Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Megaupload User Data Could Be Destroyed Soon

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the cloudy-skies dept.

Cloud 260

New submitter advid.net writes "According to the Associated Press, user data from the recently-closed file-hosting site Megaupload could be destroyed as soon as Thursday. Apparently Megaupload paid another company to actually store the data. 'But Megaupload attorney Ira Rothken said Sunday that the government has frozen its money. A letter filed in the case Friday by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia said storage companies Carpathia Hosting Inc. and Cogent Communications Group Inc. may begin deleting data Thursday. ... The letter said the government copied some data from the servers but did not physically take them. It said that now that it has executed its search warrants, it has no right to access the data. The servers are controlled by Carpathia and Cogent and issues about the future of the data must be resolved with them, prosecutors said." There's also been talk of a lawsuit against the FBI over users' lost files.

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

c:\ erase /S *.* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869041)

What's so difficult about that?

Re:c:\ erase /S *.* (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869063)

Absolutely nothing ... I don't think there was any question of "how" to do it. RTFA

Re:c:\ erase /S *.* (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869131)

Hey! Let's sue the Gestappo!

Re:c:\ erase /S *.* (5, Funny)

xcfmx (25409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869113)

problem #1.. not hosted on DOS.
problem #2.. see problem #1

As Obi Wan once said (2, Funny)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869055)

Archives for As if millions of MP3s cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced....

Re:As Obi Wan once said (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869133)

One small step for man, one giant leap toward not hearing pop trash.

Re:As Obi Wan once said (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869165)

Quit playing games with my heart.

Re:As Obi Wan once said (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869145)

What is the over under on how many human lifetimes worth of porn are about to disappear?

Re:As Obi Wan once said (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869619)

9000 seems like a reasonable guess

Right to Forget comment (2)

pointless_hack (2543124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869077)

Now if only my old embarrassing you tube vids would disappear the same way!

Can they simply delete it? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869111)

Wouldn't that be destruction of evidence?

Captcha: retrieve

Re:Can they simply delete it? (3)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869189)

They seized everything based on unlawful means. Why would they need evidence? The "Anti-Rights" has won this battle and the only way to ensure their victory is to erase every file that was legitimate.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869393)

By unlawful you mean by lawful methods you disagree with.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869415)

Precisely.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869537)

Yes, because all criminals in jail should be released. Do you realize how completely dumb you sound? Its one thing to say a low is "illegal" because it conflicts with the US Constition and/or well established interpreation of US law, but its completely different to take issue with the entire legal system, which even in this case, worked exactly as intended.

Basically your retort is, "...but I like stealing shit." Well no kidding you loser.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869733)

Do you realize how completely dumb you sound? Its one thing to say a low is "illegal"...

Do you know how dumb you sound when you don't spell 'law' correctly?

Re:Can they simply delete it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869811)

Do you realize how dumb you show yourself to be when your reply is as empty as the contents of your skull?

Re:Can they simply delete it? (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869325)

The short answer is no. "They" (by which I assume you mean the US govt) cannot delete the data. What they *can* do is take steps which will almost certainly result in the data being deleted by the third parties hosting it.

The result is something like an extrajudicial execution. They've ensured Megaupload will die, even if the company is exonerated in the courts.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869643)

Is it the US government's responsibility to ensure that Megaupload's business model remains viable during litigation? No. No, it isn't.

And yes, my remaining faith in teh INTARNETS!!1!11!!1!lololol being a sustainable culture and/or the "future" of culture as opposed to a flash in the pan footnote that will dutifully extinguish itself by willingly stuffing its head so far up its own swollen ass that it can't see anything outside its own rotting, maggot-infested colon is directly proportional to how long it takes some oh-so-CLEVAR!!!1!1!!! fucktart to reply to this post, bitching about how the US gummermint is out to ensure TEH MAFIAAAAAAAAAAAAZ' business model remains viable.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (2)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869675)

Its the US goverments job to ensure that if they arrest somebody, they don't starve to death waiting for trial.
By the same principle: If I accuse somebody of a crime, to harm their corporation, I must be fully liable for all damage, and the prosecturs must be fully liable for all damage they cause.
-QED.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869859)

Epic counter-lawsuit though if that happens.

