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 Lawyer Says User Data Will Be Held For Two Weeks

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

Cloud 94

First time accepted submitter AlistairCharlton writes "Users' data on the seized Megaupload website will be saved for two further weeks, according to the website's lawyer, despite being shut down by US authorities. From the article: 'Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken reportedly told tech blog TorrentFreak.com that users' data would be saved for at least another two weeks, after it was previously thought that the data would be deleted by Thursday, 2 February.'"

cancel ×

94 comments

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

First post niggers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876477)

I actually like black people and think they're cool in a way most white folk will never be. But I can't stand fucking niggers.

Re:First post niggers! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877855)

I can't stand fucking niggers.

Then don't?

slashdotted (4, Interesting)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876479)

Anyway, the question to who knows: is the data available to users now? Why don't they make it available? MAFIAA does not gain anything by not allowing current users to download their own material. Unless there is a technical issue of nobody's giving rat's ass about users of megaupload.

Re:slashdotted (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876611)

The government has a copy. They just need to go through it first to make sure no one was doing anything illegal--such as downloading pirated files, bad-mouthing the President, supporting the Occupy movement, etc.

Re:slashdotted (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876669)

Yeah, like the government hasn't spent hundreds of thousands supporting the 'occupy movement.'

Re:slashdotted (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877483)

Oh good grief, Slashdot comments have reached a new low.

Can you show me a single, solitary instance of where badmouthing the president has been treated as a criminal (or civil) offense, in the last 50 years? If not kindly keep your hyperbole to yourself.

Ditto with "supporting the occupy movement", which I will note was given free reign to trespass on private property for well over a month before everyone decided it was time they complied with the same laws the Tea Party had to.

Seriously, this silly karma whoring is getting irritating.

Re:slashdotted (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877779)

right, because HomeLand Security has never paid a visit to anyone who bad mouthed the president on facebook or yourtube or radio

Re:slashdotted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38878141)

Again, shit for brains, show me some evidence of that ever happening or go fucking kill yourself like the pathetic paranoid fagwhore you are.

Re:slashdotted (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878681)

don't follow mainstream news much in your mom's basement, eh?

Re:slashdotted (1)

brocktoon (745268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878483)

Re:slashdotted (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878723)

So I ask for evidence that authorities have used "badmouthing the president" as a basis for a court case, and you respond with some completely off topic incident.

Im a little lost here, what were you trying to prove? That UK citizens have an irrevocable right to enter the US, protocol be damned?

Re:slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38879741)

We fucking should do. It *is* ours after all, you ignorant colonial.

Re:slashdotted (0)

obsess5 (719497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878015)

One would expect a certain amount of classical education on the part of the aristocracy (e.g., Lords), but I guess not if they belong to the Tea Party. "Reign" is spelled "rein".

Re:slashdotted (2, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878771)

One would expect a rational response to the ideas presented in a post on slashdot, but I guess not if they have decided to fall back on ridicule and grammar nazism.

Re:slashdotted (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878491)

"Can you show me a single, solitary instance of where badmouthing the president has been treated as a criminal (or civil) offense, in the last 50 years?"

Considering I've called the SS several times regarding people talking shit about Bush, and been thanked every time for it, you must be one ignorant idiot, limecat.

Re:slashdotted (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880133)

...Why? Surely you have better things to do with your time than call the secret service when somebody badmouths the president, especially when you frequent a site like this one.

Re:slashdotted (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880761)

Threatening the President is not the same as badmouthing the president. If you report someone saying something about the president to the SS they will investigate to see if there is a credible threat, but if it is found to be just badmouthing then nothing further will be done.

Re:slashdotted (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896903)

Said badmouthing can include IMPLIED THREATS.

Learn, please.

Re:slashdotted (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38897123)

What's your problem man? I know that badmouthing can include threats. And if it doesn't it isn't criminal. You must be one ignorant idiot.

Re:slashdotted (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38898451)

Implied threats don't require direct things to be said. If it even has a hint, you can get in trouble for it.

Are you even following the conversation?

