5 ms·

There's nothing right about this, but I honestly can't have much sympathy for people who store their only copies of work files at a site that's notorious for it

by Animus7 15y ago

There's nothing right about this, but I honestly can't have much sympathy for people who store their only copies of work files at a site that's notorious for its association with illegal activity.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
It's nothing to do with illegal activity, it's just dumb to have only a single instance of an important file wherever it's stored. Worth noting that some of them were moaning that this was their backup. Not sure I see the issue there, just move them somewhere else - if it's a backup they still have originals presumably.
Zirro 15y ago
I can excuse them for the "association with illegal activity"-part, but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky. It will be interesting to see how the feds handle this one, considering Megaupload was used for plenty of legal activities as well.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky I agree with you, but think it's harsh to judge the users by it. It's not that long ago that it was nothing short of a miracle if the average home user - or small business for that matter - had any backups. In a way, I'm heartened by the progress.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    Oh yes, if they were backups it's all good. But the impression I got was that some people had their _only_ copy of certain files stored there.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  What I'd be concerned more about in the long term is if you don't get an option to save your stuff anywhere else. For example using a cloud application to actually do your work whereby all your data is saved by your app to their storage platform and there's no way to get it out. If that cloud app gets shut down because of SOPA or whatever then what happens to your data?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  There is little question in my mind how the Feds will handle this. Kiss the files good-bye. Actions like these show the government doesn't believe all binary data has value. Rather, it shows they believe the majority have no value except for that distributed by the MPAA and RIAA.
- droithomme 15y ago
  Cloud storage is clearly being marketed as safer than self storage, with multiple location, site backups and even diesel generators touted to prove their supposed reliability. Clearly we now see that cloud storage is not reliable at all and can not be trusted because even though my data is completely legal, just because someone else misused the service in violation of its TOS, everybody's data property gets confiscated by the feds. That's not safe at all. Cloud is not safe. Owning your own server, at least you have control over what else is on it.
mrsebastian 15y ago
It leads to a bigger discussion, though, about what happens to your files when a cyberlocker (Megaupload, Dropbox) or backup provider (Backblaze) shuts down. There's another submission on the HN fp that seems to tackle just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  In the case of Backblaze (which I use and highly recommend) wouldn't it just mean changing providers? As long as your hard drive doesn't fail before you get a full backup done with another solution you should be fine.
  - mrsebastian 15y ago
    Yep, true! Unless you're in the same geographic region as their datacenter and you both get hit by an earthquake, or something. I am also thinking about what happens in the case of a federal seizing -- I wonder if they would decrypt the data.
    - aidos 15y ago
      In the case of backblaze the private key stays on your local machine (so not even backblaze have access).
      - lt 15y ago
        Sounds unlikely. If my hard drive crashes, how do I get my files back? (the whole point of the service)
        jdludlow 15y ago
        The answer is in their documentation. We generate a new 2048-bit RSA public/private key pair when our client is installed, store the public key on the local disk and transmit the private key to our datacenter via https. Then, for each backup session, we generate a new random 128-bit AES symmetric key which we use to encrypt the user’s data. We secure the 128-bit AES key by encrypting it with the user’s public key and transmit the encrypted file along with the encrypted key to our datacenter over https. We destroy the unencrypted 128-bit AES key at the end of each backup session and never write it to disk. To decrypt a file, the user’s private key is used to decrypt the 128-bit AES which is then used to decrypt the file. http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encryption-easy-to-use/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encr... With pictures and everything. I'm not one of their users, but that page was interesting to read.
DevX101 15y ago
Notorious to whom? Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do. I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Caveat emptor. More importantly, what's the difference between your site (data) and an mp3 (data)? Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that artists mp3, just a copy?
  - pyre 15y ago
    > Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that > artists mp3, just a copy? I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. If you copy an mp3, there are now two copies of an mp3. One in the original 'owner's possession, and one in yours. If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. When the FBI took down MegaUpload, if the only copy of my files were on MegaUpload, the FBI has taken physical possession of them through the seizure of MegaUpload's servers. What the FBI did would only be analogous to pirating if they copied all of the data off of MegaUpload's servers, but left the servers intact (thereby allowing the original owners to still have access).
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      > I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. I wasn't. However, you're comment is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to discredit my comment without actually contributing anything back. That you'll bite is you attempting to play the part of the "bigger person." The reality is, you start off by being ill-mannered, insulting, and petty. Don't bring that stuff to HN. You should know better. > If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. Actually, no. In this case, the original had to come from somewhere. Data was copied from one location to another. What is up on MU is, in essence, a copy. If the original owner then removes that original copy, it doesn't bless the copy with special privileges. Hell, if you want to get technical, the artist never had possession of the only mp3 up on MU's server. MU had possession. The artist had access, but not possession. He has, effectively, given MU the right to possess the copy. Regardless, this example, as much as yours, is silly, because it's data. We aren't talking about a physical thing. You're trying to argue that data, somehow, can be stolen (1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen"). Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously, if only because they are using the same arguments the MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for years.
kokey 15y ago
To me, this is a bit like people complaining that the feds seized their car that was legally rented from them, by their dope dealer. I'm not surprised that people used the service for legal means, but I am surprised that people can expect us to think that they didn't know the service was mostly profiting from piracy.
guelo 15y ago
It's people with your attitude that allows authoritarians to destroy our civil liberties.
joshz 15y ago
And yet it took 2 years of law enforcement work to investigate that notoriety. I have easier time finding infringing (or is it?) content on Youtube than I ever had on Megaupload but you won't see them ever going down the same way. Agreed, however, that storing a single copy of important work isn't safe.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Yesterday I uploaded a video to Youtube w music in it that was immediately identified, credited to the artist on the video page, and I know that royalties are paid for that video. I'd say that's a pretty big difference in behavior of the two companies.
spodek 15y ago
What large organization is not associated with illegal activity? People save their money at banks associated with illegal activity. Microsoft, Google, Apple... all associated with illegal activities. Our governments are associated with illegal activity. Strike that. Our governments break laws. Cops break laws. Judges break laws. Legislators break laws. Soldiers break laws. We just observed Martin Luther King day. He was associated with illegal activity and broke many laws. How do you avoid association with illegal activity?

