Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
from the fair-trials? dept
There are all sorts of problems with the federal government's arguments against Megaupload. Even if the site and its founders are guilty of breaking the law, it's amazingly troubling to look at the details of how the government has gone about proving this. The most immediate situation, as we've been discussing, involves the handling of the data on Megaupload's servers.Very soon after the raids, the feds told the hosting company that Megaupload used, Carpathia, that it no longer needed the data and that it could be destroyed. As we pointed out at the time, this made no sense at all. After all, the government is alleging that this content is at the center of a criminal conspiracy ring. So why would it want the evidence destroyed? Furthermore, it seems likely that there could be plenty of evidence on those servers that support Megaupload's case (ah, perhaps that's why the government wants it destoryed!).
Of course, since then, a bunch of parties, including Megaupload, EFF, Megaupload users and (oddly) the MPAA have gotten involved in trying to preserve the data, while the hosting firm, Carpathia has asked the court for permission to delete it, get paid for it, or have someone take it off their hands. Megaupload has specifically offered to pay Carpathia to get the servers, but since the government seized all its assets, it can't do that. Plus, the government has objected to this plan. Furthermore, the MPAA -- which still wants the data preserved -- has claimed that if the content goes to any third party it's infringement -- and could lead to the revival of Megaupload.
The whole thing is a bit of a mess, and now Megaupload has pointed out that the government's argument would result in the destruction of key evidence it needs for its case. The filing is very compelling.
The United States has seized and frozen all of Megaupload's assets, which, together with those seized from the other Defendants, include more than $60 million in cash and well over $100 million all told. In taking this extraordinary step, the Government must necessarily be alleging that every dollar of these assets is the proceeds of illegal activity. The basis of this allegation are the Government's self-selected copies of a tiny fraction of Carpathia's 1,100+ servers; even as to that fraction, the Court is asked to assume that every scrap of information on those servers amounts to criminal copyright infringement or perhaps some other illegal activity. If there is logic to the Government's actions, there is nothing lawful to be found across Megaupload's business as reflected on those 1,100+ servers. Only thus might the Government forbid Carpathia from so much as transferring to Megaupload the Mega Servers housing Megaupload content. Notably, the government is further forbidding Megaupload from using any of its assets to pay Carpathia for continued preservation of the Mega Servers' content. And, it has, in the face of Carpathia's earnest submission that it will cease preserving the servers absent the requested relief, urged the Court to deny such relief, because "the government has already completed its acquisition of data from the Carpathia Servers authorized by the warrant." ... In essence, the Government has taken what it wants from the scene of the alleged crime and is content that the remaining evidence, even if it is exculpatory or otherwise relevant to the defense, be destroyed. And by refusing to permit Megaupload to use its assets to mount a defense, the Government is effectively making sure that Megaupload has no practical way to preserve the evidence itself.The filing also rips to shreds the Justice Department's claim that the content should be destroyed because some of it may contain child pornography, by noting that it appears the US government is advocating the destruction of evidence of child porn, rather than using it to capture those responsible:
Such a course of proceeding by the Government would be troubling in any circumstance. But this is, of course, a criminal case. It is, in fact, what the Government has called the largest such case it has ever brought in the history of alleged copyright infringement. If the Government's position now wins the day, the integrity of of what ensues will be lost--the Mega Servers will have been wiped and potentially exculpatory or relevant evidence will have been spoliated, en masse, before being properly surveyed by the parties, not to mention the Court. The Government's case may be advantaged by this course of action, but much else will suffer and due process will not permit it.
Its reasoning then becomes altogether mystifying when it asserts (without any substantiation) "that the Carpathia Servers may contain child pornography, rendering the Carpathia Servers contraband." ... To take the Government at its word, therefore, it at best is greeting with equanimity and at worst is advocating, the imminent destruction of evidence of child pornography. It is passing strange for the Government to express preference for the destruction of evidence of criminal misconduct over the preservation of it for criminal investigation.The filing is worth reading, as it goes on in great detail, about the ridiculousness of the government's position, and how it is clearly destroying important evidence in this case, hoping to set it up so that Megaupload can only use the sliver of evidence that the government chooses to make available to it. And it's doing this before the actual case begins, where Megaupload doesn't even know the full details of what evidence is being presented and how it can defend itself. Without that, it's highly questionable, and almost certainly a violation of due process to support the destruction of evidence when Megaupload doesn't even know what evidence it needs to defend itself.
As Tim Lee writes (at the link above) about this filing, this whole situation looks really bad for the government, and seems completely contrary to our basic concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty:
The government's intransigence on the preservation of evidence is the latest example of the government's scorched-earth approach to the Megaupload prosecution. Theoretically, criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Yet the seizure of Megaupload's servers, freezing of its assets, and arrest of its top executives did immense damage to the company long before they had a chance to tell their side of the story to the jury. Now, the government seems to be trying to deny Megaupload the opportunity to fully defend itself in court. Megaupload may be found guilty, but like everyone else it has the right to a fair trial.Indeed. Megaupload may not be a sympathetic defendant at all, and may very well have violated the law. But if the government truly believes it has a strong case, why is it trying so hard to destroy so much evidence? If the case is as strong as the Justice Department makes it out to be, then surely it can withstand Megaupload having access to all of the evidence? That the Justice Department is fighting so hard to destroy evidence in the case seems like a clear admission that it knows its case is incredibly weak.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, evidence, tim lee
Companies: carpathia, megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This was never about copyright infringement
They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Keep shining light on this case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This was never about copyright infringement
This is about Politicians and their Corporate Masters.
Even if MU did something wrong I am going to stand FIRMLY on their side.
In the End when these things come out in a Courtroom the Government will look like the total assholes they are.
You Do Not Destroy Evidence !!!
I hope that MU will be able to sue this Government for such a large sum of money it will be talked of World Wide.
I hate Washington ! I have a very low approval of Washington !
I no longer care about Washington as they do not care about any of us and they will use whatever means they can to bring you down.
