Megaupload User Data Could Be Destroyed Soon

New submitter advid.net writes "According to the Associated Press, user data from the recently-closed file-hosting site Megaupload could be destroyed as soon as Thursday. Apparently Megaupload paid another company to actually store the data. 'But Megaupload attorney Ira Rothken said Sunday that the government has frozen its money. A letter filed in the case Friday by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia said storage companies Carpathia Hosting Inc. and Cogent Communications Group Inc. may begin deleting data Thursday. ... The letter said the government copied some data from the servers but did not physically take them. It said that now that it has executed its search warrants, it has no right to access the data. The servers are controlled by Carpathia and Cogent and issues about the future of the data must be resolved with them, prosecutors said." There's also been talk of a lawsuit against the FBI over users' lost files.

Comments

As Obi Wan once said

[mseeger]

Archives for As if millions of MP3s cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced....

Re:As Obi Wan once said

[Anonymous Coward]

One small step for man, one giant leap toward not hearing pop trash.

Re:As Obi Wan once said

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the over under on how many human lifetimes worth of porn are about to disappear?

Re:As Obi Wan once said

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit playing games with my heart.

Re:As Obi Wan once said

[Anonymous Coward]

9000 seems like a reasonable guess

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely nothing ... I don't think there was any question of "how" to do it. RTFA

Right to Forget comment

[pointless_hack]

Now if only my old embarrassing you tube vids would disappear the same way!

Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that be destruction of evidence?

Captcha: retrieve

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[what2123]

They seized everything based on unlawful means. Why would they need evidence? The "Anti-Rights" has won this battle and the only way to ensure their victory is to erase every file that was legitimate.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[hey!]

The short answer is no. "They" (by which I assume you mean the US govt) cannot delete the data. What they *can* do is take steps which will almost certainly result in the data being deleted by the third parties hosting it.

The result is something like an extrajudicial execution. They've ensured Megaupload will die, even if the company is exonerated in the courts.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[jellomizer]

By unlawful you mean by lawful methods you disagree with.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[ticktickboom]

what evidence? they searched n took what they needed at the time. it is all still theirs. its destruction of something that might be able to be used to incriminate them, maybe. when talkin bout the govt, its something that could incriminate everyone who has ever used that website.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Forever Wondering]

Wouldn't that be destruction of evidence?

Captcha: retrieve

It is also destruction of exculpatory evidence. If Megaupload makes the claim [true or not] that the majority of the content was non-infringing, how will they be able to prove/disprove this? Or, the reverse argument as well.

Imagine if this was done to YouTube. YouTube has at least one infringing clip, but it also has a lot of original content that would be lost.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[what2123]

Precisely.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[amicusNYCL]

From what I understand the search warrant has already been served and completed. Once it's completed that's it, if they want more data they need another warrant against the 2 companies hosting the data (neither of which is Megaupload).

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Maximum Prophet]

It doesn't matter. The business, "Megaupload", is gone, the guys running it have spent time in jail. Even if the FBI drops the charges, Megaupload is screwed.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because all criminals in jail should be released. Do you realize how completely dumb you sound? Its one thing to say a low is "illegal" because it conflicts with the US Constition and/or well established interpreation of US law, but its completely different to take issue with the entire legal system, which even in this case, worked exactly as intended.

Basically your retort is, "...but I like stealing shit." Well no kidding you loser.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[_KiTA_]

Imagine if this was done to YouTube. YouTube has at least one infringing clip, but it also has a lot of original content that would be lost.

Believe you me, if YouTube hadn't been bought by Google, this would have happened to them. The various Copyright Cartels would still love to do this to them, but can't because Google is too big.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[_KiTA_]

It doesn't matter. The business, "Megaupload", is gone, the guys running it have spent time in jail. Even if the FBI drops the charges, Megaupload is screwed.

More importantly, the business, "MegaBox" (one of the main reasons MegaUpload was targeted) is also dead, meaning the first real challenge to the RIAA is stillborn.

Just as planned, Mission accomplished, etc etc.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[del_diablo]

Its the US goverments job to ensure that if they arrest somebody, they don't starve to death waiting for trial.
By the same principle: If I accuse somebody of a crime, to harm their corporation, I must be fully liable for all damage, and the prosecturs must be fully liable for all damage they cause.
-QED.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how completely dumb you sound? Its one thing to say a low is "illegal"...

Do you know how dumb you sound when you don't spell 'law' correctly?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[hugh nicks]

I wish I had mod points for you. This is exactly right. YouTube was in a position where they could have been easily crushed if Google hadn't bought them, and thankfully Google saw the benefit of having control of an entire new kind of medium. They knew that allowing people to upload themselves doing stupid things, it would attract the eyes of their friends. Think America's Funniest Home Videos on an ever growing Tivo. More eyes, more advertising dollars.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Synerg1y]

Epic counter-lawsuit though if that happens.

It's one of those cases where they "could" give the data back but won't.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[rhook]

The FBI made copies, the hosting providers can now delete the copies on their end if they wish.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it the US government's responsibility to ensure that Megaupload's business model remains viable during litigation? No. No, it isn't.

But by freezing the money, they actively went out of their way to make it unviable.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[mr1911]

By unlawful you mean by lawful methods you disagree with.

That is absolutely true, but isn't is strange how when the RIAA or other well funded trade group doesn't like something they line a few pockets and get it made illegal, but when the population doesn't like it there is nothing to be done?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds likes a job for... Captain Anonymous!
Captcha: consumed

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Tr3vin]

Do you realize how dumb you would show yourself to be if you were to put things into the contents of your skull?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[TFAFalcon]

But do other corporations get treated in the same way? When they are sued, do they get shut down before the verdict?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[TFAFalcon]

It's kind of like the police busting into you apartment and finding a body. They remove the body, but don't look at anything else. Then arrest you and prevent you from paying your rent.

As a result, your landlord throws everything out, cleans the apartment and re-rents it.

The only problem with that is there could have been tracks that the real murderer left there, a suicide note or a confession written by someone else.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen picture of Kim Dotcom. He won't starve.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[JackDW]

No. See the indictment. Very interesting document. The real evidence against these guys is not on Megaupload at all. It is in the emails they sent to each other and to outsiders.

The Feds' case hangs on the allegation that these guys formed a criminal conspiracy, i.e. that they knew that they were breaking laws and that they conspired to hide this because of the vast profitability of their operation. The evidence is all email records, bank statements, and Kim Dotcom's fleet of luxury cars.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[gnick]

Is it the US government's responsibility to ensure that Megaupload's business model remains viable during litigation?

I don't expect these guys to be exonerated (but it could happen...) However, if I was accused of a crime I didn't commit I'd be extremely upset if my family and I were blocked from paying the bills resulting in a foreclosed home, repossessed car, and auctioned-off possessions when I was released.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Sarten-X]

Nothing to be done except, of course, for calling representatives and writing letters until a suitable about of attention is garnered to show that them opposition to a law is greater than what the RIAA/MPAA claims its support is.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Forever Wondering]

It doesn't matter. The business, "Megaupload", is gone, the guys running it have spent time in jail. Even if the FBI drops the charges, Megaupload is screwed.

Actually, Megaupload [I use the term for the business or the "guys"] can claim that by the destruction of the [possibly] exculpatory evidence, they can't get a fair trial. They could easily be acquitted on these grounds.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Forever Wondering]

Believe you me, if YouTube hadn't been bought by Google, this would have happened to them. The various Copyright Cartels would still love to do this to them, but can't because Google is too big.

Viacom tried [and failed]. They were even so bold as to demand that Google hand over its search algorithm [a closely held trade secret] to prove infringement [or under the guise of infringment--if they had succeeded, we'd have viacom_new_and_improved_search.com].

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[treeves]

This is helpful, but could we please have a car analogy, and not just, "You're living in your car, and the police bust into the trunk and find a body, etc." ?
Thanks.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[couchslug]

If they are exonerated it would be no problem to reload most of the (keeping it real) warez and pron.

That stuff doesn't "die", but "sauces" change back and forth.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[IndustrialComplex]

Counter-lawsuit? Against what?

The government is the perfect example of 'not my department.' The government doesn't have to care what gets crushed under the wheels of 'justice'. The people who are supposed to care were the ones who pointed the government in that direction and said 'GO'.

ie: the government has the excuse in the form of: The people told me to go do this, it's not my job to question, it's my job to do. They told me to do this by passing the laws that gave me the power to do this. I must assume that they factored in the costs and potential outcome when they granted this power in the first place.

