It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Yahoo and your friendly neighborhood government

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+27 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I just ran into this from our good friends over at wikileaks, thought some of you might be interested.

This document, by the US internet company Yahoo!, which is designed for law enforcement and intelligence agencies eyes only, provides a "menu" of the various types of private customer information—email, chat logs, ip addresses, etc.—that Yahoo is able to provide to requesters.
Various forms to "order" different types of customer information are provided in the appendix.

Compliance pdf
Wikileaks page

Not sure if google and other search engines provide the same service, perhaps some of our members in the law enforcement community can enlighten us.

In any case, I strongly encourage you to have a gander at the WHOLE thing, it is quite something.

Obviously this document includes the subpoena guidelines, and I'm obviously not suggesting that anyone could get their hands on this information without due process.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:54 AM
Great find schrodingers dog,


So, they are saying they can provide a law enforcement officer with emails, chat forum logs, and other info upon request?

Didn't see that one coming.

Oh yeah I like how you got 3 flags and no responses right away...

[edit on 5-12-2009 by havok]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:32 PM
Up to 6 flags?

How do you do that? Must be TPTB.

I downloaded the .pdf and am reading it through as I type.
Seems as though they will release anything about a person with just a written request.

For each Yahoo! ID, Yahoo! may have the following
information: name, home address, business address, phone, time zone, birthday, gender, occupation, alternate
email address, registration IP address, date account

Sweet. Just ask for all info on a person and you will receive.

In order for Yahoo! to turn over any information to law enforcement based on a user’s consent to search, the user’s
signed consent must be accompanied by a subpoena, and Yahoo! must be able to successfully verify the account of
the user whose information is being sought. Along with the user’s signed consent and a detailed description of the
information the user is requesting from Yahoo!, the user must provide the information requested in the Sample
Consent to Search Form to Yahoo! in writing. (See Appendix D) If the user is unable to verify ownership of the
account by providing registration information that matches what is in Yahoo!’s records, Yahoo! will be unable to
produce records pursuant to the user consent.

So they would have to take it to court. The user has to agree?

Sample Language for Subpoenas, Court Orders, and Search Warrants
Sample Subpoena Wording for Identification of a Yahoo! User
Any and all records regarding the identification of a user with the Yahoo! ID “___________” or Yahoo! email account
“____________________________,” to include name and address; Yahoo! email address; alternate email address;
IP address and date and time of registration; account status; and log-in IP addresses associated with session times
and dates.
Note: If Credit card numbers are sought, please identify any Yahoo! premium service used by the subscriber, if
known, and insert: “credit card numbers used by the Yahoo! user to pay for Yahoo! premium services [or the name
of the specific Yahoo! premium service used].”

Ok. Now I'm thinking about changing email. Not saying I'm involved in any crimes of the sort but still, this is alittle extreme...

[edit on 5-12-2009 by havok]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:39 PM
I posted it here on the 3rd and didn't get any responses w/ 4 flags

Yahoo/SBC/Ameritech/Cox/Nextel...ect SPYING GUIDES

[edit on 5-12-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by TrainDispatcher

Gotta love the flaggers that don't respond. Must think that the bar fills with just flagging threads and not writing them.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:00 PM
I am starting to see why a rather paranoid friend of mine has never ever used his real name or info in any way on the internet. I know some are suspicious of folks like that, but I do understand a persons desire to not want to sacrifice privacy for the sake of a false sense of security. Or as he put it, "Give up my privacy so that TPTB can sleep better at nite cuz all the sheep are accounted for? Hell with that...let 'em worry".

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:12 PM
Off topic, but what do you guys think of all those bot that are EVERYWHERE in yahoo chats? Some people think that Yahoo gets paid off for having them there? Anyone have any other reason? and why do you think Yahoo is so slow in getting rid of these bots? I think it'd be pretty easy to come up with a better captcha with pictures, or something better than what they have now.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:22 PM
I can't stand Yahoo!. I can't stand the fact that nearly every program I download or install asks me to install the Yahoo! toolbar. That thing is terribly annoying.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:32 PM
The yahoo toolbar is the only toolbar I ever install since it provides me with easy links to other yahoo services I use.

