Life is increasingly like
a Neal Stephenson novel.
Uh-oh! Kim Dotcom is back with a brand new Megaupload site
Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has announced that he will launch a new file-sharing website called Mega in January. Despite the fact that he's fending off the US authorities' allegations of industrial-scale copyright infringement, Dotcom has made it clear to the Feds that he couldn't give a toss. His previous file-sharing …
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 12:40 GMT JaitcH
I wonder if UK Home Sec May has 'Future Proofed' this?
Poor old May, she claims the new spy and wire tap bling they are buying is 'Future Proofed'.
This venture, along with Silent Circle, is the new reality.
Let's see what GCHQ can do with this. All those little clouds filled with impenetrable secrets from the Middle East and 'terrorists'.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 12:57 GMT umacf24
That'll work.
Sorry, I think this bit is wrong:
"... cannot access the encrypted uploaded data, absolving themselves of any responsibility for contents of the files."
This should surely be:
"... cannot access the encrypted uploaded data, in a somewhat implausible attempt to absolve themselves ..."
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:04 GMT Velv
"It is understood Mega's staff and owners cannot access the encrypted uploaded data, absolving themselves of any responsibility for contents of the files"
Is this the opinion of the journalist or of me.ga??? It hasn't absolved any other service provider, so what makes anyone think its going to absolve me.ga of responsibility now.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:11 GMT Pen-y-gors
seems reasonable
If I rent out a lockup garage or warehouse to someone and they store naughty things there, am I legally responsible?
If I rent a house to someone and they indulge in naughty activities there, am I legally responsible?
If I deliver a letter containing naughty plans for someone am I legally responsible?
If I run a massive public broadcasting organisation and someone has rumpy-pumpy in a dressing room, am I legally responsible?
If I store encrypted files for someone am I legally responsible?
The person doing the naughty thing is the one responsible.
-
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 19:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: seems reasonable
Not actually 'No' to all questions.
If you rent a house to someone who runs a meth lab or similar out of it. You, the home owner, will be fiscally responsible for some very expensive clean-up, government inspections, and regulatory paperwork. Not to mention the tremendous loss of equity IF you can even sell the house again.
With luck you won't go to jail or at least spend a lot of time in jail ... but it will definitely be financially devastating.
-
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:40 GMT Psyx
Re: seems reasonable
"If I rent out a lockup garage or warehouse to someone and they store naughty things there, am I legally responsible?" - Yes, if you are aware of it and choose to ignore it.
"If I rent a house to someone and they indulge in naughty activities there, am I legally responsible?" - If you are running a brothel essentially, then yes.
"If I deliver a letter containing naughty plans for someone am I legally responsible?" - Ask the Al-Qaeda couriers sat in GITMO.
"The person doing the naughty thing is the one responsible." - They are, but by acting as a wilful and willing enabler who deliberately turns a blind eye and fails to report the crime, you share responsibility in the eyes of the law.
Like it or not, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Standing by and helping people break the law is generally considered illegal, in most cases.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 14:44 GMT James Micallef
Re: seems reasonable
"If I rent out a lockup garage or warehouse to someone and they store naughty things there, am I legally responsible?" - Yes, if you are aware of it and choose to ignore it
Not so simple.
1) Mega is specifically refusing to even know what's in there, so by definition they are not aware of any naughty things stored in there.
2) "Legally Responsible" in what jurisdiction??
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 15:01 GMT Velv
"Legally Responsible"
Which is where Cyberspace is going to get interesting, and there is no law that currently answers the problem.
Is it where the data is hosted?
Is it where the data owner is located?
Is it where the processing server is located (which may not be in the same jurisdiction as the storage)?
Is it where the company owner is located (which may be a registered company and subject to different laws for directors than from individuals)?
Is it where the domain name is registered?
Is it where the copyright content owner is located?
Is it at the choice of anyone who wants to raise the legal action in cases where there may be a choice (think patent law in the US where the case is filed in certain states which are more sympathetic than others - what would happen if the EU had a similar "federal" circuit of courts)?
Many of you will have opinions on these - please don't post replies, there is NO right answer at the moment.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 15:58 GMT Psyx
Re: seems reasonable
"1) Mega is specifically refusing to even know what's in there, so by definition they are not aware of any naughty things stored in there."
Nice idea, but to put it into perspective, that's like a drug mule or afore-mentioned Al-Qaeda courier trying to avoid prosecution by not knowing what was in the briefcase. If you have reasonable suspicion to think that the bloke you are selling a firearm to is going to cap someone with it and they do, you bear a share of the blame in the eyes of the law. Which is kinda fair enough, when you think about it: Wilful ignorance shouldn't be a carte blanche to engage in smuggling, or to aid and abet criminals.