Justice Department your Misconduct is going to haunt you Big Time and we all now hope you are the loser and MU is set free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This was never about copyright infringement
Spoliating evidence? Definitely a no-no. And if I recall correctly it's also a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Mega's responsibility to have a backup of their data - as any sane service provider would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point of multiple data centers is if the data is located in more than one place, perhaps the feds are telling ONE of the centers that they don't need to them to maintain their copy. Unless all of Mega was in that single host with that single data center, there shouldn't be an issue (and at least one full copied maintained). Remember, they had a lot of servers to handle the 90% of their traffic that was purely downloading stuff. There is a lot of data replication required to do it, but not a lot of unique data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) they should have a backup
2) that backup couldn't possibly be using their service providers utilities
3) this backup shouldn't cost anything given that their assets are frozen
4) that there is no way this backup would also have been seized
5) and finally that a backup meeting all of these qualifications is required in order to receive due process?
You are an incredibly ignorant person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would have gone with total fucking numbnuts, but obviously you're a lot nicer than I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) Those backups could be using any method they want. however, a true backup isn't kept in the same location as your current data, as it defeats some of the safeguards (example: fire or flooding would destroy both server and backed up data)
3) The backup should have been ongoing. This isn't a question of froken assets, the data should have been backed up on a regular basis in the past.
4) The backup could be seized, but likely would not require ongoing costs to maintain. The question is $9000 a day of server costs, right?
5) It's not a question of due process - it's a question of operating a business on a level that assures the security of your customers data. If your customer data wasn't worth backing up on a regular basis, then why make a big fuss about it being lost now? Clearly, any number of natural disasters or poor programming choices could have wiped out all of the data with no backup in place. Is that really the operating procedure for a company that is supposedly a secure backup location for so many people?
All that, and you call me ignorant? That makes you bat shit crazy in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The backups would be illegally seized by the government too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing in the law obliges the government to keep a business running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yes. Illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't touch servers in the US or the Netherlands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"All that, and you call me ignorant?"
Damn fucking right we do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The backups, data retention, and all that related were handled by another company, Carpatia. They are now being not paid to do what you are asking...
What you're saying makes no sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Their system uses a custom file system which stores data in such a way that it is redundant across their servers. They were doing this to protect their business just like you suggest.
2. Flooding wouldn't destroy the data and fire is suppressed at all data centers automatically. Furthermore most data center companies have multiple locations/facilities. Carpathia hosting included, they have 5 in fact.
3. I don't know what "froken" assets are, but when the feds seize all of your business assets, that will include ALL assets, such as backups hosted anywhere.
4. I don't think you realize the volume of data they serve. You can't just "make a copy". All content services of this scale (ie. YouTube) use some form of deduplication (data duplication) method to spread data redundantly between their servers across their datacenter facilities. This prevents failures you listed.
5. It is a question of due process. Their business operated just fine. You just don't understand how data is protected at this scale, because you don't know what you're talking about....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their argument isn't about preserving the user's data, it's about building a defense. I cannot understand the concept of needing to access user accounts to do so. Clearly, their release of the number of "government" accounts on their system should indicate that they already have access to stats and information.
Their argument would be much better made that they want to have access to the administration areas and functions of the systems, or at least the data from the admin, so they can obtain activity records and such. Getting access to your personal photos shouldn't be the issue here.
Preserving customer data does not require both data centers. Making their defense doesn't need any customer data. The issues should be seperate, and they are (IMHO) foolishly arguing both together, and justifying neither.
Their filing just doesn't seem to match up to your explanation of backups either. They make no mention of it, nor do they suggest that they have any real redundancy in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My explanation is that they are NOT backups. Fault tolerance is NOT achieved via backups by any content storage system of it's size. The method used to secure data and create fault tolerance is to store data redundantly throughout the server farm across physical data center locations you utilize. They have to have redundancy, because servers can experience hardware failure and at their scale (thousands of servers) hardware failure is a daily occurrence. This means they would be constantly losing data.
You are clearly too stupid to use common sense, understand the law or how any related technology works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, you have to remember: The case really hinged only very slightly on the infringement side, and more to do with the sales of access to it, and the commissions paid to third party companies (also owned by Kim) which constitutes the significant money laundering activities.
The customer data as a whole isn't as relevant as you might think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the material isn't infringing, then there is nothing unlawful with providing "sales of access to it."
Also, they are only accused of money laundering because that money allegedly came from criminal copyright infringement. If the money didn't come directly from infringement - or even if the infringement wasn't criminal - then they cannot be charged with money laundering, either.
So, "the infringement side" is really the only side that matters. If the government can't prove criminal infringement, they have to drop all charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Karl, you missed the point. They don't have to prove that all of the material is infringing, only that there was infringing material, that access was being sold, and so on. They don't have to go through 25PB to prove each and every item in infringing.
The point is that the infringement is the basic crime, but the big part of it is how the money was moved from the corrupt enterprise to third party companies to "clean" it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have to prove more than just that infringing material existed, and that access to it was being sold. Lots of companies have allow you to pay more for higher speeds, lack of ads, etc, and I'm sure there is infringing material on all of them. That doesn't make them "criminal enterprises."
The government has to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the direct infringement (by the users) was criminal infringement; and that the arrested Megaupload employees were conspiring with those users in that criminal infringement.
The point is that the infringement is the basic crime, but the big part of it is how the money was moved from the corrupt enterprise to third party companies to "clean" it.
You're presupposing there was a "corrupt enterprise" in the first place.
That was my point. If the criminal copyright infringement charges cannot be proven, then the charges related to money laundering completely vanish.
Honestly, the racketeering and money laundering charges are the most ridiculous, in my opinion. They stem from nothing more than their rewards program, and the fact that Megaupload paid for hosting. That this would be seen as "money laundering" is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason you need ALL of the servers, is because ALL servers have data on them. It may not be unique data, but good luck proving it if it gets destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They subcontracted that part of their business out to Carpathia. I'm sure that Carpathia has a multi-redundant multi-site storage system that is quite adequate for any normal situation (such as the bones you mention) - but the government has seized ALL of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're not talking about a few megabytes of data that could be burned to a CD-R here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In fact CD/DVD's are highly unstable as a backup medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
5,000,000,000 MP3 files (avg 5MB per file)
1,785,714,286 images taken with a 14MP camera
1,851,852 hours of 1080p High Definition video
390,625 fully loaded 64GB iPod Touch units
Sure. They just have to pop down to the corner computer store and pick up a couple blank DVD's. I'm sure that'll be more than enough to back up everything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AC: "No, they should have a backup that isn't in a datacenter somewhere"
emphasis added by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Blizzard stores 1.3 Petabytes of data related to World of Warcraft, whilst Valve's Steam service provides 30 Petabytes of content ~monthly~, just to compare some similarly-popular content providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you have dealt with Digital evidence and understand how preservation of original evidence has to occur to allow authenticity you would understand how absolutely ridiculous your statement is that a backup, unless that backup is a 1:1 bit copy of ALL data including memory at the time, is able to be presented to any court as the same data. It would not be admissible and shouldn't be since it's reliability is in absolute question.