I have speculated that Yahoo might get paid for having bots in their chat rooms, esspecially the adult themed rooms.

I think yahoo's law enforcement compliance is fair and necesary, I have before reported an alledged child molester which my local PD investigated.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:37 PM
Ya me too, I guess we can only ponder the idea...maybe I'll break into Y**** lol. Not!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:37 PM
providing infornation to 3rd parties? isnt that an invasion of privacy?

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:40 PM
I think Yahoo could be sued in some way for the bots they use...I bet something could be done.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:45 PM
And this is what a big deal. We all know everyone has the potential to be watched investigated ect. WTF people why so shocked a huge corporation would have a form for another huge entity to request information about citizen X.

It seems everyone has forgotten with every big system they have forms like this. Think of all the Nazi death camps they documented everything. Like all the CIA black operations they have forms to dispatch all number of things from people, pencils and aircraft filled with unknown numbers of poor old citizen X.

Just be ready to have more information and more more more more more.
We are all going to be gone when there plans take hold onto our childrens lives.

[edit on 5/12/09 by Arkansas]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:46 PM
starred and flagged.

This sucks. It makes me think if they can do this, just having a internet connection alone will do it considering our good ol' government follows all the rules and laws anyway. ha

I think the day is near when we all stop working for a day or more and say "you know what government, since we pay you, today we're gonna be cleansing your work place, just gonna get rid of a "few" bad apples or non-productive employees."

In my mind it has to happen.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:54 PM
Great post. What I wonder is this: How does Yahoo verify that it is actually law enforcement who is requesting access to those files? If I belong to a Yahoo group and I believe I am being monitored should I warn the other members of that group? What are their rights to privacy - those who are in a group whose one member is under surveillance or monitored for criminal or suspicious activities? What international laws come into play? Was that PDF and guidelines for US Yahoo or does it apply to other countries as well?

Mind you of course, my questions are all hypothetical. I have never for a moment thought that anything I write or do on the internet was safe or private.

edited for spelling

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ChrisCrikey]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:55 PM
Nothings FREE and that includes so-called, free, email...

I'm using PrivacyHarbor and it seems to be okay, so far. I'm sure there are other similar services if one wants a bit more "security" and freedom from ads and whatnot...

Ultimately, there is not much privacy anymore. Really, what these email providers are able to compile is nothing compared to the giant credit services and the info. they have compiled. It's all relative.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by LadySkadi]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:34 PM

I never really used Yahoo! for anything. I believe I have 3 e-mail accounts, two of which are just empty and one from about 9 years ago.

But e-mail, chat logs, IP address…that's just too much. If this leaked out to more people I bet the Yahoo! user population would decrease greatly.

I am guessing this invasion of privacy also applies to Yahoo! search inquiries as well as Yahoo! Answers? Wow.

Thanks schrodingers dog!

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by ch1ldofthe70s
I am starting to see why a rather paranoid friend of mine has never ever used his real name or info in any way on the internet. I know some are suspicious of folks like that, but I do understand a persons desire to not want to sacrifice privacy for the sake of a false sense of security. Or as he put it, "Give up my privacy so that TPTB can sleep better at nite cuz all the sheep are accounted for? Hell with that...let 'em worry".

That's not paranoid, that's smart. I've used the internet for a little over ten years now and I've never put my real name in anything. I don't buy things off of ebay or anything where I would need to use cards either, mostly because I don't even have a card because they are easily tracked and I simply don't like the idea of some faceless company being able to creep through my financial information anymore than they do right now. Furthermore, I don't have a myspace or a facebook simply because I don't need it and it's a good way for people to see everything about you.

Here's something you guys might like,
Google PhoneBook Name Removal
You can request that google remove your phone number and address from google search results and it will be cleared in short order. It pretty much just removes whitepage information about yourself. Of course, this won't work for those online lookups, but it will stop your average nosey person from plugging your number into search and getting results.

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:59 PM
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"
To: "John Young"

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"
To: "Gershberg, Michael"

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


[edit on 5-12-2009 by TrainDispatcher]

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:00 PM
Subject: DMCA Notice of Infringing Material
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:50:22 -0500
From: "Gershberg, Michael"
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"
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

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in