Slashdot Mirror


Interviews: Kim Dotcom Answers Your Questions

Kim Dotcom was the founder of Megaupload, its successor Mega, and New Zealand's Internet Party. A while ago you had a chance to ask him about those things as well as the U.S. government charging him with criminal copyright violation and racketeering. Below you'll find his answers to your questions. Politics - Internet Party and the TPP
by vinn

So you've recently taken a foray into politics with the formation of the Internet Party. What are your thoughts about what's needed to actually improve New Zealand politics? One of the stated goals of the Internet Party is to review the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which has recently become a hot topic in the US as well. What are your thoughts on the TPP?

Dotcom: The TPP is for the benefit of corporations and their wealthy shareholders. It does not benefit citizens. Prices will go up, human rights will be reduced and if you'll ever have a health issue you'll end up paying more. It's a corrupt treaty, paid for by the lobbyists of the rich, bribing politicians to do their bidding in expanding monopolies to the detriment of the people. That is why they have to keep the text of the TPP secret. That is why their PR machine (the mainstream media) is drumming a pro TPP narrative.

Do your homework and within an hour of online research you will realize that the TPP isn't helping you. It's toxic.The Internet Party will continue to fight against increasing inequality and the reduction of our rights and freedoms. If you want to launch the Internet Party in your country to make a difference please contact us. We are happy to make our branding, policies and advise available to you. We can't do it alone. We need your help.



Mana party
by Anonymous Coward

You created the "internet party" as a fight against privacy laws being tramped in your adopted country, helped shape policy and pushed for "digital rights" not just for yourself but others.

Yet your "party" formed an alliance with the "mana party" who once claimed that broadband was stealing the soul of the country and sought compensation from the Govt, a party who has never gotten more the 1.30% of the popular vote, Nationalisation of monopolies and duopolies (which means they will never get any business votes, and which constricts their only policy of "for the people" (aren't people allowed to make profit?)

I was absolutely with the "internet party" and digital rights, until they made a coalition with the "mana" party. Was this a choice that you had a part in for the betterment of the political party you bankrolled, or was this out of control?


Dotcom: We joined forces with Mana for 2 simple reasons:

1. Mana is the party of the poor and disadvantaged. They fight against inequality. They want a government that is helping those that are struggling. I think that's honorable. And if you ever get into a situation where you need your government to help you out I think you would be glad that there is a party that cares about your urgent needs. Society has grown cold and selfish. We need to be more considerate for those who really need help. That's why I support Mana. I do admit that they had some radical &unrealistic ideas. It was our job to explain that to them and work with them on better ideas. They were good listeners and had the wisdom to change.

2. We started the Internet Party only 6 months before the election. Mana was our most likely ticket into parliament. It was a strategic decision because we would not have reached the threshold of 5% on the first run. It is extremely difficult for a brand new political movement to achieve the minimum 5% required to get into parliament. It was a gamble. We all knew that it was risky but we had to try. It didn't work out and I took full responsibility for that. In 2017 the Internet Party will run again, solo. We will have more time to prepare for the election and work hard to convince the electorate that we are worthy of making it into parliament.



Modern Warfare 3
by Spy Handler

Did you achieve your rank all by yourself, or were there other people you shared your account with?

What is your favorite
-Game type? (Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy, etc)
-Loadout
-Perks

Any other comments or stories you'd like to share about your COD experience?


Dotcom: I played on my account the vast majority of the time. I have always achieved the #1 spot in any Call of Duty without help. But to maintain the #1 spot I would sometimes ask someone to help me out when I had long business meetings or other time consuming engagements. I played free-for-all and I had so many players chasing my #1 spot that it would have been impossible to maintain it without help because of my time constraints.

A story I like to share is this: I would rarely verse players in free-for-all who could impress me. Especially in 1on1 matches. But every now and then there was a standout talent. One kid impressed me with his skills and I decided to sponsor him to become a top competitive player. If given the opportunity he could win COD champs one day. We became good friends and he is currently living at the mansion and we play video games together.

I'm in love with Destiny at the moment. AW was a disappointment but I can't wait for Black Ops 3 to come out.



Perspective on jurisdictionally conflicting laws
by Capt.Gingi

What are your thoughts on the conflict of laws between jurisdictions with specific regard to how countries like the U.S. can claim jurisdiction over the actions of people and business in other countries if U.S. citizens seek to use the internet to purchase or use services not available in their own country?

