

Megaupload Takedown Questioned By Users, Lawyers - AJ007
http://informationweek.com/news/security/client/232500305

======
nostromo
I really liked this analysis in Salon:
[http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupl...](http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupload_seizure/singleton/)
Sorry for the extended quote, but it's a great article.

> (1) It’s wildly under-appreciated how unrestrained is the Government’s power
> to do what it wants, and how little effect these debates over various
> proposed laws have on that power. Contrary to how it was portrayed, the
> Obama administration’s threatened veto of the NDAA rested largely on the
> assertion that they did not need a law vesting them with indefinite
> detention powers because they already have full power to detain people
> without a trial: not because any actual law expressly vested that power, but
> because the Bush and Obama DOJs both claimed the 2001 AUMF silently
> (“implicitly”) authorized it and deferential courts have largely acquiesced
> to that claim.

> That’s more or less what happened with the SOPA fight. [It] sends a very
> clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the
> Government a power it seeks - the power to shut down websites without a
> trial - only for the Government to turn around _the very next day_ and shut
> down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites. Whether intended or
> not, the message is unmistakable: _Congratulations, citizens, on your cute
> little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites
> without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular
> websites without a trial._

> (2) The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due
> process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned
> as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole.
> Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all
> manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial,
> based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to
> other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply
> uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient. And now here
> is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets
> seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven
> accusation of _Piracy_.

~~~
mpyne
> And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website
> shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based
> solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.

It was proven to a grand jury -- that's why they (and not the government)
handed down an indictment.

The treatment is actually similar to what would happen to the brick-and-mortar
assets of an indicted meth distributor. Normally when a grand jury hands down
an indictment then business functions that aid the alleged criminal activity
also get shuttered. See [http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/feds-
e-c-com...](http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/feds-e-c-company-
illegally-dumped-hazardous-waste-in-
hammond/article_9be0350f-6ea3-59e5-901a-89c6ab633b8a.html) for instance.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It is offensive to compare a youtube/dropbox hybrid to a meth distributor.
That smells of appeal to emotion.

~~~
Steko
If he wanted to appeal to emotion he'd use murder or child molesting.

When the police decide to arrest someone it's commonplace for all evidence
related to the crime to be taken in as well. The fact that said evidence is
needed for continued operation of your business is, sorry life's not fair,
sucks to be you.

If you're a kinkos accused of committing a heinous crime with your copy
machines and they need to take the copy machines as evidence oh well sucks to
be you.

If you're a baker accused to knocking people on the head with your rolling
pins, oh well no more rolling pins until case is resolved.

If you're an internet company accused of massive piracy and they take the
servers, oh well sucks to be you.

~~~
tikhonj
I can't help thinking that this exact logic (life's not fair, sucks to be you)
can just as easily be used to justify crime as law enforcement. Oh, you didn't
realize this was a pyramid scheme? Sucks to be you, life's not fair.

I really do not think it is a constructive argument.

~~~
Steko
I'm just explaining the way it works and that there's nothing special about
megaupload or new happening here:

Break the law and the police are going to take your stuff. If you used that
stuff for your business oh well sucks to be you.

You may think that is a bad system and have some great ideas for liberating us
from the bad police but those ideas are no more valid or invalid today then
they were 5, 10, 20, 50 or 100 years ago.

~~~
droithomme
By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally
disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the
assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given they
complied with DCMA takedown notices. That they may or may not have been aware
of infringement is your next response, but irrelevant since DCMA deals with
response to requests, not awareness. Sites are not required to be copyright
police independently determining which user backups are legitimate fair use of
rips of CDs they own and which are not. YouTube is certainly aware of misuse
of their site, something they capitalize on by organizing and directing users
to content they know perfectly well is unlicensed such as the Beatles catalog.

~~~
anamax
> By using the terminology "break the law", you seem to be intentionally
> disregarding the fact they have not been convicted of anything, and the
> assertions they even did anything illegal are questionable at best given
> they complied with DCMA takedown notices.

