FBI Asked Megaupload To Preserve Pirated Files, Then Used Them Against Dotcom

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Asked Megaupload To Preserve Pirated Files, Then Used Them Against Dotcom

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday November 24, 2012 @01:30PM from the how-many-ways-can-you-screw-this-up dept.

avxo writes "According to an article on the New Zealand Herald, Kim Dotcom says his team has evidence showing that the Department of Homeland Security served a search warrant on Megaupload in 2010, forcing it to preserve pirated movies. According to Mr. Dotcom, those preserved movies are the center of the latest legal battle. 'When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.' He added: '[t]he FBI used the fact the files were still in the account of the ... user to get the warrant to seize our own domains. This is outrageous.'"

64 of 241 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nowhere fast by ExecutorElassus · 2012-11-24 13:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
1. Re:Nowhere fast by MichaelSmith · 2012-11-24 13:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
  Don't you mean NZ? Australia doesn't really have a role here. Which is not to say that the australian security services wouldn't jump at the chance to help the FBI in a case like this.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Nowhere fast by crafty.munchkin · 2012-11-24 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  I think you'll find the Australian authorities had nothing to do with it, since New Zealand is a completely separate country to Australia! ;)
  
  --
  ... wait, what?
3. Re:Nowhere fast by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-11-24 13:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken"
  - Book of Chan
  This is the new American Century. Get used to it.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
4. Re:Nowhere fast by Zocalo · 2012-11-24 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  At this point, I think "nowhere fast" is probably what they are trying to achieve. It's a lost cause, so the longer the studios can keep things tied up in a legal limbo, the better it is for them.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
5. Re:Nowhere fast by ExecutorElassus · 2012-11-24 13:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  whoops. I got Dotcom mixed up with, uh, Julian Assange (who I believe is an AU citizen, yes?). I'll just go back to nursing this booze now.
6. Re:Nowhere fast by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-24 14:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is the new Corporate Pwned Century. Get used to it.
  FTFY
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
7. Re:Nowhere fast by MichaelSmith · 2012-11-24 14:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  whoops. I got Dotcom mixed up with, uh, Julian Assange (who I believe is an AU citizen, yes?). I'll just go back to nursing this booze now.
  Yeah Julian is one of us. In fact I know a guy who had the pleasure of having his system broken in to by Mr Assange. For a geek he is strangely concerned about what people say about him. Most of us don't give a shit.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
8. Re:Nowhere fast by XaXXon · 2012-11-24 14:04 · Score: 2
  
  Too bad you can't file abn anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the FBI. That seems to be what they're doing. The resources of the US against some dude in NZ.
9. Re:Nowhere fast by game+kid · 2012-11-24 14:08 · Score: 2
  
  Don't be so quick to mea culpa. If this is **AA-bribe-fueled, then said **AA would happily the various govts to make them paint Dotcom and Assange, along with Anons and such, as members of the same Axis Of Anti-American Terrorist And Computer-Hacking And Also Job-Killing Piratical Evil.
  It would be a big marketing coup for them to get that stuck in people's heads, and big marketing coups matter these days (instead of things like "competition", "compassion", "law", or "value of product").
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
10. Re:Nowhere fast by Lisias · 2012-11-24 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is just one more nail in the coffin.
  What coffin? X-(
  We're speaking about the country that declared war and invaded Iraq under false accusations to kill Saddam, and violated Pakistan's sovereignty with a cover up operation to kill Bin Laden, all of that without any consequences.
  (And I will not touch this Assange mess).
  What make you think that the FBI should be worried for a so "small case"?
  
  --
  Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
11. Re:Nowhere fast by Runaway1956 · 2012-11-24 14:47 · Score: 2
  
  Where do I go to join the Axis?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
12. Re:Nowhere fast by Runaway1956 · 2012-11-24 14:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It appears that your horizons might be expanded by visiting the New American Century site. www.newamericancentury.org/
  What GP posted, and what you posted, are synonymous. In the past twelve years, the site has softened their sales pitch, sort of almost disguising it, but there is no secret that they represent corporate powers. It's only a thinly veiled secret that they intend to buy out the United States government to make their dream come true. The only secret is, how far they have progressed toward ownership of the government.
  For the past five presidential elections, both candidates were owned by the corporations. If I really dug, I could probably demonstrate the same for elections further back in history.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
13. Re:Nowhere fast by tftp · 2012-11-24 14:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If everyone did this, the game would change.
  Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
  cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
  What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
14. Re:Nowhere fast by fredprado · 2012-11-24 15:30 · Score: 2
  