Dotcom: The US Justice system is a tool of a US empire that wants to control the world. Isn't it arrogant for a US judge, who is limited to US laws, to destroy businesses and jobs half way around the world, without any due process? This is the world we live in today. You are all governed by US laws. They can take ownership of your assets and do it without you ever getting heard, without any due process. It happened to me, in a COPYRIGHT case. I have never traveled to or lived in the United States and my business wasn't located there either. Based on my experience the US Justice system deserves no respect. Alleged criminals are tortured into submission with the threat of decades in jail and forced to make plea deals even when they are completely innocent like our software programmer Andrus Nomm.Hecould not take the pressure anymore and decided to make a deal. That isn't Justice. It's a rigged game, with a completely unfair power balance, designed to give the Government more wins.

I'm strong enough and I will fight for the future of my children and for Internet Freedom. The DOJ knows that this case is toxic.They know I'm not a criminal copyright infringer. In fact the New Zealand Govt has tried to negotiate a deal with my lawyers, on behalf of the US, to settle this case. The solicitor general of New Zealand had proposed that this case could go away If I was willing to accept some copyright liability under New Zealand law. No extradition required. I told my lawyers that I'm innocent and that I'm not interested. And the next thing you know is the Attorney General of New Zealand offering my main NZ counsel a job as a judge. I'm dealing with an unethical system that is willing to rig the game just to win. That's when I decided to start the Internet Party.



Location, location, location
by nut

If, hypothetically, you had emigrated to San Francisco USA rather than NZ and Megaupload had been a US-based company do you think it would have been more or less vulnerable to the kind of action it was shut down by? Bonus points for an insightful discussion of the value of political contributions, etc.

Dotcom: The US government would not have taken such overreaching and drastic action if 220 Americans would have lost their jobs. There has never been a case like this before and never since the almost 4 years since the raid. The DOJ called this a test case. The New Zealand government is so corrupt and so eager to please the US that they did not even question any of the bogus legal theories the DOJ is using in this case. The only hope they have is that I don't have the funds to afford a good legal defense, which is why they are pursuing an aggressive starve-out strategy.



End game
by Sigvatr

Do you foresee an eventual end game to copyright infringement legislation in the future, or a moment when copyright holders throw their hands in the air and give up for good?

Dotcom: As long as there is a giant lobbying industry in America and politicians who allow themselves to be bribed by lobbyists it will just get worse. The vast majority of politicians today are not working for the people. They work for those who keep them in power. The banks and corporations. The US government is so openly corrupt it is hard to understand how the American people let them get away with it. I hope at the next election America will vote for someone who makes it his or her priority to get rid of the money influence in politics.



If you could rewrite copyright
by NotInHere

What would be your proposed copyright rule set, so that content producers still can live off their creations?

Dotcom: Copyright & technology need to co-exist. Copyright creators need to adapt to new technologies and not the other way around. The Internet is threatening the old copyright models but it is also offering an enormous opportunity to monetize copyright with innovative concepts that are better than those of the past. Today we are living in a world of copyright extremism. It is completely misguided and it's hurting technology companies and the Internet as a whole. I believe that the companies and people creating content should be compensated for their work and investments. But just like any other industry the copyright industry has to evolve, constantly. It isn't right to censor the Internet and stifle innovation just because the creative industry is struggling to find newer, better business models.



End to End Crypto
by psyclone

Is there a market in the world for strong cryptographic file sharing? Meaning only the end users control their private keys and the "network" just connects users -- it never knows the keys.

Or does that only work on the small scale such as one user sharing some files with a few friends. If that same user shared those files with ten thousand friends, then would the sharing would be public as the keys would be "leaked" by nature of lots of people having them? (And thus those files could be examined for copyright infringement.)


Dotcom: Yes. The booming encryption market has been created by the actions of the US government. Businesses that offer verifiably safe encryption will outperform those that don't. Now that the people are aware of what's going on they will demand more privacy options from the services and products they purchase. Governments will struggle to stop or control encryption and technology will prevail. That is good for all of us. But it's sad that technology has to safeguard our human rights because our governments failed to do so.



