17 ms·

Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case

103 points by alternize 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago
I'm curious if there will be blowback on Internet email companies if it turns out the emails were not deleted, just archived away from user's access.
- gaius 10y ago
  If you ever see an auto-complete feature on a website, it's probable that that website is logging every keystroke. If you type "thermal detonators" into Google, but never actually click the button, it's still flagged up aboard the Imperial Command Ship.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    I once read an article about facebook even reporting back to the mothership messages that you typed out but did not actually send because you changed your mind. Never forget: The website owns the window you're operating in (if there's JavaScript), not just requests you send by clicking <a> links.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Doubt it. Remember the NSA "scandal" that lasted a few months before people went back to not caring? Remember Kony 2012? North Korea's human rights violations? You'll never fix the problems in America until you fix the horrifically apathetic attitude of Americans.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Is anything ever deleted?
- satysin 10y ago
  If it is on a third-parties servers then hell no.
pliny 10y ago
Here's a thought: what if 'Yahoo gives FBI snapshots' is actually parallel construction, but Yahoo are not allowed (under PATRIOT or whatever) to admit the extent of their cooperation with three letter agencies (for instance, that they hand over everything they see without requests being made). Do they have to refuse to comply with the court?
- anonymousab 10y ago
  There is likely leeway for them, or the government, to address the judge in private and get this all dismissed. Or perhaps some immunity to any results.
  - tobylane 10y ago
    In that case I'm surprised the judges are permitted to ask this sort of question in public, it creates a warrant canary.
HarryHirsch 10y ago
Data retention is negotiated and spelled out in detail in NDAs for contract research organizations. It's easy to delete data from servers once a project is done, but the backup tapes also have copies. You can't throw the tapes out, because the company needs them, hence there are agreements what happens to the data and tapes, and nowadays these are standard practice. This is a solved problem in the real world, but some companies would have us think it's the Wild West, when in fact it isn't.
- TechnicalVault 10y ago
  The solution with backup tapes is obvious, you encrypt the files on the tapes with session keys and encrypt a copy of the session key with a client/project or project key stored on a separate random access medium. When the project needs to be deleted you destroy the key for that project, job done. The most difficult bit is enforcing the proper ownership and location of files so that you know which ones belong to which project. More complicated schemes can sllow files to be shared between projects but the basic principle remains the same.
  - rbobby 10y ago
    But what about the backups of where the encrypted session keys are kept? Wouldn't this be a "backups all the way down" situation?
    - oakwhiz 10y ago
      Backups of keys are a lot smaller and fit on USB flash drives and CDs. So in practice keeping encrypted backups with multiple keys is easier to deal with
- greenyoda 10y ago
  But an NDA can't prevent a company from turning over their backup data to the authorities when presented with a legitimate warrant from a court.
  - 10y ago
codemogul 10y ago
Relevant and coincidental personal anecdote: 10 years ago I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover. Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall, so it was a simple matter to track to her machine. While she had gone to the similar trouble to delete all records on Yahoo (coincidentally), she had been browsing with IE which, due to some off-line setting, was cacheing locally all of the pages she had written. It was simply a matter of laying hands on her laptop and downloading all of that cache to expose the ruse. I cannot find the article, but I believe this method of sharing access to one e-mail account to many parties was one of the comms methods employed by the 9/11 terrorists, pioneered by Columbian drug lords.
- keketi 10y ago
  David Petraeus and his mistress were using the same trick: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12...
  - 616c 10y ago
    I was recently bored and watched, after years of avoiding it, The Traitor (2008), with Don Cheadle as a terrorist ... or not so-terrorist. The movie was pretty bad (there's the real spoiler!). In that movie, which I just check the date for, seems like one of the first pop references to the idea of sharing email drafts in a free email account without sending anything. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12... Now, can someone prove me one better and find where this idea got traction? I honestly laughed watching that movie, wondering if Petraeus watched it years earlier, and thought to himself, I wonder if this will work in real life ... UPDATE: I could, gee, also try RTFWPA! It refers 2005 reports of AQ using the same tactic, you know, where probably he got it from. Or he got it from the movie, which would make me in a die a fit of laughter!
