Kim Dotcom victim of 'largest data MASSACRE in history' Mega mogul Kim Dotcom says he's "in tears" after a Dutch hosting company wiped data from servers formerly used by his now-defunct Megaupload business, an act that he claims destroyed "critical evidence" in his long-running legal battle with the US government. On Wednesday, Dotcom took to his Twitter feed – his favorite …
If you think data on a server you don't own is safe, you are going to have a bad time.
I'm not saying "Don't store data in the cloud", but don't think that cloud is anything other than a convenient way to make that data available to the world (and NSA) - it isn't a backup.
If you don't have that data in multiple places that you control, then you are saying you don't value that data and don't care if it is deleted.
Leaving aside the case of the (alleged) millionaire copyright thief This should be a wake up for a lot of organisations.
If you are the sort of domestic terrorist that might mean the DoJ has a quiet word with Visa and your account gets dropped, then any hosted email list, website, any evidence etc is destroyed, no warrant, no crime, no charges, probably not even an apology from visa - it's just the T&C
then you are equally deluded.
Most companies (small/medium) do not have the skills to run a server properly and would do far better to farm the job out to a cloud provider. Even those small companies that do have the skills, don't want to tie up personnel with the job of running the servers/doing backups etc and instead farm out the job to the cloud.
Oh, MU was never really supposed to be a reliable cloud data storage. If your stuff was downloaded often, it stayed. If not, it was auto deleted. That isn't exactly a place to store business data or your lifetime of memorable snaps. It sounds remarkably like the storage model you would use to facilitate piracy.
You'd have thought that the Dutch company would have got in contact with Dotcom and asked if he wanted his data or not. It is not as if they could not find him to contact him.
I doubt it was US preseure but I find it most odd, unless they are trying to cover up something they have been party to.
Your argument is nonsensical. They kept the data for a year, without being paid, and without being asked to. Once you stop paying for a service, then you stop receiving that service. Leaseweb even contacted him before deleting it. I don't understand why you think they should have kept it any longer?
2 weeks after his account lapsed is 2 weeks in which he was not paying his bills. Why should they spend their money on keeping his data? Particularly when there was little sign of them ever being paid? Why should they shoulder responsibility for keeping the data, along with any unwelcome heat that may go with it? Why shouldn't they reuse the resources it's tying up on a paying customer?
It may have been harsh for them to act quite so promptly, if that's what they did, but their actions are 100% justifiable.
Deleting data that Megaupload's own T&Cs stated was not guaranteed to be kept is also not a "massacre". The company, and its users, worked on the basis that the data could be deleted at any time, for any reason. And lo; it was so.
"""
allegations of mass copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering
"""
So that's:
1 Copyright infringement in bulk
2 Crimes committed in bulk, and in conjunction with others (i.e. a repeat of 1)
3 Attempting to evade surveillance when moving money (presumably derived from copyright infringement). I.e. a repeat of count 1.
I.e., he is accused of making money copyright infringement, in conjunction with others, and attempting to hide the fact.
That's really only one count.
> Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt.
Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?
The UK and Sweden are out since so many cretins believe that they are both subservient to US law (Assange). Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more.
Maybe you would like an Eastern bloc country or one of the many European countries where trial by jury is the exception and even then the jury usually has several judges on it as well as members of the public. Perhaps India where jury trials have been abolished or any of the many Muslim countries where Sharia dominates.
I know what my preference would be, even if I could only afford a public defender.
"Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?
The UK and Sweden are out since so many cretins believe that they are both subservient to US law (Assange). Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more."
The UK has a European arrest warrant for Assange issued by Sweden. Not by the USA. The UK is a sovereign state in which the rule of law including the right to a fair trial is absolutely sacrosanct - much more so than the USA. That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals; that's why it has taken us 10 years and running to deport Abu Qatada.
"The UK is a sovereign state in which the rule of law including the right to a fair trial is absolutely sacrosanct - much more so than the USA. That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals; that's why it has taken us 10 years and running to deport Abu Qatada."