Mega Technique
by Anonymous Coward

I've seen some criticism from open source advocates and hackers that Mega can't be trusted because the source isn't available.What assurance could you give someone to the point that their files may not be kept secret while hosted on your platform?

Dotcom: I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children. As a result of this and a number of other confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore. I don't think your data is safe on Mega anymore. But my non-compete clause is running out at the end of the year and I will create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit, similar to the Wikipedia model. I want to give everyone free, unlimited and encrypted cloud storage with the help of donations from the community to keep things going.



What drives you to keep going?
by Joe Gillian

I've seen many a file-sharing site shutter its doors or become overly restrictive after even the merest hint of action by law enforcement officials, doing things like requiring logins to upload or download, sometimes even requiring people to sign in via social media (4Shared). The end result is that a lot of these places become borderline unusable.

Unlike a lot of those website operators, you have personally been dragged out of your home by law enforcement and had actions taken against MegaUpload by the United States government. It could be argued that you have more to fear as a "face" of file-sharing that the Department of Justice would want to make an example out of than pretty much any other file-sharing or torrent tracker operator out there (apart from maybe the Pirate Bay founders).

So my question is this: What drives you to keep going with Mega after having such things happen to you? What kind of mindset does it take to (metaphorically) keep spitting in the face of the United States government after having them raid your house by proxy?


Dotcom: It ain't easy. I had to carry a lot of pain and fear fora lot of people in the last few years. They destroyed my business. They took everything I worked for and seized all my assets.They destroyed my family and drove my wife back into depression and alcoholism which destroyed the happy family we once had. So many people suffered as a result of the unjust actions by both the US and New Zealand governments. I thought about giving up. Who wouldn't in such a situation. But I have to fight because I have such a huge responsibility. First and foremost I have to fight for my five children. They need me. Unfortunately they can't rely on anybody else. And of course I'm fighting for all of you. If I give up all of you will lose. They will use this case to turn our Internet to shit. I love the Internet. It gave me everything. I believe in Internet freedom, in your right to share, in your right to privacy. With your help and your support I can do it. I want to win this fight for all of us. To anyone who is interested in this case I recommend that you read this document to understand the corruption behind the mercenary law enforcement action that led to the destruction of Megaupload.



Just one:
by Opportunist

Was it worth it?

Dotcom: Yes!

90 comments

  1. Mega and KDc by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That appears to be a Slashdot exclusive, I can't see anything online about the Kim Dotcom and Mega parting ways.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Mega and KDc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're 100% this is Kim Dotcom saying this right? This seems like big news.

    2. Re:Mega and KDc by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm closing my account now. It's a damn shame, it's actually quite a good service.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Mega and KDc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's what would seem to be the verification (that things changed very recently with the Mega corporation):

      https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/4136598

      Notice two new directors as of July 19, one of which (apparently) is facing accusations of misusing his power when it comes to Mega:

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/67561387/Company-director-John-Sorensen-accused-of-misusing-power

      The #1 shareholder after Zhi Min Li (who apparently owned it last year) is the other brand new director, Jesse Seang Ty Nguy.

      Draw your own conclusions?

    4. Re:Mega and KDc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we get Kim to buy Slashdot?

    5. Re:Mega and KDc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh HELL no...

    6. Re:Mega and KDc by trawg · · Score: 1

      I mentioned this on Twitter and got the following response from MEGA's support:

      "@trawg Please disregard the statement. We will be reacting with true facts later today."

    7. Re:Mega and KDc by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      It was certainly an exclusive. In fact, Mega has defended itself just some minutes ago, by tweeting a reference to this article: https://torrentfreak.com/kim-d...

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  2. Verse? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    What does he mean when he says 'verse'?

    1. Re:Verse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure, but based on context maybe he means "compete versus"

    2. Re:Verse? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      play against. Verse as in "Versus". He's saying that the people he played against rarely impressed him.

    3. Re:Verse? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No, it means I'm not familiar with Call of Duty and the options it gives players. It seems it has a poor matchmaking system if it can't pair users of the same skill level that often.

