Mega-screenshots promise more embarassment

6 comments on “Mega-screenshots promise more embarassment ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rich 1

   10 December 2012 at 11:55 am

   “I was told by DOJ that MU was a test case”

   Yeah, if they win they’ll close down YouTube and jail Google’s staff and shareholders.
2. Veutoviper 2

   10 December 2012 at 12:19 pm

   Thanks for this post, lprent.

   I roared with laughter when I saw the file manager screenshot a couple of days ago – talk about take it to them!

   It was also interesting that KDC retweeted CC’s 26 Nov tweet on Saturday without comment as to why. The full conversation is also worth a read, through going to KDC’s Twitter feed.

   When the court ruling came out last week re GCSB involvement, this tweet also gives some idea of KDC’s thinking:

   “If the court awards damages in the GCSB case they will be invested into New Zealand startups: theicehouse.co.nz/angels/”
3. vto viped 3

   10 December 2012 at 12:25 pm

   The megaupload dotcom matter plays out like a battle between private individual and state government forces whereby the state government forces act with ulterior motives and to a higher and indisclosed aim.

   Which shouldn’t surprise as its been done countless times through history.

   What do we have more to fear from? An out of control individual person, or an out of control state government?
   • Veutoviper 3.1

     10 December 2012 at 12:52 pm

     “What do we have more to fear from? An out of control individual person, or an out of control state government?”

     A perfect introduction to what I was about to post – but to that I would add “a (possibly) out of control group of states”.

     I am way out of my depth when it comes to internet technology, governance, clouds etc and all that goes with that, but this Stuff article seems to give a flavour for what may be in store on a much more global basis in terms of limiting internet freedom of expression etc.
     http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/8058254/Internet-governance-talks-in-jeopardy

     A 12-day conference of the International Telecommunications Union, taking place in Dubai, is supposed to result in the adoption of a new international treaty governing trans-border communications.

     But in a critical session at the midpoint of the conference on Friday, delegates refused to adopt a US-Canadian proposal to limit the treaty’s scope to traditional communications carriers and exclude Internet companies such as Google, the ITU said on its website.

     Further complicating the negotiations was what a US official at the talks called the “surprise” announcement of an accord among some Arab states, Russia and other countries to pursue treaty amendments that are expected to include Internet provisions unacceptable to the United States

     A still-secret draft of the coalition’s proposals is to be introduced soon by the United Arab Emirates, the official said.
     …
     The emergence of the new coalition, whose members are generally seeking greater Internet censorship and surveillance, is likely to harden battle lines separating those countries from the United States and some allies in Western Europe.
     …
     “All of the indicators we have so far is it’s something that could be a clear effort to extend the treaty to cover Net governance,” said policy counsel Emma Llanso of the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, which draws funding from Google and other US Internet companies.

     “What we’re seeing is governments putting forward their visions of the future of the Internet, and if we see a large group of governments form that sees an Internet a lot more locked down and controlled, that’s a big concern.”

     CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROLS

     The US ambassador to the conference said in an earlier interview that his country would not sign any agreement that dramatically increased government controls over the Internet.

     That would potentially isolate America and its allies from much of the world, and technology leaders fear that the rest of the globe would agree on actions such as identifying political dissidents who use the Internet and perhaps trying to alter the Net’s architecture to permit more control.

     …

     Bold is mine.

     Perhaps CC’s apparent approach to certain individuals is a much smaller example of what others are seeking on a much wider scale?

     In relation to KDC, I found the US comments/approach as stated in this article – eg “would not sign any agreement that dramatically increased government controls over the Internet” – totally hypocritical vis a vis what has happened in the KDC case.
     • shorts 3.1.1

       10 December 2012 at 1:11 pm

       US hides behind protecting the rights of corporations… thus can play the freedom of speech & internet card whilst limiting those exact freedoms via copyright and other controls

       I too laughed at the mega screen shot and applauded the not so subtle PR – he plays a clever game…
4. lurgee 4

   11 December 2012 at 8:56 am

   Depressing that a chubby German billionaire geek with fifty butlers (or summat like that) is the only person actually taking the fight to National. Not quite what Marx had in mind, I suspect.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS