Slashdot Mirror


US Gov't Wants Megaupload Users To Pay For Their Data

angry tapir writes "U.S. federal prosecutors are fine with Megaupload users recovering their data — as long as they pay for it. The government's position was explained in a court filing on Friday concerning one of the many interesting side issues that has emerged from the shutdown of Megaupload, formerly one of the most highly trafficked file-sharing sites. Prosecutors were responding to a motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in late March on behalf of Kyle Goodwin, an Ohio-based sports reporter who used Megaupload legitimately for storing videos. The government argues that it only copied part of the Megaupload data and the physical servers were never seized. Megaupload's 1,103 servers — which hold upwards of 28 petabytes of data — are still held by Carpathia Hosting. Goodwin's options, prosecutors said, are either pay — or sue — Carpathia, or sue Megaupload."

203 comments

  1. Go Cloud! by toygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    My data is safe. Its in the cloud!

    1. Re:Go Cloud! by rjgii · · Score: 2

      My data is safe; in a cloud.

      It's just that my cloud is in my basement, being contained by a magnetic field.

      In other words, a raided NAS externally available...

    2. Re:Go Cloud! by nedlohs · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So a single flood or fire away from being lost?

    3. Re:Go Cloud! by meglon · · Score: 2

      Hey... your data looks like a bunny!!! Wait.. no, it's Mickey Mouse!!! Uh oh... Mickey Mouse... Be expecting a call from Disney's lawyers very soon.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:Go Cloud! by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the most part for most people your data is safer in the cloud... Because you have a professional team who's job is to make sure the data is secure and working. Vs. Average Joe who has a USB Drive that they backup on, then put in the closet, Or keep running in a small closet overheating every summer.

      Not to many of us have RAID storage, run nightly off site backups....

      So yes your data is safer in the cloud... If your data is really that important, you should skill have an other way to get your data. Even if it is just because your Internet connection died.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Go Cloud! by RKBA · · Score: 1

      The cloud is raining.

  2. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sue the Government. Might not work, but there is no reason why they can't be sued.

    1. Re:Or... by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

      The funny thing about that idea is that the government actually gets to choose whether a suit against it has merit and can go forward. Good luck with that in many cases.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    2. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you are saying that in the U.S., courts are not independent? I always thought that to be a cornerstone of democratic systems.

    3. Re:Or... by rhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      You cannot sue the federal government if they do not let you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

    4. Re:Or... by rhook · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US is a Republic and not a Democracy.

    5. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They retain "Sovereign Immunity". So basically you can not sue the US Government unless they give you permission to do so.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States

    6. Re:Or... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sue the Government. Might not work, but there is no reason why they can't be sued.

      Yes [ ] - I would like to sue the US Government, endure a lifetime of tax audits, have my life turned upside-down & inside-out by the FBI, lose my job and family, and be laughed out of court by a Federal Judge for seeking reasonable redress for the bad acts of my government.
      No [ ] - I was only filling out this form as part of a high school civics assignment.

    7. Re:Or... by PGC · · Score: 1

      Lifetime of tax audits? What percentage of MU's users were Americans?

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    8. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Replace that with "get the unmanned drones treatment" for non-Americans.

    9. Re:Or... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The US is an oligarchy, not a republic.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Or... by meglon · · Score: 1, Informative

      Merriam-Websters:

      republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

      democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

      Oh yes, such vastly different things. The only people i ever hear making that distinction are teabaggers who would prefer us living in a fascist theocracy filled with mental midgets.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    11. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything is an oligarchy.

      you nut muncher.

      oh you meant in the strict sense of the word...

      then no, the u.s. is not an oligarchy.

    12. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sue Hulk Hogan

      Always wondered what his real first name was.

    13. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a very accurate description of soveriegn immunity in the US. A better way to describe is to say that the US government is immune from a lawsuit unless a law specifically grants someone the ability to sue.

      The US government doesn't review your case and decide if it wants to allow you to sue it. A court reviews your petition and reviews the law that you cite as waiving immunity, and then decides if your case fits under that waiver.

    14. Re:Or... by shentino · · Score: 1

      No, he's just citing Sovereign Immunity

    15. Re:Or... by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      The judiciary is part of the government. So yes, the original description was in fact accurate. I'll concede it would have been better for me to have linked to sovereign immunity in the United States as well, though. The process is also not as simple as you've described.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    16. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot sue the federal government if they do not let you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

      Which, of course they do. Which is why the United States Court of Federal Claims exists.

  3. All hail the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the cloud, they said. It's a cheap and convenient way to store your data, they said.

    1. Re:All hail the cloud by icebraining · · Score: 2

      And it is. Of course, it shouldn't be the only place where you store your data, but then again, nothing should.

  4. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Sue Hulk Hogan. Might not work, but there is no reason why he can't be sued.

  5. USA Government == Captain ASSHOLES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    USA Government == Captain ASSHOLES

  6. Long story short... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...what idiot did upload their stuff to MegaUpload and did not keep an offline backup/original?

    I mean, I might be heavily influenced, given that I'm...uuhhh...obsessed with keeping *all* data (executing rm hurts...) and keeping it safe and sound...

    1. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...what idiot did upload their stuff to MegaUpload and did not keep an offline backup/original?

      I mean, I might be heavily influenced, given that I'm...uuhhh...obsessed with keeping *all* data (executing rm hurts...) and keeping it safe and sound...

      You're an idiot.
      Megaupload and other "cloud" give users data redudancy so that the poor guy doesn't depend only on his local backups.
      Now what happens when your original backups are corrupted ? Yeah genius, you go to the cloud provider and get back your copies. That's the main reason to use the cloud, data redudancy. Except that the government has demonstrated that cloud providers are useless. Lesson learned.

    2. Re:Long story short... by Calos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's one part of it. Single point of failure is always bad, and trusting someone else to manage it is worse.

      But then... It's fricken' MegaUpload. It's always seemed sketchy. Who trusts important stuff to them?

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    3. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTA, he did keep the originals on his hard drive, but it crashed.

    4. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lost his offline backup/original.
      And before he was able to download his online backup...

      Should have had triple backup of course but videos are big.

    5. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's the case of the kid who had a video-hosting business who used Megaupload to store his off-site backups. When his main computer crashed, or some such failure, he discovered that the drive he was using for his on-site backup had also failed. That was the day after the Megaupload seizure.

    6. Re:Long story short... by ccguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But then... It's fricken' MegaUpload. It's always seemed sketchy. Who trusts important stuff to them?

      People who don't know better. This doesn't make them idiots, they just make them ignorant in a specific field.

      The same thing could be said about many, many people that are quite knowledgeable in IT yet happened to deposit their money in the wrong bank. And well, they lost a lot of money, not just some digital picture or whatever.

      I think before criticizing the victims here we should give it some thought: Do we have *all our own assets* (physical and otherwise) in the right place? Maybe we have our health insurance in the megaupload equivalent of insurance and we don't know about it? Or our funds?

    7. Re:Long story short... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What clueless moron has only TWO backups?

      Their need to go to Megaupload to retrieve should be the last case. Oh crap, my offline is dead, oh double crap the backups of the offline is dead, Time to grab the files from online....

      Oh crap....

      Now it's the data owners fault for using shitty backup medium. Hard drives are unreliable at best. If your data has any real value, you BUY a backup medium with a proven track record of robust and low failure rates....

      That is why all my data backed up at home is on SDLT drive tapes. If it's good for Corperate america, it's good for me. Anything less is just playing around with toys.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Long story short... by dkf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Single point of failure is always bad

      Yes. This, a thousand times, this.

      trusting someone else to manage it is worse

      Not really. You're just exchanging one set of risks for another. The risk of messing up on your own shouldn't be underestimated; a fat-fingered rm can cause a lot of damage. Of course, if you're really competent then you'll be aware of the single-point-of-failure problem in the first place and so will replicate as appropriate (and according to budget) but for a lot of people the risks from keeping their data in the cloud are actually lower than from keeping the data locally. It's a trade-off (and so must be optimized to particular situations, as with all trade-offs).