    4. Re:Verse? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wonder, with enough practice, how well a person trained in combat would actually do? I suspect not that well as combat veterans are veterans because they are risk adverse and that may not be a valid game strategy. Maybe I should learn how to play an online FPS? I am, by no means, an expert (just a grunt pretty much). In fact, contrary to popular opinion, we were not trained to be heroes - quite the opposite really. You'd think we were a bunch of ninnies if you saw how long we sat in place to determine the next move. However, I would imagine a video game trained group of Force Recon with a sniper attached might do well as a group and one of the major benefits would be their communication. I imagine they would be well served if they had advanced intel such as topography.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. "and I will create a Mega competitor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, come on. You're too big of a target, anything you create the feds are going to be all over it. No one can trust what you create because you're basically on a permanent watchlist.

    It's over man. Let it go.

    1. Re:"and I will create a Mega competitor" by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Dude, come on. You're too big of a target

      In more than one way....

    2. Re: "and I will create a Mega competitor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you calling KDC fat?

    3. Re: "and I will create a Mega competitor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Through martyrdom and mystycism, religions are born.

      The Interwebs were invented by DARPA to help the US govt and allies maintain robust, resiliant communications in times of crisis. It's never been "our" Internet anymore than the roadways or EM spectrum are "ours". We are merely minor transients, so long as we are not interfering with the moneied powers that be. KDC is an abhorration who accumulated some wealth and notoriety before corrective actions began. Like the Cold virus, his infection is short lived and an annoyance but poses no real threat to establishment. The US govt is bigger, has many times more resources, and will survive much longer than KDC. He will be extinguished and his kids left with nothing.

  4. Re:Kim Dotcom is a cow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well I must admit, this is the first time this troll has been on topic!

  5. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're still sore about what a 41 year old man did as a teenager, aren't you? I could understand it if he was rapist and murderer, but the dude sold unrightful access to PBX systems and fake phones cards as a child.

    After that he "harmed" idiot stock investors. Woe is the world.

  6. Re: Kim Dotcom is a cow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just goes to prove that if you put a monkey in front of a keyboard...

  7. Decent interview. by Starvingboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, I actually enjoyed that interview. Lately there have been a lot of political puff-pieces, at least this one answered some questions.

    1. Re:Decent interview. by ciaran2014 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. A good read, and he comes across as a lot more reasonable than I expected.

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    2. Re:Decent interview. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I actually enjoyed that interview. Lately there have been a lot of political puff-pieces, at least this one answered some questions.

      Srsly??? You didn't see the political puff in this article? Nearly every answer (except the modern warfare one) he explicitly put forward unabashed political puff. He is clearly expressing his views that he disagrees with copyright law and has some sort of axe to grind about the USA because he was forced to stop his software piracy business that he was enriching himself with.

    3. Re:Decent interview. by phorm · · Score: 1

      He disagrees with current copyright law and how it's used, but also indicates that copyright is necessary and needs to live harmoniously with copyright. He even indicates that he's good with the monetization of new technologies under copyright. What he seems to have a beef with is how current copyright is used. He doesn't specifically say what's bad, but based on his answer I'd imagine that the resistance of the entrenched hollywood/music industry to new distribution and pay models is probably part of that.
      IMHO Copyright would still only be part of the problem though. The current situation with ISPs in the US and throttling traffic is another issue, and the issue between DRM+copyright another (especially when you look at "circumvention for personal use")

    4. Re:Decent interview. by Grady+Martin · · Score: 1

      I agree. The questions covered a good deal of ground, and Kim answered each of them earnestly. It's hard to ask for more.

    5. Re:Decent interview. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Most people do when you listen to them directly rather than focussing only on hearsay and mainstream press mis-quoting.

      I can think of any number of people who have been criticised for being tools here and by the media, but who make a lot more sense when you listen to their actual words, rather than choice misquotes by their detractors.

    6. Re:Decent interview. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can't disagree with anything he says about copyright. The current copyright system is bad, yes, I understand. However, when asked specifics, he resorts to vague buzzwords. If a paragraph uses "monetized" and "innovation" without specifics, it's probably just hot air (or electrons).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Decent interview. by phorm · · Score: 1

      Well, stuff like Netflix or iTunes might be a good example of successful innovation and monetization of online technologies.

      For other stuff, it would be able being able to profit by "building a better mousetrap" without being sued into oblivion by protectionist cartels who want to keep the status quo (or patent trolls).

    8. Re:Decent interview. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Again, I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he's not particularly right, in that he doesn't say much of anything. You have mentioned actual examples of monetization, which puts you considerably ahead of Dotcom's answer.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. The delusion of "creative professionals" by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    Where an Anonymous Coward says that he is a "creative professional" and that whoever arrives at stuff that "creative professionals" arrive at should own it forever and it's hard work.

