3 ms·
> Federal prosecutors say they should not have to sort through the files at taxpayer expense, but have objected to their erasure. Umm, what? The prosecutors d
by mokus 14y ago
> Federal prosecutors say they should not have to sort through the files at taxpayer expense, but have objected to their erasure.
Umm, what? The prosecutors don't think they should be responsible for obtaining and examining the evidence to build their case? Who the hell else should be? It's _exactly_ what they are being paid to do!
I fully agree that they shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on it, but only because they shouldn't be wasting it on this case in the first place. If it were a case that actually merited attention, though (say, 25 PB of child porn or snuff video), "we shouldn't have to pay to store and handle this much evidence" would be an unacceptable response. I can only hope that it's motivated by a desire to somewhat gracefully rid themselves of a toxic case.
- rdtsc 14y ago> The prosecutors don't think they should be responsible for obtaining and examining the evidence to build their case? Unless the whole shebang was done for political reasons just to bring Megaupload down. Then they don't actually want to look at the evidence, expect the case to lose, but the end goal of would be achieved, nevertheless.
- devb 14y agoDoes a defendent have any recourse at all in such cases? If the government succeeds in shutting down a company without any finding of guilt, what's to stop them from continuing to use that strategy?
- Zirro 14y agoOr put another way, is the government liable to pay for the damages caused to infrastructure and reputation of Megaupload, not to mention the psychological pressure experienced by it's founder and his family? Considering all of this, we must be talking extreme amounts.