Don't feel bad, even Solicitors/attorneys get confused with site backups unless they have really dealt with all the quirks of digital evidence before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backups?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...false accusation..." how else could anyone take your comment unless you didn't read the post, the court filing or do not have basic reasoning skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This situation is sending major ripples through Digital Forensic services everywhere. The USG is on very very shaky ground and they are damned if they do anything other than full preservation of all evidence until at such time that all legal criminal actions are completed. That includes any appeals.
Otherwise, a LOT of people will start destroying evidence in other criminal cases that will affect other , MAJOR criminal cases, like murder, fraud, terrorism - the list is huge.
The collection, Preservation, and documentation of Digital Evidence is paramount and without a reliable and authentic copy to go back to (and you NEVER use the original as an analysis bed) the reconstruction of that evidence is suspect placing a taint on any presentation of it into a court.
Also being a criminal case the Prosecution has to prove everything, and the defence has to have access to EVERYTHING that the prosecution has, knows of, and if anything is deleted by intent then not only should the defence ask for and be granted an absolute acquittal, with prejudice, the prosecution and all those of knowledge of the evidence destruction need to be criminally charged as well.
Though somehow I doubt that Extradition of DOJ personel will occur, but hey NZ is part of Interpol, Warrants an be placed for arrests, those individuals can stay in the USA for ever if they want. Just don't attempt to leave.
Why am I so intense with this matter over the evidence? Because this is what I do for a living and the DoJ stating they are going to delete this type of evidence because it is too big (What a load of crap), they have what they want (rules of evidence do not work like that), yada bullshit yada, is going to fuck up for years to come cases that do not need this type of political bullshit tampering of international evidence standards.
Wait until the first child molester, terrorist, or major fraudster gets off because of the chilling effect this could initiate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
retention of MegaUpload servers
The issue is whether an American Federal prosecutor can constitutionally process a criminal indictment to conclusion in which that prosecutor is complicit in the selective destruction of exculpatory evidence within the reach of his control and custody.
Guilty verdict? Guaranteed! But that's not constitutional Due Process. Why? Under Due Process the responsibility for preserving confiscated evidence and maintaining a legal chain of custody falls on the prosecuting and police authority who can control that evidence and not the accused who has been dispossesed.
The real disgrace here, is that in America today (in regards to copyright law) it can be considered unremarkable for the DOJ to move its criminal caseload through the Federal Courts as a militant political partisan against any and all counterparties of corporate copyright holders to
include willful disregard and violation of the constitutional and civl liberties of average citizens.
It would seem that clear standards of Prosecutorial discretion would inform ANY federal criminal prosecutor that the provision of due process to the accused is the FIRST priority, even ahead of achieving a guilty verdict.
If these priorities have become so unclear, then we must all be in mortal terror of our civil and criminal prosecutors. Why? Because that procecutor can show up at any of our doors and the fact that we are innocent will be no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
As an example, seizing a pot growing operating does not require the government to keep feeding the plants to maturity while waiting for a guilty verdict. In fact, the evidence is often cataloged, checked, and a representative sample retained, and the rest destroyed.
There is nothing here that mandates the government to keep the servers up, and clearly with Mega locked in a legal battle, nobody is stepping up with $3 million a year to keep servers powered up. That just isn't going to happen.
The lack of backups by Megaupload is a real issue here - clearly, the company did not value their customer's data very highly. They were clearly not prepared for natural disasters or other system wide failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
But this involves data not plant life. The plants are just that plants, they are biologically similar to each other and small samples work.
Data are just 0's & 1's but it is the arrangement of those pieces that create each file. Each and every file is unique, and when making vast claims about what is or is not infringing, as has already been done, the door is opened to have to prove those statements. A small sample of the 25 Pentabytes of data do not reveal anything, other than facts about each sample. They can not tell you anything about anything else stored on the servers. A sample of a pot plant shows it was a pot plant. It is pretty much grounded science that pot plants do not suddenly become another type of plant.
Nice try comparing apples to bits, ignoring the servers could be outright purchased and held for just over $1 million, and your belief that Mega had to hold backups in the traditional sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
"Imagine finding some marajuana plants in a garden centre of thousands of plants, picking out a few and burning every other plant (possibly including more hash plants) then claiming every plant in the centre was the same."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
unfortunately your example doesn't hold. While taking a snapshot and a sample of pot, and recording simple data such as "how much is there" is enough evidence for both the defense and offense, the minute details such as the plant's health is irrelevant to the case. In the case of these servers of data the important details are in the minute. Taking a snapshot of the physical servers and a "sample" of the data is not enough. What is happening here is that the data, as a whole, is relavent evidence. So, in this case deleting the data on the servers is not like throwing out the irrelevant pot plants, but rather looking at the pot growing operation, torching the place down and then claim that their was a pot growing operation there based on your word.
"nobody is stepping up with $3 million a year to keep servers powered up. That just isn't going to happen."
MegaUpload did. read the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Interestingly under Preservation of Evidence guidelines and court protocols worldwide No-one is ALLOWED to step up other than the governmental authority (prosecutors) and they MUST (not may) preserve the evidence fully at their expense not the expense of the defendant.
This is a criminal case, not a civil one where the burden is placed on both for depositions, storage, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Sadly no matter how hard we all try, you cannot fix stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
The government isn't forced to preserve the hotel room, or a rental car, or any thing else of that manner if the evidence can be collected and removed, which is what they did.
No, the evidence isn't every scrap of user data - but why should it be? By your logic, a shooting in a hotel room should shut the entire hotel down, perhaps the whole city block, until the case has been heard, the defendant found guilty, appeals launched, and so on for 20 years or so until it makes it to the supreme court. That just isn't in line with legal reality.