    I suggest he find easier work and let people who find that sort of thing easy do their thing.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
    Claim by fyngyrz that people infringe copyright because the abstraction that someone actually put some valuable time into the work is too abstract for them to grasp. Also, individuals violating copyright on a "I copied this work to use for myself" level is antisocial

    I point out that people put "valuable time" into lots of things. Doesn't mean they should get paid for it. And with people throwing around concepts like "the universe creates itself", I'm not sure anyone has a workable meaningful definition of what create or design actually means.

    Fyngyrz claims that the whole copyright debacle is the most trivial of ethical mazes.

    Bzipitidoo says " I disagree that copying is antisocial. Copying is a natural right, and has a long history. It is only our current customs that push the idea that copying is harmful, and attempt to regulate it and restrict it by fiat." ... Might as well argue that children should not receive the fruits of knowledge that our civilizations have produced over the millennia, without paying for the "privilege".

    I've kind of lost interest in mining previous discussion I participated in, but there's more in those links that make for interesting reading.

    1. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, who needs societal norms and laws? We're all, like, just one universe creating itself man!

      JEESH, views like yours are why so many tea partiers are convinced our country has been commandeered by Chinese communist sympathizers.

    2. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real capitalists don't need government enforced protection in the form of copyright.
      The market will fix it.

    3. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in my posts do I indicate the lack of need for societal norms and laws. I have merely indicated that the current societal norms and laws can be improved and the direction I think they should go to be improved,

    4. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 0

      Copyright is needed to motivate people to create, cause it turns out that unless people think their hard work will be rewarded, they're unlikely to perform. Should be common sense, so enough said there.
      Obviously there needs to be limits to this, which is where all the arguing comes in. The world has turned the 'reward for work' into it's own product, that can be bought and sold, and as such, there's lots of room for abuse.
      If policy makers revised copyright law based on the people putting the effort in getting a fair reward, rather than looking at it as a commodity in and of itself, we might get something reasonable.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    5. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      You haven't seen any of the amateur Star Trek material easily found on YouTube, have you?

      Star Trek: Of Gods and Men
      Star Trek Continues
      Star Trek: Intrepid
      Starship Exeter
      Star Trek: Unity
      Star Trek: New Voyages

    6. Re:The delusion of "creative professionals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you've really nailed all the weasel arguments for your case. Do you have any good arguments, or is that it?

  9. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've just had RMS and Linus in the last few weeks, what would it take to make you happy?

  10. Re:We're doomed! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 0

    Yup, a guy on a wheelchair who cant read and answer questions on his own, and needs a week to answer only some of them, and Mr Fatty who no body gives a shit about. Why do we interview these people at all.

  11. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawking "types" reaaaaaaaaalllyyyyyy slow

  12. don't trust new mega competitor by SethJohnson · · Score: 1
    This is a very telling quote--

    As a result of this and a number of other confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore. I don't think your data is safe on Mega anymore.

    If his implementation of Mega was dependent on the 'trustworthiness' of the operators, then it was never truly encrypted. Nor should we expect his next iteration of cloud filesharing to be fully encrypted.

    1. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by nullchar · · Score: 2

      He kind of side-stepped the end to end crypto question, with respect to the scale at which it could operate. But he did say the next iteration would be completely open, so we'll see...

    2. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new owners can replace his implementation of Mega with whatever they want.

    3. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      > Nor should we expect his next iteration of cloud filesharing to be fully encrypted.

      I don't know the history of Mega's downfall. Have you a link to suggest that Kim didn't do his best?

      In this interview he comes across well enough for me to take a wait-and-see attitude to his future businesses. (Although, IIRC, Mega required running non-free javascript in your browser. Sticking a GPL or another free licence on the code you have to run to use the service would be a big improvement.)

      If Mega was serving javascript for client-side encryption, and the new owner replaced this with server-side encryption, then the lack of safety would only apply to post-Kim era uploads to Mega, and there's no way anyone could have future proofed against that possibility. (The closest thing to future proof would be to offer no encryption services at all, and tell the users to use GnuPG. In this way, the users would never have gotten used to Mega doing the encryption for them.)