    - 10y ago
resoluteteeth 10y ago
The idea that Yahoo is covering for a government surveillance program is entertaining, but it hardly seems difficult to believe that they aren't actually deleting what they say they are deleting. Of course, keeping copies of everything forever in violation of their own policy is not exactly going to make law enforcement unhappy. I suspect that yahoo and other companies haven't yet taken the issue of failing to delete data that should be deleted as seriously as that of losing data that shouldn't be deleted, but this has the potential to become a significant privacy issue.
lox 10y ago
I could imagine drafts have much less diligent deletion policies vs sent emails. Auto-save mechanisms typically keep a long history of diffs, or whole versions.
geggam 10y ago
Farm model replicated across regions backed by filers taking snapshots of the entire farm. * my speculation
falsestprophet 10y ago
It's really touching that you trust your wife to be smart enough to not use the mail server you run for adultery.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines. Normally I would let you know that personal attacks are not allowed on HN, that this is a bannable offense, and ask you not to do it again. But in your case we already did that. Edit: I reversed this because I'm not sure I interpreted the comment correctly. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12153922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12153922 and marked it off-topic.
  - SEJeff 10y ago
    Thanks for running such a tight ship and keeping HN, well... HN
  - falsestprophet 10y ago
    This wasn't a personal attack and I don't follow how how it could be interpreted is a personal attack. It didn't in any suggest jacquesm's wife was engaged in adultery. It was a statement that jacquesm comment to codemogul was irrelevant. The conversation unfolded as follows: codemogul: "I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover." jacquesm: "Funny, I've run the mail server of our family for quite a while and it would never enter my head to read someone else's email." Here codemogul uncovered adultery by reading his x-wife's email hosted on a third-party server. Jacquesm then states that he runs a server for his family and would never consider reading their email on his server. I commented "It's really touching that you trust your wife to be smart enough to not use the mail server you run for adultery." which is an observation that jacquesm response to codemogul was irrelevant because he could only uncover adultery like codemogul if his wife was not smart enough to use a service hosted by her husband. That the fact jacquesm had access to the server made it unlikely that if there were to be untrustworthy activity (and I did not suggest there was) that it would take place on the server. I don't think jacquesm would interpret that as a personal attack. It would be interesting to ask him. "Normally I would let you know that personal attacks are not allowed on HN, that this is a bannable offense, and ask you not to do it again. But in your case we already did that." This is not a personal attack. That also was not a personal attack. Neither were mean or mean-spirited. attack: "to criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly" personal: "of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one's public or professional career." No one was criticized or opposed personally in either case.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
catfood 10y ago
UPDATE email SET deleted = 1 WHERE uuid = '3b431dc020cc404b8bbea290e91b9865';
IgorPartola 10y ago
Aren't backups basically a guarantee that you can never ever delete anything from anyone's server? Even if you hit delete on an email/post/photo/etc. if they made a backup before then, your data will now forever live on in some vault or maybe just Amazon Glacier. I can't imagine that Yahoo would go and retroactively remove your email from their backup tapes/optical discs/offline hard drives/clay tablets that they use.
- scoot 10y ago
  The nearest thing to a "standard" for retention of operational backups is 30-60 days. For organisations retaining backups as part of some ill-conceived archive, 7 years is typical; for organisations retaining backups under legal hold, or whose backup process is out of control, indefinite retention is not unheard of. So while it's possible that backups mean you can never be entirely certain your deleted data will stay deleted, it's most certainly not guaranteed. In Europe, the recently enacted General Data Protection Regulations "GDPR" which will come into force in 2018 will in theory require organisations to ensure that personal information is removed in an appropriate timeframe - this would include disposing of backups, or where data is comingled, ensuring at a granular level that data is blacklisted for restore. It remains to be seen how practical that will be, so moving to retentions appropriate for operational restore may be the more sensible solution.