It's one of those cases where they "could" give the data back but won't.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

ticktickboom (1054594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869399)

what evidence? they searched n took what they needed at the time. it is all still theirs. its destruction of something that might be able to be used to incriminate them, maybe. when talkin bout the govt, its something that could incriminate everyone who has ever used that website.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (5, Interesting)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869411)

Wouldn't that be destruction of evidence?

Captcha: retrieve

It is also destruction of exculpatory evidence. If Megaupload makes the claim [true or not] that the majority of the content was non-infringing, how will they be able to prove/disprove this? Or, the reverse argument as well.

Imagine if this was done to YouTube. YouTube has at least one infringing clip, but it also has a lot of original content that would be lost.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869489)

It doesn't matter. The business, "Megaupload", is gone, the guys running it have spent time in jail. Even if the FBI drops the charges, Megaupload is screwed.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (3, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869601)

It doesn't matter. The business, "Megaupload", is gone, the guys running it have spent time in jail. Even if the FBI drops the charges, Megaupload is screwed.

More importantly, the business, "MegaBox" (one of the main reasons MegaUpload was targeted [techcrunch.com] ) is also dead, meaning the first real challenge to the RIAA is stillborn.

Just as planned, Mission accomplished, etc etc.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (5, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869567)

Imagine if this was done to YouTube. YouTube has at least one infringing clip, but it also has a lot of original content that would be lost.

Believe you me, if YouTube hadn't been bought by Google, this would have happened to them. The various Copyright Cartels would still love to do this to them, but can't because Google is too big.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

hugh nicks (754727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869843)

I wish I had mod points for you. This is exactly right. YouTube was in a position where they could have been easily crushed if Google hadn't bought them, and thankfully Google saw the benefit of having control of an entire new kind of medium. They knew that allowing people to upload themselves doing stupid things, it would attract the eyes of their friends. Think America's Funniest Home Videos on an ever growing Tivo. More eyes, more advertising dollars.

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869437)

From what I understand the search warrant has already been served and completed. Once it's completed that's it, if they want more data they need another warrant against the 2 companies hosting the data (neither of which is Megaupload).

Re:Can they simply delete it? (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869871)

The FBI made copies, the hosting providers can now delete the copies on their end if they wish.

Suing the FBI? (1, Troll)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869141)

.... There's also been talk of a lawsuit against the FBI over users' lost files.

Isn't that like suing the police to get back the cash you paid the drug dealer they just arrested?

Re:Suing the FBI? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869185)

No, it's like the FBI impounding all the units in a storage facility because some of them hold illegal contraband.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869237)

And then coming in and burning each and every one of them to ensure that there is no possibility that any of the contraband has leaked into the legit storage units.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869331)

And then coming to your house, fucking your wife in the butt then wiping their poopy dicks all over the curtains.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869709)

And then coming to your house, fucking your wife in the butt

Well, someone's gotta do it.

Re:Suing the FBI? (3, Interesting)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869239)

not quite. Its like the FBI seizing all units of a storage facility where the storage facility itself is believed to be storing illegal materials on the premises. The case about them isn't about users storing illegal materials, its about them knowingly allowing it, hindering the ability for the rights holders to remove it and building their entire business based on those illegal materials.

Re:Suing the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869279)

Yes, but thats not really and improvement for people that did use the facility correctly.

Re:Suing the FBI? (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869413)

not quite. Its like the FBI seizing all units of a storage facility where the storage facility itself is believed to be storing illegal materials on the premises.

Having destroyed the material, how do they prove it was illegal? Even if they can point to a few files, how do they show that the majority of files are infringing (which will be required under US law)?

No, the objective here is simple: put Megaupload out of business, irrespective of what is legal or not. This deletion will put them out of business.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869531)

I don't disagree. However, the argument for a suit lies in the FBI deleting the files, which they haven't and can't. They are only limiting access to and removing the ability to pay for the upkeep. their reasoning would be that legit users would have to file suit against mega* to get reparations.

