This is the same megaupload where FBI agents took part in a raid on a house in a non-US country?

http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/kim-dotco...

As I said in a response on our forum, if the stakes are high enough, no datacentre in the world is safe.

Bruce Schneier recommends protecting against terrorist attacks by improving emergency response capabilities - with the side benefit that your measures also help against natural disasters:

https://www.schneier.com/essay-292.html

(edit: that's not a great version of his point actually, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/09/katrina_and_s... is more on point)

Similarly, our main focus for security is protecting against all forms of attackers, including common theft or misplacement of our servers. We consider that to be more valuable for the overall security of our users (including security against denial of service) than fighting an impossible fight.

FACT: if the three letter agencies in the USA want your data desperately enough, they will get it. With FastMail, they have a legal way to obtain it which is quite a lot of effort, but (hopefully) less expensive to them than taking our servers offline.

What they can't do, by Australian law, is require our cooperation in blanket surveillance on all our users.

The point that they're trying to make, and which is true in the Megaupload case, is that they would know that this had happened and they would disclose the fact that it happened.

There's a difference between going after a company that is obviously facilitating copyright infringement and is mainly used for that purpose vs. going after a respectable service provider. The latter would raise hell in the international relations between countries.

Absolutely. It is a powerful tactic. Impede or shut down their business, destroy their reputation, and then even if you can't do anything to them legally, you have still achieved the same ultimate damage.

And, my initial response to seeing this headline: "Oh, _yes_ you do."