CEO: Dotcom's Mega Isn't A Piracy Enabler

CEO: Dotcom's Mega Isn't A Piracy Enabler

Vikram Kumar wants to make sure everyone understands what Kim Dotcom's new file sharer is all about.

"The segment that seems to be most interested in Mega, and in paying for space, security and privacy tends to be professionals," says Vikram Kumar, CEO of Kim Dotcom's Mega, speaking via Skype at a London Copyright and Technology conference. Dotcom's previous enterprise, Megaupload, was raided at the urging of the FBI - an action that the courts later ruled was illegal - and the fallout was so intense that New Zealand's PM was forced to apologize. Dotcom's still embroiled in legal entanglements as a result of that copyright infringement allegation, and his potential extradition to the US to face charges is unresolved. But Mega is definitely not a piracy service, and its CEO is keen to make sure that everyone understands that.

In essence, says Kumar, Mega is a faster and more secure Dropbox. It still attracts attention; about 2 to 3 million files are uploaded to Mega every day, and it gets around 100 takedown notices for alleged copyright infringement each day too. But, Kumar points out, that's nothing compared to other services. YouTube, for example, gets 15 million takedown notices each month, or about half a million per day. "The numbers tell us that Mega is not being used for wide-scale copyright infringement," says Kumar.

Mega's also keen to ensure that external search engines don't provide indexes of Mega content. If they did, then potentially outsiders could use Mega as a copyright infringement service; Mega insists on public sharing of decryption keys for content, but a private index could bypass that rule. Kumar doesn't want those sites out there, and if they use the Mega name in any way that suggests the index is linked to the company, Mega will take action for trademark violation or fraud.

Nor will Mega allow streaming music or films, even if the one doing it is the copyright owner. "That's not Mega's purpose," says Kumar, possibly with one eye on the Dotcom raid video. The big benefit Mega offers is security, says Kumar, which appeals to lawyers, financial advisors, and other people whose major concern is client confidentiality. They want privacy, and Mega provides.

Source: Guardian

Permalink

So...

It won't be the FBI persuading local police to raid Kim's house next time but the NSA?

I mean if you're not doing anything criminal then why keep it secret?

EDIT: Since this is the internet I apparently have to add this. The above sentence is sarcastic. It does not reflect my beliefs, on the contrary. It was used expressly because I strongly disagree with it. I thought the FBI's raid having been illegal and thus any future NSA raids also being illegal would've reflected that, seems I was wrong...

I was sure from the headline that this was going to be 'Mega isn't for piracy *wink' but this seems sincere

Hagi:
So...

It won't be the FBI persuading local police to raid Kim's house next time but the NSA?

I mean if you're not doing anything criminal then why keep it secret?

The article gave some very valid reasons. Doctors, lawyers, business professionals all require secrecy and confidentiality as part of their daily routine. When a doctor wants to send information to another doctor, they can't use hotmail because they're carrying sensitive and potentially destructive information that they have to take steps to keep safe for anyone who wants to take it.

And also the 'if you're not doing anything illegal then why should you be worried about the government being able to delve into your personal life' is a super slippery slope. There have been established documented cases of NSA experts using the service to spy on boyfriends, or phone-tapping ex's etc. And of those cases, none of them were discovered by any great initiative on the part of the NSA. They were only found out because the relations being spied on were also working for the NSA or they admitted it

If you believe the government is 100% incorruptible and 100% efficient at investigating and safeguarding all their employees, then theoretically no-one would need to keep secrets. From the government. Even then it's not like Coca Cola is going to want Pepsi to find out their latest product recipe or a Hollywood exec would want the casting list for Star Wars VIII to be leaked ahead of time, and all that requires secrecy too.

If you want to be seen as not helping piracy then their is a simple solution. Be active and fight piracy whenever it comes up on your site whether it is by permabanning accounts or something. Do that and you can claim (with some credence) that you are against piracy.

Hagi:
So...

It won't be the FBI persuading local police to raid Kim's house next time but the NSA?

I mean if you're not doing anything criminal then why keep it secret?

Not that I think Kim is whiter than white by any stretch of the imagination but this argument that if you're doing no wrong you have nothing to hide is total rubbish and I find proponents of it quite scary.

Privacy is important for many reasons and I don't believe I have ever met someone who is divinely perfect either.

