept on MS servers. While in contrast, in my understating, for example Google keeps even deleted email somewhere in their networked file system for many many months.

I actually like to see more of these from different companies. Most interestingly, Facebook has a lot personal data. And what about Google? Yahoo?

If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).

Re:Openness (5, Informative)

moco (222985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277548)

The site is back up. Facebook's equivalent document is already there http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/facebook-spy.pdf

Re:Openness (1)

charliemopps11 (1606697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278662)

having read an interview found right here on /. a few weeks ago I read that facebook NEVER deletes anything. So... yea...

Re:Openness (2, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277840)

http://cryptome.org/ [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.

Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.

Re:Openness (4, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277934)

I should have added that Yahoo had tried taking down their lawful spying guide but wasn't as "successful" as Microsoft. I say "successful" because Microsoft claims they only wanted to take down the document and not the website. However, it resulted in the takedown of the website and thus generated much more interest in the document and had the opposite effect of what they wanted.

Thankfully for us most corporations and governments don't realize this. If MS had done nothing the majority of people would have never read this because most people don't visit cryptome or other whistleblowing websites on a regular basis.

Re:Openness (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279134)

http://cryptome.org/ [cryptome.org] is back up and has dozens of different companies similar documents from the likes of yahoo, facebook, paypal, myspace, aol, skype, et al.

Since coming back online he has made all of those available at the top of his website because of the interest generated from his temporary censorship.

Hello, Ms Streisand, is that you? I have Mike Masnick on the phone. He says it's important.

If you don't get it click here [wikipedia.org] and join those that do.

Re:Openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278154)

so they say...

Re:Openness (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279562)

I actually like to see more of these from different companies. Most interestingly, Facebook has a lot personal data. And what about Google? Yahoo?

If anything, such openness is good for MS in this case (even while they don't seem to agree to it, until now that it's leaked).

Other companies policies are also on the site. And it is good for Microsoft. That's why they did it; Striesand effect, and then withdraw the objection...

Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (5, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277544)

One thing thats implied is that if the police say "this X-Box, SN#ABC, was stolen on this date", Microsoft will return the subsequent connection history for that xbox!

Speaking as someone who had my house broken into and my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time), this would have been very cool to have, since Nintendo would do F-all when asked.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277862)

Yes well that sounds good, but such a system could also be abused if, for example, you're a medical marijuana user trying to relieve your arthritis, and the Feds are after you. The last thing you want it Microsoft saying, "Our records show he logged in at L.A. and then San Francisco and then Sacramento in hotel X room Y."

Please note I consider the outlawing of marijuana (or any other plant) to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Therefore I don't consider users to be criminals because I consider the U.S. Prohibition Law to be null.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (0, Offtopic)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278052)

If you're medical marijuana user, isn't it perfectly legal then? Why would they be after you in that case, exactly?

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (0, Offtopic)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278116)

Medical marijuana is NOT legal in the eyes of the Federal Government. Obama has said they will no longer prosecute in contravention of state laws, but it certainly hasn't been legalized and that is just policy of the current administration.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278304)

Ok, as I understood California or some other state had it legalized for medical use. Guess US federal law goes over that.

It's also completely criminalized where I live, but doctor in combination with the medical agency can give special permission to use it for medical use (in which after they can buy it from their own local drug store). It's not widespread, but apparently a few people with injuries from serious accidents and such have got the permission. I don't see anything wrong with that though.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279248)

Ok, as I understood California or some other state had it legalized for medical use. Guess US federal law goes over that.

Yes, unfortunately it does. It depends on where in California you live. San Diego, for example, immediately shuts down dispensaries and it is damn near impossible to get marijuana legally due to the right-wing panopticon nazi religious influence of two massive military bases and crooked crony businessmen-cum-politicians.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278288)

The State Government says it is legal. The Federal Government says it isn't.

Guess which has the bigger guns.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278636)

If you're medical marijuana user, isn't it perfectly legal then? Why would they be after you in that case, exactly?

You haven't been paying attention, have you? The Feds did chase after medical marijuana users in California, considering the state's law invalid.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278168)

That doesn't make any sense. If you are performing some illegal activity then Microsoft (or anyone else) is fully within their rights to cooperate with law enforcement in tracking you down (assuming there is a warrant, of course). That is not abuse; that is the way the system should work. If you have a problem with the law then get the law changed; don't cry about it being enforced.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278712)

That doesn't make any sense. If you are performing some illegal activity then Microsoft (or anyone else) is fully within their rights to cooperate with law enforcement in tracking you down (assuming there is a warrant, of course). That is not abuse; that is the way the system should work. If you have a problem with the law then get the law changed; don't cry about it being enforced.

A lower law says it's illegal, a higher law says the lower law is illegal. Getting that lower law overturned can take decades.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (2, Insightful)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278788)

Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban one substance, but not to ban the new substance?

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279226)

Forgetting the rant about pot, what you are saying is that if you are a fugitive, currently traveling the country to avoid detainment, the police shouldn't be allowed to track you by your Xbox? Me, I'd be more worried about my C/C, bank account, cell phone, liscence plate, passport, email, photo on the evening news.

It is perfectly OK for law enforcement to track people by using public/private resources. As long as they have proper reason/warrants.

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (-1, Troll)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278554)

you're drunk on the kool-aid if you think microsoft is going through all this to give kids their stolen x-boxes back. Read the wired article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/microsoft-cryptome/ [wired.com]

Re:Oh COOL: Tracking stolen xboxen... (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278678)

my Wii stolen (I had no xbox at the time)

So... you eventually got a sex change and replaced your wii with a box?

Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (5, Interesting)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277580)

That Network Solutions, Inc. placed a "legal lock" on his domain name strikes me as NSI appointing themselves sheriff.

We don't need totalitarian internet authorities who "enforce the law" for Microsoft's civil complaints.

I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions, Inc. over their treatment of cryptome.org. I will do so.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277618)

Network Solutions did what is required of them as a service provider under DMCA. It's either that, or be liable themselves for any infringement.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (5, Interesting)

dch24 (904899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277660)

No, if cryptome.org is hosted at Network Solutions (it was, IIRC), Network Solutions should disable or block the hosting.

Commandeering the domain name (a.k.a. "legal lock") is neither protected by the DMCA nor permitted by ICANN.

John Young may be able to sue Network Solutions on this basis.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (3, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277768)

Still makes me wonder why the guy got both domain and hosting from the same place. There has been countless of cases with such issues before, either for the host locking domain too (like here) or giving trouble if you want to move hosting elsewhere but keep the domain. Network Solutions, like GoDaddy's, main business is domain registration anyway, not hosting.

Get the domain from a reputable registrar and then hosting from reputable hosting company.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (2, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279304)

A whois [domaintools.com] on the domain indicates it's old enough that it was created when Network Solutions was the only real registrar available. Remember, in the 'old' days Network Solutions had a monopoly granted it by the NSF to run the 'American' domains. While 1999 was just at the cusp of the change over, it was still a long while before Network Solutions was finally forced to play fair and real alternatives to them that people could trust showed up.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (1)

JWRose (139221) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277794)

Legal Lock does nothing but prevent changes to the domain name. It doesn't disable the domain in any way. In other words, you can't change the domains name servers, you can't add or remove services on the domain, can't renew the domain, the domain cannot be deleted. It's essentially static. However, it does nothing with the content of the domain.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (3, Insightful)

dch24 (904899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277858)

However, the domain was effectively disabled - recovery through transferring the domain name was disabled by the Legal Lock.

It is not like John Young was in a dispute over the domain ownership. The Legal Lock was put in place incorrectly IMO.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (-1, Troll)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278618)

No, he was willfully in violation of copyright law. He was using the domain name in order to further violate copyright law.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (2, Informative)

dch24 (904899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278870)

When was this brought into a court? Did a judge even issue a summary judgment?

Yeah, didn't think so. And Microsoft backed down. [computerworld.com]

In the mean time, the DMCA does not allow for a "Legal Lock" on a domain name.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (0, Troll)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279478)

It doesn't take going to court to be in violation of the law, just to be proven so.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (0, Redundant)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279452)

Wow, I got modded as a troll for that?

Really guys, WTF? The document was copyrighted, that is really hard to dispute considering that it takes nothing more than literally putting "Copyright 2010" on a document for it to be LEGALLY copyrighted. Young was not given permission to distribute that document, which put him in violation of copyright law, period. The DCMA was created for just this purpose to where copyrighted materials could be forced to be pulled down. Microsoft asked him to stop copying it (making it available for download), and he REFUSED. Just because you feel it's inappropriate for a company to "hide" information, doesn't make it right to break copyright laws. He could have simply paraphrased what most of the document said, and avoided the whole issue.

They shouldn't disable the whole site either (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278278)

MS only asserted copyright over one file, and didn't request taking down the whole site. Netsol-the-hoster overreacted.

And as you say, Netsol-the-registrar way overstepped their boundaries.

ever heard of ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278792)

a National Security Letter ?

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277678)

DMCA does not require that the domain name be locked, only that steps are taken to stop the distribution of the allegedly infringing materials. In this case, NetSol was only required to shut the web site, not the entire domain.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (2, Insightful)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278210)

You are incorrect.

Ceasing to host the site is one thing, and, yes, they might argue that they were required to do so under DMCA. Locking the domain name registration is a different action that is not required by the DMCA.

But thanks.

NetSol Far Overstepped the Legal Requirements (4, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278230)

The DMCA requires that if an alleged copyright owner alleges that specific material on a site infringes their copyright, the web hosting provider needs to disable access to that specific material, unless notified by the user that he disputes the allegations of the alleged copyright owner, and there are some detailed timelines for the actions. It doesn't require that the web hosting provider disable the whole website, or that the domain name registrar prevent the domain owner from changing the IP addresses for the website, or that either the web hosting provider or domain name registrar erase all backups, destroy the hardware with thermite, shoot the user's dog, or nuke the city from orbit.

