6 ms·

Since the sentence (taking down MU's business and confiscating all of their property and money) has already been carried out, I'm pretty sure the FBIAA doesn't

by drcube 15y ago

Since the sentence (taking down MU's business and confiscating all of their property and money) has already been carried out, I'm pretty sure the FBIAA doesn't care.

Karunamon 15y ago
The business can be rebuilt (perhaps at great cost), but since the NZ court order which led to the seizure of his property was also ruled to be "null and void", Kim is legally entitled to his property back.
- kijin 15y ago
  Which he might eventually get back, after 5-10 years I guess.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    I'd be suing like crazy now if I was in his position. And anyways, since computer hardware depreciates like crazy, wouldn't he be in a position to get cash to make up the lost value? Don't know about that one, but it would be the right thing. A few law enforcement types are going to lose their jobs soon, I take it. (And if they were connected with this farce of a case, all the better)
    - jrockway 15y ago
      In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation. For example, if you have a sports car and the police need to chase a suspect, they can take your car. If they crash it into a bridge and it explodes in a big ball of fire, that's your problem, not theirs.
      - WALoeIII 15y ago
        "In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation." This is an outrageous statement. There are special exceptions to the law, but the 4th Amendment of the Constitution explicitly protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
        sedev 15y ago
        Sure, that's the law - but that is not the practice, that's not the facts on the ground. The moral panics over drugs and terrorism have expanded police powers such that it is de facto possible for the police forces to just steal from you. It's not legally theft: they've just redefined it, basically. It's similar to how the US government just effectively says "the things we do aren't torture, because we're doing them, and we condemn others for doing these things because they're torture." If you have money, you have some recourse - but if you're an average citizen, the police can with any sort of drug- or terrorism-related charge, even if you are acquitted or the charges are dropped, de facto steal your shit and not reimburse you at all.
        vacri 15y ago
        That's not all that protective when it comes down to it - all you need to do is redefine what 'unreasonable' means in law. It's 'unreasonable' and not 'illegal' by the way - and the latter would be even easier to get around, because you just legislate 'this is legal now', no semantic tricks required.
        gergles 15y ago
        You can quote the 4th amendment all you like, let me introduce you to what they actually do if you have something they would like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
        njharman 15y ago
        > illegal search and seizure Yes, exactly. That is why so many outrageous search and seizure laws have been passed, thus making them legal.
      - jessriedel 15y ago
        >In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation. I think you are mostly wrong here, and WALoeIII 2 is mostly right, but I wanted to add some detail. Certainly, if the police destroy your property inadvertently while pursuing a criminal, they are under no obligation to compensate you. It's considered tantamount to the criminal having destroyed it (and so you might be able to seek redress from him). But, it looks like if the police commandeer your property, they do in fact have a responsibility to compensate you, a la eminent domain. The Straight Dope article has good details. Choice quote: > In United States v. Russell the Supreme Court was faced with a claim for three steamers commandeered by military authorities during the Civil War. The Russell court found it obvious that "the taking of such property under such circumstances creates an obligation on the part of the government to reimburse the owner to the full value of the service." The court continued, "private rights, under such extreme and imperious circumstances, must give way for the time to the public good, but the government must make full restitution for the sacrifice." The court concluded that the obligation to make full restitution was based on an implied promise "on the part of the United States to reimburse the owner for the use of the steamboats and for his own services and expenses, and for the services of the crews during the period the steamboats were employed in transporting government freight pursuant to those orders." That said, things aren't always so clear: >The Supreme Court hasn't said what happens if equipment is borrowed and returned damaged, but lower courts have been reluctant to award compensation in such cases. In Blackman v. City of Cincinnati, for instance, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to compensate a vehicle owner for a crash that occurred when police ordered him to chase a fleeing suspect. Other courts have followed suit. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-reall...
        jrockway 15y ago