  Keep thinking everything you or anybody else does is irrelevant and that will bring you far, my friend.
15. Re:Nowhere fast by Mitreya · 2012-11-24 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
  What makes you think they are trying to bring a real case? Megaupload is gone and buried. Servers are confiscated. Even the legitimate paid users have lost access to the files and are getting no compensation. Mission accomplished
  You think there will be any penalties assessed against anyone once this case predictably falls apart? I wouldn't hold my breath (though here's hoping he will at least sue someone...)
16. Re:Nowhere fast by Runaway1956 · 2012-11-24 17:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm not so sure that statement is true. Bearing in mind, there are three kinds of people in the world. Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and the biggest group, those who wonder what the hell happened.
  I'm in and out of the first two groups, on this and other issues. That other group? They are the enablers, who permit big media to do what they do. They aren't big media, they aren't the Axis, they are just there, giving tacit support to whatever government and big media might do in their names. The so-called sheeple. Hollywood, or any other member of the **AA tells them to go watch a movie for twenty bucks, the sheeple just say "Bahhh", and they run with the herd down to the cinema.
  Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . . .
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
17. Re:Nowhere fast by VortexCortex · 2012-11-24 17:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If everyone did this, the game would change.
  Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
  cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
  What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
  OVER 9000!
  You failed to realize rage is an irrational number roughly equivalent to 0.0001111111111 (repeating).
  The limit of your function expressed in the bironic form (Internet Math Notation), is approximately equivalent to: 1!!!11!!11!!!1one111111!11
  (whereby "!" replaces zeros, "one" is the fractional separator, to the right of which is the binary exponent).
  Protip: There is always a smarter smartass. Get on my level.
18. Re:Nowhere fast by maxwell+demon · 2012-11-24 18:26 · Score: 2
  
  If everyone did this, the game would change.
  Here is the formula for an average, per-citizen, rate of consumption of entertainment, in movies per year, as a function of geek rage:
  cons(rage) := 0.999*10 + 0.001*(1/rage)
  What is the limit of this function with rage going to infinity?
  9.99, of course.
  More interestingly, given that the number of movies you can consume per year is limited, this formula means that geek rage cannot go arbitrary close to zero.
  And those watching only few movies per year have a negative geek rage. For example, if you watch only 2 movies per year, your geek rage is -1/7990.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
19. Re:Nowhere fast by Tastecicles · 2012-11-24 18:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, Obama spent more, which puts lie to that. Half of Obama's Super PAC donations were of more than US$1m, while those of Romney's made up only a third of his total. So that puts lie to that as well.
  
  Do your homework BEFORE posting nonsense, not after.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
20. Re:Nowhere fast by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-11-24 19:31 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Just download LOIC and you're sorted (considered part of the Axis, that is..)
  Anything that requires you to use Mono is certainly Axis-worthy.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
21. Re:Nowhere fast by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-11-24 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I find it a bit challenging to feel any great remorse over Pakistan's violated honour, given that they (a) said "Yeah, yeah, UBL is teh evil, we want him dead, too" and then (b) harboured him, possibly for years...
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
22. Re:Nowhere fast by tlhIngan · 2012-11-24 20:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's where the FBI's case is going to go. Everything I've read tells me that the FBI, their Australian exponents, and the other parties involved broke too many regs to be able to bring a real case against Megaupload. This is just one more nail in the coffin.
  Even so, that's all they need to do. Even if they drop the entire case, they've shut down MegaUpload for a year and put an incredible scare on everyone else. And former MU customers have files of much less value.
  Digital data loses its value quick - if you're working on the next version of something and a competitor can get your computers seized for a year, that basically puts you out of business for that year, and probably completely out of business.
  Likewise, all of MU's customers have been stuck without their files. All the legit files are a year older and probably not as relevant today as it was a year ago, thus worth a lot less.
  Basically all that's happening is all of the MU assets are getting rapidly devalued, and a year or two down the road, even if it's returned untouched, plenty of irreparable harm has occurred. And that's all that matters.
23. Re:Nowhere fast by rtb61 · 2012-11-24 21:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You have just listed the beginning of damages, basically the US in-justice system will end up being the ones paying to create the newer, bigger and better MEGAUPLOAD, ohh the irony. Seriously what were the FBI thinking, this is so far beyond entrapment, it is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Catch is number one in the line of fine of a multi-million dollar even hundreds of million dollar lawsuit is the New Zealand government, for New Zealands hope you enjoyed sticking your rear hooves into the US in-Justice System gumboots, baah baah because you'll be the one paying the price. Of course now Kim Dotcomm can have fun dragging the US through the WTO for obstructing trade through criminal acts.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
24. Re:Nowhere fast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 22:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think you'll find the Australian authorities had nothing to do with it, since New Zealand is a completely separate country to Australia! ;)
  Yes, the ignorance around here is disgraceful. While New Zealand hasn't covered itself in glory here, that pales in insignificance next to Australia's crime of having given Adolf Hitler to the world. Not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger...
25. Re:Nowhere fast by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-11-24 22:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ehhh - someone will come along directly to tell me that I've lost all credibility with the word sheeple. Whatever . .
  