This is why your first worry shouldn't be 'Will this give the government the power to solve problem xyz' but 'How is it possible for this power to be abused? And when it is inevitably abused in that manner, is it worth the cost?"

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Gripp]

had someone not caught on before hand, i doubt it. A lot of services are near 100% automated. so unless they could prove that they knew the data was in danger then it would be hard to make the charges stick. Now that the flags have been raised have likely been told not to by the FBI then yes.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[TFAFalcon]

You're driving up the hill in your car, which you use to deliver parcels. The police drag you out and confiscate a parcel that they say proves you are involved in drug trafficing. They then leave the car alone without using the parking brake. The car rolls downhill, crashes into a tree and bursts into flame, destroying the parcels left inside.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Artraze]

And by disagree, you mean he doesn't share the yet untested interpretation of the law used by the authorities.

Maybe the conspiracy juices are flowing here, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe that's not the whole idea. SOPA gets defeated (in a sense), Megaupload gets taken down, and we optimistically say 'see look the tools you already have work'. But it _hasn't actually worked yet_.

What if this action was deliberately stretching the law, knowing that it may well get thrown out. Then they'll come back and say "See, we _need_ SOPA. We tried to take these guys down, guys you all admit to facilitating piracy, but we couldn't do it. We need a law like SOPA."

A bit of a stretch, to be sure. But on the other hand, given the how these things go it seems to fit the timing a lot better than the DoJ just throwing up their hands saying 'oh noes, an online protest is starting. Looks like we better just do this without SOPA even if it makes SOPA look unnecessary.'

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube lives on fragile alliances.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

How often does the MAFIAA cartel refer to things as "stealing" when it really isn't? Seems like the one with the most money gets to decide what's legal these days.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[dangitman]

But do other corporations get treated in the same way? When they are sued, do they get shut down before the verdict?

Yes. Injunctions are frequently issued to prohibit the accused company from engaging in the accused act until the case is resolved.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Kalriath]

Yes, but they don't tend to deliberately freeze the finances to ensure the corporation can't pay its bills so that the company's key business assets get repossessed. In this instance, they did (copied the drives so that the servers are no longer considered evidence, then froze the finances so MegaUpload can't pay its hosting bill, then send a letter to the hosting companies informing them that the government has no further need of the servers so they may be disposed of according to the company's non-payment policy).

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[AHuxley]

In 5 or 10 years some university/think tank/private/open source, fast, easy, open court presentable version of a NSA zip/rar password finder will be used on vast amounts of files :)
They have your upload/download ip's, your CC detaits, isp logs, name? and an unknown set of file at this time. They know who you might be on average, just not what your uploaded/downloaded files had in them if encrypted to be shard with a very select group with a very long, one time letter/digit password over a set of days.
They have a complex file database at a point in time with all ip's in the wild, time to look at some pixels, ip's, unique pw's and filenames - not just a tiny fraction of files backtracked from other forums, chatrooms ect.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the politicians publicly scrap the bill people are complaining about, change the words around a bit, change the name, and pass it when nobody is looking. It's not about support in numbers, it's about support in dollars.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[dangitman]

Yes, but they don't tend to deliberately freeze the finances to ensure the corporation can't pay its bills so that the company's key business assets get repossessed. In this instance, they did (copied the drives so that the servers are no longer considered evidence, then froze the finances so MegaUpload can't pay its hosting bill, then send a letter to the hosting companies informing them that the government has no further need of the servers so they may be disposed of according to the company's non-payment policy).

How is that any different to when the government seizes a drug dealer's property and freezes their bank accounts?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, because all criminals in jail should be released.

I don't see where he said that. He just said that he disagreed with the methods.

Basically your retort is, "...but I like stealing shit."

I don't see where he said that, either. I don't even see how it's relevant.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If having a fleet of luxury cars is evidence of a criminal act, there's a whole load of bankers who should be quaking in their boots.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[cheekyjohnson]

Mega Conspiracy

Really, now?

I know at least a few people who are anti-piracy, but even they view it as something less harmful than jaywalking. I can't believe they'd spend all this money and go through all this effort to do something that will result in absolutely nothing.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[ravenshrike]

This is only true in cases where money laundering charges are not brought. In that case all finances are frozen specifically so that the dirty money cannot be moved

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[ravenshrike]

Was Megabox planned since prior to 2007, which is how long the investigation has been going?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize I didn't read anything after the "Do you realize"?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Xest]

Yes, take this story from yesterday for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16788627

Virgin, one of the UK's only two cable TV providers actually paid the police to raid some people's houses who had been chipping the set top boxes so people could access the content without paying. These people then got 3 years in jail for it.

Keep in mind that people often get less time for burglary, rape, and in some rare occurences even murder.

Yes, giving people free content is now more serious than rape and murder, simply because companies have paid for this to be the case.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[AmiMoJo]

That remains to be seen. Remember when it came out that the US illegally interfered with the Pirate Bay case? I would be amazed if illegal pressure had not been used somewhere along the line to get this done.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And who votes them in?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[AmiMoJo]

So your government can shut down foreign companies with mere allegations of money laundering? Seems a bit heavy handed, especially where there are no apparent links to other organised crime. I have a feeling that if it was, say, Apple or Netflix or Google it wouldn't have gone down like that.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[AmiMoJo]

I can't understand why Google doesn't shut this shit down. The media companies get their way through lobbying, but Google could easily out-lobby them all on its own, let along with support for other internet companies. I know it comes close to violating their "don't be evil" motto but sometimes you have to play the game.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporations.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Asic Eng]

Well, it could be good for Google if they are the only entity on the internet to which copyright doesn't apply.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[dave420]

That was sketchy as all hell, but these weren't just some people helping out their friends, these people had 5,000 set-top-boxes. That's clearly criminal fraud.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[gnapster]

I am living in my car, you insensitive clod!

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Eponymous Hero]

pass the ketchup please

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Xest]

Yes but the point is who actually cares if the police investigate this? Virgin has the option of changing the security of it's boxes to prevent, or detect culprits and then carrying out civil action. As it seemed to know who the culprits were (or if it didn't it could hire a PI) it still has the option of taking civil action there.

The point is no one wants their tax money used on this, and even with Virgin's contribution it's still going to be a tax payer subsidised action, and removes the ability of police to focus on what the tax payers do pay them to do.

Even if it is criminal fraud it's just not something anyone would prioritise other than Virgin themselves - because it's cheaper to hijack the police with bribes than it is to just sort the problem themselves which is what they should be doing. They've determined that changing security of their boxes for legit customers is more costly than just bribing the police, so they've gone for that route, and it's unacceptable. It's not like Virgin's business was under threat, and thousands of jobs at risk, just that they saw the opportunity to spend a relatively small sum (for them) to pay police to do something that may or may not help boost their profits.

Also, as I say, I'm not even convinced that illegally chipping a million set top boxes justifies a more serious punishment than rape or murder - the scale of the latter two crimes is just so many orders of magnitude more serious than a bit of fraud that it doesn't compare, yet those far more serious crimes have much lower penalties.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is felony tampering with evidence.

I believe that ordering the Justice Department to destroy evidence is an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Let's call the white house and let them know they are responsible for this.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[lennier]

Do you realize that happiness makes you cry?
Do you realize that everyone you know someday will die?

Sorry, thought this was a Flaming Lips sing-along party. I'll go now.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Kalriath]

The government seizes the property too, so in the event they're found innocent the suspected drug dealer can simply carry on as they were.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[dangitman]

The government seizes the property too, so in the event they're found innocent the suspected drug dealer can simply carry on as they were.

Soooo... how is that any different to what's happening with MegaUpload?

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[dave420]

I wasn't defending anyone or their actions, just making your chosen language a bit more accurate by explaining that the few set-top-boxes actually numbered in the thousands.

Re:Can they simply delete it?

[Kalriath]

Simple. The government didn't seize the servers (property), and they happily told the server owners (landlords) they can destroy the data in accordance with their standard business practices related to non-payment (which can't be paid, because the government seized the money too).

Thankfully, Carpathia aren't assholes, and are offering to work to return legitimate data to people who have it there. But Megaupload is still screwed.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[xcfmx]

problem #1.. not hosted on DOS.
problem #2.. see problem #1

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Hey! Let's sue the Gestappo!

Suing the FBI?

[netwarerip]

.... There's also been talk of a lawsuit against the FBI over users' lost files.