Re:Suing the FBI? (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869477)

No, it's like the FBI showing up with the CEO's of walmart in tow, prying the lock off a couple of the storage units and the CO's pointing at random objects and yelling "They stole that, and that, and that..." meanwhile the renters of the storage locker are in China, and the owner of the storage company says "Well they could have gotten that at Target you know... also, how do you know they stole this and didn't actually pay for it? Have you even asked them?" The FBI then arrests the Owner of the storage unit, who now can't pay its utility bills... water, sewer and power are cut off... the buildings catch fire and the FBI tells the fire department "no need to put that out... we have the truth, let the lies burn."

When they come to take your rights away, they start with the people that clearly don't deserve them. When they come for yours, well... it's a little too late then isn't it?

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869597)

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that the government is in the wrong here. I merely pointed out an inaccuracy in an analogy. This is commonplace here you know...

I fight for my rights, I don't see many that do. I wore a uniform, I shipped overseas, I operated on behalf of our government thinking that I was defending the rights of U.S. citizens. Today i fight with my signature, my vote and my sway with others. The U.S. government or any government can come after me and try to take my rights, but they won't get them without a fight.

Re:Suing the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869487)

No, the parent was right. Carpathia Hosting, Inc and Cogent Communications Group, Inc are the storage facility. Kim Dotcom and Megaupload were "storing illegal materials" in Carpathia's and Cogent's "storage facility." Carpathia and Cogent are not under investigation for knowingly allowing users to store illegal materials.

If the servers belonged to Megaupload or Kim Dotcom, you would be right. If Carpathia and Cogent were under investigation, you would be right. But neither of those are true, so the parent is right.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869271)

Exactly. Some people paid for this service and used it to store legitimate files. From what I've read, there's little question that MU employees and management knew their service was being used to trade a lot of infringing material, and even went so far as to play shell games with download links to avoid complying with the DMCA, but what of the people who used it legitimately, paid for the privilege, and are now going to have their files wiped? It's not like MU will have any assets to go after once this whole mess shakes out.

Re:Suing the FBI? (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869389)

Welcome to the cloud. If your data is more valuable than the storage space it's written to, then keep your own copy. In this case, it was the government that precipitated the shutdown of a service provider, so everybody's looking to blame them. Who are you going to blame when market dynamics cause a company to just go bankrupt? This reminds me of the outcry that happened when they finally put a bullet in (I believe it was) GeoCities.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869441)

Indeed. I've seen this leveled as a criticism against using "the cloud," but really, only a complete moron would keep their only copy of anything important in the cloud. Even Google could somehow die tomorrow. You just never know.

But with GeoCities, there was ample warning. There really wasn't in this case, though the writing was on the wall. I never handed one red cent over to MU considering I saw their service was used predominantly for copyright infringement--just too dicey a proposition for me.

I think there's a difference. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869599)

If the provider goes down due to bankruptcy, there would be a warning period of time in which users can take down their files and make copies and move to other services. Companies don't go bankrupt overnight.

Re:I think there's a difference. (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869703)

Companies go bankrupt overnight routinely.

It's a typical endgame of a grift.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869707)

The trouble is that regardless of whether or not the uploader has a copy, losing the cloud copy is still a loss to the people it was intended for. Perhaps it could be replaced by the uploader or someone who downloaded it previously, but there is no guarantee of this... People move on, forget that email's password, die, etc. While this loss may not be _actionable_ (e.g. a by a lawsuit), it's foolish to pretend it's not a loss all the same.
(And that's not even covering all the effort lost to simply reupoading and correcting the links for all the files you already had uploaded.)

Geocities is actually a perfect example. We had notice and special effort was made to preserve the data being lost:
http://www.archive.org/web/geocities.php [archive.org]

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869629)

No, it's like the FBI impounding all the units in a storage facility because some of them hold illegal contraband.

