Slashdot Mirror


Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

New submitter seoras sends news that PayPal is now refusing to handle payments for Mega, Kim Dotcom's cloud storage service. A report (PDF) issued in September of last year claimed Mega and other "cyberlocker" sites made a great deal of illicit money off piracy. Mega disputes this, of course, and says the report caused U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy to pressure credit card companies to stop working with Mega. Those companies then pressured PayPal to stop as well. The hosting company claims, "MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA’s business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal’s queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA."

136 comments

  1. Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MEGA should start to use bitcoin, it could use a bit of fresh publicity.

    1. Re:Bitcoin by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      Paypal has blocked other accounts for purely political reasons. It was a pretty big deal a few years ago.

    2. Re:Bitcoin by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It already works. Just pay through hosting.co.uk and select Bitcoin. I'm in the US and it worked for me.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  2. this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the banks are not to big to fail, and should have been allowed to. There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions. while kim dotcom might not be the best person in the world, there is no reason for this continued harassment

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions

      Last I heard, mega was a business. The banks terminated their business dealings with mega.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:this is one more reason by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

      sounds like we need to SCRAP the banking system and start all over, if this is truly the case. too much depends on the ability to move money around, in this world, and banks can basically kill you (pretty much literally, over time, of course) if they want to.

      this is NOT RIGHT. its unamerican, its anti-freedom, its unacceptable.

      keep fueling the revolution, boys. sooner or later, y'all will be up against the wall.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:this is one more reason by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      guilty until proven innocent.

      oh, and we don't care if you try to defend yourself, we've already made up our mind.

      the US lawmakers are a bunch of spoiled children....

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      banks should not be free to decide who they can do business with. If a baker cant decide they dont want to do business with a couple they disagree with, a bank should not be able to do so either.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very similar to a constant of integration. When you take the derivative of a constant, it vanishes, so the differential equation remains satisfied.

    6. Re:this is one more reason by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions

      Last I heard, mega was a business. The banks terminated their business dealings with mega.

      Banks do business with their customers who do things like tell the bank to give X dollars to business Y. The bank's aren't doing business with MEGA, they are doing business with their customers.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:this is one more reason by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Apostrophe abuse included deliberately.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    8. Re:this is one more reason by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      PayPal is not a bank. Visa and MasterCard are not governments.

    9. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, we could always start a movement to pressure anks to stop doing business with Senator Leahy or his campaign, etc....

    10. Re: this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not directly the banks. Its political. See the article at torrentfreak for more information. Paypal acknowledged their business is legit but booted them anyway. Why America does this to scare away foreign business is insane. I know i would not host any services in the US and would avoid US payment services as best I can. This just paves the way for foreign businesses to collect a cut. So who wants a cut of all the monthly payments flowing through mega? Any EU, RU, CN etc?

      http://torrentfreak.com/under-u-s-pressure-paypal-nukes-mega-for-encrypting-files-150227/

    11. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      The banks and paypal are NOT picking the people they do business with. They are choosing not to do business with another business.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yes, that is exactly what they are doing it. you can put lawyer speak up all you want but it doesnt change anything. people in the US are being stripped from doing legit business with other businesses on the basis of what exactly? that they dont like encryption?? that they dont like kim dotcom?? what legal reason would they have from getting in the middle and preventing legitimate business to take place???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Banks and PayPal don't want to do business with the company. Kim Dotcom is NOT the company. So whether Kim Dotcom is guilty or not is a side issue.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If someone walks into a store that has a sign saying "No bare feet", they're not going to get served. Same if they are publicly known to have a contagious disease (like Ebola). Someone drops a glass and the guy in bare feet cuts his foot, who's gonna pay? Mega gets seized, who's going to pay for the charge-backs?

      It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      If you don't have an active merchant account with a cc processor, the customer can whine all they want - the bank will not follow the customer's order to send money to the merchant. In this case, Visa, Mastercharge, and PayPal have all cancelled mega's account.

      Personally, I have no sympathy for mega. This just goes to show how risky it is to store your stuff "in the cloud."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "If someone barefoot walks into a store that has a sign saying 'No bare feet' "

      It's a safety and liability issue, same as you can't go onto an active construction site without a hard hat and security boots.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:this is one more reason by hjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. That's why I refuse service to blacks.

      If a black walks into my shop he is very likely to carry a gun and rob me.

      It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

    18. Re:this is one more reason by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would that also be like the banks refusing to do business with gun and ammo manufactures because...reasons? Or how about the US feds illegally seizing assets from small and medium businesses because "reasons" as well.

      This entire thing comes down to one thing, they're attempting to cut off the financial lifeline to his business because they don't like him/it/whatever. Even though the business he's operating is legal.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:this is one more reason by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Now we just need the big banks to refuse to do business with the other big cloud providers. Start with Apple, Microsoft and Amazon's cloud services. We can extend the list as we go along.

