DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back

from the because-hollywood-once-told-us-someone-was-dr.-evil dept

For a while we had followed the bizarre situation with Megaupload's servers. As you may recall, the Justice Department seized them all, following its criminal indictment against Megaupload and many of its executives. However, soon after seizing all of the company's servers, the DOJ announced that it no longer needed them and told the hosting company that had them that the data on them could be destroyed. We pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of destruction of evidence by the DOJ. First, it seized pretty much all of the assets of a company, prior to any conviction, and then before any actual judicial proceedings, asked for most of those assets -- many of which could include exculpatory evidence -- to be destroyed. It seemed... quite questionable. That resulted in a bit of a legal battle, as the hosting company storing them, Carpathia, asked what it should be doing (since it's suffering from the cost of keeping the servers). Megaupload sought to buy the servers, but the DOJ has blocked that effort. Last we'd heard, the judge had told everyone to work it all out by themselves.

Torrentfreak has an update, noting that everyone's in a stalemate and nothing seems to be happening:

This effort was stopped because the U.S. didn’t want Kim Dotcom to have access to the files. Hoping to get out of this stalemate the Court then suggested that all affected parties should get together and come up with a solution, thus far without success.

“In separate written requests in the past year both Carpathia and Megaupload have asked Magistrate Judge Anderson – who was appointed by Judge O’Grady to mediate the cloud storage server data issue – to preside over follow-up negotiations on data preservation and consumer access,” Rothken tells TF.

“The US DOJ has shown little interest in such negotiations and the Judge has not been inclined to set any additional meetings,” he adds.

The whole situation is bizarre. Individuals who had legitimate content stored on Megaupload are still asking for access to get back their content, but the DOJ doesn't seem to care at all. In fact, it's coming up with increasingly bizarre excuses to justify shutting down an entire business based on the entertainment industry's say so, and seems to have no qualms about how many people this has created massive problems for.

As the Aereo case is about to be heard, and various concerns about its impact on cloud computing are being raised, people should look over at what's happening with Megaupload's servers and be even more concerned. If the broadcasters succeed in redefining what is a "public performance," it's entirely conceivable that the DOJ could choose to do the same to other cloud services you rely on -- and there seems to be no recourse whatsoever.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 3:36pm

    How about this?

    The judge gives the DoJ two options:

    1) Either they pay for the maintenance costs for the servers, all of them, until, at the very least, the case is either over or dismissed.

    Or...

    2) Dotcom and/or others are allowed to purchase the servers or pay their maintenance fees, giving them access to copy files off but not otherwise modify the contents of the servers.

    The fact that the DoJ grabbed what they wanted from the servers, and then is doing everything they can to make sure that they get wiped afterwards absolutely screams 'cherry-picked evidence', where they got what they figure will help their side of the case, but don't want the defense to have access to evidence that might help their side(and yet we've still got people insisting Dotcom would get a fair trial in the US, who do they think they're fooling?), and makes it pretty clear that the overall evidence would not be in the DoJ's favor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 4:00pm

    What's a little Prior Restraint...

    ...when the DoJ is immune from the Constitution and all the due process ramifications therein. Take it, make it up, withhold it, lie to courts, lie to Congress, lie to the people, no problem. We're the DoJ, who's gonna do something about it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 4:07pm

    The current administration is full of evil, evil people, including the vast majority of those with the power to fix things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 4:26pm

    Re: How about this?

    Or how about restore everything to the way it was until an actual verdict is reached? How about the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 4:37pm

    Once again the DOJ & the U.S Government have shown a wanton disregard for due process of law. Kim Dotcom and Megaupload should be allowed to keep the servers up.

    As it could have evidence that proves their innocence. The U.S. Government and the DOJ could release some of Megaupload's seize bank account fund and give some of that cash to preserve the servers to Carpathia till the end of the trial.

    There would be no cost to the government or to the DOJ, it would be coming from Megaupload's cash. I doubt even Megaupload would have an issue with this nor would the EFF.