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    4. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      OP was probably referencing Kim Dotcoms first "enterprises"

      His early years seem to be missing from the english wikipedia page

      Here a translation of the relevant bits from the german version:

      He was a member of the then flourishing mailbox scene with its mailboxes "Beverly Hills BBS" and "House of Coolness BBS", where among other things, Warez were traded.
      It is said that he recorded the message of the users of this BBBs to gain inside information about weaknesses in the telephone system and software.
      He later ran a partyline which became a forum for phreakers in which he again collected the latest information by listening to its users.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    5. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like that's what the OP was referring to. If that was what he was referring to, then I don't agree that someone's bad deeds when they were 20 imply that they can't be trusted when they're 41.

      I'm not trying to defend the guy, I don't know much about him, but the jabs being levelled at him here just don't seem very well founded.

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    6. Re: don't trust new mega competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the client side needs the keys so there is an opportunity for the JavaScript to send them to the server.

    7. Re:don't trust new mega competitor by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      If you are not doing your own key management, and the encryption and decryption is not performed locally, you're relying on you cloud provider for privacy. In this case, if you lose your key, you lose your data. Most people don't want to run things like that, so most cloud services aren't secure against subpoenas and the like.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. Re:We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >A criminal is a criminal. Just ask your parents.

    I would but my mother died October 25, 2005. I expect Rosa would have told me that being a past criminal doesn't really matter, it's what you do to improve society today in an honest and just manner that matters most.

  14. Troll morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You morons. It says a lot about you if you think having friends is gross.

  15. Re: Kim Dotcom is a cow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And once is a while the monkey will forget to tick the AC box:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  16. Re:He found some kid to bang, gross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pederasty is a time honored tradition. A shame it is frowned upon in modern society, but perhaps it will make a comeback.

  17. Re:He found some kid to bang, gross by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    it sounds a little bit like Michael Jackson and McCauley Culkin. I way whatevs.

  18. Re: We're doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then go to reddit fool

  19. I have a question Kim by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

    Why did you lie under oath in court to try and get John Banks put in jail?
    Why did you lie on your residency application?

    Are you just a liar?

    Can you please get out of my country? The only good thing you have done is destroy the Mana Party and helped the National Party get a record setting 3rd term. Thanks.

    I think you're a little upset all of you millions couldn't buy your way into power. Your political party failed. Your government bashing backfired.

    1. Re:I have a question Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of amazing how after repeatedly being found in violation of laws worldwide, he continues to espouse his narcissistic and antisocial views. The best part is, he blames the government for the negative consequences his family faced - and his wife's depression - as a result of his selfish and unethical actions.

    2. Re:I have a question Kim by ciaran2014 · · Score: 2

      > Why did you lie under oath in court to try and get John Banks put in jail?

      Have you got a link? I did a quick search and found:

      "Kim Dotcom challenges John Banks to sit-down interview"
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

      And an article with plenty of details, but it boils down to each saying the other's lying:
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa...

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    3. Re:I have a question Kim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about Key and Banks, or Kim? It's hard to tell.

    4. Re:I have a question Kim by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      The other witnesses bought in to the appeals didn't agree with Kim or Mona

      The prosecutor also hid the fact Kim changed his story before the first trial.

  20. TPP ambiguous by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    TPP = Trans Pacific Partnership
    Was thinking The Pirate Party. Where's the brain?

  21. Sadly, he is right. by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hi have no real opinions for or against KD -- I can see both sides of the argument.

    However, there is one area where he is absolutely right -- and that's the issue of corruption running rife within the US and NZ governments. In fact, the list of "unlawful" actions that the NZ government or its agencies have been found to conduct is growing almost on a daily basis. I often wondered what the difference was between "unlawful" and "illegal" - and have since worked it out.

    Illegal is when a mere citizen breaks the law. Illegal activities are punished by fines or incarceration.

    Unlawful is when the government or one of its agencies breaks the law. Unlawful activities carry no censure or punishment. The government automatically excuses itself from the provisions of the laws which "mere citizens" must obey without question. Does this really seem fair -- to have those who make and enforce the laws effectively placed "beyond the law"? Surely they should actually be held to a higher standard of accountability -- not effectively given the right to dictate that "mere citizens" must "do as we say, not as we do".