Isn't that like suing the police to get back the cash you paid the drug dealer they just arrested?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like the FBI impounding all the units in a storage facility because some of them hold illegal contraband.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[L3370]

how about legit files of your own creation that you had complete ownership of and decided to put on a cloud service?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like suing the FBI for demolishing the parking building with your car inside, the car you bought and you paid the parking lot to keep in.

Yes, I can make car analogies.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then coming in and burning each and every one of them to ensure that there is no possibility that any of the contraband has leaked into the legit storage units.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Aryden]

not quite. Its like the FBI seizing all units of a storage facility where the storage facility itself is believed to be storing illegal materials on the premises. The case about them isn't about users storing illegal materials, its about them knowingly allowing it, hindering the ability for the rights holders to remove it and building their entire business based on those illegal materials.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[BitterOak]

how about legit files of your own creation that you had complete ownership of and decided to put on a cloud service?

Still, I don't think you can sue the FBI for executing a warrant, unless they have gone beyond the scope of what was permitted in the warrant.

And as I understand, it isn't the FBI that is deleting the data, but rather a subcontractor whose bills have not been paid since Megaupload's assets have been frozen. I really don't see grounds for suing the FBI here.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[gorzek]

Exactly. Some people paid for this service and used it to store legitimate files. From what I've read, there's little question that MU employees and management knew their service was being used to trade a lot of infringing material, and even went so far as to play shell games with download links to avoid complying with the DMCA, but what of the people who used it legitimately, paid for the privilege, and are now going to have their files wiped? It's not like MU will have any assets to go after once this whole mess shakes out.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Aryden]

Can't sue unless the government says you can. Remember, the FTCA does not cover everything involved here. Also, the FBI isn't deleting anything. They removed access for users, as well as seized the accounts used to pay the bills to the server companies. It would be Carpathia and Cogent doing the deletion due to the bills not being paid.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but thats not really and improvement for people that did use the facility correctly.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[kiwimate]

Close, but not entirely. But you do raise an interesting point.

Users who signed up agreed that they had no combacks if they lost data. Users bear all risks of data loss. It gets hairy because this isn't Megaupload deciding to stop operating (as described in that TOS); rather, it's someone else deciding on their behalf. But you're still on a sticky wicket if you already agreed that you shouldn't keep your sole copy on Megaupload and it's your fault if something happens to your data.

But I think that suing the FBI because you claim collateral damage as the result of a criminal investigation isn't likely to find much sympathy.

Besides which, as everyone on Slashdot knows, nothing "real" has been lost.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then coming to your house, fucking your wife in the butt then wiping their poopy dicks all over the curtains.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[mark-t]

Seriously?

On MegaUpload?

Got any real-world non-contrived examples, or is this just a hypothetical exercise designed for no other purpose than to second guess decisions over something that has no bearing in reality?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mitreya]

Still, I don't think you can sue the FBI for executing a warrant, unless they have gone beyond the scope of what was permitted in the warrant.

They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that? There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??

Re:Suing the FBI?

[localman57]

Welcome to the cloud. If your data is more valuable than the storage space it's written to, then keep your own copy. In this case, it was the government that precipitated the shutdown of a service provider, so everybody's looking to blame them. Who are you going to blame when market dynamics cause a company to just go bankrupt? This reminds me of the outcry that happened when they finally put a bullet in (I believe it was) GeoCities.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[whoever57]

not quite. Its like the FBI seizing all units of a storage facility where the storage facility itself is believed to be storing illegal materials on the premises.

Having destroyed the material, how do they prove it was illegal? Even if they can point to a few files, how do they show that the majority of files are infringing (which will be required under US law)?

No, the objective here is simple: put Megaupload out of business, irrespective of what is legal or not. This deletion will put them out of business.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mistlefoot]

But it's pretty hard to hold someone accountable when they cannot defend themselves because you tied up there financing so much that the evidence they had to defend themselves has been destroyed.

The only evidence the FBI supbeoned was evidence again Megaupload.
I am pretty sure that Megaupload's lawyers see this as being either good (we will use this as doubt) or bad (how will we defend ourselves without this as evidence) but they will certainly have an opinion. That they aren't talking about this in legal terms implies to me that they will be attempting to use any data destruction to their benefit.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[localman57]

There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??

Yes, but there's an equal possiblity that Kim Dotcom will just withdraw all the money, bury most of it in a hole in the desert, and spend the rest on Blow and Hookers before he ends up in jail. It's pretty typical for a Court to freeze assets that appear to have come from illegal activity pending trial for just this reason. If you come back not-guilty, you typically get your money back. That's when the Income Tax Evasion trials typically start...

Re:Suing the FBI?

[gorzek]

Indeed. I've seen this leveled as a criticism against using "the cloud," but really, only a complete moron would keep their only copy of anything important in the cloud. Even Google could somehow die tomorrow. You just never know.

But with GeoCities, there was ample warning. There really wasn't in this case, though the writing was on the wall. I never handed one red cent over to MU considering I saw their service was used predominantly for copyright infringement--just too dicey a proposition for me.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[sjames]

Not for executing the warrant, no. For then destroying the business and causing the destruction of legally stored files before even bothering with a formality of a trial. There is an ethical responsibility to not cause irreparable harm unless/until a guilty verdict is returned. There is also an ethical duty not to cause harm to innocent 3rd parties.

The correct answer is to give everyone a chance to download their data before it is erased.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Charliemopps]

No, it's like the FBI showing up with the CEO's of walmart in tow, prying the lock off a couple of the storage units and the CO's pointing at random objects and yelling "They stole that, and that, and that..." meanwhile the renters of the storage locker are in China, and the owner of the storage company says "Well they could have gotten that at Target you know... also, how do you know they stole this and didn't actually pay for it? Have you even asked them?" The FBI then arrests the Owner of the storage unit, who now can't pay its utility bills... water, sewer and power are cut off... the buildings catch fire and the FBI tells the fire department "no need to put that out... we have the truth, let the lies burn."

When they come to take your rights away, they start with the people that clearly don't deserve them. When they come for yours, well... it's a little too late then isn't it?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[sjames]

I have downloaded perfectly legit files from megaupload before.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the parent was right. Carpathia Hosting, Inc and Cogent Communications Group, Inc are the storage facility. Kim Dotcom and Megaupload were "storing illegal materials" in Carpathia's and Cogent's "storage facility." Carpathia and Cogent are not under investigation for knowingly allowing users to store illegal materials.

If the servers belonged to Megaupload or Kim Dotcom, you would be right. If Carpathia and Cogent were under investigation, you would be right. But neither of those are true, so the parent is right.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Artraze]

I've run into all of the following in the days since MegaUpload has been down:

Stepmania files for public domain, CC, etc. compositions
Podcast
Video coverage of an event
Rip of (public) art/drawing stream

There would also be quite a bit of original as-seen-on-youtube music, but thankfully that usually ends up on Mediafire. Quite frankly I can't imagine the last time I downloaded something not CC, public domain, or clearly free use from such a service. While I won't pretend that sites like MegaUpload don't have pirated content or that it's not some of the most popular stuff on them, suggesting they don't have plenty of legitimate files is extremely ignorant.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[qbast]

They typically start with making sure that defendant cannot afford a lawyer? I guess this is a good way to ensure guilty verdict.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Aryden]

I don't disagree. However, the argument for a suit lies in the FBI deleting the files, which they haven't and can't. They are only limiting access to and removing the ability to pay for the upkeep. their reasoning would be that legit users would have to file suit against mega* to get reparations.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that?

That's RICO for ya, baby.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Aryden]

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that the government is in the wrong here. I merely pointed out an inaccuracy in an analogy. This is commonplace here you know...

I fight for my rights, I don't see many that do. I wore a uniform, I shipped overseas, I operated on behalf of our government thinking that I was defending the rights of U.S. citizens. Today i fight with my signature, my vote and my sway with others. The U.S. government or any government can come after me and try to take my rights, but they won't get them without a fight.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[_KiTA_]

No, it's like the FBI impounding all the units in a storage facility because some of them hold illegal contraband.

And then destroying the contents of all the units in the storage facility, with some smug asshole telling you "Well, you should have picked a better storage unit, eh?" when you complain.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[tagno25]

So it would be like the FBI preventing access to a parking building full of cars. Then allowing the land owners to demolish it, because the management cannot pay the owners. The FBI then arrests anyone entering on trespassing charges, and allows the owners to demolish the building. The rubble including the cars is then re-purposed by the land owners.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Artraze]

The trouble is that regardless of whether or not the uploader has a copy, losing the cloud copy is still a loss to the people it was intended for. Perhaps it could be replaced by the uploader or someone who downloaded it previously, but there is no guarantee of this... People move on, forget that email's password, die, etc. While this loss may not be _actionable_ (e.g. a by a lawsuit), it's foolish to pretend it's not a loss all the same.
(And that's not even covering all the effort lost to simply reupoading and correcting the links for all the files you already had uploaded.)

