There doesn't seem to be a real source for the claim. TFA refers to a blog where a "rumour" is discussed about Apple having spent $100 million on patent litigation. When TFA is quoted, the rumour suddenly turns into fact.
Do you think the military, the government, banks, and multinational corporations have the wisdom and altruism to release material that reveals their own mistakes and wrongdoings?
And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?
If Wikileaks edits their releases, they're criticised for being hypocritical and not practicing the openness they advocate. If they don't edit their releases, they're criticised for being irresponsible and releasing information that could hurt individuals. If they add their own commentary, they're criticised for promoting their own agenda. If they don't add commentary, they're criticised for not being a real news service and shouldn't enjoy the same legal protection that journalists enjoy.
And if they release both their own edited version with commentary, and the complete version without commentary (redacted to protect individuals), which they actually did, they're still criticised by people who haven't done their homework.
Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions.
And even that was enough for the US government to try to find ways to prosecute him and bring him under their jurisdiction, and for leading American politicians to advocate murdering him. Regardless of whether we think his work was good or bad, it obviously wasn't an easy job.
He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed.
Are you referring to the clause in the confidentiality agreement where the newspaper is liable for damages to Wikileaks if they reveal certain details in the documents? That was just to protect the leak.
The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. [...]
And yet, Wikileaks also put up the unedited version of the footage, so everyone could judge for themselves. That's more than you get from a conventional newspaper or newscast.
Ironically, Wikileaks was criticised for putting up the unedited material too, by people who claimed a "real" news outlet provided reporting, not source material, and therefore Wikileaks should not enjoy the same legal protection as a news outlet.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
I've only seen quotes from e-mails where the leadership admits there exists infringing material on their servers (which is a no-brainer, since they've received numerous DMCA notices about them).
Yes, but if I can forget a pin I've entered dozens of times from memory, I can probably forget the password/passphrase to my encrypted hard drive too...
I don't understand why having to provide the decryption key also forces you to decrypt the hidden partition, while having to provide the password doesn't.
SpiderOak has what you're asking for. It's similar to DropBox, but encrypts the files before they're synced to the server, and the server doesn't store the encryption keys in cleartext.
The flipside is that if you lose your password, SpiderOak can't decrypt your files for you. But that's the only way to make sure they can't read your files without your consent.
If a file hosting service provides a way to recover your password, and at the same time claims they can't read your files, they're lying.
As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
Slightly off-topic, but I have to mention this:
If you look at the indictment closely, it only says that staff at MegaUpload sent links to infringing material to each other. Then it juxtaposes that fact with e-mail where MegaUpload discusses how to increase traffic. Then it juxtaposes that with e-mail where MegaUpload says they can afford to give Universal more take-downs, considering the high volume they have. Nowhere does it actually say they were trying to promote pirated uploads. The indictment just creates that impression by taking quotes from different contexts and putting them together in a new context.
"Enabling" may be a more correct term. But in that case, MegaUpload is not actively promoting copyright violations either. They simply give cash for popular files, and fail to check which ones are legal and which ones are not.
So what's the difference between information strictly in your head vs undocumented material subpoenaed to be materialized before the court? It's de-facto incrimination to force the materialization of evidence via a subpoena. Is it not?
In practical terms, the difference is that when testifying against yourself, the prosecution may confuse you, your tongue may slip and you say something you don't mean, they can actively try to make you say something they can take out of context and twist, and so on.
In legal terms, forcing someone to testify against themselves is forbidden by the 5th amendment, while forcing someone to assist in a search and seizure that may incriminate themselves is not.
Here in Sweden, you can't be forced to decrypt your hard drive or reveal a password. The courts are pretty limited in what they can do - new legislation is usually required if they face a new situation.
There are many more countries than the USA that have a requirement to assist the police in examining your computer, though. I know the UK has a law that explicitly requires suspects to reveal their password upon request.
The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from self-incriminating action. You can still be forced to open your safe, produce a gun you're known to possess, etc. The 5th amendment only protects you from testifying against yourself.
I think it's reasonable to adopt a less literal interpretation, and view a password as a key, not as testimony, in this context. A password is functionally equivalent to a key to a safe, and the password itself can't be used as evidence against you, which is the case with testimony.
The problem lies in proving that the suspect actually knows the passsword. We can't have a situation where people are held in contempt of court because they forgot their password. If a suspect says they've forgotten it, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Why would the hash change if you made an image? An image is exact, as opposed to a file-to-file copy. You can always make exact copies in the digital world, if you wish to.
Let's see if I understand this: The counter only changes if you unplug the USB device? It stays the same as long as it's connnected, even when the power is turned off?