        I think the second quote was what was stuck in my mind when I wrote that comment. I knew I read about this somewhere; probably on The Straight Dope. Thanks for sharing the correction and context.
        michaelbuckbee 15y ago
        A Judge dismissed a lawsuit regarding a Ferrari that the Feds accidentally crashed while joyriding in it. http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-wrecked-750g-ferrari/ http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-...
    - kijin 15y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if the "law enforcement types" who lost their jobs because of this mess-up immediately got hired by the MAFIAA. Provided that anyone actually loses jobs in the first place, which I doubt.
    - mbell 15y ago
      Considering they were renting most(all?) of the hardware from third parties I doubt they were able to capitalize and hence realize deprecation on the servers. Its possible if the agreement was some sort of a "lease to buy" arrangement but I doubt it.
    - jessriedel 15y ago
      In the US, the state is almost never liable for damages if the officers are performing their duties in good faith. This is true even if the officers (mistakenly) execute a completely illegal warrant leading to substantial financial damages to an innocent citizen. Obviously, this sets up terrible incentives for the state (why bother to double check your facts and procedures if there are no repercussions for getting things wrong?), but that's how the law is.
      - mcantelon 15y ago
        That's pretty much legalized tyranny then.
        sedev 15y ago
        Yes it is: and like a number of such things, it stems from the War On (Non-White People Who Use) Drugs. The incentives regarding property seizure in narcotics cases are even more perverse, and lead to brazen de facto theft.
        vacri 15y ago
        I think it was back in the 80s that Jello Biafra was arrested on drug charges and had property seized. The sheriff's office was able to legally sell the seized property before his trial. I don't know what happened to that law, hopefully it's been fixed since...
        nknight 15y ago
        Civil forfeiture is based on a simple preponderance of the evidence, and has not changed.
        jseliger 15y ago
        But most people don't realize this, and they don't vote accordingly. So it persists and grows.
        billpatrianakos 15y ago
  - s_henry_paulson 15y ago
    (1) The comment you're replying to mentions the fact that the government is not taking his property. (2) He's living in his house now.
    - Devilboy 15y ago
      He meant the seized servers
liquidise 15y ago
FBIAA might be one of the best, and most accurate, acronyms I have seen in some time
- cryptoz 15y ago
  I like MAFIAA too :) https://www.google.ca/search?q=mafiaa https://www.google.ca/search?q=mafiaa
- TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
  MAFIAA.org
- kiiski 15y ago
  What exactly is it supposed to be an acronym for? MAFIAA at least has a clear meaning ("Music And Film Industry Association of America"), but FBIAA seems to only stand for "Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association", which doesn't have anything to do with copyrights.
  - beezus 15y ago
    I think it's an acronym portmanteau rather than straight up initialism.
  - sedev 15y ago
    I read it as an accusation, basically - "the FBI is effectively doing the bidding of the MPAA/RIAA."
  - neurom 15y ago
    Foreign Business Intimidation Association of America
dirkdk 15y ago
agreed, MU has already been destroyed pretty much however, wondering if the whole case is thrown out, what options MegaUpload has to sue. He sure seems the kind of guy with the funds to put up a fight
- iRobot 15y ago
  I'm no real fan of MU or kim dot com but the way all this occurred taking down the guys whole business empire and putting him under arrest makes me think it can happen to any dot com company which I am (I trade in Europe, NZ and australia and a .com address seems the most logical to make it country agnostic) I seriously hope he takes the NZ government for millions for being a bunch of FBI arse kissers. And maybe he can use the wads of cash he gets to fund a start-up pirate party here.
- comex 15y ago
  dunno, Megaupload is now famous in a way it never was before. If the site somehow reopens, there will be attention.
shangrila 15y ago
Exactly. They took the site down and gave pause to anyone who is thinking of starting a similar site. Mission accomplished!
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Unless he decides to fight back in a precedent-setting way, which he now has the free time to do.
  - viraptor 15y ago
    It looks like he wants to do that: there's an update post http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-lashes-out-against-corrupt-us-government-120420/ http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-lashes-out-against-corrup...
AJ007 15y ago
This event may have made their brand a household name, but one would imagine it poisons the trust consumers would place on any storage service Kim would create in the future.

by drcube 15y ago

Since the sentence (taking down MU's business and confiscating all of their property and money) has already been carried out, I'm pretty sure the FBIAA doesn't care.