by Animus7 15y ago

There's nothing right about this, but I honestly can't have much sympathy for people who store their only copies of work files at a site that's notorious for its association with illegal activity.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

It's nothing to do with illegal activity, it's just dumb to have only a single instance of an important file wherever it's stored. Worth noting that some of them were moaning that this was their backup. Not sure I see the issue there, just move them somewhere else - if it's a backup they still have originals presumably.

Zirro 15y ago

I can excuse them for the "association with illegal activity"-part, but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky. It will be interesting to see how the feds handle this one, considering Megaupload was used for plenty of legal activities as well.

mootothemax 15y ago
but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky I agree with you, but think it's harsh to judge the users by it. It's not that long ago that it was nothing short of a miracle if the average home user - or small business for that matter - had any backups. In a way, I'm heartened by the progress.
- Zirro 15y ago
  Oh yes, if they were backups it's all good. But the impression I got was that some people had their _only_ copy of certain files stored there.
jiggy2011 15y ago
What I'd be concerned more about in the long term is if you don't get an option to save your stuff anywhere else. For example using a cloud application to actually do your work whereby all your data is saved by your app to their storage platform and there's no way to get it out. If that cloud app gets shut down because of SOPA or whatever then what happens to your data?
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
There is little question in my mind how the Feds will handle this. Kiss the files good-bye. Actions like these show the government doesn't believe all binary data has value. Rather, it shows they believe the majority have no value except for that distributed by the MPAA and RIAA.
droithomme 15y ago
Cloud storage is clearly being marketed as safer than self storage, with multiple location, site backups and even diesel generators touted to prove their supposed reliability. Clearly we now see that cloud storage is not reliable at all and can not be trusted because even though my data is completely legal, just because someone else misused the service in violation of its TOS, everybody's data property gets confiscated by the feds. That's not safe at all. Cloud is not safe. Owning your own server, at least you have control over what else is on it.