Clever. Although you'll have to be very careful not to nudge it and unplug it accidentally.
True story: I've entered my 4-digit ATM PIN dozens of times from memory, but the other day, I couldn't remember it. It just fell out of my memory for no particular reason. I'm still not sure what it is; I'll have to check my password database (encrypted, of course).
This has happened to me several times before, and no, I'm not old enough to make senility a likely explanation:)
Well, obviously. But if the United States and New Zealand have different definitions of criminal copyright, it's New Zealand's definition that the judges will look at when deciding if extradition is justified.
That's absurd. First, I doubt American law requires video streaming services to prove who watched their videos. Does YouTube do that?
Second, a company based in New Zealand / Hong Kong has no reason to follow American bookkeeping laws. If you believe that, it's American Hübris to the point of madness.
The problem is that several countries can't have jurisdiction over the same matter at the same time. Or to put it in simpler terms: MegaUpload can't be tried for the same crime in both American, Dutch, Hong Kong and New Zealand courts. One jurisdiction has to "win" and the others have to "lose".
Therefore, it's not enough to have a claim on jurisdiction; you need to have the strongest claim.
Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is absurd. It would mean a Canadian who shares a file copyrighted by a US company could put it on a Phillipinian server, and be out of reach of both Canada's and the United States' justice system.
You want to give jurisdiction to either the country where the alleged perpetrator was at the time of the alleged crime, or the country where the alleged victim were. Any other countries have very little to do with it and are unlikely to want to burden their justice system with it.
Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is just one of many rationalisations the lawyers use to get American jurisdiction, and a very weak one at that. If the servers are outside the US, they'll instantly switch viewpoint and try to base jurisdiction on something else instead.
And regardless of the issue of jurisdiction, American corporations have no business deleting files which are legal in my country. MegaUpload also had servers in the Netherlands (and probably a few other places too).
Slashdot Mirror
There doesn't seem to be a real source for the claim. TFA refers to a blog where a "rumour" is discussed about Apple having spent $100 million on patent litigation. When TFA is quoted, the rumour suddenly turns into fact.
Do you think the military, the government, banks, and multinational corporations have the wisdom and altruism to release material that reveals their own mistakes and wrongdoings?
If not, we need organisations like Wikileaks.
And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?
If Wikileaks edits their releases, they're criticised for being hypocritical and not practicing the openness they advocate. If they don't edit their releases, they're criticised for being irresponsible and releasing information that could hurt individuals. If they add their own commentary, they're criticised for promoting their own agenda. If they don't add commentary, they're criticised for not being a real news service and shouldn't enjoy the same legal protection that journalists enjoy.
And if they release both their own edited version with commentary, and the complete version without commentary (redacted to protect individuals), which they actually did, they're still criticised by people who haven't done their homework.
Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions.
And even that was enough for the US government to try to find ways to prosecute him and bring him under their jurisdiction, and for leading American politicians to advocate murdering him. Regardless of whether we think his work was good or bad, it obviously wasn't an easy job.
He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed.
Are you referring to the clause in the confidentiality agreement where the newspaper is liable for damages to Wikileaks if they reveal certain details in the documents? That was just to protect the leak.
The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. [...]
And yet, Wikileaks also put up the unedited version of the footage, so everyone could judge for themselves. That's more than you get from a conventional newspaper or newscast.
Ironically, Wikileaks was criticised for putting up the unedited material too, by people who claimed a "real" news outlet provided reporting, not source material, and therefore Wikileaks should not enjoy the same legal protection as a news outlet.
I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.
Where are those e-mails?
I've only seen quotes from e-mails where the leadership admits there exists infringing material on their servers (which is a no-brainer, since they've received numerous DMCA notices about them).
Yes, but if I can forget a pin I've entered dozens of times from memory, I can probably forget the password/passphrase to my encrypted hard drive too...
I don't understand why having to provide the decryption key also forces you to decrypt the hidden partition, while having to provide the password doesn't.
SpiderOak has what you're asking for. It's similar to DropBox, but encrypts the files before they're synced to the server, and the server doesn't store the encryption keys in cleartext.
The flipside is that if you lose your password, SpiderOak can't decrypt your files for you. But that's the only way to make sure they can't read your files without your consent.
If a file hosting service provides a way to recover your password, and at the same time claims they can't read your files, they're lying.
As long as they respond to take-down notices and do not ACTIVELY seek traffic based on piracy as MegaUpload did (judging by emails they had to turn over) they, and companies like DropBox, should be fine.
