Quote:
Originally Posted by DiGiCiDAL 
Ah but that's exactly where his true "crime" was... he actually stood up for the privacy and rights of his users (as well he should considering how well he was paid to do so) when faced with requests for unlimited search and seizure of data without warrant - and in fact in most cases not even by the FBI but by label representatives without any jurisdiction. Had he simply said "mi server es tu server" and let the MPAA/RIAA go on a rampage... they would have probably cut him a check for a few extra million for helping them track down the rest of the "criminals".
Of course, then no one (including the majority of his lawful customers) would continue to do business with him because MU would be provably and massively insecure.
Ah but that's exactly where his true "crime" was... he actually stood up for the privacy and rights of his users (as well he should considering how well he was paid to do so) when faced with requests for unlimited search and seizure of data without warrant - and in fact in most cases not even by the FBI but by label representatives without any jurisdiction. Had he simply said "mi server es tu server" and let the MPAA/RIAA go on a rampage... they would have probably cut him a check for a few extra million for helping them track down the rest of the "criminals".
Of course, then no one (including the majority of his lawful customers) would continue to do business with him because MU would be provably and massively insecure.
Source for this info?
I'm not sure what you mean... I agree with you completely and that is what my post said. I'm not in any way defending the search - in fact I'm not defending any of it. I'm simply saying that what I believe to be the case - that the MPAA/RIAA strong-armed the FBI and via proxy the NZ armed forces to take action on a non-defensible search and seizure because dotcom refused to let them just go through MU's entire server farm looking for potential infringement.
