4 ms·

Here's the part I don't get: IP addresses, file ownership and payment info are stored unencrypted (http://bit.ly/VswkJi http://bit.ly/VswkJi). If someone or so

Here's the part I don't get: IP addresses, file ownership and payment info are stored unencrypted (http://bit.ly/VswkJi http://bit.ly/VswkJi). If someone or something is advertising they have a trove of copyrighted material, the standard procedure for law enforcement is to subpoena the cloud provider for the IP of the user, then the ISP for the subscriber's physical name/address. When they confiscate their computer they'll find the data on there. What is to stop this from happening with Mega? Do they not have to respond to these subpoenas in New Zealand? What if CP is involved - will they respond then, even if not compelled by the law? I don't understand how end-to-end encryption protects illegal file sharers if the file ownership information is stored unencrypted. I understand Mega's value prop is encryption, NOT illegal sharing, but my question remains.

tomhenderson 14y ago
For a server in New Zealand I assume it would be covered by our three strikes law (http://3strikes.net.nz http://3strikes.net.nz). Rights holders can send infringement notices via the users ISP for a $25 fee. After three notices (from the same copyright holder) they can then take you to our copyright tribunal for damages. From what I've heard some notices are being sent out, but RIAA have been complaining that the $25 fee is too high.
- cantbecool 14y ago
  Did you mean too low?
  - jmaygarden 14y ago
    No, RIAA has to pay the $25 fee to send an infringement notification. Therefore, they want the fee to be lower.
    - mcintyre1994 14y ago
      What they really mean is they want to have automated systems do it for them without worrying.
      - ghubbard 14y ago
        If each infringement "costs" them $150,000 then $25 is a small price to pay...
        dacahill 14y ago
        This is NOT America .. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5887377/First-copyright-infringement-notices-issued http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5887377/Fir... http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8242164/Downloader-fined-616-in-first-Skynet-case http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8242164/Dow... $ 25.00 can be considered a rather high fee for those sort of returns [I think].
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
agopaul 14y ago
Encryption is only a legal defense for Mega and their partners, but i'm really waiting to see how the Dotcom campain will change after the first bust
- telecuda 14y ago
  I believe encryption will buy them some time until the law catches up, then poof.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    What do you expect the law to prohibit? Encrypted data? The issue with file lockers is this: The service that actually hosts the file doesn't know what it is. It would be totally impractical for e.g. YouTube to preemptively screen all uploads for infringement by hand. It's just not economically possible. So YouTube has a lot of infringing stuff on it. They also have a screening system which does fingerprinting etc., which keeps a lot of infringing stuff off (and also keeps plenty of non-infringing stuff off when there are false positives.) But you can't even do that when your service is general purpose rather than specific to video. You don't know what a password-protected RAR archive has in it, you can't fingerprint it. So there is a ton more infringing stuff on the general purpose sites. The file locker takes it down as soon as the copyright holders identify it, but then the infringers just upload it again in ten minutes. So you say, go after the uploaders. Okay, they're in non-extradition countries or are using anonymizers. Now what? There are two fundamental facts that make stopping copyright infringement extraordinarily difficult: First, sending bits is very, very much cheaper than identifying what they represent and whether it's infringing. Second, normal law-abiding people have a legitimate interest in the privacy of their communications. In other words, good people need the same encryption that bad people abuse, and even if they didn't, there is too much volume to economically sort it by hand anyway, and the algorithmic methods are unreasonably inaccurate. (See: huge list of all the stupid nonsense YouTube ContentID does.) So we have a problem without a good solution. What law do you propose could fix it?
    - telecuda 14y ago
j_s 14y ago
Why is bit.ly showing up so often these days? https://mega.co.nz/#help_security https://mega.co.nz/#help_security
- kami8845 14y ago
  because HN's markup is stupid
  - j_s 14y ago
    Hmmm, I'm afraid I' going to need a bit more detail than that... it's been fine for years and nothing's changed that I know of.
    - nolok 14y ago
      Because dumber people are using HN now ? Somehow they can make links to bitly but they cannot use the exact same "markup" to link to the direct url. Especially given that there is no markup for url per see, you just type it ...
wmf 14y ago
If someone or something is advertising they have a trove of copyrighted material, the standard procedure for law enforcement is to subpoena the cloud provider for the IP of the user, then the ISP for the subscriber's physical name/address. When they confiscate their computer they'll find the data on there. Has that ever happened in a copyright case? I get the impression that police are too busy with actual crime to investigate anything less than mega-size infringement.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  They go after the so-called release groups, too, if the news is to be believed.
- jborden13 14y ago
  Yes, frequently. Typically media does not cover smaller instances of a copyright investigation and thus the impression that this only happens in mega-sized instances.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>I don't understand how end-to-end encryption protects illegal file sharers if the file ownership information is stored unencrypted. It doesn't. Who said it was supposed to? In theory it protects Mega from the argument that they know what the data is and aren't stopping it, because now they can't know, but YouTube isn't encrypted and nobody expects for them to be shut down, so I'm not sure to what extent that is really even necessary.