Substitute "be accused of breaking the law" for "break the law".

Yes, the police and prosecutors have that kind of discretion.

And no, grand juries are not a significant impediment. As the saying goes, a
grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.

------
epoxyhockey
I'm still wondering how the US _legally_ obtained copies of Megaupload
internal email prior to seizing their servers.

~~~
nextparadigms
Can't they use the Patriot Act to do that? The Patriot Act was used to catch
terrorists, and yet the vast majority of cases in which they used it are drug
cases.

Ever since 9/11, this whole culture of not following the Constitution, or
trying to exploit the loopholes in the laws, has formed. There's no spirit of
the law anymore. Now authorities try to find the smallest possible _potential_
loophole to do whatever they want to do.

Just look at the GPS tracking issue, which normally you'd think should be
illegal. But it took a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to make that clear for the
authorities. At this rate, the Supreme Court will be overwhelmed with the
number of overreaches by law enforcement that they'll have to decide on.

~~~
Steko
He's assuming all these emails are on an internal network.

If that were the case it's likely the government gained access from a MU
employee they leaned on (there are redacted MU conspirators from the
indictment who are apparently not presently being charged meaning they may
have been cooperating).

What's more likely it seems is that these emails were sent internationally and
the government (armed with a warrant hopefully) used their backdoors to access
them. The arrests were apparently timed to conincide with many of the
international employees being in NZ for KDC's birthday.

------
powertower
I still don't get what this fuss is about?

Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing
up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with
legit content.

If 95% of their revenue came from copyrighted material being shared (without
permission), then I'd say MU was a criminal enterprise and what happened was
completely okay.

If 5%, than not okay.

The supporting evidence so far points to the former figure.

~~~
firefoxman1
We all know MegaUpload is the go-to place for pirated content. That's not
really in question. The question here is: Is our government following the
rules our founding fathers laid out, or do they believe they can cut straight
to taking down a company 90% out of their jurisdiction without even following
due process.

The whole reason it's a debate is because if we, as citizens, don't watch our
government closely when they make controversial moves like this, it easily
becomes a very slippery slope. If we let our government get away with
something like this, where will it end? Soon, will unwarranted search and
seizure will be OK for the FBI, so long as they're after "pirates?" Will we
end up like Iran who can execute a programmer 'cause they said so?

Yeah, those are extreme examples, but the reason it is such a slippery slope
is because our court's decisions are largely ruled by precedence. If the
courts declare the actions taken against MegaUpload legal, it's pretty much
"anything goes" for the FBI and DoJ to attack future, perhaps less piracy-
oriented or even completely legitimate companies. All the DoJ or FBI has to
say is "see, you let us do it last time with MegaUpload."

~~~
res0nat0r
The arrests overseas we executed in full cooperation with those local
countries governments. Not via some rogue operation.

~~~
firefoxman1
Yeah I did read that. The police in the respective countries carried out the
actual arrests. But since when did the U.S. see themselves the official
justice department for the entire world? (I guess the answer is "since WWII")
But how many people in the U.S. were being so irreversibly harmed by
MegaUpload that our government felt such a need to command this world-wide
operation.

~~~
powertower
> But since when did the U.S. see themselves the official justice department
> for the entire world?

I'm still confused on why you're confused. MU was distributing copyrighted
material around the globe.

The US gathered evidence, presented that evidence to its partners, partners
made the arrest.

It's a global network, there are various treaties, and there is cooperation.

~~~
firefoxman1
Well that's what's in question. Nobody is sure yet, but the question is: did
the U.S. overstep their boundaries on this one? That's really all it is on the
surface.

------
funkah
I guess people have quarrel with some of the tactics, but the people who ran
this site are just pieces of shit. There just seems to be so little question
that they were acting in bad faith. Again, if some of the tactics were bad I
have no argument there, but shuttering this site overall does not exactly
strike me as a travesty of justice.

------
creativityland
Maybe the Mayan predicted the end of the internet with their calendar ;)