Unless I'm misreading the correspondence that was posted on Cryptome's backup site, Microsoft asked Young's web hosting provider, Network Solutions, to disable access to one specific file under the DMCA, and Network Solutions, as the hosting provider, decided on their own to disable the entire cryptome website, and their evil twin, Network Solutions the DNS Registrar, decided on their own to place a lock on the domain name. I don't know if Netsol-the-registrar's contract with ICANN lets them do that, but I'd be surprised -this isn't a trademark dispute about the name cryptome, it's a copyright dispute about material on the site.

The DMCA deadlines haven't expired yet, so Network Solution's Other Evil Twin, Cthulhu Inc, have not yet completed the aforementioned other activities and slunk back in to the ocean, but it's possible they'll do it anyway just for fun.

true, but (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279300)

Honestly, I read through the leaked document. I can't figure out why this wasn't just published on Microsoft's site. There isn't anything shocking in the document, just an overview of what US law (under the 9th circuit's interpretation) requires and what information is retained by Microsoft. If you look at page 22 of the document, they basically say "here's what the law says you have to do before we can turn this information over to you."

The document seems relatively tame and sane. I am not Microsoft's biggest friend here, and it seems they overreacted a great deal. It would be nice of other companies actually published such policies willingly instead of having them leaked.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (3, Informative)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278718)

It's either [disable the site], or be liable themselves for any infringement.

You are incorrect, in my non-lawyer's opinion from what I know of the DMCA.

The owner of cryptome.org sent a DMCA counter-claim, under penalty of perjury. This means he acknowledges the accusation and bears the responsibility. NSol cannot be held responsible, and is granted immunity from prosecution by the DMCA. MS cannot file another DMCA claim at this point; they can only take him to court.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278480)

I suggest we all boycott Network Solutions...

No problem, I'm already ten years into a lifetime boycott of them for employing some pig-ignorant, clueless, foul-mouthed, abusive, knuckle-dragging trailer-trash that I had to deal with in their alleged customer support department.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (0, Offtopic)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278492)

Very interesting that I can generate an informative thread with a post that peaks at +2 and then hits 0. It's almost like a horde of MS supporters passed through here.

Re:Who gave Network Solutions a badge? (0, Offtopic)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278784)

They don't pass through, they live here.

Fun to hate on MS but... (5, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277630)

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I think they've handled this whole situation correctly.

There's no indication that the document in question was *not* copyright by Microsoft. In this case, the correct legal action is a DMCA, same as if you had a movie up on your site. NetSol is just being a dick, as usual - it's not their responsibility to screw with the domain over the dispute between 2 third-parties unless legally required to (I don't think that's the case here).

In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.

I believe them when they said they didn't intend to take Cryptome down. Looks like it was just NetSol being... proactive. So really the only thing they'd be at fault for was sending a DMCA, which is clearly within their rights. They probably have underlings scouring the web and sending DMCAs - so they were probably not delibrately targeted. When it had unintended consequences, they withdrew it.

I don't think MS is at fault here. I actually think they acted quite exemplary.

Wait wait wait. (4, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277736)

I think you're on the wrong site. I mean that was a well-reasoned, even-keeled reply in a Microsoft article. Are you sure you're supposed to be on slashdot?

In any event, I agree. I don't approve of the DMCA as it currently exists, but it certainly wasn't being abused in this instance, and Microsoft withdrew it quickly after Cryptome was knocked off. *shrug* Story's pretty much over.

Re:Wait wait wait. (3, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277826)

It seems pretty clear to me that some lawyer at Microsoft screwed up. I do not think that this was a justified use of the DMCA. Just because Microsoft quickly withdrew it does not make the original action proper. The DMCA is for preventing the copying of things that a company offers for sale.

This document, I would say, is more of a trade secret than a work you can seriously copyright.

Re:Wait wait wait. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278030)

They can copyright their cafeteria menu and issue a DMCA takedown on that if they really want to.

Re:Wait wait wait. (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278750)

Just because it's within their legal rights doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I'll bet that lawyer has a lot of splainin' to do to the boys upstairs about this egg on their face. The document was leaked, and the DMCA was never intended as a censorship tool, so abuse of it really hits Microsoft in the reputation department. That's why there's this quick turnaround on spinning things.

Re:Wait wait wait. (0, Flamebait)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278724)

You apparently don't know what copyright is, what can be copyrighted, and what it's original and current uses are.

Are you suggesting that linux isn't copyrightable because it's not something that a company offers for sale?

Re:Wait wait wait. (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278962)

I'm pretty sure that the DMCA (and copyright in general) applies to more than things that can be sold. If I write poetry and put it on my blog, and someone yoinks it, or someone puts my home videos on youtube, I believe I can send a takedown request.

Re:Wait wait wait. (1)

urulokion (597607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278964)

No matter the nature of the document is was copyrighted material. Even that it galls me to say it, Microsoft didn't do anything wrong legally in this instance. They did everything by the book. I'm amazed at Microsoft pulling back as quickly as they did from it. Even through they didn't have to.