      Things get more complex when you've got data which you want to keep confidential yet available (e.g., health records) but a lot of stuff doesn't need that level of caution.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    9. Re:Long story short... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You keep your tapes safely at home, I presume?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    10. Re:Long story short... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I keep the incremental at home yes. I keep a pair of Weekly Complete at work in my desk, and a yearly pair of tapes go into the safety deposit box at the bank.

      Granted I don't have a LOT of data to back up. I have a SDLT 320 drive and tapes and I dont use compression so I only have a total of 320 gig of data backed up Off site. I'll upgrade to SDLT600 when I can afford to and I can always expand to 3 tapes for a complete backup. SDLT tapes are cheap.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just Scotch and 3M.

      Most people don't have the ability to recover data from a broken/dirty tape.
      If you have ever recovered data from a broken tape on a S/390 (IBM Ditto) you know what I'm talking about.

      With TB drives so cheap, just use multiple drives for the backups (store at multiple locations) and remember. Clean your data frequently!
      Otherwise, suffer the perils of possibly getting caught with a huge data management nightmare!

      Just my 2 cents!

    12. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing could be said about many, many people that are quite knowledgeable in IT yet happened to deposit their money in the wrong bank. And well, they lost a lot of money, not just some digital picture or whatever.

      Which is why I keep my money in at least two different banks, and my "the cloud" backups with two different providers who keep datacenters in two different regions of the world.

      I believe the saying is "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket", and it does not take a genius or even an expert to understand.

      I think before criticizing the victims here we should give it some thought

      I have. If you give your shit to somebody and don't pay attention to what they're doing with it, you're an idiot. I don't care how many other people are doing it, if that's your only excuse it makes you twice the fool.

    13. Re:Long story short... by meglon · · Score: 1

      I pity the foo who doesn't have a backup tattoo'd to their inner eyelid.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    14. Re:Long story short... by webheaded · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, because it is reasonable for everyone to be as paranoid as you and keep 18 backups of their data. I mean silly me, I only have a hard drive with my shit in addition to the original place the data is. I must be stupid. Or you know...I'm just being realistic. What you only have 5 different backups? What kind of dumb ass only keeps 5 backups of data? I chiseled mine into the concrete foundations of my house and can read back the data at any time by typing in all the machine code. What are you using? Some shitty tape backups? What a bunch of stupid toys.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    15. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scanlators and raw scans of graphic novels from worldwide, past to present.

    16. Re:Long story short... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      dirty tapes are not a problem with a robust tape backup system. the IBM Ditto was a joke in reliability (It was actually iomega who made it). SDLT writes in multiple redundant tracks. I have read tapes that were sitting in water on the floor for 3 days. It's why the old DLT format renewd as SDLT is still used at all corperations, and junk like Ditto and other tape formats are all dead. Ditto was always a unreliable format, I used to fight with those years ago and chuked the 5 drives and 900 tapes we had in the trash replacing it with DLT. Travan came out, but it was as unreliable as Ditto was (same tech as well.) and also died as far as adoption goes.

      The reliable format survived, the rest died.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to be sarcastic-- if you've ever had to explain to someone why their external HDD failed and why the data they thought was safe no longer exists, multiple back ups seem much more reasonable.

      I work (have worked) in Universities for the last 8 years, and be they students or PhD wielding* professors, very few people really grasp the fragile nature of computers until they've lost an important project. Most people think when we say "back up" that we mean clone 200+ gig of photos and music onto another drive; when we say back up to multiple places, we're talking about backing up the small subset of files that are absolutely vital and will cause you tremendous amounts of trouble if you lose it. Papers, art projects, tax information, theses, anything that you really can't afford to lose. (Theses in particular I never understand why people don't do more to ensure they don't lose it...)

      So no, I don't think it's unreasonable to have 4+ back ups of something super important. A large project, financial records, research, most of that is easily transferable enough on even the worst home connection. Storage for these sorts of documents is cheap enough that a few USB sticks or hard drives are not out of reach.

      *Wielding may seem an odd term to use, but it makes more sense if you have had the awkward experience of needing to simplify an explanation to someone who is used to being treated as a genius.

    18. Re:Long story short... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Then your data is worthless. Fair enough, why spend money backing up something worthless. Mine is worth a lot, so I bought a drive and Linux has the software built in to do everything for me. " I must be stupid. Or you know...I'm just being realistic." No, just lazy because your data has no value at all to you; I can understand that.

      Oh and nice irrational exaggeration... 18 backups, really? It's 5 incremental, 1 weekly full, and 1 yearly full. every Friday I bring a new backup to work and take the old one home to re-use. Do you know nothing at all about a simple backup system? This is computers 101 kind of stuff.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Long story short... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, what the government has demonstrated is that cloud providers located in the USA are useless. Providers who locate their systems in other countries may not be as problematic, though this depends on many different factors, but I think it's safe to say that the USA is probably the most unsafe place to store your data at this time, as seen by this case.

      Ironically, Russia is probably one of the safest places to store your data. The government there, though corrupt (just like the USA's, only less so), doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about copyright infringement and other such things, so while you personally might not be all that safe in parts of Russia should you travel there, your data should be.

    20. Re:Long story short... by shentino · · Score: 1

      If MU *did* have any backups they probably got seized.

    21. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the saying is "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket", and it does not take a genius or even an expert to understand.

      Au contraire! Keep all your eggs in one basket -- AND WATCH THAT BASKET!!!!

    22. Re:Long story short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...what idiot did upload their stuff to MegaUpload and did not keep an offline backup/original?

      He *did* have an 'original' on his own HD; MU was the backup. The HD crashed, time to get the backup back... oh, wait. The US Government's pawns in .nz seized it.

      It's like renting a unit at the U-Stor-It; the police comes because in a couple of units is contraband and seizes ALL units and their contents. And you're not getting your stuff back because over in Unit 20 and Unit 21 and Unit 29 was allegedly contraband found.

  7. never seized, but frozen by order by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but would carpathia give data to anyone who paid? doubt that. how would they even know how to get the data. are they even allowed to access the data? doubt that too.

    seems like just washing of hands - amazingly fucked up investigation though. next they'll try to argue that they never did any legal action?? (which is actually true, "haha"). it's increasingly evident that the fbi tactic was that they assumed dotcom would settle for some prison time right away(thus not needing evidence or due process).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:never seized, but frozen by order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... the FBI tactic was that they assumed dotcom would settle for some prison time ...

      This is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the FBI. Those US cop shows aren't far from the truth. Get someone on a minor crime, then threaten to charge him with a serious crime, requiring a long trial and much longer imprisonment. A plea bargain from the defendant makes the FBI look good and prevents the judicial system suffering massive court-room costs.

      Unfortunately for the FBI, New Zealand didn't have any evidence of an actual (physical damages) crime.

    2. Re:never seized, but frozen by order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you could sue the Government for the data. No, seriously! The Gov. says sue everyone else in this debacle. why not lump them into it as well. They are as good a target as any.

    3. Re:never seized, but frozen by order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's absolutely SOP for EVERY law enforcement agency and it is extraordinary. NPR reported on this via a Supreme Court ruling a couple weeks ago:

      "Ninety-five percent of all convictions are the result of plea bargains, not trials"
      http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/149093334/high-court-throws-out-conviction-in-bad-lawyer-case

    4. Re:never seized, but frozen by order by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The best part is that it works on evverybody, guilty or not.

