LeaseWeb Deletes Megaupload's Servers Without Warning, Destroying Key Evidence
from the yikes dept
Last year, we found it absolutely bizarre that the DOJ would seize all of Megaupload's servers, and then, just weeks later, tell its hosting partners that they could wipe those servers clean. Considering that the servers held key evidence that might exonerate the defendants in a criminal trial, it seemed insane that the DOJ was advocating for the destruction of evidence. A judge later told hosting company Carpathia that it needed to preserve the data, rather than delete it. Carpathia was annoyed at the expense, and Megaupload asked the government to free funds for the purpose of keeping the data maintained.However, now it appears that another hosting partner of Megaupload, LeaseWeb, has wiped Megaupload's servers clean, destroying all of the evidence, without any warning. Kim Dotcom has pointed out that his lawyers had repeatedly asked LeaseWeb not to destroy the evidence, so they were clearly on notice that they held key evidence in a criminal lawsuit, but they chose to destroy it anyway.
Even though the DOJ both supported this destruction of evidence and refused to release the funds to maintain it, it really seems like this could come back to bite the DOJ badly, because Dotcom and the other defendants can now point to the fact that the DOJ allowed for the destruction of key evidence that might prove their innocence. What a bizarre move by the DOJ.
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: destruction of evidence, doj, evidence, kim dotcom, servers
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
But so long as keeps Mike's hope alive that Dotcom won't be prosecuted for OBVIOUS crimes, it makes Techdirt fare.
If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence, he can hop on a plane for the US and get it over with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
Secondly, it doesnt matter, due process, following the law properly requires that evidence NOT be destroyed. Innocent people have gone to jail because they thought if they destroyed things they thought were evidence they wouldn't be found guilty.
Evidence was in DOJs hands and now it's destroyed.
You can't have a trial based on that kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
He doesn't have to. The DOJ needs to prove his guilt.
Failed basic civics, did you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
OOTB and his paymasters hate due process!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
Don't worry, I'm not expecting an answer(I already know what it is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
The sad part is you know your wrong even as you say it and thats what makes you a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
When one side or the other in a court case destroys evidence, it's called spoliation of evidence. Doing so weakens the DOJ's case against Dotcom.
If you're rooting for the government in this, why cheer when they shoot themselves in the foot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People's republic of china
ministry of love
ect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
What about the right to a fair trial?
Nah, didn't think that facts have anything to do with your bullshit troll posts on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
Actually, in court you can rely on that when the dog is the prosecutor and the homework is material evidence.
"If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence, he can hop on a plane for the US and get it over with."
I'm not sure if this statement is made out of ignorance, malice or both...
If you were accused of a crime in another country and set to be extradited, and you considered yourself to be innocent, would you willingly jump on a plane and present yourself to the authorities knowing that you'll spend the next year or two stuck in that country and having to put your entire life on hold? Do you leave your family? (Dotcom has a wife and five kids remember.) Or do you uproot them from their lives too? Do you just quit your job? (Probably no choice there.) Is that what you'd do Blue?
No, of course it's not. Since you believe you're innocent you'd fight every effort to you drag you into that hell. Even if you assume Dotcom would get a fair trial (far from guaranteed) and can win, it's still something no sane person would volunteer for.
The extradition process is not just to ensure criminals can be returned to the country where a crime was committed, but also to ensure people who are innocent or unlikely to be found guilty are not unduly punished before a verdict is even delivered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, dotcom will come out of this pretty well. Ill bet he get a few million for the US gov before this is over.
Generally, its up to the gov to prove guilt. They aint doing so well in that regard.
[ 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 ]
"
25.2 Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement:
25.2.1 LeaseWeb shall cease to provide all Services;
25.2.2 LeaseWeb shall be entitled to erase and delete any and all data of Customer -and any
and all data of Customer’s End Users- from LeaseWeb’s Infrastructure, including from
the Dedicated Infrastructure;"
http://www.leaseweb.us/uploads/legal/20130521_USA_General_Terms_v2013-1_1.pdf
I'm wondering if the lack of funds caused them to delete the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a lose-lose for DOJ though LeaseWeb are also culpable too here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Smarter thing would have been to get confirmation from DOJ first. "You have chosen to delete all files. Once deleted, files cannot be restored. Are you SURE you want to proceed? yes / NO"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
MU would've deleted the infringing files if the DOJ gave them the go-ahead (they were told all this through Carpathia), because the DOJ said "Don't do this or we'll charge you with tampering of evidence." So they kept them active and untouched, even after the NinjaVideo case ended, waiting for the green light from the DOJ to delete them. Instead, Megaupload gets taken down using those exact same files.
Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
39?
Lol
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wasn't it "seized" by the DOJ?
If my car is seized as evidence, how exactly would I be responsible for maintaining the integrity of it, since I don't have possession of it?
Sounds like a typical fuckup at multiple levels (or par for the course when it comes to the DOJ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But if the repo man comes, I think it would be funny as all hell watching him try to "steal" it back out of the impound yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now I suggest you brush up on some legal text because you have no idea what you are talking about.
First and foremost, the government didn't seize anything. If they had seized the servers then they would be in the governments custody, not LeaseWebs.