Re:slashdotted (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879653)

Oh good grief, Slashdot comments have reached a new low.

Can you show me a single, solitary instance of where badmouthing the president has been treated as a criminal (or civil) offense, in the last 50 years?

2008 RNC St. Paul

Re:slashdotted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880681)

Thank you!

I was arrested for nothing more than speaking my mind at the RNC in St. Paul. Turns out speech really isn't free in this country.

Let me bring this down to LordLimecats level: LordLimecat you are a total douche and obviously live in your sheltered little world where everything is perfect, the birds are always chirping and hawaiin punch flows from the drinking fountains.

Re:slashdotted (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882173)

Turns out private events actually have rules and protocol.

Re:slashdotted (2, Informative)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879965)

Can you show me a single, solitary instance of where badmouthing the president has been treated as a criminal (or civil) offense, in the last 50 years?

You won't find one, because people bad-mouthing the President don't get arrested and tried. They just get secretly declared to be terrorists and summarily executed. [salon.com]

...which is AWESOME. I think it's super-great that our President has this power! GO OBAMA! WOOO! I am totally voting for him in November, I will even film myself voting and post it to Youtube so that there's public proof that I SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT UNCONDITIONALLY!!!

Re:slashdotted (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38885349)

Wow rampant ignorance and /or misrepresentation of sources gets modded up on slashdot, who would have thought.

The article youre referencing doesnt mention once anyone getting killed, tried, arrested, detained, or targetted for saying ANYTHING about the president.

It DOES discuss whether the president can target people, in this case overseas (and cooperating with foreign beligerents), who also happen to be citizens. Which might be an interesting discussion to have, except it has absolutely nothing to do with first amendment issues or free speech or lack thereof, which is what we were discussing.

Re:slashdotted (1)

sound+vision (884283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38888625)

Oh, they have no problem monitoring people within their borders. The fact that various three-letter-agencies (I can't recall if it was specifically the FBI or the CIA) kept close tabs on people who were seen as in opposition to the establishment (John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr, and Timothy Leary were extensively monitored) is well-known. Imagine all the stuff that we don't know... These examples happened like 40 years ago.

My first two examples weren't arrested or tried for anything (although Lennon had applications for US citizenship repeatedly denied despite him living in NY for years). The third one had a miniscule quantity of drugs planted in his car at a border crossing and was arrested, later being broken out of jail by the Weather Underground. See, they don't just throw you in jail for not liking the government or its policies. You're right, they could never do it like that, it's too obvious and would alert even people with their heads in the sand. What they do is they monitor you silently, covertly. If they dislike you enough, they either catch you slipping doing one of the myriad things they've criminalized, or they outright plant evidence on you - underage pornography in your computer, a joint butt in your ashtray. That's what they get you for.

Within the past decade, it's gotten even more trivial to monitor large amounts of people covertly or semi-covertly. Remember the stories here about a week ago detailing their new Facebook monitoring program? I wouldn't be surprised if they are monitoring many parts of the internet aside from Facebook, in a semi-automated way, to track down actual or potential "dissidents". To single people out for closer, more detailed monitoring. The concept that they need warrants for any of this stuff (or that such warrants aren't trivially easy to obtain, besides) is a myth, I don't think that's been true for the last 60 years, or more. They've long been putting together the regulatory framework to make this monitoring legal: think Patriot Act, and a dozen other pieces of legislation that chip away at our freedoms one by one. Not that it being illegal ever stopped them from doing it... If you think the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens, are anything more than toilet paper to each and everyone in the federal government, you are simply being ignorant.

you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877027)

I'm not certain how I feel about this either but this wasn't done by a private entity; it was done by the Federal Government. Those involved will receive due process of law and will be provided with legal counsel if they are unable to afford their own. The first is debatable in the civil actions brought by RIAA/MPAA while the second doesn't apply in civil cases.

In any case, this is the price you pay when you rely on cloud computing. Those of us who were skeptical about it have been saying this from the very beginning. If you entrust the sole copy of important data to someone else you've got nobody to blame but yourself when they go out of business/get shutdown/change their policies/etc. There's a reason why I don't use my G-mail account for anything other than New York Times/similar sites that make me register.