Network Solutions is the villain in this. All they were legally required to do was to stop access to a single file on cryptome.org. They went far beyond what they needed to do. They yanked the entire domain which down the web site, the e-mail and whatever other service(s) that were tied to the cryptome.org domain and sub-domains.

Re:Wait wait wait. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278754)

I mean that was a well-reasoned, even-keeled reply in a Microsoft article. Are you sure you're supposed to be on slashdot?

Dude, it's fine, he gave NetSol a proper harshing. If Microsoft props had to be part of the effort, it's still copasetic.

Re:Wait wait wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279354)

Haven't you been paying attention? The newest thing is to jump on anyone critical of Microsoft as being fanatical anti-MS zealots. Anyone "brave" enough to talk positive about Microsoft actions or products gets an immediate stamp of approval and accolades.

Re:Wait wait wait. (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279544)

I mean that was a well-reasoned, even-keeled reply in a Microsoft article. Are you sure you're supposed to be on slashdot?

Oh, allow me!

It's a CONSPIRACY! Microsoft orchestrated this leak to suggest that their spy policies are less invasive than Google's!

But we all see through their thinly veiled actions! While this document covers law enforcement, it doesn't cover the NSA or partner companies!

It's clear that this is just more insidious and evil behaviour from Microsoft!

P.S. How'd I do?

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (4, Insightful)

malloc (30902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277828)

I don't think MS is at fault here.

Perhaps not at fault (though when PR says "we didn't do anything" you never know if there was a nudge, nudge, "if you want our business I think you know what we want" message to NetSol). Regardless, NetSol sure is at fault!

 

I actually think they acted quite exemplary.

Whoah! You're saying that it is exemplary for a company to actively hide from users the steps it will go through to give personally identifying information about those users to law enforcement? This is only "exemplary" as an example of what not to do. One of John Young's points was that there isn't a legitimate reason to hide this information from users; many other companies do not hide this information, and neither should Microsoft.

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (0, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277992)

>>>In any case, when Microsoft saw how this was about to go all Streisand on them, they decided correctly that it wasn't worth the fight.

I had clicked "reply" and was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. - MS is not acting honorably, so much as seeing it blow up in their face with bad publicity and they decided they'd better retreat.

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (1)

Nukenbar (215420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278102)

Considering just about every big internet company, heck company, has a law enforcement guide so law enforcement knows who to call in emergencies (like kidnappings) or format subpoena and search warrants for more routine matters, it seems silly to single out Microsoft for this. No company wants to have their law enforcement procedure out in the open.

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278490)

I don't think MS is at fault here. I actually think they acted quite exemplary.

I wonder if Network Solutions feels the same way, now that they're left to slowly twist in the wind... ostensibly, for doing Microsoft's bidding.

Watch how quickly and minimally they handle DMCA requests from Microsoft in the future, and you'll have a good idea.

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279200)

I would argue that if they have "underlings scouring the web and sending DMCA's" without those notices being approved by the higher-ups on an individual basis, then they're still being bad.

The underlings will no doubt do their job to the best of their ability, i.e. find as many copyright infringements as possible, to justify their employment. Sometimes those will be legitimate infringements, sometimes they'll be in a legal gray area, and sometimes they'll just be legitimate complaints or parodies about Microsoft.

And Microsoft knows this. As long as they can play the "it was an honest mistake" card, they can get out of taking responsibility for silencing the opposition, when in reality they've set up a system purposely designed to silence the opposition.

Of course, I don't blame Microsoft; they're just doing what they do best - use everything in their power to crush their enemies and rivals. I blame the DMCA, which is (no doubt intentionally) crafted to allow the copyright holders to punish the so-called infringers without due process and without repercussions if they make these "honest mistakes."

Re:Fun to hate on MS but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279272)

i call shenanigans. do you think if i sent a dmca notification to microsoft.com would go down if i claimed that they were hosting my custom made blank pixel? no.

in other interesting trivia, whois microsoft.com is funny at the moment:

whois microsoft.com

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.IM.ELITE.WANNABE.TOO.WWW.PLUS613.NET
      IP Address: 64.251.18.228
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZZ.MORE.DETAILS.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
      IP Address: 203.36.226.2
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
      IP Address: 69.41.185.194
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZZZ.DOWNLOAD.MOVIE.ONLINE.ZML2.COM
      IP Address: 64.28.187.63
      Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
      Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
      Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM
      IP Address: 217.107.217.167
      Registrar: DOMAINCONTEXT, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.domaincontext.com
      Referral URL: http://www.domaincontext.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ZZZ.IS.0WNED.AND.HAX0RED.BY.SUB7.NET
      IP Address: 207.44.240.96
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM
      IP Address: 185.3.4.7
      Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
      Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
      Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.SLAPPED.IN.THE.FACE.BY.MY.BLUE.VEINED.SPANNER.NET
      IP Address: 216.127.80.46
      Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.ascio.com
      Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.BE.BEATEN.WITH.MY.SPANNER.NET
      IP Address: 216.127.80.46
      Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.ascio.com
      Referral URL: http://publicwhois.ascio.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.WAREZ.AT.TOPLIST.GULLI.COM
      IP Address: 80.190.192.33
      Registrar: EPAG DOMAINSERVICES GMBH
      Whois Server: whois.enterprice.net
      Referral URL: http://www.enterprice.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.TOTALLY.SUCKS.S3U.NET
      IP Address: 207.208.13.22
      Registrar: ENOM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.enom.com
      Referral URL: http://www.enom.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.SOFTWARE.IS.NOT.USED.AT.REG.RU
      Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
      Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
      Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM
      IP Address: 65.160.248.13
      Registrar: GKG.NET, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.gkg.net
      Referral URL: http://www.gkg.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.RAWKZ.MUH.WERLD.MENTALFLOSS.CA
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.OHMYGODITBURNS.COM
      IP Address: 216.158.63.6
      Registrar: DOTSTER, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.dotster.com
      Referral URL: http://www.dotster.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.MORE.INFO.AT.WWW.BEYONDWHOIS.COM
      IP Address: 203.36.226.2
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.LOVES.ME.KOSMAL.NET
      IP Address: 65.75.198.123
      Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
      Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.LIVES.AT.SHAUNEWING.COM
      IP Address: 216.40.250.172
      Registrar: ENOM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.enom.com
      Referral URL: http://www.enom.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.WHAT.GUGGI.AND.TOBI.LOVES.AETRYPIBMU.COM
      IP Address: 212.227.111.4
      Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
      Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
      Referral URL: http://www.key-systems.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOT.YEPPA.ORG
      Registrar: OVH
      Whois Server: whois.ovh.com
      Referral URL: http://www.ovh.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOT.HOSTED.BY.ACTIVEDOMAINDNS.NET
      IP Address: 217.148.161.5
      Registrar: ENOM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.enom.com
      Referral URL: http://www.enom.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.IN.BED.WITH.CURTYV.COM
      IP Address: 216.55.187.193
      Registrar: ABACUS AMERICA, INC. DBA NAMES4EVER
      Whois Server: whois.names4ever.com
      Referral URL: http://www.names4ever.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.HOSTED.ON.PROFITHOSTING.NET
      IP Address: 66.49.213.213
      Registrar: NAME.COM LLC
      Whois Server: whois.name.com
      Referral URL: http://www.name.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BECOUSE.UNIXSUCKS.COM
      IP Address: 161.16.56.24
      Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
      Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
      Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.A.STEAMING.HEAP.OF.FUCKING-BULLSHIT.NET
      IP Address: 63.99.165.11
      Registrar: 1 & 1 INTERNET AG
      Whois Server: whois.schlund.info
      Referral URL: http://REGISTRAR.SCHLUND.INFO

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.IS.A.MESS.TIMPORTER.CO.UK
      Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
      Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
      Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.A.PRESENT.COMING.FROM.HUGHESMISSILES.COM
      IP Address: 66.154.11.27
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.FILLS.ME.WITH.BELLIGERENCE.NET
      IP Address: 130.58.82.232
      Registrar: CRONON AG BERLIN, NIEDERLASSUNG REGENSBURG
      Whois Server: whois.tmagnic.net
      Referral URL: http://nsi-robo.tmag.de

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.CAN.GO.FUCK.ITSELF.AT.SECZY.COM
      IP Address: 209.187.114.147
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Server Name: MICROSOFT.COM.ARE.GODDAMN.PIGFUCKERS.NET.NS-NOT-IN-SERVICE.COM
      IP Address: 216.127.80.46
      Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
      Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
      Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net

      Domain Name: MICROSOFT.COM
      Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
      Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
      Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
      Name Server: NS1.MSFT.NET
      Name Server: NS2.MSFT.NET
      Name Server: NS3.MSFT.NET
      Name Server: NS4.MSFT.NET
      Name Server: NS5.MSFT.NET
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Updated Date: 05-oct-2009
      Creation Date: 02-may-1991
      Expiration Date: 03-may-2015

"legal lock" is way more than taking down the site (3, Informative)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277636)

DMCA takedowns follow a very clear an explicit process on what providers have
to do and how... as I understand it, "locking out" the domain at the registrar
level is far beyond both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Re:"legal lock" is way more than taking down the s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277990)

I suppose network solutions does not need customers. I've ready to move all my domains away from them... The question is where to move them to?

Hell is getting cold` (4, Funny)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277646)

Okay wtf is going on lately. MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice. Did I miss the memo?

Re:Hell is getting cold` (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277756)

Did I miss the memo?

It's because of global warming. Really.

Re:Hell is getting cold` (1)

PPNSteve (1287174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279320)

OH.. I thought it was for the children. I guess global warming has to have some victories.

Re:Hell is getting cold` (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31277838)

Microsoft finally has the competition it needs in areas outside of their "core business PC" market to make them need to have a decent image.

Specifically they want to be competitive in search, social networking, on-line gaming and other areas that kinda-sorta require the trust of their end users. If your end users don't trust you, and they have options, they'll just go somewhere else. This story was making it look like Microsoft had something to hide with this law enforcement guide (which it actually doesn't look like they did - it seems like a straight-forward "here's what you need to provide if the cops come with a court order" document) and it was making it look like Microsoft was incompetent (Streisand effect). Neither of which engender "trust" in the public.

Microsoft is already fighting an uphill battle on the trust issue - years of being the biggest monopolistic bully on the block has a tendency to erode trust in your company and make people root for a David to knock you down a peg or three. People have been rooting against Microsoft for decades and while it seems like for a good long time MS just didn't care what other people thought about them, it's beginning to look like they're realizing that they NEED to care what people think of them. For real this time, and not just through a stupid marketing campaign.

Re:Hell is getting cold` (2, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278312)

Well, I'll try to explain it. Microsoft creates some feel-good document which makes it look like they aren't collecting personal information in terrifying quantities. This document somehow "leaks." Microsoft files a DMCA takedown. NetSol overreacts. Microsoft steps in and says "We didn't mean for THAT to happen, and by the way, you can keep the document."

End result? Microsoft makes another company look like an ass, makes itself look reasonable, and gets a document out there that paints a rosy picture of personal privacy. For all we know, the document is a fiction.

Re:Hell is getting cold` (3, Funny)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278520)

That would be sweet.

Now more likely you just have a really active imagination. Your conspiracy theory is lacking a couple of key motivators. You forgot the part where the NSA was secretly wiretapping the internet connections of a bunch of "internet activists" (be sure to throw in some corresponding, FBI supported real world physical surveillance). Their unConstitutional surveillance measures revealed the danger of the extent of their "real" (in your story) activities were about to be revealed. They made a phone call, and in a back room some guy flipped the magic influence coin. This time it came up heads, Microsoft instead of tails, Google (both are owned by the NSA you know). They sent Jack Bauer out to gather up the appropriate Microsoft personnel and "do whatever it takes" (because that's what Jack Bauer does) to make sure that they first leak, then retract the doctored version of the document regarding their evil menu of law enforcement options.

be careful (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279020)

Okay wtf is going on lately. MS actually admitting mistakes left and right, trying to play nice. Did I miss the memo?

Yes you did. be careful; it's a cookbook!

Re:Hell is getting cold` (2, Funny)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279140)

Yes.

But it's acceptable, since the memo was copyrighted.

That's the DMCA for you... (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277650)

The chain of events is nothing newsworthy. 1. Microsoft claims copyright on its internal guide. 2. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown letter... site refuses. 3. Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server, server provider decides to down site. What's newsworthy is that Microsoft is now saying "sorry" and letting the document stay up now. If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.

Re:That's the DMCA for you... (4, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277738)

If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.

Who didn't know that? Seriously who doesn't understand that the legal system has provisions to force _any_ company to release _any_ data they have about you?

Re:That's the DMCA for you... (1, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278096)

I think what was the important part is WHAT data do they have about you...

Re:That's the DMCA for you... (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277928)

If you didn't know there was a law enforcement back door in everything Microsoft does, well, here's your proof.

Actually I would say that the documents indicate almost the opposite.

They'll give you information that MS has on the servers, but not information that's just on your XBox. To wit: 'Be aware that users may also store e-mail content on their computer's hard drive. Microsoft will not be able to disclose e-mail content stored on a user's computer --- only e-mail content stored on Microsoft's e-mail servers.' In other words, there isn't a backdoor onto the actual XBox.

Re:That's the DMCA for you... (4, Informative)

ashridah (72567) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277952)

Calling this a 'back door' is a bit disengenuous. That's data that Microsoft has collected about you, through your use of their services. If a law enforcement agency has the appropriate request (supoena or warrant, etc), then it's either "provide a way for them to collect it, in such a way that protects every other user of the service from undue scrutiny" or "let them walk in and take the servers, and screw everyone"

You're making a big mistake if you think that law enforcement agents won't do the latter if you refuse to give them the former.

You missed what's incorrect & newsworthy about (4, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278416)

MS wants to suppress one file, JY refuses, MS sends DMCA letter to Netsol requesting taking down the one file. That's mildly newsworthy because it's cryptome and MS, but that's not the big event. Netsol took down the whole site, not just the one file, which is especially newsworthy because of the importance of cryptome and because it exceeds their requirements, and then Netsol the Registrar locked the domain name, which isn't at all required, and is newsworthy because they're locking domain names for non-domain-related reasons.

And MS is saying "sorry" not only because JY asserted his rights to dispute the DMCA takedown and thousands of people yelled at MS, but because MS is getting blamed for Netsol's overkill overreaction.

Re:That's the DMCA for you... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278876)

Microsoft sends DMCA takedown to server provider, server provider must take on the liability or take down the whole server

The confusion here is that Network Solutions was providing two services. As a web hosting company (until yesterday didn't even know they are in that business), yes, they have to take down the server to avoid liability. But as a DNS registrar, they didn't have to do anything. If a web site infringes a copyright, the DNS registrar doesn't need to do anything to stay out of the line of fire. They're never in the line of fire. They can blow off DMCA notices. Now if they're a hosting company too, then ok. Killing cryptome's website is fine. The problem is with the 'legal lock' (WTF is that?!) on the name. That never should have happened and Network Solutions has some explaining to do.