  8. Nice new business model by NetDanzr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Take people's data, hold it hostage
    2. Tell people to pay if they want to see the data ever again
    3. Profit!

    All this, of course, is contingent of the hostage taker having access to the data storage. Solution is simple: don't store your data in a country with such practices, or with a company with ties to said country. The Internet should finally recognize the US as damaged area and route around it.

    1. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, register slashdot.eu and make a backup before the main site is gone!

    2. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is but the 2.0 "cloud" variant of classic ransomware.

      Fuck the US MAFIAA!

    3. Re:Nice new business model by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Take people's data, hold it hostage
      2. Tell people to pay if they want to see the data ever again
      3. Profit!

      It's not quite like that. Megaupload paid Carpathia for hosting user's data. Carpathia doesn't care what data, they just supplied the storage and took money for it. Megaupload stopped paying Carpathia. So what is Carpathia going to do?

      I would think it would be completely legal for them to just re-use all their servers that Megaupload is paying for, with total destruction of all the user data. Probably a matter of contract and contract law: For how long would a hosting service be required to keep your data if you stop paying? And I don't think Carpathia has any legal obligations to Megaupload's customers. On the contrary, I doubt that Carpathia has any right to give anyone other than Megaupload access to those servers without some court order, even Megaupload customers who want to access that data.

    4. Re:Nice new business model by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Their alternative is to sue a company who, not yet having been proven guilty, should be considered innocent.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Nice new business model by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      It's not quite like that. Megaupload paid Carpathia for hosting user's data. Carpathia doesn't care what data, they just supplied the storage and took money for it. Megaupload stopped paying Carpathia. So what is Carpathia going to do?

      According to a story posted a few weeks ago, Carpathia is required to keep the servers^wevidence intact by the government, while not being paid for it.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Nice new business model by NetDanzr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would be true, if Megaupload willfully stopped paying Carpathia. However, they expressed the willingness to continue paying them for the servers, if they had the funds available. These funds, however, were frozen by the US government, who is thus responsible for Carpathia not getting paid, and as such has taken over the duty to maintain the data integrity. It's actually nothing new - authorities in the US have been doing similar things with physical property for a while, via asset forfeiture; the only difference here is that it's digital property. And that can be much more easily routed outside the authorities' reach in the future.

    7. Re:Nice new business model by Kjella · · Score: 2

      This would be true, if Megaupload willfully stopped paying Carpathia. However, they expressed the willingness to continue paying them for the servers, if they had the funds available. These funds, however, were frozen by the US government, who is thus responsible for Carpathia not getting paid, and as such has taken over the duty to maintain the data integrity.

      So if the government ceases your money (or better yet, ceases you), it is their responsibility to pay the landlord rent, the lease on your car, your cable bill, phone bill, electricity bill, utilities bill and magazine subscriptions? I don't think that's the way it works. Those bills will go unpaid, your services cut, your car repossessed and you'll be evicted from the apartment. And the stuff in the apartment that's legally yours? Well, unless you can get someone to pick them up or pay for transport and storage then the landlord can treat them as uncollected or abandoned and sell/dispose of them after a while. The government will not step in to prevent any of this. If this is all a screw-up you can sue the government for damages but your property is probably lost forever.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell people to pay if they want to see the data ever again

      Carpathia have had their hardware idle so MegaLoad user's data hasn't been destroyed. For Carpathia, that's lost income. They can sue the government which caused such loss (ha ha ha ha ...), or charge the original users instead.

      ... country with such practices ...

      Since the USA claims jurisdiction over any inter-tube that touches their country, even avoiding USA-owned sites isn't enough.

      ... recognize the US as a damaged area ...

      It's not damaged until the DHS/FBI/ICE cause it. By then it's too late.

    9. Re:Nice new business model by Muad'Dave · · Score: 0

      "...ceases..."

      Cease, verb. To stop, as in cease and desist.
      Sieze, verb. To take away, as in sieze one's property.

      Read my signature.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to get out of paying Taxes.
      Set up a new cloud business and 'insure it and the business against any failure' - payments heading out to a 3rd country haven.
      Add consulting Lawyers - another 10% off the top. Insure suspension of services.

      As for the case in NZ, certain improper actions could mean the case collapses, and MU may sue for damages.

    11. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, according to what you say, American government can seize all your belongings including money on accounts with little to no cause and let the debt collectors eat you alive? And you say that it is morally and ethically OK and the government has no responsibility for what happened?

      What is moral and what is the law says are sometimes two different things. They may have followed the American law, but what they did is still not right and they are still responsible for those data or their loss.

    12. Re:Nice new business model by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Cease, verb. To stop, as in cease and desist.
      Sieze, verb. To take away, as in sieze one's property.

      sieze
      1. Common misspelling of seize.

      Perhaps you should read your own signature?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Nice new business model by bsdewhurst · · Score: 2
      Let me try and explain this with a car analogy.

      You are accused of committing a hit and run.

      The police find you and throw you in jail until the court case (you couldn't make bail).

      Your not working so you can't pay the lease on your car, so the leasing firm wants to repossess it, but the police say it is evidence of your crime and has to stay where it is until the trial.

      replace you with Megaupload, a hit and run with copyright infringement, the police with FBI and the car leasing firm with Carpathia. Megaupload never owned the servers, only leased them, Carpathia owns the servers but can't do anything with them because the FBI wants them kept as evidence, so they are being punished through financial losses for a crime they didn't commit, just like in the analogy the leasing company has a car they are not getting any money for and can't do anything with it.

    14. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quick, register slashdot.eu and make a backup before the main site is gone!

      Too late. slashdot.eu has been registered since April 7, 2006. Last updated April 27, 2007 and expires April 30, 2013.

      Someone should probably contact Caller Robin at Goallover or the hostmaster at Premium Registrations Sweden about it, cause it doesn't seem like ns{1,2}.eapps.com knows anything about that domain.

    15. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem lies in whether they actually and properly followed due process or not. If they didn't, it falls under the Fifth Amendment- and it's the Government's problem, not yours. With the way they did this, I'm suspecting that "not" is the answer to the first part.

    16. Re:Nice new business model by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only so long and so far as the police demand they preserve it as a crime scene or as evidence. They don't have an obligation to anyone else, they don't have to keep the servers powered (unless the police ask them to), they don't have to supply the bandwidth (unless the police wants the data), they could possibly get permission to just tape out the contents, recycle the servers and preserve those as the evidence. Nothing gives them any kind of obligation to continue providing a hosting service, only to preserve evidence as required by the police.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure any move could be construed as tampering with evidence, so Carpathia is probably not pleased.

    18. Re:Nice new business model by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Your analogy fails when the things you mention is not evidence.

      --
      What?
    19. Re:Nice new business model by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except the didn't take it, they copied it.
      The are saying go after the people who have your data they copied.

      They aren't saying to pay the feds.

      The headline is sensational, misleading, crap.

      The solution is to have more the one point of failure.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Nice new business model by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Touché.

      I'll blame my nasty haed cold for that lapse of raeson. :-)

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    21. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Built-in defensive excuse: You mean to say when the government "Caesars" it.

      No, wait, it was a little joke, and therefore that would refer to the government buying it pizza.

    22. Re:Nice new business model by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Both actually work in this case.

      A suspect or asses can cease to be, by act of the government.

      This often involves a bullet applied at high velocity to the suspect or asset.

    23. Re:Nice new business model by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're exactly right that that's the way it works, but it shouldn't be like that. If the government makes it so you can't pay your rent, your car lease, your cable bill, etc., the government in my opinion has the responsibility to pay all those things for you. They shouldn't be allowed to disrupt your life like that, and worse cause your property to be considered "abandoned" because you're sitting in a jail cell on bogus charges.

