|
Mr Sparkle
1,727 posts
39 months
|
When did this DOS attack happen was there a thread that pissed him off? Never heard this before.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,471 posts
128 months
|
JDRoest said: That's not really the reason. I've owned an online business that got knocked off once a year with a DDoS. We didn't have the resources to fend off an attack, and really just had to take it up the arse. I lost the business in the end, because of so many attacks. I would love to tell you that I made my fortune from the business but I didn't. I worked hard, year after year, invested my cash in the business, just so some f  ker on the other side of the planet could kill the business stone dead at will. And people had different reasons for the DDoS, whether it was an unpaid bill, a script kiddie showing their abilities, an Islamic hacker from Pakistan supporting his buddies in Iran (he was quite nice about it, and did apologise), and so forth. You name it, people took it out on our network. It was hard retaining customers and in the end quite futile. I wasted too many years of my life with it. Oh yeah, and the Met Police were always so interested every time...... So when some guy who orchestrated a DDoS himself gets f ked in the arse by the authorities, I'm all for it in a big way. f k him, and anyone who ever orchestrates a DDoS. And I don't care how innocent he is of these charges either. For all I care, Bubba can throw him down a flight of stairs whilst in jail. I hope he has a hard landing. And if his 'rights' get trampled on, f k them as well. Karma is a b h. man, you just want to shoot everyone in the head, donncha'...
|
|
|
Silent1
17,601 posts
104 months
|
Mr Sparkle said: When did this DOS attack happen was there a thread that pissed him off? Never heard this before. It was a bit more than DDOS, he also tried to blackmail the site and generally behaved like an inflated cock.
|
|
|
FourWheelDrift
56,486 posts
153 months
|
He's done to other sites as well, an ego even larger than his fat head.
Megaupload ransacking by the US is very bad but don't make Kim Schitz out as some kind of hero.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,980 posts
85 months
|
No hero but if the company was worth as he estimates in that video 1billion dollars the US and possibly NZ best win or they are in hock to a lawsuit to the tune of that amount I expect.
No legal expert but see no reason why he could not sue for a billion dollars if the case falls apart or they lose if he can prove that is what the situation has potentially cost him.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
thehawk
8,393 posts
76 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: No hero but if the company was worth as he estimates in that video 1billion dollars the US and possibly NZ best win or they are in hock to a lawsuit to the tune of that amount I expect. I'm no legal expert but I'm not even sure he can sue NZ for this, certainly he can't sue the US - sovereign immunity for both governments.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,980 posts
85 months
|
thehawk said: 'm no legal expert but I'm not even sure he can sue NZ for this, certainly he can't sue the US - sovereign immunity for both governments. Dunno. Possibly. Just saying that if he can they best win or he could come knocking for a stupid amount in damages which will not be a good thing for the FBI or anyone else involved.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
thehawk said: TallbutBuxomly said: No hero but if the company was worth as he estimates in that video 1billion dollars the US and possibly NZ best win or they are in hock to a lawsuit to the tune of that amount I expect. I'm no legal expert but I'm not even sure he can sue NZ for this, certainly he can't sue the US - sovereign immunity for both governments. NZ would have had to authorise the US action on their soil so there must be some liability there, especially since members of their judiciary are now saying the warrants were not legal.
|
|
|
Silent1
17,601 posts
104 months
|
Has this thread had some pruning? I'm sure there was a lot more on here re: Kimble.
|
|
|
Marf
22,907 posts
110 months
|
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/kim-dot...Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who currently stands accused by the US of copyright infringement and racketeering, told TorrentFreak that he has insider information implicating none other than Vice President of the United States Joe Biden in ordering the shutdown of Megaupload.Dotcom said the information from his unnamed source led his associates to search the publicly available White House visitor logs to find meetings between Biden and MPAA chief Chris Dodd, apparently a close friend of the vice president.What they found was a meeting at the White House on July 27, 2011 that included Barry Meyer, CEO of Warner Bros Entertainment; Brad Grey, CEO of Paramount Pictures; Chris Dodd, CEO of the MPAA; Jeff Blake, Vice Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment; Ronald Meyer, President Universal Studios; Michael O’Leary, MPAA Senior Executive Vice President for Global Policy and External Affairs; Rich Ross, Chairman of Walt Disney Studios at the time; and Michael Ellis, Managing Director MPA Asia Pacific, who is, according to Dotcom, "an extradition expert and former superintendent of the Hong Kong police."
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,980 posts
85 months
|
It really is going to get horribly messy for all involved.
|
|
|
London424
2,749 posts
44 months
|
You've got to enjoy it when Governments get involved and then caught with their trousers down.
|
|
|
Silent1
17,601 posts
104 months
|
The problem being if the VPOTUS did meet all the people wanting to butthurt megaupload?