Geocities is actually a perfect example. We had notice and special effort was made to preserve the data being lost:
http://www.archive.org/web/geocities.php

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Swampash]

And then coming to your house, fucking your wife in the butt

Well, someone's gotta do it.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[HornWumpus]

If Kim Dotcom didn't already have high powered American shysters on retainer (meaning prepaid) he is a fool.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mashiki]

Except when it impacts customers in other countries where the laws are different. See, in Canada the FBI doing this falls under the clause of causing mischief. Regardless of whether or not there's an ongoing criminal investigation. This is one of the reasons why if your data is taken in canada, your data is safe in canada. If the US government wants to play the 'we can reach across the border and do shit'

Per 430CC

Mischief in relation to data

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

        (a) destroys or alters data;

        (b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

        (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or

        (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.

Well...they might get a nasty surprise. Since our extradition treaty covers mischief, and the arrest and deportation of individuals back to canada to stand trial. In Canada mischief can be carried into IO(that's felony for americans)territory regarding the rendering of data being unusable.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

They typically start with making sure that defendant cannot afford a lawyer?

With the potentially illegally-gained money? So the guy can waste all the cash on a team of stupidly-high-priced lawyers (and the requisite hookers and blow) to intentionally leave nothing left to give back to the plaintiffs if he still gets a guilty verdict? That doesn't make any sense at all. What, are you just desperate to keep loopholes open in case you need to defraud the court system later?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[mindcandy]

The data was in a colo .. in my (professional) dealings with the authorities, provided you are cooperative (and by this, I don't mean coughing up things voluntarily, I mean they have a proper warrant that legal has reviewed, etc.) .. they are sensitive to disrupting your business and in many cases enlist the help of the on-site technicians to identify the evidence they seek (which often times isn't so simple as "that machine over there").

I doubt we'll get the tell-all from the colo folks, but likely they just went in with the warrant and asked for images .. they don't truck out the entire datacenter unless it's the business itself that's under investigation.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Synerg1y]

If it's shown that the FBI lead to an innocent megaupload being deleted by their host due to legal restraint of not being able to pay their hosting bills, MU might have a case, but 1st they have to focus on the issue at hand, and that's that they're on trial.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[sonicmerlin]

There has to be something someone can do. Can't a third party pay the server hosting companies to maintain the data? There was a ton of rare and hard to get stuff on megaupload, like anime games and old series, that will be impossible to recollect.

Isn't there anyone willing to pay the server companies long enough to prevent them from deleting all that material while Megaupload's trial is conducted?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the argument for a suit lies in the FBI deleting the files, which they haven't and can't. They are only limiting access to and removing the ability to pay for the upkeep.

"I didn't kill the guy, I only removed his ability to breathe."

Re:Suing the FBI?

[phorm]

You mean the high-powered American lawyer who cut himself loose last week?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[kyrio]

What you quoted has nothing to do with this case. The FBI hasn't altered or destroyed anything. The FBI is not even denying access to anything. The data is still in the care of the people hosting it and it's up to them if the data is deleted or opened for access.

Will the data get deleted? Yes, and I hope the idiots wake up and realize how fucking stupid they were for keeping the only copy of their so very important data on some random server, instead of on their local media.

Were these same people going to sue MegaUpload when a DMCA request was filed (rightly or not) to have their data removed? I didn't think so.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[chispito]

Besides which, as everyone on Slashdot knows, nothing "real" has been lost.

Data are erased. There's a big difference between that and creating an unauthorized copy, which is the usual scenario this logic is applied to.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[PRMan]

OK, let's play this game.

Let's say that U2 has a new song that's almost out. It gets leaked (somehow) to the internet. Bono sends a copy to Edge on MegaUpload so that he can play it for a performer from their opening act so that they can hear it and end their act with a song that's not too similar. U2's manager sends a copy to an advertising agency to use in a commercial. The band sends a copy to the execs at Island Records so that they can send it to radio stations. Also, a pirate makes it and the Megaupload link available for download.

The lawyers for U2's label (rightfully) demand immediate takedown for the pirate link, because it's being used for piracy. How many of the 4 copies are illegal?

The answer is probably one. MegaUpload would be right to leave the other 3 identical copies alone. This is the problem with copyright infringement claims. The files don't come with dossiers explaining who is and is not allowed to listen to it. That's why copyright and fair use must be decided in a court of law.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[shentino]

The FBI as a political subdivision of the US government probably has sovereign immunity.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[TFAFalcon]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty? Why can the money (and the lawyers it could buy) be taken away before the trial even begins?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[FunkSoulBrother]

IANAL but I think the persons to go after in that case would be the management that can't pay the parking garage land owner.

I mean if I offer to store your valuables in safes within my attic, and then fail to pay my mortgage and get evicted from my house, it seems the person at fault here would be me for losing access to the attic safes, not my bank for repossessing my house.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[arkane1234]

Man nearly everything I've downloaded in the last year was on there, and I don't dl illegal stuff!

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

i would think shutting down the website IS denying access, along with obstruction. if i took your car keys and threw them into the lake, and then told you "hey, your keys are in the lake. go talk to the fish if you want to drive your car. i'm going home and taking a crap." sure, there maybe a copy of the keys somewhere else, but that act, at the moment, is still hindering access.

really, that's what lawyers are paid to do, argue viewpoints and push their interpretations. everything is "gray". and, although i agree that the FBI is indeed denying access, i doubt agents are going to be arrested and shipped to canada.

another thing: if the data is considered to be illegal, why are they only going after MU? what about the companies actually storing the data? why are they given the "choice" to delete it? what if they don't? what if they take that data and create another MU clone and charge a crap ton of money for people to get their valuable data back?

but it really all comes down to this... tax dollars (FBI and gov't) spent protecting profits of companies that make a lot of shitty movies and music. they don't have better shit to do? are they gonna make a crappy TV show about a special FBI task force that tracks down copyright infringers? i ain't downloading that one...

Re:Suing the FBI?

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, didn't MegaUpload have some sort of system where identical files were stored once, just with different links pointing to them?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

close, like hte FBI allowing the parking lot owner to ahve all of the cars towed, and after 30 days retitled.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[mayko]

According to your hypothetical I believe they are all "illegal"

Artists themselves aren't allowed to distribute their own music freely, they don't own it.Also, I don't believe they can perform their own music for free without permission from their label.

This is why the mafia analogy works so well for the RIAA. They extort musicians for "protection" and then put muscle on the competition.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy needs to be a bit more complex, like this: Megaupload is operating a storage service where they outsorce the actual storage at a storage facility run by a different company, and they fetch whatever items people want upon request. Some of the storage units are known to contain illegal materials, but the storage facility itself isn't being targeted at all. Instead, the FBI froze Megaupload's finances, so since they can't pay the other storage company that company is clearing all the units and having the contents hauled off to the landfill.

I don't know what the law says about how to handle this analogy situation, but the same should apply to the real situation.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[treeves]

Careful there...

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Qzukk]

and then fail to pay my mortgage

Did you fail to pay your mortgage because you blew all your cash on hookers and blow, or did someone come along and take all your money at gunpoint?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if they are found guilty, how are they supposed to retrieve all the money that was spent on lawyers?

How do you stop the possibly guilty party from siphoning off all the funds into unknown accounts?

Part of the issue is the money may be from illegal activities, so you are going to let them use that to defend themselves from the consequences of the illegal activities?

That doesn't sound like a good plan either, hence the law.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[assassinator42]

It's very unlikely that the legitimate files would be EXACTLY the same as the pirated files, especially with music files.
If you really need to mitigate this problem, give the rights holders the option to take down a file and all links or just one particular link.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[misexistentialist]

Don't think retainer covers actual costs of a major case.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[misexistentialist]

They can keep you in jail for years waiting for a trial too. Doesn't seem that bad when it's a brutal mob boss being deprived of freedom and a deluxe defense team. The legal system is more concerned with order than justice.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, that makes me want to shoot them, and steal their helmets, and shit in them, and send them to their grieving widows, and steal them again!

Re:Suing the FBI?