The very name "legal lock" sounds suspicious, like "PATRIOT Act." It smells like an attempt to legitimize a major fuckup, by handwaving to try to make people think they somehow did the responsible thing or had their hands tied.

All Service Providers Should Have A Clear Policy (4, Insightful)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277710)

This stuff shouldn't be shocking to anyone: By law, they will reveal certain things about online services when requested. The problem should be that they don't want you to know what they are forced to give up which seems to be the wrong stance. These services should be function like a bank safety deposit box: Although private, it isn't legally sacrosanct and will be opened by third parties for inspection in certain circumstances.

If nothing else, all of these online services to have a general policy about this as well. If I suddenly croak, who gets access to stuff I stored out there online? Putting the password and other access information in a vault somewhere isn't reliable or sane. I may even state it in my will that I want my immediate family to take ownership of all of my online information but I have no idea how to compel Microsoft or Google or whatever to release these accounts to someone else. This seems like one of those areas all service providers should be better at defining instead of hiding the detail from us in the legalese of the EULA.

Re:All Service Providers Should Have A Clear Polic (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278816)

Although private, it isn't legally sacrosanct and will be opened by third parties for inspection in certain circumstances.

Stop using big words correctly. You're setting a bad precedent for slashdot.

Really, is anyone surprised (2, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277722)

by the data that they can gather? Heck, the users give the data to them. All of it is data that would be gathered by any provider of similar services.

The only surprise is that they got worked up by the document getting out, and invoked the Streisand Effect.

Re:Really, is anyone surprised (2, Insightful)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31277820)

As was posted in previous comments, I also don't think the document is really anything to cry home about. The truth is, reviewing the document left me a bit more comfortable. They clearly spelled out what they did and didn't track, and I actually found out that they track less than I thought they did.

Re:Really, is anyone surprised (0, Flamebait)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278328)

The truth is, reviewing the document left me a bit more comfortable. They clearly spelled out what they did and didn't track, and I actually found out that they track less than I thought they did.

Hah... hah... hah. Hook, line, sinker.

Re:Really, is anyone surprised (2, Insightful)

fyrewulff (702920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278802)

What the deal is... is that they probably view this as a 'trade secret'. You know how companies are. Actual sales numbers are trade secrets. How many packages they can fit in a truck is a 'trade secret'.

So when internal processes were shown, they reflexively DMCA'd it because it was an internal document.

When the provider stepped over their bounds, MS correctly officially backed off and told the ISP and everyone to restore everything. Because it prevents them getting Streisand'd over what ultimately amounts to a guidelines document. Really not worth persuing trying to keep it off the internet.

It'd be kind of like how I walk down the aisles of the local Wal Marts in the middle of the night (all of Omaha's are open 24 hours) and they have the shelving papers taped to the aisles whenever they change them around. They all have DO NOT PUBLISH in big letters on the top.. even though any other store owner could come by and take a cameraphone picture of it, and technically they could DMCA you if you took a scan and uploaded it... really not worth chasing something that minor, because you can figure out their shelving by just looking at it anyway. You could do the same with MS's privacy policies - just research news stories and see what they've given up over time, and you'll figure out what they do and don't keep.

copyright would not apply to a paraphrased version (2, Insightful)

anwyn (266338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278004)

I do not know if the posting document would be covered by fair use or not. But copyright law does not protect facts or ideas, only the particular expression of ideas. It seems to me that a paraphrased version would be perfectly legal. This makes copyright law a poor vehicle to enforce secrecy.

User satisfaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278018)

On another news, Microsoft never intended to make an OS that made their users miserable. A spokesman from Microsoft said: "Ah, that did happen, we are sorry and maybe will will fix that in the next release."

Analysis of Statement (4, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278042)

"'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman."

This is total, exquisite bullshit. The fact is, a DMCA request in this case triggers a site takedown if the owner disagrees with taking down the material.

Did MS verbally utter the request, "Will you please take down the site?" No, they didn't.

Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"? Yes, they did.

Re:Analysis of Statement (1)

WraithCube (1391567) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278790)

"'In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed,' said a Microsoft spokeswoman."

This is total, exquisite bullshit. The fact is, a DMCA request in this case triggers a site takedown if the owner disagrees with taking down the material.

Did MS verbally utter the request, "Will you please take down the site?" No, they didn't.

Did they press a bright green legal button labelled, "Push here to initiate site takedown process"? Yes, they did.

As far as I know a DMCA request does not trigger a site takedown if the owner disagrees and files a counter-DMCA notice. The fact that sites have been taken down from it has been more from companies going above and beyond what is required by law, which unfortunately seems to be the standard rather than the exception right now.

Re:Analysis of Statement (3, Insightful)

urulokion (597607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279108)

DMCA takedown provisions don't say take down the entire site. The DCMA ways to deny access to the contested content. In this case it was ONE file on a very large web site.