  Sounds a bit like you're ready at a moments notice to don spandex and take to the rooftops of Gotham, to setup a laptop and tweet. The sheeple thing, while bring trite, isn't the main reason I'd suspect you of being just another armchair revolutionary. Telling us what you make happen is a start, and why you're different from the legion of V/Neo wannabes who lurk in the shadows, ever vigilant and poised ready to write a blog post or something similar.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
26. Re:Nowhere fast by Runaway1956 · 2012-11-24 23:08 · Score: 2
  
  Don Spandex? Glad to meet you - although, I've never heard that name before. Is Spandex your family name, or did you just change your name to protect the innocent?
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
27. Re:Nowhere fast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 23:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If I read correctly the information on that page (i'm not familiar with the US election founding system), Super PAC for Obama is 7% of total while being 15% of total for Romney, so Obama got in total less donations above 1M than Romney.
  Almost 40% of it's total founding came through small donations under 200$, for Romney that percentage is 10%.
  if you do your homework, do it properly.
28. Re:Nowhere fast by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-11-24 23:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Changed the name. Don Hitler wasn't playing very well in my career writing erotic fiction for overweight women.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
29. Re:Nowhere fast by MartinG · 2012-11-25 01:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Having kids is no excuse. I do have kids and admittedly its more tempting to "give in" but I still manage not to support the MPAA or RIAA at all.
  
  --
  -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
30. Re:Nowhere fast by canadiannomad · 2012-11-25 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  Totally agree! /me drags file to his drop-box, uploads a file to his Google Drive and grabs a file from iCloud....
  
  --
  Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
31. Re:Nowhere fast by forand · 2012-11-25 02:05 · Score: 2
  
  Please mod parent up and grandparent down. While the Obama related Super PAC did raise a higher percentage of its total funds from large donation, not only was that total less than Romney's (7% for O and 15% for R) but while the AVERAGE was lower for R the top 3 single donators were all on the R side all almost 3 times the largest on the O side. Furthermore, the plots the article the grandparent linked to only tell part of the story: they do not cover the newest, largest arena of political spending PACs unassociated with a candidate (e.g. Carl Rove's Crossroads). These plays are the ones who spent large sums of money and do not need to disclose where the money came from nor even how much they spent. While these types of PACs are supposed to be unassociated with candidates, Propublica has done a number of in depth articles showing that it is just in name only.
32. Re:Nowhere fast by Runaway1956 · 2012-11-25 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  Mr. Wovel - look around you. How many people in your home town even knows the name of their congress critter? How many have any idea what's going on with ACTA, NPAA, and a buttload other measures aimed at government and corporate intrusion on your privacy? How many are aware of the ramifications of the Patriot Act, TSA, and ongoing debate about curtailing rights even further?
  I'm involved. How many of your homies are involved?
  I'm pretty sure that if you're to answer honestly, your numbers will be pretty close to my numbers. More than 90% of my acquaintances have no clue, and they can't be bothered to listen and to learn. And, they WON'T listen or learn, until someone close to them is imprisoned or bankrupted by the **AA.
  Special? Different? Anyone who stands up and is counted is different in this day and age. And, they are certainly NOT part of the herd.
  How long has it been since you wrote the occupant of the White House? Your congress critters? Even your mayor? Odds are with me, so I'll guess "never".
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
33. Re:Nowhere fast by tehcyder · 2012-11-25 21:59 · Score: 2
  
  Having kids is no excuse. I do have kids and admittedly its more tempting to "give in" but I still manage not to support the MPAA or RIAA at all.
  I bet your kids are really popular at school and never get teased for never having heard of Hanna Montana, or whatever.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wow. by ZephyrQ · 2012-11-24 13:39 · Score: 2

