buy prednisone

Archive for » April 15th, 2012«

Activists plan week of protests against new House cybersecurity legislation

@ the hill

In an attempt to re-create the backlash that killed anti-piracy legislation earlier this year, activists are planning a “week of action” beginning on Monday to protest the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

Many of the groups leading the protest are veterans of the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Free Press, Fight for the Future and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

 

Brock Meeks, a spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the protest will rely on similar tactics as the ones used to derail the anti-piracy bills, potentially including petitions and phone calls to members of Congress.

But he said the groups have no plans to blackout websites, which was a central component of the anti-piracy protests.

“The aim of this week of action is to raise awareness about the serious concerns we have about CISPA,” said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-director of Fight for the Future.

She said the protest will include a Twitter campaign directed at members of Congress.

Cheng and Meeks said more details about the protests will be available on Monday.

CISPA, which is authored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would tear down legal barriers that discourage companies from sharing information about cyber attacks.

The measure has more than 100 co-sponsors and is expected to come to the House floor for a vote during the week of April 23.

The activists are protesting the bill because they fear it would undermine the privacy of Internet users. They argue the broad language of the bill could lead companies to hand over information unrelated to cyber attacks, including users’ names, addresses and Internet activity.

They are also concerned because the bill would give military spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency, access to the information the companies share with the government.

The House Intelligence Committee created a Twitter account for the first time last week to try to push back against criticism of the bill. Many of the first tweets on the account have focused on trying to dispel the notion that CISPA is similar to SOPA.

It is unclear whether the protests will attract the same level of attention that forced Congress to abandon the anti-piracy bills in January. Major websites such as Google and Wikipedia participated in the anti-piracy protests, but many Web companies, including Facebook, actively support CISPA.

Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she is hopeful the protest will attract more attention to the information-sharing provisions of the bill.

“How far they’re willing to amend it often reflects how intense the criticism is,” Reitman said. “Gathering a lot of force right now could cause them to amend or give up entirely on the bill.”

Category: Uncategorized  Tags: , , ,  Comments off

Man fights against evidence obtained by drone surveillance without a warrant

By Jason Koebler @usnews

The tiny town of Lakota, N.D., is quickly becoming a key testing ground for the legality of the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement after one of its residents became the first American citizen to be arrested with the help of a Predator surveillance drone.

The bizarre case started when six cows wandered onto Rodney Brossart’s 3,000 acre farm. Brossart, an alleged anti-government “sovereignist,” believed he should have been able to keep the cows, so he and two family members chase police off his land with high powered rifles.

After a 16-hour standoff, the Grand Forks police department SWAT team, armed with a search warrant, used an agreement they’ve had with Homeland Security for about three years, and called in an unmanned aerial vehicle to pinpoint Brossart’s location on the ranch. The SWAT team stormed in and arrested Brossart on charges of terrorizing a sheriff, theft, criminal mischief, and other charges, according to documents.

Brossart says he “had no clue” they used a drone during the standoff until months after his arrest.

“We’re not laying over here playing dead on it,” says Brossart, who is scheduled to appear in court on April 30. He believes what the SWAT team did was “definitely” illegal.

“We’re dealing with it, we’ve got a couple different motions happening in court fighting [the drone use].”

Repeated calls to Brossart’s attorney were not returned. Douglas Manbeck, who is representing the state of North Dakota in the case, says the drone was used after warrants were already issued.

“The alleged crimes were already committed long before a drone was even thought of being used,” he says. “It was only used to help assure there weren’t weapons and to make [the arrest] safer for both the Brossarts and law enforcement.”

“I know it’s a touchy subject for anyone to feel that drones are in the air watching them, but I don’t think there was any misuse in this case,” he added.

While there’s no precedent for the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement, John Villasenor, an expert on information gathering and drone use with the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says he’d be “floored” if the court throws the case out. Using a drone is no different than using a helicopter, he says.

“It may have been the first time a drone was used to make an arrest, but it’s certainly not going to be the last,” Villasenor says. “I would be very surprised if someone were able to successfully launch a legal challenge [in Brossart's case].”

[Expert: Ability to Disable Drones Needed Before They Become Terrorist Weapons]

Villasenor points to two Supreme Court cases—California v. Ciraolo in 1986 and Florida v. Riley in 1989— that allow law enforcement to use “public navigable airspace, in a physically nonintrusive manner” to gather evidence to make an arrest.

