DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back
from the because-hollywood-once-told-us-someone-was-dr.-evil dept
For a while we had followed the bizarre situation with Megaupload's servers. As you may recall, the Justice Department seized them all, following its criminal indictment against Megaupload and many of its executives. However, soon after seizing all of the company's servers, the DOJ announced that it no longer needed them and told the hosting company that had them that the data on them could be destroyed. We pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of destruction of evidence by the DOJ. First, it seized pretty much all of the assets of a company, prior to any conviction, and then before any actual judicial proceedings, asked for most of those assets -- many of which could include exculpatory evidence -- to be destroyed. It seemed... quite questionable. That resulted in a bit of a legal battle, as the hosting company storing them, Carpathia, asked what it should be doing (since it's suffering from the cost of keeping the servers). Megaupload sought to buy the servers, but the DOJ has blocked that effort. Last we'd heard, the judge had told everyone to work it all out by themselves.Torrentfreak has an update, noting that everyone's in a stalemate and nothing seems to be happening:
The whole situation is bizarre. Individuals who had legitimate content stored on Megaupload are still asking for access to get back their content, but the DOJ doesn't seem to care at all. In fact, it's coming up with increasingly bizarre excuses to justify shutting down an entire business based on the entertainment industry's say so, and seems to have no qualms about how many people this has created massive problems for.This effort was stopped because the U.S. didn’t want Kim Dotcom to have access to the files. Hoping to get out of this stalemate the Court then suggested that all affected parties should get together and come up with a solution, thus far without success.
“In separate written requests in the past year both Carpathia and Megaupload have asked Magistrate Judge Anderson – who was appointed by Judge O’Grady to mediate the cloud storage server data issue – to preside over follow-up negotiations on data preservation and consumer access,” Rothken tells TF.
“The US DOJ has shown little interest in such negotiations and the Judge has not been inclined to set any additional meetings,” he adds.
As the Aereo case is about to be heard, and various concerns about its impact on cloud computing are being raised, people should look over at what's happening with Megaupload's servers and be even more concerned. If the broadcasters succeed in redefining what is a "public performance," it's entirely conceivable that the DOJ could choose to do the same to other cloud services you rely on -- and there seems to be no recourse whatsoever.
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, servers
Companies: carpathia, megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about this?
1) Either they pay for the maintenance costs for the servers, all of them, until, at the very least, the case is either over or dismissed.
Or...
2) Dotcom and/or others are allowed to purchase the servers or pay their maintenance fees, giving them access to copy files off but not otherwise modify the contents of the servers.
The fact that the DoJ grabbed what they wanted from the servers, and then is doing everything they can to make sure that they get wiped afterwards absolutely screams 'cherry-picked evidence', where they got what they figure will help their side of the case, but don't want the defense to have access to evidence that might help their side(and yet we've still got people insisting Dotcom would get a fair trial in the US, who do they think they're fooling?), and makes it pretty clear that the overall evidence would not be in the DoJ's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's a little Prior Restraint...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah... keep telling yourself that's the main problem. I'm sure Romney would have been a saint, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2 012-money-over-anti/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it could have evidence that proves their innocence. The U.S. Government and the DOJ could release some of Megaupload's seize bank account fund and give some of that cash to preserve the servers to Carpathia till the end of the trial.
There would be no cost to the government or to the DOJ, it would be coming from Megaupload's cash. I doubt even Megaupload would have an issue with this nor would the EFF.
The mere fact that the government want's to stack the deck in their favor, and deny Megaupload and Dotcom the preservation of the servers makes one wonder what the government is afraid of.
Once again this just proves what we have all been seeing is that there is no right to a fair trial and access to the evidence as far as the government is concerned.
Another sign of just how far the U.S. government has strayed into the abyss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the government destroys the evidence before court that is spoilage of the evidence and ultimately Kim could very well win on that point. Since the government confiscated all this, it is on them to return the evidence or provide for safe keeping until such time as a court rules on the case.
All of this just smacks of corruption. Of a government destroying the trust of it's citizens in it's being able to govern and hence destroying the consent to govern. History is scattered with examples of governments doing this and it never ends well for them. This whole business is turning into a powder keg. Set the right flame to it and it will go off, resulting in either a massive over turn of officials and policies or worse it could degenerate into a civil war. All it takes at this point is some blatant abuse exposed to the public that sets them off.
At one time I was concerned that the Occupy movement might have been that spark. It had all the right mixture to develop but did not.
[ 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:
Better the devil you know, and all that. People are afraid of losing all the services the government provides, that's why the Tea Party has only ever been a noisy minority trying to punch above its weight. As for Occupy, they mean well, but they were more interested in mobilizing opposition to the status quo than planning a political future. The Tea Party got hold of the levers of power within the Republican Party, then helped get radicals into office. Occupy just protested and were widely seen as a nuisance till they turned their hands to local aid projects.
We need a movement that's not out to take power, then abdicate responsibility. The Greens are aiming for just that but aren't getting the traction they need. Their platform in the last election was too far to the left, I think. I mean, how do you guarantee employment for all without seizing control of all enterprise? The small "L" libertarian Pirates need to organize if they're to get anywhere.
There are other parties, but even the best of them needs to have a plan as to what they will do in office, and it needs to be solid and sensible, not pie in the sky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have never trusted online data storage and I never will. If I need to back something up, I buy some blank disks, that way I don't have to worry about the DOJ searching my files and seizing the server I have stored my files on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But people who actually understand computing in depth only use the cloud for prototyping and other transient, expendable tasks. They would never even consider it for production deployment -- they leave that to the ignorant newbies who don't know any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe if a free/low-cost 'cloud' service like MegaUpload/Mega had been around back then, things might not have been a total loss -- unless, of course, the DOJ had gotten involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're so full of shit it's not even funny. MU has indicated it is absolutely willing to pay. It just needs the assets unfrozen in order to pay -- and the DOJ has blocked it. It asked specifically for funds to pay for this very thing and the DOJ told the court not to allow it. Because the DOJ wants the exculpatory data destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you under-estimate the situation. My read is, some low-level lawyer at DOJ discovered the indenumerable ethical/legal/other lapses that took place leading up to the seizure; that person 'blew the whistle'; higher-ups got wind of what was going on (with Eric Holder as AG, it's entirely too likely, based on publicly available information regarding other ethical lapses at DOJ); and are now scrambling desperately to cover up the fact they got it wrong six ways from Sunday.
My question to you: why isn't there SOME judge who's cottoned on to what's going on and started reading the DOJ the riot act (HUGE sanctions under the court's inherent power, referral to state bar, dismissal of charges with prejudice, and whatever else is appropriate to make the point this is not how things are done)?
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no recourse whatsoever
Hopefully people will realize the inherent lack of security of cloud services, as the government(s),the operating company, and the server hosting company basically own your stuff and any of them can do whatever the hell they like with it.
One (obvious) preventative solution to this and many other problems would be to avoid US-based companies and US-based servers. (torrent sites have been following that logic for years) And ideally, avoid countries that have Hollywood-funded lobbying organizations like Brein.
Although the long arm of US law reaches worldwide, the current situation with Russia offers hope that this could be one country that will finally stand up for itself and no longer be willing to bend over backward to please Hollywood's copyright trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault. Saying "they are released back to your control" is not the same as "now that we are releasing them back to your control you are encouraged to wipe them clean."
Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.
As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Firstly they did not fully image ALL the data instead they have cherry picked what they themselves require only.. This is not correct evidence retention practices nor is it allowed under any court approved forensic procedures dealing with data in either criminal or civil discovery processes.
If you seize electronic devices a FULL & complete digital image MUST be taken to preserve that evidence before any searching or analysis of that data can be carried out. FULL!!! Not "part thereof", not "what we need", but ALL of the data residing on the devices to be preserved "in the instance" so as to have a base to show all sides if criminal proceedings go further.
If this is not done an immediate problem is raised based on the reliability and certitude of the data in question.
Remember the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution to prove that the evidence obtained is correct and AUTHENTIC and without the ORIGINAL data that absolutely will destroy the basis of all evidence rules in courts (criminal and civil), and then you find problems with relevance, hearsay, 'chain of custody', identification, probity, bias, ... the list is extensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Federal Rules of Evidence are nowhere near as strict as you appear to believe they should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Though your Federal Rules of Evidence actually do require those levels of probity, maybe not all the times since most cases are not resourced nor politically problematic enough to deserve that level of retention (though any forensic accredited analyser who I find out hasn't met at the minimum that level will be instantly brought before ethics committees)
Whereas this case and criminal matter is a whole new ball game for the US's DoJ. In this instance they had either go buy the Rules laid down unambiguously with no discretion or they will find themselves on the recieving end of international condemnation, appeals and a whole lot of cases pending in other cases they want to try internationally will be struck out.