Absolutely wrong. I assume the increase in fixed penalty notices which incur an effective charge (fine goes up) if you dare question them. I assume you've missed all the strict liability laws that have been implemented recently. I assume you've missed all the secret trials that have been going on for years and the recent attempts to expand them. As to Abu Qatada, that has nothing to do with employing the best lawyers to defend the worst criminals. With the evidence available, even a certified cretin could have hung that one out for 10 years.
"unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals"
You'll soon need to put that in the past tense, as the legal aid reforms mean that legal aid lawyers will be composed of large firms bidding to get contracts for the lowest possible cost, and often getting fixed fees that encourage them to bid on the basis of thinly spread and poorly paid lawyers, but then to only assign a legal clerk. As a result you can expect that the standard of justice in magistrates & crown courts to worsen, and conviction rates to rise (although they are already around 83%).
Some might view spending money on legal aid to defend the 83% was a waste of time, and the majority of the rest probably got off purely on a technicality, but what price the number who are wrongly accused, and will no longer have adequate representation?
"That's why - unlike the American public defender system - we spend a fortune on the very best lawyers to defend the worst criminals"
It's worth keeping an eye on this, as the government are proposing to privatise (and de-regulate) the process, meaning that the companies making the most profit (i.e., with the least costs) will end up supplying such defense, and you don't get the option of who defends you.
Certainly will be cost led, but the government isn't privatising anything - all legal aid was private sector provision, and in terms of choice that still exists - both before and after the changes you get the choice of who (on the legal aid roster) you want, although the number of firms offering legal aid will intentionally be a smaller number.
> both before and after the changes you get the choice of who (on the legal aid roster) you want
There was a trailer on R4 the other day that said differently.
I didn't catch the prgogramme itself, so I don't know whether that as fact or opinion...
Vic.
"Purely as a matter of interest, if you were to be accused of a crime, which country would you prefer to be in?"
How about: The country where the supreme court has repeatedly ruled against the government over various details of Dotcom's prosecution, and its rulings have been promptly enforced, much to the general embarrassment of the government.
I'll pick New Zealand, thanks very much.
It is also worth noting that, as far as I know, the only people in this ludicrous and disgraceful debacle who have been found guilty of any illegal behaviour are those who attacked Dotcom. The NZ authorities were clearly fed a farrago of lies by the US government and instructed to 'put the frighteners on him' by staging a farcical Hollywoood show when apparently all they had to do was phone the Diplomatic cop in the mansion and he would have opened the door for them; but since then the country has redeemed itself noticeably by its fair and just treatment of the man. And however shady his past, or fat his stomach, he deserves the same justice as anyone else; or the country concerned is not fit to lick even his boots.
But then the NZ government is presumably not being paid by those whose corrupt and lucrative business model is seriously threatened by his entrepreneurialism.
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: And I'll strip their wallets like a heartless whore”
What a horrible country. I wouldn't hand over my worst enemy to them.
"Have you ever met members of the public? The same ones that would serve in your jury...
A learned judge alone might be preferable to the unwashed masses."
As the old saying goes: "The only people who do jury duty are those too stupid to get out of doing jury duty"
> A learned judge alone might be preferable to the unwashed masses.
So that would be somewhere like India then.
> As the old saying goes: "The only people who do jury duty are those too stupid to get out of doing jury duty"
I served on a Jury, not because I was to stupid to get out of it, but because I have a sense of civic responsibility (perhaps believing that you owe society something rather than society owes you is stupidity). You are correct in thinking that some of them are stupid, but then so are some of the general public. In the trials I participated in (3 of them) the jury never found anybody guilty even though, in at least one of the trials, the defendants probably were but there was enough reasonable doubt. Now you might argue that sometimes the innocent are found guilty and you are correct, but it is by far more likely that a jury trial will find the guilty not guilty. Of all the people I know, many of them have committed crimes, been caught, prosecuted and then found not guilty (I was born and raised in a shithole of a council estate and most of my school friends ended up in jail). I do not personally know a single person who was innocent and then found guilty. I do not personally know a single person who personally knows somebody who was innocent and then found guilty.