[eineerg]

Pretty sure some of the devs over at xda use it for their android code. That alone is a pretty big loss

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mashiki]

That's nice, but we don't recognize sovereign immunity for government bodies. We do recognize it for individuals however.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mashiki]

Not really true. Canada law looks at the full chain of events along with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the charge. If a case is before the courts, but there isn't enough prohibitive cause in our system to keep something offline. Then you're denying the right of paid customers to access their data. Which means you're denying access. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but US law != law everywhere. And Canadian law says not legal, until it goes through the courts.

The laws in other places do not allow you to arbitrarily to do something without considering the full actions. This is why here, you can't simply walk up and seize the assets of someone even if they're convicted of running a drug operation. You need to prove to the crown that, those assets were purchased and profited by the proceeds of crime, and you must prove it to the judge as well.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[shiftless]

They typically start with making sure that defendant cannot afford a lawyer?

With the potentially illegally-gained money? So the guy can waste all the cash on a team of stupidly-high-priced lawyers (and the requisite hookers and blow) to intentionally leave nothing left to give back to the plaintiffs if he still gets a guilty verdict? That doesn't make any sense at all. What, are you just desperate to keep loopholes open in case you need to defraud the court system later?

With the potentially illegally-gained money?

Made by violating laws that shouldn't be law in the first place?

So the guy can waste all the cash on a team of stupidly-high-priced lawyers

Which is a) necessary in today's completely fucked, biased, and UN-just legal system b) to defend himself from going to prison for decades? Or do you think he would have a better chance with a public defender, or Joe Blow the Lawyer vs the Federal Government?

(and the requisite hookers and blow)

Which is none of your business

to intentionally leave nothing left to give back to the plaintiffs

"plaintiffs"? You mean the bloodsucking RIAA/MPAA/Uncle Sam? Pardon me if I feel absolutely NO sympathy for these tyrants and anti-patriots.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The only one not making sense here is you. Why are you defending people who don't give a fuck if you live or die, as long as they continue to extract profits from you somehow? Why are you defending a government that is all too happy to TAKE BY FORCE (at GUNPOINT) people's belongings and earnings made in fair and honest (nobody was defrauded here) transactions?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[shiftless]

Except nobody in your country's leadership has the balls to do any of that, so this is all a moot point

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Kjella]

"Taken away" seems to imply it's been given to somebody else, which is false. The assets have been frozen so they can't spend them, sell them, give them away or transfer them out of the country so that plaintiffs that have been legitimately grieved will get paid after the trial, not unlike the safety deposit on my apartment. It's still my money, it's in my name but I can't empty that account because it's the insurance the landlord has that I have at least some money to pay for damages to the apartment. Otherwise people that think they would lose everything would get rid of all their assets so there'd be nothing to cease.

To use a case people here at /. should be familiar with, for how many years would you like SCO to be able to squander Novell's money before there's a final verdict? You're never going to be able to "take back" wages or operating expenses like these hosting costs, even if it turns out this money was illegally gained - they're lost, because they'll never pay you back. Every expense is another dollar they got to illegally spend of your money. So there's two forms of injustice here, the cease of legal funds and the squander of ill-gotten funds, if you want to suggest a better balance go ahead.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[jecblackpepper]

Why would they be likely to be different. If I buy a mp3 and store it on MU and someone else pirates it and shares it on MU, the files would very likely be the same.

Forcing removal of all file links which match the pirated copy would cause my legitimate copy of the mp3 to be removed as well as the pirated one. So either they have to prove that there are never any legitimate reasons to store a file on a file sharing service (which is blatantly not the case) or they have to prove each and every instance is infringing and issue a DMCA takedown for each and every instance.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Mashiki]

Well, that can't be true. Didn't our primeminster just tell your president to go pound sand if he didn't want to buy our oil?

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Nadaka]

Yes, it is called data deduplication, and it can be invaluable for preserving space in a sufficiently large data store.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[Nadaka]

How would that mitigate the problem? What about the people who legitimately own that file and are using the service for backup or transport? You would be removing their legitimately owned property by removing their valid and legal links to that particular file.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[HornWumpus]

Retainers can be very large. In most major cases the shyster want's a double digit percentage of expected total costs to get started.

Re:Suing the FBI?

[KingAlanI]

and MegaUpload certainly had one of those

Looking at Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_deduplication
a sort of compression method, but different from standard compression algorithms
including but not limited to hash checks

Oh no!!

[Anonymous Coward]

not my porn, my precious porn!

does rule 34 apply here? Is there porn involving porn being deleted?

Re:Oh no!!

[Anarchduke]

its called snuff snuff

Re:Oh no!!

[Anonymous Coward]

do not confuse it with snarf snarf

Re:Oh no!!

[Lord_Alex]

Certainly. Guy alone in room weeping softly at computer desk. Girl comes in...
Girl: What's wrong Mr. Awesome?
Guy: My porn cloud got deleted by the Feds!
Girl: That sucks! Damn feds, we better make our own faster than they can delete it!!

And I'm spent.

Re:Oh no!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up!!!!

I don't understand the problem

[Cro Magnon]

Did the users upload to MU and delete their local copy? If not, they still have their data.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes too much sense! This is Slashdot! We don't like that kind of thinking around here.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[ArsonSmith]

They uploaded to MU for a backup and just lost their hard drives and would like to recover from that backup.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Inda]

Maybe the user's friend, who's not me, uploaded something there, forgot about it for years, and now thinks it might be a good idea to delete it, but can't.

The user's friend has an unsolvable problem and he's worried.

It wasn't even a real chicken.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[tverbeek]

They should have done another backup (through some other means) the day after MU went offline. Stupid/lazy users deserve what they get.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the data is the users' property, right? I mean, if MU is getting shutdown because it has been accused of sharing property they weren't authorized share, or the people who uploaded said property, then why should some who isn't authorized to access or delete a user's data get to do so with impunity. By definition, this seems like actual theft since deleting a user's data is depriving that user of his property. (assuming he doesn't have a local copy which in some scenarios isn't all that far fetched). Why is the property of Mafiaa members more valuable than ordinary people? It's not like Mafiaa member don't have local copies of their data either.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[JackDW]

Anyone storing their own private data on Megaupload was quite simply insane. This was not a backup service or a cloud storage service. There was no guarantee to store data indefinitely, or even at all, not even if you had a paid account. Files would be deleted after 21 days unless other people kept downloading them, which is hardly appropriate for private data. It couldn't be any less like a backup service.

I predict that anyone suing the Feds to "get their data back" will be referred to the Megaupload terms and conditions, which make no guarantee about data retrieval. Users who unwisely stored their backups in MU, in defiance of all common sense, have no recourse against either MU or the FBI.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, that's the old "There's no excuse for $THING. What about $EXCUSE? Ok, that's an $EXCUSE for $THING, but people are stupid and deserve to be punished, so it doesn't count" excuse trick.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my friends had an entire project stored at MU. He had to format his computer but didn't bother fetching the MU copy since "he could do it later", then MU went offline, and now the project is lost.

Of course it's entirely his fault, but it still sucks if they delete all that data without any chance at recovering it.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And those who had a crash before they even heard MU was offline?

Re:I don't understand the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not delete, but will random indie artist whose only links to their work were megaupload links remember to update the links? Do the people who posted company files for sharing purposes still work for the company in order to send the backups? Legally, pfft, I guess there's really nothing that can be done to save the files now. Just a big shame this happened the way it did.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[AmiMoJo]

There are loads of old files that the authors have abandoned that are now lost, depriving communities of them. Mobile apps and user created pinball machines are two that I have come into direct contact with recently. Maybe someone has a copy, maybe the original author is still about, maybe they can be found and persuaded to re-post to another file hosting service. Maybe not.

A lot of legitimate, long standing communities with gigabytes of data have been decimated. Collateral damage.

Re:I don't understand the problem

[tverbeek]

But it's not an $EXCUSE for $THING.

!Safe in Cloud

[Barondude]

And this is why you should never trust anything you can't afford to lose to the cloud. You lose control and have no idea what is really going on with your data under the hood.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[theNAM666]

Kinda like... trusting anything you can't afford to loose to a hard drive.

Remember when IBM moved its production facilities from San Jose to Hungary? I heard they had a 60%+ return rate on those first batches of drives-- I lost two years of grad school research.

Cloud= redundancy, man. Didn't you watch the Steve Jobs presentation at WDDC, when he said HE NEVER LOST ANYTHING? That's the idea.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[jellomizer]

You betcha. I take all my important data and put store in in my old dell PC. Plugged right into the wall socket, stored on my one big drive, and put into a nice little box in the corner closed off so no one can see it.

