3 ms·

I said this on the last thread about Mega. I'm fairly sure that the encryption is not to protect your data from them and others, its to protect them from your d

I said this on the last thread about Mega. I'm fairly sure that the encryption is not to protect your data from them and others, its to protect them from your data by giving them an optionality to deny any knowledge of what they are hosting. It is in there interest to do de-duplication and as they are still required to remove files under the DMCA it will just mean that multiple people loose there infringing files at once. All someone then needs to do to upload the file again is change one byte. The encryption also stops them from being able to implement a back door for the content industry to police the site themselves as was the case with megaupload.

moystard 14y ago
Was about to state the same. The encryption is Dotcom's shield against future lawsuits toward himself or Mega. The simple fact that it is technically 'impossible' to know what users store on their servers protect them from the megaupload situation happening once again. As read elsewhere, do not store any confidential file on mega: the encryption does not protect the user, but the platform itself.
- thoughtcriminal 14y ago
  Essentially, MEGA is future-proof. In this political climate, I'll take it.
roc 14y ago
If each file is getting it's own key, that is, if THEHOBBIT.mp4 properly generates a unique key each time it's uploaded by each user, would there even be much overlap in Alice's and Bob's file data as hosted on Mega? If the file blocks are being encrypted with a unique key before they're uploaded, you seemingly wouldn't have to alter any bytes of a file that got hit with a DMCA request. You'd just have to re-upload it. If every copy of THEHOBBIT.mp4 resulted in the same data after it was encrypted, if it was a predictable transformation, I don't see how any court would give Mega a pass for not 'knowing' what the contents of an uploaded file were. They'd not only know they'd be explicitly generating a fingerprint of that unique file in creating the encrypted version. It'd be irrelevant as a legal shield.
- B-Con 14y ago
  When the signature is generated, they have no idea how close one file is to another file. So long as various copies of THEHOBBIT.mp4 continue to be uploaded, modified by just one byte, user will be able to evade detection, even if Mega keeps a "known bad" list of signatures.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - roc 14y ago
    The practice of having to create and share one-byte-different copies of files would be enough to kill this service for the users that Dotcom professes to be enabling, in thumbing his nose at the authorities. The biggest user-facing problem with torrents today is that it takes too long to find 'the right' or 'good' files. Ones that aren't loaded up with malware, or mislabeled, or encoded poorly, etc. Having to push various one-byte-difference copies of files is going to explode the search problem for users. And, once found, 'good' files couldn't be popularized, lest they be pulled down. And once one user scored a 'good' file, they wouldn't be able to share it directly through the service to even known associates due that same universal blacklist. The usability on such a system sounds like a wet-dream for driving people into the arms of for-pay alternatives. Further, having a fingerprint on every file you upload is a direct violation of the marketing pitch of security and anonymity that Dotcom's making to the 'legit' crowd. Consider if there were a security breach at a popular online service and a text file of compromised accounts released. The FBI could upload a copy and then subpoena Mega for information on every user who had that same copy. Sure, people could alter their files themselves, but who wants to put up with that kind of cognitive overhead to prevent malicious prosecution/persecution?
- visarga 14y ago
  You can't have both data deduplication and protection from MAFIAA. Deduplication will sabotage the ability of the site to claim ignorance. Their clinging on deduplication proves they are not serious about anonymity and safety.

moystard 14y ago

Was about to state the same. The encryption is Dotcom's shield against future lawsuits toward himself or Mega. The simple fact that it is technically 'impossible' to know what users store on their servers protect them from the megaupload situation happening once again. As read elsewhere, do not store any confidential file on mega: the encryption does not protect the user, but the platform itself.

thoughtcriminal 14y ago
Essentially, MEGA is future-proof. In this political climate, I'll take it.

roc 14y ago

If each file is getting it's own key, that is, if THEHOBBIT.mp4 properly generates a unique key each time it's uploaded by each user, would there even be much overlap in Alice's and Bob's file data as hosted on Mega? If the file blocks are being encrypted with a unique key before they're uploaded, you seemingly wouldn't have to alter any bytes of a file that got hit with a DMCA request. You'd just have to re-upload it. If every copy of THEHOBBIT.mp4 resulted in the same data after it was encrypted, if it was a predictable transformation, I don't see how any court would give Mega a pass for not 'knowing' what the contents of an uploaded file were. They'd not only know they'd be explicitly generating a fingerprint of that unique file in creating the encrypted version. It'd be irrelevant as a legal shield.

B-Con 14y ago
When the signature is generated, they have no idea how close one file is to another file. So long as various copies of THEHOBBIT.mp4 continue to be uploaded, modified by just one byte, user will be able to evade detection, even if Mega keeps a "known bad" list of signatures.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- roc 14y ago
  The practice of having to create and share one-byte-different copies of files would be enough to kill this service for the users that Dotcom professes to be enabling, in thumbing his nose at the authorities. The biggest user-facing problem with torrents today is that it takes too long to find 'the right' or 'good' files. Ones that aren't loaded up with malware, or mislabeled, or encoded poorly, etc. Having to push various one-byte-difference copies of files is going to explode the search problem for users. And, once found, 'good' files couldn't be popularized, lest they be pulled down. And once one user scored a 'good' file, they wouldn't be able to share it directly through the service to even known associates due that same universal blacklist. The usability on such a system sounds like a wet-dream for driving people into the arms of for-pay alternatives. Further, having a fingerprint on every file you upload is a direct violation of the marketing pitch of security and anonymity that Dotcom's making to the 'legit' crowd. Consider if there were a security breach at a popular online service and a text file of compromised accounts released. The FBI could upload a copy and then subpoena Mega for information on every user who had that same copy. Sure, people could alter their files themselves, but who wants to put up with that kind of cognitive overhead to prevent malicious prosecution/persecution?
visarga 14y ago
You can't have both data deduplication and protection from MAFIAA. Deduplication will sabotage the ability of the site to claim ignorance. Their clinging on deduplication proves they are not serious about anonymity and safety.