BrotherRool:

The article gave some very valid reasons. Doctors, lawyers, business professionals all require secrecy and confidentiality as part of their daily routine. When a doctor wants to send information to another doctor, they can't use hotmail because they're carrying sensitive and potentially destructive information that they have to take steps to keep safe for anyone who wants to take it.

And also the 'if you're not doing anything illegal then why should you be worried about the government being able to delve into your personal life' is a super slippery slope. There have been established documented cases of NSA experts using the service to spy on boyfriends, or phone-tapping ex's etc. And of those cases, none of them were discovered by any great initiative on the part of the NSA. They were only found out because the relations being spied on were also working for the NSA or they admitted it

If you believe the government is 100% incorruptible and 100% efficient at investigating and safeguarding all their employees, then theoretically no-one would need to keep secrets. From the government. Even then it's not like Coca Cola is going to want Pepsi to find out their latest product recipe or a Hollywood exec would want the casting list for Star Wars VIII to be leaked ahead of time, and all that requires secrecy too.

Business and doctors do not use file sharing services or hotmail but log on to their respective networks and using secure VPNS and their own mail servers. It would considered unprofessional, at least, to use a file share site run by a man with convictions for credit card fraud and insider dealing.

albino boo:

Business and doctors do not use file sharing services or hotmail but log on to their respective networks and using secure VPNS and their own mail servers. It would considered unprofessional, at least, to use a file share site run by a man with convictions for credit card fraud and insider dealing.

Doctors should do stuff like that, although I have personal knowledge that services as simple as dropbox often aren't available to them. And this is the UK where we have one of the best funded health services in the world, a doctor in a poorer country might not have anything they can do without using a third party.

Business people neither have those services unless they buy them, or have a responsibility to not use something like Mega because they're just trying to keep secrets from each other

And theoretically, the way Mega is set up, it's just as impossible to Kim to see the data as it is anyone else. That was basically the whole point because he was saying he wanted to be in a position where the FBI would be unable to compel him to hand over data.

I agree it's hard to completely trust Kim Dotcom of all people, but if the tech is sound then there shouldn't be anything he can do about it

Hagi:

It won't be the FBI persuading local police to raid Kim's house next time but the NSA?

Why would the NSA shut down an information service that they've thoroughly infiltrated?

Hagi:
So...

It won't be the FBI persuading local police to raid Kim's house next time but the NSA?

I mean if you're not doing anything criminal then why keep it secret?

because unwarranted invasion of privacy is bad?

seriously that's the same cliched line that generic evil authority figures use when they're about to hunt down "rebels"

(note: if ten people take you seriously, you're not trying hard enough to be sarcastic in a space where people who say these kinds of things exist)

BrotherRool:

albino boo:

Business and doctors do not use file sharing services or hotmail but log on to their respective networks and using secure VPNS and their own mail servers. It would considered unprofessional, at least, to use a file share site run by a man with convictions for credit card fraud and insider dealing.

Doctors should do stuff like that, although I have personal knowledge that services as simple as dropbox often aren't available to them. And this is the UK where we have one of the best funded health services in the world, a doctor in a poorer country might not have anything they can do without using a third party.

Business people neither have those services unless they buy them, or have a responsibility to not use something like Mega because they're just trying to keep secrets from each other

And theoretically, the way Mega is set up, it's just as impossible to Kim to see the data as it is anyone else. That was basically the whole point because he was saying he wanted to be in a position where the FBI would be unable to compel him to hand over data.

I agree it's hard to completely trust Kim Dotcom of all people, but if the tech is sound then there shouldn't be anything he can do about it

If a doctor entrusted my medical records to system run by credit card fraudster and insider dealer I would sue him into the stone age. Furthermore my 20 years in IT tell me that the 100s of email and VPNS systems that I have worked on for banks, lawyers, civil service tell me that is the standard. The data protection act prevents to transfer by file sharing service of personal data.

Prohibition on processing without registration.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, personal data must not be processed unless an entry in respect of the data controller is included in the register maintained by the Commissioner under section 19 (or is treated by notification regulations made by virtue of section 19(3) as being so included).

What chance do you think a foreign company owned by a convicted fraudster is registered. You cant you MEGA for the same reason why you cant you use dropbox and hotmail.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here