    20. Re:this is one more reason by khchung · · Score: 4, Interesting

      banks should not be free to decide who they can do business with. If a baker cant decide they dont want to do business with a couple they disagree with, a bank should not be able to do so either.

      It cut both ways.

      Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

      How about their representatives? Or known associates? Or some front business that don't seems to do transactions like the business they claimed to be, but more like they are just a front for the drug lords?

      How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

      How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

      How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)?

      Yes, it is a slippery slope. So, where do you draw the line?

      --
      Oliver.
    21. Re: this is one more reason by daniel23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "America" - or rather the commerce/3-letter/politico corporatistic conglomerate rooted in the US of A - does it cause it believes it can. They feel they have a monopoly in the field of international money transfer and when I take a look at my options to transfer money to a internet based business in NZ or in fact even at home (within the EU) they do.
      It is Visa or MasterCard of Paypal. and apparently all of them listen when a US senator tells them with whom they should not make business.

      Why is it that basic backgound infrastructure like financial networks, social media, internet search, is so firmly in US hands an there is no serious competitor based in a different locale?
      It might be that constantly waging war against half the planet supplies better means to establish worldwide networks.

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    22. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".

      You either decide the government rules apply to ALL or apply to NONE, they don't only apply to "people you don't like" or you are no differnet than a racist or slaver (and yes, that is exactly what you were implying)

    23. Re:this is one more reason by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody is stopping people in the US from doing business with mega. Send an international money order. People do it all the time. And if you trust them so much, you can always send cash.

      It's not so much trust in the business on the other end that keeps me from sending cash through the mail, it's all the people in the middle that are handling the cash-filled mail. The business has a huge incentive to not rip off their customers since a customer that doesn't get what he paid for will soon be an ex-customer.

      http://www.masslive.com/news/i...
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
      http://www.wickedlocal.com/art...

      If postal workers knew that every envelope addressed to Mega had cash in it, they'd be a huge theft target.

    24. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no, its really not. give the banks protection from the people who use their services. meaning dont hold the banks responsible for the actions of the acct holder. banks should be like common carriers

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    25. Re:this is one more reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Nobody is stopping people in the US from doing business with mega. Send an international money order. People do it all the time. And if you trust them so much, you can always send cash.

      And you get your own drinking fountain, too!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, another dude too lazy to press the shift key at the start of a sentence.
      Soo annoying...

    27. Re:this is one more reason by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, you are a fucking moron.

      Anyone could do business with mega...Just show up with cash, or gold coins, or a couple of fucking sheep. Is that your position?

      So what's on the list of "disapproved" businesses now?

      Sex
      Weapons
      Ammunition
      Whatever the fuck Mega does

      Who's next?
      Publications that won't print the party line?
      Manufacturers who won't hire illegals?

      With your stupid, cavalier attitude of "just use cash" (Have I called you a fucking moron yet?) you are enabling the Feds to pick and choose business to kill by merely whispering into the ear of financial services.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re:this is one more reason by sycodon · · Score: 1

      No.

      Charge the banks with the responsibility of looking at who is using their services and for what. If it's fishy, report it and let the law take its course.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    29. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Assuming you are white he has actually every right to rob you since your ancestors
      put his ancestors in slavery. That was after your ancestors' ancestors robbed the
      land you have your shop in from the native inhabitants.
      So which color is the real thief ?

    30. Re:this is one more reason by Tom · · Score: 1

      guilty until proven innocent.

      If you have the long laundry list of crimes that Kimble has, and everyone with any interest in the subject is wondering how you're still not in jail, then yes, that is the proper approach.

      Don't get me wrong, in a court of law, I'm all for the innocence assumption. But outside, in the real world, when you're dealing with a career criminal then for your own safety you should assume that he's not suddenly turned into a little angel just because you are such a sweety to him.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:this is one more reason by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      no, its really not. give the banks protection from the people who use their services. meaning dont hold the banks responsible for the actions of the acct holder. banks should be like common carriers

      Like government backing? Or insurance?

    32. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

      Of course. That is none of their business. Unfortunately, in many countries the law says otherwise and they have no choice to refrain from doing business wiht certain people and organisations, but if you think about it, that is ridiculous.

      How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

      How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

      Sure, why not? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that and even if it were, it is none of the bank's business.

      How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)

      The problem here is the US government exerting pressure. It shouldn't meddle with these things.
      Again, why not

    33. Re:this is one more reason by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      If someone walks into a store that has a sign saying "No bare feet", they're not going to get served.

      Oh, is that what that means? Damn. I had always assumed they were simply out of stock. I don't know what I was thinking.

    34. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had points i'd mod you the FUCK up

    35. Re: this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping a service like iDeal will catch on in all European countries.

    36. Re:this is one more reason by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".

      A baker cannot refuse to do business with a person because of that person's protected status, like gender, race, etc etc.