    The mere fact that the government want's to stack the deck in their favor, and deny Megaupload and Dotcom the preservation of the servers makes one wonder what the government is afraid of.

    Once again this just proves what we have all been seeing is that there is no right to a fair trial and access to the evidence as far as the government is concerned.

    Another sign of just how far the U.S. government has strayed into the abyss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 4:38pm

    Any idiot who relies on cloud services or online data storage needs to be hung from a tree until they are no longer breathing. How much effort does ti take to go out and buy a couple of blank DVDs or Blu-ray disks and just backup your data, or buy an external hard drive and backup your information that way.

    I have never trusted online data storage and I never will. If I need to back something up, I buy some blank disks, that way I don't have to worry about the DOJ searching my files and seizing the server I have stored my files on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:05pm

    Re:

    kenichi tanaka, anyone who makes blanket statements like that is a moron and needs to be hung from a tree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:11pm

    You only have to look at the destruction of all the files on Megaupload by Leaseweb that were stored on Leaseweb servers and that some of that evidence that were on those servers tht are now destroyed could have been used for Megauploads defence to see what is most likely the US DOJ would like to happen to the files on the servers by Carpathia. I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the MAFFIA or from the US DOJ put pressure on Leaseweb to destroy all the files rather than preserve them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:32pm

    Re:

    Agreed in full. Oh, I know, the cloud is popular with a lot of ignorant newbies, despite the fact that they keep getting repeatedly burned by it. And despite the fact that they're trusting third parties who have repeatedly been shown to be untrustable. And despite the fact that they're trusting virtualization code which has repeatedly been shown to be untrustable. And despite the fact that clouds are IMMENSELY popular with the bad guys because they're one-stop shopping. And despite the fact that no cloud service has yet demonstrated adequate clue about security and privacy. (Not even close, in fact. They're pitifully inadequate.)

    But people who actually understand computing in depth only use the cloud for prototyping and other transient, expendable tasks. They would never even consider it for production deployment -- they leave that to the ignorant newbies who don't know any better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 5:40pm

    no recourse whatsoever

    "the DOJ could choose to do the same to other cloud services you rely on -- and there seems to be no recourse whatsoever."

    Hopefully people will realize the inherent lack of security of cloud services, as the government(s),the operating company, and the server hosting company basically own your stuff and any of them can do whatever the hell they like with it.

    One (obvious) preventative solution to this and many other problems would be to avoid US-based companies and US-based servers. (torrent sites have been following that logic for years) And ideally, avoid countries that have Hollywood-funded lobbying organizations like Brein.

    Although the long arm of US law reaches worldwide, the current situation with Russia offers hope that this could be one country that will finally stand up for itself and no longer be willing to bend over backward to please Hollywood's copyright trolls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 7:19pm

    Re: Re: How about this?

    You must be new to this planet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 7:59pm

    The DOJ seizes some 3rd party servers used by MU, it secures copies of files on such servers, and then it informs the 3rd parties that it has completed its search for evidence and the servers are once more under the operational control of the 3rd parties.

    To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault. Saying "they are released back to your control" is not the same as "now that we are releasing them back to your control you are encouraged to wipe them clean."

    Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.

    As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    zip, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 8:42pm

    Re:

    I subscribed to an online service that had its servers (including all backups) wiped out by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

    Maybe if a free/low-cost 'cloud' service like MegaUpload/Mega had been around back then, things might not have been a total loss -- unless, of course, the DOJ had gotten involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 8:51pm

    Re:

    Bullshit!

    Firstly they did not fully image ALL the data instead they have cherry picked what they themselves require only.. This is not correct evidence retention practices nor is it allowed under any court approved forensic procedures dealing with data in either criminal or civil discovery processes.

