We welcome NSLs, tango downs, malware, shutdowns, DMCA demands,
hacks, official visits and warnings,
fingerpointing and accusations, subpoenas,
and indictments. If happened, published. No indictments, yet.
"Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored."
Our geriatric blurb:
Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by
governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression,
privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence,
and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but
not limited to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order
served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever
been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere
if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise
ignored.
At 06:50 PM 10/11/2015, you wrote:
Despite almost two decades of cypherpunk
activity I cannot fathom why U.S. residents
operate sites clearly in the cross-hairs of
intel agencies. Have they never heard of
non-resident nominee officers and directors? All
U.S. resident people dealing with the site
should be bona fide contractors so they aren't
subject to either receiving or implementing court orders or NSLs.
-------- Original Message --------
From: bbrewer <[email protected]>
Apparently from: [email protected]
To: Michael Best <[email protected]>
Cc: cpunks <[email protected]>, cryptome <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Why cryptome sold
web logs to their payingcustomers?
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 16:30:00 -0400
>
> > On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Michael Best <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway to rule this out other than hearing
it from John? How long before we begin to seriously consider it or assume it?
> >
> > And if there was a NSL, why not shut down?
Why put users at ongoing risk??
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
>
> "Levison said that he could be arrested for
closing the site instead of releasing the
information, and it was reported that the
federal prosecutor's office had sent Levison's
lawyer an e-mail to that effect.â
>
> Iâm just blabbering on suppositions here,
but I wouldnât be surprised by
anything.
>
> -benjamin