      A baker _can_ refuse to do business with a person that he dislikes, for example with a supporter of a football club that the baker dislikes, or with a person that has caused trouble in the store before.

      Banks can refuse to do business for the same reasons. Now the bank manager will not refuse service to a person that he dislikes, not because it would be illegal (it isn't) but because his bank doesn't like losing business. But he will refuse service to a person or company that will cause the bank trouble.

    37. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Not the same thing. You're engaging in stereotyping, nowadays called profiling. There is no reason to believe that every black who walks into your shop is carrying a gun. However, there is every reason to believe that someone who walks into a restaurant with bare feet is at risk of cutting their foot should a glass get dropped.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    38. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Hey, they aren't putting mega out of business. Mega can still accept cash, money orders, bitcrap, and chickens in payment. They can even start their own PayPal competitor if they want.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    39. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with that. I've hated "the cloud" as an attempt to re-brand servers on the internet. And even more after those dumb microsoft cloud commercials a few years ago.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    40. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They can change the mailing address every week, with no mention of it being a drop-off for mega.

      The vast majority of cash and cash equivalents sent through the mail doesn't get stolen.

      The post office employees know which envelopes contain credit cards, but they're still sent through the mail.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    41. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      Anyone could do business with mega...Just show up with cash, or gold coins, or a couple of fucking sheep. Is that your position?

      There's this thing called the post office. And you don't trust the USPS, there's always FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.

      Or they can accept the latest darling of digital hipsters, bitcoins.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    42. Re:this is one more reason by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, that's how it works now. Part of being a bank and qualifying for FDIC insurance is reporting all financial transactions over a certain amount, which used to be US$10k. Dunno about now. I'd guess $5k.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:this is one more reason by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

      It's about having your cake and eating it too. Banks and credit card companies have succesfully integrated themselves into the society so it can't function without them. They're too big to fail, and can thus take insane risks and the profits associated with them, secure in the knowledge they'll get saved on public dime should those risks turn sour. So why should society not force them to pay the price: make them serve the public good even when that's not in their personal best interests?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    44. Re:this is one more reason by PRMan · · Score: 1

      According to Revelation, it's Christians.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    45. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is the exact problem with Libertarian ideology. Consumers are left at the mercy of the political whims of the businesses that fulfill critical financial and political roles in society. The ideology hinges on the flawed assumption that open competition will automatically give consumers sufficient choice to locate and employ the services of firms compatible with their own beliefs. Even if it were possible, if you think a lot of productivity is lost by business filling out government paperwork, just wait until every citizen in the country has to thoroughly sift through multiple firms before hiring them for each and every service they need to check for a history of fraud, their environmental records, their political activities, etc.

    46. Re:this is one more reason by sudon't · · Score: 1

      So, where do you draw the line?

      You don't. Or rather, the bank doesn't. The law does.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    47. Re:this is one more reason by doccus · · Score: 1

      Businesses ARE people. Legally.

    48. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even bothered to read the news about FedEx lately? They refused shipment on a 3d printer because it was marketed as being able to print gun parts. USPS can throw away packages whenever they see things as being "unfit to mail" which has a short official list and an clause to let them throw out your mail whenever they wish.

      Ignorance abounds.

    49. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But his ancestors kicked my ancestors out of Africa, therefore fuckem. See how easy that gets?

    50. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is NOT RIGHT. its unamerican, its anti-freedom, its unacceptable

      Compared to what exactly? Capitalism is anti-freedom and unacceptable too (if you are on the end of the boot). You could regulate banks, have a few handled by the government whose main purpose is not profit but helping people and the economy, but that would be COMMUNISM.

    51. Re:this is one more reason by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Eh? Banks are known to regularly open and operate accounts for all of the organizations you mention (especially the big international ones with private banking facilities).

      It usually only seems to be when the US gets pissy that the bank in question is called out, sued, pays a fine, stops doing business with that entity (at least in that entities current form) and what have you.

      The same is true here: it wasn't until some US politician got pissy that he went to Visa/MC to say "stop processing their stuff", who then went to Paypal to say "do what you do best": until then, Paypal had been happy to process the payments. I only hate to think about how much of Mega's money is being held to ransom by Paypal.

      Companies providing financial services (even Paypal) usually have a list of industries they'll not do business with, stating rather specifically that if you're in one of those industries, you won't be granted an account and you need to find a high-risk payment processor that is willing to take on the kind of risk involved... these high-risk merchants usually cost more in transaction fees and whatnot to reflect the risk.

      Frankly, this is a political overstep, penalizing a non-US company that - at least this time - does not even have any assets in the United States. Visa/MC/Paypal should have told the politician to fuck off (I assume Mega's Paypal account is not running through Paypal's US entity, so there is the issue of jurisdictional overreach as well), although to be fair, I'd never have offered payments by Paypal in the first place.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    52. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. He was obviously making a satirical post.

