I wasn’t going to comment on the disconnection of Cryptome by Verio, because I’m not sure I’m in favor of everything Cryptome does. However, the timing of the shutdown just after Cryptome published information on Coast Guard not meeting TEMPEST security standards got my attention. But what really prompted me was this text of a letter from Justin Aldridge of Verio to John Young of Cryptome:

Please refer to our Acceptable Use Policy. Unfortunately, at the technical support level, we cannot provide you with any further information about the termination.

— Cryptome Shutdown by Verio, Cryptome, May 2007

Ok, surely that’s just tech support refering to legal.

Well, yes, but according to Cryptome, Danna Thompson of Verio’s legal department already said:

>Paul,
>
>Fyi – we do not provide the customer with any details regarding the
>termination of our AUP – we can refer them to the AUP and more than
>likely they already know why –
>

>Best Regards,
>Danna Thompson
>Legal Department
>NTT/VERIO Inc.

Excuse me? “more than likely they already know why”? The customer is just supposed to know why they’re being terminated? Kafka would recognize this sort of message. One possible reason for Verio being so cagey about why might be that they received a national security letter from the FBI. Who can say?

However, the point that persuaded me to post is John Young’s statement of what he intends to do:

We’ve received over 30 offers to host Cryptome in several countries and will accept most to disperse the collection as protection against future shutdowns.

It’s very hard to actually suppress information on the Internet these days, regardless of the reason for such suppression.

Unfortunately, such dispersion isn’t a solution for the average user who’s just looking for access and participation. In a duopoly it is all too easy for one or both ISPs to decide the customer should already know why they shouldn’t have access and shut them off. Or for a government to decide they shouldn’t have access because they’re revealing state secrets, opposing the party in power, or, most likely, revealing something that embarrasses the government. I don’t know which or what else this Cryptome case really is, but all of the above are possible. More competition would make them all more difficult.

-jsq