mrsebastian 15y ago

It leads to a bigger discussion, though, about what happens to your files when a cyberlocker (Megaupload, Dropbox) or backup provider (Backblaze) shuts down. There's another submission on the HN fp that seems to tackle just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313

k-mcgrady 15y ago
In the case of Backblaze (which I use and highly recommend) wouldn't it just mean changing providers? As long as your hard drive doesn't fail before you get a full backup done with another solution you should be fine.
- mrsebastian 15y ago
  Yep, true! Unless you're in the same geographic region as their datacenter and you both get hit by an earthquake, or something. I am also thinking about what happens in the case of a federal seizing -- I wonder if they would decrypt the data.
  - aidos 15y ago
    In the case of backblaze the private key stays on your local machine (so not even backblaze have access).
    - lt 15y ago
      Sounds unlikely. If my hard drive crashes, how do I get my files back? (the whole point of the service)
      - jdludlow 15y ago
        The answer is in their documentation. We generate a new 2048-bit RSA public/private key pair when our client is installed, store the public key on the local disk and transmit the private key to our datacenter via https. Then, for each backup session, we generate a new random 128-bit AES symmetric key which we use to encrypt the user’s data. We secure the 128-bit AES key by encrypting it with the user’s public key and transmit the encrypted file along with the encrypted key to our datacenter over https. We destroy the unencrypted 128-bit AES key at the end of each backup session and never write it to disk. To decrypt a file, the user’s private key is used to decrypt the 128-bit AES which is then used to decrypt the file. http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encryption-easy-to-use/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encr... With pictures and everything. I'm not one of their users, but that page was interesting to read.

DevX101 15y ago

Notorious to whom? Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do. I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.

jasonlotito 15y ago
Caveat emptor. More importantly, what's the difference between your site (data) and an mp3 (data)? Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that artists mp3, just a copy?
- pyre 15y ago
  > Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that > artists mp3, just a copy? I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. If you copy an mp3, there are now two copies of an mp3. One in the original 'owner's possession, and one in yours. If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. When the FBI took down MegaUpload, if the only copy of my files were on MegaUpload, the FBI has taken physical possession of them through the seizure of MegaUpload's servers. What the FBI did would only be analogous to pirating if they copied all of the data off of MegaUpload's servers, but left the servers intact (thereby allowing the original owners to still have access).
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. I wasn't. However, you're comment is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to discredit my comment without actually contributing anything back. That you'll bite is you attempting to play the part of the "bigger person." The reality is, you start off by being ill-mannered, insulting, and petty. Don't bring that stuff to HN. You should know better. > If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. Actually, no. In this case, the original had to come from somewhere. Data was copied from one location to another. What is up on MU is, in essence, a copy. If the original owner then removes that original copy, it doesn't bless the copy with special privileges. Hell, if you want to get technical, the artist never had possession of the only mp3 up on MU's server. MU had possession. The artist had access, but not possession. He has, effectively, given MU the right to possess the copy. Regardless, this example, as much as yours, is silly, because it's data. We aren't talking about a physical thing. You're trying to argue that data, somehow, can be stolen (1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen"). Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously, if only because they are using the same arguments the MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for years.

kokey 15y ago

To me, this is a bit like people complaining that the feds seized their car that was legally rented from them, by their dope dealer. I'm not surprised that people used the service for legal means, but I am surprised that people can expect us to think that they didn't know the service was mostly profiting from piracy.

guelo 15y ago

It's people with your attitude that allows authoritarians to destroy our civil liberties.

joshz 15y ago

And yet it took 2 years of law enforcement work to investigate that notoriety. I have easier time finding infringing (or is it?) content on Youtube than I ever had on Megaupload but you won't see them ever going down the same way. Agreed, however, that storing a single copy of important work isn't safe.

earbitscom 15y ago
Yesterday I uploaded a video to Youtube w music in it that was immediately identified, credited to the artist on the video page, and I know that royalties are paid for that video. I'd say that's a pretty big difference in behavior of the two companies.

spodek 15y ago

What large organization is not associated with illegal activity? People save their money at banks associated with illegal activity. Microsoft, Google, Apple... all associated with illegal activities. Our governments are associated with illegal activity. Strike that. Our governments break laws. Cops break laws. Judges break laws. Legislators break laws. Soldiers break laws. We just observed Martin Luther King day. He was associated with illegal activity and broke many laws. How do you avoid association with illegal activity?