Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present

Natsios Young Architects

7 December 2009. Updated to add more spying doc links.

5 December 2009

A hardcopy of the PDF Yahoo demand notice was received by Fedex on December 4, 2009.

Subject: RE: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:16:38 -0500
From: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]>
To: "John Young" <jya[at]>

Mr. Young,

A copyright notice is optional for any work created after March 1, 1989. Yahoo!'s document is in fact copyrighted. Cryptome's delay in removing the infringing material is not warranted.


Mike Gershberg


Subject: RE: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:32
From: "John Young" <jya[at]>
To: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]>

Dear Mr. Gershberg,

I cannot find at the Copyright Office a grant of copyright for the Yahoo spying document hosted on Cryptome. To assure readers Yahoo's copyright claim is valid and not another hoary bluff without substantiation so common under DMCA bombast please send a copy of the copyright grant for publication on Cryptome.

Until Yahoo provides proof of copyright, the document will remain available to the public for it provides information that is in the public interest about Yahoo's contradictory privacy policy and should remain a topic of public debate on ISP unacknowledged spying complicity with officials for lucrative fees.

Yahoo's letter via Steptoe and Johnson to the US Marshal's Service [Via]

belaboring at length, rather fee-enhanced, its right to confidentiality about Yahoo's spying complicity guide has heightened suspicion that Yahoo's business profit has undermined its promised customer trust.

The information in the document which counters Yahoo's customer privacy policy suggests a clearing of the air is in order to assure customer reliance on Yahoo's published promises of trust. A rewrite of Yahoo's spying guide to replace the villainous one would be a positive step, advice of an unpaid, non-lawyerly independent panel could be sought to avoid the stigma associated with DMCA coercion.

Note: Yahoo's exclamation point is surely trademarked so omitted here.


John Young
Cryptome Administrator

Subject: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:50:22 -0500
From: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]>
To: cryptome[at]

Mr. Young,

On behalf of our client, Yahoo! Inc., attached please find a notice of copyright infringement pursuant to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.


Mike Gershberg


Mike Gershberg
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone (202) 429-6208
Fax (202) 261-0538


Subject: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:30
To: "Gershberg, Michael" <mgershberg[at]>
From: John Young jya[at]

Dear Mr. Gershberg,

The Yahoo document hosted on Cryptome was found on the Internet at a publicly accessible site.

There is no copyright notice on the document. Would you please provide substantiation that the document is copyrighted or otherwise protected by DMCA? Your letter does not provide more than assertion without evidence.


John Young
Cryptome Administrator

Mr. Gershberg,

P.S. I failed to send a rude finger to your colleague Stewart Baker for this:

Yet there's little anyone can do to stop people like Young. "You're protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. It's hard to prosecute someone who uses public sources to pull together information -- even when that information clearly shouldn't be revealed," says Stewart Baker, a technology lawyer and former general counsel for the National Security Agency. "If the material is leaked to you, you can probably publish that too. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be a jerk."

John Young

Several parties have provided telco and ISP lawful interception (spying) guides, some with prices (more coming):

att-spy-doc-01.pdf    ATT Lawful Spying Document 1                     December 6, 2009    ATT Lawful Spying Document 2                     December 6, 2009 (2.9MB)    

verizon-spy.pdf       Verizon Lawful Spying Guide                      December 6, 2009
sprint-spy2.pdf       Sprint CALEA Spying Delivery System              December 6, 2009        Sprint Lawful Spying Guide                       December 5, 2009 (600KB)   Voicestream Lawful Spying Guide                  December 5, 2009 (626KB)

yahoo-spy.pdf         Yahoo Lawful Spying Guide                        December 2, 2009
cox-spy.pdf           Cox Lawful Spying Guide                          December 2, 2009
sbc-ameritech-spy.pdf SBC-Ameritech Lawful Spying Guide                December 2, 2009
sbc-lea-spy.pdf       SBC Lawful Spying Guide                          December 2, 2009
ameritech-spy.pdf     Ameritech Lawful Spying Guide                    December 2, 2009

cingular-spy.pdf      Cingular Lawful Spying Guide                     December 2, 2009
cricket-spy.pdf       Cricket Lawful Spying Guide                      December 2, 2009
nextel-spy.pdf        Nextel Lawful Spying Guide                       December 2, 2009
pactel-spy.pdf        Pacific Telesis Lawful Spying Guide              December 2, 2009
gte-spy.pdf           GTE Lawful Spying Guide                          December 2, 2009


8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight

Christopher Soghoian

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' (GPS) location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. This massive disclosure of sensitive customer information was made possible due to the roll-out by Sprint of a new, special web portal for law enforcement officers.

The evidence documenting this surveillance program comes in the form of an audio recording of Sprint's Manager of Electronic Surveillance, who described it during a panel discussion at a wiretapping and interception industry conference, held in Washington DC in October of 2009.

It is unclear if Federal law enforcement agencies' extensive collection of geolocation data should have been disclosed to Congress pursuant to a 1999 law that requires the publication of certain surveillance statistics -- since the Department of Justice simply ignores the law, and has not provided the legally mandated reports to Congress since 2004. [More]