    The irrefutable evidence of corruption and blatant self-interest within government is clear to see for anyone who takes an interest. The sad thing is that the majority of the population has been "dumbed down" to the point where they either can't see or don't care about what's being done to them.

    This is a "frog in a pan" scenario. Over successive generations, many western governments have slowly eroded the rights of their populations and reconfigured the economy and laws in a way that benefits the rich at the cost of the poor. While things may not seem too different to the way they were 10 years ago, I bet that if you took someone from the mid 1940s (who'd risked their life to protect the rights and freedoms of the Western World), they would be outraged that so much of what *they* fought for has been surrendered so readily by people.

    When billions of dollars were effectively stolen by bankers -- who paid the price and who was punished?

    Innocent depositors and the "poor" paid the price but virtually none of those who committed the crimes were held to account.

    Socialize debt, privatize profit -- that's the mantra of today's world and it's something which is a clear indicator that governments are no longer serving to represent citizens. Governments now represent only those who can afford to lobby them and bribe them.

    In the 1950s it was "reds under the bed" -- today it's corporate USA who are the unseen but very real enemy of the people (of all countries).

    I suggest that *everyone* watches a documentary called "SuperPower". It has some *very* interesting facts that deliver irrefutable proof of exactly how the democratic process is just a farce.

    1. Re:Sadly, he is right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, watch The Trap, and The Super Rich and Us.

  22. Go ahead and run for office by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    I look a the difference between Kim Dotcom and other media moguls. Am forced to say it's just connections to people in power. You-tube founders didn't go to prison and it was also used for piracy when it started. The difference is that Google bought Youtube and not Mega.
    Also, who is paying the sock puppets on this site. Fix the roads guys. The guy let people share files online and that makes him a terrible criminal, I miss ./ . He's clearly worse than Binladen because he's fat crass and let people pirate files on his service instead of pirating though other channels.
    Politics is about pitting one set of scoundrels against another set of scoundrels so they don't let each other get away with things. The peasants get a little bit of freedom in the wash because the scoundrels are in competition for votes.

  23. Re:We're doomed! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Oh good job that massive global overreach by the world's only superpower and the corruption of smaller governments is so unimportant that we're doomed.

    Yeah, this isn't Steven Hawking, but it is certainly news for nerds and undeniably sutff that matters. Seriously, people whine about anything here.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  24. Re: Kim Dotcom is a cow. by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    That is hilarious. And it's so bizarre I can't even take it seriously as a troll.

  25. What a bs strokefest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy PAID for infringing content. Hosted links to known infringing content on other sites. SOLD premium accounts explicitly to people for this infringing content, and turned a profit of 100's of millions. I don't care if you think intellectual property is dumb and you want it for free, that's not what this guy was about with mega-upload, but none of you fucking plebes was paying attention.

  26. Re:We're doomed! by Falos · · Score: 1

    Hi fuckwad,

    Three felonies a day. Just ask the courts, or Your Betters.

    Check and mate,

    Cardinal Richelieu

  27. Quite an ego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If I give up all of you will lose."

    Oh wow, I feel so safe now. Little ol me had no hope before you.

    Give me a break. Go away. We don't need you.

  28. MegaNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Dotcom: I'm not involved in Mega anymore. Neither in a managing nor in a shareholder capacity. The company has suffered from a hostile takeover by a Chinese investor who is wanted in China for fraud. He used a number of straw-men and businesses to accumulate more and more Mega shares. Recently his shares have been seized by the NZ government. Which means the NZ government is in control. In addition Hollywood has seized all the Megashares in the family trust that was setup for my children. As a result of this and a number of other confidential issues I don't trust Mega anymore. I don't think your data is safe on Mega anymore. But my non-compete clause is running out at the end of the year and I will create a Mega competitor that is completely open source and non-profit, similar to the Wikipedia model. I want to give everyone free, unlimited and encrypted cloud storage with the help of donations from the community to keep things going.

    To be honest, all of this just sounds like an advertisement for Dotcom's new "MegaNet" vaporware which he's been going on about for months now on Twitter (twitter.com/hashtag/MEGANET) but still has nothing to show for it.