By summertime, there may be many more cases like Brossart’s—on May 14, the government must begin issuing permits for drone use by law enforcement.

Currently, about 300 law enforcement agencies and research institutions—including the Grand Forks SWAT team—have “temporary licenses” from the FAA to use drones. Currently, drones are most commonly used by Homeland Security along America’s borders.

Bill Macki, head of the Grand Forks SWAT team, says Brossart’s case was the first and only time they’ve used a drone to help make an arrest—they tried one other time (to search for an armed, suicidal individual), but gusty weather conditions made navigation impossible.

[The Coming Drone Revolution: What You Should Know]

With a population of less than 70,000, it doesn’t make sense for the Grand Forks police department to own a helicopter, but the ability to call in a drone when necessary can provide a similar purpose.

“The terrain we were working with was very large and agricultural—several hundred acres of very flat farmland made it difficult to set up a perimeter to ensure people didn’t make it off the property,” he says. “I think drones are definitely a useful tool, their effectiveness in rural operations is exceptional, they keep tactical operations as safe as possible.”

Macki is confident his team is trained to legally use drones.

“We’ve had a relationship with Predator operations for three years, we’ve provided training for them and received training on the basic capabilities of the predator,” he says. “We’ve established a relationship with [Homeland Security]. Through that relationship, we’ve learned drones’ capabilities and when we can or cannot use a drone.”

Category: Uncategorized  Tags: , , , , ,  Comments off

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google co-founder

@gaurdian

Sergey Brin says he and Google co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create their search giant if the internet was dominated by Facebook. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In an interview with the Guardian, Brin warned there were “very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world”. “I am more worried than I have been in the past,” he said. “It’s scary.”

The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry’s attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of “restrictive” walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.

The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behind Google’s partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns about censorship and cyber-attacks. He said five years ago he did not believe China or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. “I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle,” he said.

He said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, but warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and balkanising the web.

“There’s a lot to be lost,” he said. “For example, all the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers. You can’t search it.”

Brin’s criticism of Facebook is likely to be controversial, with the social network approaching an estimated $100bn (£64bn) flotation. Google’s upstart rival has seen explosive growth: it has signed up half of Americans with computer access and more than 800 million members worldwide.

Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. “You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive,” he said. “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”

He criticised Facebook for not making it easy for users to switch their data to other services. “Facebook has been sucking down Gmail contacts for many years,” he said.

Brin’s comments come on the first day of a week-long Guardian investigation of the intensifying battle for control of the internet being fought across the globe between governments, companies, military strategists, activists and hackers.

From the attempts made by Hollywood to push through legislation allowing pirate websites to be shut down, to the British government’s plans to monitor social media and web use, the ethos of openness championed by the pioneers of the internet and worldwide web is being challenged on a number of fronts.

In China, which now has more internet users than any other country, the government recently introduced new “real identity” rules in a bid to tame the boisterous microblogging scene. In Russia, there are powerful calls to rein in a blogosphere blamed for fomenting a wave of anti-Vladimir Putin protests. It has been reported that Iran is planning to introduce a sealed “national internet” from this summer.

Ricken Patel, co-founder of Avaaz, the 14 million-strong online activist network which has been providing communication equipment and training to Syrian activists, echoed Brin’s warning: “We’ve seen a massive attack on the freedom of the web. Governments are realising the power of this medium to organise people and they are trying to clamp down across the world, not just in places like China and North Korea; we’re seeing bills in the United States, in Italy, all across the world.”

Writing in the Guardian on Monday, outspoken Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei says the Chinese government’s attempts to control the internet will ultimately be doomed to failure. “In the long run,” he says, “they must understand it’s not possible for them to control the internet unless they shut it off – and they can’t live with the consequences of that.”

Amid mounting concern over the militarisation of the internet and claims – denied by Beijing – that China has mounted numerous cyber-attacks on US military and corporate targets, he said it would be hugely difficult for any government to defend its online “territory”.

“If you compare the internet to the physical world, there really aren’t any walls between countries,” he said. “If Canada wanted to send tanks into the US there is nothing stopping them and it’s the same on the internet. It’s hopeless to try to control the internet.”