They way a take down is supposed to work is this.
1) Copyright holder sends DCMA take down notice to the hosting company.
2) Hosting company to get a legal safe habor must deny access to the material specified in the take down notice.
3) The party that posted the material can file a counter-notice to the service provider.
4) The server provider then must restore access to the contested material within a period of 10-14 business days.
5) During that 10-14 period allowed the copyright to go to a court and request a Temporary Restraining Order to keep the contented material offline. And then file a lawsuit against the party which posted the material online.

The idea is allow the material to removed quickly from the Internet by the copyright holders to theoretically reduced the damage. And the take down period for the copyright holder to get the restaining order to keep the material offline. And the counter-notice is to notify the hosting provide to say "I'm in the right, put that material back up." And the hosting provider is off the hook from any copyright liability.

Nothing new to see here; same old story (2, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278090)

Microsoft got caught taking unwarranted action against a well known website. Now they're claiming that they never intended to do that and that the information in question isn't really protected.

Anyone who believes that this means Microsoft has turned over a new leaf needs to go back to the school of hard knocks and learn about "spin", "doublespeak" and "marketing". If you think that they would back off like this if the general public DID NOT know what transpired then don your pointy hat and go sit in the corner. The history of Microsoft should be well known in these parts and years of bad behavior by that company should provide more than sufficient reason to doubt them now.

The way it was done - by the domain registrar re-directing their domain name to NULL was not a mistake - it was because a MS "enforcer" decided to teach Cryptome a lesson and used Microsoft's influence with NetSol to make it happen. You don't think NetSol makes a regular practice of this kind of stuff, do you? What's really interesting this time is they got caught with dirty hands - and decided a "whoops, my bad" would make it OK. That wouldn't work if there weren't so many who are ready to argue for the bad guy just because it gives them a soap box to speak from.

Sure, there's a few Microsoft shills who monitor this site and post / mod accordingly. Their behavior is bad but expected - but the rest of you... Really, read TFA and think about it for a few minutes before you hit that "reply" button. It's not only a good idea, it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.

Re:Nothing new to see here; same old story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31278366)

Sure, there's a few Microsoft shills who monitor this site and post / mod accordingly. Their behavior is bad but expected - but the rest of you... Really, read TFA and think about it for a few minutes before you hit that "reply" button. It's not only a good idea, it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.

Spare the stupid conspiracy theories. I just modded you down. For obvious reasons i need to post this anonymous, but i'm still quite sure that i did the right thing. Your post consists of nothing that flamebait and - i said it - conspiracy theories. Both conspiracy theories about the case itself and conspiracy theories about the people commenting and moderating here. I'm not a microsoft shill and i'm quite certain that i'm a better slashdotter at you. At least i'm here much longer than you, i proudly have a three digit uid (of course i can't prove this right now). I felt that your comment is worthless and stupid, and i modded it down. End of story.

Too convenient (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278452)

tin_hat_mode_on
Hmmm this is too convenient... maybe MS wanted the document to "leak", giving false assurances to the masses? In actuality, they are logging every single bit that passes through!
tin_hat_mode_off
nah... couldn't happen... or could it?
How could a document like this "leak" out? By whom? A law enforcement agency employee? A Microsoft employee? The document is actually pretty benign - it basically states that the data logged is that which is also logged by every web server in existence, nothing more serious than that. Pretty good-natured from MS.
Anyways... stay crunchy!

We're sorry (1)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278642)

When we were shooting bullets, we didn't want anyone to get hurt. Blame the pistol!

Linking to Computerworld again? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278654)

Haven't we just established that Computerworld and Infoworld are a bunch of trolls who will do anything for pageviews? Why is Slashdot linking to them again?

I don't trust that document (1, Interesting)

WeirdJohn (1170585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278714)

About 10 years ago a colleague of mine found a reproducible way to run commands as administrator on any windows machine that enabled shares or IIS. He provided Microsoft with full details on how to do it. Then he was raided by the Feds 2 days later, as he was apparently a "dangerous hacker". He didn't even let us know how he did it though - just Microsoft. Fortunately his Dad was a senior policeman, and knew the right people (lawyers) to get some sense in the situation. Microsoft is not to be trusted in it's dealings with the law.

Re:I don't trust that document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279068)

About 5 years ago, my friend's dad's tennis partner's dog's breeder told Linus Torvalds that he had an unpaid parking ticket. 6 minutes later, he was being raped in a Federal prison by a rather brutal black man by the name of "Tyrone".

Slightly more ridiculous but with an equal basis in fact to your story.

Re:I don't trust that document (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31279374)

[citation needed] and pleeeease don't even suggest that this magical incident happened without the press ever finding out.

Yep.... (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278920)

And in other news, the tooth fairy gave me a blowjob last night....

Closing Door After the Horse Has Left the Barn (2, Insightful)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31278982)

The document had already gotten out into the wild. That it was restricted only made it more popular and there were plenty of places to get it besides Cryptome. All MS was doing was generating more bad publicity for itself.

Re:Closing Door After the Horse Has Left the Barn (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279168)

You mean the Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] ?

I'm not up on my data-retention laws (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31279122)

But it would appear to me that some of Microsoft's policies, as stated, are potential violations of data retention laws, specifically the timeframe in which they are keeping their records.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?