And then destroying the contents of all the units in the storage facility, with some smug asshole telling you "Well, you should have picked a better storage unit, eh?" when you complain.

World Cops - woo hoo! Mole decively whacked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869681)

You have succeeded in stomping out "fileshareing" forever, (just as the killing of the original Napster did).

Oh, my, my! Where, oh, where, could one go to sample content now?

Fucking Brainless Idiots.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

mindcandy (1252124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869819)

The data was in a colo .. in my (professional) dealings with the authorities, provided you are cooperative (and by this, I don't mean coughing up things voluntarily, I mean they have a proper warrant that legal has reviewed, etc.) .. they are sensitive to disrupting your business and in many cases enlist the help of the on-site technicians to identify the evidence they seek (which often times isn't so simple as "that machine over there").

I doubt we'll get the tell-all from the colo folks, but likely they just went in with the warrant and asked for images .. they don't truck out the entire datacenter unless it's the business itself that's under investigation.

Re:Suing the FBI? (3, Insightful)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869193)

how about legit files of your own creation that you had complete ownership of and decided to put on a cloud service?

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869267)

how about legit files of your own creation that you had complete ownership of and decided to put on a cloud service?

Still, I don't think you can sue the FBI for executing a warrant, unless they have gone beyond the scope of what was permitted in the warrant.

And as I understand, it isn't the FBI that is deleting the data, but rather a subcontractor whose bills have not been paid since Megaupload's assets have been frozen. I really don't see grounds for suing the FBI here.

Re:Suing the FBI? (4, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869357)

Still, I don't think you can sue the FBI for executing a warrant, unless they have gone beyond the scope of what was permitted in the warrant.

They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that? There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869435)

There is certainly a possibility that MegaUpload will be found not guilty and then who's going to refund the costs, recover the data and refund the lost user fees??

Yes, but there's an equal possiblity that Kim Dotcom will just withdraw all the money, bury most of it in a hole in the desert, and spend the rest on Blow and Hookers before he ends up in jail. It's pretty typical for a Court to freeze assets that appear to have come from illegal activity pending trial for just this reason. If you come back not-guilty, you typically get your money back. That's when the Income Tax Evasion trials typically start...

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

qbast (1265706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869521)

They typically start with making sure that defendant cannot afford a lawyer? I guess this is a good way to ensure guilty verdict.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869727)

If Kim Dotcom didn't already have high powered American shysters on retainer (meaning prepaid) he is a fool.

Re:Suing the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869777)

They typically start with making sure that defendant cannot afford a lawyer?

With the potentially illegally-gained money? So the guy can waste all the cash on a team of stupidly-high-priced lawyers (and the requisite hookers and blow) to intentionally leave nothing left to give back to the plaintiffs if he still gets a guilty verdict? That doesn't make any sense at all. What, are you just desperate to keep loopholes open in case you need to defraud the court system later?

Re:Suing the FBI? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869555)

They froze the assets of a company that hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Why are they allowed to do that?

That's RICO [wikipedia.org] for ya, baby.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869417)

But it's pretty hard to hold someone accountable when they cannot defend themselves because you tied up there financing so much that the evidence they had to defend themselves has been destroyed.

The only evidence the FBI supbeoned was evidence again Megaupload.
I am pretty sure that Megaupload's lawyers see this as being either good (we will use this as doubt) or bad (how will we defend ourselves without this as evidence) but they will certainly have an opinion. That they aren't talking about this in legal terms implies to me that they will be attempting to use any data destruction to their benefit.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869455)

Not for executing the warrant, no. For then destroying the business and causing the destruction of legally stored files before even bothering with a formality of a trial. There is an ethical responsibility to not cause irreparable harm unless/until a guilty verdict is returned. There is also an ethical duty not to cause harm to innocent 3rd parties.

The correct answer is to give everyone a chance to download their data before it is erased.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869895)

If it's shown that the FBI lead to an innocent megaupload being deleted by their host due to legal restraint of not being able to pay their hosting bills, MU might have a case, but 1st they have to focus on the issue at hand, and that's that they're on trial.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869343)

Seriously?