Re:you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877883)

Well, there's only two real problems with the cloud, albeit possibly major ones depending on your utilization.

1. You can lose your stuff. It's not as easy as we fear, but the Megaupload situation shows that it is not as hard as we had hoped.
2. If you store private data there, you're taking a risk that you probably don't need to take.

Neither of these says that you should not use cloud services, what they do say, however, is that for critical data, you should not rely on it. For data expected to be secure, you should not use it at all.

For my part, the cloud is probably fine to use if you want to store anything that is not security or financially related. The fact that you could lose it doesn't mean you should not use it at all, it just means you should back it up locally. Otherwise, you should be able to keep using the advantages of cloud services, which are still, frankly, going to be more reliable than your home computer on average. They also allow you to get your data where and when you need it, which is another big advantage that should not be overlooked.

Caveat emptor.

Re:you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879603)

For my part, the cloud is probably fine to use if you want to store anything that is not security or financially related

Or anything you are afraid of having read back to you in a courtroom one day. Your data can be subpoenaed off a cloud service and you might not even realize it.

Re:you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879887)

You can lose your stuff. It's not as easy as we fear, but the Megaupload situation shows that it is not as hard as we had hoped.

And this is why I will never trust a server that I do not physically control (and back up) to have the primary copy of any of my data. This is also why I will never trust cloud computing. It was a bad idea when Larry Ellison proposed it fifteen years ago, and it's still a bad idea today, and for exactly the same reasons.

Re:you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881293)

Just to clarify, the cloud is a great tool for some things. iCloud is an example of the right use of the cloud. It's a temporary repository for sharing information between multiple devices. If the cloud goes away, you still have a local copy of the app and a bunch of local copies of your data. You just lost syncing.

Sharing sites like Megaupload are also examples of the right use for the cloud, so long as you understand that they are temporary locations to store stuff that you want to share with others. The moment you start putting up links to them on permanent websites, you've gone off the cliff into "bad use of the cloud" territory. Unfortunately, far too often, people use these temporary repositories when they should be setting up their own permanent repositories. This invariably leads to damages all around.

For example, I was recently looking for some modified firmware for rooting an embedded device, and the first two links were to sites like Megaupload that had been recently taken down by the U.S. government. Three things made this interesting:

  • It's perfectly legal content for me to download (since I own the hardware and already have the stock firmware without the extra pieces added, and the authors of the extra pieces have the legal right to distribute those pieces). The courts have ruled fairly conclusively on this point on multiple occasions, though I don't have time to dig up the relevant case law.
  • It is slightly dubious whether the people who uploaded them have the right to redistribute them (since A. it could theoretically be downloaded by someone who doesn't own the hardware in question, not that it would be particularly useful to do so, and B. it is technically an unauthorized derivative work). Presumably to protect themselves somewhat from liability, they therefore chose a bunch of legally dubious sharing sites to host the content.
  • Either way, the content was taken down not because the company that made the device objected, but because it was caught up in the fringes of an FBI sting on movie uploaders and other stupid bulls**t that had nothing to do with the content in question.

On the one hand, technically the FBI's sting operation took down an unauthorized reposting of copyrighted material. On the other hand, the FBI's sting operation did so without the consent or action of the copyright owner, in a manner that was detrimental to the ability of people who legally own a licensed copy of the content in question to use that content in a manner consistent with U.S. copyright law.

Copyright law is a freaking mess, and it's high time the government stopped misusing our law enforcement to take care of what should be properly handled by complex civil suits between the copyright holders and the sites in question, and, more to the point, to attack valuable shared resources in a way that harms the Internet, deliberately ignoring the legally compliant take-down procedures that were already in place. In effect, when they failed to pass SOPA and PIPA, the government decided to sidestep DMCA protection in a different way, and a lot of people—myself included—got caught in the crossfire.