Just. Wow.
I guess that means that I shouldn't listen to what the government tells me to do...I could get sued--or arrested.
1. Re:Wow. by Tastecicles · 2012-11-24 15:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  they're the Federal Bureau* of Investigation. They are an office of the Government. Ergo, they are the Government.
  *From the French, literally office.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No, over 2000 users uploaded these files. Mega is trying to use the structure of their site where they hashed an upload and only kept one copy of the file to say that because there was only copy and because NinjaVideo had uploaded 36 of these files at some point (because NinjaVideo uploaded thousands if not hundreds of thousands of files), they couldn't delete those files because the order from the DHS instructed them not to. But that's a ridiculous assertion— even if they were told not to delete the files (really they were just told not to delete the NinjaVideo account, so they're using a liberal interpretation to include these files) they had an obligation to prevent the files from being used for further illegal purposes.
  Phrased another way, a court order requiring preservation does not mean Mega is allowed to continue to allow others access to those files and continue to break the law. Those 36 files were accessed, downloaded, and shared illegally after the point at which they were required to be preserved, and access removed under the DMCA.
  Mega cannot use a design component of the site which was done for cost purposes, as a defense against criminal liability.
3. Re:Wow. by SuricouRaven · 2012-11-24 21:21 · Score: 2
  
  It could be argued that they could use the hash to more effectively police infringing content: Once a file is reported, they could have pulled all uploads of that hash and blocked new ones. But this would be a poor idea, because it'd be trivial for pirates to circumvent by just changing one byte (Like a padding file in a rar archive, or a new password), so all it'd really do is raise their cost of storage substantially in return for delaying pirates by about three minutes.
4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 23:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It isn't. MegaUpload DID make infringing links nonfunctional promptly upon report.
  The indictment (have you read it?) is that they didn't take down the underlying files which were still accessible via other links which had NOT yet been reported as infringing.
  I'm not sure how this gels with the language of DMCA 512(c) which states "remove OR DISABLE ACCESS TO" [emphasis mine], but that demonstrates bad faith on the part of the FBI.
5. Re:Wow. by tehcyder · 2012-11-25 22:28 · Score: 2
  
  In the UK, the "government" refers to the majority party in power. So at the moment the government is made up of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is a Tory prime minister, and so on. You wouldn't say that Labour MPs are part of the government. Organisations like the police or military or social services are part of the state, but not really controlled by the government in any direct way.
  Maybe the usage is different in the US.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 13:49 · Score: 5, Informative

The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?
I'm not shocked. That's normal now.
Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...
1. Re:And? by jamstar7 · 2012-11-24 16:30 · Score: 2
  
  The goverment bought and paid for by hollywood over the last decade would pull out every illegal dirty trick to get there way once again?
  I'm not shocked. That's normal now. Best get used to that kind of shit. This is the path we have chosen. Or someone did...
  You bend over and get fucked, me, i'm going to fight it.
  I'll save you a spot in the chow line at Gitmo.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Actually.. by erroneus · 2012-11-24 14:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Speculate much? Imaginative speculation anyway.
No. The content industry has a continuous campaign against internet companies which help to distribute material. The same players have gotten other country's law enforcement to act on their behalf even when what they were doing wasn't actually illegal. Getting the US enforcement agencies (note I did not call them law enforcement... just 'enforcement') to break the law in such an overt way is proof of the power and influence these content providers carry.
I will not miss them. They are a cancer on progress. Volunteer entertainers are popping up everywhere just to get a million likes instead of a million dollars. They can't compete against that kind of currency.
Re:It's evidence. by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-24 14:02 · Score: 2

It's evidence. You expect the FBI to tell them to destroy the evidence?
Read the summary.
Teh FBI wants to have it both ways.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
correct me if i'm wrong? by arbiter1 · 2012-11-24 14:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

