Steven Bellovin wrote:
Note this from the NY Times article:
The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor
at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained
the private e-mails of Megaupload�s operators in an effort to show they
were operating in
On 23 January 2012 04:05, Jacob Taylor orangewi...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Tahoe-lafs can be fast. A grid I help out with is often capable of
600kilobyte/per/second downloads (or faster), and I personally have
several files stored on there in excess of 500mb. Close enough to your
700mb movie
From: Joly MacFie [mailto:j...@punkcast.com]
Incidentally, some traffic stats on
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/20/follow-the-traffic-what-megauploads-http://gigaom.com/2012/01/20/follow-the-traffic-what-megauploads-downfall-did-to-the-web/
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:28:49 GMT, Don Bowman said:
Given that filesonic cut off sharing, but still allows users to fetch
links they themself posted, one could make the assumption from the below
that there was negligible traffic due to people re-fetching their
own content.
Note that the
On 21/01/12 11:20 PM, George Bonser wrote:
This is what disaster simulations are for, to suss out these problems
before a disaster and put in systems to avoid the mess.
In the real world, while a city might keep the digital documents in
the cloud they would also (always) have paper copies,
-Original Message-
From: James Smith
Well I have a question which is off the top of megaupload.com But it's
regarding governments around the world using cloud services.
Do we have others Canadians on this list who can confirm, what branches
of the Canada Government are actively
In article
596b74b410ee6b4ca8a30c3af1a155ea09c8c...@rwc-mbx1.corp.seven.com,
George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes
The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now lost
their legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that
they were using Megaupload to share.
I just made the brain melting mistake of trying to read the DMCA. The text
which jumps out at me is:
`(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material
residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a
system or network controlled or
I would disagree, to me I would guess that the court would interpret the
disabling of access or removal to refer to the material and not the url. The
url is just a reference to the material in question. If you build a bashing
system that does not let you comply with the law, that becomes your
Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material.
The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all*
*possible* access to the material, but
- Original Message -
From: Nick B n...@pelagiris.org
I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the
material.
The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable
*all* *possible*
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 11:14 +, Alec Muffett wrote:
On 20 Jan 2012, at 11:00, Tei wrote:
Fileshares can organize thenselves in sites based on a forum software
that is private by default (open with registration), then share some
information file that include the url to the files
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:06:04PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
Upon receiving notice a file is infinging, they know that *file*
is illegal, and must now remove all the links to it, not just the
one that was reported.
But what -- *exactly* -- is an illegal file?
As Leo Bicknell astutely pointed
In article 20120121121149.ga14...@gsp.org, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
writes
But what -- *exactly* -- is an illegal file?
Perhaps you mean infringing?
--
Roland Perry
that was reported.
But what -- *exactly* -- is an illegal file?
As Leo Bicknell astutely pointed out in this thread:
Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that
some uses are infringing and some are not.
The problem is going to be the thousands of people who
On 01/21/12 12:38, George Bonser wrote:
that was reported.
But what -- *exactly* -- is an illegal file?
As Leo Bicknell astutely pointed out in this thread:
Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that
some uses are infringing and some are not.
The problem is
Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared, but
that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service for file
storage. It could have been a fire, a virus erasing file, bankruptcy,
malicious insider damage... Doesn't matter, you lost access to legit
content
On 01/21/2012 11:38 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using cloud storage for their documentation these
days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay) that Google has an entire service aimed at small
governments (county and municipal mostly) in Google Docs for just
Sure, but balance that with podunk.usa's possibly incompetent IT staff?
It costs a lot of money to run a state of the art shop, but only
incrementally more as you add more and more instances of essentially
identical shops. I guess I have more trust that Google is going to get
the
On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:06:04PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
Upon receiving notice a file is infinging, they know that *file*
is illegal, and must now remove all the links to it, not just the
one that was reported.
But what -- *exactly*
I have always had a certain fondness for paper.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:19 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
Sure, but balance
On 1/21/12 11:38 , George Bonser wrote:
Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared,
but that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service
for file storage. It could have been a fire, a virus erasing file,
bankruptcy, malicious insider damage... Doesn't
On 01/21/2012 03:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/21/12 11:38 , George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using cloud storage for their
documentation these days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay)
that Google has an entire service aimed at small governments (county
and
- Original Message -
From: Lyle Giese l...@lcrcomputer.net
Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared, but
that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service for file
storage. It could have been a fire, a virus erasing file, bankruptcy,
malicious
- Original Message -
From: Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
I have always had a certain fondness for paper.
Well, I was wondering where the Whacky Weekend thread was this week.