    53. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      None of those have restrictions on mailing a $20 bill.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    54. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      His satirical post raised a seemingly valid point. Since when are people "f*cking morons" for addressing it? See, for example, George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV, and how the list is out of date because at least half of them are not bleeped out in, say, news interviews on the 6 o'clock news.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    55. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no but what if the post office decides its going to "lose" all mail addressed to mega?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    56. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      libertarians are not the ones doing this, big government is tying the hands of business. See the bigger picture

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    57. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, there's always FedEx, UPS, DHL.
      Second, they can just have a new mailing address every few days, same as scammers move from one internet address to another, same with telemarketers.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    58. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's the whole point... Kim's current MEGA business is not illegal, but they're ostracizing him anyway. There's no real reason banks shouldn't be doing business with him except for someone stepping in and saying "no, because reasons."

    59. Re:this is one more reason by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So a company who has a source of income from another business is leaned on by the government for "reasons" and you're okay with that. Sounds genius, that's not an over-reach of federal power at all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    60. Re:this is one more reason by phorm · · Score: 1

      "They can even start their own PayPal competitor if they want."

      Not so useful is said competitor is blocked from accepting debit/credit payments.

    61. Re:this is one more reason by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Send them money to keep your account balance in the black.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    62. Re:this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aaaaaaaaaaaaand your now on a list.

  3. Demonstrating why I will never use PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to their greed they regulate, seize and freeze capriciously. I would trust homeless meth addicts with delivery of my funds over them.

    1. Re:Demonstrating why I will never use PayPal by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

      i havent used them in probably 6 years now. I was selling diecast cars and someones order got held up at the border (canadian) so it arrived late. he put in a complain with paypal who took my money and added fees. once the die cast car arrived and he submitted the note to get it fixed on my side they did, but they still wanted their fees. and they would not cancel them eventhough I had done nothing wrong

      so today I still "owe" paypal about 10-15 bucks, that they will never get out of me. they are a horrible company

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Demonstrating why I will never use PayPal by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I recognised PayPal as a scam from the outset. Never used them, never will.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. Hey, what party does Leahy belong to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You kinda left that out...

    1. Re:Hey, what party does Leahy belong to? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      that tells you all you need to know about which party he is in.

      if they dont say it, you can bet its a democrat

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re: Hey, what party does Leahy belong to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a Democrat

  5. Oh great by pellik · · Score: 1

    Now we're going to need lobbyists to represent our banking interests to the corrupt bankers.

    1. Re:Oh great by knightghost · · Score: 1

      You are correct. DC runs by lobbyists because voters don't make intelligent decisions. If you want any influence then the $ is the only real vote.

    2. Re:Oh great by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Voters are a lot like the constitution, they only count in a democracy. The mob doesn't run a democracy.

  6. What presure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What pressure? Mega is doing nothing wrong, by PayPal's admission.
    Their excuse is "Well, they use encryption." What, and Paypal *doesn't* use encryption? If it didn't, that would be one hell of a reason to drop PayPal immediately.

    Fuck off with that shit. Admit it, your CEOs were paid off or otherwise coerced by certain government agencies, and has absolutely nothing to do with law or morals.

    1. Re:What presure? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh crap, my bank website uses encryption, paypal uses encryption. Windows uses encryption. Politicians use encryption, the media uses encryption, the NSA uses encryption. Humans use encryption.

      There can be only one logical answer.

      ENCRYPTION IS A TERRORIST! AND THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS SYMPATHIZERS!

    2. Re:What presure? by matbury · · Score: 4, Informative

      What they meant was that Mega.co.nz use end-to-end encryption and users hold the keys, not Mega. It's impossible for any government to put a gag order on Mega and then force them to hand over the keys, because they haven't got them to hand over. Like Silent CIrcle and LavaBit before, if a service provider offers real privacy and security, the govt. do whatever they must to compromise it or shut it down. Once you understand this, you understand that Google, Apple Inc., etc.'s talk about encrypting stuff and protecting their users' privacy is ineffectual hot air.

      The five eyes; USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia; believe we have no right to privacy. And if they can get at our online accounts, so can hackers and criminals.

    3. Re:What presure? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nothing stops you from encrypting your own files and storing them on any cloud storage service. A service like Dropbox will do the encryption for you if you like, but there's obvious privacy consequences there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Bullied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the bullying, sanctions, and alike are clear example for why entities should become completely self efficient and use technologies which are completely open. The EU, NATO, IMF, and other trade agreements are made for just one reason - to bully others if they don't do as asked.

    We the people should tell our governments to not enter any of such agreements to remain independent.

  8. A new judicial system? by jmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This type of activity is quickly becoming a judicial system of sorts. If you do not play by our rules we will destroy you.