Of course, the reason so many abusive companies and organizations push the government to do their dirty work is that they know they have a good chance of losing the court case, because the company they're suing was, in fact, compliant with the law as written. If they get a bunch of jack-booted thugs to knock the door down, they don't have to care about what's legal or just. They get to shut down the site without regard to whether or not they had the legal right to do so. Hence, the government absolutely should not ever do this.

To any lawyers who decide to file a class action against the FBI for this action, please add me to the list of innocent parties harmed by their action. The FBI should absolutely be held liable for all of the cumulative collateral damage that their actions have caused, however small each individual instance of that damage might be.

Re:you lose credit when you say 'MAFIAA' (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878053)

...it was done by the Federal Government.

Using legislation bought and paid for by the MAFIAA (Music and Film Industries Association of America... Seeing as you like to keep repeating that). See, the real problem is not the government per se, but that we allow the it to become so corrupted, thinking there's something in it for us. Just looking for a fast buck

Re:slashdotted (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877821)

Simple.

Any rescue of MU's content would allow it to revive itself once the federal trial is over.

It's in the mafiaa's interest for MU to die.

Deleting? (2)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876495)

Since when does deleting destroy data?

Re:Deleting? (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876537)

Since data is stored in The Coud. Once it is deleted, the constant shuffling around will overwrite it in short order.

Re:Deleting? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877679)

Data in the cloud is likely to be backed up.

Re:Deleting? (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877753)

That's not the point, it's not accessible to those who need it so it might as well be considered deleted.

Re:Deleting? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878511)

Backups are proof against hardware failure, not against deletion. Once the backups cycle - which they will in a very short time, storage is expensive - the data is still gone.

Re:Deleting? (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876575)

The basic would be
# rm -rf /volume/data
Instead, they should manage to
# rm -rf /volume/data/illegal
only.
--
My taylor is rich

From TFA (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876501)

Previously known as Kim Schmitz, Dotcom, was arrested at his luxury New Zealand mansion on 20 January; he was found locked in a panic room which contained a gun cabinet.

That's were you want the gun cabinet to be. Who designs a panic room with guns on the outside? The zombies could learn to use them?

Re:From TFA (2)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876541)

It would be a rubbish panic room if you need guns inside. What you need are gun 'turrets' immediately outside the panic room. Possibly controlled by a smartphone app?

Re:From TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876665)

Who needs smartphone control? Samsung makes automated turrets [youtube.com] .

Re:From TFA (3, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876771)

Hello. Target Acquired.

.....

Are you still there?

Re:From TFA (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880413)

The picture that came to my mind was a scene from The Incredibles:

"Edna. Mode. .... And guest."

Re:From TFA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876635)

The point is it is unusual to have guns in a city in New Zealand.

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876737)

I thought gun ownership in New Zealand was really high?

Re:From TFA (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879999)

The point is, it is not unusual at all for really rich people to have guns wherever they want them, even if they're publically anti-gun.

Deleting evidence (4, Interesting)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876513)

I would have thought that all the evidence would need to be preserved. Surely if any data is deleted that would compromise the case?

Re:Deleting evidence (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876545)

You assume the outcome hasn't already been determined.

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877021)

Given the massive stack of evidence against these gangsters I'd say the outcome is all but determined.

Insisting that they're somehow innocent is a bit like claiming that Hans Reiser was innocent after he showed the police where he dumped Nina's body.

Also, Megaupload never to keep your personal data files secure. If you stored your personal data there, you obviously didn't read their T&Cs, and you deserve everything you get for skimping on a proper backup solution.

Re:Deleting evidence (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877437)

I wouldn't exactly call modding this one Troll a fair moderation. Sure it might be a bit "conspiracy theory"-ish, but the conspiracy is that the government acts at the behest of corporations to the detriment of its citizens. One of the rare cases where a conspiracy theory is mostly true, and It's not exactly a big secret anymore.

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877879)

Rare cases? Seems like every decade that passes reveals that many of the "crazy conspiracy theories" of the past were actually true. False flag operations, LSD tests on civilians, military black ops.... just imagine what we'll find out in the next 20-30 years

Re:Deleting evidence (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876577)

They don't care about the evidence.
They don't care about the conviction.
They just want MegaUpload gone.