      Once you've been duly convicted of an actual crime, then sure, they can stop making payments for all those things. But until then, they should be required to pick up the slack and make the transition as easy as possible, in case you're acquitted. Not everyone has friends or relatives to handle these things for them when they're accused and in jail.

      If the government doesn't want to pay the cost associated with all these things, they shouldn't arrest you. And because of these costs (which could be pretty expensive depending on who they arrest), they should be extremely careful about arresting people, and only do so if they really think that person is guilty and they can prove the case.

    24. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megaupload stopped paying Carpathia.

      FUD. Citation if you can prove otherwise.

      The USA's FBI illegally prevented Megaupload from paying Carpathia; by stealing Megaupload's bank accounts. Your statement is falsifiable based on the fact that Megaupload paid its bills until the FBI stole all their money.

      There is a huge semantic difference between ceasing an activity based on your own volition or at the behest of some other entity's volition. If you can't see that you are hopeless.

    25. Re:Nice new business model by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Since the USA claims jurisdiction over any inter-tube that touches their country, even avoiding USA-owned sites isn't enough.

      I disagree. If your data is on a server in, say, Russia, do you think the Russian authorities are going to bend over backwards to cooperate with US police? I don't think so. Even in a US-friendly country like NZ, your data will likely be much safer, since there's an extra layer or three of bureaucracy to get through to foul things up for the data owner, and the foreign court is likely to have very different standards than the US courts. Just look at how badly this MegaUpload case has gone for the US government: sure, they managed to shut down the servers easily enough, since they were located in the USA (and not far from the capital, DC). But actually pinning any charges on Kim hasn't gone so well; the NZ courts haven't exactly done things just the way the US prosecutors would have liked. If MU's servers had been in NZ, I think things would have gone very differently.

    26. Re:Nice new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than just profit. Think about it for a minute at least.... They have all of those files. You know they searched through some of the data. Some was interesting, other files illegal so naturally they want to know who owns it and what better way?

  9. Partial data... by jasonq · · Score: 1

    So, effectively, they based all of their case on partial data which *THEY SAY* they copied from the servers and don't actually have possession of the physical servers? They do understand that digital evidence is not really evidence, right?

    1. Re:Partial data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand that you don't understand anything about the current topic?

      Slashdot gets dumber every damn day.

    2. Re:Partial data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A forensic copy is most definitely evidence. It's sad to see so many people on /. who don't seem to understand law and precedent for technology.

  10. Tin Foil Hat Time by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 2

    This may be pointing out the obvious, but so what if someone does pay, and does legitimately retrieve their data. What's to stop the Government from prosecuting them next? After all, they get the "Criminal" with the evidence, and they had to pay to get it, (weakly) proving its their data.

    --
    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
    1. Re:Tin Foil Hat Time by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may be pointing out the obvious, but so what if someone does pay, and does legitimately retrieve their data. What's to stop the Government from prosecuting them next? After all, they get the "Criminal" with the evidence, and they had to pay to get it, (weakly) proving its their data.

      If its _your_ data, there is nothing the government could prosecute you for. If its _your_ illegal copies of copyrighted material, then I suggest it's a stupid idea to try and download any of that under the eyes of the government.

    2. Re:Tin Foil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... So now MegaUpload users are going to pay to get illegal copies of copyrighted material? If they wanted to pay for copyrighted material, they would just, ya know, pay for it... at the store. The beauty of piracy is that there are tons and tons of copies all over the 'nets. Who in their right mind is going to make any effort to get copyrighted material back off of MegaUpload when there are so many other places to download the exact same release?

      As with most (all) efforts to stop piracy, this only effects the legal users.

    3. Re:Tin Foil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the government is going to go take inventory of all the DVDs and CDs someone owns.

    4. Re:Tin Foil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the country you're from you may very well be entitled to have copies of some things which are no longer under copyright there, but are in the US. Additionally, depending on the country you're from you might even have the right to make backups of your legally purchased DVDs and store them online.

  11. Government is the 1% by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the 99% can take a hike.

    Get your rights trampled while they pursue someone or something, well too bad. Its called collateral damage and the little people simply have no say.

    As the saying goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"

    It also goes without saying a government big enough to give you everything want could care less what you want or what it takes from you.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's couldn't care less. Couldn't care less.

    2. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. Thats why we must shut down our government completely and form a new one. Our government is out of control.

    3. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lulz. how is being a miserable bitter lunatic these days. is it as glamorous as it looks on TV?

    4. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      although your statement is a bit of a troll, I think it's important to make note of the fact that it doesn't have to be the government that is out of control, but the bureaucracies it has surrounded it self with.

    5. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A little known rider to the recent must-pass defense spending bill:

      i) All references in the Constitution and other laws to 'the people' are irrevocably changed to 'The People (TM)'. Note for the purposes of this amendment, ordinary humans are not part of The People.

    6. Re:Government is the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a government big enough to give you everything want ...

      Government gets everything from its citizens. The most a government can do is re-distribute your contribution, as bombs or school-teachers. A government's power is derived by 1) your obedience and apathy, 2) having more guns than you.

      Apathy is achieved by corrupting the social contract: replacing meritocracy with feudalism (corporatism), and limited capitalism (socialism) with a plutocracy.

      Gun-control robs the populace of its only power: armed rebellion.

    7. Re:Government is the 1% by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. 'Couldn't care less' is more accepted and straightforward, but 'could care less' is used and according to some speculation here, it probably developed as sarcasm, much like 'I should be so lucky'.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    8. Re:Government is the 1% by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not going to happen realistically. When was the last time you saw a country as big as the USA totally reform their government, without it being forced to by losing a war and being occupied? What's much more realistic I think is for the country to break up into smaller, more easily-managed units; this is the normal failure mode for large nations(/empires).

  12. Domain seizure? by g0tai · · Score: 1

    The Govt siezed the domain, thereby preventing access to users data.

    Even if it could be switched to another domain easily enough, it was still forbidden to do so. Are valid users also entitled to sue for loss of earnings due to being unable to access their data or the inability to make it accessible to others?

    1. Re:Domain seizure? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      the gov. in this case is trying to weasel out of getting sued, because they know it's coming (and already in progress). so.. "we didn't take any data, what data??"

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Domain seizure? by psy0rz · · Score: 1

      What do you mean with 'the domain' in this context? That sounds a bit like a Windows AD term..

    3. Re:Domain seizure? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Domain seizure?

      That's when the domain falls to the ground, unconscious.

  13. Sounds great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a wonderful idea. So long as the government intends to repay anyone who bites on the offer when the case comes to a close and it's found that the government behaved inappropriately by shuttering a legitimate enterprise without notice or trial.

  14. So this now means that MU can go back online? by Quick+Reply · · Score: 1

    "Access is not the issue -- if it was, Mr. Goodwin could simply hire a forensic expert to retrieve what he claims is his property and reimburse Carpathia for its associated costs," the response said.

    Based on this statement, it sounds like the US Federal Prosecutors already have preserved a copy of all the data they need for their case, and now they don't have a problem with Megaupload/Carpathia taking Megaupload back online to allow users to retrieve their data, and any TOS/data retrieval fee is to do with the customer and Megaupload, not the US Government.

    1. Re:So this now means that MU can go back online? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      But carpathia won't do it for free and meguploads assets are frozen. Individual users have no rights with carpathia they aren't the customers of carpathia.

      Only mega upload can access that data but are forbidden by the government.

      The best part of all this will be the end lawsuits and accutials. The us government had so completely botched this case that they can't win. They probably won't even get the extradition as they are denying legal rights to the accused.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:So this now means that MU can go back online? by Quick+Reply · · Score: 1

      Megaupload's assets are frozen, but Carpathia might be willing to take it online for free to allow Megaupload to retrieve their data, and thus once Megaupload have secured a copy, the servers and data on Carpathia's end can be destroyed and thus Carpathia can put an end their losses.