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,980 posts
85 months
|
Silent1 said: The problem being if the VPOTUS did meet all the people wanting to butthurt megaupload? Implication being they had him put pressure on the correct people to shut down megaupload and have Kim arrested.
|
|
|
Silent1
17,601 posts
104 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: Silent1 said: The problem being if the VPOTUS did meet all the people wanting to butthurt megaupload? Implication being they had him put pressure on the correct people to shut down megaupload and have Kim arrested. And this is a surprise? In fact, is it even wrong legally? In effect it's lobbying and in the US of A the land of free trade and unlimited capitalism, surely having enough money to buy access to the VP/POTUS is just another benefit?
|
|
|
menguin
2,907 posts
90 months
|
smartypants said: We provide an internet business application, part of which allows our clients to upload and store digital assets. What if one of those assets happened to infringe some copyright? Would the US then come and remove all of our servers serving all of our clients? There are two possible reasons for that: 1. Most of your clients are law abiding and don't upload anything illegal, you have reasonable procedures in place to prevent/dissuade criminals from hosting on your site, and one person slips through. Outcome? The FBI stay in the US, and don't come knocking on your door. 2. You actively encourage hosting of illegal content, and make it easy and quick for people to do so - you also charge other people to watch that content. There is no argument to say that you were not complicit in the crime. Outcome? The feds interrupt your COD marathon. I don't see this as different to any other industry: Online casinos take people's money. Some of this might be laundered money. If a casino is making it easy for criminals to launder through their site, either through lax procedures or through encouraging them to do so, they get shut down. The onus is on the casino to identify and report any suspicious players they have. Similarly, if you allow people to host any content then you should at least have procedures in place to prevent, to the best of your ability, (whilst also not affecting the profitability/viability of your business) illegal content being hosted.
|
|
|
TallbutBuxomly
11,980 posts
85 months
|
menguin said: There are two possible reasons for that:
1. Most of your clients are law abiding and don't upload anything illegal, you have reasonable procedures in place to prevent/dissuade criminals from hosting on your site, and one person slips through. Outcome? The FBI stay in the US, and don't come knocking on your door.
2. You actively encourage hosting of illegal content, and make it easy and quick for people to do so - you also charge other people to watch that content. There is no argument to say that you were not complicit in the crime. Outcome? The feds interrupt your COD marathon.
I don't see this as different to any other industry: Online casinos take people's money. Some of this might be laundered money. If a casino is making it easy for criminals to launder through their site, either through lax procedures or through encouraging them to do so, they get shut down. The onus is on the casino to identify and report any suspicious players they have. Similarly, if you allow people to host any content then you should at least have procedures in place to prevent, to the best of your ability, (whilst also not affecting the profitability/viability of your business) illegal content being hosted. If what Kim says in the video is true and accurate then he abided by and more so the rules put in place. He allowed all copyright holders in the music film etc industry direct access to remove any copyright material they found on his website themselves meaning they didn't even have to send in requests etc like they do with other webhosts. They never contacted him to complain they never took legal action against him etc. He exceeded industry standard on copyright infringement by making it easier than anyone else by giving the copyright holders direct access to his servers. He had huge amounts of traffic through his site and he cannot police everything people place on his website because of privacy laws and just the amount of traffic. The site made it very clear it was not be used for copyright infringement.
|
|
|
bicycleshorts
1,562 posts
30 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: If what Kim says in the video is true and accurate then he abided by and more so the rules put in place. He allowed all copyright holders in the music film etc industry direct access to remove any copyright material they found on his website themselves meaning they didn't even have to send in requests etc like they do with other webhosts.
They never contacted him to complain they never took legal action against him etc. He exceeded industry standard on copyright infringement by making it easier than anyone else by giving the copyright holders direct access to his servers.
He had huge amounts of traffic through his site and he cannot police everything people place on his website because of privacy laws and just the amount of traffic. The site made it very clear it was not be used for copyright infringement. I read somewhere (possibly here), that the way their hosting worked, they would only store one copy of every file uploaded, checked against a file hash. If the copyright holder complained about a link, they would remove that link but not the specific file (or any of the other links). That could be wrong, but it would certainly make sense from a resource management point of view.
|
|
|
TKF
4,474 posts
104 months
|
TallbutBuxomly said: If what Kim says in the video is true and accurate then he abided by and more so the rules put in place. There is definitely 100% no chance whatsoever that he lied in the video to save his skin.
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,976 posts
72 months
|
TKF said: TallbutBuxomly said: If what Kim says in the video is true and accurate then he abided by and more so the rules put in place. There is definitely 100% no chance whatsoever that he lied in the video to save his skin. I'm not sure bulls tting in a news interview would 'save his skin'. What he said seemed to be true. They certainly had a very streamlined mechanism for removing links reported as copyright infringing and they certainly had an official policy banning copyrighted content. He neglected to mention that removing a link did not remove the content and pretending to be ignorant that it was jammed full of copyrighted material is not all that convincing. I'm not sure it matters that they were hosting a bunch of copyrighted stuff and that Kim has a history of being a bit of a dick. Still doesn't justify the actions taken against him.
|
|
