Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Cryptome to be Terminated by Verio/NTT

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the is-this-the-whole-story dept.

Censorship 171

George Maschke writes "Cryptome, a website concerned with encryption, privacy, and government secrecy, has received two weeks' notice from Verio that its service will be terminated for unspecified "violation of [its] Acceptable Use Policy." Cryptome has a history of making publicly available documents and information that governments would rather keep secret. For the notice, and a public response by Cryptome webmaster John Young, see Cryptome Shutdown by Verio/NTT."

cancel ×

171 comments

Already down - thanks slashdot (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18918929)

No need to wait for two weeks to shut down a site. Just submit it to slashdot
and get it shut down in minutes.

Re:Already down - thanks slashdot (5, Informative)

eneville (745111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18918945)

No need to wait for two weeks to shut down a site. Just submit it to slashdot
and get it shut down in minutes.
mirrored: http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/e231a81023b07bf39 9b68b2c295e9736/index.html [mirrordot.org] http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/deb36db488f175511 ebd77b98603b50f/index.html [mirrordot.org]

Re:Already down - thanks slashdot (5, Informative)

johnyoung (204516) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919481)

Right, Cryptome happily chokes on slashdot, but not to worry, mirrors are available as noted below.

Cryptome and its affiliated sites will continue with another ISP, in the US or elsewhere. Or if necessary, underground, or via means not easily shuttered, or by way of whatever is invented for opposing technologies of information control (credit to Steven Wright, author of The Technologies of Political Control: http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm [cryptome.org] ).

Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920307)

Do NOT - repeatt NOT - Fuck with the Man, man. When the US AG is politically corrupt it all is, man. The saying goes, your ass is grass, man.

Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weasels (3, Interesting)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919789)

So the British "intelligence" services, the same ones that said Saddam Hussein had huge stockpiles of WMD that could strike the UK in 45 minutes, can get a website turned off it America? The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?

Come on America, we all used to look up to you as the beacon of freedom, but now your country is being turned into a Tudor monarchy, within a few years there will be no freedom left, will the last one out please turn off the lights when you leave.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919939)

So our "intelligence" services specifically gave some Libyan a Visa to come to Britain and hopefully be recruited, and he instead set up a terrorist network, what a load of monkeys. Then they tell a US ISP to help cover up the truth that they were actually making Britain less safe. A bunch of public schoolboy hooray henries, sack the lot of them I say, out source it to India.

Re:Oer the land of the unfree and the home of weas (5, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920517)

The ISP just weasely pulls the plug without negotiation just because some guy with a British accent rings up?

I don't think that's what happened. I suspect what happened was that someone in the US government saw something they didn't like, and sent a National Security Letter or other such silliness to Verio. Verio of course can't legally disclose that, but given that Verio had been always been very forthright with John Young in the past but is being tight-lipped about the situation now, I think it's quite possible that something like this is behind Verio's actions.

Gotta love living in a nation where the government makes you do their own damn police work against someone else against your will, and then threatens you with jail if you say anything about it.

any good soul? (4, Interesting)

eneville (745111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18918931)

Is there anyone who would like to put up some bounty for having this hosted in a country with liberal hosting rules, such as Sweden perhaps?

Re:any good soul? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18918975)

He might want to host it where he hosted it so far, simply because he is aware of the legal dos and don'ts of the current setup.

Re:any good soul? (5, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919109)

Why bother?

I was able to read all of the pages peviously withdrawn with the exception of one (the Irish injunction) in minutes without going to cryptome. The rest of the site can also be found in the usual places.

If people are dumb to know about things like this I suspect we sholdn't go out of our way to tell them.

Here's an excerpt from a document withdrawn in 2001:


UNDERSTANDING AND HELPING INDIVIDUALS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEMS

Copyright 1995

LDS Social Services

USE OF THE DOCUMENT

This training document has been prepared for the exclusive use of LDS Social Services to assist staff, interns, and contract providers in their work with individuals having homosexual problems. Because the document is approved only for "in house" use, it should not be reproduced nor distributed to others outside of LDS Social Services.

UNDERSTANDING AND HELPING INDIVIDUALS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEMS

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

For more than 100 years homosexuality has been a topic of scientific and psychotherapy inquiry and debate. Freud and his contemporaries viewed homosexuality as a deviation or "inversion" of natural psychosexual development, the causes of which being as varied and numerous as the theorists espousing them. According to Freud, the deviation resulted primarily from a distorted parent-child relationship which led the child to reject his or her own gender role and identify with the opposite~sexed parent. This view received considerable empirical support later in this century through studies by Irving Bieber and a number of other researchers (Siegelmm, 1987).