Slightly off-topic, but I have to mention this:
If you look at the indictment closely, it only says that staff at MegaUpload sent links to infringing material to each other. Then it juxtaposes that fact with e-mail where MegaUpload discusses how to increase traffic. Then it juxtaposes that with e-mail where MegaUpload says they can afford to give Universal more take-downs, considering the high volume they have. Nowhere does it actually say they were trying to promote pirated uploads. The indictment just creates that impression by taking quotes from different contexts and putting them together in a new context.
You Brits and your imaginative slang :)
I don't think we do. We have a law which makes it an offence to fail to provide the decryption key, which in my opinion is far worse.
I don't understand the difference...
"Enabling" may be a more correct term. But in that case, MegaUpload is not actively promoting copyright violations either. They simply give cash for popular files, and fail to check which ones are legal and which ones are not.
Then they may not not bring up what the password is in the court room.
So what's the difference between information strictly in your head vs undocumented material subpoenaed to be materialized before the court? It's de-facto incrimination to force the materialization of evidence via a subpoena. Is it not?
In practical terms, the difference is that when testifying against yourself, the prosecution may confuse you, your tongue may slip and you say something you don't mean, they can actively try to make you say something they can take out of context and twist, and so on.
In legal terms, forcing someone to testify against themselves is forbidden by the 5th amendment, while forcing someone to assist in a search and seizure that may incriminate themselves is not.
Here in Sweden, you can't be forced to decrypt your hard drive or reveal a password. The courts are pretty limited in what they can do - new legislation is usually required if they face a new situation.
There are many more countries than the USA that have a requirement to assist the police in examining your computer, though. I know the UK has a law that explicitly requires suspects to reveal their password upon request.
The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from self-incriminating action. You can still be forced to open your safe, produce a gun you're known to possess, etc. The 5th amendment only protects you from testifying against yourself.
I think it's reasonable to adopt a less literal interpretation, and view a password as a key, not as testimony, in this context. A password is functionally equivalent to a key to a safe, and the password itself can't be used as evidence against you, which is the case with testimony.
The problem lies in proving that the suspect actually knows the passsword. We can't have a situation where people are held in contempt of court because they forgot their password. If a suspect says they've forgotten it, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Why would the hash change if you made an image? An image is exact, as opposed to a file-to-file copy. You can always make exact copies in the digital world, if you wish to.
Let's see if I understand this: The counter only changes if you unplug the USB device? It stays the same as long as it's connnected, even when the power is turned off?
Clever. Although you'll have to be very careful not to nudge it and unplug it accidentally.
True story: I've entered my 4-digit ATM PIN dozens of times from memory, but the other day, I couldn't remember it. It just fell out of my memory for no particular reason. I'm still not sure what it is; I'll have to check my password database (encrypted, of course).
This has happened to me several times before, and no, I'm not old enough to make senility a likely explanation :)
"Me, with the candlestick, in the library"
I don't think that's illegal yet.
Oh. You meant hitting someone with the candlestick.
England already has laws that force suspects to decrypt their hard drives... but maybe you were ironically referring to that?
Well, obviously. But if the United States and New Zealand have different definitions of criminal copyright, it's New Zealand's definition that the judges will look at when deciding if extradition is justified.
Aha, so that's where I got the wrong spelling from...
That's absurd. First, I doubt American law requires video streaming services to prove who watched their videos. Does YouTube do that?
Second, a company based in New Zealand / Hong Kong has no reason to follow American bookkeeping laws. If you believe that, it's American Hübris to the point of madness.
The problem is that several countries can't have jurisdiction over the same matter at the same time. Or to put it in simpler terms: MegaUpload can't be tried for the same crime in both American, Dutch, Hong Kong and New Zealand courts. One jurisdiction has to "win" and the others have to "lose".
Therefore, it's not enough to have a claim on jurisdiction; you need to have the strongest claim.
Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is absurd. It would mean a Canadian who shares a file copyrighted by a US company could put it on a Phillipinian server, and be out of reach of both Canada's and the United States' justice system.
You want to give jurisdiction to either the country where the alleged perpetrator was at the time of the alleged crime, or the country where the alleged victim were. Any other countries have very little to do with it and are unlikely to want to burden their justice system with it.
Basing jurisdiction on where the servers are situated is just one of many rationalisations the lawyers use to get American jurisdiction, and a very weak one at that. If the servers are outside the US, they'll instantly switch viewpoint and try to base jurisdiction on something else instead.
And regardless of the issue of jurisdiction, American corporations have no business deleting files which are legal in my country. MegaUpload also had servers in the Netherlands (and probably a few other places too).