103 points by alternize 10y ago

I'm curious if there will be blowback on Internet email companies if it turns out the emails were not deleted, just archived away from user's access.

gaius 10y ago
If you ever see an auto-complete feature on a website, it's probable that that website is logging every keystroke. If you type "thermal detonators" into Google, but never actually click the button, it's still flagged up aboard the Imperial Command Ship.
- Kenji 10y ago
  I once read an article about facebook even reporting back to the mothership messages that you typed out but did not actually send because you changed your mind. Never forget: The website owns the window you're operating in (if there's JavaScript), not just requests you send by clicking <a> links.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
colejohnson66 10y ago
Doubt it. Remember the NSA "scandal" that lasted a few months before people went back to not caring? Remember Kony 2012? North Korea's human rights violations? You'll never fix the problems in America until you fix the horrifically apathetic attitude of Americans.

perseusprime11 10y ago

Is anything ever deleted?

satysin 10y ago
If it is on a third-parties servers then hell no.

pliny 10y ago

Here's a thought: what if 'Yahoo gives FBI snapshots' is actually parallel construction, but Yahoo are not allowed (under PATRIOT or whatever) to admit the extent of their cooperation with three letter agencies (for instance, that they hand over everything they see without requests being made). Do they have to refuse to comply with the court?

anonymousab 10y ago
There is likely leeway for them, or the government, to address the judge in private and get this all dismissed. Or perhaps some immunity to any results.
- tobylane 10y ago
  In that case I'm surprised the judges are permitted to ask this sort of question in public, it creates a warrant canary.

HarryHirsch 10y ago

Data retention is negotiated and spelled out in detail in NDAs for contract research organizations. It's easy to delete data from servers once a project is done, but the backup tapes also have copies. You can't throw the tapes out, because the company needs them, hence there are agreements what happens to the data and tapes, and nowadays these are standard practice. This is a solved problem in the real world, but some companies would have us think it's the Wild West, when in fact it isn't.

TechnicalVault 10y ago
The solution with backup tapes is obvious, you encrypt the files on the tapes with session keys and encrypt a copy of the session key with a client/project or project key stored on a separate random access medium. When the project needs to be deleted you destroy the key for that project, job done. The most difficult bit is enforcing the proper ownership and location of files so that you know which ones belong to which project. More complicated schemes can sllow files to be shared between projects but the basic principle remains the same.
- rbobby 10y ago
  But what about the backups of where the encrypted session keys are kept? Wouldn't this be a "backups all the way down" situation?
  - oakwhiz 10y ago
    Backups of keys are a lot smaller and fit on USB flash drives and CDs. So in practice keeping encrypted backups with multiple keys is easier to deal with
greenyoda 10y ago
But an NDA can't prevent a company from turning over their backup data to the authorities when presented with a legitimate warrant from a court.
- 10y ago

codemogul 10y ago

Relevant and coincidental personal anecdote: 10 years ago I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover. Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall, so it was a simple matter to track to her machine. While she had gone to the similar trouble to delete all records on Yahoo (coincidentally), she had been browsing with IE which, due to some off-line setting, was cacheing locally all of the pages she had written. It was simply a matter of laying hands on her laptop and downloading all of that cache to expose the ruse. I cannot find the article, but I believe this method of sharing access to one e-mail account to many parties was one of the comms methods employed by the 9/11 terrorists, pioneered by Columbian drug lords.

keketi 10y ago
David Petraeus and his mistress were using the same trick: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12...
- 616c 10y ago
  I was recently bored and watched, after years of avoiding it, The Traitor (2008), with Don Cheadle as a terrorist ... or not so-terrorist. The movie was pretty bad (there's the real spoiler!). In that movie, which I just check the date for, seems like one of the first pop references to the idea of sharing email drafts in a free email account without sending anything. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres-the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12... Now, can someone prove me one better and find where this idea got traction? I honestly laughed watching that movie, wondering if Petraeus watched it years earlier, and thought to himself, I wonder if this will work in real life ... UPDATE: I could, gee, also try RTFWPA! It refers 2005 reports of AQ using the same tactic, you know, where probably he got it from. Or he got it from the movie, which would make me in a die a fit of laughter!
  - 10y ago