But! These things hang by a thread. I would posit that people who want them archived should post them to usenet. A lot. In a world where news postings are routinely made into "google ad blogs" there'll be lots of copies on many servers around the world.

Some people think you can delete things off the Internet. They are fools.

(Note the invalid copyright notice on the above document. You have to say who it's copyrighted by, not just a date. Of course as an excerpt here for academic purposes it's covered by fair use under US copyright law).

Re:any good soul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919161)

Note the invalid copyright notice on the above document. You have to say who it's copyrighted by, not just a date.

Not sure what you're on about, but the quoted portion clearly states "Copyright 1995 LDS Social Services". It's one thing to poke holes in another's work, another to hit the mark with certainty.

Re:any good soul? (4, Insightful)

fwr (69372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919339)

It's even worse than that. You don't actually need a "valid" copyright notice in the US anymore. Works are copyrighted automatically. It certainly helps to have a copyright notice. It also helps to have your works registered with the government, but that is usually not necessary unless you are about to sue someone (just like Novell and SCO scrambled to register their claimed copyrights in the Unix source; funny they didn't feel the need to register them before the lawsuits).

Now one can argue that as soon as the owner places a work on a publicly accessible location, such as a blog or on Slashdot, that you implicitly grant others the right to copy that work. That may be a stretch, and would depend on the situation. If the acceptable use policy of the site says that all submissions are reproducible that is much different than if you have a site in which you have to login and pay a fee in order to retrieve documents or other works (think DRM free pay music sites). However, just because some information is "leaked" one way or another, such as the LDS document sited, it does not mean that the owner of the work gave the permission or relinquished their rights. Hence, even the "fair use" of a small part of their work may not pass muster. One could argue that their internal documents on how they treat homosexuality are not only copyrighted, but in fact Trade Secrets, and there is no fair use of Trade Secrets. As long as they took reasonable steps to protect those items the leaking of them does not change their status. So it could be said that the web site should not have published the documents has they done something as simple as read the beginning which indicated they were confidential internal documents.

Re:any good soul? (3, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919211)

If people are dumb to know about things like this I suspect we sholdn't go out of our way to tell them.

Don't be like that. Those are the people who need the most help. They really can't help it. It was part of their conditioning as they grew up. It actually is very difficult to overcome. Believe me, I know. We all need help more than ever now.

Some people think you can delete things off the Internet.

We show them otherwise and problem solved. But we must show them, however graphically as necessary and by whatever means, that the internet is not to be controlled by any particular person or group. Keep the controls within your own network. Leave the public net alone. We must insure that the individual reigns supreme, at all costs.

Re:any good soul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919369)

Don't be like that. Those are the people who need the most help. They really can't help it. It was part of their conditioning as they grew up. It actually is very difficult to overcome. Believe me, I know. We all need help more than ever now.

 
Are you referring to gay people, or dumb people?

Re:any good soul? (3, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919495)

ALL people :-) In fact, you look like you could use some help, my son. Meditating and concentrating on your navel might lead you to the path of righteousness. Then just watch the signs...until you get to the...fork..in..the..road. There you will get stuck to see if you are done.

Re:any good soul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920031)

But we must show them, however graphically as necessary and by whatever means, that the internet is not to be controlled by any particular person or group.

Corporations and governments have been trying to get the internet "under control" for maybe 10 years now, and they're showing no signs of giving up. They are making progess. I've wasted much time trying to think of a way to put "control" forever out of reach but all my ideas are impractical at best.
The Diamond Age" described a world where a lawless internet brought down governments all over the world, but in the real world governments are hip to that danger and they're "taking steps". I think we should too.

Re:any good soul? (2, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920219)

"Corporations and governments have been trying to get the internet "under control" for maybe 10 years now,"

Haha. Longer than that. There was a CIA study in the 1970s about this that concluded as long as there are modems and phone lines nothing about the network can be controlled. But who reads those things anyway?

I understand very well the implications of the US adopting the Berne convention rules on copyright on Jan 1 1990, I was just pointing out that a badly formed copyright notice looks foolish. With a valid copyright notice you could sue for punative/statutory damages but they flubbed it here. How gay.