The governement inspected the servers, collected the evidence, and is releasing the servers back to the hosting company to do what they want with - providing they reformat the drives and remove any other data related to Mega.
How hard is it to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
And, yes, the hosting server should not be the one to suffer, that is the prosecutors job, the government, since this is a criminal trial. The problem is that the government isn't doing their job. By "not doing their job" I mean they are destroying valuable evidence and causing massive fiscal damage to an innocent hosting service, and no, telling them to delete all the data doesn't work either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Notice that I actually might know what I am talking about in reference to Digital Evidence that is not going to in any way degrade, nor is it part of needed infrastructure for private/public use (ie: Crime scene).
It's not hard.. And Evidence is whatever is relevant to both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
They aren't, it is what is on them.
And believe me when I say if the US Government has ONLY cherry picked data off the originating servers and has not made an exact 1:1 bit copy of the original data as a reliable reference point, then the data they are thinking to use is not only tainted but cannot be accepted in ANY court anywhere in the world under current evidence rules because it is not authentic in any way whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
It is you that is not understanding some important concepts here. Data CANNOT be cherry-picked for a representative sample. It simply doesn't work that way. Every single byte of data is or could be relevant. That's why forensic experts never, ever do anything with the original copies of data.
It's like the government ran across a briefcase in your hotel analogy and picked 3 papers from 100 in it and destroyed the rest of them. Perhaps one of those 97 destroyed papers destroyed was the medical marijuana certificate that proved the pot growing in the hotel room was legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Analogy fail. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
They factored that responsibility out to Carpathia. Your comment is defamatory of Carpathia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
The correct analogy here would be a large nursery growing a variety of plants on behalf of customers. The government waltzes in and determines that amongst millions of plant there are two or three pot plants. It then decides to let all the plants die- without even determining what kind of plants they are or who owns them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
If you are not in the legal profession, well you just have no fucking common sense then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
> does not require the government to keep feeding
> the plants to maturity while waiting for a
> guilty verdict. In fact, the evidence is often
> cataloged, checked, and a representative sample
> retained, and the rest destroyed.
The crucial difference is that in one case, the evidence is a bunch of plants and in the other, it's data.
Exculpatory evidence is unlikely to be found in a bushel of marijuana. The plants are fungible-- one is identical to the other for evidentiary purposes.
Data is not fungible and merely selecting a "representative sample" for prosecution does not work, because each bit of data is different from all the others and each bit proves different things.
So by allowing the rest of the data to be destroyed, it's depriving the defendant of the possibility of securing and introducing exculpatory evidence on its behalf, and by doing deprives the defendant of due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
How is a guilty verdict guaranteed? Wouldn't allowing the data to be wiped amount to evidence tampering? As far as I know, evidence tampering is ground for dismissal of all charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: retention of MegaUpload servers
Megaupload is certainly not my favorite company, but they do have the right to due process unless you want to include NDAA, which relinquishes the American public's right to due process. That notwithstanding, Megaupload deserves a FAIR trial!! And would somebody do something about that ancient bastard Rupert Murdoch interfering in this shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost like they're trying to destroy the reputation of the US justice system. And for what? Because people can copy files that they shouldn't? So we'll destroy people's livelihoods ans businesses over it? Utterly pathetic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you read through the full motion, you will realize a few things:
Mega has the balls to be trying to preserve it's entire network, that is to have servers at both Carpathia AND Leaseweb "saved". Yet, these were at best mirror sites of each other, and as such, only one would really need to be normally retained.
Second of all, they are asking effectively to be allowed to peruse all the data on their servers looking for data to build their defense. Yet, their general business claim is that the data is customer data and not their own. As such, out of the 25 petabytes of information, how much is truly business data related to Mega, and how much is private data that they should not be looking at?
Third, Mega's recent announcement of the number of "government" accounts on their service makes it clear that they are willing to use private information to try to win a public media war in this case. They clearly don't have a firm grasp between customer data and their own business data.
(Side note on the government addresses, it appears that most of them are in fact service men and women passing pictures and such home from the field... I have not seen anything that suggests that people in government offices were using Mega).
It also appears that what Mega is attempting to do is to use it's ill gotten gains (the 60 million cash, 100 million total assets) to fund it's own defense. If this first step is permitted, they will be back to beg for more of their money to fund their defense, which pretty much goes against every legal standard going. They money is part of the conspiracy, and should not be used to fund the defense of the individuals involved.
Kim Dotcom is getting nearly 50k a month to live while this is going on. Fatso can give up a few meals and perhaps work out a financing deal to have the servers moved to a "non-data center" location and stored at his expense, under government lock and key. There is no reason for the disputed money to be used to pay his bills or for his defense.
Remember: The argument isn't being made to protect user data - it's being made to help Mega present a defense. It's sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't explain that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mega does not explain in any fashion in their filing HOW access to user data would help their defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, maybe by allowing them to show what percentage of files are infringing vs non-infringing?
If the data is wiped, the government can claim that 99% of the files are infringing and MU can't prove them wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seeing that Kim Dotcom was able to produce exact and detailed information regarding "government" accounts, I think they have kept pretty good track of everything and have those records - unless of course Kim was talking out of his ass the other day. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahem. Ironies aside, it's clearly to me that 100% of the files are legal. It is common for file lockers to have multiple links pointing at the same file to save space. If 1 of the users with a link to the file has the rights to use that file then it is not infringing.
I'm not sure if you have done that before but I do it all the time. Since I'm lazy to go and convert my stuff to digital format I download from TPB. I could have used MU and that file would be legal for me even though it's infringing for another person.
Thinking again, it's obvious all MU files are legal so there's no case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As is their right. The government gets to pick and choose whatever data it wants from the entire record and Mega gets to do the same. It's called compulsory process.
Your first and third arguments are baseless speculation and ad hom respectively. You then go on to pretend that they're already guilty with loaded language like 'ill gotten gains,' 'beg,' and 'conspiracy.' Then move on to direct insults like 'fatso' and 'give up a few meals.'
The accused is entitled to present a defense. That you think it sickening they are allowed to do so says all we need to know about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ALLEGED.
Because they have an indictment means nothing, it is a one sided story told to people who are just going through the motions.
Mega wants to use the assets of the corporation to defend the corporation... yes that is a HORRIBLE thing. Heaven forbid they be allowed to mount a defense to a case that still is not happening. There has been zero testimony, the accused aren't even in the loving arms of the DoJ yet.
The money being dished out to Dotcom is to maintain his residence for himself and family. If he tried to use it for anything else he'd be back in jail for violating a court order. But bonus points for calling him fat and pretending that its just him being a cow that is keeping this from happening.
Carpathia offered to sell the servers for $1 million to Mega. The court could use Mega's seized assets to purchase the servers, this doesn't suddenly give Mega extra money and means if they actually manage to lose this joke of a case the servers could be auctioned off to help their alleged victims.
The argument is to protect user data and help Mega's defense, they can run the same path. The EFF would love to be able to return the users data, but the only people who could write the interface are currently banned from computer use and internet access.
I sure hope that DoJ rummaging on the Mega servers didn't accidentally touch on an EU residents files. Trolling through the personal files of people is a big nono, despite the US Government feeling they have the right to spy on everyone.
What's sick is the DoJ is now on record saying Child Porn isn't worth investigating or prosecuting, and fabricated stories of wrongdoing are.
I guess former BSA lawyers hold the rights of corporations in higher regard than the health and safety of children being abused.
Oh and little Suzy still doesn't understand why UMG is keeping her from seeing the video of Daddy saying he loved her. She cried so hard when they came and knocked on the door to bring the bad news, but at least she was able to watch the video... until the MPAA decided it might be infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, Mega wants to use the disputed ill gotten gains to protect itself. It's like letting a drug deal move the shipment they got stopped with so they can afford a better lawyer.
"The money being dished out to Dotcom is to maintain his residence for himself and family. If he tried to use it for anything else he'd be back in jail for violating a court order. But bonus points for calling him fat and pretending that its just him being a cow that is keeping this from happening."
50k a month. I would say that he certainly isn't going to be skipping any meals.
"Carpathia offered to sell the servers for $1 million to Mega. "
1.5 million, read the documents. Again, that would be 1.5 million of disputed money. Would you allow a drug dealers seized assets to pay the lease on his 'Slade with the twanky deuces on it?
"The argument is to protect user data and help Mega's defense"
No, the argument is entirely about Mega's defense (read the document) and the protection of user data is at best a secondary concern. If anything, they seem to be making a call to save user data only because they might be able to help their defense. Further, they are unable to explain why they feel the need to save two mirrored data centers worth of stuff. It seems odd.
"What's sick is the DoJ is now on record saying Child Porn isn't worth investigating or prosecuting, and fabricated stories of wrongdoing are."
Show me the quote please. How did we get to child porn all of a sudden?
"little Suzy still doesn't understand why UMG is keeping her from seeing the video of Daddy saying he loved her."
One say little suzy will grow up to understand that her father was a cheap bastard, willing to risk an important video by storing it with a company that cared so much about user's data that they didn't even bother to have a backup.
I love your attempts to move the argument somewhere else. Too bad you have absolute nothing to back up your allegations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well done, troll. You had me going until you suggested that a father not knowing the full business strategy of Mega Upload makes him "a cheap bastard".
You did a good job otherwise; for a while I actually believed you were the sociopath you were making yourself out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Well, sort of. When it comes to selling or renting the servers back to Megaupload—there the government draws the line. It doesn't want the servers to leave the court's jurisdiction and it worries that they could be used for criminal activity. In addition, "the government recently learned from multiple sources that the Carpathia Servers may contain child pornography, rendering the Carpathia servers contraband.""
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/us-government-we-hear-theres-child-po rn-on-those-megaupload-servers-judge.ars
While arguing the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the servers, and the Carpathia is free to wipe them.
If they actually thought there was CP on the servers, this is them saying we don't care about helping the abused children in video/pictures and we refuse to investigate.
No I would expect the Government to hold the Escalade if it contained evidence of the wrong doing. If there was evidence inside that could be disputed by battling experts, one would expect they would both have a chance.
2 mirrored data centers allows them to call into question if the files allegedly pulled from the Carpathia cluster existed on both or just 1 that the Feds had access to.
Little Suzys dad was using Mega to transfer files home from the front lines, where the connection isn't that good. Mega offered a reliable way to transfer things home.
Actually I've backed up my allegations without moving on to character assassination of the accused like you have.
The character of the Judge hearing the case brought by the EFF has a history of siding with the Government supporting questionable legal maneuvers.
The character of the Attorney who brought the case is in question as his last position was with the BSA, that uses extortion-like tactics in their business model and has their own rules for deciding your a software pirate.
Mega does not need to explain all of their motives, the case is not moving forward yet. The accused have yet to hear and answer all of the charges against them in a courtroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because they thought that being in another country meant they never had to face them, and they are trying depaerately to avoid having to face the music.
Just like Julian Assange, the insistence NOT to face the music makes them look guilty as hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I really am curious about what you meant in the older posts: Mega's backups, should they or shouldn't have they used a data center to back up their servers? Though that's kinda what they were paying Carpathia for anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was like "Wait, why did the AC all of a sudden start making sense?! oh, it's DC."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tread carefully, because they tried so very hard to indict him on something even if they had to bend the definition used in the laws but there wasn't anything. The case against Assange boils down to he made us look stupid get him.
Being in another country usually means your held to the laws of those countries, up until the US decides they own that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If X is say Rupert Murdock I don't have a problem with this but.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: little Suzy's dad
One say little suzy will grow up to understand that her father was a cheap bastard, willing to risk an important video by storing it with a company that cared so much about user's data that they didn't even bother to have a backup."
Little Suzy's dad is probably an infantry soldier trying to support a family back home on whatever our cheap government pays him, probably not much. We all can't exactly afford to send DVDs via FedEx, and our government doesn't offer any affordable service to our soldiers, Mega did.
Suzy's dad is fighting for democracy, you're fighting for a corrupt and greedy corporation. You should be ashamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mirror sites don't mean diddly-squat in regards to Evidence. Mirror sites are classified as separate evidence repositories that are DIFFERENT to each other and therefore are separate peices of evidence that need to be separately preserved.
Second of all, they are asking effectively to be allowed to peruse all the data on their servers looking for data to build their defense. Yet, their general business claim is that the data is customer data and not their own. As such, out of the 25 petabytes of information, how much is truly business data related to Mega, and how much is private data that they should not be looking at?
No their lawyers are asking, Megaupload don't look through that, they can guide, but that is it. The defence would have outside unbiased Forensic experts doing that (in fact I know they do). Whether the data is private or not is irrelevant to anything at all.
Third, Mega's recent announcement of the number of "government" accounts on their service makes it clear that they are willing to use private information to try to win a public media war in this case. They clearly don't have a firm grasp between customer data and their own business data.
This is Irrelevant to anything to do with the discussion about preservation of evidence. You clearly do not have a firm grasp of what is and is not pertinent to anything.
It also appears that what Mega is attempting to do is to use it's ill gotten gains (the 60 million cash, 100 million total assets) to fund it's own defense. If this first step is permitted, they will be back to beg for more of their money to fund their defense, which pretty much goes against every legal standard going. They money is part of the conspiracy, and should not be used to fund the defense of the individuals involved.
Do you know what alleged means? or are you too stuck on irrelevant matters that you believe propaganda from everywhere? Though I see you said the majic tinfoil hat comment of Conspiracy.
There is a new phrase floating around the law blogs at the moment "FUNKSHUNEL ILLITERIT" It can be found on a new legal satire blog about a weird woman (and no I AM NOT comparing you to her - she's a friggen loon). You might like to read the text (under the heading.. down a bit) and find out what Conspiracy's are.
But go ahead, keep thinking you know all about what the "evil" Kim is doing and why the Heroic US Government is saving the Internet and all Humans from the bad people.
Remember: The argument isn't being made to protect user data - it's being made to help Mega present a defense. It's sick.
Actually I take it back.. you might be slightly related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So I assume that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" no longer applies?
If this first step is permitted, they will be back to beg for more of their money to fund their defense, which pretty much goes against every legal standard going. They money is part of the conspiracy, and should not be used to fund the defense of the individuals involved.
Let me see if I understand this concept of 'justice'; First step is to confiscate everything the alleged criminal owns, and reduce him to poverty so as to ensure that he can't pay for a decent lawyer or for the expert witnesses he needs to defend himself. Then once he's forced to use a public defender, since he can't afford anyone better, you throw the full weight of the US government against him with virtually unlimited funds for lawyers and expert witnesses to support their side of the story. Oh, and you also make sure to destroy the evidence so that all that remains is what they're cherry-picked to support their argument
Have I got it about right?
Remember: The argument isn't being made to protect user data - it's being made to help Mega present a defense. It's sick.
Right because if the government accused them of a crime, they must be guilty. In fact, why are we even bothering with a trial? Let's just lock them up now. Think how much time and money the government can save without having to go through annoying procedures like actually proving someone is guilty! They can just accuse them and then lock them up! I mean it works so well for countries like North Korea and China. Thanks, you've just revolutionized the legal system and I'm sure we'll all be much better off because of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, this is pretty standard. Monies obtained by an alleged crime are generally not made available to fund a defense. It's not innocent until proven guilty, it is that this money is EXACTLY at the center of the criminal charges.
We generally don't allow drug dealers to use their seized funds to pay for their defense either.
"Let me see if I understand this concept of 'justice'; First step is to confiscate everything the alleged criminal owns, and reduce him to poverty so as to ensure that he can't pay for a decent lawyer or for the expert witnesses he needs to defend himself. "
No, you got that wrong. The idea is to seize what appears to be the ill gotten gains, and require that the defendant prove that they are in fact not ill gotten gains. See the above drug dealer example, we do not allow the dealers to retain the stacks of cash found in their possession while the trial is ongoing.
"Right because if the government accused them of a crime, they must be guilty. In fact, why are we even bothering with a trial?"
Does not compute. They are innocent until proven guilty, but the laws allow for the proceeds of a alleged criminal operation to be locked down until the case is completed. The DoJ made a good enough case to get an indictment and to move forward with it, and under US law, that is enough.
The rest of you rant is just a rant. With 50k a month, plus any other assets that he has (and Kim has plenty, he has scammed his way to millions before), he can easily mount his defense.
He certainly isn't impoverished... I could do well on 50k a month, I don't know about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide a link to the forensic accountant's report that details how every single dollar Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload had, and now don't have, was "obtained by an alleged crime"? There is one right? How else could such a strong claim be made?
Seriously, MU critics like to claim, without evidence, that most of the content was illegal, but if that's true when why do they lose all their money and assets? Why don't they keep a proportion of the assets equivalent to the proportion of legitimate content? It could be tens of millions of dollars. Oh right, doing that would require the USG to actually know how much was legit and how much wasn't. The truth is they haven't got a clue, they're just blindly following the content industries' unsubstantiated claims.
"See the above drug dealer example..."
It's pretty obvious from your repeated drug dealer analogies that you consider copyright infringement equal in seriousness to drug crime. This clearly paints you as a copyright maximilist with rather extreme views. This is where you depart from most of sane society. Anybody died from copyright infringement lately?
"With 50k a month, plus any other assets that he has (and Kim has plenty, he has scammed his way to millions before), he can easily mount his defense."
The FBI failed utterly to prove these hidden assets exist, but you know better right? Who are you again? Why should we believe a word you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the law of the US pretty much requires them to prove that it is not. Yes, it smacks of innocent until proven guilty, but in general terms, it makes sense. If you have legit sources of income, you should be able to show them easily, and prove that at least part of the money is legit. You don't see Kim doing this, which is a clear indication that the money (and assets) are all as a direct result of the corrupt enterprise.
"It's pretty obvious from your repeated drug dealer analogies that you consider copyright infringement equal in seriousness to drug crime"
I use the drug dealer examples because they are the clearest and most simple thing to explain to people. You sell an illegal product, and the money you make off of it gets seized when you get arrested - along with anything you bought with the proceeds of that activity.
I am not drawing any conclusions as to the relative seriousness of the crimes. I am only saying that the process for seizing money and goods is similar in both situations.
The implication of equality is all in your mind. Feeling a little guilty about something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom can quite easily point to his legitimate source of income: MegaUpload. No court of law has ever proven it to be illegal. In fact several civil cases have failed to do just that. And if you want proof that at least part of the income was legit beyond a doubt, look at all the people lining up to regain access to their personal files that the government has taken from them.
"Feeling a little guilty about something?"
Not in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, now it becomes clear; You're applying the rules for drug-related asset seizures to this case.
You do realize that asset seizure is one of the most abused laws in history, right? Since it was declared legal, police across the country have been using it to seize tons of stuff from all sorts of people without ever even charging them with crimes. It's become so common that many/most police organizations regard it as a normal part of their budget. Not to mention that the police will attempt to seize property on the flimsiest of excuses.
If you have legit sources of income, you should be able to show them easily, and prove that at least part of the money is legit.
Right...
Like the case of the guy who had cash seized from him and the judge ruled that a paycheck in the exact amount of the cash he had, wasn't evidence enough that it was obtained legally?
It has been well documented that a large percentage of seized property is never returned. Not because the owners were actually guilty of any crimes, but because the government makes it virtually impossible to prove that the property wasn't obtained illegally.
See here's the part that I'm sure you'll deny and claim that I'm just paranoid;
Getting seized property back isn't like going to trial and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's trying to convince a judge who has already made up their mind that your property is guilty. Since law enforcement will get to keep, auction off and profit from the property that they seize, there's a large incentive not to return it. To this end, the police will tell the judge whatever he wants to hear to convince him not to return it. And since the rule is guilty until proven innocent, most attempts to get seized property back fail.
It's literally legalized stealing. The police/government gets to take a person's property without ever even proving their guilt, and it's virtually impossible for a wrongly accused person to get it back.
Do a Google search for asset seizure abuses, they've been well documented.
And this is the model of 'justice' that you support?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except they flipped out when one of the defendants had more money than they expected in the bank, and were AMAZED he had invested the money and gotten decent returns.
The Government made all sorts of claims, and all of them have been proven to be false. They will run, they will use a helicopter and launch the warheads, the have bombs, they have a button that will delete all of the servers, and so on and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which they can't do, if the government allows data to be destroyed.
I'm betting that Megaupload is going to argue that a significant amount of their income was not the direct proceeds of criminal copyright infringement. Especially in light of the money laundering charges.
To do that, they need to present evidence that is on the servers... evidence that the government won't allow them to access, and is recommending be destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's say that they arrest someone for selling counterfeit DVDs. Do they also seize that person's bank accounts? Their home? Their car?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but...
Let the case flow for a little while and if I saw that I had no chance of victory, BAM! present that evidence as breaking, and mistrial the whole thing. Sure, it doesn't award damages, but it throws a big stinking egg in the Government's face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but...
The hosting company is the one that will ultimately decide if they want to keep the power turned on to the servers, if they want to store the servers elsewhere awaiting payment, or if they are going to move forward to re-purpose the leased equipment to keep their businesses going.
It's not the government's fault that Mega had no backups of their "precious" customer data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but: but: but: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but: but: but: but...
There are some genuinely amazing posts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but: but: but: but...
Nah.. that dude can at least string a constructive sentence together that makes enough legible sense that we can understand he's a loon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but: but: but: but: but: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but...
Or are you just going to keep pretending this is the same as someone plugging in an external drive and keeping stuff safe?
Nice distraction from the Government having unfettered access to the seized servers, and getting to crawl through them looking for the data planted there. That the Government still can't tell you how many files where stored on Mega's servers or what percentage was ACTUALLY infringing, only what is alleged to be infringing according the the **AA's. The same **AA's who lied in court documents about infringing material, and are still trusted as the arbitrator of what is or is not infringing. Even they can't tell...
It is the Governments fault for seizing the "evidence" and thinking they can dump all but the few pieces they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: but...
"Or are you just going to keep pretending this is the same as someone plugging in an external drive and keeping stuff safe?"
No, network backups are not the easiest thing to do, but they can be done. Remember, you don't have to back up all the data in a single shot, you can do it once and then have incremental backups for periods between larger backups, essentially recording only changes. There are plenty of options, and for a company that was clearly the sort of money alleged in the indictment, they could easily afford to do if they were trying to protect user data for real.
There is no indication that Mega valued user data until they were shut down, and now they suddenly value it as a nice public ploy. Doesn't seem right, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: but...
You sound like an ignorant distraction of the actual issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but...
You need to stop making comments on this, because it's pretty clear to everyone reading them that you have no freaking clue about mass data storage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course ther is child porn...
Picture a large Federal Express shipping center, millions of packages and letters inside. I don't even have to look to guarantee you there is some child porn in there. So do we destroy every package and burn the whole warehouse to the ground?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course ther is child porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course ther is child porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's not an enterprise backup service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must preserve evidence
I say the DOJ should just pay the 9k per day, or buy the servers outright, and if they win take it out of the siezed assets and if they lose make MPAA pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must preserve evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must preserve evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Must preserve evidence
Of course they will be sidelined by the **AA cases claiming infringment and Mega owing them trillions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Must preserve evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most that can honestly be said at this point in time is that counsel for Megaupload have filed a response to Carpathia's motion, but neither that motion nor the DOJ's response are presently known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they get away with this it could set a new precedence where they would be allowed to pick apart all the evidence for incriminating materials then destroy the rest.
Not very good at all for anyone this is something every single person in the USA should fight against because it could very well affect them at some point in the future.
A good example "worst case"
You're on trial for murder on a case that's been cold for a long time. Through all the evidence searched they have DNA of 2 persons but they only know who one persons DNA is and that's yours. Since there is no laws on destroying evidence when they finish with it anymore they just toss the 2nd DNA without anyone knowing ever.
You get the chair even though you're innocent. You're murdered with the whole world thinking you're some sick rapist murdering pedophile.
You suffer 20 years of abuse in prison since they all think just that before you are put to death or killed by a gang first.
Is the type of "law" we really fucking want? Both sides are meant supposed to be able to search all the evidence as they see fit. How can you gather your defense with no access to evidence? The answer is you cannot!
This might be a worse case but who's to say it can't happen if allowed to keep going in the direction their pushing for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government has collected their evidence, and is, after documentation, saying that "x and y and z are no longer required as evidence".