resoluteteeth 10y ago

The idea that Yahoo is covering for a government surveillance program is entertaining, but it hardly seems difficult to believe that they aren't actually deleting what they say they are deleting. Of course, keeping copies of everything forever in violation of their own policy is not exactly going to make law enforcement unhappy. I suspect that yahoo and other companies haven't yet taken the issue of failing to delete data that should be deleted as seriously as that of losing data that shouldn't be deleted, but this has the potential to become a significant privacy issue.

lox 10y ago

I could imagine drafts have much less diligent deletion policies vs sent emails. Auto-save mechanisms typically keep a long history of diffs, or whole versions.

geggam 10y ago

Farm model replicated across regions backed by filers taking snapshots of the entire farm. * my speculation

falsestprophet 10y ago

It's really touching that you trust your wife to be smart enough to not use the mail server you run for adultery.

dang 10y ago
We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines. Normally I would let you know that personal attacks are not allowed on HN, that this is a bannable offense, and ask you not to do it again. But in your case we already did that. Edit: I reversed this because I'm not sure I interpreted the comment correctly. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12153922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12153922 and marked it off-topic.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Thanks for running such a tight ship and keeping HN, well... HN
- falsestprophet 10y ago
  This wasn't a personal attack and I don't follow how how it could be interpreted is a personal attack. It didn't in any suggest jacquesm's wife was engaged in adultery. It was a statement that jacquesm comment to codemogul was irrelevant. The conversation unfolded as follows: codemogul: "I caught my x-wife in an affair as she was using this same method the communicate with her lover." jacquesm: "Funny, I've run the mail server of our family for quite a while and it would never enter my head to read someone else's email." Here codemogul uncovered adultery by reading his x-wife's email hosted on a third-party server. Jacquesm then states that he runs a server for his family and would never consider reading their email on his server. I commented "It's really touching that you trust your wife to be smart enough to not use the mail server you run for adultery." which is an observation that jacquesm response to codemogul was irrelevant because he could only uncover adultery like codemogul if his wife was not smart enough to use a service hosted by her husband. That the fact jacquesm had access to the server made it unlikely that if there were to be untrustworthy activity (and I did not suggest there was) that it would take place on the server. I don't think jacquesm would interpret that as a personal attack. It would be interesting to ask him. "Normally I would let you know that personal attacks are not allowed on HN, that this is a bannable offense, and ask you not to do it again. But in your case we already did that." This is not a personal attack. That also was not a personal attack. Neither were mean or mean-spirited. attack: "to criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly" personal: "of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one's public or professional career." No one was criticized or opposed personally in either case.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

catfood 10y ago

UPDATE email SET deleted = 1 WHERE uuid = '3b431dc020cc404b8bbea290e91b9865';

IgorPartola 10y ago

Aren't backups basically a guarantee that you can never ever delete anything from anyone's server? Even if you hit delete on an email/post/photo/etc. if they made a backup before then, your data will now forever live on in some vault or maybe just Amazon Glacier. I can't imagine that Yahoo would go and retroactively remove your email from their backup tapes/optical discs/offline hard drives/clay tablets that they use.

scoot 10y ago
The nearest thing to a "standard" for retention of operational backups is 30-60 days. For organisations retaining backups as part of some ill-conceived archive, 7 years is typical; for organisations retaining backups under legal hold, or whose backup process is out of control, indefinite retention is not unheard of. So while it's possible that backups mean you can never be entirely certain your deleted data will stay deleted, it's most certainly not guaranteed. In Europe, the recently enacted General Data Protection Regulations "GDPR" which will come into force in 2018 will in theory require organisations to ensure that personal information is removed in an appropriate timeframe - this would include disposing of backups, or where data is comingled, ensuring at a granular level that data is blacklisted for restore. It remains to be seen how practical that will be, so moving to retentions appropriate for operational restore may be the more sensible solution.