3 ms·

> I would personally feel unsafe storing private documents on Mega due to the lack of public/private key encryption, but that's me. It is probably worth pointi

by jlgreco 14y ago

> I would personally feel unsafe storing private documents on Mega due to the lack of public/private key encryption, but that's me. It is probably worth pointing out that all of this encryption stuff is only for them. Nomatter how they brand it, the purpose is to give them plausible deniability, which they lacked with the previous Mega. If you want encryption meant for you, then you should probably just encrypt your files yourself before you let Mega touch them.

soup10 14y ago
It's pretty embarrassing that tech blogs are even covering this. Copyright law is about intent, not about technical specifics. The idea that new megaupload is ok because it encrypts illegitimate content before storing it is absurd.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  What do you mean by "ok"? Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did. Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders them unable to govern content, then how could they be considered culpable for content? If I start posting nasty stuff encrypted with PGP to HN, would HN be to blame for failing to recognize the nasty stuff and remove it?
  - jakejake 14y ago
    As soon as a file goes public and anybody can get it, then it seems to me irrelevant that its encrypted on mega servers. They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known. And if mega is de-duping content then that could technically eliminate "whack a mole" for the copyright holders (except for people re-encoding the file and re-uploading). I had heard in the past that mega would only take down one link.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known. And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will. What they won't be able to do is respond to a request that says "Delete all copies of [Big movie of the year], and continue to delete all of our movies as they pop back up."
      - ghshephard 14y ago
        As long as it's the same file, they will be able to do precisely that.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        > And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will. I feel like a goddamn broken record.
    - rdtsc 14y ago
      If they did it correctly then they would keep a reference count to that the stuff only gets deleted when the last reference to it gets deleted. It would kind of function like hard links on linux file systems.
    - derefr 14y ago
      > As soon as a file goes public This is the important bit. Files can be shared between private groups, using Mega as an intermediary, without them ever becoming indexed on the public web. Previously, files shared in this manner could still be a target of a takedown, because Megaupload would know they had them, even if nobody else did. Now Mega can make a stronger guarantee about keeping this kind of sharing "safe", because they have no idea whether they're hosting this kind of file or not.
      - jakejake 14y ago
        I would think this type of sharing would not be as much of a concern for copyright holders since a private group is not really mass distribution. As soon as the sharing group got big enough to notice, then there could be agents in the group reporting infringement.
  - soup10 14y ago
    However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      Roughly speaking I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? If I download a movie illegally right now then chances are Google and Firefox are immediately benefiting from it, and then even further away are Microsoft (OS), hardware manufacturers, etc. who profited off enabling me to do this. Is the line about intent rather than technicality? For example how driving a bus that a drug dealer is on is not illegal, but driving the getaway car from a robbery is? If it is, then how does one prove that Dotcom wants to support copyright violation, rather than his official stance of just believing that there is a level past which he can not be expected to police his customers?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      What, in the same way that manufacturing syringes that will be used to mainline illegal narcotics should not be "encouraged or tolerated"?
      - soup10 14y ago
        It takes some twisted logic to think thats a valid analogy. Dropbox is a perfectly valid filehosting service because they take reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement. Megaupload(and mega) is not, because it's run by a person who has no real interest in preventing copyright infringement, and has shown that he's more than willing to profit off it, while he pretends that he doesn't know it's occurring or can't prevent it.
        danenania 14y ago
        Define 'reasonable measures'. People use Dropbox to share copyrighted material all the time. Ditto S3, gmail, external hard drives, and any file storage method in existence. Enforcement of the standard you're promoting would require pervasive surveillance of every data storage and transfer method in the world, and backdoor access for all forms of encryption. Freedom of information and communication is orders of magnitude more important for a healthy and free society than copyright of digital goods, and you can't have both--they are fundamentally incompatible.
- cdr 14y ago
  Copyright law can absolutely hinge on technical specifics. Look at network DVR services being forced to store a copy of a show per user in order to be found legal in the US.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Yeah, or the fact that Aereo has one antenna per user,
peawormsworth 14y ago
In order to maintain the plausible deniability, Mega cannot store an decryption passphrase. Meaning they will not have the links to the unencrypted files. As the URL will contain the passphrase within it. The only thing required to make this private is to plug a Tor hidden service onto the front end. That way the direct link to the data is not known by the download user and Mega will not store this link without losing plausible deniability. Win win. Bad part is that all downloads now have to go through Tor (slow).