He reserved his harshest words for the entertainment industry, which he said was “shooting itself in the foot, or maybe worse than in the foot” by lobbying for legislation to block sites offering pirate material.

He said the Sopa and Pipa bills championed by the film and music industries would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.

“I haven’t tried it for many years but when you go on a pirate website, you choose what you like; it downloads to the device of your choice and it will just work – and then when you have to jump through all these hoops [to buy legitimate content], the walls created are disincentives for people to buy,” he said.

Brin acknowledged that some people were anxious about the amount of their data that was now in the reach of US authorities because it sits on Google’s servers. He said the company was periodically forced to hand over data and sometimes prevented by legal restrictions from even notifying users that it had done so.

He said: “We push back a lot; we are able to turn down a lot of these requests. We do everything possible to protect the data. If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great … We’re doing it as well as can be done.”

Category: Uncategorized  Tags: , ,  Comments off

Western Establishment refuses to admit reality of prohibition

By. J.G Vibes

This past weekend at “The Summit of the Americas” in Columbia, President Barrack Obama met with 33 different heads of state to discuss issues which are important to the diplomacy between these many countries.  Much to the Obama administrations dismay, the main topic at this summit was the drug war, or more specifically ending the drug war by legalizing drugs.

 

The western establishment has successfully painted the legalization movement as a bunch of disgruntled hippies who just want to get high, however, like many political memes this statement offers a gross oversimplification of the real topic at hand.  Now, with many of the countries close political allies suggesting legalization that myth is starting to hold less and less weight among the general public.  These foreign politicians are obviously not demanding a change to drug policy because they want to get high, politicians aren’t subject to their own laws, so they can get high all they want.  What they are pointing out are the hidden costs of the drug war and the impact that it has on innocent people, which the western establishment refuses to address.

 

These costs aren’t so much hidden, they are obvious to anyone who has studied the history of alcohol prohibition, but they are hidden in the sense that they are never talked about, and to mention these issues in the political arena is completely taboo.  First off, the war on drugs has failed miserably at its stated goal of reducing drug addiction.  This is no mistake, like many ideas to come out of Washington, the stated goal of this project is extremely different from its actual goals.  If we want to discover the real motives behind these measures, we must look at what they actually accomplish instead of just accepting the governments cover story at face value, like all too many people do.

 

What the drug war actually accomplishes is the establishment of black markets and gangs, the erosion of personal liberties, the expansion of the prison system and prison population as well as a constant excuse for frivolous government spending.  This hypothesis has been tested time and time again, anytime throughout history where a ruling power has prohibited the consumption or possession of ANY ITEM WHATSOEVER.  This process was made quite clear during the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s.  As we saw with alcohol prohibition, making a substance illegal does nothing to stifle its use, but simply creates outlaws out of nonviolent people and foments a culture of violence that the rest of society is forced to deal with, even if they have no interest at all in the banned substance.

 

Alcohol prohibition was successful at creating and empowering gangsters like Al Capone, who were many times assisted by an equally menacing and corrupt police force that continued to multiply in size so they could handle the persecution of nonviolent people who took part in the forbidden practice of drinking alcohol.  Although as I mentioned prohibition even put the nondrinkers of the time into serious danger, as now they ran the risk of getting caught up in the crossfire of a gang turf war or police shootout.  Not to mention the emotional torment of watching friends and family have their lives turned upside down due to a nonviolent crime.  Much like today, during the times of prohibition almost everyone was acquainted with at least one person who was facing some sort of legal trouble for a nonviolent offense.

 

So why haven’t we learned our lesson after all of this madness?  Well sadly, most of us do know the truth about prohibition, even those in government.  Well then if that is the case, then why haven’t these laws been repealed?  A Freudian slip made by Hillary Clinton a few months back can give us some insight into the answer of this question.  If I myself wasn’t facing drug charges, with many nonviolent friends in cages as well, there is no doubt that I would find this absolutely hilarious.  Unfortunately, since I grasp the reality of this situation that were all in, my sense of humor is very dull on this subject.

 

This past January, Clinton was interviewed during a visit to Mexico, where the violent reality of drug cartels has pushed legalization into the spotlight.  During the interview, Clinton was asked this very question:  “In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?”

 

Her response:

 

“I don’t think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don’t think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.”