Implicit right to copy is the reason usenet software can make thousands of copies of your work. You're asking it to make copies of your posting.

wrong. (5, Informative)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919361)

The Berne Conventions eliminated the need to even post a copyright notice. Copyright automatically falls into the hands of the "creator" the moment it is created.

if you want to go after somebody with a DMCA notice on something with no notice and no registration, you can easily register the copyright years later, then go after them.

explination (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18918943)

Dont they have to tell you what violation you commited?

No, that only applies in a democratic country (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919057)

Now that you mention it, the US actually *was* a democratic country at one point.

That was quite some time back though.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919123)

What's that have to do with the price of rice? It's a private contract thing, not a constitutional issue.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919301)

The fuck? Look, I'm as liberal as anyone I know (the "NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND GORE" bleaters don't count, since they're just reactionaries in sheeple clothing) but you're fucking retarded. This has nothing to do with democracy or fundamental rights.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919787)

This has nothing to do with democracy or fundamental rights.

It doesn't?

Ask yourself what's more likely, that Verio decided to drop a customer for some REAL contractual failing that for some reason they do not wish to disclose (when all the correspondance shows that both sides were sorting out everything very professionally and amicably over a long period of time, or that Verio was pressured into it and forbidden to disclose the source of the pressure?

This is VERY much to do with fundamental rights in a democracy. But those fundamental rights are being trodden on every single day, and not only behind the scenes. Democracy and fundamental rights have been left so far behind in this country that those in power no longer even feel the need to cover it up, a lot of the time.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (2, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919523)

I bet Cryptome was brought down by special request of George W. Bush himself! The guy is an evil super-villian behind everything.

Yesterday I couldn't find my goddamned keys anywhere; I put them right there on the side and the next day they were gone..
Bush won't think twice about shorting your car battery, rusting your bike chain or cutting holes in the bottom your pockets; he's just that evil. My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!
This is another example of Bush working his evil ways through an innocent ISP.

Patriot act blood for oil McCarthy state of fear American dream blah blah blah.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (0, Offtopic)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919583)

Thousands of people around the world have had their families destroyed by acts that Bush is responsible for, and you can rest assured that they will have their revenge. So joke about "blaming" Bush for bad acts now from the safety of your keyboard, if it makes you feel better - it might go some way to balancing out the fear you should feel whenever you fly a plane or enter a tall building. Thanks to Bush, those fears are more justified today than they were before he took office.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919853)

This has what to do with Cryptome?

"Bush" is not a synonym for "American foreign policy" or "the American government" or "the Bush administration" as you seem to think it is. If the government requested that the site be taken down, and the site actually didn't violate any of the terms of service, that's fine and I'm interested to hear it.
My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency. People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.
Give blame where blame is due, don't talk to me about "Bush" where it isn't actually him. In the case of Cryptome it isn't actually him; find out if something shady was done, find out who did it, try and get it fixed. Don't get lazy and blame Bush, it gets so tiring.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (2, Informative)

visualight (468005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920069)

"Bush" is the reason why shit like this is happening here and now. It's entirely reasonable to blame him for an abusive law enforcement agency. Of course you could then blame "us" for letting him into office.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (0, Troll)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920321)

> This has what to do with Cryptome?

I was replying to your comment, which was similarly off-topic.

> My only point was that it's not "Bush", it's the FBI/whatever organization/bureau/agency.

That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them.

> People who think everything bad the government does can be attributed to the president aren't going to actually think about who is
> screwing up, and so nothing gets fixed.

I can't speak for other people, but I think it's worth going after both the personal ultimately responsible for everything which happens below him AND whoever is responsible.

Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Bush had anything to do with this site's current situation. I'm sure it'll find another host soon, and/or be hosted via torrents.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (0, Troll)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920831)

That *is* Bush, because he's sits above them.

Exactly.

"I'm the leader."

"I'm the commander-in-chief. It's for me to worry about these things. It's for you to go about your business."

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921075)

What will their revenge against Bush be?

Say I'm flying to Omaha, I'm somewhere over eastern Nevada when some guy wearing a Semtex brand hat that security somehow missed jumps up and says he is going to blow the place to smithereens. Bush is inside a concrete bunker 4 miles below the surface of the earth. He is watching Americas Funniest Home Videos reruns, laughing at a guy getting banged in the crotch by his 5 year old's whiffle ball bat. Cheet-Os crumbs waft from his mouth with every giggle.

I'm sure that Bush will really feel the hot breath of revenge on the back of his neck as my corpse, on fire, plunges to the earth. And as the NTSB sifts through the sand looking for charred bone fragments to put in a UPS mailer to send to my family, pretending they DNA matched to me, Bush will sit in his underground lair, on a throne woven from $100 bills, and sob.