But there is something in the law that protects megaupload from this kinda BS. They complied with a search warrant and held the files on their system like FBI asked, now they are being shut down cause they kept them.
1. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by asmkm22 · 2012-11-24 14:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.
2. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by girlintraining · 2012-11-24 14:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But there is something in the law that protects megaupload from this kinda BS. They complied with a search warrant and held the files on their system like FBI asked, now they are being shut down cause they kept them.
  There is nothing in the law that protects them. The law is there to protect the FBI and enable it to do whatever it wants. For example, it's been legal for the past several years for evidence collected from a search warrant to be used even if the search warrant is later found to be invalid. Evidence collected without a search warrant is also admissable; The so-called "poisoned fruit" laws were struck down by our new, ultra-conservative, supreme court. And establishing probable cause has gotten a whole lot easier thanks to expansion of police powers -- for example, let's say your tail light is busted, your criminal record is totally clean, but the officer suspects you may have drugs in the vehicle. That suspicion alone is a reason to call over the K-9 unit and allow it to crawl all over, under, and around the vehicle. If it barks, that's cause to search the vehicle. And by search, I mean completely dismantle and leave on the side of the road in pieces. Oh... and you're responsible for the tow. Even if they still find nothing. Bonus: Dogs were found to only be effective about 2/3rds of the time in a recent study... and had a false positive rate of 1 in 8. In other words, 15% of the time, the dog indicated the presence of drugs when none were found (even in trace amounts).
  Don't kid yourself... procedural mistakes won't derail the case. Maybe, in bygone days, the police were required to follow all laws and procedures and if they screwed up the guy walked, but not anymore. Getting tough on crime means that we now don't let little problems like a lack of evidence, or tainted evidence, get in the way of justice. And of course, then there's confessions... -_- Many of which are forced out of suspects.
  The police don't care who their guy is; They just need a guy. There are no innocent people in the world anymore... there's just guilty, and not yet guilty.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by Tastecicles · 2012-11-24 15:13 · Score: 2
  
  the FBI kept the investigation open. That they served the search warrant two years before they seized the computers stinks of entrapment, since it is an offence to destroy evidence pertinent to an investigation (it's called spoliation). MU didn't break the law in this case, the FBI did.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
4. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-11-24 15:22 · Score: 2
  
  You mean like "entrapment"?
5. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by Nyder · 2012-11-24 16:14 · Score: 2
  
  Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.
  There is a paper trail. Do you think the FBI just called up on the phone and said, "Kim, old buddy, please keep these files because we are investigating it?".
  No, they send paper work. And combined with the paper work the FBI gave the court, is showing that something is funky.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
6. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-11-24 16:43 · Score: 2
  
  The police can't ask you to do something then arrest you for doing it.
  NEVER step off your property to talk to a cop if they've asked you to after you've been drinking then. Cops can arrest you for whatever they want. Anything. Whatever they think of at the time. In the worst cases you might have some comeback against the police, but in the vast majority of the cases the charges are dropped and you're kicked to the street. In the worst of the cases, you're let out of jail 30 years later because a modern look at the evidence shows you had nothing to do with it. More then a few people have sat in jail for a long time for having done nothing other then being black at the wrong place at the wrong time.
7. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by X.25 · 2012-11-24 18:22 · Score: 2
  
  Possibly. It depends on how much truth there is behind both sides claims. Neither the Feds nor Kim have much credibility here, and both have a history of distorting as much truth as possible to get their way. I don't envy the ones who have to try and cut through the bullshit and figure out exactly what needs to be done.
  How, exactly, you figured that Dotcom has no 'credibility'?
  Pretty much everything he said since the case began was true, he didn't even need to distort anything.
  Could you give me examples of the 'distortion'?
8. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by rtfa-troll · 2012-11-24 20:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Entrapment? OK, maybe there was entrapment, but why would the FBI even need to do that? Megaupload was swamped with freely downloadable copyrighted material. Users paying for premium access to download that stuff was Megaload's cheif source of income.
  Most likely because, any time someone gave them a correct notice, Megaupload would delete that stuff on demand. This means that what they were doing was legal under the terms of the DMCA and equivalent rules all around the world. The FBI needed a way to interfere with that process so that Megaupload would behave "illegally" so that by the time they found out about the trick, the FBI would have got some dirt on them (on the principle that everybody is guilty; they just don't know it yet).
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
9. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by rtfa-troll · 2012-11-24 20:34 · Score: 2
  
  DMCA is a US law. Megaupload wasn't a US site.
  The FBI is trying to charge him under US law. Without the warrant trick, the DMCA would stop them from doing that.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
10. Re:correct me if i'm wrong? by fafalone · 2012-11-24 21:24 · Score: 2
  
  The sad thing is you've vastly overestimated the accuracy of drug dogs. According to one study, in the field, it's under 50% for all drivers (alert resulting in finding drugs). Alerts where the driver was Hispanic was under 30% successful. In a performance test, if there was a sausage in the car, or if the handler believed there were drugs in the car, the success rate was only 14%-- that means 86% of the time the dog alerted there were no drugs found, so maybe you just got that mixed up. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/supreme-court-considers-t_1_b_2063820.html)
  
