7 ms·

70,000 Blogs Shut Down by U.S. Law Enforcement

118 points by dwynings 16y ago

gphil 16y ago
If this isn't just sensationalist reporting, then this is pretty bad. I wonder if it's related to the piracy crackdown that was recently announced by the White House.
- derwiki 16y ago
  The spokesperson said it wasn't a copyright thing; it sounds a little extreme for that anyway. I'd rather not speculate on what it is though until we get more details.
  - gphil 16y ago
    Sorry, I missed that the first time I read through the article.
- mahmud 16y ago
  Not piracy: A spokesperson for the company later told CNET that this case had nothing to do with copyright violations. I wonder what it is.
joshwa 16y ago
If the hosting company says that they can't name the agency and can't say anything about the nature of the claim, that immediately makes me think of a National Security Letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter "[A National Security Letter] is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight. They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued."
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- derwiki 16y ago
  "The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article)
- DavidSJ 16y ago
  derwiki replied to this comment by saying: "The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article) For some reason, his reply is dead, but it seems like a valuable comment so I'm reproducing it.
  - fmora 16y ago
    Thank god for the separation of powers. It is incredible how many rights the Bush presidency attempted to take away from its citizens all in the name of national security. The more I read stuff like this the more it seems that we were heading to a totalitarian government. Edit: In case anybody wonders why I threw in Bush's name in there is because the Patriot Act, created during his presidency, greatly extended the NSL powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
    - fmora 16y ago
      If you are going to down vote me at least explain why.
      - Yzupnick 16y ago
        Maybe it is because you pick on a single president what every president has done. (From all parties.) Did Bush do things that where a violation of rights? Probably, but so did every president including but not limited to Obama, Clinton, Bush (senior), and Reagan. I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. Second, it was the current government that did this, not Bush.
ndimopoulos 16y ago
I am thinking that the subject might be child pornography, espionage or cyber terrorism. Should some of those blogs had some sort of method of communicating information with terrorists I do not see why the NSA would not shut the whole thing down. I hate to be in the shoes of those 70000 people but from the article and evidence available right now this is a really serious matter.
- blantonl 16y ago
  The NSA doesn't have legal authority to do anything as you have indicated. Legal authority to bring down these sites were almost certainly done through the FBI, via a National security letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
- danek 16y ago
  maybe the fbi thinks terrorists were communicating via blog comments, in a secret code designed to look like spam? as far as 'movie-plot terrorism' goes, i don't think it's too far fetched.
  - naturalized 16y ago
    Does it mean that any site can be shut down if it's used by terrorists? Which one is next: facebook, because terrorists can create a group there and send messages, twitter, because a terrorist cell can use it to coordinate attacks, or perhaps wordpress? Which service will be shut down next?
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Maybe terrorists were communicating using spam! That would rock!
MadWombat 16y ago
Well, there is a link to a thread on a webhostingtalk.com, where some people are discussing the issue. After reading the original posting by the blog service provider and some of the replies, here are some basic lessons to be learned from this. 1. A lot of people have no clue as to the legal process 2. It pays REALLY well to have external backups 3. It might be a good idea to use encrypted volumes to store sensitive data, so if authorities are involved, they have to serve you with papers to get your decryption keys. This way you stay more informed. 4. Your hosting provider probably has a clause in their ToS that more or less says "we can terminate your service whenever, the hell, we want and there is nothing you can do about it". Deal with it. 5. This story still sucks. 6. Seems like this guy was simply small enough to just serve a court order and shut down his service. I don't think anyone would shutdown Google for questionable content on a blogger account or google web pages. 7. I am pretty sure, that there is no legal way for a law enforcement agency to remain anonymous while doing something like this. Either I am wrong about it or something is amiss.
- adamc 16y ago
  Your hosting provider probably does have such a clause, but after exercising it they should expect to go out of business.
  - MadWombat 16y ago
    Not if they only do it to a small percentage of clients and within common sense. Generally the clause is there, so that they have a legal ground to shut you down without waiting for legal process to catch up (i.e. if legal authorities ask them without providing a warrant, if they get complaints about some questionable content etc.)
- j_baker 16y ago
  For #7, I'm pretty sure there would be a way if it was a national security concern.
  - MadWombat 16y ago
    Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose? If nobody can anonymously shutdown a web site but the NSA, then every time web site is shut down anonymously, it probably IS NSA.
kwamenum86 16y ago
From BurstNET: "We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details" I guess this is one of the dangers of hosting a user-generated content site- law enforcement may confiscate your server. This seems highly unusual even for something like child pornography. Usually they ask (politely then forcefully) the server owner for cooperation. It's possible that the owner of Blogerty is a suspect.
jacquesm 16y ago
A blogging service works on a per-account basis, for them to shut down the whole server instead of just taking down the offending account(s) seems to be pretty excessive, no matter what those accounts have 'done'. There is some chance they found themselves the unwitting participant in a child pornography distribution network, and that they don't know which accounts are 'the ones', and they've taken everything off-line until they've verified which accounts are bad and which are good.
- j_baker 16y ago
  Why keep it a secret if it's just kiddie porn?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Brand damage.
DanBlake 16y ago
I am skeptical - The host, https://www.burst.net/ https://www.burst.net/ Looks like a template monster design with a reseller system, no traffic rank and a nearly empty forum- From a outsider looking in, it looks like a host that is barely in business and likely ran by one guy from his apartment. Maybe they are over-exaggerating for press? Maybe the server crashed, and they dont want the bad press so did a bogus excuse? Stranger things have happened. But I highly doubt this has even remotely anything to do with "operation in your sites" and is likely related to some issue at burstnet. I wouldnt be surprised if law enforcement isnt even involved.
- zaidf 16y ago
  Trust me, burstnet is far from a small host. They went through a rebranding I believe as part of their clean up effort from their last brand which had a reputation for attracting high bandwidth questionable sites.
- blaix 16y ago
  I definitely got the vibe of this being handled a bit amateurishly.
- dgabriel 16y ago
  From their site: "The company has experienced exceptional growth and currently hosts 5000+ dedicated servers and co-located machines, 5000+ Virtual Private Servers (VPS), and millions of websites." If it's one guy running it from his apartment, that's gotta be one amazing apartment.
datawalke 16y ago
BurstNET is located very close to where I am. About a year and a half ago I toured their facilities for a colocation project. Upon walking in I was horrified. They rows of tower based servers with their cases ripped off on the wire-frame racks you would find in a home improvement store. After seeing that and hearing they lacked any fire suppression system I respectfully walked away from their bid.
pinksoda 16y ago
This is why I don't trust the government with an internet kill switch.
deanerimerman 16y ago
Yeah! joshwa's got a point there! Law enforcement agents concerned with not publicly identifying themselves might also likely be concerned with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
- j_baker 16y ago
  That only applies if this was done by the military though.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
known 16y ago
Instead of closing down the blogs why not impose fine on print & electronic media, if they publish a lie.
Ardit20 16y ago
That is a bit Kafkaesque. Everyone has the right to know why their right is being denied or what they are being charged with. If it was a privet firm then fine, but the government can't just go around closing websites without saying if not in detail then in general what the charges are. How, if the website owner is wronged, is he able to challenge the decision if he does not even know what the allegations are against him.
- Roboprog 16y ago
  What you say was more or less true in 2000. Things have changed a bit since then. The fact that many recent laws and programs obviously defy the first ten amendments to the US Constitution have gone "unnoticed" by the SCOTUS, and both major brands (D & R) seem content with how things have developed the last decade. "We the rabble" are likely in for a 10 year slog to fix things, if we are lucky: paper ballots; some kind of coalition or runoff voting rule changes to take down the "two" party system; reestablishment of the rule of law.
  - Ardit20 16y ago
    I am sorry. I can not quite agree with that. I do not know about the united states, but here in the united kingdom we have a very independent judiciary which has ruled against the government time and time again. I do agree in a way, just before Tony Blair left, which I think was 2008 or 2007 things seemed to be going in a very dark direction, but frankly, it is the peoples fault. We are so lucky as to be able to change government without bloodshed and in the UK for what I know we are so lucky as to not go down without a very real power struggle between the executive and the judiciary. Take them to court I say. That is what they are for.
Spoutingshite 16y ago
A phrase with the words sledgehammer and nut comes to mind. Obviously somebody was a naughty boy, but what about the other users of the server?
logic 16y ago
More details from BurstNet's CTO: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010923-261.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010923-261.html

