3 ms·
Isn't this the same loophole that MegaUpload used? Only removing a link to a file, not the file itself with the claim that other links belonged to potentially l
by paul_grisham 3y ago
Isn't this the same loophole that MegaUpload used? Only removing a link to a file, not the file itself with the claim that other links belonged to potentially lawful owners of the file.
- whstl 3y agoI mean, if the subpoena says "remove a link" you comply with that. But there's also another fundamental difference: even if there's the expectation of removing all copies of the same exact file, it is "trivial" for MegaUpload to know, by using hashes. They do have access to all files, as it is in their servers. For Google to delete all pirate links to movie X it would be much more complicated, and would put them on a position of being forced to be the internet police.
- chii 3y ago> They do have access to all files, as it is in their servers. not if they have the encrypted content only, and the decode key is only in the hash portion of a url, which never goes to a server. But i guess crafting a technocal "solution" to a legal problem doesn't work, since the law works off intentions, and how much money you pay lawyers...
- whstl 3y agoThat's Mega, the one that still exists. MegaUpload the previous one didn't really have the same encryption.