tomhenderson 14y ago

For a server in New Zealand I assume it would be covered by our three strikes law (http://3strikes.net.nz http://3strikes.net.nz). Rights holders can send infringement notices via the users ISP for a $25 fee. After three notices (from the same copyright holder) they can then take you to our copyright tribunal for damages. From what I've heard some notices are being sent out, but RIAA have been complaining that the $25 fee is too high.

cantbecool 14y ago
Did you mean too low?
- jmaygarden 14y ago
  No, RIAA has to pay the $25 fee to send an infringement notification. Therefore, they want the fee to be lower.
  - mcintyre1994 14y ago
    What they really mean is they want to have automated systems do it for them without worrying.
    - ghubbard 14y ago
      If each infringement "costs" them $150,000 then $25 is a small price to pay...
      - dacahill 14y ago
        This is NOT America .. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5887377/First-copyright-infringement-notices-issued http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5887377/Fir... http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8242164/Downloader-fined-616-in-first-Skynet-case http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8242164/Dow... $ 25.00 can be considered a rather high fee for those sort of returns [I think].
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

agopaul 14y ago

Encryption is only a legal defense for Mega and their partners, but i'm really waiting to see how the Dotcom campain will change after the first bust

telecuda 14y ago
I believe encryption will buy them some time until the law catches up, then poof.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  What do you expect the law to prohibit? Encrypted data? The issue with file lockers is this: The service that actually hosts the file doesn't know what it is. It would be totally impractical for e.g. YouTube to preemptively screen all uploads for infringement by hand. It's just not economically possible. So YouTube has a lot of infringing stuff on it. They also have a screening system which does fingerprinting etc., which keeps a lot of infringing stuff off (and also keeps plenty of non-infringing stuff off when there are false positives.) But you can't even do that when your service is general purpose rather than specific to video. You don't know what a password-protected RAR archive has in it, you can't fingerprint it. So there is a ton more infringing stuff on the general purpose sites. The file locker takes it down as soon as the copyright holders identify it, but then the infringers just upload it again in ten minutes. So you say, go after the uploaders. Okay, they're in non-extradition countries or are using anonymizers. Now what? There are two fundamental facts that make stopping copyright infringement extraordinarily difficult: First, sending bits is very, very much cheaper than identifying what they represent and whether it's infringing. Second, normal law-abiding people have a legitimate interest in the privacy of their communications. In other words, good people need the same encryption that bad people abuse, and even if they didn't, there is too much volume to economically sort it by hand anyway, and the algorithmic methods are unreasonably inaccurate. (See: huge list of all the stupid nonsense YouTube ContentID does.) So we have a problem without a good solution. What law do you propose could fix it?
  - telecuda 14y ago

j_s 14y ago

Why is bit.ly showing up so often these days? https://mega.co.nz/#help_security https://mega.co.nz/#help_security

kami8845 14y ago
because HN's markup is stupid
- j_s 14y ago
  Hmmm, I'm afraid I' going to need a bit more detail than that... it's been fine for years and nothing's changed that I know of.
  - nolok 14y ago
    Because dumber people are using HN now ? Somehow they can make links to bitly but they cannot use the exact same "markup" to link to the direct url. Especially given that there is no markup for url per see, you just type it ...

wmf 14y ago

If someone or something is advertising they have a trove of copyrighted material, the standard procedure for law enforcement is to subpoena the cloud provider for the IP of the user, then the ISP for the subscriber's physical name/address. When they confiscate their computer they'll find the data on there. Has that ever happened in a copyright case? I get the impression that police are too busy with actual crime to investigate anything less than mega-size infringement.

nitrogen 14y ago
They go after the so-called release groups, too, if the news is to be believed.
jborden13 14y ago
Yes, frequently. Typically media does not cover smaller instances of a copyright investigation and thus the impression that this only happens in mega-sized instances.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>I don't understand how end-to-end encryption protects illegal file sharers if the file ownership information is stored unencrypted. It doesn't. Who said it was supposed to? In theory it protects Mega from the argument that they know what the data is and aren't stopping it, because now they can't know, but YouTube isn't encrypted and nobody expects for them to be shut down, so I'm not sure to what extent that is really even necessary.