    3. Re:So this now means that MU can go back online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megaupload's assets are frozen, but Carpathia might be willing to take it online for free to allow Megaupload to retrieve their data, and thus once Megaupload have secured a copy, the servers and data on Carpathia's end can be destroyed and thus Carpathia can put an end their losses.

      And with their assets frozen, where exactly is Megaupload supposed to store all this data? on 7 million or so DVDs? 18,000 2TB drives? Please.

  15. This would never have been a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... had the government done its homework before it shut MegaUpload down.

    The most cursory examination of its website would have revealed that there were many legitimate uses for the site, such as - surprise surprise - off-site backup, as well as inexpensive hosting of large content documents, such as one's own videos.

    Frankly I am quite flummoxed that one of the very first steps that the government did not take was to contact all of those who hosted legitimate content there to point out to them that their data was at risk due to the seizure, and so should be backed up, with the second step being to separate the legitimate content from the infringing content so that some other company could carry one MegaUploads operations for legitimate users.

    The fact that the government did not do this isn't going to sit well with a jury, or with the Appellate and Supreme Courts, when it is pointed out by the defense.

    1. Re:This would never have been a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. They had no idea, you've provided a ground-breaking revelation.

      I really don't get why, when something's on the internet instead of physical, people suddenly think that some amount of legitimate usage means a service can't be shut down or seized. It doesn't work that way in the real world, there's no precedent or requirement for it. When the police are going to raid and shut down a bar for repeatedly serving alcohol to minors, they don't have a sneak around warning every legal patron not to leave their coat behind. If you actually had a loss because Megaupload was ultimately found guilty of breaking the law, it would be on them. Where does the expectation come from, that they have to warn the customers of a business that it's under investigation and/or going to be shut down? It doesn't really exist offline. It's ridiculously impractical. It allows the evicence to be compromised before it can be copied and analyzed.

      Even if you were going to play that card, it would be something to counter-sue the prosecution for separately. It doesn't do anything in defense of the indictments against them. It's not a defense of anything. Whether or not the FBI caused damages by shutting the site down has zero relevance to whether or not Megaupload is guilty of the charges against them, it's an entirely separate matter.

  16. Really? by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if they just reopened megaupload with all the old data still on it the feds would just let that happen right?

    Because if so, then yes... megaupload should just do that. But that seems more then unlikely. This is another game the feds like to play. They put down whatever you want, look you in the eye, and say "go ahead - take it!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khyzj5toqwA

    I hate the federal government sometimes. This sort of dickish behavior should be reserved for pissing off dictators or various powers that deserve a good scare. But against the cyberlockers?...

    Meh... we need some sort of digital Switzerland. Possibly that's just going to have to be the P2P world... no way around it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Really? by phagstrom · · Score: 1

      It has been tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HavenCo - alas it did not work out that well.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this...

    3. Re:Really? by Barny · · Score: 1

      They (Megaupload) can't do that, they have all their accounts frozen by FBI.

      Carpathia wont do it unless paid.

      Shouldn't it be up to the FBI to pay them to put up the legit data?

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Really? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      FBI seems to be failing to provide a quick trial as required by the constitution. They keep confiscating stuff and then sitting on it for months or years without going through a trial.

      Look, if someone broke the law, arrest people, freeze accounts, and cease property. But then you go to trial. Within a week you had better be prepared to take this to court. And the whole process had better be fast. Because the ceasing imprisoning is a hardship in and of itself. It has to be fast.

      And if the FBI loses the court case, the reverse everything. End of story.

      They did something similar with Gibson Guitars. They ceased millions of dollars worth of fret boards from their factory and then didn't take them to trial and refuse to give it back.

      wtf?

      Look, if gibson broke the law, fine. Do your thing and take them to trial. But you don't just bust into someone's factory, grab stuff, and then refuse to answer phone calls. That's just theft. If you do this stuff you have to go to trial or return it quick.

      The FBI apparently doesn't have to follow these rules under some circumstances. I don't see why. It seems like a violation of rights.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Really? by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Hint: You might not noticed, but the US has been turned into a police state the last 10 years. Nothing is safe against the government. Not even for citizens,

      There is no privacy. The feds can get everything on you. The is no private property. Oops, somebody in this city did a drug deal (or mentioned terrorism, or did not like a federal official, well, that's also terrorism, right?), or at least one of our agents had a vision that it's so, so we have to confiscate your stuff.

      There is no personal freedom, the US has statutes on the book to look up people indefinitely without a trial. At should you think you can run away, they'll tax you when you leave. Well, it's a well known legal practice, actually, only one example comes to mind, the Nazis robbed Jews that tried to emigrate, ...

      But the US is also the guys that maintain death lists. That's another term that one usually associates with dictatorships and other bad guys. (Sure that the WTC did not contain at least one guy that might worthy a death penalty by Iranian legal standards, if so, I don't know why you are whinning, your own government considers civilian collateral damages okay.)

    6. Re:Really? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      We have checks and balances. It's a question of using them. The executive is clearly out of control.

      Many of these departments clearly need to go through some sort of real public court proceeding before they can act. They seem to too often use poor judgment and possibly a little daylight would wise them up.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  17. Of the options... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only fair option is to sue Megaupload. But for their involvement in illegal activity, your legal data would be safe. Everybody who ever uploaded legal content has a good case to get back some of Megaupload's 100M USD, and their data too. Small claims or class action, I wonder...

    1. Re:Of the options... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      What involvement in illegal activity? Megaupload is still (legally) innocent. You can only sue them for that if they're found guilty, which can take a while, if it ever happens.

    2. Re:Of the options... by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      Well, the feds can hope that NZ does not extradite (which they probably will not), because the US judge already mentioned that the whole proceedings are probably illegal.

       

    3. Re:Of the options... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look up Judge Irma Gonsales in Perfect 10 vs MU.

      The bitter truth is that sites like megaupload make it prohibitively expensive to run any content creation business, especially a small unfunded startup can be sunk with a swish. Usually by tha competition too.

      Not everything can be free. Not everything can be ad supported, and you cant sell consulting on everything.

        I know many content distributors are dinosaurs with idiotic demands, I am not arguing their case, but megaupload's reward programs for piracy and the obscene scale of the operation and money that was being turned around are hardly a fair file sharing service.

    4. Re:Of the options... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      look up Judge Irma Gonsales in Perfect 10 vs MU

      It's Gonzalez, but besides that, a single ruling on a very different case hardly proves anything.

      The bitter truth is that sites like megaupload make it prohibitively expensive to run any content creation business, especially a small unfunded startup can be sunk with a swish. Usually by tha competition too.

      Not everything can be free. Not everything can be ad supported, and you cant sell consulting on everything.

          I know many content distributors are dinosaurs with idiotic demands, I am not arguing their case, but megaupload's reward programs for piracy and the obscene scale of the operation and money that was being turned around are hardly a fair file sharing service.

      I disagree, and so do some studies. But in any case, that's irrelevant to whether Megaupload will be convicted of involvement in illegal activity.

    5. Re:Of the options... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only fair option is to sue Megaupload. But for their involvement in illegal activity, your legal data would be safe. Everybody who ever uploaded legal content has a good case to get back some of Megaupload's 100M USD, and their data too. Small claims or class action, I wonder...

      IIRC, Megaupload's TOS (oops, the US Government doesn't want you to see that!) states that it is *not* responsible for your data and will not compensate you for *any* loss of data. Period. Assuming the click-through EULA is considered enforceable, end-users have no recourse. From anyone.