Or maybe not. Maybe he'll be too busy snorting cocaine off some hooker's thigh. When he or his successor get around to reading their daily briefing they'll call a press conference and announce that this great nation will not tolerate such aggression. With a flip of a cell phone a barrage of ordinance will fall from the stratosphere and annihilate masses of people who live in a place most of us had never heard of before the press conference. It might even kill some of the people who knew some of the people who were originally responsible for the terror.

And when all the smoke settles it will all happen again. Some of us will pretend it was this guy's fault, others of us will pretend it was that other guy's fault. Either way, it will happen over and over and over regardless of who gets revenge on whom.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921355)

> Either way, it will happen over and over and over regardless of who gets revenge on whom.

It'll happen over and over while there's popular support around the world for the people wh attack those they consider responsible for problems in their part of the world, certainly.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919913)

My co-workers say I need to stop ranting about Bush and that I should get back to work.. Clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment!

Unless you're about to "go postal" you should be thinking 1st Amendment, not 2nd.

More on-topic - maybe they should look into moving to ibiblio.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920301)

No, Bush is so evil he makes bullets rust.

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (3, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920673)

No, Bush is so evil he makes bullets rust.

Which is why he gave orders that all US bullets should be coated in pig fat.

Not only does it stop them from rusting but it also sends your enemies to hell if they are Jews or Moslems or Christians (and it happens to be a Friday).

Re:No, that only applies in a democratic country (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920217)

Hmm, that must have been some time before the civil war. The war increased the power of Washington and nullified the power of most states - especially southern ones. Democracy in the US got watered down accordingly, since there are no more proper 'checks and balances'.

Every day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18918947)

...the 'Beacon of Freedom' gets a little dimmer.

Re:Every day... (2, Insightful)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919111)

Bah. People are slowly waking up to the fact that "freedom" never existed to begin with. How do you like your life - nasty, brutish and short or semi-nasty, unfair and long?

Re:Every day... (5, Insightful)

plaxion (98397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919207)

You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?

Re:Every day... (1)

appelsiini (1002972) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919225)

Freedom is an illusion, and from jail one can anyway escape. So why bother - if rulers don't mess with us, we could not care less.

Re:Every day... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919289)

I say government is the illusion.. or better described legal fiction. They are just other men with no right to rule other men.

Re:Every day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920523)

Group A believes that it can tell group B what to do
Group B tells group A where to shove it
Group A then tells group C that they (group A) are allowed to tell group B what to do.
Group C and group A then band together to force group B to do what group A wants.

The real problem is the idiots in group C who (1) believe group A at face value and (2) are too complacent to realise that one day they could be in group B.

SIX (6) Years Old (-1, Troll)

ckedge (192996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18918971)

Why is everything on that page dated 2001?

Are you kidding me? You approved a story that happened SIX (6) years ago?

Re:SIX (6) Years Old (1, Offtopic)

ckedge (192996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18918987)

Bah, my bad. Everything on that page beloe the very first thing was probably quoted in response to the very first letter. Very poor formatting on Cryptome's part.

Re:SIX (6) Years Old (3, Insightful)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919069)

No it is *not* 6 years old.

No everything on the page is not six years old.

Go back a reread it.

There is a whole email chain included, on the mirrordot link, stretching back to 2001 (and probably further I did not read the whole chain)

I doubt cryptome will have trouble finding hosting, honestly I'm sort of surprised that they use Verio/NTT

text of the page (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919009)

can be found here... [mirrordot.org]

I would have posted it, but it tripped the lameness filter...

Long Term Ramifications (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919125)

Sites like this could simply be 'blacklisted' if no ISP wil pick them up due fears of prosecution.

Good way to restrict 'evil' information dissemination to the masses.

What is next, 'hate' sites being cut loose? Or 'independent freedom talk' being removed from the digital landscape?

Re:Long Term Ramifications (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919629)

Sites like this could simply be 'blacklisted' if no ISP wil pick them up due fears of prosecution.

The problem here is not the ISP but with the laws that cause those fears. The blacklisting is done with laws, not AUPs.

Spammers being okay with Verio/NTT, what we see here is an illustration of the kinds of behavior the relevant laws were meant to circumscribe. It's harder to make a legal and business case for a political speech site than it is to send people fake ads.

Re:Long Term Ramifications (1)

StoneTempest (920838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920345)

There will always be the option to move the site out of the US, and if that option is lost (by whatever means, like the Great Firewall of China) then the US will have much more major problems than internet hosting restrictions.