    If you seize electronic devices a FULL & complete digital image MUST be taken to preserve that evidence before any searching or analysis of that data can be carried out. FULL!!! Not "part thereof", not "what we need", but ALL of the data residing on the devices to be preserved "in the instance" so as to have a base to show all sides if criminal proceedings go further.

    If this is not done an immediate problem is raised based on the reliability and certitude of the data in question.


    Remember the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution to prove that the evidence obtained is correct and AUTHENTIC and without the ORIGINAL data that absolutely will destroy the basis of all evidence rules in courts (criminal and civil), and then you find problems with relevance, hearsay, 'chain of custody', identification, probity, bias, ... the list is extensive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 9:21pm

    Re:

    I don't think Megaupload should agree to this at all. That seized cash belongs to Megaupload unless the government can prove it was gained in a criminal action. Other than that, the government doesn't get to spend it unless it does so. Nor does Megaupload get to spend it.

    If the government destroys the evidence before court that is spoilage of the evidence and ultimately Kim could very well win on that point. Since the government confiscated all this, it is on them to return the evidence or provide for safe keeping until such time as a court rules on the case.

    All of this just smacks of corruption. Of a government destroying the trust of it's citizens in it's being able to govern and hence destroying the consent to govern. History is scattered with examples of governments doing this and it never ends well for them. This whole business is turning into a powder keg. Set the right flame to it and it will go off, resulting in either a massive over turn of officials and policies or worse it could degenerate into a civil war. All it takes at this point is some blatant abuse exposed to the public that sets them off.

    At one time I was concerned that the Occupy movement might have been that spark. It had all the right mixture to develop but did not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 10:51pm

    Re:

    The DOJ seizes some 3rd party servers used by MU, it secures copies of files on such servers, and then it informs the 3rd parties that it has completed its search for evidence and the servers are once more under the operational control of the 3rd parties.

    That's incredibly misleading spin. First, they secured copies of *some* files -- just the ones they wanted, not anything that might be exculpatory. Second, they ALSO seized all of Megaupload's money, meaning that it can no longer pay to keep those servers. You make it sound like they returned them to Megaupload. That's simply misleading.

    To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault

    No, you're the one misleading to a fault. The DOJ flat out told Carpathia that it should go ahead and destroy the evidence. You can't do that in a criminal case.

    Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.

    Easy to say that when the DOJ has also sezied all their assets. You can't honestly believe what you said above.

    As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.

    Kyle Goodwin did retain a local backup. And it failed. So when he went to restore it from one of the MOST POPULAR cloud backup solutions out there, the US government shut it down completely, based on a highly questionable indictment.

    So, your argument is, once again, completely bullshit.

    Don't you get tired of such bullshit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Apr 4th, 2014 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re:

    That's because Occupy and the Tea Party never realized they wanted the same thing and joined forces. All they could see were their differences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Edward H Davis II, Apr 4th, 2014 @ 11:31pm

    Server transfer to justified parties

    That's unjustifiable Jude law of electronic data entrapment. The cloud belongs to its inventors which not even the gov owns case closed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 12:20am

    Re:

    You say that like it hasn't been the case since the 1950s. The only difference between then and now is the amount of information available to the public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 12:21am

    Re:

    Wow. You make the DoJ look honest.

    That's...a really impressive feat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 4:08am

    Re:

    "current"

    Yeah... keep telling yourself that's the main problem. I'm sure Romney would have been a saint, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 4:11am

    Re:

    While I agree with the sentiment, the fact that some people didn't have an alternative backup stored somewhere is by far the least problematic of the issues here. Don't try distracting attention away from the real problems just because someone was less than thoughtful with their data.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 4:14am

    Re:

    Here's a hint: if you want to convince anybody to support the real criminals here (the **AAs and the DOJ), at least come up with convincing lies. Either you're deluded or the people paying you to spread misinformation are getting a very poor return on their investment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 5:17am

    Re: Re:

    Your lamentations about DOJ practices are understandable, but the law does not impose such a burden. MU knows where the servers are located, and it is up to MU to look at their contents and decide what it wants to keep. Since they reside of the servers of a third party, MU or its proxies should be the ones figuring out how to do this on its dime and not ours.