You can't grep dead trees.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
- Original Message -
From: Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com
Technical nuances notwithsatnding, isn't the guts of the case that the
megaupload team wilfully engaged in harbouring infringing files as
evidenced by the email snooping, eg boasting to each other about
having feature movies
On 21/01/12 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Imagine a situation where several municipal governments in, say, Santa
Cruz County, California are using such services and there is a repeat
of the Loma Prieta quake. Their data survives in Santa Clara county,
their city offices survive but there is
On Jan 21, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Lyle Giese l...@lcrcomputer.net
Not that I would not be a bit miffed if personal files disappeared, but
that's one of the risks associated with using a cloud service for file
storage. It could have been a
On 1/21/2012 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I agree, Mike. Problem is that the communications infrastructure that
enables these sorts of options is generally so reliable people don't
think about what will happen if something happens between them and
their data that takes out their access to
services.
or are in the process are currently setting it up.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Kaufman
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:49 AM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
On 1/21/2012 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I agree, Mike. Problem
On 01/21/2012 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Sure, but balance that with podunk.usa's possibly incompetent IT staff?
It costs a lot of money to run a state of the art shop, but only
incrementally more as you add more and more instances of essentially
identical shops. I guess I have more trust
This is what disaster simulations are for, to suss out these problems
before a disaster and put in systems to avoid the mess.
In the real world, while a city might keep the digital documents in
the cloud they would also (always) have paper copies, because in a big
emergency their computers
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
copyright holder. These are different things.
nitpick
Without the permission of the copyright holder _is_ contrary to
In article 201201201025.q0kapdm5040...@mail.r-bonomi.com, Robert
Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com writes
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
copyright holder. These are different things.
nitpick
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:25, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Public distribution without the permission of the copyright owner is
illegal.
This is veering off the purpose of this list, but maybe it is operationally
significant to be able to use the right terms when a law enforcement officer is
standing
What sould fileshares must do, is to store files in these services in
a encrypted way, and anonimized name. So these services have
absolutelly no way to tell what are hosting.
Fileshares can organize thenselves in sites based on a forum software
that is private by default (open with
On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:25 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
copyright holder. These are different things.
nitpick
Without
On 20 Jan 2012, at 11:00, Tei wrote:
Fileshares can organize thenselves in sites based on a forum software
that is private by default (open with registration), then share some
information file that include the url to the files hosted, and the
key to unencrypt these files, and some metadata.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:05:47AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:25 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
On 20 January 2012 12:14, Alec Muffett alec.muff...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 Jan 2012, at 11:00, Tei wrote:
Fileshares can organize thenselves in sites based on a forum software
that is private by default (open with registration), then share some
information file that include the url to the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:25, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Public distribution without the permission of the copyright owner is
illegal.
This is veering off the purpose of this list, but maybe it is operationally
significant to be
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:00:15 +0100, Tei said:
What sould fileshares must do, is to store files in these services in
a encrypted way, and anonimized name. So these services have
absolutelly no way to tell what are hosting.
http://freenetproject.org/
pgpQ1myO3UNxN.pgp
Description: PGP
- Original Message -
From: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
copyright holder. These are different things.
Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:25, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Public distribution without the permission of the copyright owner is
illegal.
This is veering off the purpose of this list, but maybe it is operationally s
This is veering off the purpose of this list, but
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:46:51 CST, Robert Bonomi said:
Sorry, but the last sentence is simply _not_ true. If the making of the
copy was a violation of 17 USC 106 (1) or (2), it's existance is proscribed
by law.
Nice try, but reading 17 USC 503 (b) we see:
As part of a final judgment or
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:34:33 -0500, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com
wrote:
I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when
given a takedown notice, MU would only remove the *link* and not the
file itself.
That's actually a standard practice. It allows the uploader
On 01/20/2012 09:11 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:34:33 -0500, Michael Painter
tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote:
I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when
given a takedown notice, MU would only remove the *link* and not the
file itself.
That's actually a
On 20 January 2012 19:37, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash of
every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the file that
was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in a users space,
In a message written on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:37:16AM -1000, Paul Graydon
wrote:
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash
of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the
file that was to be uploaded they'd just put an appropriate link in
- Original Message -
From: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 2:37:16 PM
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
SNIP
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a
hash of every file that they stored. SNIP
So
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:16 -0500, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
wrote:
... Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they would remove the link,
not the underlying file, so even though they knew that a file was
illegally hosted, they never actually removed it.
And that's where their
aka deduplication.
In Viacom vs. YouTube it was pretty successfully argued that there was no
way for YT to know that *every* instance of a work was illegally uploaded.
However they *were* able to produce 'smoking gun' evidence of Viacom agents
uploading material.
j
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:37
Incidentally, some traffic stats on
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/20/follow-the-traffic-what-megauploads-downfall-did-to-the-web/
MegaUpload was indeed one of the more popular sites on the web for storing
and sharing content. It ranked as .98 percent of the total web traffic in
the U.S. and 11.39
In article 20120120200216.ga62...@ussenterprise.ufp.org, Leo Bicknell
bickn...@ufp.org writes
Also, when using a hashed file store, it's possible that some uses
are infringing and some are not. I might make a movie, put it on
Megaupload, and then give the links only to the 5 people who bought
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:37:16AM -1000, Paul Graydon
wrote:
From what I understand about MegaUpload's approach, they created a hash
of every file that they stored. If they'd already got a copy of the
- Original Message -
From: Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:16 -0500, Paul Graydon
p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
wrote:
... Whenever they received a DMCA take-down they would remove the
link,
not the underlying file, so even though they knew that a file was
Technical nuances notwithsatnding, isn't the guts of the case that the
megaupload team wilfully engaged in harbouring infringing files as
evidenced by the email snooping, eg boasting to each other about having
feature movies available prior to release etc.