  18. Some very interesting issues by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the MPAA, U.S. government, etc. these digital files are the same as physical property, and under the Fifth Amendment "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Note the wording - it doesn't state that the government must actually have seized the property in question (which the government argues they did not do) - it must merely have caused a person to be deprived of their property. By their own logic, through the actions of the government, Mr. Goodwin has been deprived of his property, and without his right to a jury trial.

    But the government argues that they aren't liable because they only copied certain servers, and a forensic expert could retrieve the original files with access to the servers and hard disks. This is like arguing that the government can seize your car from the garage and dismantle it into thousands of parts, but that they haven't deprived you of your property, because you are free to hire a mechanic (at great cost) to put it all back together again.

    On the other hand, suppose you leave some property in the safe of your lawyer, who is subsequently arrested for committing some serious crime. You have now been deprived of your property, but it still exists in the safe. In this case, the government would not have a liability to release a criminal in order to let him open his safe and retrieve your belongings. I think that the government might win this one - if they are willing to let Mr. Goodwin have access to the servers, which they say they are. The Fifth Amendment does not require that the government ensure that you have access to your property that you have left in the care of another person, it only requires them to not be the ones depriving you of it.

    The other big issue from the article is that the U.S. government plans to extradite Kim Dotcom and the employees of Megaupload (including web developers etc.) so that they can be charged with criminal copyright infringement in the U.S. Can you imagine what the outcry would be like if any other nation tried to extradite Americans working for a U.S. based file hosting company? What if British prosecutors decide to extradite the developers of {Dropbox,Google Drive,etc.} because some users were sharing episodes of Doctor Who? Most people support extraditions for serious offences like murder, but when it starts to be used for frivolous things like copyright infringement, that support is going to disappear.

    1. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would like to see what happens if Iran decided to extradite some U.S.A. citizen involved in Flame or Stuxnet, what would this look like?? Whats the difference? The money and power of U.S.A.?

    2. Re:Some very interesting issues by rhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is like arguing that the government can seize your car from the garage and dismantle it into thousands of parts, but that they haven't deprived you of your property, because you are free to hire a mechanic (at great cost) to put it all back together again.

      This actually happens all the time. Happened to a friend of mine more than once even. So long as the police were acting in "good faith" you have no legal recourse.

    3. Re:Some very interesting issues by necro81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Note the wording - it doesn't state that the government must actually have seized the property in question (which the government argues they did not do) - it must merely have caused a person to be deprived of their property. By their own logic, through the actions of the government, Mr. Goodwin has been deprived of his property, and without his right to a jury trial.

      Don't equate "due process of law" with a jury trial. A jury trial is an example of due process, but it's not the only one. There are all manner of legal processes through which you can lose, have taken away, be temporarily deprived of, or otherwise forfeit property without going through a jury trial. As a most simple example: property gets seized as part of a search warrant all the time, as has happened in this case. Sometimes it is eventually returned, sometimes it is permanently retained as evidence. None of that requires a jury trial, even though it's often involved.

    4. Re:Some very interesting issues by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which sounds nice and all, except that this is New Zealand and the judge is not at all convinced by our government's antics here. If they declare sovereign immunity (which they might) we are going to have some serious issues in new zealand - rightly so for our government's overreach.

      And in contrast, when police do investigations and presume you may be suspicious (for things such as damage to your house incurred while they falsely investigated something) they absolutely are required to pay that back - you can easily win in small claims court for those damages. This is no different, since megaupload has not been found guilty of anything.

    5. Re:Some very interesting issues by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to see what happens if Iran decided to extradite some U.S.A. citizen involved in Flame or Stuxnet, what would this look like?? Whats the difference? The money and power of U.S.A.?

      Parent is not 'flamebait' - it's a legitimate question. The answer is Yes, it's our money and power. The US government throws its weight around to get US friendly (or US business friendly) laws & treaties passed around the world. It's a byproduct of being a superpower and having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The globe is an international chess match between a slowly changing group of players. As long as we dole out influence, aid and weapons we will be seen and be treated differently than most countries.

    6. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not arguing against you, just the legal crap your friend got.

      Drunk drivers are operating in "good faith" when they accidentally kill someone. They made a bad decision, but they didn't "mean it".

    7. Re:Some very interesting issues by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      This actually happens all the time. Happened to a friend of mine more than once even.

      Your friend should try a different lawyer. Just sayin'...

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Parent is not 'flamebait' - it's a legitimate question.

      Yes they are, and no it isn't. On one hand we have two governments who are close allies and work together in a variety of matters, on the other hand we have enemies who are one wrong political decision away from an all-out war. That's the difference, and it's such a massive difference as to render any application to the current situation completely invalid. He's also comparing a question of copyright to an outright assault on a country's facilities and systems, those aren't even in the same league.

      I'm not disagreeing with your post in general, as you're more-or-less on the right track. It IS a chess match, and the first thing you need to remember in chess is that while the Queen is the most powerful piece in theory, she is rarely the piece which actually decides the match.

    9. Re:Some very interesting issues by tapspace · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is like arguing that the government can seize your car from the garage and dismantle it into thousands of parts, but that they haven't deprived you of your property, because you are free to hire a mechanic (at great cost) to put it all back together again.

      The government DOES seize vehicles without due process.

    10. Re:Some very interesting issues by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice to know that not every US-allied government has gone entirely bat-shit crazy.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    11. Re:Some very interesting issues by cusco · · Score: 5, Informative

      And if drugs are even rumored to be some peripheral part of someone thought to be related the case in some way the cops will generally sell the property before the owner gets a chance to try to recover it. NORML reported a few years ago that half of the assets seized and sold in drug cases didn't even belong to anyone charged with a drug crime.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    12. Re:Some very interesting issues by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I believe they call it the "border".

    13. Re:Some very interesting issues by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      The official stance is that the US is as involved in Flame and Stuxnet as Iran is involved in violating the NPT.

      Nothing would come of such an effort beyond the saber-rattling and recriminations we're already seeing.

    14. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The way your sentence is written it's hard to tell what you are saying, but unless something has changed, Iran has NOT violated the NPT which allows signatories the right to peaceful development of nuclear technology. The fact that Israel and the US object does not make Iran's actions a violation. At various times, Iran has come up with various proposals involving transferring all of their enriched uranium to third parties. These proposals were still rejected.

      I don't much care for the Iranians, but it appears that 'someone' is determined to provoke a conflict and one way or another to overthrow their government.

    15. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They literally do this.

      IF your car is searched at the boarder for what ever reason, the US government can tear it to shreds and are under no obligation to fix it.
      Or, if they have a warrant to search your house for drugs. They can rip the walls down and don't have to pay to fix it (regardless of whether or not drugs are found).

    16. Re:Some very interesting issues by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      If Google was basing their business model on hosting illegal copies of Doctor Who, then I would have no problem with the Brits requesting extradition.

      Before people with burning ears downmod me, ask yourselves this: Is Google basing their business model on illegal file sharing?

        Or even "legal file sharing, wink wink"?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:Some very interesting issues by Sun · · Score: 1

      That does not seem correct. The NPT has provisions for mandatory supervision, which Iran is violating. The supervision is intended to make sure that the country is, indeed, not developing nuclear weapons. Those inspectors that were allowed limited access claimed a high probability of weapons development.

      In other words, Iran is violating the NPT.

      Shachar

    18. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NPT has provisions for mandatory supervision, which Iran is violating.

      Citation needed. From everything I have read and heard, Iran is not violating the provisions for supervision.

      GP is correct: someone appears to be determined to provoke a conflict.

    19. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever had a full search of your car for drugs or seen a house after a police search? Guess what they do when they don't find anything?

      They don't really put it back together. It is up to you to rebalance the wheels or install a new door.

      In fact, in drug cases and similar searches, they may very well not give you back the car ever, even if acquitted or the case is dropped. You have to go to court, and fight to get it back. That is also a common practice for third-parties. Like say your car was parked at a house that was raided for drugs.