I'm not really sure you understand how many interested parties are looking at this matter to look at whether the USA will be hypocritical in its own rules (and what it requires others) and if it is the whole process of reciprocity and comity will be dealt (in regards to USA matters anyway) a critical blow. I for one know a fair few people in the industry as well as practicing lawyers who will use any bending (breaking even) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence with great glee since they will use that in their own matters AGAINST the DoJ and any upstart USA court. The chilling effect is potent but hey... Eagles!!!!! *rolls eyes and wonders what will destroy you all first.. your own citizens or basically the world ridding itself of your economy*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's incredibly misleading spin. First, they secured copies of *some* files -- just the ones they wanted, not anything that might be exculpatory. Second, they ALSO seized all of Megaupload's money, meaning that it can no longer pay to keep those servers. You make it sound like they returned them to Megaupload. That's simply misleading.
To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault
No, you're the one misleading to a fault. The DOJ flat out told Carpathia that it should go ahead and destroy the evidence. You can't do that in a criminal case.
Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.
Easy to say that when the DOJ has also sezied all their assets. You can't honestly believe what you said above.
As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.
Kyle Goodwin did retain a local backup. And it failed. So when he went to restore it from one of the MOST POPULAR cloud backup solutions out there, the US government shut it down completely, based on a highly questionable indictment.
So, your argument is, once again, completely bullshit.
Don't you get tired of such bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kyle's problem is apparent...he picked a place to store his data that only one with his head buried in the sand or elsewhere would have believed was fully on the up and up.
You seem to place great stock in promoting MU as a victim unable to hold its own against the DOJ because MU's assets were frozen. This is done all the time, and yet in cases involving the "rich and famous" they always seem to miraculously discover $$$ to cover their tush. The only significant difference I see here it that KDC's tush is larger than most. He makes Madoff look positively anorexic.
[ 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: Re: Re:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88715174/Carpathia
There's Carpathia's objection to what you said didn't happen. Want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You understand of course that if he could show that the money didn't come from the alleged illegal activities, that he could in fact keep it and operate with it?
Two years plus of fighting extradition and doing very little about money except making sure he has enough to support his own lavish lifestyle should tell you everything you need to know about how Kim feels about his customers. Once they stopped being an ATM machine for him, they aren't important anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's...a really impressive feat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At what point were the servers release back to Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Server transfer to justified parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous is the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous is the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kim dot slow
The real problem is Kim continues to fithgt extradition at every turn, and that is what is holding up the whole deal.
Side note: The business wasn't shut down at the entertainment industry say so. Rather, after looking at the activities of the companies involved and looking at how money was being moved around, legal action was taken. Money laudering is a serious offence, no matter what you may think of Kim's file storage business. Using it as a front to profit from piracy is bad for everyone, including those who support free sharing. Kim isn't on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kim dot slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: kim dot slow
Do the police allow someone to keep beating someone because they haven't been found guilty yet of assault?
Do they let drug dealers keep their drugs and stay on the street corner working, because they haven't been found guilty of trafficking?
Do they let a boat owner keep his boat used to smuggle drugs because they haven't convicted him yet?
You need to learn what due process is. It's not a license to keep committing the same acts you have been indicted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: kim dot slow
The shutdown of the business was done so by those in authority by violating due process of the law in order to do so. For the authorities to shut down the business down they have to do so folowing the law and due process of that law themselves (even if there are people who regard the company as being illegal) but the authorities did not uphold the law or followed due process of the law themselves with shutting down Megaupload as they abused the law and abused the due process of the law themselves in doing so.
"You need to learn what due process is. It's not a license to keep committing the same acts you have been indicted for."
I do know what due process is and the authorities have to follow the law and due process of the law in dealing with a case but the authorities certainly did not follow the law and nor did they follow due process of law with shutting down Megaupload which they totally abused in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kim dot slow
Boy, that's certainly a funny way of saying 'continues to fight against extradition to a foreign country and the kangaroo court that awaits him there'.