I would opt for a jury trial every single time.
@AC
"I would opt for a jury trial every single time."
So, you're basing your decision on the best system on the basis of the one most likely to let the criminal off? So, you're not actually worried about the guilty being found guilty and innocent being found innocent? Interesting. Very civic minded of you.
> So, you're basing your decision on the best system on the basis of the one most likely to let the criminal off?
No. I am opting for the system I believe is weighted in favour of the individual rather than the state (or church).
"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." - Sir William Blackstone - Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769
This is one of the principles of the British and US legal systems.
"No. I am opting for the system I believe is weighted in favour of the individual rather than the state (or church)."
I believe that is just what I said. You like the system most likely to let the individual off rather than allow the state to correctly apply penalties to those who transgress the law. You're also suggesting here that the judiciary are not independent of the state, or else, the judge would be equally likely to be in favour of the individual. So, you don't really believe in the British and US legal systems at all, as they both claim (please note 'claim') to have independent judiciaries.
I suspect you will also find that a jury will tend to act according to the newspaper they've read rather than being weighted in favour of the individual. If there's been a lot of kiddy fiddling cases recently in the press, anyone up on that sort of charge is far more likely to be found guilty by a jury.....
You're effectively suggesting justice by Ruper Murdoch, administered through his minions, the public!!
> You're also suggesting here that the judiciary are not independent of the state
The state is comprised of three branches: legislature (parliament), executive (Cabinet and Government Departments) and the Judiciary.
The Judiciary is not independent of the state since they are a branch of the state.
"Perhaps you would prefer France where you only get a jury trial if the offence carries a sentence of 15 years or more."
If you've ever seen the average person on a jury, I'd probably prefer a judge to make the decision. Of course, it depends to an extent on how much you think the stupidity of the jury will help your case, or how much their prejudice will. But, unless you've served on a jury and witnessed what goes on, don't assume jury is better.
"I know what my preference would be, even if I could only afford a public defender"
Yeah, I know what mine would be too - Aussie, Canada and New Zealand all have better legal aid systems than the US. The NZ judges seem to be doing a pretty good job in keeping the prosecution honest in the Dotcom case too.
"And at that it is only an accusation. Sure, in the United States, accusation is operationally equivalent to guilt. However, it should not be. We have both a right and a duty to demand better."
I see. So if I hold up grocery stores, the cops can't take away my guns or restrain me or keep me from fleeing or take the stolen cash off me until a jury says so?
My point is this is a case about massive harm to copyright holders which is ongoing. Then there is the matter of the criminal charges against an individual. They're linked issues but require different handling.
"My point is this is a case about massive harm to copyright holders which is ongoing"
Massive harm that the vested interests have been totally unable to prove by any reasonable method. Yes, they bluster about a lot and quote stupid figures created by even more stupid methods, but they've not ever come up with any real and sensible proof that they've suffering 'massive harm' from this. Some, yes, no doubt. But massive, absolute rubbish.
As far as I know MU did not commit any copyright infringement themselves.
It may be that others used the MU service for such things (we know some did) but MU is of course not responsible for what people use their storage for, just like the countless self-storage providers all over the world isn't responsible for what people put in their storage lockers - despite stolen goods being common, and even drug labs have been seen.
Dunno why they want to pin everything on Kim Dotcom and MU... Maybe it's just easy and convenient targets?
Personally, I suspect that DotCom is guilty of something. However, that has yet to be proven in anything approaching a fair hearing. Even if it were, proving someone at my data center has done something wrong does not give you license to destroy my data.
I would like to see a gruesomely draconian judgment against the people responsible that makes them pay what it would cost to restore that data, by typing it in by hand if it comes to it. If they can't afford the money, sit the bastards down at a keyboard and tell them to get to work.
Depending upon what content is there, a gigabyte of data could take a lifetime to assemble. If that was typewritten ASCII text it would be more than 120 million words. A programmer would not produce that volume of source code in a working lifetime.