The servers at leaseweb are on par with a hotel room where a crime is committed. The government is not under obligation to keep paying the rent on the hotel room ad infinitum. They take the evidence that they deem to be of value (your 2 DNA samples) and they then release the hotel room back to the hotel. The hotel is not obliged to keep the room in the crime scene state until the end of the case.
As for the destruction of evidence, you have it wrong. In the US, evidence in cases is stored for a very, very long time, and is a requirement. With the appeals process, and all the "new evidence comes to light" stuff that is out there every day, they cannot take the risk to just toss out evidence at the end of the case. They have to retain it a very long time indeed - I wouldn't be shocked if they have to retain evidence until the end of the prison sentence or the end of all possible appeals.
That is why you hear about people getting off because of DNA evidence that shows they aren't guilty - tests that didn't exist 20 years ago that we have today, run on the evidence that was retained by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
AC, you are contradicting yourself and make no sense, shut up.
Everyone else, just ignore the troll and continue Drew's thread as if the AC is not there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Due process means facing your accusers, and the contents of the servers are claimed to be X. By having the servers wiped one can not challenge what was actually on the servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With the machines wiped and the number of files. Just doing the numbers on 25 P-bytes leads to a not guilty verdict. The line "The government has proven that less than on tenth of 1 percent of the files on mega upload were infringing" is self evident and says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, if they somehow do mange to gain access, i think the best approach would be to ask the public, previous megaupload uploaders, if any of them would be willing to allow access to their files, and the degrees of access theeir willing to give.......unlike the government, this would go along way to show us that our privacy actually MEANS, something to someone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mega's attempt to gain access to the servers "for their defense" doesn't explain in any way how access to private user data files will help them fight the battle. It would appear that they are mostly interested in getting data that they can attempt to use to embarrass the government or the **AAs, thinking they can win the case in the court of public opinion. I can see nothing else that they can accomplish by obtaining the data or the rights to the servers.
The only other option is that they are trying to mirror the data to re-open the service. That is about the only logical conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I know, I should really think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2 percent if they have every movie, TV show, and album listed in the pirate bay magnet file.
Statistically speaking that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Proof or STFU.
"Mega's attempt to gain access to the servers "for their defense" doesn't explain in any way how access to private user data files will help them fight the battle."
But of course the USG's access to the servers for their prosecution also required access to private user data files to help them fight the battle. So what's the difference?
"That is about the only logical conclusions."
That is about the only conclusion you're capable of making given your obvious vested interest in MU's downfall. None of of believe for a second that you're simply taking a moral stand here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case
It is hard to sympathize with the US Justice Department and their prosecutors. The cost of crony capitalism is coming home to roost. Their case is likely collapsing around them, and they found that out when they started looking at the data on the server. Now their reputations are on the line.
I'd like to suggest to the justice department their first duty is to the integrity of the system. Pay to preserve all the data and afford Mr. Dotcom the ability to defend himself. That way, if you win, you win for all of us. Swallow hard, and man-up to the fact there's more at stake here than just putting a guy in jail.
I'd like to suggest to the rest of the voting citizens of the country that it is time to think about how we will go about interrupting the relationship established by our business community (here, the [MP|RI]AA) with our legislative and executive branch. Frankly, the only answer I see is to vote against every incumbent (no matter what the party) in the upcoming elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case
How do you get to that? I am not seeing any "crumbling", rather it's such a solid case (especially because it is based not solely on copyright infringement but rather on the large scale laundering of money), that Kim is left having to flail around to try to find support in the court of public opinion.
It's hard to sympathize with a guy who made 100 million or more and lived like a king on the back of artists, film makers, and everyone else - and then has the balls to claim he is going to help them. He is only in that position because he robbed them blind first.
Sorry, but there isn't any crumbling going on that I can see - would you care to point to some?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case
I'm just an ordinary fellow that really believes the idea that in a criminal case the accused is really "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." FYI: that happens when a jury, not "ANONYMOUS COWARD," says "GUILTY!"
I've also witnessed what happens in a computer forensic investigation. We're talking PB of data here. Is it credible the prosecution could go through that quantity of data and do a competent investigation in a matter of days? I'd say no, unless there were hundreds (maybe thousands) of expert criminal forensic technicians, knowledgeable in the setup and operation of the cloud that used to be MegaUpload, able to work in a carefully coordinated manner for weeks, maybe months.
I get it that the content producing industry, and artists of all sorts, think this guy is horrible and needs to rot in jail forever. If I were the victim of a crime I'd expect the state to seek justice for me.
But justice must be fairly attained and not by compromising the faith that the people have in the legal system. I don't see how you can keep the faith if you don't preserve all the data and afford even an evil infringer the right to a defense. The basic requirement to that end is paying the $9K/day to save the data that used to be MegaUpload.
And this simple fact is why I think the case is collapsing. If the government believed they had all the data they needed to get a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction they'd pay the money (by taking it out of the seized assets of MegaUpload). But the state doesn't want to do that even if "child pornography" is present.
Like I said, I'm big on "what they do" and not "what they say." Given this, it sure looks like the government has doubts about their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God, you're ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless, maybe, you think of "Pirate Mike" as your God....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BLASPHEMER!!!!
No Satan's testicles for you today!
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future Presidents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mega-upload takedown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Data Retension
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is like they find one person raising pot in a thousand apartment complex. So they arrest all the building staff, evict all the tenants, seize all their belongings and burn the entire complex to the ground.
For more on this go here:
https://www.eff.org/document/brief-interested-party-kyle-goodwin
This seems more like some sort of politically motivated vendetta than due process to me. Otherwise, why rob over a million users, most of whom are probably innocent third parties, of their property when there are better, more effective and much less destructive ways of going about this? Why burn the barn down with other people's livestock in it to get rid of some rats, when a cat would do the job much more effectively and without having to destroy the barn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shout to anonymous here
(I kid, obviously)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their masters...
This is so obviously politically motivated that nothing the Justice Department does would surprise me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the FEDS may be involved.
If the FEDS' data in megaupload is revealed, t
hen the FEDS used a service they have claimed to be illegal and knew was illegal yet they used it making them accessories to crime perhaps.
This is a case megaupload is going to show. The FEDS themselves used their 'so-called' illegal service for their own gain and perhaps also the type of data stored by FEDS may not be legal or good or may even be porn or some incriminating evidence.
This may be why the FEDS want selected data and delete evidence against them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]