    20. Re:Some very interesting issues by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that depends, they do have a megaupload like portion of their business

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    21. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like arguing that the government can seize your car from the garage and dismantle it into thousands of parts, but that they haven't deprived you of your property, because you are free to hire a mechanic (at great cost) to put it all back together again.

      Actually, that happened to my brother at the border between Detroit and Windsor in the 1980's.

    22. Re:Some very interesting issues by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your friend should try a different lawyer. Just sayin'...

      I'm sure he'll get right on that as soon as his geldscheisser is done eating.

    23. Re:Some very interesting issues by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      Since the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with Iran, I doubt we have an extradition treaty either. So as long as those citizens stay within the borders of the US, Iran can basically go pound sand because there is no process.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    24. Re:Some very interesting issues by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering whether my taxes are going to end up contributing to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of damages should Megaupload sue the NZ government. Although I haven't heard that they have such plans, it seems a real possibility. A thriving business was destroyed, and the legal foundation for doing this is looking ever shakier.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    25. Re:Some very interesting issues by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Of course, there are plenty of countries that do have extradition treaties with the US and there have probably been Stuxnet and Flame infections in every single one of them.

    26. Re:Some very interesting issues by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Nothing, absolutely freaking nothing. And if Iran tried to extradite the person with force, USA would retaliate. The USA does not have any extradition treaties with Iran. So the US would ignore any such requests.

    27. Re:Some very interesting issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Amercians think the USA is the world.

  19. Sue the gub'mint. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, they illegally broke down doors, illegally took over a domain and illegally took over data AND physical objects.
    None of the investigation was legal in any way.
    It was all planned to go ahead immediately after they were set to "pass" in the house. NOPE. They were just mad that their crappy SOPA and PIPA never passed so went ahead with it anyway.

    So everyone get together and sue the ass of them. Maybe this will bring an end to their overreaching borders of control that they think they have.

  20. If you fail a mortgage payment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you fail a mortgage payment, they blow up the house???

    1. Re:If you fail a mortgage payment by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      If you stop paying the lawn mover (the guy, not the machine), does he blow up the lawn?

  21. TOS Says NO! by beaverdownunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As this http://www.techspot.com/news/48924-mpaa-would-allow-megaupload-users-access-to-non-copyrighted-files.html article notes, "the MPAA expressed sympathy towards legitimate users who may have lost access to original content or data that was obtained legally, although they also point out that Megaupload's terms of service offered no guarantee of the safety or accessibility of uploaded data."

    The fact is, Megaupload offered NO guarantee any data stored on its servers would be accessible at any given point in the future, if at all. Whether its servers were destroyed by an act of God, or the US government makes no difference -- there was never any contract between Megaupload and its users to safeguard their data, and as a result its users were not deprived of anything tangible when that data was taken offline.

    It's kind of like sticking your stuff in a locker at a swimming pool or a gym -- they put up big signs saying they're not responsible for your stuff. Of course, you would never store anything valuable in a locker room, now would you? This sort of 'rejection of liability' flows on -- if the government turns up, takes over the building for some reason or another, and throws you out, they're not responsible for your stuff either. You're just SOL.

    A locker in a gym is not the same as a safety deposit box in a bank vault. To argue that they are is just plain silly, and if you tried it in court, I imagine a judge would laugh at you. Your argument would be swiftly defeated by a rebuttal of simple common sense.

    So although it's fun to rant about 'suing the gubbermint', such a pointless exercise would never lead anywhere, and the government knows that. By pointing out that you could recover your data through Megaupload's hosting provider, they're really just being 'nice'. They owe you nothing.

    1. Re:TOS Says NO! by PGC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed, the gym tells you they are not responsible for my stuff. The person who steals my stuff from my locker however, is.

      If my stuff is in a locker at the gym and a foreign government decides to open all the lockers and takes the content, I will not sue the gym: I will sue that government.

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    2. Re:TOS Says NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spurious argument. Users were deprived of the service of having their content served on the web. This is often worth more than the data itself.

    3. Re:TOS Says NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive me for I am Canadian, but what does MPAA have to do with this? They are rights holders/ lobby group. They have no rights to data that is stored outside the US for which they hold no copy right.....

    4. Re:TOS Says NO! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like sticking your stuff in a locker at a swimming pool or a gym -- they put up big signs saying they're not responsible for your stuff.

      What the heck are you talking about? If someone breaks into your locker at the gym and steals your stuff, you can still call the police. If they find the guy who took it, they can still charge him with theft and potentially send him to prison.

      Just because the gym puts up a sign that they aren't responsible doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all, and anyone can just come in, steal everything in everyone's lockers, and no one has any recourse. Similarly, Megaupload may not be responsible if your stuff is lost, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that if the stuff is taken, it's just "no harm, no foul."

      So although it's fun to rant about 'suing the gubbermint', such a pointless exercise would never lead anywhere, and the government knows that. By pointing out that you could recover your data through Megaupload's hosting provider, they're really just being 'nice'. They owe you nothing.

      It may be a pointless exercise because the government gets a lot of immunity in a lot of cases like this. However, it's not a pointless question. Just because one party declares that they aren't liable for taking care of your property doesn't mean that that property has no value, ceases to exist, or that you thereby agree that anyone can just break in and steal it.

  22. Gangsters by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the US steals legitimate users data, and now holding these people to ransom for money to get their data back. Sounds like a mafia gangster mob scheme, or is that what the American government has become, because that's what it looks like to non-US citizens. Land of the free!!!

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Gangsters by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      ...the US Government has not become gangsters, they always have been ...

      Holding the world to ransom with superior weapons,

      Threatening businesses with consequences if they don't pay

      Threatening individuals with consequences if they don't pay

      Ignoring the police (interpol/UN/NATO) when it suits them

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:Gangsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nononoo it's not stealin, see we just take a *copy* and leave the original accessible to the rightfull owner to use...

    3. Re:Gangsters by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 0

      If your statement is true, you better start running 'cuz Pauli and Sal are on their way to put a cap in your ass for talking disrespectful like.
      Fuck you whiners who take our freedom for granted. The fact that they are willing to DO ANYTHING at all to help people get their data back is exemplary -- BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. So fuck you and fuck your self-entitled, idiotic BS. Don't you have a campsite in Oakland to Occupy?

      And by the way -- Any sufficiently large and powerful organization can be compared to the Mob.
      So every Government HAS ALWAYS acted like the mob. Taxes started off as protection money you gave the local warlord.

    4. Re:Gangsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been a gangster government for some time, employing mafiaesque techniques throughout the executive branch. DOJ is run by a serial liar and racist and his boss is more or less the same.

    5. Re:Gangsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      suckering their people into not wanting free health care

      neglecting their own citizens in institutional poverty and blaming drugs

      diverting the public purse to set up a surveilance infrastructure against its own people

      squandering the wealth of the people

      enshiring the rights of the privileged and rich

      deploying the military on the streets when it all fucks up

    6. Re:Gangsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misleading Summary Headline is Misleading

      The US is not demanding that it be paid in order to give user's the data back. In fact, quite the opposite, they are saying that they have no responsibility whatsoever to ensure user's get the data and that they have no intention of helping users get the data and no amount of money will change that.

      The US is simply suggesting that one available avenue for people is to pay the company that hosts the servers to get the data.

    7. Re:Gangsters by shentino · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't need to pay for their data if the feds hadn't frozen MU's assets in the first place.

      I mean seriously, why is it that in a forfeiture case they flat out just take everything you have on hand and basically force you to shaft everyone you owe in the process?

    8. Re:Gangsters by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'd say that they were wrong to seize MU's funds and prevent them from paying their hosting bills with carpathia in the first place, so yes they DO owe something.