 

Real quickly, lets point out that she started telling the truth then caught herself and broke off into a sentence that had no relation to the one prior to it, or any real relation to the question at al.  This is an obvious backtrack on where her statement was going and a typical move that we see from politicians every time they open their mouths.  Realizing that she made a vital error answering the question she unloads fallacy after fallacy, appeal to fear, appeal to guilt, and neglected aspect.  She immediately jumps to villainize drug dealers (who wouldn’t exist without prohibition), then she reaches for the “save the children” guilt trip, which she repeats multiple times.  What is very interesting here is that she mentioned Mexico’s drug problem as being relatively new, but failed to link the escalation of the drug war and government actions as possible causal factors.  I’m also sure that she was safe to lowball the actual length of Mexico’s drug problem, that way it didn’t directly line up with the establishment of drug prohibition.

 

Sadly, as Clinton said “there is just too much money in it” for the government to legalize drugs.  They benefit greatly from the war on drugs as Eric Blair of Activist Post recently pointed out in his article “10 Ways the War on Drugs is a Wild Success”.  With so much power and money at stake for the western establishment, Obama replied to world leaders this weekend by saying that he basically doesn’t mind talking about drug legalization but its not going to happen.  Again, I would be laughing if this was a laughing matter.

 

Until we come to the understanding that it is prohibition that is actually causing the violence¸ cartelization and addiction problems that are being experienced by the people of this earth,  we will be running around in circles debating how to tweak the policy when it is actually the very existence of the policy itself which is preventing us from making any progress.  However, the fact that the drug war is becoming so unpopular in other parts of the world can signify a changing of the tides in relation to this issue and can add more credibility to a movement that has been struggling to be taken seriously in the mainstream dialogue.

 

This article originally appeared at Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance

J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist — with an established record label. In addition to featuring a wide variety of activist information, his company Good Vibes Promotions hosts politically charged electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his new book Alchemy of the Modern Renaissance, at his website www.aotmr.com.

US allies call for drug legalization at south american summit

@aljazeera

The Summit of the Americas, normally a subdued tri-annual gathering of regional leaders, could be more interesting than usual this year, as right-wing governments are set to clash with their US allies over the war on drugs.

An increasingly large chorus of nations – ravaged by trafficking and violence – say it’s now time to re-think international drug policy. As the corrupting power of cartels grows across Mexico and Central America, and as the body count rises, legalisation needs to be seriously discussed as an alternative to militarisation, regional leaders say.

It isn’t a message US President Barack Obama wants to hear when he arrives in Cartagena, Colombia, to meet 33 heads of state on April 14.

“When the word legalisation is uttered, it raises a red flag for the [US] administration,” Peter Reuter, a drug policy expert at the University of Maryland, told Al Jazeera.

Legalisation, or decriminalisation, is often associated with liberal activists in North America - the pot smoking, hippy, free-love kind of crowd. Current calls, however, are coming from some of the region’s hardliners.

Conservatives want change

Guatemala’s President Otto Perez Molina, a former general during the country’s “dirty war”, came to power promising an “iron fist” against delinquency. He recently called the war on drugs a failure and argued that “consumption and production should be legalised” within certain limits.

Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia, and arguably Washington’s closest regional ally, has called for “a new approach” that would “take away the violent profit that comes with drug trafficking”.

“If that means legalising and the world thinks that’s the solution, I will welcome it,” said Santos, a former defence minister responsible for battling leftist rebels and drug traffickers in a war with massive human rights abuses.

Click here for our special coverage on the drugs war

Cynthia McClintock, director of George Washington University’s Latin American Studies programme, said recent statements are “the beginning of a paradigm shift”.

“I think it’s really significant that countries aligned with the US are taking these positions,” she told Al Jazeera. “From Guatemala in particular, it was totally unexpected.”

Supporters of a new approach aren’t just conservatives. Military officers, many coming directly from the field “who have personally experienced the futility of fighting a war against a global commodities market”, are leading calls for reform, said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a US group pushing for alternatives to the war on drugs.

“Social conservatism of militaries in the region had barred a broader conversation on reform,” Nadelmann told Al Jazeera. “But the opportunities for men [from security forces or militaries] to be corrupted [by drug money] and the futility of employing the military in this area” has led to a change of heart from hardened leaders including Molina and Santos, he said.