118 points by dwynings 16y ago

gphil 16y ago

If this isn't just sensationalist reporting, then this is pretty bad. I wonder if it's related to the piracy crackdown that was recently announced by the White House.

derwiki 16y ago
The spokesperson said it wasn't a copyright thing; it sounds a little extreme for that anyway. I'd rather not speculate on what it is though until we get more details.
- gphil 16y ago
  Sorry, I missed that the first time I read through the article.
mahmud 16y ago
Not piracy: A spokesperson for the company later told CNET that this case had nothing to do with copyright violations. I wonder what it is.

joshwa 16y ago

If the hosting company says that they can't name the agency and can't say anything about the nature of the claim, that immediately makes me think of a National Security Letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter "[A National Security Letter] is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight. They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued."

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
derwiki 16y ago
"The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article)
DavidSJ 16y ago
derwiki replied to this comment by saying: "The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article) For some reason, his reply is dead, but it seems like a valuable comment so I'm reproducing it.
- fmora 16y ago
  Thank god for the separation of powers. It is incredible how many rights the Bush presidency attempted to take away from its citizens all in the name of national security. The more I read stuff like this the more it seems that we were heading to a totalitarian government. Edit: In case anybody wonders why I threw in Bush's name in there is because the Patriot Act, created during his presidency, greatly extended the NSL powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
  - fmora 16y ago
    If you are going to down vote me at least explain why.
    - Yzupnick 16y ago
      Maybe it is because you pick on a single president what every president has done. (From all parties.) Did Bush do things that where a violation of rights? Probably, but so did every president including but not limited to Obama, Clinton, Bush (senior), and Reagan. I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. Second, it was the current government that did this, not Bush.

ndimopoulos 16y ago

I am thinking that the subject might be child pornography, espionage or cyber terrorism. Should some of those blogs had some sort of method of communicating information with terrorists I do not see why the NSA would not shut the whole thing down. I hate to be in the shoes of those 70000 people but from the article and evidence available right now this is a really serious matter.

blantonl 16y ago
The NSA doesn't have legal authority to do anything as you have indicated. Legal authority to bring down these sites were almost certainly done through the FBI, via a National security letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
danek 16y ago
maybe the fbi thinks terrorists were communicating via blog comments, in a secret code designed to look like spam? as far as 'movie-plot terrorism' goes, i don't think it's too far fetched.
- naturalized 16y ago
  Does it mean that any site can be shut down if it's used by terrorists? Which one is next: facebook, because terrorists can create a group there and send messages, twitter, because a terrorist cell can use it to coordinate attacks, or perhaps wordpress? Which service will be shut down next?
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Maybe terrorists were communicating using spam! That would rock!

MadWombat 16y ago

Well, there is a link to a thread on a webhostingtalk.com, where some people are discussing the issue. After reading the original posting by the blog service provider and some of the replies, here are some basic lessons to be learned from this. 1. A lot of people have no clue as to the legal process 2. It pays REALLY well to have external backups 3. It might be a good idea to use encrypted volumes to store sensitive data, so if authorities are involved, they have to serve you with papers to get your decryption keys. This way you stay more informed. 4. Your hosting provider probably has a clause in their ToS that more or less says "we can terminate your service whenever, the hell, we want and there is nothing you can do about it". Deal with it. 5. This story still sucks. 6. Seems like this guy was simply small enough to just serve a court order and shut down his service. I don't think anyone would shutdown Google for questionable content on a blogger account or google web pages. 7. I am pretty sure, that there is no legal way for a law enforcement agency to remain anonymous while doing something like this. Either I am wrong about it or something is amiss.

adamc 16y ago
Your hosting provider probably does have such a clause, but after exercising it they should expect to go out of business.
- MadWombat 16y ago
  Not if they only do it to a small percentage of clients and within common sense. Generally the clause is there, so that they have a legal ground to shut you down without waiting for legal process to catch up (i.e. if legal authorities ask them without providing a warrant, if they get complaints about some questionable content etc.)
j_baker 16y ago
For #7, I'm pretty sure there would be a way if it was a national security concern.
- MadWombat 16y ago
  Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose? If nobody can anonymously shutdown a web site but the NSA, then every time web site is shut down anonymously, it probably IS NSA.

kwamenum86 16y ago

From BurstNET: "We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details" I guess this is one of the dangers of hosting a user-generated content site- law enforcement may confiscate your server. This seems highly unusual even for something like child pornography. Usually they ask (politely then forcefully) the server owner for cooperation. It's possible that the owner of Blogerty is a suspect.

jacquesm 16y ago

A blogging service works on a per-account basis, for them to shut down the whole server instead of just taking down the offending account(s) seems to be pretty excessive, no matter what those accounts have 'done'. There is some chance they found themselves the unwitting participant in a child pornography distribution network, and that they don't know which accounts are 'the ones', and they've taken everything off-line until they've verified which accounts are bad and which are good.

j_baker 16y ago
Why keep it a secret if it's just kiddie porn?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Brand damage.

DanBlake 16y ago

I am skeptical - The host, https://www.burst.net/ https://www.burst.net/ Looks like a template monster design with a reseller system, no traffic rank and a nearly empty forum- From a outsider looking in, it looks like a host that is barely in business and likely ran by one guy from his apartment. Maybe they are over-exaggerating for press? Maybe the server crashed, and they dont want the bad press so did a bogus excuse? Stranger things have happened. But I highly doubt this has even remotely anything to do with "operation in your sites" and is likely related to some issue at burstnet. I wouldnt be surprised if law enforcement isnt even involved.

zaidf 16y ago
Trust me, burstnet is far from a small host. They went through a rebranding I believe as part of their clean up effort from their last brand which had a reputation for attracting high bandwidth questionable sites.
blaix 16y ago
I definitely got the vibe of this being handled a bit amateurishly.
dgabriel 16y ago
From their site: "The company has experienced exceptional growth and currently hosts 5000+ dedicated servers and co-located machines, 5000+ Virtual Private Servers (VPS), and millions of websites." If it's one guy running it from his apartment, that's gotta be one amazing apartment.

datawalke 16y ago

BurstNET is located very close to where I am. About a year and a half ago I toured their facilities for a colocation project. Upon walking in I was horrified. They rows of tower based servers with their cases ripped off on the wire-frame racks you would find in a home improvement store. After seeing that and hearing they lacked any fire suppression system I respectfully walked away from their bid.

pinksoda 16y ago

This is why I don't trust the government with an internet kill switch.

deanerimerman 16y ago

Yeah! joshwa's got a point there! Law enforcement agents concerned with not publicly identifying themselves might also likely be concerned with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

j_baker 16y ago
That only applies if this was done by the military though.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

known 16y ago

Instead of closing down the blogs why not impose fine on print & electronic media, if they publish a lie.

Ardit20 16y ago

That is a bit Kafkaesque. Everyone has the right to know why their right is being denied or what they are being charged with. If it was a privet firm then fine, but the government can't just go around closing websites without saying if not in detail then in general what the charges are. How, if the website owner is wronged, is he able to challenge the decision if he does not even know what the allegations are against him.

Roboprog 16y ago
What you say was more or less true in 2000. Things have changed a bit since then. The fact that many recent laws and programs obviously defy the first ten amendments to the US Constitution have gone "unnoticed" by the SCOTUS, and both major brands (D & R) seem content with how things have developed the last decade. "We the rabble" are likely in for a 10 year slog to fix things, if we are lucky: paper ballots; some kind of coalition or runoff voting rule changes to take down the "two" party system; reestablishment of the rule of law.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  I am sorry. I can not quite agree with that. I do not know about the united states, but here in the united kingdom we have a very independent judiciary which has ruled against the government time and time again. I do agree in a way, just before Tony Blair left, which I think was 2008 or 2007 things seemed to be going in a very dark direction, but frankly, it is the peoples fault. We are so lucky as to be able to change government without bloodshed and in the UK for what I know we are so lucky as to not go down without a very real power struggle between the executive and the judiciary. Take them to court I say. That is what they are for.

Spoutingshite 16y ago

A phrase with the words sledgehammer and nut comes to mind. Obviously somebody was a naughty boy, but what about the other users of the server?

logic 16y ago

More details from BurstNet's CTO: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010923-261.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010923-261.html