On MegaUpload?

Got any real-world non-contrived examples, or is this just a hypothetical exercise designed for no other purpose than to second guess decisions over something that has no bearing in reality?

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869483)

I have downloaded perfectly legit files from megaupload before.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869509)

I've run into all of the following in the days since MegaUpload has been down:

Stepmania files for public domain, CC, etc. compositions
Podcast
Video coverage of an event
Rip of (public) art/drawing stream

There would also be quite a bit of original as-seen-on-youtube music, but thankfully that usually ends up on Mediafire. Quite frankly I can't imagine the last time I downloaded something not CC, public domain, or clearly free use from such a service. While I won't pretend that sites like MegaUpload don't have pirated content or that it's not some of the most popular stuff on them, suggesting they don't have plenty of legitimate files is extremely ignorant.

Re:Suing the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869231)

Sounds more like suing the FBI for demolishing the parking building with your car inside, the car you bought and you paid the parking lot to keep in.

Yes, I can make car analogies.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869277)

Can't sue unless the government says you can. Remember, the FTCA does not cover everything involved here. Also, the FBI isn't deleting anything. They removed access for users, as well as seized the accounts used to pay the bills to the server companies. It would be Carpathia and Cogent doing the deletion due to the bills not being paid.

Re:Suing the FBI? (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869689)

So it would be like the FBI preventing access to a parking building full of cars. Then allowing the land owners to demolish it, because the management cannot pay the owners. The FBI then arrests anyone entering on trespassing charges, and allows the owners to demolish the building. The rubble including the cars is then re-purposed by the land owners.

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869311)

Close, but not entirely. But you do raise an interesting point.

Users who signed up [slashdot.org] agreed that they had no combacks if they lost data. Users bear all risks of data loss. It gets hairy because this isn't Megaupload deciding to stop operating (as described in that TOS); rather, it's someone else deciding on their behalf. But you're still on a sticky wicket if you already agreed that you shouldn't keep your sole copy on Megaupload and it's your fault if something happens to your data.

But I think that suing the FBI because you claim collateral damage as the result of a criminal investigation isn't likely to find much sympathy.

Besides which, as everyone on Slashdot knows, nothing "real" has been lost. [slashdot.org]

Re:Suing the FBI? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869745)

Except when it impacts customers in other countries where the laws are different. See, in Canada the FBI doing this falls under the clause of causing mischief. Regardless of whether or not there's an ongoing criminal investigation. This is one of the reasons why if your data is taken in canada, your data is safe in canada. If the US government wants to play the 'we can reach across the border and do shit'

Per 430CC

Mischief in relation to data

(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

        (a) destroys or alters data;

        (b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;

        (c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or

        (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.

Well...they might get a nasty surprise. Since our extradition treaty covers mischief, and the arrest and deportation of individuals back to canada to stand trial. In Canada mischief can be carried into IO(that's felony for americans)territory regarding the rendering of data being unusable.

Oh no!! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869227)

not my porn, my precious porn!

does rule 34 apply here? Is there porn involving porn being deleted?

Re:Oh no!! (2)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869635)

its called snuff snuff

Re:Oh no!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869845)

do not confuse it with snarf snarf

I don't understand the problem (4, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869247)

Did the users upload to MU and delete their local copy? If not, they still have their data.

Re:I don't understand the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869289)

That makes too much sense! This is Slashdot! We don't like that kind of thinking around here.

Re:I don't understand the problem (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869513)

They uploaded to MU for a backup and just lost their hard drives and would like to recover from that backup.

Re:I don't understand the problem (0)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869825)

They should have done another backup (through some other means) the day after MU went offline. Stupid/lazy users deserve what they get.

Re:I don't understand the problem (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869569)

Maybe the user's friend, who's not me, uploaded something there, forgot about it for years, and now thinks it might be a good idea to delete it, but can't.

The user's friend has an unsolvable problem and he's worried.

It wasn't even a real chicken.

