
U.S. Government Fears End of Megaupload Case - Lightning
http://torrentfreak.com/united-states-fears-end-of-megaupload-case-130505/
======
TheCapn
Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere!

Fact of the matter is, with the internet becoming such an important part of
our lives so quickly laws haven't had a chance to catch up. For the most part,
DOJ and other countries interpret the laws as "if you are effecting
people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws". Is that
right? Probably not, but it isn't 100% wrong either. America is quickly
converting its livelihood such that its chief export will be intellectual
property. They, rightfully, should be defending themselves in any legal way
they can. Until we correct the way laws are written they'll continue to
interpret them to the way they see fit.

But then we have everyone here taking things to the extreme. What if I break
some obscure law in some backwater land unknown to the majority of the world?
Do you think they have jurisdiction granted to them by your government?
Usually these things are part of a deal of friendship between governments as
US and Australia would make deals with each other as there are mutual
advantages to it. Would America cut deals with North Korea to hand you over
for some obscure law? I'm betting no. Don't forget, there are people behind
these decisions and although they may seem asinine at times they are still
logical beings capable of rational thought.

It just pains me to see the article and want to discuss it intellectually on
HN but all I find is fear mongering, straw men and countless other fallacies
that don't really strengthen their point. I don't care whether you
agree/disagree with the ruling/courts as written, I care to have a discussion
or see _good_ points on either side of the debate, not hogwash vomited forth
for emotionally charged arguments.

~~~
jetti
The problem I see with this is that one doesn't need to agree to be bound by
the social contract of an individual government to be prosecuted.

In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live
there. It is that simple. In our digital world, people from all over the world
can connect to my website even if that isn't my intention. It would be
incredibly hard to block all users from a certain country from accessing my
website or using my service, especially if I don't require any payments.

Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are
accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is
legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody
in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my
site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody.

I wonder if other countries could start using the US's liberal interpretation
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the US citizens/residents to
protect their site. If a website puts in their Terms of Service that the site
is only for non-United States residents only, would that rid them of this
responsibility? If somebody from the US visits the site and the DoJ believes
that the site is effecting the people/business on their soil and that the
company should be held accountable then the company could have the DoJ
prosecute the user based on the Terms of Use violation.

~~~
ahallock
> In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't
> live there. It is that simple.

No, it's not that simple. Your statement shows no empathy and lacks context.
Is it that simple to leave North Korea? If I tried to leave the US now, they'd
shoot me. I'd need to have arrangement with the country I'm immigrating to,
pay a bunch of fees, etc. And why should I, a peaceful human being, have to
leave when a single entity claims such vast areas of land? It's unfair and
people's blind (probably tribalistic) acceptance of that idea is sad.

~~~
jetti
I never suggested people do that, I'm saying that that is the only surefire
way (for the most part) to escape the laws in the country that you are
currently in. If you live in a country, it is generally expected you follow
those laws. That is my point, not "love it or leave it". I apologize that it
came off that way.

------
downandout
These so-called "Rule 4" issues are a symptom of the DOJ's quest to become the
world's police force. But the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure exist for
precisely this reason. It is in the very nature of the mindless beast that is
the DOJ to try to escape from its cage; it is the job of the judge to ensure
that the cage door is never left open by enforcing the rules. Hopefully the
judge will do his job in this case.

~~~
derleth
> It is in the very nature of the mindless beast that is the DOJ to try to
> escape from its cage; it is the job of the judge to ensure that the cage
> door is never left open by enforcing the rules.

And this cuts to the heart of the adversarial system, where _both_ sides are
out to win and the judge is meant to be an impartial referee. So it isn't just
the DOJ that judges have to keep caged to some extent.

~~~
downandout
True, although I think that the DOJ is by far the worst offender when it comes
to what most people would describe as ridiculous and even nefarious attempts
at legal overreach.

~~~
sageikosa
It is mainly because the DOJ's resources are unlimited that, for "egalitarian"
sake, it needs to be watched.

~~~
rayiner
DOJ's resources are extremely limited. They're tasked with doing for more than
they have the capacity to do thoroughly.

The reason their legal arguments are sometimes strained is because they're
tasked with enforcing often stupid laws on a shoestring budget. They're the
ones who have to articulate to a judge justifications in terms of Congress's
stupid laws.

~~~
sageikosa
In comparison to whom they can go up against (at least on one end of the size
spectrum), and the degree of resources they can exert via other arms of the
executive branch, it is probably safe to state its power is unrestricted (if
not fiscally unlimited) in scope.

~~~
rayiner
Even a medium-sized company can bring to bear legal resources that would swamp
a DOJ team.

~~~
sageikosa
Well, with an operating budget of $27 billion they certainly have more
resources than I have, even if they only allocate a half million dollars worth
of resources (which would be about 2 people if we grossly divide by headcount,
which I admit is not accurate). So I certainly wouldn't want to get on their
bad side.

Also not all small businesses have resources setup to counter DOJ actions
since they might not be anticipating having to until it actually happens.

~~~
rayiner
2/3 of the DOJ budget is just FBI and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. ATF and
DEA are also part of the mix. Actual litigation resources is only $3.3
billion, or about the equivalent of three large law firms. For an agency
tasked with prosecuting everything from rapes in Indian country to to
international crime rings.

~~~
sageikosa
I'll take at face value that trial resources are limited at a mere $3.3
billion; having the FBI investigate you and being threatened with Federal
Prison time is still within the power of the DOJ. If we assume a fairly high
conviction rate of DOJ cases, then it is probably not because they all ended
up at trial, but because the FBI had _so much_ on you and the threat of
mandatory prison sentences so onerous that deals will be cut to avoid an
expensive trial.