    The Federal Rules of Evidence are nowhere near as strict as you appear to believe they should be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re:

    Kindly show us where the DOJ told the server owners "Hey, we are done so you can now go ahead and scrub your servers down to bare metal with our blessings". It did no such thing, and it is plainly wrong to say otherwise.

    Kyle's problem is apparent...he picked a place to store his data that only one with his head buried in the sand or elsewhere would have believed was fully on the up and up.

    You seem to place great stock in promoting MU as a victim unable to hold its own against the DOJ because MU's assets were frozen. This is done all the time, and yet in cases involving the "rich and famous" they always seem to miraculously discover $$$ to cover their tush. The only significant difference I see here it that KDC's tush is larger than most. He makes Madoff look positively anorexic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 5:31am

    Re: Re:

    And the "real" problem is? DOJ found what it believed was sufficient and then returned full control back to the servers' owners. The reason MU has a problem is because it wants the owners to incur all of the data retention costs. If MU wants continuing retention, then MU should be the one to pay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 6:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Aww, you just can't resist proving that you shouldn't be taken remotely seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And the "real" problem is? DOJ found what it believed was sufficient and then returned full control back to the servers' owners. The reason MU has a problem is because it wants the owners to incur all of the data retention costs. If MU wants continuing retention, then MU should be the one to pay.

    You're so full of shit it's not even funny. MU has indicated it is absolutely willing to pay. It just needs the assets unfrozen in order to pay -- and the DOJ has blocked it. It asked specifically for funds to pay for this very thing and the DOJ told the court not to allow it. Because the DOJ wants the exculpatory data destroyed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Quiet Lurcker, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    @Mike Masnick --

    Because the DOJ wants the exculpatory data destroyed.


    I think you under-estimate the situation. My read is, some low-level lawyer at DOJ discovered the indenumerable ethical/legal/other lapses that took place leading up to the seizure; that person 'blew the whistle'; higher-ups got wind of what was going on (with Eric Holder as AG, it's entirely too likely, based on publicly available information regarding other ethical lapses at DOJ); and are now scrambling desperately to cover up the fact they got it wrong six ways from Sunday.

    My question to you: why isn't there SOME judge who's cottoned on to what's going on and started reading the DOJ the riot act (HUGE sanctions under the court's inherent power, referral to state bar, dismissal of charges with prejudice, and whatever else is appropriate to make the point this is not how things are done)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I never said any legislation or statutes (the law) required those requirements, in fact anyone in my businessany attorney/solicitor who deals with evidence knows exactly why the law never needs to.

    Though your Federal Rules of Evidence actually do require those levels of probity, maybe not all the times since most cases are not resourced nor politically problematic enough to deserve that level of retention (though any forensic accredited analyser who I find out hasn't met at the minimum that level will be instantly brought before ethics committees)

    Whereas this case and criminal matter is a whole new ball game for the US's DoJ. In this instance they had either go buy the Rules laid down unambiguously with no discretion or they will find themselves on the recieving end of international condemnation, appeals and a whole lot of cases pending in other cases they want to try internationally will be struck out.

    I'm not really sure you understand how many interested parties are looking at this matter to look at whether the USA will be hypocritical in its own rules (and what it requires others) and if it is the whole process of reciprocity and comity will be dealt (in regards to USA matters anyway) a critical blow. I for one know a fair few people in the industry as well as practicing lawyers who will use any bending (breaking even) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence with great glee since they will use that in their own matters AGAINST the DoJ and any upstart USA court. The chilling effect is potent but hey... Eagles!!!!! *rolls eyes and wonders what will destroy you all first.. your own citizens or basically the world ridding itself of your economy*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 6:29pm