Lets face it. If you are going to use a cloud service it is because you don't have the resources to have Redundant servers hosted at multiple locations, with UPS power supplies, and RAID configuration, in a well climate controlled room.

If you already have the infrastructure going to a cloud solution is just stupid. If you don't have the infrastructure and your data needs are at the right level then cloud is a good option.

The reason why everyone doesn't drive Tractor Tailors is because they are too big and expensive for most of our needs. Going to the cloud for most people is safer then the alternative that they have to them.

If you are going to have really important information stored on a cloud system, then you shouldn't just pick any one and agree to the standard terms of service. If it is important get a contract and cover data retention policies and ways to get the data in case of closure.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Pope]

If it was that important, why not have backups?

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[leonardluen]

if you are storing your data in the cloud "backups" mean you use multiple companies. that way if one company is shutdown, then your data is still in the cloud elsewhere. view it as losing a disk from a raid array (yes i know raid isn't meant for backup) you need to start rebuilding the array before you lose the rest.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[theNAM666]

You ever live on a grad student's budget?

I had a 250MB (you can date it by that) or so backup drive on the way, which literally arrived the day after the drive stopped spinning up-- the backup plan also required me to wire from the IDE which was exposed on the motherboard only, to an external enclosure, or somesuch.

In retrospect I learned the backup lesson the hard way, and would have had critical copies somewhere else, given that the drive was clearly beginning to fail. On the other hand I had retrieved data from a wide variety of drives with stickion problems, including keeping a slew of 30MB MFM drives connected to Sun 2s, and that batch of IBM drives was a particular @($&&^$. Plus at the time, ... da da da.

My point is that you should have a robust backup policy, whose cost and options are related to the value of the loss; and that whatever you rely on, whether hard drive platters or the cloud, is subject to unexpected curve balls. The "backup to another company" advice given elsewhere here, plus backup locally (etc), is good.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true, he lost his fight to cancer.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The 'cloud' is a form of backup.

You're thinking of Google Docs when you should be thinking of DropBox.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Kaenneth]

No, that's a terrible way to do it, since both companies may outsource to the same backend provider you've never heard of; and with the 'Cloud' you have no idea if you actually have idependant redundancy or not.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Qzukk]

"backups" mean you use multiple companies.

Like filesonic, fileserve...

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Dan541]

DropBox is fine if you don't care about security.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

That didn't really have anything to do with my post, but okay, pretend I said SpiderOak instead.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever live on a grad student's budget?

Yes. It pays around 50000 USD/year. While not much, it's enough to live very comfortably here in Europe provided you don't have kids. Also, my supervisor pays for laptops and backup solutions anyway.

It sounds like you did your studies back in the stone ages, but even though I was only 11 at the time, I still knew the importance of backup tapes.

Re:!Safe in Cloud

[leonardluen]

This is why you do your research and verify they don't use the same backend provider. just because you are using the cloud doesn't mean you should get lazy.

and really even then you should still keep an offline backup that is outside of the cloud. i am not advocating that you should only use the cloud for all your storage needs.

A polar bear walks into the White Star office...

[Hognoxious]

Carpathia Hosting

Well, choosing them was a titanic mistake.

How fitting...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If we are to have a 'war on piracy', I suppose it is only to be expected that we should soon enough have some of what some elegant coiner of dispassion euphemism though to refer to as "collateral damage"...

Selfishly, I'm inclined to be pleased, in a way. As long as it is possible for people to think that it is 'just about the pirates' or 'the innocent have nothing to fear', acquiescence will be the order of the day. Wholesale and flagrant destruction of bystanders' property should provide a valuable example of how false that thinking is.

Re:How fitting...

[Mista2]

Had no effect when the feds stormed in and took whole racks of equipment at a hosting providor, knocking legit sites off air as they scrambled into disaster recovery mode.
Paraphrasing, "when they came for the data of the filesharers, noone siad a word because it did not affect them, then they came for the data of the political activists, and noone said a word as we were all of course loyal citizens. Now they have come for my data, and I have nowhere to go to get information or to protest.

Re:How fitting...

[Caerdwyn]

The binary tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the data of patriots.

And tyrants.

Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Maximum Prophet]

The FBI is using the "Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure", offense.

The article says 50,000,000 users, it doesn't say how many files each might have.

If they keep any of them, there might be embarrassing disclosures like un-owned MP3's downloaded by congresspeople and their kids. There might be department of Justice employees with unlicensed software. Even White House staffers might have kinky files.

It would take every FBI agent several years to comb through all that data. It's better for them to just destroy it all.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not like downloaders can't re-upload what they took from MU... round #2.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Maximum Prophet]

The downloaders that downloaded copyright infringing material can re-download somewhere else.

Customers that downloaded original stuff are screwed if they can't find a copy.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Algae_94]

You bring up an interesting point, but the FBI is not deleting any data. They have frozen Megauploads assets, so they can't pay to keep the data hosted. Therefore the 3rd party hosting will delete the data. I assume the FBI has grabbed all the data they want to try and make their case, and left everything else to be thrown out.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[sonicmerlin]

Do you realize how many rare anime series or games were on megaupload? Do you understand how impossible it is to find out of print manga, or how insanely expensive it is to buy rare material from overseas if you can even find it?

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Beelzebud]

If only you could Use something on the Net for that.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[TFAFalcon]

Can megaupload claim that FBI let evidence get destroyed?

Also why is this permitted? Why can people be punished without being found guilty first? And why is this happening in just this case? Why isn't every corporation that comes under investigation shut down?

Suspected of insider trading? All your assets are frozen. You can't honor either shot-sells or repay loans, so your company is destroyed before a trial even begins. It does not matter if you're found innocent, all you can do is file for bankrupcy.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Maximum Prophet]

It's all still evidence. If this were to go to trial, the defense would say that, yes, there was infringing data, but 99% was legit. If the FBI lets that 99% go into the bit bucket, there goes the case. I suspect though, there's not going to be a real case. After Megauploads is good and dead, they'll just let the perps go.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Ash-Fox]

Do you realize how many rare anime series or games were on megaupload? Do you understand how impossible it is to find out of print manga, or how insanely expensive it is to buy rare material from overseas if you can even find it?

I suspect the people that uploaded that content didn't even have permission to redistribute that content too.

I agree with you, the database should be kept for further prosecution of the people who uploaded the copyright infringing material.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[shiftless]

Why can people be punished without being found guilty first?

Because they passed laws back in the 80s (RICO) allowing the Feds to go after those EVIL drug dealers, and seize all their possessions without the benefit of a jury or trial. The ignorant populace cheered them on. Now...surprise surprise!...it's being applied to everyone else too!

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[AmiMoJo]

If the remaining data is destroyed and thus unavailable for Megaupload to use in its defence then surely it would be impossible to have a fair trial? By failing to preserve the data that will be deleted because of their actions the FBI is destroying evidence.

I doubt they care though. Even if the trial comes to nothing Megaupload is gone. It's annoying but at least now we will get better privacy and legal immunity from the next generation of services.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[sonicmerlin]

Yes, uploading an incredibly rare and nearly impossible to find or buy ova series or game series is worth prosecuting. I'm sure all the thousands of teens and college kids who use those things would have bought everything if they couldn't download them.

Sigh... you baby boomers. There is a special place in the depths of hades for you and the wanton destruction you've brought upon society.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[sonicmerlin]

It's really difficult and not available. Megaupload's been around for years and a ton of stuff gathered over those years were on their servers.

If the DoJ had at least given a cruddy warning they were taking down the service people could have reacquired their most important files. I was planning to back everything up, but was waiting for inflated HDD prices to go back down.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Algae_94]

We can't expect the FBI to preserve every piece of data that might exonerate a defendant in a trial. If we take this to an extreme we could say the FBI is destroying evidence if they don't take a snapshot of the world when they serve an arrest warrant.

They should not have the broad powers to freeze assets like they did in this case, then Megaupload could continue to pay to keep all of the data intact and ready for a possible defense.

Any time you get a case that goes to this level (arrest warrants are served, assets frozen, etc.) The FBI, police, or whoever is involved have already made up their minds about innocence and guilt and will do anything they can to punish the arrested parties. They don't seem to really care that much if the case actually reaches a guilty verdict. As long as the business / organization that they were against has been destroyed they have their justice. Some of them may care about due process and justice, but the majority of law enforcement are "us vs. them" mentality troops.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Ash-Fox]

Yes, uploading an incredibly rare and nearly impossible to find or buy ova series or game series is worth prosecuting

Not unless it's copyright infringement.