Similar evidence brought grokster down,
Interesting… it looks like they seized the servers and didn't touch DNS.
-bash-3.00$ nslookup megaupload.com
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: megaupload.com
Address: 174.140.154.22
Name: megaupload.com
Address: 174.140.154.23
Name: megaupload.com
Address: 174.140.154.24
Name:
Anon has already retaliated
http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 04:41:02PM -0600, Ryan Gelobter wrote:
The megaupload.com domain was seized today, has anyone noticed significant
drops in network traffic as a result?
On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Ryan Gelobter wrote:
The megaupload.com domain was seized today, has anyone noticed significant
drops in network traffic as a result?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
On 01/19/2012 12:41 PM, Ryan Gelobter wrote:
The megaupload.com domain was seized today, has anyone noticed significant
drops in network traffic as a result?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
You guys serous, when did the order come in to sezie the domain?
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Ryan Gelobter rya...@atwgpc.net
To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Megaupload.com seized
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 6:41 pm
The megaupload.com domain was seized today, has anyone
It's your typical FBI raid operation.
Arrest everyone and seize all electronics.
Then ask questions, weeks later.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ja...@smithwaysecurity.com
ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
You guys serous, when did the order come in to sezie the domain?
Sent from my HTC
Wow, what suprised the servers were, all located offshore.
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Megaupload.com seized
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 7:27 pm
On 01/19/2012 12:41 PM, Ryan Gelobter wrote:
The megaupload.com
That doesn't stop the power of our US government.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:53 PM, ja...@smithwaysecurity.com
ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
Wow, what suprised the servers were, all located offshore.
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/before-shutdown-megaupload-ate-up-more-corporate-bandwidth-than-dropbox.ars
Ars Technica are implying it was quite a source of bandwidth usage
within companies. I'm curious, are any interesting charts
Yes that's right, just would of slowed down the process.
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Ishmael Rufus sakam...@gmail.com
To: ja...@smithwaysecurity.com ja...@smithwaysecurity.com
Cc: p...@paulgraydon.co.uk, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Megaupload.com seized
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012
For us (AS11666), about 3-4% of total traffic typically
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Paul Graydon [mailto:p...@paulgraydon.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:27 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
On 01/19/2012 12:41 PM, Ryan Gelobter wrote
ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
Wow, what suprised the servers were, all located offshore.
Sent from my HTC
Huh?
65.
It was further part of the Conspiracy that the content available onMegaupload.com and Megavideo.com was provided by known
and unknown members of theMega Conspiracy,
thats the same reaction i had
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote:
ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
Wow, what suprised the servers were, all located offshore.
Sent from my HTC
Huh?
65.
It was further part of the Conspiracy that the content
On Jan 19, 2012, at 6:44 PM, ja...@smithwaysecurity.com wrote:
You guys serous, when did the order come in to sezie the domain?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars
has a good analysis; also see
I would agree. They've dotted every i and crossed every t here.
This will inevitably be followed by a prosecution of some sort and/or
there's also scope for Megaupload to sue the USG for restitution.
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out - especially wrt any
safe harbor provisions in
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I would agree. They've dotted every i and crossed every t here.
This will inevitably be followed by a prosecution of some sort and/or
there's also scope for Megaupload to sue the USG for restitution.
It'll be interesting to see
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out - especially wrt any
safe harbor provisions in the DMCA for providers (which do have a
provision for due diligence being exercised etc).
I quickly read through the indictment, but the gov't claims that when given a
Er I'm sorry but do you mean joesch...@corp.megaupload.com type
emails, or joesch...@hotmail.com type emails?
If megaupload's corporate email was siezed to provide due diligence in
such a prosecution - it would quite probably not constitute private
mail
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Steven
I don't mean either -- I've only skimmed the indictment. But from the
news stories, it would *appear* that they got a search or wiretap warrant
to get at employees' email. I don't see how that would make it not
private. (Btw -- due diligence is a civil suit concept; this is a
criminal case.)
Interesting, going to do some more digging.
-Original Message-
From: Steven Bellovin
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:07 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: ja...@smithwaysecurity.com ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
I don't mean either -- I've only skimmed the indictment
I can only imagine the bloodbath this will cause.!!
-Original Message-
From: Steven Bellovin
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:07 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: ja...@smithwaysecurity.com ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
I don't mean either -- I've only skimmed
of megaupload how ironic.
-Original Message- From: Steven Bellovin
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:07 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: ja...@smithwaysecurity.com ; NANOG
Subject: Re: Megaupload.com seized
I don't mean either -- I've only skimmed the indictment. But from the
news stories
In message cabrp1o8-_en5ucsxfhtelwriivmrks7-9xa5ojpsj9f3jys...@mail.gmail.com
, Rodrick Brown writes:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM, James Smith ja...@smithwaysecurity.comw=
rote:
I can only imagine the bloodbath this will cause.!!
Show me a file sharing site with no illegal content!
80 matches
Mail list logo