    The way end to end encryption works is that only the user has the private keys. If Kim thinks our data isn't safe on Mega anymore then that is irrelevant and pure FUD unless he has proof. It's trivial to get a copy of Mega's web source code and inspect it ourselves to see if it contains backdoors or spyware. E.g. I use my web browser's development tools, or download the Firefox extension from mega.nz/#firefox. An .xpi file is simply a renamed .zip file. So I can rename the .xpi to .zip, extract the files from the zip file and I have all the source code. Then if I verify the code and encryption to be working properly I can run that code locally in my browser so I'm not downloading Javascript code from the web server every time (which prevents tampering from the Mega site operators).

  29. Link to whitepaper is broken by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    In his second to last answer Kim Dotcom says:

    I want to win this fight for all of us. To anyone who is interested in this case I recommend that you read this documentto [sic] understand the corruption behind the mercenary law enforcement action that led to the destruction of Megaupload.

    That link just brings me back to this Slashdot page. I believe the correct URL for the whitepaper is http://kim.com/whitepaper.pdf

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Link to whitepaper is broken by Soulskill · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I've updated to fix.

  30. Re: by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I don't understand what you think are weasel arguments.

  31. Re:We're doomed! by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Did you know that you can enter more than one URL into your browser's address bar? Seriously... You *can* do this. Ask for help if you need it. We do not have flash games here either, is that also a problem?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  32. not bashing Kim by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying Kim is the one who shouldn't be trusted. I'm saying the implementation cannot be considered to be 'encrypted'. If the operator has the ability to decrypt the contents of the cloud-shared files, then the content is subject to national security letters, snooping, hacking, etc. If the operator of Mega has to be trustworthy, then the implementation can't be trusted because the operator is the easiest part of the architecture to compromise.

    1. Re:not bashing Kim by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

      I haven't looked into how Mega worked, but with my limited knowledge I'm assuming end-to-end encryption via a website must require the website sending javascript to the user which the browser will run to encrypt the files before upload. If that's how Mega worked when Kim was there, then the operator would have no way to decrypt the files and national security letters wouldn't work. A few web searches suggest that this is indeed how it worked. (Example: articles say "don't lose your password, it's the only encryption key and the operators don't have a copy".)

      The downside of this user-friendliness is that the operator could always start sending out new javascript which simply uploads the file and then encrypt with some other key. The user wouldn't notice this change. Then national security letters etc. would be a problem.

      If users want encryption to be done for them (instead of using GnuPG themselves, or running their own local copy of the javascript), I don't see any way to avoid this problem.

      If this javascript change has happened, and it was when Kim was in charge, then he's at fault. If it happened after he left then I don't see how he can be blamed. No?

      --
      Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    2. Re:not bashing Kim by Lenbok · · Score: 1

      MEGA have a ton of code on github, including their whole client-side SDK, so (just as with tools like gnupg) as long as you can ensure you are running the same code as is on github, you can have the same level of trust as you would have in other open-source, audited encryption tools. As you note, the website version of MEGA could potentially be updated without you knowing, but with the browser plug-in versions and the mobile apps it's possible to turn off auto-updating.

    3. Re:not bashing Kim by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      You offer a reasoned and objective interpretation of this encryption scheme. The part you mention about user-friendliness is important for consumer adoption of a cloud service like this, but it's also the easiest part of the architecture to compromise.

      Like you, I haven't thoroughly reviewed the MEGA security architecture, but I've tested the service and can make educated guesses to how it's working. Both keys are stored on the server. The user submits a passphrase that is claimed to be used by javascript on the client side to decrypt the key used on the client side of the transaction.

      As you suggest, the javascript can be modified transparently to the end user. There is no assurance to the end user that the passphrase is not sent to the server to be used by the administrator to decrypt the key (that's stored on the server) and then access the user's content.

      This security is a technical fallacy. The operators are purporting it to be secure, but they knew from the beginning that the encryption depended on the goodwill of the operators. If the keys don't reside in the hands of the end-users, it's not the real encryption solution Kim Schmitt has been selling.

  33. Great Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great interview, Nice to see a few questions answered in an intelligent and thoughtful fashion,

    I can't offer you much, but If you ever want to cross swords and learn some armoured combat (real life, full contact armoured fighting in NZ) I'd love to meet you on the field.

    http://squirespath.blogspot.co.nz/

  34. AnÃnimo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, I would like to work on your projects Mega competition. I am a programmer. harold_bubu@hotmail.com harold_bubu@icloud.com