Re:Long Term Ramifications (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921265)

If the information is sufficiently worthy of being disseminated, there are plenty of unstoppable ways to get it out-- P2P, email lists, USENET, even anonymous comment spamming.

"Hate sites" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18921539)

Been done, over and over. Too many ISPs have clauses against "hate" in their AUPs already. And even those that don't will often bow to outside pressure, as happened recently [vanguardnewsnetwork.com] with the host of vnnforums.

Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers (4, Insightful)

merc (115854) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919137)

Of course, it's VERIO's network, they're free to have whomever they like as customers. I just find it dubious that they're TOS'ing Young for abuse or violations of their AUP when they simultaneously decide to host spamming scum:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver io.net [spamhaus.org]

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919191)

Er, I see four listings there. While not anything to be proud of (there shouldn't be any), I imagine most other large hosting companies have at least that number.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers (2, Informative)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919951)

Of course, it's VERIO's network, they're free to have whomever they like as customers. I just find it dubious that they're TOS'ing Young for abuse or violations of their AUP when they simultaneously decide to host spamming scum:

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=ver io.net [spamhaus.org]
I think they might be, actually - in several of the emails in the linked conversation between Verio and Cryptome, it warns them that people repeatedly receiving DMCA notices are in violation of the AUP. Doesn't sound like it matters whether the notices are fair or unfounded.

Re:Yet, VERIO.NET are happy to host spammers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920551)

I'd say VERIO is a pretty bad place to host documents that regularly draw DMCA notices. In one of the posted emails, their legal department notes:

If you feel that the complainant has made a mistake you may send us a
counter notification via fax to 303-708-2445. If we receive a counter
notification that complies with the DMCA, we will allow you to repost the
materials in 10-14 business days from the date of receipt of the counter
notification, unless we receive notice that the complainant has filed a law
suit against you. You may also wish to consult an attorney regarding this
matter.


It's pretty bad that they force you to take down anything that anyone complains about, no matter if the DMCA notice has been sent by mistake (or in bad faith, but apparently they don't even consider this). As a Verio customer, you have to take it down for at least 10 to 14 business days, i.e. up to 3 weeks. In some of their other emails, they don't even mention counter notices. And what is that "unless we receive notice that the complainant has filed a law suit" part? It's news to me that filing a law suit would require taking down anything - if a law suit is filed, it's a problem entirely between the complainant and the receiver of the DMCA notice, and if a judge decides that the material has to be removed, he can oder VERIO's customer to take it down, no need for VERIO to get involved (unless they are named in the order). I personally would not want to host anything with VERIO, and most certainly nothing that would ralate to any business of mine, lest anyone could take it down whenever he pleases for at least 2 weeks.

Freedom to dissent? (5, Insightful)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919223)



We don't allow this kind of dissent in Soviet Amerika. If your not with us your a terrorist.

Ok so that's a bit over the top but really what's this coming to? Where do we draw the line on Police state America?

It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck. (1)

Old Ike (637987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919803)

Die, you moronic mouthbreathing shithead.

Re:It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck. (2, Insightful)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920013)

Im gonna risk it and respond to this. I think I have found the lowest rated ./ user out there.. believe it or not this is not the first time he has made coments like this.. I'm ahh also going to type like I talk to make ya even MORE pissy.

I'm going to assume from "you're" (har har) comments that ya'are a Republican. Its that or you'r just a spelling natsi.

So at what point do you think we are safe enough? How many freedoms must we loose? Will you allow the government to post guards in shopping malls and night clubs? Do you want CCTV on every corner? Will we implant tracking devices on every man woman and child? Where does it end?? This is not a valid question to ask? ... To me a nation of freedom is not "what your government allows you to do" OR "whar you hide from the government" Its a nation where men do not impose their will over other men.

A free nation means, you can do what you want so long as your not hurting others. You want to smoke pot.. its a free nation, smoke your pot and uhh dude, enjoy it too. You want to look at pr0n, really nasty shit.. I cant think of nobody that would be hurt from that.. you are free in my nation to do this. Want to ride a croch rocket without a helmet you are "free" to do that too.. (dumbass)

Now that "you're" (haha) aware of my illiterate nature.. prehaps you can kill me.. but bewarned Libertarians own guns.

Re:It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920639)

I'm not republican, not even american. I can only tell you, your grammar sucks and hurts the eye. Just because you are 'libertarian', it doesn't mean you can screw your language. If your tiny brain cannot cope with the differences between written and spoken language, move someplace else where the differences are less straining.