    1. Re:A new judicial system? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      interesting point.

      banks are not voted on, not representative, no checks and balances (lol) and they are not answerable to the population on anything they do.

      so WHY are we leaving matters of legality to banks? they are not legal institutions and should not have 'boycott' power!!

      you know, I wish the joker (in the movie) did slice lehey's throat. its a bad thing to say, but since he's not a very nice person, I don't feel bad about wishing harm on him.

      damn. the american system of 'justice' is such a laughing stock. we now seem to be the world's most powerful banana republic...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:A new judicial system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days it only costs a few thousand to get your genome sequenced. And there are lots of people with severe genetic disorders where the causative mutation hasn't been identified. There's a huge need for innovative organizations to analyze genomes of people with these severe genetic disorders.

      And there are a few facilities around the world that do such things. Unfortunately, such facilities are located in western countries (e.g. Baylor in the USA and Nijmegen in the Netherlands) where they face insane stifling regulations. Basically, the regulations assume that sitting down at a computer and analyzing a genome is just as dangerous to a patient as major brain surgery.

      The bottom line is that a facility that didn't face such stifling regulation could be easily an order of magnitude cheaper and faster than the existing services. And once a causative mutation was identified in such a cheap and fast unregulated facility, the result could be inexpensively verified in a one of the slow and expensive regulated facilities (much like it's easy to verify that a password is correct but hard to figure it out in the first place if you don't know it).

      But the fly in the ointment would be payments. Even if the cheap and fast facility was complying with the local laws of the foreign country, eventually there would be successful pressure to shut off payments from the players in the western countries who are deriving enormous profits from their monopoly positions that result from the stifling regulation.

    3. Re:A new judicial system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you do not play by our rules we will destroy you.

      US, the land of the free ... what a lie that is.

      When the curtain gets pulled back, what's behind the curtain looks similar to
      what is happening in countries we like to view as repressive regimes.

    4. Re:A new judicial system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This type of activity is quickly becoming a judicial system of sorts."

      You must be new here. You're under the strange idea "the law" serves "the people", it doesn't. Twas always thus, what is "illegal" or "criminal" is defined by the powers that be.

      I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." [p. 10]

      "War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

      http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/

      Billy moyers, secret government 1987

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28K2CO-khdY

  9. Why so many racists posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why so many hateful racists in this community find it their calling to be low lifes?

    1. Re:Why so many racists posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why so many hateful racists in this community find it their calling to be low lifes?

      Because the law in the US is biased towards the right of free expression in detriment to the right of being respected as a human being. These two rights are always in a delicate balance and it's hard not to protect one more than another. This site is owned by people who think that way, I suppose.

      My country chose the exact opposite. While one can be free to think whatever he wants -- and certainly we have our share of racists -- no none is free to abuse the rights of others regarding respect. In particular, Negros are also protected by law from being harassed. It's jail time for someone who posts racist comments. It's more or less like rape accusations in the US.

      I believe the entire US is not that racist; OTOH this is a problem which probably will keep on causing great suffering for yet some time; if bullying among kids is not acceptable, why accept it when done by adults?

      To the people who have to endure that on a daily basis, congratulations for loving the country enough to bear such treatment from your "compatriots"; I'd consider emigrating, since obviously you're not welcome to participate in the American Dream.

  10. This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

    1. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we have a winner!

    2. Re:This is really about their encryption by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

      "the US" includes me. And think encryption is fabulous. You probably should have said "the US law-enforcement / law-writing / Disney-Sony industrial complex" rather than "the US".

    3. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Statistics says that you voted for one of the two major parties and that you have a lot of friends and family that did the same.
      You might not see it as supporting the kind of bullshit the US government is doing, but you do.

      But talking politics with friends and family that doesn't share your opinion isn't pleasant. Perhaps it is just easier to shut up and let the government create more enemies for you.

    4. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Perhaps it is just easier to shut up and let the government create more enemies for you.

      This!

      The average American is probably very likable, just like a Canadian or a Mexican, depending on where we look. But there are psychos and many took over power positions.

      But is to easy to wage wars without enemies. I wonder if they'll find new intelligence about NZ having WMD (they don't need to have them for real, it's just one of those "truths" war creates).

      PS: I'm not affiliated with Mega. I don't use their service (even legally). I mostly don't use clouds. I personally already boycott American films, cars, computers and other expensive items. My family though does watch entertainment from the US (we got cable). I buy Huawei just because the NSA doesn't like it (insecure, yeah, sure, nice try). I don't know if the guy did or not anything wrong. What I know is the US is spending quite a lot of taxpayer money with the aim of getting embarrassed by being caught acting WAY outside of international law. Well, since I'm boycotting it's not like my money is on that, so suit yourselves. If I were that Kim dude, I'd try another line of business; it's not like these guys are giving a rat's ass for any kind of law.

    5. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the advantages of monarchy is the people don't get the blame for always being ruled by complete evil bastards. Anything a democracy (or, as it the case everywhere nowadays, a republic with democratically-elected rulers) does, on the other hand, can and should be blamed on its citizens since the majority of them are responsible for it.