Every single action taken by the DoJ and their lackeys over in NZ('We need an armed, SWAT-style raid to keep him from using the magic button that will somehow wipe out all the data on the servers, destroying all the evidence! You know, the servers we disconnected a good while before the raid, a tidbit we ever-so-conveniently 'forgot' to tell you'), to anyone who hasn't already decided his guilt(like you lot), absolutely screams that he would never get a fair trial in the US, and he'd have to be insane to take the risk, as well as allowing himself to be dragged across the globe like that simply as an 'example'.
Also, you're half right, money laundering is indeed a very serious offense, which is why they tacked it on to justify extradition, since accusations of copyright infringement don't meet the requirement.
However, the idea that paying your bills counts as 'money laundering'... really? That's a joke that's not even funny, it's just sad and desperate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kim dot slow
I know you assholes don't like him, but he still has rights no matter how much you hate him.
"The business wasn't shut down at the entertainment industry say so."
Keep telling yourself that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kim dot slow
Bollocks!!!1 The USA were told in no uncertain terms that the money was fully legitimate under NZ law and also under Australian Law since they used AusTRAC to follow the trail. But of course the USA's DoJ and it's puppet masters - which are most definitely the MPAA/RIAA (enough evidence to show that in so many ways from previous dealings) they refuse to believe anyone else since they are the worlds police force.
What's even worse is that idiots like yourself actually believe most of the FUD and Swill they throw out to satiate your desire for drama that focuses the attention away from what the real problems are. ie: lack of due process, hypocrisy, ultra vires, and complicity with people with axes to grind and the money to sway legal process's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ must destroy the evidence
To defend itself, Megaupload needs to be able to show those files are not infringing, or that it did a reasonable job of removing infringing works in compliance with the DMCA. DOJ doesn't want them to be able to show that, since that might establish reasonable doubt.
So the best way to ensure that Megaupload cannot defend itself is the utter destruction of the files. This is why DOJ has been seeking two things from early in the case: To prevent Megaupload from having access to the files and; once DOJ culled out enough "culpatory" evidence to support their case, the utter destruction even of the files they claim are infringing.
All they want to remain is the culpatory metadata, against which Megaupload can offer no useful defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence
it is either exculpatory or inculpatory. Culpatory is a latin phrase that has no meaning in this context
if the file has the same name and size as a copyrighted work, then it definitely is.
Umm no, that's not how you establish whether a file is the same as another. The only way to prove a file is exactly the same under evidentiary norms is by using cryptographic hash functions (MD5 or SHA normally).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence
The problem is, you're looking at it from a rational, backed-by-evidence viewpoint.
However, if you happen to have the only copy of a file, with (handily enough) no context as to where it came from and who put it there, and, most importantly, a 'sympathetic' judge(which would be flat out required if the DoJ doesn't want the case thrown out pretty much as soon as the defense is allowed to speak), then you can claim the file is whatever you feel like.
Does a particular file have the same name as a copyrighted work? Then obviously it's an infringing file, and with no contradictory evidence able to be presented by the defense, how are they supposed to prove otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence
This though is a criminal case AFAIK and in this instance the 'copy' as you state has an original somewhere. If it doesn't have an original somewhere then it was created at the instance of copying and basically has major authenticity & reliability barriers to overcome otherwise it MUST be classified as irrelevant and/or unpersuasive until at such time that it can be authenticated by unbiased means instead of the cognitive bias that the DoJ will have to prove they haven't used (the burden is on them...i hope.. usa does have that legal standard doesn't it in this instance???).
Basically if the DoJ destroy the currently preserved originals all that is left with is anecdotal evidence (remember they are saying its such a HUGE amount they can only keep or 'cherry pick' a small part) at best, a pile of FUD at worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DOJ must destroy the evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their hope, obviously, is that if no-one is able to save a full imaging of the servers, or back them up in full, and no one is allowed to purchase or take control of them, then they'll find themselves with the only (cherry picked) 'evidence', and can also claim that they had nothing to do with the rest of it being destroyed, ever so conveniently leaving out that they left no other choice, unless the company who owns the servers wants to continue to pay for them, and have them out of commission, on their own dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]