No one wants to go to trial, so not having a big trial budget isn't
surprising; most of the hard work in building a solid case is in the FBI and
the most of the leverage is in the prison system.

Please don't read into this as a condemnation of the DOJ as a body, just my
take that it needs to be kept in check by courts as fighting the DOJ is not
just making good show at trial.

~~~
rayiner
The FBI is under DOJ, but it doesn't make much sense to lump them together for
the purposes of discussion, because the FBI operates mostly independent of the
DOJ (as in most governments, there is a organizational barrier between the
police force and the prosecuting entity).

No doubt going up against the DOJ is not easy, but it's not exactly an
organization that's overflowing with resources given the enormous scope of its
responsibilities. That's why it takes such a scorched earth approach--it can't
afford to spend time on weaker cases or hashing out fine distinctions in
cases.

~~~
sageikosa
Sounds reasonable enough.

------
urza
"When a person located abroad violates the laws of the United States, that
person may be held criminally liable despite the fact that the person has
never set foot in the United States."

Americans, you really need to do something about your goverment and laws. The
sooner the better.

~~~
gsnedders
This isn't new. If I fire a gun near the English/Scottish border and kill
someone on the other side, I will be tried under the laws of the other side,
as although I fired the gun in, say, England, the murder is considered to be a
Scottish matter. (Of course, in this example, I'll have also committed a
firearms offence in England, so could be tried for that under English law!)

~~~
belorn
This is because:

#The crime of murder is an offense in both countries.

#legal jurisdictions can be lawfully transfered. England can thus give legal
jurisdictions of the case over to Scotland even if the shot was made inside
English border.

#International law (pre-EU) puts some legal weight on which nationality the
victim comes from when dealing with murders.

#EU law has similar international laws as above.

#A murder weight much heavier than copyright infringement, and allows for more
legal actions on an international level.

So to sum up, the reason why a murder at the border of England/Scotland has no
similarities to the case of Megaupload, can be seen through the years of legal
history and jurisdictions law, common sense, and the fact that Australia and
U.S. is not part of one large International body like EU.

~~~
menubar
So, can women in the US be charged by other countries for, say for example,
not wearing a burka in public? Can they stone my ex-girlfriend for being a
slut?

~~~
yebyen
You can't even be asked to read the first bullet point you are replying to?

#The crime of murder is an offense in both countries.

~~~
Dylan16807
Well that's the first time I've seen someone say "can't be asked". Is that a
regional variant or a minor error or what?

~~~
yebyen
Polite form of "can't be arsed" which I see more frequently ^_^

------
X-Istence
The thing that scares me, is that even if I were to operate a company
completely legal outside of the United States, as a non-citizen, I would still
be required to follow US law because they claim they can prosecute anyone.

World police?

~~~
rayiner
The U.S. does _not_ claim it can prosecute anyone. U.S. courts can and do
dismiss suits for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-citizens. Like every
country,[1] it reserves the right to prosecute people whose activities have
effects in the U.S. A big part of megaupload's business was infringing
property rights granted under U.S. law to Americans. If your actions are going
to effect people in the U.S., obviously you should have to follow U.S. law.

[1] It's a basic principle of international law that countries can prosecute
activity by non-citizens that has effects domestically. Not every country has
the power toe exercise this principle, however.

~~~
pjbrunet
Maybe you're talking some sense here but remember they came at him with
helicopters and automatic weapons. If you ask me, he's just some fat kid with
a website who likes pretty girls and video games. I support copyrights as much
as anyone and have criticized this "Mega" fool but the way he was treated was
outrageous. If RIAA wants any sympathy they need to get with the program.

~~~
youngerdryas
>remember they came at him with helicopters and automatic weapons

That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage
at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at
gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.

~~~
rbanffy
> Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him?

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotcom_apology/)
and [http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-
pri...](http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-prime-
minister-apologizes-to-kim-dotcom/)

"If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked
out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by
the law,"

"Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic
errors."

"This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great
conspiracy,"

"the agency has let itself down very badly."

------
Fizzadar
"Among other things the Government claimed that federal rules shouldn’t be
interpreted so narrowly" - does that give the public the ability to
'interpret' laws as they feel they should be applied, rather than as they are
written? Shocking moves from the US Govt, desperately hoping the case is
dismissed.

And this gem "When a person located abroad violates the laws of the United
States, that person may be held criminally liable despite the fact that the
person has never set foot in the United States." - US != world police.

------
pjbrunet
As a U.S. citizen I fear clicking the link ;-)

~~~
belorn
I share the fear, and is why I use tor for browsing political sensitive
subjects. While its unknown if each individual data package sent over the wire
is stored, logs about who visiting what website has clearly been marked in
laws/bills as vital for signals intelligence services.

~~~
pjbrunet
Curiosity killed the cat or something like that. I'm not into anything
controversial but if I was, I'd probably leave the country before playing
Cloak & Dagger with my computer. I'm currently reading Spook Country and
there's a character who "never sleeps in the same grid square." I enjoy
William Gibson's distillation of our crazy world. What I do think is
interesting, your credit score can drop for shopping in the wrong
neighborhood. William Gibson also has a book about a data analyst that is
interesting, I think Pattern Recognition is the book but I'm not sure.

------
wmf
Here's an idea: If SOPA had passed maybe they would have just blocked
MegaUpload at the border instead of going through with this lawsuit.

