
Kim Dotcom: Joe Biden Ordered the Megaupload Shutdown - rkudeshi
https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-joe-biden-ordered-the-megaupload-shutdown-120703/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
======
mtgx
MPAA "lobbying" the VP of US, and then the VP ordering the shutdown of a
company from another country on behalf of MPAA (illegally it seems, from
recent news).

I think this would be called "corruption" in any other country but US.

~~~
shin_lao
It's not corruption if he didn't personally benefited from it.

The problem is that if your only source of information is biased, you take the
wrong decisions.

~~~
reitzensteinm
I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a
pretty compelling personal benefit.

The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as
normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who
happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that
money, it's corruption.

Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniability this gives. You
can always claim that you changed your mind on an issue of your own free will,
and the donations came later as an unexpected benefit.

But ultimately, it causes well funded interests to dominate political
discussion. The teacher's union is almost uncrossable, but how much funding do
homeless lobbies get?

Charitably, this is because of survivorship bias - politicans who don't have
platforms that generate revenue die out - senators already literally spend
half their time raising money [1]. More likely, everyone in congress and the
senate sees the writing on the wall and preemtively switches to the right
platforms.

The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd
earlier this year _directly threatening_ to withhold donations based on SOPA,
unless the Obama administration toes the line [2]. It's so long been an open
secret in Washington that it was a small step forward for Dodd to take, but it
had the unusual effect of exposing the Washingtonian power games to the rest
of the country, so it caused quite a bit stir up.

I'm not taking a side on what happened. I genuinely have no opinion one way or
another. But if it _were_ as mtgx suggests to curry favour with the MPAA to
mend bridges after SOPA, there is zero lattitude on this. It would be
corruption.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-big-
moment_b...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-big-
moment_b_181887.html)

[2]
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-d...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-
directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-
bought.shtml)

Edit: tows->toes. Yes I am an idiot.

~~~
dllthomas
> The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd
> earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA,
> unless the Obama administration toes the line [2].

I don't get why this is any more of a problem than money in politics in
general. If you give money based on how much you support a politician, and
they change their positions, and now you agree less, you don't give them money
anymore.

What's the alternative?

"If you've ever given money to a politician, you have to keep doing so even if
they change their minds about the issues you care about"?

"Politicians are legally forbidden from changing their mind, even in the face
of cogent arguments and massive disagreement from their constituents"?

"Giving money and stopping giving money based on a politician's stances are
fine but SSSHHHH don't talk about it!"?

~~~
praptak
> What's the alternative?

Politicians' campaign spending is strictly limited by law:

<http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back>

~~~
dllthomas
Right, "less money in politics" is a partial fix for the problems of money in
politics. My point is that railing against what Dodd said is silly. I've no
objection to proposals for fixing (or even just improving) the system as a
whole.

------
guelo
The striking thing to me about the MU shutdown was the timing right after the
defeat of SOPA. It was like the government wanted to teach "the people" a
lesson for getting too uppity. Like "Oh, you think we can't shut down your
websites just because we don't have this little law that you rose up against?
Well watch this."

With all the political uproar that was going on that week it would be
surprising if the FBI had _not_ gone to the White House before pulling the
trigger on the raid.

~~~
tzs
An operation like the MU investigation and raid takes many months, if not
years, to plan and execute, especially when it involves cooperation with
officials in several countries.

It is almost impossible that the timing had anything to do with SOPA,
considering that the SOPA defeat was rather unexpected.

~~~
ekianjo
It did not seem like they were prepared very well, since they couldn't even
get the paperwork right for the arrest. That does not look like something well
planned at all.

------
cjensen
The Democrats have long been best friends with the Entertainment Industry, but
so what? The Vice-President simply has no power to order anything more complex
than pizza. He can suggest, plead, and implore, but someone else has to
actually take the responsibility for the action and order something to occur.

This is a discussion, not a Court of Law, so let me state my view clearly: Kim
Dotcom created an extensive enterprise aimed specifically at violating
copyrights while attempting to shield the enterprise with the minimum amount
of "compliance" they could get away with. It's entirely possibly that his
corporation broke no laws. Regardless of his possible legal innocence, the
speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity of
the Vice President is unworthy of consideration.

~~~
Karunamon
> the speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity
> of the Vice President is unworthy of consideration.

Textbook ad hominem. His business practices are completely irrelevant to the
questions of impropriety raised and the illegal conduct of the authorities
involved.

~~~
cjensen
Ad Hominem applies to facts and reproducible reasoning. It does not apply to
mere slander.

Name one serious question of illegal conduct raised by Dotcom.