Re:It's "you're" you stupid illiterate fuck. (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920919)

Just because you are 'libertarian', it doesn't mean you can screw your language heh.. No, just being human gives me that right. ;-) Enjoy.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

EWillieL (15339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919829)

Actually, it's Fascist America. Or Corporatist America.

This guy's [thomhartmann.com] book [mythical.net] goes into quite a bit of detail.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919879)

I'm leaning towards "Corporatist", it doesn't have the historical baggage.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (0)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919911)

Corporate America? Corporations are legal fiction provided to rich people by the government, in order to protect them from shady business practices.. They should be illegal, and would not exist without government at all.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919865)

I honestly don't see what your comments have to do with this discussion. I'm not really surprised you were modded insightful, as insulting the US is one of the new cool things around /. but this is a single corporation making a decision about not allowing a single site due to violations of what it deems acceptable use, nothing to do with the government far as I can see...

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919893)

Ahh so.. anit-government site gets pulled and governments got nothing at all to do with it ehh?

You can put a lot of things on a web site and not get shut down. For example http://timecube.com/ [timecube.com]

If you step on the wrong toes, piss of the wrong people.. just like any other gang or mafia group, the government will go after you.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

ProfM (91314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920167)

Where do we draw the line on Police state America?

Obviously, you are not a good citizen.

Please review the following propaganda refresher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM [youtube.com]

Remember, We're the government, and you're not.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920295)

No I'm not, I didn't drink the kool-aid in government school. :)

Right a refresher, just like the guy in the ski mask with the black body armor who has a fully automatic weapon pointed at you head.. saying the scariest words known to man.. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"

Re:Freedom to dissent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920367)

Does anyone else weep for America or despair of what we've become and are becoming as a nation? Freedom of speech and the free flow of information has been stifled.

Re:Freedom to dissent? (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920439)

I think you drew it in Q4 2001, when you opted for the feeling of security (not to be confused with actual security) over freedom.

Argh! This sucks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919251)

Cryptome has been an indispensable ally in many wars against secrecy, ineptitude, corruption, and evil-doing conspiracies all over the place. John mirrored a couple of separate batches of stuff I had a minor involvement in, and in both cases the world was made (in a tiny way) a less crappy place by his actions.

It's also a sad day in it's message that there is now, ultimately, no genuine free speech left on the net. If the state really really wants to suppress your message, it can do so. It's slow, labour intensive, and expensive for them to do this, so they don't usually bother; but when they need The System to function, it does.

Re:Argh! This sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919371)

It's also a sad day in it's message that there is now, ultimately, no genuine free speech left on the net. If the state really really wants to suppress your message, it can do so. It's slow, labour intensive, and expensive for them to do this, so they don't usually bother; but when they need The System to function, it does.
So, you're saying that Verio should not be allowed to choose whether they host his site or not? Think very, very carefully before you suggest that a company should be forced to host certain content in the name of "free speech".

How is the cause of freedom served by forcing people to do things they no longer wish to do? Isn't the whole point of a free capitalist society that any company has the right to choose at any time whether or not they wish to do business with somebody?

Freedom is alive and well, as is demonstrated by the simple fact that John has the right to find another publisher, and nobody is trying to stop him doing that. Freedom is alive and well, as is demonstrated by the fact that Verio was previously able to choose to host his site, and is now able to choose not to host his site, entirely as they desire, without anyone forcing them either to host it or not to host it.

Re:Argh! This sucks (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919751)

By your logic, even the most oppressive oligarchy is "free".

As industry becomes the defacto policy-maker by blithely re-establishing the rule of cartels and monopolistic reach, purchasing political loyalty or even installing their own CEOs to government posts, then they will be judged by governmental standards. One of those standards is censorship.

The function of government in the USA has been subverted by a political class of corporatists who, more often than not, literally write the bills they expect their shamiferous Washington lackeys to pass into law.

Please spare us the out-of-touch libertarian cheerleading about the "private sector". There is no more "private", as I'm sure the Dept. of Homeland Security and its infinitely-growing list of "security economy" prison-state contractors would enthusiastically agree.

That's a pretty comprehensive AUP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919529)

It's all spelled out in considerable detail [verio.com] . I wonder if it is applied consistently to all of Verio's customers?