by jlgreco 14y ago

soup10 14y ago

It's pretty embarrassing that tech blogs are even covering this. Copyright law is about intent, not about technical specifics. The idea that new megaupload is ok because it encrypts illegitimate content before storing it is absurd.

jlgreco 14y ago
What do you mean by "ok"? Morally ok? That is subject to opinion. I don't have a problem with them now, and I never did. Legally immune? They very well could be. Certainly any action against them is going to be much harder this time, if only because a bunch of people in New Zealand are still pissed about what happened last time without the revisions that were made. If their system works as they claim, and renders them unable to govern content, then how could they be considered culpable for content? If I start posting nasty stuff encrypted with PGP to HN, would HN be to blame for failing to recognize the nasty stuff and remove it?
- jakejake 14y ago
  As soon as a file goes public and anybody can get it, then it seems to me irrelevant that its encrypted on mega servers. They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known. And if mega is de-duping content then that could technically eliminate "whack a mole" for the copyright holders (except for people re-encoding the file and re-uploading). I had heard in the past that mega would only take down one link.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > They'll have to respond to takedown requests because the contents are known. And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will. What they won't be able to do is respond to a request that says "Delete all copies of [Big movie of the year], and continue to delete all of our movies as they pop back up."
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      As long as it's the same file, they will be able to do precisely that.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > And presumably, unless they think they can legally get away with ignoring it, they will. I feel like a goddamn broken record.
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    If they did it correctly then they would keep a reference count to that the stuff only gets deleted when the last reference to it gets deleted. It would kind of function like hard links on linux file systems.
  - derefr 14y ago
    > As soon as a file goes public This is the important bit. Files can be shared between private groups, using Mega as an intermediary, without them ever becoming indexed on the public web. Previously, files shared in this manner could still be a target of a takedown, because Megaupload would know they had them, even if nobody else did. Now Mega can make a stronger guarantee about keeping this kind of sharing "safe", because they have no idea whether they're hosting this kind of file or not.
    - jakejake 14y ago
      I would think this type of sharing would not be as much of a concern for copyright holders since a private group is not really mass distribution. As soon as the sharing group got big enough to notice, then there could be agents in the group reporting infringement.
- soup10 14y ago
  However you feel about copyright, profitting off of the distribution of other peoples work, without their permission, is not something that should be encouraged or tolerated.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    Roughly speaking I agree with you, but where do you draw the line? If I download a movie illegally right now then chances are Google and Firefox are immediately benefiting from it, and then even further away are Microsoft (OS), hardware manufacturers, etc. who profited off enabling me to do this. Is the line about intent rather than technicality? For example how driving a bus that a drug dealer is on is not illegal, but driving the getaway car from a robbery is? If it is, then how does one prove that Dotcom wants to support copyright violation, rather than his official stance of just believing that there is a level past which he can not be expected to police his customers?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    What, in the same way that manufacturing syringes that will be used to mainline illegal narcotics should not be "encouraged or tolerated"?
    - soup10 14y ago
      It takes some twisted logic to think thats a valid analogy. Dropbox is a perfectly valid filehosting service because they take reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringement. Megaupload(and mega) is not, because it's run by a person who has no real interest in preventing copyright infringement, and has shown that he's more than willing to profit off it, while he pretends that he doesn't know it's occurring or can't prevent it.
      - danenania 14y ago
        Define 'reasonable measures'. People use Dropbox to share copyrighted material all the time. Ditto S3, gmail, external hard drives, and any file storage method in existence. Enforcement of the standard you're promoting would require pervasive surveillance of every data storage and transfer method in the world, and backdoor access for all forms of encryption. Freedom of information and communication is orders of magnitude more important for a healthy and free society than copyright of digital goods, and you can't have both--they are fundamentally incompatible.
cdr 14y ago
Copyright law can absolutely hinge on technical specifics. Look at network DVR services being forced to store a copy of a show per user in order to be found legal in the US.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Yeah, or the fact that Aereo has one antenna per user,

peawormsworth 14y ago

In order to maintain the plausible deniability, Mega cannot store an decryption passphrase. Meaning they will not have the links to the unencrypted files. As the URL will contain the passphrase within it. The only thing required to make this private is to plug a Tor hidden service onto the front end. That way the direct link to the data is not known by the download user and Mega will not store this link without losing plausible deniability. Win win. Bad part is that all downloads now have to go through Tor (slow).