      If they'd simply allowed the hosting bills to be paid we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

  23. Surely this is blackmail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is blackmail. Sue them!

  24. Grand Theft Data by PGC · · Score: 1

    So, if MU has all it's data and there will be no case against them (apparently MU is allowed to start their site again), why did the FBI copy the data? This is international data-theft (Using the MPAA's definition of the term theft). Plain and simple. This might even be the largest theft in history :P

    --
    The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  25. Re:FUCK YOU US !! by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

    We're not interested in your need for anal sex. Try Craigslist.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  26. Bad Maths by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    You know how you always see the fudged **AA's accounting that says that stealing music/movies cost billions in jobs/lost revenue, well now we can say that sloppily shutting down servers cost people billions in lost jobs/revenue.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  27. Re:FUCK YOU US !! by meglon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Reminds me of this guy from Indonesia that was upset by a guy living in the apartment above him, i think from Thailand... not sure on that though. They were having a cross between a catfight and a shouting match, both running around yelling "I fuck you, I fuck you" to each other. We didn't have the heart to correct their English. Was good entertainment for the evening.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  28. Say What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give the US Government a big loud "Fuck You"!

  29. Yes it is by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    In any civilized country it sure is. Think about it if a parent is arrested, who takes care of the children? The state.

    The entire problem is that police powers and civil liberties are always going to be at odds with each other, they need to be because you can't have an effective police force if they can't violate peoples rights (as in have more powers then ordinary people) and you can't have everyone life in a constant police state either.

    Take guns, most police forces have guns with which they are allowed to kill people. The British police does not have gun, so no bobby has ever killed anyone? Illegally? The point is not to restrict the powers the police has but to restrict their indiscriminate use. You should be able to arrest a Jew, but not to arrest all Jews. Fillin your favorite group to avoid Godwin if you like.

    Where do you draw the line? That is the constant and never answered question. You certainly won't get an answer from any individual, let alone the one currently experiencing the harshness of the justice system in action. Ideally, the checks and balances (and this includes the average voter reading newspapers for something else then the sport scores and the funnies) will balance it all out.

    This seems no longer to be the case. But I am pretty sure the RIAA agrees with you that the balance has veered far to much of where it should be, they just are thinking in a different direction. As a society, we have to make the ones in power answerable. So, new zealanders, vote the current government out.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yes it is by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      British police do have guns; that's a common misperception. No, the regular beat cops in London might not, but they have radios, so if they think a situation warrants the use of weapons, they just make a quick call and suddenly a bunch of heavily armed SWAT-like cops show up on the scene.

      As an American, this does seem like it might be a viable way of managing police. Over here, our cops (who always carry a handgun) are constantly shooting something or someone for no good reason. Just recently here in the Phoenix area, some stupid cop responded to a call, went to the wrong house, busted in, encountered the family dog, and shot it to death. It's not that infrequent that cops bust into some old lady's house thinking it's a crack house and shoot the occupant dead because she had a gun, thinking these people busting in were criminals. I think the British method of giving the beat cops batons and no guns is probably better, since it keeps them from making fatal errors like this. Some mace probably wouldn't be a bad thing to arm these guys with too, as that's generally non-lethal as well and doesn't cause permanent injury (except in rare cases of someone being allergic perhaps).

  30. Hmmm... by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight.... a person pays for a DVD, makes a copy & uploads it to their Megaupload account. Then Hollywood's government seizes the legally bought property because the person made it available online. Then Hollywood's gov't says the uploader who originally bought the movie, needs to buy it back if they want it. Hmm? Am I missing something? That sounds a lot like....

  31. Re:So, anyone whining about this gonna vote Obama? by hort_wort · · Score: 1

    The Republicans voted for Obama themselves when they put Romney up against him. If they had put up someone more in the middle, Ron Paul, he would've received all the Republican votes and taken large bites out of the other groups. Unfortunately, they don't understand compromise, so they will lose. Then whine. Then apparently lose all their rights to prison-warden government. It's okay though because history is written by the winners, which are ... the lawyers?

    Sorry. Low sugar. If only I had my super-sized cola....

  32. Re:FUCK YOU US !! by thexile · · Score: 3, Funny

    or vagina

  33. Its a Trap! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Option 1. Pay to get you data... If you have illegal data then you have shown financial responsibility in owning Illegal material.
    Option 2. Sue... You better be sure all your data is Legit... If not then you may loose your suit and you got expensive lawyer bills.

    Ether way the there is proof on the person who put the data there. If it is illegal there are brand new targets.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  34. Probably a trap by dtylercade · · Score: 1

    And once Megaupload is "making money" off of their services, the U.S. Government has the grounds to charge them with more serious copyright infringement, don't they.

  35. Re:dismantling your car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've not had much experience with the border patrol, huh?

  36. Except... by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

    Users of Megaupload.com for the most part have paid already for their data.

    That's why the site was making money, because people were willing to pay for faster access and to be able to store their files with a larger limit on how large those files could be. This spew from obvious shills is disgusting, pretending that users of Megaupload were somehow freeloaders--many of their users were not. They paid for access.

    The money is there, it is the MAFIAA's own fault if they can't figure out a way to get to it by offering a fair price.

    HINT: It's called capitalism in an open market...

    --
    Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    1. Re:Except... by shentino · · Score: 1

      The money is NOT there, the feds confiscated it.

    2. Re:Except... by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

      The money is NOT there, the feds confiscated it.

      Not the Megaupload customer's problem--they paid for their service and the government has no right to insist that they pay twice for the same service.

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
  37. Hey U$A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $uck my Ball$ ..!..

  38. I see an opportunity for new business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a data store using only volatile RAM. If anybody enters you don't like, pull the kill switch.

  39. nt by shentino · · Score: 1

    Fudge, the only reason this is a problem in the first place is because the feds swooped in and confiscated all of mega upload's funds and won't even let it pay their hosting bills. They had to fight like hell just to get enough to pay their legal bills.

    Which honestly sounds like imposing an unfair burden on carpathia hosting.

    Seriously, carpathia hosting is an innocent bystander in all of this that has been forced to squat on its servers while the feds sit on MU's money.

    Not to mention seizing MU's funs BEFORE they are convicted in court. They've pretty much been thrown in prison for life before they've even got a guilty verdict against them.

    1. Re:nt by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It's the Fed's (and most prosecutors) standard operating procedure to seize all monies that can be used for defense if the law can interpreted to allow the seizure. They do it ALL the time.

  40. Re:So, anyone whining about this gonna vote Obama? by shentino · · Score: 1

    History is written by the victors because the losers aren't around anymore.

    It's no different from an armed robber getting richer because he has a gun to force money out of your pockets.

  41. Viacom v. YouTube by tepples · · Score: 2

    Is Google basing their business model on illegal file sharing?

    This was in fact the allegation in Viacom v. YouTube, that at one point YouTube (now a Google company) wasn't fulfilling its obligations as a service provider under OCILLA (17 USC 512).

  42. Could hardly care less by tepples · · Score: 1

    When you see "could care less", please read it as "could hardly care less". It disappoints me that this sort of pedantry gets modded up so often.

  43. Never... by flameproof · · Score: 1

    Ever, never - rely on "cloud" computing based on an ethereal internet.

    EVER.

    --
    ~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
  44. My name is Sue!!! How do you do!!!! by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
    Bill or George! Anything but Sue! I still hate that name!

  45. Re:So, anyone whining about this gonna vote Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember much shrinkage of Government under eight years of George Bush Jr.

    Perhaps you can remind me. How many departments and agencies were closed and how many Acts rescinded?

    Typical Obama drone - blame BOOOOOSH!!!!!!

    Eh? According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Government spending in the US shrank over the first three years of Obama's administration. That hadn't happened since Nixon!