Leftists seem to support status quo

The presidents of Mexico, El Salvador and Costa Rica have also voiced support for an overhaul of the drug war, or even some form of legalisation. Others including Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua are against legalisation or a policy overhaul.

“It is leftist governments, [particularly in] Cuba and Nicaragua, who are in many respects the US’ closest drug war allies,” Nadelmann said. “[Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez tries to take every opportunity to poke the US, but on this issue he has been quiet. You wonder if [due to his cancer treatment] the guy is going to need medical marijuana soon,” Nadelmann joked.

On a visit to Central America and Mexico last month, US Vice-President Joe Biden said: “There’s no possibility the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalisation.”

He did, however, say that it was a topic “worth discussing”.

Some analysts see that caveat as a softening of the US line. “That comment was widely reported throughout Latin America,” Nadelmann said. “He may not have intended to open the debate as he did, but this [legalisation] is now a legitimate topic for discussion.”

‘This is a crisis’

Drug trafficking and violence are nothing new in Latin America. But since the end of 2006, when Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon declared a frontal assault on cartels, violence has escalated to new heights.

Compounding public discontent, corruption within security forces fuelled by narco-dollars is undermining confidence in basic state institutions. In Mexico, for example, trust in local police forces has dropped from 50 per cent in 2007, at the beginning of the war, to 35 per cent in 2011, according to a Gallup poll.

In Depth: More from Chris Arsenault
Narco elite vs oligrachy in Guatemala
Kidnappings rock Mexico’s docs
In Jurarez, women just disappear
Invest in ‘the world’s most violent city’
US-trained cartel terrorises mexico

“I don’t use the word crisis much, but this is a crisis,” Reuter said. About 50,000 people have died in Mexico alone since 2006 and the situation in Guatemala and Honduras is far worse. Some regions have casualty rates comparable to war zones such as Afghanistan or Iraq.

This situation, where beheaded bodies are dumped in the streets, massacres are common and cartels openly flaunt the authority of state officials, could be driving the new push for legalisation or decriminalisation.

In 2010 alone, the US federal government spent more then $15bn on the drug war, or about $500 every second, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Changing attitudes

It was now-disgraced President Richard Nixon who coined the term “war on drugs” in 1971. Since then, the drug war has cost more than one trillion dollars, the Associated Press reported in 2010. Hundreds of thousands of lives have also been lost. Observers are split on whether the goal of the programme was actually battling drug cultivation, or if the real aim was the projection of US military power in the region.

Regardless, attitudes towards drugs are changing in the US itself. In 1969, when Gallup first asked about legalising marijuana, only 12 per cent favoured such a move, while 84 per cent were opposed. Support for legalisation remained around 25 per cent from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s. In 2011, for the first time, support for legalisation among US respondents passed the crucial threshold of 50 per cent, according to Gallup’s annual crime survey.

“There have been some pretty dramatic shifts in the American electorate, at least towards the decriminalisation of marijuana,” McClintock said, adding that Washington DC, where she lives, has decriminalised the drug, at least when used for its medicinal benefits.

She isn’t sure why Obama refuses to move the national discussion on drugs towards legalisation or decriminalisation, especially considering the disproportionate numbers of African American men who are currently in US jails for minor drug offences as “one would think this would be an issue close to Obama’s heart”.


Latin America debates legalising marijuana

Three out of four in the US believe that the United States’ forty year “war against drugs” has failed, according to a 2008 poll from Zogby International and the Inter-American dialogue.

A long road

These latest calls from Guatemala and Colombia are not the first time influential leaders have challenged conventional wisdom on the drug war. They are, however, the strongest calls yet from sitting politicians.

In 2009, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, composed of the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, called for marijuana decriminalisation.

“Everyone might agree that the war on drugs has failed, but that doesn’t mean there is support for something else,” Reuter said.

Currently, there is not a concrete proposal on the table for decriminalising or legalising drugs to end the war. Some observers expect a new commission to investigate the problem will be inaugurated after the Summit of the Americas.

Some analysts believe history is starting to move full circle, as 2012 marks a century since the first international anti-drug convention was signed in The Hague.

Change – if it ever happens – won’t come quickly, analysts say, but there is optimism about long-term progress. If nothing else, the taboo of discussing legalisation has been broken, they say.