Cretins unable to appreciate what is stored on hard disks should have absolutely no say at all what happens to it.
>Cretins unable to appreciate what is stored on hard disks
Again its all in how the contract was written. Things get dicey when you are leasing somebody else's computer for a set time period. The real world equivalent is that show storage wars where after a set amount of time they sell your shit if quit paying for your storage unit.
Plus my guess is a majority of that data wasn't authorized by the copyright holder so its hardly Dotcom or his user's data. Not to defend the corrupt evil practices of the Sony's of the world but as in anything its best to pick your battles wisely and there isn't much about Dotcom that is wise.
"What are those evil practices? Paying for artists to work to create joy for you? Oh yeah, really evil."
Since you ask, Sony's "evil" practices include, but are not limited to:
- Being one of the creators and prime movers of the scheme that limits DVD playback according to where in the world you bought your DVD player (even though copyright law gives no right to 'restrict the equipment on which a legally owned copy of a work can be accessed')
- Being one of the prime movers behind the 'anti-circumvention' laws that, globally, convert the abovementioned (stolen) right into a pillar of copyright law
- Developing and enforcing the same system on Blu-Ray
- Putting rootkits on its CDs
- When called on rootkits, defending their actions with the argument that "users shouldn't mind"
- Building DVD players that prevent you from fast-forwarding (or pausing, for that matter) through copyright notices.
All of these are things Sony did entirely voluntarily, wilfully putting itself right in the forefront of efforts to screw the law-abiding consumer at every turn.
There are several points here that people to have missed.
Firstly, Dotcom did not willingly stop paying the bill. It was not his fault the company stopped being paid and therefore was storing data for nothing. That was the fault of the NZ police, FBI etc. who raided him. I always find it amazing that in a reasonably moral world, someone who has had nothing proved against him and is as yet not guilty of any crime can have everything taken from him and then destroyed. If the relevant authorities fail to get a guilty verdict, he should really be returned to the same condition after the trial etc. as before. Therefore, the authorities should pay this company to keep the data or arrange suitable backups and storage etc. so that in the event he is not found guilty, he can be returned to his prior condition.
Secondly, a very large chunk of the evidence to be used in any trial will be on those servers. After all, the trial would basically be about the content of his 'service'. Therefore, if you destroy (or allow to be destroyed) all the data, you are effectively destroying any chance of a trial. Therefore, by allowing this, one has to question how much the authorities ever really wanted a trial and whether one will actually occur.
Finally, many of the actions against Dotcom have been declared illegal or against normal process etc., including the armed assault on his rented mansion. The firearms charges have been shown to be rubbish etc.etc.
>>"Firstly, Dotcom did not willingly stop paying the bill. It was not his fault the company stopped being paid and therefore was storing data for nothing."
It certainly wasn't their fault.
Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?
What was he actually doing to try and keep the data, beyond supposedly asking a company to keep data for free for an indefinite period?
>>"Secondly, a very large chunk of the evidence to be used in any trial will be on those servers. After all, the trial would basically be about the content of his 'service'. Therefore, if you destroy (or allow to be destroyed) all the data, you are effectively destroying any chance of a trial."
You're not destroying any chance of a trial.
You're not even meaningfully altering the chances of a fair trial unless
a) the Leaseweb data contained the only copies of important company records which would exonerate the company
b) an argument was to be made on the overall balance of types of hosted content, and the Leaseweb data for some reason involved user content seriously different in terms of legit vs. dodgy content to the US-hosted data, with the US servers being 'dirtier'.
Would a US case actually have to pay much attention to the types of content hosted elsewhere, if they could show some threshold had been crossed with respect to US-hosted data?
Isn't the hosting in the USA a major justification for jurisdiction being claimed over MU in the first place?
>>"Finally, many of the actions against Dotcom have been declared illegal or against normal process etc."
Maybe it's better to distinguish between those two categories - there's a huge difference between rights being violated and the police being heavy-handed and/or overcautious when making an arrest.
If anything, I think it might tend to draw attention away from the former when the latter is mixed in with them, especially if the latter is can be more arguably a matter of opinion.