!Safe in Cloud (5, Insightful)

Barondude (245739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869283)

And this is why you should never trust anything you can't afford to lose to the cloud. You lose control and have no idea what is really going on with your data under the hood.

Re:!Safe in Cloud (3, Insightful)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869433)

Kinda like... trusting anything you can't afford to loose to a hard drive.

Remember when IBM moved its production facilities from San Jose to Hungary? I heard they had a 60%+ return rate on those first batches of drives-- I lost two years of grad school research.

Cloud= redundancy, man. Didn't you watch the Steve Jobs presentation at WDDC, when he said HE NEVER LOST ANYTHING? That's the idea.

Re:!Safe in Cloud (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869539)

If it was that important, why not have backups?

Re:!Safe in Cloud (1)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869821)

if you are storing your data in the cloud "backups" mean you use multiple companies. that way if one company is shutdown, then your data is still in the cloud elsewhere. view it as losing a disk from a raid array (yes i know raid isn't meant for backup) you need to start rebuilding the array before you lose the rest.

Re:!Safe in Cloud (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869485)

You betcha. I take all my important data and put store in in my old dell PC. Plugged right into the wall socket, stored on my one big drive, and put into a nice little box in the corner closed off so no one can see it.

Lets face it. If you are going to use a cloud service it is because you don't have the resources to have Redundant servers hosted at multiple locations, with UPS power supplies, and RAID configuration, in a well climate controlled room.

If you already have the infrastructure going to a cloud solution is just stupid. If you don't have the infrastructure and your data needs are at the right level then cloud is a good option.

The reason why everyone doesn't drive Tractor Tailors is because they are too big and expensive for most of our needs. Going to the cloud for most people is safer then the alternative that they have to them.

If you are going to have really important information stored on a cloud system, then you shouldn't just pick any one and agree to the standard terms of service. If it is important get a contract and cover data retention policies and ways to get the data in case of closure.

A polar bear walks into the White Star office... (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869285)

Carpathia Hosting

Well, choosing them was a titanic mistake.

Re:A polar bear walks into the White Star office.. (2)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869367)

N.B. The Carpathia _saved_ the Titanic survivors.

you always ruin everything. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869505)

Shut UP , Wilhelm joke-explainer!

Re:A polar bear walks into the White Star office.. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869647)

Yeah, but then it decided to go up against the Romans...

How fitting... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869307)

If we are to have a 'war on piracy', I suppose it is only to be expected that we should soon enough have some of what some elegant coiner of dispassion euphemism though to refer to as "collateral damage"...

Selfishly, I'm inclined to be pleased, in a way. As long as it is possible for people to think that it is 'just about the pirates' or 'the innocent have nothing to fear', acquiescence will be the order of the day. Wholesale and flagrant destruction of bystanders' property should provide a valuable example of how false that thinking is.

Re:How fitting... (1)

Mista2 (1093071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869475)

Had no effect when the feds stormed in and took whole racks of equipment at a hosting providor, knocking legit sites off air as they scrambled into disaster recovery mode.
Paraphrasing, "when they came for the data of the filesharers, noone siad a word because it did not affect them, then they came for the data of the political activists, and noone said a word as we were all of course loyal citizens. Now they have come for my data, and I have nowhere to go to get information or to protest.

Re:How fitting... (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869491)

The binary tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the data of patriots.

And tyrants.

Nuke 'em from orbit. (4, Interesting)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869309)

The FBI is using the "Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure", offense.

The article says 50,000,000 users, it doesn't say how many files each might have.

If they keep any of them, there might be embarrassing disclosures like un-owned MP3's downloaded by congresspeople and their kids. There might be department of Justice employees with unlicensed software. Even White House staffers might have kinky files.

It would take every FBI agent several years to comb through all that data. It's better for them to just destroy it all.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869427)

it's not like downloaders can't re-upload what they took from MU... round #2.

Re:Nuke 'em from orbit. (5, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869527)

The downloaders that downloaded copyright infringing material can re-download somewhere else.