    Anonymous is the answer

    Why haven't our friends from Anonymous just gone in and retrieved the data from the servers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    marcus (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 9:23pm

    I'm surprised so many people want to use cloud storage after hearing about what has happened to megaupload and other sites. They must assume that all the customers of megaupload are involved in illegal activity when a lot of the people were using the site to store information and backups that wasn't a violation of any law. In addition, cloud storage is susceptible to snooping by ISP's, and government agencies such as the NSA. I avoid the cloud like the plague.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    My Name Here, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 9:25pm

    kim dot slow

    For those people who have a valid axe to grind, they should take it up with Kim Dotcom. They should ask him why he continues to delay justice and keep the case from going forward, which would resolve the issue and would resolve any outstanding legal issues.

    The real problem is Kim continues to fithgt extradition at every turn, and that is what is holding up the whole deal.

    Side note: The business wasn't shut down at the entertainment industry say so. Rather, after looking at the activities of the companies involved and looking at how money was being moved around, legal action was taken. Money laudering is a serious offence, no matter what you may think of Kim's file storage business. Using it as a front to profit from piracy is bad for everyone, including those who support free sharing. Kim isn't on your side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 9:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Says the jackass who fails to spin the story. So based on what law can the DOJ stop MU from accessing the servers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Apr 5th, 2014 @ 10:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Happens all the time with the shills here. Weird to see they keep trying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 11:14pm

    Re: kim dot slow

    What you call legal action being taken to shut the business down was done so in violation of due process of law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 11:44pm

    Re: Re: kim dot slow

    Due process of the law doesn't mean that the authorities must permit the illegal activity to continue until there is a full ruling.

    Do the police allow someone to keep beating someone because they haven't been found guilty yet of assault?

    Do they let drug dealers keep their drugs and stay on the street corner working, because they haven't been found guilty of trafficking?

    Do they let a boat owner keep his boat used to smuggle drugs because they haven't convicted him yet?

    You need to learn what due process is. It's not a license to keep committing the same acts you have been indicted for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    my name here, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 11:47pm

    Re: Re:

    Second, they ALSO seized all of Megaupload's money, meaning that it can no longer pay to keep those servers

    You understand of course that if he could show that the money didn't come from the alleged illegal activities, that he could in fact keep it and operate with it?

    Two years plus of fighting extradition and doing very little about money except making sure he has enough to support his own lavish lifestyle should tell you everything you need to know about how Kim feels about his customers. Once they stopped being an ATM machine for him, they aren't important anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 5th, 2014 @ 11:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow

    The company was never served with an idictment and it is a requirement of law that a indictment must be served on the company. The US has failed to serve the indictment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 4:16am

    Re:

    horse with no name just can't stand it when due process is enforced.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 5:20am

    Department Of Jackasses

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re:

    Well, he wouldn't have been in bed with Hollywood, so we would just have a different problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I really wanted to like Occupy and the Tea Party, but unfortunately, both of them were stupid and aimless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because they're still in New Zealand? New Zealand is going to refer people to a US state bar?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 9:16am

    I would be really angry if I couldn't get important files back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 9:22am

    Re: Anonymous is the answer

    Because if the hosting company put them on-line they would be raided and shut down, just like Megaupload was.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 6th, 2014 @ 11:17am

    Re: kim dot slow

    '...continues to delay justice'

    Boy, that's certainly a funny way of saying 'continues to fight against extradition to a foreign country and the kangaroo court that awaits him there'.

    Every single action taken by the DoJ and their lackeys over in NZ('We need an armed, SWAT-style raid to keep him from using the magic button that will somehow wipe out all the data on the servers, destroying all the evidence! You know, the servers we disconnected a good while before the raid, a tidbit we ever-so-conveniently 'forgot' to tell you'), to anyone who hasn't already decided his guilt(like you lot), absolutely screams that he would never get a fair trial in the US, and he'd have to be insane to take the risk, as well as allowing himself to be dragged across the globe like that simply as an 'example'.