Possibly time will tell who is telling the truth regarding them notifying him about the deletion or not, though if they had no legal requirement to host it for free, it's not clear why they would need to avoid notifying him.
If they'd said 'unless your arrears are settled in the next N days, your data is at risk', what could he have done to stop them?
If there were legal actions he could have taken in NL to prevent the deletion, if he really needed the data he could have presumably taken such actions whenever he felt like it?.
Similarly, if his lawyers had made various requests for the data to be kept, what responses did they get to such requests, or did they treat no response as some kind of agreement?
If the company had been asked but hadn't given any serious assurances of retention, that would have been cause for most people to worry, let alone cause for half-decent lawyers to worry..
If they have given assurances they have now broken, I assume that Dotcom will soon be publicising that quite widely, and providing the evidence.
@David Wilson.
"It certainly wasn't their fault."
I never said it was their fault. However, it wasn't Dotcoms either. It was the fault of those who claim he broke the law, but have so far pitifully failed to prove anything at all.
"Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?"
You're judging this before the evidence is presented. He only has a 'dubious business model' if he is found guilty of copyright violation in a court of law. His business model was working perfectly well until someone came in with jackboots, making accusations (so far not proven) and confiscating everything.
"What was he actually doing to try and keep the data, beyond supposedly asking a company to keep data for free for an indefinite period?"
Given that he had all of his assets frozen, there is nothing he can do. I think you should redirect this question to the NZ government, police etc. and FBI who got all his money frozen. You can't blame someone for doing nothing when you take away every option of doing something he has!!
"You're not destroying any chance of a trial.
You're not even meaningfully altering the chances of a fair trial unless
a) the Leaseweb data contained the only copies of important company records which would exonerate the company
b) an argument was to be made on the overall balance of types of hosted content, and the Leaseweb data for some reason involved user content seriously different in terms of legit vs. dodgy content to the US-hosted data, with the US servers being 'dirtier'.
Would a US case actually have to pay much attention to the types of content hosted elsewhere, if they could show some threshold had been crossed with respect to US-hosted data?
Isn't the hosting in the USA a major justification for jurisdiction being claimed over MU in the first place?"
As soon as you delete any of the data, you are giving him the option of claiming the crucial piece of evidence that proves his innocence was in there. You can't prove it wasn't and therefore, there is reasonable doubt. Only by presenting all the data (or everything requested) can you show his crucial piece of evidence doesn't exist and therefore remove the reasonable doubt. Just because the US data showed copyright violation (in principle), doesn't mean that somewhere in the other data, critical emails between him and the US justice department (for instance) didn't exist that show he was helping them!! That's why the US has preservation of evidence laws (as do most countries).
As to the actions against Dotcom being illegal. An awful lot of the action taken by the NZ authorities against Dotcom have been ruled illegal in the NZ courts, including seizure of at least some of his accounts etc. The raid on his house has been ruled illegal, so have the gun charges (which were always a joke) and the fact the NZ police seemed to think they were making a film version of 'Die Hard in New Zealand'. So, the NZ courts have declared his inability to pay the account was actually caused by illegal state actions...........
So, who's to blame for this data being lost? Certainly not Dotcom. He couldn't have paid the bill as he had no money as it had illegally been seized.
>>"I never said it was their fault. However, it wasn't Dotcoms either."
That doesn't seem like <>their</> problem.
>> >>"Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?"
>>"You're judging this before the evidence is presented"
I said dubious, not illegal.
MU does seem to have at least been in a grey area. Even if it was (or thought it was) operating on the right side of the law, it seems to have been close to the edge, which for me would make it 'dubious'.
>>"As soon as you delete any of the data, you are giving him the option of claiming the crucial piece of evidence that proves his innocence was in there."
Was he actually requesting via his lawyers that specific crucial pieces of killer evidence were kept?
Was he loudly claiming via his various channels that there was crucial data on there which proved his innocence but which he had no assurance would be kept?