Kim is basically going to be handing people the tools to commit an offence with and then sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "LALALALA I don't know that you're breaking the law". Except it won't even be that opaque to him: For the site to be used for its (less face it:) intended purpose of sharing movies and music, the Keys will have to be easily accessible to anyone. Hell: They'll probably be listed in the file description on the site, which makes the encryption and 'invisibility' to the site admins a moot point.
I don't see it really working out to well: He doesn't have a shred of plausible deniability and his entire defence is based on technicalities and lying under oath if it goes to court ("I honestly didn't know anything illegal was happening on my website, judge!")
2) "Legally Responsible" in what jurisdiction??
New Zealand? If that's where he is and his business is.
He's clearly trying to ensure that the US can't touch him. That might work. It depends on who has the best lawyers, I guess.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 16:37 GMT Piercy
Re: seems reasonable
"Nice idea, but to put it into perspective, that's like a drug mule or afore-mentioned Al-Qaeda courier trying to avoid prosecution by not knowing what was in the briefcase. If you have reasonable suspicion to think that the bloke you are selling a firearm to is going to cap someone with it and they do, you bear a share of the blame in the eyes of the law. Which is kinda fair enough, when you think about it: Willful ignorance shouldn't be a carte blanche to engage in smuggling, or to aid and abet criminals."
Couriers... not a drug mule. A courier may carry certain items that are illegal but under their terms and conditions you are not allowed to do that. Similarly i would presume you are not allowed to host content on me.ga that is unlawful/copyrighted etc. However, just cos they provide a hosting service doesn't make the company unlawful or guilty of a crime. They provide a service just like a courier does. However, if you are willingly providing a service to known terrorists or drug barons then of course ignorance isn't going to save you.
-
Monday 12th November 2012 07:19 GMT kiwimuso
@!Psyx Re: seems reasonable
Kim is basically going to be handing people the tools to commit an offence with and then sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "LALALALA I don't know that you're breaking the law".
Quite. So when is Google cloud service (and other cloud services) being charged then?
-
-
-
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 16:04 GMT Psyx
Re: seems reasonable
"unless you work in politics or banking."
Not true: Look at the kind of shit financial institutions get into via the actions of a few rogue traders fixing rates, for example... and they didn't even *know* about it. Likewise, the current hoo-ha as regards NoTW pivots around whether senior figures *knew* if the law was being broken.
If you can establish plausible deniability (which Kim is trying to do via the "It's encrypted, so I don't know it's illegal" thing), then you might be able to avoid culpability. If that plausible deniability isn't plausible enough ("I didn't know the dodgy guy who gave me a grand to carry a bag through customs had put drugs in it!"), then you're in trouble.
-
-
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:41 GMT Spanners
Re: seems reasonable
Remember that, even if we had legal systems not violently corrupted by big business and money, legally responsible is not a lot to do with morally responsible.
It has even less to do with factually responsible.
You are responsible for whatever a big company says you are responsible for. In the same way, they are not responsible for whatever they have decided they are not responsible for.
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 16:48 GMT Mike VandeVelde
Re: seems reasonable
If I rent a house to someone and they indulge in naughty activities there, am I legally responsible?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/03/09/calgary-landlord-growop-woes.html
-
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:19 GMT Gordon Pryra
Far enough the USA were Tards
As usual,
But the guy was still allowing people access to ripped off goods (aka stolen) He was also moving money about in an attempt to not pay taxes.
You can't, on the one hand claim to want to do wtf you want and not pay for it, then with the next ask for the protection of the people you have been ripping off.
Yeah the USA are idiots, and their legal system and the way its foreign policy works explains how people can hate them enough to kill themselves in order to hurt them, but this Kim guy is not a nice robin hood persona deserving of any compliments.
He hunts baby dolphins as well apparently
-
Thursday 1st November 2012 13:29 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Far enough the USA were Tards
I don't want to weigh in and defend the guy here - I know nothing abut whether he is a nice chap or not, but I jave to clear you up on one point - copied is not stolen. Stealing something deprives the owner of it, copying it does not, although it may prevent them from profiting by metering access to it.
Copying != theft != piracy.
Whether copying is morally right is another question, but by sttempting to conflate it with other 'serious illegal' activities, copyright owners are doing themselves no favours when it comes to credibility.
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