They got what they want, the rest is details.

Re:Deleting evidence (3, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877445)

Are you kidding me? If Megaupload gets out of this, they're going to have tons of free publicity. "We fought the American government... and won!" Dotcom can paint himself as a rebel thumbing his nose at the most powerful country in the world and getting away with it.

They won't win (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877845)

Did you not read the indictment? Fake DMCA take down, confessions in emails, creating fake super users to keep files uploaded. Mr Dotcom has previous convictions too. He's going down for a long long long time.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

Not a hope of them winning. If you have files in Megaupload, go ahead an ask FBI for them. In the indictment, they even had emails from Mega boss telling them to fill Megaupload with youtube content to make it look like they had legitimate files! I mean these guys were such idiots they had a US based email system and like the cliqué bad guys discussed the plot with the victims first.

Re:They won't win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38878093)

So far this is the ONLY informative post in this entire thread. Slashdot is so dead. Here is sits at zero while so many losers talk about how unfair it is that the government, protecting the economy and citizenry, are bad. Holy shit the slashdot population is a bunch of moronic turds.

Literally the parent and grand parent are the only posts required in this entire thread. Period. Everything else is garbage.

Re:They won't win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880899)

I think you're right, but we're not supposed to say that Dotcom and friends are guilty, for after all they have not yet been convicted. That mountain of evidence against them might be an elaborate fabrication. Yes, that's very unlikely, but nevertheless they are innocent until proven guilty in court. Just like Al Capone and Hans Reiser. I hope this is why only idiots are posting. I really do.

These Megaupload discussions are either dishonest or idiotic. Either the Slashtards don't realise what a crook Dotcom was, and think it's all some FBI conspiracy (idiotic). Or they do know that Dotcom is a crim and pretend not to (dishonest).

If this is a battle for civil liberties, then supporting an obvious gangster is the worst thing we can do. Idiotic hardly does justice to the stupidity of this.

And as for "personal data", that's just dishonest. Nobody kept backups on Megaupload - it wasn't a safe place to store them, there was no guarantee they would remain stored. A thirty-year old floppy disk would be a safer place to keep your personal files. Everybody knew it was a pirate site that automatically deleted files that weren't regularly downloaded.

I wish I had the guts to submit this under my real username, but I know how intolerant of criticism people are, and how much they hate being called on their bullshit. -1 Troll.

Re:They won't win (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38882393)

By bullshit, you mean like the gross generalizations, and dishonest painting of all /. users who post on a particular issue?

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876713)

In TFA its says the FBI took several backups. Someone should send the FBI a DMCA request and see what happens. That someone wouldn't be me as I don't have any copyright work, or I would - honest.

Re:Deleting evidence (3, Interesting)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876749)

No, a better idea would be a FOIA request for data.

Re:Deleting evidence (3, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876923)

Better ideas require extraordinary balls. - Carl Sagan. I'm sure he said that.

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877277)

Fund it.

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876743)

TFA is a piece of shit. From what I read previously, MegaUpload did not actually host all it's own files, they rented some storage space from other providers. All the MegaUpload owned servers were seized and that data is preserved. However, since all of MegaUploads assets were frozen, they could not pay their bills for the rented storage space, and the third party providers were going to delete it. The government is as interested in preserving this data as anyone else and was working with all parties to get it preserved since, as you said, it is evidence in their case.

Re:Deleting evidence (1)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876783)

To be fair, all the articles i've read on this issue are pieces of shit - all containing some facts and some half-truths with a dose of speculation.
 

Re:Deleting evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876941)

the government told the third-parties they are allowed to delete the data on thursday. the government doesn't want evidence that there was a bunch of legal data. they took enough evidence to show illegal data was there, and conveniently skipped the rest.

Re:Deleting evidence (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 2 years ago | (#38879703)

The data has already been copied by the police. The data being discussed is what is stored on the servers, not in the forensic locker. The data in the forensic locker is not public-accessible.

Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876717)

Wow! That took down a website that allowed people to... *gasp*... download music and movies (perhaps even illegally)! And they even sent dozens of cops to arrest the fat, scared owner of the website! My heroes!

Amazing where our priorities lie, isn't it? Keep up the good work, guys! Through useless, blatantly incorrect propaganda, you may eventually get people to believe that copyright infringement is worse than speeding on a road that no other car is on!

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (3, Interesting)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876793)

And they even sent dozens of cops to arrest the fat, scared owner of the website

Forgive me if I somehow fail to see this guy [wired.com] as a scared, intimidated victim...

a self-styled âoeDr. Evilâ of file sharing... ...has made a career out of being larger than life, which seems appropriate for a six foot, six inch man... ...said he had hacked hundreds of US companiesâ(TM) PBX systems and was selling the access codes at $200 a pop, bragging that âoeevery PBX is an open door to me.â He also claimed to have developed an encrypted phone that could not be tapped, and to have sold a hundred of them...

In his 2001 interview with the Telegraph, he also claimed to have hacked Citibank and transferred $20 million to Greenpeace...

He also claimed to have hacked NASA and said that he had accessed Pentagon systems to read top-secret information on Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War.

He bought stolen phone card account information from American hackers. After setting up premium toll chat lines in Hong Kong and in the Caribbean, he used a âoewar dialerâ program to call the lines using the stolen card numbersâ"ringing up â61,000 in ill-gained profits.

set up a computer system for the uploading and downloading of pirated PC software, charging people for access.

And on, and on, and on. And all of this is stuff he brags about in interviews.

The guy is not a victim.

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876967)

I didn't say he was a victim. I said he was the fat, scared owner of Megaupload.

And I still think it's a complete waste of taxpayer money. I know we can focus on more than one thing at once, but to put so many resources into stopping such a small thing... I can't even fathom why anyone would think this is anything but a colossal waste of time and resources.

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877067)

talking trash isn't a crime, yet.

he was a semi-professional mw(not mechwarrior) player it seems too, so probably didn't have time to go around hacking citi. that's as good as being a professional trash talker.

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (1)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884845)

The guy is not a victim.

And that is a reason to shut-down the company, freeze the accounts, confiscate the equipment of the company? Looooong before the trial, with legitimate users losing their files and fees regardless of the trial outcome?
See, I don't care about this guy personally, but I am still concerned that so much damage can apparently be done with little jurisdiction (yes, they had some servers in US, but freezing assets and extraditing non-US citizens over that seems a little much).

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876817)

They're just focusing on people who upload unencrypted stuff.

Re:Nice use of taxpayer dollars! (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883979)

Yes, but they spent other taxpayer's dollars arresting the fellow (New Zealand police conducted that operation - it involved police helicopters, entire armed offenders squads, and a whole lot of other specialised forces. I'm personally surprised we didn't just deploy the SAS, it would have been cheaper).

TorrentFreak gets exclusive info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876805)

Quick, link to IB Times!

EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (5, Informative)

miller60 (554835) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876897)

The EFF and Carpathia Hosting announced this morning [datacenterknowledge.com] that they're working together to assist users who stored non-infringing files on Megaupload. Users can go to MegaRetrieval.com [megaretrieval.com] to connect with the EFF, which will review the cases and try to help resolve issues through their free legal services.“EFF is troubled that so many lawful users of Megaupload.com had their property taken from them without warning and that the government has taken no steps to help them,” said Julie Samuels, Staff Attorney at EFF. “We think it’s important that these users have their voices heard as this process moves forward.”

Re:EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (4, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877117)

There should be a "Promote to Article" button for posts like the parent.

Re:EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877323)

or, you know, you could submit it.

Re:EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38878039)

Or you could just admit how stupid it is to rely on shady websites for file storage without a local backup... oh wait, it's not about that is it, you just want to finish downloading that cracked copy of Modern Warfare 3.