“This will be the first meeting of heads of state where this [legalisation and decriminalisation] will be on the agenda,” Nadelmann said. “It’s a game changer, the pendulum is swinging in a new direction for the first time in 100 years.”

Fate of megaupload servers to be decided by DOJ

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (Reuters)

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom (Reuters)

TAGS: SciTech, Law, Internet, USA

 

The fate of Megaupload and the billions of files uploaded to the storage site’s servers is still up in the air, but a judge in Virginia did award a victory, albeit a small one, to the website on Friday.

Megaupload’s attorneys were at the US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria on Friday to find out what will be done with the trove of files stored on the site’s servers. Ever since authorities shut down the storage site earlier this year, the personal files uploaded by as many as 60 million users of the service have been in legal limbo. On Friday, Judge Liam O’Grady told the court that all parties involved in the episode need to work together to figure out a solution.

For now, the data that was dumped onto the site by millions of subscribers will be safe from deletion — but that could change in two weeks when the court will once again consider how to proceed with the case.

Judge O’Grady told the court on Friday that all involved parties need to go back to the drawing board and negotiate further on how to handle the files that were on the servers that were frozen during the shut-down of the site in January. Representatives for the entertainment industry had wanted all data destroyed, citing that re-releasing them to the Internet and the users of the site would only further copyright infringement. The attorneys for Megaupload, on the other hand, have been asking to be allowed access to the data, claiming that files uploaded to the seized servers would help build their defense. According to Megaupload, access to the files uploaded by their users will show how often their service was used for noninfringing purposes, but the US Department of Justice insists that that is “pure speculation.”

Outside of the court, however, those most mesmerized by the legal battle are the millions of users who have been unable to access their own files since the shut-down of the site.

Federal agents arranged for a raid on the palatial New Zealand home of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom back in January. Authorities insisted that the storage site was responsible for widespread piracy, duping the music and movie industry out of half a billion dollars. Megaupload provided a service where users could upload any file to the servers in question and then access it from anywhere with a web connection, but authorities say that that service was mostly manipulated by people sharing digital copies of copyrighted material. Those that used the service for legitimate purposes, however, have been left with no access to their original files and will have to continue to wait to find out if they will ever see them again.

Once such person is Kyle Goodwin, a video journalist who had a paid account to Megaupload. By forking over fees to the company, Goodwin was allocated space on their servers where he stored his work. Since January, however, he has been left without any of it.

“I think this case raises pretty serious questions about what happens when you store your data in the cloud and for whatever reason the government or the company decides they’re not going to store your data anymore,” Electronic Frontier Foundation spokeswoman Rebecca Jeschke tells PC World. The EFF is representing Goodwin in his fight for the return of his work.

The owner of the servers used by Megaupload, Carpathia Hosting, had hoped Friday’s meeting with the judge would end with federal compensation for them. For maintaining the 1,100 servers used by Dotcom’s company, attorney Marc Zwillinger representing Carpathia says they spend around $37.000 each month on maintenance. With Megaupload’s assets frozen and subscribers no longer paying for the service, they have been left with the burden since the site went down in January.

“There are a lot of people who have interest in the data on these servers, except one,” Zwillinger says. “That is us.”

Judge O’Grady told Carpathia’s lawyers on Friday that he was “sympathetic” with their plight, but that perhaps the millions they made by having Megaupload as a long-standing client could be put towards holding onto the servers until the court decides what to do.

The US Justice Department and the Motion Picture Association of America are currently pursuing a copyright case against Megaupload. Dotcom remains under watch in New Zealand, although authorities are attempting to extradite him to the States for prosecution.

Ira Rothkin, the US attorney for the defense, told the court on Friday that Megaupload has no problem maintaining the files until a solution for the server dilemma is reached. Jay Prabhu, an assistant US attorney involved in the prosecution, says that would be the same as “trusting the thief with the money.”

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to our posts, you can even select how often you get updates for your convenience!

  • GV Records

  • Bitcoin Donations

    Donate to:

    1K9pTUb1fVe85zmGXp6pnNnvwMtJivwgot

  • Paypal Donations

  • J.G Vibes Books

    Get your own copy of AOTMR here!

    Click the Image to get your own copy of AOTMR!

  • Ultimate History Lesson

    Get the UHL box set at discount here!

  • Free Your Mind Conference