Customers that downloaded original stuff are screwed if they can't find a copy.

down side of the cloud where your data end up in (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869445)

down side of the cloud where your data end up in the hands contractors or sub contractors and so your data can be a risk if say the main contract does not pay it's subs or wants to change the terms of there deal.

Cogent is the FBI's ISP idiots (0)

djfuq (1151563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869479)

Wow I cant believe nobody else knows this... Cogent is the government. The name Cogent is actually a in-joke. Cogent was created for setting a beltway based ISP. It did well financially... it became a huge commercial presence.
They also dabble in DOE nuke projects.

I rely on you all to find proof I'm correct - I did this research years ago.... I am curious if you all come to find the info I found about that 8 years later... is it erased from the web? From history?

Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry (2)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869525)

This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground. Who will be able to trust their data to any cloud storage provider [used for disaster backup] that can be subject to such seizures/destruction?

---

If you use a provider to archive old data to free up some space, how would you get it back if it's destroyed?

So, bye bye, iCloud et. al. ...

Re:Destruction of fledgling cloud storage industry (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869723)

"This action will destroy the cloud storage/computing industry before it gets off the ground."

You say that as though it's a bad thing.

If you give your data to someone else, it's no longer your data and there's no guarantee you'll get it back. Either deal with that, or keep your data locally.

Is it just me, or... (1)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869565)

Doesn't this mean that the FBI took down the wrong site... I mean the legislation is all about 'indiscriminate hosting' of copyrighted data. Doesn't that mean they should be taking down Carpathia Hosting?

Re:Is it just me, or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38869663)

Well, Carpathia Hosting homepage suggests that they host government services.

Shutting them down would be really amusing.Headline:

"FBI shutting down government services as collateral damage".

At least it shows that the issue is complex beyond Megaupload.

Basis of "safe" cloud filesharing? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869669)

Could this end up being the basis of "safe" cloud filesharing?

Open account with Company A. Company A doesn't own servers, they outsource their servers to Company B. Company B has some storage, but outsources some of this to Companies C, D, and E (...and F, and G...)

Due to fluctuating demand, costs, and performance modeling, Company B migrates data periodically between storage vendors, who in turn, migrate data between data centers.

At any one point, the person with an account at Company A can access their data but they have no idea where its stored, and neither does anyone at company A. Thanks to virtualization, company B actually has to work at figuring out where an individual TB chunk of data is at any one time.

Company A has a storage plan from company B that says they pay per week for storage used (due to high fluctuation) and that company B may delete data within 3 days of nonpayment.

Now, Company A may not be a safe place to store your precious data, but given the outsourced storage and virtualizaton and delete-on-nonpayment contract, the FBI may not be able to find the data they want or get enough search warrants within the time frame necessary,.

All this does is say- Don't do business in the US (5, Interesting)

undeadbill (2490070) | more than 2 years ago | (#38869789)

Megaupload is a Hong Kong based company. The only reason they were charged in the US was because they used servers for hosting in the US. This pretty much sends a message to anyone who might do business in the States that they are not welcome, and that justice is pretty much bought and sold by how much money and influence you have. This is not a good message to be sending out to businesses overseas, looking to invest here. Freezing a foreign company's assets worldwide over what is a domestic issue is going to give a lot of international entrepreneurs reasons to look elsewhere.

Kim Dotcom did the smart thing- he made sure there was a time limit set on his user's data if someone bigger than his company came along and tried to forcibly take it. By the time someone shutting down his operations finally figured out where the real data was held, all of it is going to be deleted- unless they return his funds and let him continue to operate. Damned if they do shut him down, because now he and his company are a damaged party and the US takes a hit in the international markets, damned if they don't shut him down completely, because then the Feds look weak and ineffectual.

Exculpatory evidence and discovery for the trial are irreparably damaged by the Prosecution, the Defendants can now sue in civil and international court for damages (whether they see them or not), and Kim Dotcom may even become a cause celebre. That is, if the US doesn't hold him indefinitely under the NDAA...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>