Pcik a new ISP (3, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919543)

So a web site has a problem with their ISP. So friggin' what? Pick a different ISP. There are millions of hosting companies out there. Everybody has problems of one kind or another with their web host, and switches. These guys should pick a new ISP and be done with it. I mean, tell people that Verio sucks for these reasons, but there's no reason the web site should shut down permanently... this whole thing sounds like drama for the sake of drama.

Re:Pcik a new ISP (1)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919577)

Drama for the sake of drama? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I think it's more an attempt to shame Verio. After all, Cryptome has been providing an important public service for years, and Verio shutting it down is not good for their public image.

Personally, I think the energy should be spent finding better hosting. That is one problem with the activist types - any setbacks become a part of a larger conspiracy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And sometimes a cigar will cause a president to get impeached....

You're both missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919739)

John Young has always complied with DMCA takedown notices, take a look at all those emails. This time Verio haven't even told him how he's violated their AUP, he's not attempting to shame his hosting company - he's trying to find out if they've been pressured under federal national security legislation. Given the previous emails, Verios silence on the issue would more or less confirm it.

Overreaching national security laws are about to get a little timely publicity methinks.

Re:Pcik a new ISP (4, Interesting)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919755)

> So a web site has a problem with their
> ISP. So friggin' what? Pick a different ISP.

Cryptome IS watched by various intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement agencies. Young posted a funny exchange he had once with the "duty officer of the day" at a TLA; the guy told him that a certain document had been released accidently; could it please be withdrawn? Young of course said no, so the guy then said "I guess it is too late for this conversation not to be posted too?" - making it clear that he knew very well how Young runs Cryptome.

So it may be very difficult for him to find another ISP. Maybe one related to Qwest will take him on, but they ISP has to know they WILL come under additional law enforcement pressure just as a result of hosting that site.

sPh

Re:Pcik a new ISP (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920467)

Cryptome IS watched by various intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement agencies.

Yes it is, and so now the burning question is which document of the
thousands on Cryptome caused someone at one of those agencies to turn
some powerful-enough screws to make Verio pull the plug without
breathing a word about which document it might be.

We must find what the government wishes to keep hidden and shine a
spotlight on it, because that's how free and open nations remain so.

Re:Pcik a new ISP (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919771)

I find it relevant, if only because I'm in a position where I often get to choose where my company hosts servers.

If Verio arbitrarily terminates service to it's customers, I won't be choosing them. And I'll be letting their sales guys know why.

(I certainly get an earful if something I've done loses a sale.)

Logical Consequences.

Re:Pcik a new ISP (2, Insightful)

arcade (16638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920449)

Not to be rude or anything... but cryptome has been around for some years, and should be well known in geek circles.

Your UserID (805747) suggests to me that you haven't been around for long.. maybe you should read up a bit on cryptome? :)

Why this site and not others ? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919555)

I find it funny how a site like Cryptome can get shut down, while dozens of KKK, biker gang and neo-nazi hate sites go on with their merry business. That's one fucked up set of priorities they got there!

Re:Why this site and not others ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920789)

Unfiltered information is much more dangerous than KKK, biker gang and neo-nazi hate sites.

National security my ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18919635)

We're going to give your website the boot and we're not even allowed to tell you what you did wrong. We're going to hold you without charge in a detention center and torture you [channel4.com] for reasons unknown.

Welcome to the land of the fascists, welcome to the USA. [wikipedia.org]

archive.org (2, Funny)

achenaar (934663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919667)

This sort of thing always makes me want to check the site out for juicy stuff.
archive.org wayback machine cache [archive.org] is my friend.

Freenet Anyone? (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18919919)

http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org]

Re:Freenet Anyone? (2, Insightful)

DeadChobi (740395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920379)

Which is great until Freenet decides to host someone's kiddie porn collection on your computer. Then you get to smile at the nice FBI agents as they escort you to your court date. It's great that someone's thought of encrypting and decentralizing what gets published to the internet, but it's not practical until I can have control over what gets put on my node. Their FAQ handwaves the hell out of this essentially by suggesting that true freedom means I have to host something I find personally disgusting or that will get me in trouble. In other words, I would be substituting one owner for another. Currently I find my government's views on what is acceptable to be a better compromise than Freenet's views on what is acceptable.

Sorry, no dice.

Re:Freenet Anyone? (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921297)

it's not practical until I can have control over what gets put on my node. Their FAQ handwaves the hell out of this essentially by suggesting that true freedom means I have to host something I find personally disgusting
No, that is precisely what makes it practical. Nobody gets to say what is or is not acceptable to be published on Freenet. That is exactly what guarantees freedom.

