Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
informationweek.com
Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#2I'm still wondering how the US legally obtained copies of Megaupload internal email prior to seizing their servers.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#3I really liked this analysis in Salon: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupl... Sorry for the extended quote, but it's a great article.
> (1) It’s wildly under-appreciated how unrestrained is the Government’s power to do what it wants, and how little effect these debates over various proposed laws have on that power. Contrary to how it was portrayed, the Obama administration’s threatened veto of the NDAA rested largely on the assertion that they did not need a law vesting them with indefinite detention powers because they already have full power to detain people without a trial: not because any actual law expressly vested that power, but because the Bush and Obama DOJs both claimed the 2001 AUMF silently (“implicitly”) authorized it and deferential courts have largely acquiesced to that claim.
> That’s more or less what happened with the SOPA fight. [It] sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks - the power to shut down websites without a trial - only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable: Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.
> (2) The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole. Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient. And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#4I'm still wondering how the US legally obtained copies of Megaupload internal email prior to seizing their servers.
What I find far crazier is how does the government get off stealing domain names and servers, taking Megaupload's business dark, and of course encouraging all users to leave, without a conviction. Or any adversarial representation from megaupload, Kim whatever-his-name-is, at all. It feels a lot like Russia: some unaccountable someone in the fbi or doj just decided to steal this company and did so, with the full support of the government.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#5I'm still wondering how the US legally obtained copies of Megaupload internal email prior to seizing their servers.
Warrants and/or subpoenas. I seem to recall that email that has been stored long enough doesn't even require a subpoena. I guess it depends on where the email was hosted and who had access.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#6I really liked this analysis in Salon: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupl... Sorry for the extended quote, but it's a great article. > (1) It’s wildly under-appreciated how unrestrained is the Government’s power to do what it wants, and how little effect these debates over various proposed laws have on that power. Contrary to how it was portrayed, the Obama administration’s threatened veto o…
[deleted]
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#7I still don't get what this fuss is about?
Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content.
If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was completely okay.
If 5%, than not okay.
The supporting evidence so far points to the former figure.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#8I'm still wondering how the US legally obtained copies of Megaupload internal email prior to seizing their servers.
Can't they use the Patriot Act to do that? The Patriot Act was used to catch terrorists, and yet the vast majority of cases in which they used it are drug cases.
Ever since 9/11, this whole culture of not following the Constitution, or trying to exploit the loopholes in the laws, has formed. There's no spirit of the law anymore. Now authorities try to find the smallest possible potential loophole to do whatever they want to do.
Just look at the GPS tracking issue, which normally you'd think should be illegal. But it took a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to make that clear for the authorities. At this rate, the Supreme Court will be overwhelmed with the number of overreaches by law enforcement that they'll have to decide on.
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#9I still don't get what this fuss is about? Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content. If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was completely okay. If 5%, than not okay. The supporting…
At what percentage do you draw the line?
Re: Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers
#10I still don't get what this fuss is about? Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content. If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was completely okay. If 5%, than not okay. The supporting…
Sure, let the government have its day in court to prove its case. But some would say these people are being punished without due process right now before they appear in court. Plus the fact this has international implications makes it seem the US government has overstepped just a bit.
I always love the logic of forcing someone to pay to defend themselves in court but the government takes away your assets so that you are unable to pay for your defense.