    6. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory in Iran. This does not cause me to blame the Iranian people for the actions of their government.

    7. Re:This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics says that you voted for one of the two major parties and that you have a lot of friends and family that did the same.
      You might not see it as supporting the kind of bullshit the US government is doing, but you do.

      But talking politics with friends and family that doesn't share your opinion isn't pleasant. Perhaps it is just easier to shut up and let the government create more enemies for you.

      Political races in the US are much closer than elsewhere. Identical statistical rules also say that you, me, and everyone else on the planet is female. That does not make reality. It is a mockery of reality.

  11. I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Its time to take a serious look at paypal. Even under US law this is anti competitive on the grounds that they still supply other similar businesses and not Mega.

    Of course the law seams to be less important to the US lately so I am not surprised that they would ok this illegal action.

    Time to bring legal action against paypal on the international stage, and if they claim there are only held to US law then that's fine let them be held to that set of laws and bar them from any international business as they do not respect the laws in the countries they deal with.

    1. Re:I think by jmd · · Score: 2

      Yes this is the global stage. The US is but one actor in the global stage.

      Unfortunately, the global framework of laws being developed are not political laws between countries but rather laws with roots in capitalism and finance. Humanity is being left out of the equation. Look at the TPP ... well from what you can find to read considering the negotiations are secret.

  12. folding like lawn chairs by Masked+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In light of what has been revealed about the NSA, it is always very suspicious to me when a seemingly powerful person or company caves in to pressure so easily. Powerful people & companies have much to lose and public images to protect, so blackmail would probably be a very effective tactic to use against them.

    Our own government makes a mockery of the justice system it was sworn to uphold and yet nothing is ever done. For example the IRS claims to have lost thousands of emails due to server crashes and everyone knows it's bullshit, but still no one is prosecuted or punished in any meaningful way. Judges suddenly make rulings completely contrary to their previous positions. Every US company is so eager to climb into bed with the government.

    Fuck it, call me paranoid. I think you've got to be willfully blind not to be somewhat paranoid these days.

  13. Stop working with bad US companies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its about time we say NO to fucktards like PayPal and various US companies, if enough people stop giving them money they will either go away or change their tune.

  14. Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

    Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

    However what is happening here is not the choice of the business. It's the government saying "we can make life very unpleasant for you in terms of audits etc. unless you cease doing business with this list of people". The government has been going after many adult businesses in the same way for a while now, google Operation Chokepoint

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

      Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account, despite 5+ "convictions of fraud" (repeated bankruptcies).

      And Mega has never been convicted of fraud. Because of such accusations, Kim Dotcom arranged the business structure such that he has no real influence on it, and may not even have any financial stake in it at all, in addition to no control.

      So where are these frauds you assert, and when did Mega commit them? Or are you lying because you hate Kim Dotcom so much you can't think straight?

    2. Re:Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account,

      Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun.

      And Mega...

      Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?

      I said that what was happening to Mega WAS NOT THE BANKS CHOICE. It was government pressure; the mention of fraud was just generically is response to the notion that banks should be unable to refuse any business at all.

      Banks should be able to choose who to business with - but that includes choosing to do business without any government pressure on who that may be. There's no reason why banks should not do business with Mega apart from the government disliking it.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?

      Well, as someone once told me "Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun."

      Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

      If your argument was unrelated to your completely wrong accusations of fraud against Mega, then why fly into the sun to post something so obviously and trivially proven false?

      I thought that was your posting style, lead with the outlandish claim, that grabs the attention. But that's what you complain about.

      That, and there's proof of the pressure against some lines of business. That they've done it before doesn't mean they are doing it now. What proof do you have that it's the government, and not the media companies, putting the pressure on them? What proof do you have there's any outside pressure being put on them?

  15. What this does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... pressure credit card companies to stop working ...

    This encourages all those forbidden businesses and countries to start using a different currency, like the Yuan, where the national bank has branches in most countries. But it probably won't happen unless the relevant national bank starts promoting international transactions.

  16. it must be working by burne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because I moved all my stuff from dropbox to mega, a few minutes ago.

  17. More fascism by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The feds have been putting pressure on banks to stop taking accounts for businesses they do not approve of. So far, they've gone after accounts of the porn industry and gun stores. I fully expect them to target tobacco stores in the near future. They do this by suggesting to the bank that they would find it necessary to conduct thorough and repeated audits if the banks work with "less than desirable" businesses.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:More fascism by Masked+Coward · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is make so many idiotic laws that everyone is a criminal. Then it's just a matter of "prosecutorial discretion," a euphemism for political vendettas.

  18. A corrupt shit-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that is what the U.S government is.

  19. Mega should advertise itself as PayPal free by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    And just accept payments in something like Bitcoin. Oh come on, you can spare a little out of your Mt. Pedo account for the pirated content you crave.

