Attacks/Breaches
4/23/2012
01:36 PM
50%
50%

Why Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Might Walk Free

Racketeering warrant has yet to be served against Megaupload, meaning the charges might fail to meet New Zealand's extradition threshold.

Anonymous: 10 Facts About The Hacktivist Group
Anonymous: 10 Facts About The Hacktivist Group
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Will Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, who's been arrested by New Zealand authorities on racketeering and copyright infringement charges at the request of U.S. authorities, go free?

Questions arose Friday in a U.S. district courtroom in Virginia over whether Dotcom's extradition to the United States might proceed, or the charges against him even stick. "I frankly don't know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter," Judge Liam O'Grady said to Justice Department prosecutor Jay Prabhu at the hearing, reported The New Zealand Herald.

Prosecutors have accused seven Megaupload employees, including Dotcom, of earning $175 million in subscription and advertising revenue from their file-sharing site, thanks to a widespread campaign of copyright infringement. But while previous such cases have been civil matters, the Department of Justice in this case took the unusual route of also filing criminal racketeering charges, which in New Zealand carry a five-year maximum sentence. The move appears to have been pragmatic. "The U.S. government needs to get over the hurdle of a five-year jail sentence to meet the criteria for extradition. Copyright charges in [New Zealand] carry a maximum of four years," reported the Herald.

[ More copyright scuffling: ISPs Agree To Copyright Alerts: What It Means. ]

Judge O'Grady's comments, interestingly, came after the FBI requested that the 1,100 servers that still store Megaupload data be allowed to be deleted. The two hosting providers that own the servers had requested that they either be allowed to return the servers to duty--Megaupload has been unable to pay for their upkeep since the Department of Justice froze its assets--or sell them to one of several groups that are seeking to retain the data they store.

But the judge seized on prosecutors' disclosure that they have yet to serve Megaupload with a warrant, and said that until that happens, discussing data deletion would be premature.

Yet, the Department of Justice launched its high-profile takedown of Megaupload in early January. Why has there been a three-month delay in serving the related warrant? "My understanding as to why they haven't done that is because they can't. We don't believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States," Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken said, according to The New Zealand Herald.

Rothken surmised that FBI lawyers had determined that Megaupload, which is based in Hong Kong, couldn't legally be served with a criminal warrant--only a civil one. Prosecutor Jay Prabhu argued against that interpretation in court, saying that because Dotcom is a majority owner of the company, he could be served. If so, however, what accounts for the delay? Furthermore, unless prosecutors can get the criminal charge--with its five-year maximum sentence--to stick, then the extradition request for Dotcom and the other accused Megaupload employees would go bust.

Again, the revelation over New Zealand's extradition requirements appear to explain the Department of Justice's unusual handling of this case. Notably, in the wake of the takedown, Jeff Ifrah, an attorney who co-chairs the American Bar Association's criminal justice section and committee on white collar crime, had questioned the government's use of a racketeering charge, which is typically reserved for drug-related or gambling cases involving organized crime syndicates--meaning, the mob.

Ifrah noted that the charges against Megaupload were quite similar to those made by Viacom against Google's YouTube. "Certainly no one accused YouTube of having mob-like activities," he said of the civil suit.

In the wake of Friday's court session, meanwhile, Dotcom has lashed out at federal prosecutors for destroying his business. "The U.S. government has terminated Megaupload, Megavideo and 10 other subsidiaries, including a company called N1 Limited that was developing a clothing line," Dotcom told TorrentFreak. "They destroyed 220 jobs. Millions of legitimate Mega users have no access to their files."

When picking endpoint protection software, step one is to ask users what they think. Also in the new, all-digital Security Software: Listen Up! issue of InformationWeek: CIO Chad Fulgham gives us an exclusive look at the agency's new case management system, Sentinel; and a look at how LTE changes mobility. (Free registration required.)

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Reggie62
50%
50%
Reggie62,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/25/2012 | 1:34:28 AM
re: Why Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Might Walk Free
Funny isn't it?? The FBI, I'm sure would be the first to prosecute anyone for destruction of evidence in any other case.. That is perverting the course of justice, is it not??
Andrew Hornback
50%
50%
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/25/2012 | 1:00:26 AM
re: Why Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Might Walk Free
Let's see if I've got the math straight here...

Organization collects $175 Million in subscription and advertising revenues.

"Ringleader" of the organization claims that the Federal Government has eliminated 220 jobs. An average of $795k+ per individual. Must be one hell of a group of clothing designers at that price. No wonder designer clothes are so expensive.

Getting back to the topic at hand - what's scary about this case is that the FBI wants to have these 1100 servers deleted, that seems to be throwing out the copyrighted material along with the legitimate users' material.

If the systems can be kept off-line without being deleted, doesn't that suffice to stop this organization? From what I know of Internet advertising, if the servers aren't running, ads can't be served, so that revenue stream is at a full stop. And with regards to Internet hosting, if you don't pay for it, it'll get taken off-line. But, the alternative would be to have the FBI comb through the contents of those servers... at which point there will definitely be some form of Invasion of Privacy outcry.

This is just one big mess... I just wonder why the Feds can't bring a higher level of charges in American courts, based on the fact that Megaupload had a number of servers based out of the United States. Considering that each download could possibly constitute a charge of piracy and or distribution of copyrighted material - which I tend to recall is illegal in the United States. With the number of possible charges that could be brought, that could certainly run into more than 5 years of possible jail time.

Andrew Hornback
InformationWeek Contributor
Bprince
50%
50%
Bprince,
User Rank: Ninja
4/24/2012 | 11:17:23 PM
re: Why Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Might Walk Free
@readers: What is your opinion of the government's case against Megaupload?
Brian Prince, InformationWeek/Dark Reading Comment Moderator
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-6477
Published: 2014-11-23
Unspecified vulnerability in the JPublisher component in Oracle Database Server 11.1.0.7, 11.2.0.3, 11.2.0.4, 12.1.0.1, and 12.1.0.2 allows remote authenticated users to affect confidentiality via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-4290, CVE-2014-4291, CVE-2014-4292, CVE-2014-4...

CVE-2014-4807
Published: 2014-11-22
Sterling Order Management in IBM Sterling Selling and Fulfillment Suite 9.3.0 before FP8 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a '\0' character.

CVE-2014-6183
Published: 2014-11-22
IBM Security Network Protection 5.1 before 5.1.0.0 FP13, 5.1.1 before 5.1.1.0 FP8, 5.1.2 before 5.1.2.0 FP9, 5.1.2.1 before FP5, 5.2 before 5.2.0.0 FP5, and 5.3 before 5.3.0.0 FP1 on XGS devices allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-8626
Published: 2014-11-22
Stack-based buffer overflow in the date_from_ISO8601 function in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xmlrpc.c in PHP before 5.2.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code by including a timezone field in a date, leading to improper XML-RPC encoding...

CVE-2014-8710
Published: 2014-11-22
The decompress_sigcomp_message function in epan/sigcomp-udvm.c in the SigComp UDVM dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted packet.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?