Re:EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38889245)

Yes it is stupid to rely on shady websites. Unfortunately people have. Now they want their files back. It's not like they can go back in time and be smarter, and there should be a solution for this problem. Megaupload was a widely known and used site for many legitimate and illegitimate purposes, so there are many parties who are affected. Kim Dotcom isn't the victim here, but the users of his site who have lost files are certainly victims.

Re:EFF, Carpathia to Assist Users (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878515)

Which seems to this uneducated lay person as though there may be some significant non-infringing activity associated with the site.

Laywer Recall (1)

lovejw2 (2564497) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877083)

Lets hope that this isn't the answer that we will keep getting when we ask the lawyer how long before the files are deleted.

Which Data? (1)

larys (2559815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877131)

Users' data as in the people who had accounts or users' data as in the IP addresses of people who visited the site? Wouldn't it be fitting if the coward owners of MegaUpload -- one of which was found hiding in a panic room -- were to hand over every IP address logged of anyone who accessed files on the site just to save their own rear ends. The kicker here is that who hasn't gone to MegaUpload at one time or another? How much do you want to bet that the FBI guys who arrested them actually had watched videos or downloaded files from MegaUpload the day or two before. What a system of abject hypocrisy, I mean it's one of the most popular sites in the world... I'd like to meet the five Omish people who didn't download something from that site.

Re:Which Data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877267)

You mean, I should forget about my trip to the US this summer? :(

Re:Which Data? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38880617)

He's worked with law enforcement in the past, probably to save his own ass, by helping take down warez BBSes in the 90s. Search for "kimble" in http://www.textfiles.com/phreak/PHREAKING/bob-4.phk [textfiles.com]

Sue u.s. govt for the data. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877389)

Legitimate data alongside questionably illegitimate data has gone to cinders. Those people had a right to their property too. Sue u.s. govt. for that data and the damages.

Re:Sue u.s. govt for the data. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877579)

No, they dont have a "right to their data", theyre hosting their data on a service that is now under investigation. If your dry cleaners got raided for human trafficking, I think you might find that your laundry would be unavailable for quite some time while the case got resolved.

Re:Sue u.s. govt for the data. (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877803)

but you would still have a right to your laundry, even if late.

Re:Sue u.s. govt for the data. (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878309)

As well as being compensated for anything damaged or unrecoverable.

Just went through that whole mess. There is a whole list of things you can ask for back as a victim / witness, if they are unrecoverable (used for evidence, or destroyed in testing for evidence, or otherwise lost or damaged ) you submit a claim for the cost of replacements.

You have to fill out a Victim Restitution Form as part of your Victim Impact Statement. This is provided by the prosecution, and added to the defendants charges.

So it sounds to me like they will conveniently add your losses to the charges against MU. If they cannot afford to pay, the state and fed governments have money set aside to help reimburse you, but somehow I just see it added to MU's bill.

IANAL and such
Just Another Victim...

Cheers

Re:Sue u.s. govt for the data. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38878819)

I imagine it would also matter whether a financial transaction took place. Not being terribly versed with how MegaUpload works, do you have to pay to host files? If not, wouldnt that make it a "no contract, no guarentees" sort of situation?

I mean, as people like to point out, theyre only making a copy of your data (not theft!), so I imagine the law would treat it differently unless there was a contract that guaranteed availability.

Simple way to explain it to them... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38880013)

Tell them all next week I-xx highway will be closed, as will alternate route xx. The reason is several people were stopped on I-xx driving without a license, and a car theif was caught on Route XX. So both of those roads will be closed to all traffic.

Suddenly, your co-worker should understand the stupidity of SOPA.

psst.... (1)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38881241)

Psst. you clicked on the wrong article it was the one above this one...

Re:psst.... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883843)

Blast....

I hate when that happens. *sighs*

PS - Thanks for handling it gently.

Tees are out now too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38881719)

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/FREE-KIM-DOTCOM-campaign-t-shirt-get-kim-out-jail-dot-locked-up-/110814677651?pt=Men_s_Clothing&hash=item19cd11ca93#ht_500wt_1288

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>