    1. Re:Mega should advertise itself as PayPal free by PRMan · · Score: 1

      They already do. Just buy a voucher with Bitcoin though hosting.co.uk.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  20. Canary in the Coal Mine by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is ever so slightly possible, that Paypal is sounding the alarm, here. Here's the key phrase...

    "...but PayPal has advised that MEGA's 'unique encryption model' presents an insurmountable difficulty,"

    It looks like Paypal fought to keep MEGA as a customer. But "somebody" put the screws to them, and forced them to break contract with MEGA.

    That's no small thing. Corporate contracts are a bit more "customer friendly", and simply dumping a corporate customer isn't quite as easy as it is to dump people like you and me. MEGA could take Paypal to court with a valid argument over breaking that contract.

    What are they going to say? What would be their excuse? "We don't like encryption."??? No judge would buy that.

    Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Canary in the Coal Mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

      Given that National Security Letters are subpoenas, that's rather unlikely. If there was government pressure, it was probably rather more informal, and likely involved threats rather than orders.

    2. Re:Canary in the Coal Mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay-Pal should take the blame, or move to a country where they are allowed to say who forced them into this. I blame them because I do not believe Pay-Pal is forced to stay in the US.

    3. Re:Canary in the Coal Mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious why you say that. Since National Security Letters are private, there's little reason to use coercion when you can just dictate.

    4. Re:Canary in the Coal Mine by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

      It's the result of a US DoJ operation called "Operation Chokepoint" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... which does an end-run around Constitutional limits on government power and the protections afforded by it to the people by putting pressure (Gee, we'd hate to have to come in and audit you to hell and back every 30 days for the next 10 years) on banks and other financial institutions and companies to stop doing business with those people & businesses the US government dislikes and/or finds inconvenient.

      The US has become a 'Banana Republic', "democratic" and "representative" in name only, where corruption, greed, and lust for power pervades the entire system. The law no longer matters, it's who you know that matters.

      All it will take is the right trigger for the US to go full fascist oligarchy.

      Hey, I know! Let's put the government in charge of more stuff and give it more money and power! Problem solved!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Canary in the Coal Mine by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Easy way to find out: Mega could file a tortious inteference suit, and subpoena Paypal for the details. If it was one of the major processors, it'll be revealed and they can avail themselves of damages. If it was an NSL, that will become apparent too.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  21. Totalitarianism drips from the top down. by shihonage · · Score: 0

    Lawless President, lawless DOJ - what do you expect. First they came for Dotcom...

  22. Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here is what i see... Companys are getting hacked due to lack of security and poor encryption. Governments are telling us we need to be smarter about encrypting data... now when we the people decide that we would like to encrypt our data all of a sudden the government is fighting and telling us no you cannot encrypt anything....

    1. Re:Encryption by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      I claim my First Amendment rights include the right to speak in unbreakable code. And as far as anyone else is concerned, it may just be pure gibberish. It's up to me to decide what it means. I could even do this verbally, by reciting words that are translated to other words using a one-time pad. And if spending money is considered protected speech, speaking in unbreakable code must be as well. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says the speech has to be intelligible, by the Government or anyone else.

  23. Stop dealing with Apple, Google etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and pretty much every such big companies. What they're doing by hiding their money stashes all the time in fiscal paradises is effectively mixing them with drug lords's money. They allow drug lords, organ traffickers and weapon dealers to have an easier time doing their job.

  24. And that's why we don't want TTIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why we are so wary of all those international treaties. If your system ofer there is so easily gamed, we don't want it. If our system over here is so easily gamed (perhaps on some other sense), you don't want it.

    Those international mega-treaties serve at the moment just to launder the worst failings of our corrupt democracies: that's why industrial lobby groups are pushing them like there's no tomorrow.

    Fix your democracy, we fix ours and *then* we meet. Heck, we can meet to fix our democracies before.

  25. Reminds me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never do business with any organisation based in the U.S. They simply cannot be trusted anymore

  26. Dropbox signed up to PRISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See the PRISM leak, Dropbox gave a feed to NSA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29

    You'd be dumb to use a US cloud service at this point, can you imagine all the secrets they get from Office 365 cloud accounts? All those industrial secrets, prices, passwords, intel?

  27. How is this different than encrypted online backup by twitnutttt · · Score: 1

    So, apparently Mega was singled out as dangerous because they have end-to-end encryption whereas other [B.S.] cloud storage providers like Dropbox don't. And so apparently this encryption enables "dangerous and illegal" activities online that the government can't monitor/prosecute.

    But so I ask, how is this different than online backup service providers like Mozy and CrashPlan that allow client-side encryption and end-to-end encryption??!?!? Or even Amazon S3 for that matter?!

    And if this is a harbinger of things to come and any end-to-end encrypted cloud service is going to be financially harassed into bankruptcy, what does that mean for data backup!? Because, personally, I would never consider any cloud storage service without encryption as a viable backup option.