    Also, you're half right, money laundering is indeed a very serious offense, which is why they tacked it on to justify extradition, since accusations of copyright infringement don't meet the requirement.

    However, the idea that paying your bills counts as 'money laundering'... really? That's a joke that's not even funny, it's just sad and desperate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 6th, 2014 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow

    Really? Pray tell, what crimes was he found guilty of in a court of law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow

    "Due process of the law doesn't mean that the authorities must permit the illegal activity to continue until there is a full ruling. "

    The shutdown of the business was done so by those in authority by violating due process of the law in order to do so. For the authorities to shut down the business down they have to do so folowing the law and due process of that law themselves (even if there are people who regard the company as being illegal) but the authorities did not uphold the law or followed due process of the law themselves with shutting down Megaupload as they abused the law and abused the due process of the law themselves in doing so.

    "You need to learn what due process is. It's not a license to keep committing the same acts you have been indicted for."

    I do know what due process is and the authorities have to follow the law and due process of the law in dealing with a case but the authorities certainly did not follow the law and nor did they follow due process of law with shutting down Megaupload which they totally abused in doing so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), Apr 6th, 2014 @ 12:24pm

    DOJ must destroy the evidence

    DOJ must destroy all the files; all the real evidence. Because even the "evidence" it has taken is generally only metadata; that is to say, if the file has the same name and size as a copyrighted work, then it definitely is.

    To defend itself, Megaupload needs to be able to show those files are not infringing, or that it did a reasonable job of removing infringing works in compliance with the DMCA. DOJ doesn't want them to be able to show that, since that might establish reasonable doubt.

    So the best way to ensure that Megaupload cannot defend itself is the utter destruction of the files. This is why DOJ has been seeking two things from early in the case: To prevent Megaupload from having access to the files and; once DOJ culled out enough "culpatory" evidence to support their case, the utter destruction even of the files they claim are infringing.

    All they want to remain is the culpatory metadata, against which Megaupload can offer no useful defense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Schleprock (profile), Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:17pm

    I thought if a party willfully destroyed evidence that judges generally instruct juries to assume the evidence was damning. I thought that if it was a willful act this was a non-rebuttable assumption.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 6th, 2014 @ 11:10pm

    Re:

    Out of the Blue, You can hide you user name, but you cannot hide your stupidity as soon as you start typing.

    At what point were the servers release back to Kim Dotcom?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 12:25am

    Re:

    Hence why the DoJ is trying to have their cake and eat it too, where they grab the 'evidence' they want, and then, while they don't order the servers wiped, they keep anyone else from paying for, or accessing them to also gather data from them, claiming that they're 'important to the investigation/case'.

    Their hope, obviously, is that if no-one is able to save a full imaging of the servers, or back them up in full, and no one is allowed to purchase or take control of them, then they'll find themselves with the only (cherry picked) 'evidence', and can also claim that they had nothing to do with the rest of it being destroyed, ever so conveniently leaving out that they left no other choice, unless the company who owns the servers wants to continue to pay for them, and have them out of commission, on their own dime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 12:53am

    Re: kim dot slow

    Yes, that's right - if agents for foreign country comes in and shuts down your business without any trial or due process, you should just allow them to kidnap you and take you to their country, where you've never operated any business. You're sure to get justice there, and refusing to be transported to the other side of the world on false pretences is only selfishness.

    I know you assholes don't like him, but he still has rights no matter how much you hate him.

    "The business wasn't shut down at the entertainment industry say so."

    Keep telling yourself that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 2:21am

    Re: kim dot slow

    Rather, after looking at the activities of the companies involved and looking at how money was being moved around, legal action was taken.

    Bollocks!!!1 The USA were told in no uncertain terms that the money was fully legitimate under NZ law and also under Australian Law since they used AusTRAC to follow the trail. But of course the USA's DoJ and it's puppet masters - which are most definitely the MPAA/RIAA (enough evidence to show that in so many ways from previous dealings) they refuse to believe anyone else since they are the worlds police force.