>>"You can't prove it wasn't and therefore, there is reasonable doubt. "
Surely, in all manner of trials people make claims about evidence which would exonerate them but which is missing, with the extent to which that creates reasonable doubt being left up to the jury or judge[s]?
>>"Just because the US data showed copyright violation (in principle), doesn't mean that somewhere in the other data, critical emails between him and the US justice department (for instance) didn't exist that show he was helping them!!"
He could claim there was evidence that he was being helpful to the government to the extent that that justified any apparent breaches of the law but that they were persecuting him anyway?
I could see that being a difficult sell, especially if he waited to make the claim which would make many of his problems go away until after the evidence for it had gone.
>>"So, who's to blame for this data being lost? Certainly not Dotcom. He couldn't have paid the bill as he had no money as it had illegally been seized."
Well, as I said, I guess more may become clear when data is available regarding communications between his lawyers and the hosting company.
If he can back up all the claims he's made and the hosting company can't show him to be wrong, that might put him in a better position.
If the hosts can back up all they said, that might put him in a worse position.
Personally I would have thought it better if the data could have been kept, at least long enough and with sufficient access to data to allow Dotcom to be able either to obtain good defence evidence or to obviously fail to obtain it, but I wouldn't expect the hosting company to have to pay for that.
"You missed the part about the rootkit containing GPL code without following the terms of the license, so Sony were engaged in mass copyriht violation for commercial purposes."
Yes. The FBI etc. should really be raiding Sony's datacentres and confiscating their servers to understand just how far this copyright 'theft' has gone before prosecuting Sony for breaching other peoples copyright. If that brings Sony to bankruptcy in the meantime, according to what they've done to Dotcom, that should be just fine.
What? It hasn't happened? That must means that some peoples copyright is worth more than other peoples copyright!!
Let me point out that there are valid reasons for Region coding that actually benefit consumers...
1) it allows labels to sell content at variable price points - meaning that a DVD can (and usually does) sell for less in poor 3d world countries than it does in London. Given the huge disparity in income between say, London and Mexico City, isn't that morally just? Why should poorer countries have to spend a higher portion of their incomes on entertainment? Region coding ALLOWS variable pricing, so that poorer countries can be charged less, and yet not have those same disks re-imported to richer countries - because if that happened, labels would be forced to resort to one, world-wide price. You may not LIKE paying a higher price - but I kind of think there is some social justice there. Most people reading this English-language, techie site come from what are very privileged backgrounds in a global context - if we can't see that perhaps we should be charged more, then perhaps we should take a long look in the mirror.
2) It allows differing release schedules around the globe, which allows content to be released on DVD earlier without messing up the theatrical releases in other regions (like Southern Hemishere). WIthout region coding, many blockbusters would be released onto DVD only AFTER they had run in all major regions, which basically would add months onto the DVD release schedule. So having Region coding allows us that hate theatres to actually get it (legally) on DVD several months earlier.
Yeah, I move around a LOT, and I have to buy unlocked DVD players from Oppo to play a lot of my stuff. It is inconvenient, and a pain. But MOST people don't move as much as I do (3 continents in the last 8 years), and the benefits to most DVD-lovers of not having to wait more months for a release onto DVD, and of paying prices that are perhaps more appropriate for their locality, kind of make sense if you think about them.
The problem is that most people haven't thought these trade-offs through. One is moral, and one is self-benefiting. But at least recognise that there are trade-offs...
@FutureShock999.
1) I hate to tell you, but a company does not exist to do morally correct things. That's the job of the law. A company exists to make money......pure and simple. DVD region coding simply allows them to overcharge those living in more affluent areas, thereby increasing profits. Trying to suggest the companies are trying to act 'morally' is simply laughable. Also, these same companies often go on and complain about import tarriffs in some countries and about free trade etc., whilst implementing exactly the sorts of technologies that prevent that. If (as many of them suggest) free trade is so good, why should I not be able to buy my DVDs from any country on earth?
2) Differing release schedules around the world.........Why do films need differing release schedules? Simple answer again is to maximise revenues.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