  28. Re:How is this different than encrypted online bac by doccus · · Score: 1

    Well, what that means is it's back to harddrives if you don't want to lose your data.. since any cloud service that doesn't toe the line will be bullied into bankrupcy.. and your data lost with it. I'm going to back up all my Mega backups.. and that's all I've used it for, is backups..

  29. Why not harass Google too? by LuniticusTheSane · · Score: 1

    People use Google Docs to share pirated files too. What is the difference?

  30. MEGA vs SpiderOak? MEGA targeted b/c of history! by RanceJustice · · Score: 1

    Everyone wanting to comment on this decision should read the TorrentFreak article - https://torrentfreak.com/under... - as it seems to have the most information. Many typical sites and blogspam make it act as though PayPal did this through its own volition, when it is really the case of the US Gov't and financial services (banks, payment processors) who put pressure on PayPal - in this case, the US Gov't is acting as the enforcer for the Entertainment industry (MPAA/RIAA etc.) , further evidence of governments being little more than tools for wealthy private interests. . This is much the same thing that happened to donations to WikiLeaks and a large amount of other advocacy and privacy related groups; despicable though it is. Its a horrid, unjust practice that shows yet that many governments, and the corporate and financial cartels that pull their puppet strings, are completely in opposition to the public good.

    That said, I think it is an interesting quandary that MEGA's encryption seems to be the focal point here; I'm not sure this is the issue. After all, there are other services that are not on the end of this rebuke that offer "zero knowledge" encryption, where the user's keys are not held by the "cloud" business. For instance, SpiderOak - isn't its encryption protocol very similar to MEGAs? Both services are cloud storage providers that are homed in US and/or Five Eyes nations (so it isn't like they're being targeted for being in a non-compliant jurisdiction like Switzerland, the Seychelles, Hong Kong etc.), have client-side exclusive encryption/decryption purportedly, so any encrypted files server side should in theory not be accessible, while neither of them are completely Free Software, both offer some open source (it seems that SpiderOak has been more transparent than MEGA from my inspection). ? If anyone knows of detailed technical reasons why one would be more secure/private than the other, I'd be interested to know, but they both seem to have similar status.

    So why go after MEGA and leave SpiderOak alone? I think the reason here is purely political, not encryption related. For instance, if you look at the document that prompted this, it is regarding "evil, evil piracy cyber-locker" services. You won't see Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft, Box, or SpiderOak listed. Why? because these are the "good guys", made for individual back up and syncing. Sure, they may have some sharing features, affiliates, and may or may not offer anonymity/guest services but this isn't their focus. On the other hand there are the "sleasy file locker types", RapidShare, FileGator, Netload, and hundreds of others...including Kim Dotcom's now defunct MegaUpload - one of the largest of its type during its reign. These services are, rightly and wrongly depending on particular services, characterized as for facilitating piracy and having monetization strategies that are often sleazy, such as pay-per-download/upload, reselling of premium accounts, click through, spam, and even porn and malware ad networks set up as gateways. This is probably the crux of the issue.

      As the Torrent Freak article notes, MEGA is listed next to a bunch of these file-locker services. This is likely not because of its encryption or other technical features, but because of its name/marketing/history of" Mega Upload" that came before, regardless of how different the current MEGA site may be. This is even more likely because the one who comprised the report that caused the gov't to act - "Digital Citizens Alliance and Netnames" - are already heavily biased towards anything that in their eyes, enables piracy and/or any of the other behaviors online that threaten the hegemony of their masters. Thus, those "legit" appearing "cloud sites" are the good guys, where the "evil piracy producing file lockers" are the bad guys, and because of MEGA's links, no matter how tenuous, they've been improperly dropped into the second category.

  31. Re:How is this different than encrypted online bac by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    But so I ask, how is this different than online backup service providers like Mozy and CrashPlan that allow client-side encryption and end-to-end encryption??!?!? Or even Amazon S3 for that matter?!

    Or taken alternately we can hypothesize that these service providers are different in some way. This would lead us to wonder what is different about these providers that causes the government to leave them alone? That's where things start getting interesting.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  32. Re:How is this different than encrypted online bac by twitnutttt · · Score: 1

    Or taken alternately we can hypothesize that these service providers are different in some way. This would lead us to wonder what is different about these providers that causes the government to leave them alone? That's where things start getting interesting.

    ahh sh*t.
    you just made my ball sac suck up a little bit into my abdomen.
    how the f**k are we supposed to have any privacy/security these days?!
    the damn tin hats were right!

  33. Re:How is this different than encrypted online bac by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    I think Mega was singled out as dangerous because they tried to put Kim Dotcom in jail, and so far, he isn't in jail.

  34. Re:How is this different than encrypted online bac by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If you want to use something like Dropbox and don't want anybody to know what you've got, encrypt it yourself.

    A cloud service account is a backup, in the sense of a copy that won't go away for the same reasons your primary copy does, but no backup solution is perfect.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes