Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think • Hacker News Board

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#31

Post by radu_floricica » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

adgar wrote: post #27

victork2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

So you're saying that the FBI should be allowed to arrest a business's operators and seize equipment that they believe are violating the law... but leave the business (which they believe is illegal) to keep running somehow? The FBI will attempt to prove that MegaUpload was an illegal business. Why should they just let it keep running if that is the case?

If your business is destroyed the moment they seize the servers, then you've already been "judged". I'm not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure a big part of modern judicial system is that you have separate people investigating and giving the verdict. Right now the FBI, for the business itself, was judge, jury and executioner.

You can call technicalities and process and mandates and whatever, but the facts stand: Megaupload is dead, and there was absolutely no trace of a fair trial.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#32

Post by nikcub » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:15 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #22

nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

That's a rational, measured assessment. You bring up an excellent point at the end: if all of their evidence is from the emails, how did they get the warrant to obtain the emails? I submitted it, but it looks like you already did so last week, and it didn't get much attention. I hope more people can see it from this thread.

Thanks. I have resubmitted it, assuming that is ok to do.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3529536

I have also been spending some time reading over the Viacom vs YouTube case. The parallels between it and Megaupload are striking - the difference being that Megaupload is a criminal case while YouTube was a civil case. I found that the YouTube internal emails were much more incriminating than the MegaUpload emails. I plan on writing up the details of the emails and other parallels between the two cases sometime this week.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#33

Post by lukeschlather » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:15 PM UTC

dmbass wrote: post #29

victork2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes the fact that they are dead even before any judgement has been pronounced is quite infuriating. It's not a coincidence that money is seized and their domain name taken, it's made to destroy the website even before any kind of judgement can roll out. I may be the only one but I find that outrageous. But if the FBI loses this case and its image is tarnished then it could be a precedent and may change the way t…

IANAL, but isn't this situation equivalent to a drug ring bust?

That is my thinking. However, I think the proper analogy would be a drug bust where one of the drug ring's warehouses' lease was up. Now, the government is perfectly within its rights to go through the warehouse and log and dispose of any illicit drugs found, but I don't think the government is allowed to do a wholesale liquidation of all the materials found in the warehouse. The materials should be held in escrow until the end of the trial.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#34

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:22 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #19

wyck wrote: post #11

I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory, but why did kim dotcom host servers in the U.S., clearly he knew about the issues that would present, so maybe he wanted to test the system legally and get a bit of spotlight for himself, the scapegoat turned avenger?

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

Another excellent argument to use encryption. It seems every couple of weeks there is another high-profile incident where a lot of trouble would have been saved if people had taken the time to set up Enigmail.

I would also love to see some advances in client-side steganography that could be usable as easily as GPG. Probably the closest thing we have now is TrueCrypt hidden volumes but that doesn't really work for email.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#35

Post by unreal37 » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:23 PM UTC

franklindholm wrote: post #10

What kind of DMCA system did Megaupload provide? And what kind of DMCA system is required by law?

Apparently they responded to DMCA requests to take down individual links. But they did nothing to stop the same file from being uploaded again with a new link.

I am not sure if that is required by the DMCA. I know youtube has this "fingerprinting" system that stops copyrighted uploads, but is that the law?

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#36

Post by _k » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

krigath wrote: post #4

normalfaults wrote: post #3

Wasn't this article up on HN a couple of days ago from another site?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3515739 http://www.granick.com/blog/?p=739

Thanks for the link to Jennifer's site, where the conversation started.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#37

Post by bobds » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:46 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #35

franklindholm wrote: post #10

What kind of DMCA system did Megaupload provide? And what kind of DMCA system is required by law?

Apparently they responded to DMCA requests to take down individual links. But they did nothing to stop the same file from being uploaded again with a new link. I am not sure if that is required by the DMCA. I know youtube has this "fingerprinting" system that stops copyrighted uploads, but is that the law?

I believe Rapidshare went to court about this.

They won and they are not required to operate a fingerprinting system.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#38

Post by bri3d » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:53 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #34

nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

Another excellent argument to use encryption. It seems every couple of weeks there is another high-profile incident where a lot of trouble would have been saved if people had taken the time to set up Enigmail. I would also love to see some advances in client-side steganography that could be usable as easily as GPG. Probably the closest thing we have now is TrueCrypt hidden volumes but that doesn't really work for ema…

Keeping encrypted data in the US is increasingly futile - see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/judge-fifth-... .

Steganography is a good idea, though.

(edited: corrected stenography -> steganography per too-aggressive spellchecker usage)

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#39

Post by fl3tch » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 5:54 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #34

nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

Another excellent argument to use encryption. It seems every couple of weeks there is another high-profile incident where a lot of trouble would have been saved if people had taken the time to set up Enigmail. I would also love to see some advances in client-side steganography that could be usable as easily as GPG. Probably the closest thing we have now is TrueCrypt hidden volumes but that doesn't really work for ema…

Encryption is not so foolproof. A judge in Colorado has ordered a women to decrypt her laptop. The authorities will find ways to plug the loopholes that technology creates. If they can't break mathematics, they can break your will.

Re: Megaupload: A Lot Less Guilty Than You Think

#40

Post by nikcub » Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 6:01 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #34

nikcub wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MegaUpload ran a net profit margin of around 40%. Hosting anywhere else probably would have wiped a lot of that out. Their main competitive advantage was download speeds in the USA - if you read online comments there was constant bitching about the speeds of other sites vs Megaupload. But forget the download servers being hosted in Virginia - what is much much worse is that they hosted their email servers at the same…

Another excellent argument to use encryption. It seems every couple of weeks there is another high-profile incident where a lot of trouble would have been saved if people had taken the time to set up Enigmail. I would also love to see some advances in client-side steganography that could be usable as easily as GPG. Probably the closest thing we have now is TrueCrypt hidden volumes but that doesn't really work for ema…

or just don't host in the USA, since apparently now you can be forced to decrypt. I wouldn't trust the UK, EU, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc. either - which rules out most countries that have decent peering and colocation infrastructure.

Can anybody suggest a country/host that is cheap, fast and outside of the reach or co-operation of a US federal investigation?