In this case the government is attempting to destroy evidence by preventing a defendant from maintaining said evidence. If this goes to trial I presume the DOJ will try to use an argument along the lines of "we never seized their equipment and therefore had no obligation to preserve it for trial" they would then try to pull out copies of some of the data and say "we were able to secure THIS evidence before the defendant destroyed the originals."
Personally I find it very unlikely that any judge will allow that evidence to be used at trial as the government does not have the originals and will have no way to prove that the copy wasn't tampered with.
It seems the DOJ has no interest in actually bringing this to trial. Instead they are using the legal system to administer the punishment without the conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's try it from the opposite point of view;
You're accused of a computer crime. Before the police can get a search warrant for your computer, you have your own "expert" go through it and collect evidence of your innocence. Then as soon as he's finished, you wipe the hard drive. How do you think the authorities would react?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now try paying for something when you have no money and all methods of paying except physical cash are frozen.
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ's response
1) Those files needed to be deleted for national security.
2) There was nothing important on those servers.
3) They had nothing to do with this case and no evidence was harmed.
4) We didn't do it. LeaseWeb did.
Course then follow that up with the classic:
You need to trust us cause we're the DOJ. Just extradite Dotcom already so we can hold our kangaroo court.
I'm still putting my bet on more charges magically showing up if he is extradited to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ's response
"These are not the servers you're looking for"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ's response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the end of the day, it's the consumers and content creators who are going to lose out, just as the entertainment industry wanted all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that's in cases where the DEFENDANT does something to try to hide/destroy evidence against themselves on the hard drive, not the reverse with the prosecution doing that.
Are the DOJ dumb enough to think this will be treated the same way as if Kim Dotcom destroyed the evidence?
It would seem that due to the 1st ten amendments that the evidence the DOJ gathered is now inadmissible in court, which could destroy their whole case if this happens to the rest of the evidence on the other servers. Unless the judge is a real moron who doesn't read the constitution (entirely possible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ Wanted the evidence gone
Now the DOJ gets to see what it's like in prison since they tampered with and destroyed evidence in a criminal case, they get to go to prison (the people within the DOJ, no matter how high up, that ordered or okayed the evidence destruction).
Can't wait to see them in prison orange.
If they don't serve time, then no one can ever be tried for evidence destruction again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Herd of jackasses
They (DOJ) currently look like a herd of brain dead jackasses with the way they have handled this case.
Everything they have touched has gone straight down the tubes.
If they file to dismiss the charges, it will only make them look even worse (if that is possible).
By having the hosting provider delete possible exculpatory evidence, the entire proceeding is tainted thus warranting a dismissal.
The case goes away for reasons beyond the control of the DOJ, letting them trumpet to the press how they would have convicted Kim, if not for the loss of evidence.
This seems to be a big face saving win for the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DOJ wants to lose this extradition case
The idea from the beginning was to seize Kim's assets to prevent him from defending himself - and he would plea out (again not testing the legal theory in court). Once Kim was able to defend himself, they had to sabotage the case, again to prevent the theory from being tested in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When did we end up in a novel about a dystopian future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget about Dotcom and the case for a moment
...Actually, hold on for a second.
Since LeaseWeb's deleted all the content from the servers, does that mean that the data on Carpathia is gone as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prosecute or destroy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prosecute or destroy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
In this case, though, it turns out the deck isn't stacked the way they thought it was so now they have to actually play the hand they were dealt or fold. Keep playing and there's a good chance they lose. Plus everybody gets to see their cards. Fold and they can keep their cards secret but at the cost of admitting how bad they were. Or they can go with a third option to create a distraction and then throw all the cards on the floor.
While that may kill their case it also prevents MegaUpload from proving their innocence. The government can continue to make whatever claims they want against MegaUpload because they got off "on a technicality." Instead of proof of government overreach and corporate influence it becomes more proof we need tougher IP laws.
That's assuming the government can't win based solely on the quasi-religious deference most judges give to statements from law enforcement officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Megaupload used multiple hosting partners. Carpathia was a US hosting firm. Leaseweb is Dutch, I believe. They each hosted some parts of Mega, but not the whole thing.
[ 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:
Now that the servers have been wiped, isn't the case dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 19th, 2013 @ 10:32am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in a name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backups
If they were diligent they would have done a backup to tape before wiping them. Alternatively, they could have just relied on their last backup. I think it would be prudent for someone to make sure they locate those backups and keep them safe.
The company I work for has 50TB+ of data that gets incrementally backed up each night, with a full backup each week; I would think LeaseWeb would be be engaging in something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Backups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not really odd by the DOJ
If you consider the reality that the DOJ took this case to disrupt MegaUpload at the behest of the copyright lobby, then it makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Add to that the DoJ seized all of Dotcom's funds and refused to allow him to pay for the servers(which would not have been a cheap thing to do), and the DoJ pretty much did everything short of ordering the servers to be wiped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually getting to access their own servers. The DOJ took the servers, blocked an attempt at paying Carpathia, refused to release the funds required to pay for the servers and refused to release the information contained on the servers.
This ball was in the DOJ's court, and if the data was deleted, it's entirely their fault, as it was deleted while under their supervision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 4 3 OOTB
RightHaven will last forever........
Prenda would never upload their own movies......
The US DOJ has a slam dunk case against Kim Dotcom.......
(but these are just "Anomalies", right?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]