I'm sure all the thousands of teens and college kids who use those things would have bought everything if they couldn't download them.

I'm sure there are plenty that wouldn't. One only needs to see places like /t/.

There is a special place in the depths of hades for you and the wanton destruction you've brought upon society.

Oh no, we don't get to do copyright infringement on something, it's the instead of society as we know it.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[sonicmerlin]

So you *are* a baby boomer. Kind of figured.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit.

[Ash-Fox]

So you *are* a baby boomer. Kind of figured.

I was born in 1984 actually *insert obvious joke*. Seems you lost all your arguments now.

In the wise words of my generation: You lost the game.

Re:A polar bear walks into the White Star office..

[theNAM666]

N.B. The Carpathia _saved_ the Titanic survivors.

down side of the cloud where your data end up in

[Joe_Dragon]

down side of the cloud where your data end up in the hands contractors or sub contractors and so your data can be a risk if say the main contract does not pay it's subs or wants to change the terms of there deal.

you always ruin everything.

[Thud457]

Shut UP , Wilhelm joke-explainer!

Re:you always ruin everything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut UP , Wilhelm joke-explainer!

Aaa-AUGH!

Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry

[Forever Wondering]

This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground. Who will be able to trust their data to any cloud storage provider [used for disaster backup] that can be subject to such seizures/destruction?

---

If you use a provider to archive old data to free up some space, how would you get it back if it's destroyed?

So, bye bye, iCloud et. al. ...

Re:Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry

[0123456]

"This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground."

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

If you give your data to someone else, it's no longer your data and there's no guarantee you'll get it back. Either deal with that, or keep your data locally.

Re:Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry

[Anonymous Coward]

This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground. Who will be able to trust their data to any cloud storage provider [used for disaster backup] that can be subject to such seizures/destruction?

How is that any different than hosting it yourself? It still subject to seizures and if you stop paying the rent your data isn't safe. I see no reason the cloud is any worse in this example.

Re:Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry

[Forever Wondering]

"This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground."

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

If you give your data to someone else, it's no longer your data and there's no guarantee you'll get it back. Either deal with that, or keep your data locally.

Personally, I've never been a fan of cloud storage for the reasons you mentioned. I do my own backups. Still, others may wish to choose otherwise and avail themselves of cloud storage. The FBI action merely demonstrates [in a stark manner] why cloud storage is a bad idea.

The analogy: An apartment complex with 20 units. 15 house drug dealers and 5 house innocent people. The FBI determines that the entire building is a "drug haven" and must be razed immediately. No time for the innocent people to get their possessions out.

Is it just me, or...

[Wolfling1]

Doesn't this mean that the FBI took down the wrong site... I mean the legislation is all about 'indiscriminate hosting' of copyrighted data. Doesn't that mean they should be taking down Carpathia Hosting?

Re:Is it just me, or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Carpathia Hosting homepage suggests that they host government services.

Shutting them down would be really amusing.Headline:

"FBI shutting down government services as collateral damage".

At least it shows that the issue is complex beyond Megaupload.

I think there's a difference.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

If the provider goes down due to bankruptcy, there would be a warning period of time in which users can take down their files and make copies and move to other services. Companies don't go bankrupt overnight.

Re:I think there's a difference.

[HornWumpus]

Companies go bankrupt overnight routinely.

It's a typical endgame of a grift.

Re:A polar bear walks into the White Star office..

[LordLucless]

Yeah, but then it decided to go up against the Romans...

Basis of "safe" cloud filesharing?

[swb]

Could this end up being the basis of "safe" cloud filesharing?

Open account with Company A. Company A doesn't own servers, they outsource their servers to Company B. Company B has some storage, but outsources some of this to Companies C, D, and E (...and F, and G...)

Due to fluctuating demand, costs, and performance modeling, Company B migrates data periodically between storage vendors, who in turn, migrate data between data centers.

At any one point, the person with an account at Company A can access their data but they have no idea where its stored, and neither does anyone at company A. Thanks to virtualization, company B actually has to work at figuring out where an individual TB chunk of data is at any one time.

Company A has a storage plan from company B that says they pay per week for storage used (due to high fluctuation) and that company B may delete data within 3 days of nonpayment.

Now, Company A may not be a safe place to store your precious data, but given the outsourced storage and virtualizaton and delete-on-nonpayment contract, the FBI may not be able to find the data they want or get enough search warrants within the time frame necessary,.

World Cops - woo hoo! Mole decively whacked!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have succeeded in stomping out "fileshareing" forever, (just as the killing of the original Napster did).

Oh, my, my! Where, oh, where, could one go to sample content now?

Fucking Brainless Idiots.

All this does is say- Don't do business in the US

[undeadbill]

Megaupload is a Hong Kong based company. The only reason they were charged in the US was because they used servers for hosting in the US. This pretty much sends a message to anyone who might do business in the States that they are not welcome, and that justice is pretty much bought and sold by how much money and influence you have. This is not a good message to be sending out to businesses overseas, looking to invest here. Freezing a foreign company's assets worldwide over what is a domestic issue is going to give a lot of international entrepreneurs reasons to look elsewhere.

Kim Dotcom did the smart thing- he made sure there was a time limit set on his user's data if someone bigger than his company came along and tried to forcibly take it. By the time someone shutting down his operations finally figured out where the real data was held, all of it is going to be deleted- unless they return his funds and let him continue to operate. Damned if they do shut him down, because now he and his company are a damaged party and the US takes a hit in the international markets, damned if they don't shut him down completely, because then the Feds look weak and ineffectual.

Exculpatory evidence and discovery for the trial are irreparably damaged by the Prosecution, the Defendants can now sue in civil and international court for damages (whether they see them or not), and Kim Dotcom may even become a cause celebre. That is, if the US doesn't hold him indefinitely under the NDAA...

Well.

[symbolset]

There goes the cloud industry.

Re:Well.

[PPH]

http://m.xkcd.org/908/

Re:Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, there goes the cloud industry for the USA, I worked for 20 years in IT worldwide. The EU, ex-eastern block and the far east just got the example they wanted. So far they could only use FUD against US based companies, now they have proof. The US government message is "Having your data with any US based company or any company with servers or any company with offices or presence in the USA means you could lose data (or it could be "examined" / compromised) by your competitors)."

So congratulations, the loss to the US economy is going to dwarf the entertainment industries "losses". It is already unpleasant having to enter the USA and put up with the treatment you get at the airports, now we have a REASON to not have USA presence.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Osgeld]

format c: /q is faster

If you want foolproof safety for your data. . .

[PeanutButterBreath]

. . .use steganography to embed the data in a compromising picture of yourself and then upload it to Facebook. Presto -- it will be there forever.

This is the stuff of movies and the constitution

[SmallFurryCreature]

The A-team had stories like this all time, small nice family company being muscled out of business by big evil company.

The US constitution provisions for protection of the individual are NOT as many think to get the guilty off but to protect the average innocent citizen from being bullied into submission.

The principle is simple, if I want to stop you, I can have you arrested and your crops will rot on your farm, your will unable to supply your customers, you will run out of cash and bam, I can buy your farm cheap... I don't need to have you found guilty as long as I can keep you under arrest for long enough. There are plenty of variants on this, in corrupt countriest the way to get a bribe as a custom officer is to hold up the goods of a company for inspection until they either pay or go out of business for being unable to deliver.

This is even done on a country scale. Romania did not like that The Netherlands is blocking Romania becoming part of the EU free labor traffic, they claim this is racist (Romania is one of the worsed human rights abusers in the EU with their treatment of gypsies) and so they blocked dutch product at the border trying to put pressure on the Dutch government. Didn't really work since it only re-inforced the view that Romania is not yet ready to fully join the EU.

But the tactic itself remains, get the police to smash your opponents goods during a search and force them out of business.

Megaupload itself is shady enough but then the content industry has many accusations against it as well, just that he who pays the piper determines who ends up in court or not. How many settlements has the content industry agreed to to avoid being found guilty in open court? Quite a few in the last couple of decades.

There are lots of filesharing methods, the error Megaupload made was trying to go semi-legit... artists had publicly voiced their support for a new scheme Megaupload wanted to introduce... coincidence that the very next week they are put out of operation by the rent-a-cop FBI? Maybe and Saddam considering selling oil in Euro's just a bit before being removed from power had nothing to do with it... first Iraq war was over the conquering and subjegation of another nation and he was left in power unharmed. He considers undermining the dollar and BAM, he swings.