  Another bonus: A drug dog alerting to cash you have is enough for the police to seize that cash (despite the vast majority of US currency having drugs on it), and you have a costly legal battle ahead if you want it back.
How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?" by bogaboga · 2012-11-24 14:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

'When the FBI applied to seize the Megaupload site in 2012, it said the company had failed to delete pirated content and cited the earlier search warrant against the continued existence of 36 of the same 39 files.' He added: '[t]he FBI used the fact the files were still in the account of the ... user to get the warrant to seize our own domains. This is outrageous.'"
So is this how things are run in "The Nation of Laws?" If whatever was done is lawful, then I rather stay put.
Someone will have a lot of work to convince me to immigrate to the USA.
1. Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?" by sumdumass · 2012-11-24 15:19 · Score: 2
  
  No one ever showed Nixon committed crimes. He was pardoned before any trial or real insight to them happened. I know it's popular to claim he was a crooks, but even the real crooks claim Nixon wasn't involved and all but one claim they were going after evidence of a prostitution ring. IT should be noted, two of the agents behind the break ins were then and are still now democrats, only one of them claimed Nixon sent them or it was anything pertaining to the election. The only thing left is a gap in a recording that congress demanded- but it seems like the presidents of any party claims executive privilege all the time now so that's sort of a wash.
  However, I find what happened, the FBI broke into the campaign headquarters to be little different then the current practice of democrat operatives infiltrating republican fund raisers and video or audio taping the strategies then releasing what they think might be damaging to the public.
  What I'm getting at is not that Nixon was innocent or anything. It's just that there is enough plausible deniability and current situations are so close to those, it doesn't seem like any crime happened. I mean what is the difference other then technical when someone pretends to be a donor in order to gather campaign information that is secrete or embarrassing and breaking into an office for the same?
2. Re:How can this happen in "The nation of Laws?" by rtfa-troll · 2012-11-24 20:44 · Score: 2
  
  If this was a matter of preserving the actual files, the FBI could simply download them and preserve them themselves (they are allowed to do that kind of thing in gathering evidence). The only reasonable reason they would need to keep the files in place would be to prove who was downloading them. In this case, blocking access would be interfering with that.
  Now, it's theoretically possible that they meant "please preserve the access information for the files and the data whilst blocking downloading because we are so incompetent we can't do it ourselves". However, if they didn't make that 100% clear then they are fully responsible for the consequences.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Newcrime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-24 14:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

The trial is the punishment.
Re:It's evidence. by queazocotal · 2012-11-24 14:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Legal requirements on technology companies are often poorly written, and not actually sensible, as the lawyers involved may not properly understand the internet.
It's quite plausible that they used standard boilerplate 'Do not delete, modify, or ...the file at http://.../ which could not reasonably be read as allowing them to be pulled offline, as that would be a modification.
Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story ... by raymorris · 2012-11-24 14:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Hidden at the bottom of the story, in internal emails Mega said they had 2,000 users with those 39 infringing files. They weren't supposed to delete the NinjaVideo account, but what about the other 1,999? If you believe one side is right, why not tell the truth about why that side is right? Why the need to mislead and lie? (Answer - writers try to mislead users users like tnat when they know the truth isn't on their side.)
Re:Misleading. Hidden at the bottom of the story . by Baloroth · 2012-11-24 16:42 · Score: 3, Informative

You expect me to believe that Megaupload couldn't not-link those other 1,999 people to those files? Really? Maybe they had to keep the files, but they certainly didn't have to allow a bunch of other people to create links to and download it.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:The FBI fight crime at any cost by Tastecicles · 2012-11-24 18:51 · Score: 2

The FBI are NOT above the Law! First and foremost, they are bound by the US Constitution. Secondly, they are bound by domestic Law, and for operation outside the borders, by International Law. Yes, they routinely break and violate and basically arserape all three jurisdictions, and they get away with it. Why? BECAUSE NOBODY IS SAYING TO THEM, "STOP! WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!"

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Not anymore. by boorack · 2012-11-24 21:37 · Score: 2

Sould their sales tank, they'd just request federal bailout and you would pay them through your taxes. Or they'd push a low through congress that would make NOT buying their crapola products for two months in a row a felony. They don't need to do this YET as most of people are still dumbed down consumers - just look at some of black friday fiascos on youtube. Welcome to brave new, post-2008 corporate-fascist world.