Karunamon 15y ago

The business can be rebuilt (perhaps at great cost), but since the NZ court order which led to the seizure of his property was also ruled to be "null and void", Kim is legally entitled to his property back.

kijin 15y ago
Which he might eventually get back, after 5-10 years I guess.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  I'd be suing like crazy now if I was in his position. And anyways, since computer hardware depreciates like crazy, wouldn't he be in a position to get cash to make up the lost value? Don't know about that one, but it would be the right thing. A few law enforcement types are going to lose their jobs soon, I take it. (And if they were connected with this farce of a case, all the better)
  - jrockway 15y ago
    In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation. For example, if you have a sports car and the police need to chase a suspect, they can take your car. If they crash it into a bridge and it explodes in a big ball of fire, that's your problem, not theirs.
    - WALoeIII 15y ago
      "In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation." This is an outrageous statement. There are special exceptions to the law, but the 4th Amendment of the Constitution explicitly protects citizens from illegal search and seizure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
      - sedev 15y ago
        Sure, that's the law - but that is not the practice, that's not the facts on the ground. The moral panics over drugs and terrorism have expanded police powers such that it is de facto possible for the police forces to just steal from you. It's not legally theft: they've just redefined it, basically. It's similar to how the US government just effectively says "the things we do aren't torture, because we're doing them, and we condemn others for doing these things because they're torture." If you have money, you have some recourse - but if you're an average citizen, the police can with any sort of drug- or terrorism-related charge, even if you are acquitted or the charges are dropped, de facto steal your shit and not reimburse you at all.
      - vacri 15y ago
        That's not all that protective when it comes down to it - all you need to do is redefine what 'unreasonable' means in law. It's 'unreasonable' and not 'illegal' by the way - and the latter would be even easier to get around, because you just legislate 'this is legal now', no semantic tricks required.
      - gergles 15y ago
        You can quote the 4th amendment all you like, let me introduce you to what they actually do if you have something they would like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
      - njharman 15y ago
        > illegal search and seizure Yes, exactly. That is why so many outrageous search and seizure laws have been passed, thus making them legal.
    - jessriedel 15y ago
      >In the US, the police can take anything they want from you without compensation. I think you are mostly wrong here, and WALoeIII 2 is mostly right, but I wanted to add some detail. Certainly, if the police destroy your property inadvertently while pursuing a criminal, they are under no obligation to compensate you. It's considered tantamount to the criminal having destroyed it (and so you might be able to seek redress from him). But, it looks like if the police commandeer your property, they do in fact have a responsibility to compensate you, a la eminent domain. The Straight Dope article has good details. Choice quote: > In United States v. Russell the Supreme Court was faced with a claim for three steamers commandeered by military authorities during the Civil War. The Russell court found it obvious that "the taking of such property under such circumstances creates an obligation on the part of the government to reimburse the owner to the full value of the service." The court continued, "private rights, under such extreme and imperious circumstances, must give way for the time to the public good, but the government must make full restitution for the sacrifice." The court concluded that the obligation to make full restitution was based on an implied promise "on the part of the United States to reimburse the owner for the use of the steamboats and for his own services and expenses, and for the services of the crews during the period the steamboats were employed in transporting government freight pursuant to those orders." That said, things aren't always so clear: >The Supreme Court hasn't said what happens if equipment is borrowed and returned damaged, but lower courts have been reluctant to award compensation in such cases. In Blackman v. City of Cincinnati, for instance, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to compensate a vehicle owner for a crash that occurred when police ordered him to chase a fleeing suspect. Other courts have followed suit. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-reall...
      - jrockway 15y ago
        I think the second quote was what was stuck in my mind when I wrote that comment. I knew I read about this somewhere; probably on The Straight Dope. Thanks for sharing the correction and context.
      - michaelbuckbee 15y ago
        A Judge dismissed a lawsuit regarding a Ferrari that the Feds accidentally crashed while joyriding in it. http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-wrecked-750g-ferrari/ http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-...
  - kijin 15y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the "law enforcement types" who lost their jobs because of this mess-up immediately got hired by the MAFIAA. Provided that anyone actually loses jobs in the first place, which I doubt.
  - mbell 15y ago
    Considering they were renting most(all?) of the hardware from third parties I doubt they were able to capitalize and hence realize deprecation on the servers. Its possible if the agreement was some sort of a "lease to buy" arrangement but I doubt it.
  - jessriedel 15y ago
    In the US, the state is almost never liable for damages if the officers are performing their duties in good faith. This is true even if the officers (mistakenly) execute a completely illegal warrant leading to substantial financial damages to an innocent citizen. Obviously, this sets up terrible incentives for the state (why bother to double check your facts and procedures if there are no repercussions for getting things wrong?), but that's how the law is.
    - mcantelon 15y ago
      That's pretty much legalized tyranny then.
      - sedev 15y ago
        Yes it is: and like a number of such things, it stems from the War On (Non-White People Who Use) Drugs. The incentives regarding property seizure in narcotics cases are even more perverse, and lead to brazen de facto theft.
        vacri 15y ago
        I think it was back in the 80s that Jello Biafra was arrested on drug charges and had property seized. The sheriff's office was able to legally sell the seized property before his trial. I don't know what happened to that law, hopefully it's been fixed since...
        nknight 15y ago
        Civil forfeiture is based on a simple preponderance of the evidence, and has not changed.
      - jseliger 15y ago
        But most people don't realize this, and they don't vote accordingly. So it persists and grows.
      - billpatrianakos 15y ago
- s_henry_paulson 15y ago
  (1) The comment you're replying to mentions the fact that the government is not taking his property. (2) He's living in his house now.
  - Devilboy 15y ago
    He meant the seized servers

liquidise 15y ago

FBIAA might be one of the best, and most accurate, acronyms I have seen in some time

cryptoz 15y ago
I like MAFIAA too :) https://www.google.ca/search?q=mafiaa https://www.google.ca/search?q=mafiaa
TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
MAFIAA.org
kiiski 15y ago
What exactly is it supposed to be an acronym for? MAFIAA at least has a clear meaning ("Music And Film Industry Association of America"), but FBIAA seems to only stand for "Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association", which doesn't have anything to do with copyrights.
- beezus 15y ago
  I think it's an acronym portmanteau rather than straight up initialism.
- sedev 15y ago
  I read it as an accusation, basically - "the FBI is effectively doing the bidding of the MPAA/RIAA."
- neurom 15y ago
  Foreign Business Intimidation Association of America

dirkdk 15y ago

agreed, MU has already been destroyed pretty much however, wondering if the whole case is thrown out, what options MegaUpload has to sue. He sure seems the kind of guy with the funds to put up a fight

iRobot 15y ago
I'm no real fan of MU or kim dot com but the way all this occurred taking down the guys whole business empire and putting him under arrest makes me think it can happen to any dot com company which I am (I trade in Europe, NZ and australia and a .com address seems the most logical to make it country agnostic) I seriously hope he takes the NZ government for millions for being a bunch of FBI arse kissers. And maybe he can use the wads of cash he gets to fund a start-up pirate party here.
comex 15y ago
dunno, Megaupload is now famous in a way it never was before. If the site somehow reopens, there will be attention.

shangrila 15y ago

Exactly. They took the site down and gave pause to anyone who is thinking of starting a similar site. Mission accomplished!

alexqgb 15y ago
Unless he decides to fight back in a precedent-setting way, which he now has the free time to do.
- viraptor 15y ago
  It looks like he wants to do that: there's an update post http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-lashes-out-against-corrupt-us-government-120420/ http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-lashes-out-against-corrup...

AJ007 15y ago

This event may have made their brand a household name, but one would imagine it poisons the trust consumers would place on any storage service Kim would create in the future.