And gosh, all the oil nations that consider dealing in euro's are on the danger list to... how amazing a coincidence.

You can destroy someone in the courts without ever needing to find them guilty. But if history has shown us anything, their will be 10 megauploads to take this ones place and they will be harder to take down. And they will not bother trying to go legit or try to work with artists. They will just copy all and damn the rest. Want to download files right now and not deal with filetubes with endless vapor ware? Go russian. I tried to find some old ebooks, go west and it all leads to overpriced book sellers, go russian and you find entire libraries with no popups, no spam, no search bars, just simple downloads. Because nobody in Russia gives a fuck. If the FBI tried the same as they did in New Zealand their officers would come back in body bags and asking the former KGB to investigate would be very ironic indeed.

They took down napster which led to the demise of cutemx on which anime was shared... and all that happened is that you now got anime torrent sites that are run so smoothly they release automatic updates and actually have an rating system telling if there is a better version out there for series 10-20 years old (torrents for new stuff are easy but finding a very old series with 20-30+ seeders and only leeching... that is class).

It is like stomping ants, only these don't just come back in greater number, they come back stronger and fiercer... and if I am a typical person, their users come back a little bit more reluctant to buy from the RIAA/MPAA every again. It ain't just being cheap anymore, now it is a case of principle!

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Culture20]

And neither one actually erases anything. foremost or some other data recovery tool could find a lot of files.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[gnick]

At least in the short term. But presumably, after formatting the servers, rather than preserve them for posterity they'd incorporate them for other storage uses, so any remaining data would begin its trip to the netherworld fairly quickly.

I see a big problem with this

[viperidaenz]

Megaupload hasn't been proven guilty yet. If they are not allowed to pay their creditors to stop their users data being deleted it is effectively destroying the company beyond repair based on an opinion since there has been no trial yet.

Re:I see a big problem with this

[EmagGeek]

That's the beauty of civil forfeiture. The government can just take your stuff without any due process if they suspect that the stuff was used in an alleged crime.

It doesn't matter whether there is a trial. The property that the FBI suspects was used is forfeit regardless of the outcome of a trial.

Amateurs

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep all my hard drives under my mattress

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[SuricouRaven]

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda

Substitute appropriate drive. A tiny bit may survive in remapped clusters, but that's all.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[chromas]

So we just need Anonymous to DoS their servers first?

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Culture20]

I'm partial to using
shred -v -n0 -z /dev/sda
or
ddrescue --fill=+ /dev/zero /dev/sda logfile.ddrescue
since these work even when the disk hits a write-error (dd just stops dead).

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[ogl_codemonkey]

10 PRINT "Problem #1... actually is hosted on DOS"
20 GOTO 10

Could of been avoided

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone had used http://www.earthsquotes.com it wouldn't have happened!

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Anonymous Coward]

format c: /p:1000

Welcome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Internet, even though there are no borders here you can be assured that your lives will be safer as the US is judge, jury, and executioner for any service it deems to be infringing on the profits of their campaign contributors.

What are you going to do about it?

Re:This is the stuff of movies and the constitutio

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia recently joined WTO. So your "go Russian" suggestion will soon to be invalid. Leech as much as you can from your Russian sources.

The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corruption, Corruption, Corruption.

Why do Americans continue to see the U.S. government as mostly healthy?

Why didn't the old wars cause some skepticism? Wars that were fought so that the Bush and Cheney families and other violence investors could make money?

Will the new war, that the U.S. government wants to start with Iran, cause questioning?

Re:The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

We see the alternative parties and realize that they're worse than what we have now. The Greens had Cynthia McKinney on their ticket.

Fuck that shit!

She's bat-shit crazy. All she wanted to do when she was in Congress was rename post offices, and re-open the MLK murder investigation.

Hey all you people who talk about "stealing!"

[X86Daddy]

Finally, a digital-world example of "stealing" data. The FBI in this case actually stole people's data... they took it and made it unavailable to the owners. Until now, every ass-hat who has talked about "stealing" in the contexts of "piracy" cases has been a completely inaccurate moron. Now they have their day and a legitimate example of how to steal data. Learn.

Trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't there be a trial before all the data is destroyed?

Re:Trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the United States we're talking about. There is no due process there, and people have no rights. I really truly feel sorry for people who have to live in that corrupt, third-world nation run by a flock of Napoleonic dictators.

They always fuck you at the cloud.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Leathal Weapon 2, Joe Pesci gave this memorable line as character Leo Getz: "They always FUCK you at the drive-thru." I won't bother deconstructing the feedback and accountability mechanisms of the drive-thru process model. You get it. The promise and the peril of drive-thru convenience is easy to understand.

The "cloud" is no different. They always fuck you at the cloud. The cloud, if anything, is a faint shadow of accountability compared to your average drive-thru.

THEY ALWAYS FUCK YOU AT THE CLOUD. If you keep your data in the cloud, expect to be fucked. If you keep your data in the cloud exclusively, you DESERVE to be fucked. If any of you permanently lose anything you care about because of the Megaupload takedown, you need to turn in your Slashdot ID and burn your Akira t-shirt.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[gman003]

Sure. The Nazis had funnier accents (citation: Hogan's Heroes).

What PC infections?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that infected files on my PC are not able to be legally there since they may be pirated copies?

What about an infection which makes my PC appear as though the OS was a pirated version?

Pay 'em from orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could collectively pay Megaupload's bill.

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[Anonymous Coward]

c:\whoosh.com

Re:This is the stuff of movies and the constitutio

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that Qaddafi planned to only deal in gold right before the US jumped on the revolt (and tbh, I wouldnt be shocked if we did start it after all..)

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[jones_supa]

dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda

For some reason that always takes much longer than other methods. Still not sure why.

Anyway, I personally recommend the Secure Erase command. It works for HDDs and SSDs, takes care of resetting G-list and TRIM data, and the drive itself knows the best way of nuking itself most efficiently. There's this tool called Parted Magic which works great for this purpose and other disk operations. Just my 0.02€.

useful data there

[jago25_98]

there's a lot of people commenting on it just being a load of mp3's but actually forum users linked to it so you've got a wealth of data there too... Whoops for them.

Stuff like patches for phones on android forums, gsmforum users used it a lot.

The lack of scrutiny etc made it the easiest resource to use.

All those forum links are dead now. Does the OP respond to requests to repost the files?

I also saw it used for industry (....!) between people who can't be bothered to do it properly

Most important video

[Old Wolf]

Megaupload was the only known location of the videos accompanying http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54/poker-beats-brags-variance/bbv-grossest-craziest-night-my-life-very-graphic-tl-mr-240866/

It would be a travesty if these were lost!

Re:This is the stuff of movies and the constitutio

[Anonymous Coward]

"Romania is one of the worsed human rights abusers in the EU with their treatment of gypsies"

Tell that to the gipsy SQUATTERS living next door that throw their USED TOILET PAPER in my yard.
Ask them why they poisoned my dog.
Talk with the old people downtown who are having their doors covered in shit and are harrased by their gipsy neighbours until they sell their homes to them at half value.
Come and see millions of euros spent on putting gipsy children in school only to have them crippled by their own parents so they can beg at the streetlights.
And I could go on forever... but hey, I'm a human right abuser, you can't trust a word out of my mouth.

Know what, dickhead? Why don't you come over here and LIVE among your precious gypsies, like we do. Get a taste of your own medicine. Hell, when THEY went to live among the French, the Italians, the Spanish, the French and the Italians and the Spanish sent them back over here, to be abused, oh the poor abused EU citizens of Romani ethnicity.

I wonder why?

Yes

[dotgain]

N/T

Re:c:\ erase /S *.*

[SuricouRaven]

Block size. dd defaults to 512 bytes, which is a bit small - adding bs=16k usually makes it faster.

Is there really a problem?

[Compaqt]

For me, the problem is when "we" all agree that piracy is a problem.

Is it really?

Isn't Hollywood making record money? What's the problem, again?

Secondly, if there's no solution to a problem, there's no problem. Say there's a rudeness epidemic. Maybe, maybe not. But if it can't be solved other than by assigning each citizen a personal minder, there's no (practical) solution.

Similarly, if a "problem" can't be solved other than by turning the country into a police state or otherwise trampling freedoms hitherto thought inviolable, that's not really a solution, and hence, there's no (real) problem in the first place that needs to be solved.

Double standards, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

... the government copied some data from the servers but did not physically take them.

Wait, what? We've been told time and again by **AA that copying data IS stealing, so not physically taking it doesn't make any difference, right?