I find my government's views on what is acceptable to be a better compromise than Freenet's views on what is acceptable.
Well, you might say that right now, but your government could get worse. In any case, Freenet has no views on what is acceptable. Its members can post what they like. You can encourage people not do download certain content, then discouraging its propagation through the net. Any censorship ability beyond that would destroy Freenet.

Re:Freenet Anyone? (2, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920783)

Aside from the morality and legality of all the kiddie porn on Freenet, such content amounts to a crapflooding sort of DOS attack. A bedrock principle of press freedom is being free to choose what to publish and what not to. Freenet forces you to be part of what is basically an already wrecked commons. Decentralized torrents seem to me to be a much more palatable alternative.

Re:Freenet Anyone? (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921325)

such content amounts to a crapflooding sort of DOS attack.
I believe that version 0.7 should be a bit more efficient, though I'm really not sure.

A bedrock principle of press freedom is being free to choose what to publish and what not to.
Allowing data to pass through your node does not make you a publisher. It makes you a supporter of the transmission of free, uncensored, information. It is a two-way street. You get what you want without interference. So do people with opposing viewpoints. It is necessary to the functioning of Freenet that it works this way. If you could choose not to transmit certain content, so could anyone. Then you too would be unable to get what you want. However, by not downloading certain content, you slow its propagation and make it harder to obtain.

well with that kind of use policy.. no wonder (4, Informative)

fuckeverything (525664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920055)

from their acceptable use thingy: "Other Activities -- Engaging in activities, whether lawful or unlawful, that Verio determines to be harmful to its subscribers, operations, reputation, goodwill, or customer relations." so they pretty much tell you straight away, that they pull your site once they dont like what you are hosting anymore.

Re:well with that kind of use policy.. no wonder (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920785)

I doubt very much that Verio, itself, cares one whit about what Cryptome publishes. The fact they're pulling his site in this manner indicates that they are very much under someone's thumb, however. More importantly, if a provider as large as Verio can be influenced in such a transparent manner, I doubt any of the others will be any safer so far as hosting a verboten site is concerned. Really, I'd think he'll have to go out of the country if he wants to keep his site up.

I'm sure that there more than a few inimical foreign powers that would be more than happy to host his site for him.

Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net (2, Informative)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920107)

I recently signed up with them. Aside from their quirky/cool pricing scheme, the site's strong stance against censorship and privacy sold me on it instantly. All sites that get the ISP boot for unpopular (but not illegal in the US) should check out nearlyfreespeech.net [nearlyfreespeech.net] .

My only relation is a happy, new customer. It may not be the best fit for Cryptome, but there are at least hosting providers that do give a shit about not bowing down to the status quo.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18920283)

I'd like to second that. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is dirt-cheap, technically excellent, and sticks up for its users' rights. I'd recommend it to anyone looking for an inexpensive web host, whether their site is controversial or not.

They only have half a class C subnet (1)

laing (303349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920655)

I'm sure that they are great. I wonder if Global Crossing's TOS can coexist with theirs. I also wonder how big they are and how much support you would get given that their entire Internet presence consists of one half of a class C subnet (about enough for 125 dedicated IP addresses). Of course more than one web site can be hosted from a single IP and server but that's not practical for large sites.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net (1)

bromoseltzer (23292) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920739)

They may have good intentions, but how big is their legal staff? Small vendors are more vulnerable than the Verios of the world. But the Verios may cave faster, because they're run by businessmen.

Re:Move to NearlyFreeSpeech.net (2, Insightful)

birdboy2000 (1053598) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921345)

It's nice, but is there anywhere for those of us who can't afford to pay for our speech?

Why he stays in USA (3, Interesting)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920269)

I would suggest he move somewhere safer like Switzerland or Sweden.
This should be done BEFORE making his site.

Tor? (1)

_Knots (165356) | more than 7 years ago | (#18920987)

Is there any technical, legal, or other problem with moving the Cryptome server onto the EFF's Tor network as a hidden service? This would, AFAICT, make it difficult for the ISPs from finding out that they hosted the server (modulo traffic analysis attacks on Tor)... even given those, it would at least provide plausible deniability?

Are the DVDs still available? I'm perfectly happy to pay for it if they are.

Surprised it took so long (1)

PingXao (153057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18921333)

If you don't control it, you don't own it. At the risk of entering the realm of Conspiracy Theory, and with tinfoil hat firmly in place, I think it's pretty clear that "they" want to control the flow of information on the internet. Watch and see: the Great pr0n Crackdown is right around the corner.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...