    What's even worse is that idiots like yourself actually believe most of the FUD and Swill they throw out to satiate your desire for drama that focuses the attention away from what the real problems are. ie: lack of due process, hypocrisy, ultra vires, and complicity with people with axes to grind and the money to sway legal process's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 2:28am

    Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence

    There is no 'culpatory' evidence..

    it is either exculpatory or inculpatory. Culpatory is a latin phrase that has no meaning in this context

    if the file has the same name and size as a copyrighted work, then it definitely is.

    Umm no, that's not how you establish whether a file is the same as another. The only way to prove a file is exactly the same under evidentiary norms is by using cryptographic hash functions (MD5 or SHA normally).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 2:47am

    Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence

    Umm no, that's not how you establish whether a file is the same as another. The only way to prove a file is exactly the same under evidentiary norms is by using cryptographic hash functions (MD5 or SHA normally).

    The problem is, you're looking at it from a rational, backed-by-evidence viewpoint.

    However, if you happen to have the only copy of a file, with (handily enough) no context as to where it came from and who put it there, and, most importantly, a 'sympathetic' judge(which would be flat out required if the DoJ doesn't want the case thrown out pretty much as soon as the defense is allowed to speak), then you can claim the file is whatever you feel like.

    Does a particular file have the same name as a copyrighted work? Then obviously it's an infringing file, and with no contradictory evidence able to be presented by the defense, how are they supposed to prove otherwise?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence

    Yes but then your talking about both reliability and authenticity situations. In a civil case I'd agree with you since upon balance hearsay can be used if reasonableness and necessity of equity requires it. But it's still liable for a problematic time in any appeal.

    This though is a criminal case AFAIK and in this instance the 'copy' as you state has an original somewhere. If it doesn't have an original somewhere then it was created at the instance of copying and basically has major authenticity & reliability barriers to overcome otherwise it MUST be classified as irrelevant and/or unpersuasive until at such time that it can be authenticated by unbiased means instead of the cognitive bias that the DoJ will have to prove they haven't used (the burden is on them...i hope.. usa does have that legal standard doesn't it in this instance???).

    Basically if the DoJ destroy the currently preserved originals all that is left with is anecdotal evidence (remember they are saying its such a HUGE amount they can only keep or 'cherry pick' a small part) at best, a pile of FUD at worst.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Apr 7th, 2014 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence

    ack.. not sure If I made much sense there.. I'll reread it tomorrow since it's about 2:40am in morning here. going to bed *yawns*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 10th, 2014 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 10th, 2014 @ 5:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's because anarchy doesn't work as a form of government because it can't deliver governance.

    Better the devil you know, and all that. People are afraid of losing all the services the government provides, that's why the Tea Party has only ever been a noisy minority trying to punch above its weight. As for Occupy, they mean well, but they were more interested in mobilizing opposition to the status quo than planning a political future. The Tea Party got hold of the levers of power within the Republican Party, then helped get radicals into office. Occupy just protested and were widely seen as a nuisance till they turned their hands to local aid projects.

    We need a movement that's not out to take power, then abdicate responsibility. The Greens are aiming for just that but aren't getting the traction they need. Their platform in the last election was too far to the left, I think. I mean, how do you guarantee employment for all without seizing control of all enterprise? The small "L" libertarian Pirates need to organize if they're to get anywhere.

    There are other parties, but even the best of them needs to have a plan as to what they will do in office, and it needs to be solid and sensible, not pie in the sky.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Apr 10th, 2014 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    After rolling over and playing dead for the FBI like good little doggies?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2014 @ 8:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Kindly show us where the DOJ told the server owners "Hey, we are done so you can now go ahead and scrub your servers down to bare metal with our blessings".

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88715174/Carpathia

    There's Carpathia's objection to what you said didn't happen. Want to try again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.