~~~
Karunamon
The raid carried out by NZ authorities was declared illegal by a judge, for
one..

Furthermore, "Kim Dotcom is a $negative_thing" _is_ an adhom no matter how you
slice it, when the question is "Do his claims have any merit". He could be a
mother-stabbing father-raper, claims are still supposed to be evaluated on
their merit, not their speaker!

------
incongruity
On first glance at the headline, I really thought Kim Dotcom had gone off the
deep end, but the evidence really does make it sound plausible.

Sigh. We definitely have the best politicians money can buy...

~~~
droithomme
Yeah, the evidence is pretty damning. No doubt those visitors logs will soon
be pulled from public access due to national security reasons for protection
from terrorists who run file locker services.

------
Ahmes
These "gift" investigations and the game theory behind them are somewhat
troubling.

Most medium to large sized technology companies that get big enough to attract
parasites will gladly cooperate with an investigating authority (such as the
FBI) and turn over user activity records without much of a stink in exchange
for a future favor down the road rather than hold their ground and demand
warrants, subpoenas and the rest of the 9 yards.

If you promise to aid the FBI into perpetuity, they will on occasion nail some
malicious user that's giving you a hard time - like that 16 year old from Des
Moines who is submitting stolen credit cards (that were found on twitter via
@NeedADebitCard, naturally) to pay for your merchandise and giving you a
headache in chargeback fees.

It's a cool superpower but it's probably not doing much to address the root of
your problems.

Worse, it quickly turns the FBI into a sort of protection racket for the
Fortune 5000.

------
badclient
From another perspective, Chris Dodd is a lobbyist who's earned every penny of
his pay. Still a scumbag, though.

------
roguecoder
It seems at least as plausible that they were there to discuss ACTA, which was
signed three months later.

Beside, it wasn't the Executive branch that ordered the Megaupload shutdown:
it was the grand jury, followed by an Australian judge (apparently
improperly.) Mr. Dotcom doesn't appear understand the US legal system.

Or, more likely, he is willfully ignoring it in favor of a story. Given the
lack of evidence that the VP actually did anything, much less that he did
anything corrupt, this seems like a desperate bid for attention.

~~~
rmc
_Australian judge_

New Zealand. You might aswell call Joe Biden vice president of Canada.

------
pasbesoin
This doesn't surprise me at all. As I've said before, including in reply to
some hopeful comments regarding the Obama Administrtion's possibly intervening
in the SOPA/PIPA fracas, Biden is a tool -- and a complete tool, in this
regard.

Joe Biden: Tool. Perhaps his legacy, reduced to a single word. (Oh, and
"trains!")

------
evilbit
that biden is a stooge for the entertainment industry is no secret, though i
doubt he could've made this happen at a drop of the hat, as the article
purports.

mpaa chairman chris dodd is an influential democrat with strong ties to the
obama administration, biden in particular. entertainment industry has
historically had an oversized presence in washington, and the tech industry an
undersized one. this is why our copyright debate has been driven by an
incumbent-dominated industry rather than the innovator/disruptor one such as
ours.

it's telling that we've all so negatively reacted to recent story of
washington telling apple to spend more on lobbying, calling it a shakedown -
but we'd be wise to think about that more carefully and not dismiss at our own
peril.

------
gogobyte
Joe Biden is sick idiot.

------
sage_joch
I just cross-posted this to a subreddit I started recently, /r/Orwellian. It's
still small at 76 readers, but I figured there might be interest here. I'm
hoping for it to be a non-partisan place to share/discuss the myriad of
government abuses coming to light.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Can't say I'm a big fan of the name "Orwellian" for that category. I know the
term commonly refers to the premise of Orwell's 1984 novel for which he's most
known, but he wrote important pieces on other subjects, such as communism,
which adds baggage to the term. Maybe referring to the novel 1984 more
directly, such as /r/1984 or /r/bigbrother would be an improvement. Otherwise,
I'd probably go for something a little less tinfoil-hat since there's already
a /r/conspiracy with lots of followers.

Slashdot has "Your Rights Online". Ars has "Law and Disorder". Looking up a
few keywords, I notice that there's also /r/SOPA, /r/rights, /r/yro,
/r/privacy, /r/freedom, /r/internetfreedom, /r/civilliberties, /r/civlib and
others. Maybe some consolidation is in order.

