Kim Dotcom Megaupload case falters over sharing Canadian data
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
Guilty until proven innocent.
That's why many companies try to avoid getting there, by lobbying for OPPOSING major parties, for instance.
Wait what??? Neither servers nor laptops have any sort of "average HD size". This comparison seems quite stupid. It's not only apples and oranges to compare the two but provides no meaningful data at all....
The comparison is entirely for the purpose of converting the numbers to a scale familiar (and shocking) to the median member of the jury pool.
I'm quite certain that lawyers for the defense would have preferred to say that the seizure and search of the servers was the equivalent of kicking down the doors of 100 homes in your neighborhood, and taking 100 of your neighbors' laptops, merely on the suspicion that they might have unlicensed copies of movies and music on them. And your neighbors are good, hardworking people who already have piles of legitimately purchased CDs and DVDs next to their laptops. They care for their cute babies, and refrain from kicking puppies and kittens at all times. The smell of fresh-baked apple pies frequently wafts across your lawn from their windowsills, along with the sounds of the neighborhood kids playing sandlot baseball. But why would a wookiee live on Endor? It makes no sense!
At that time, the judge reminds the defense that Kim Dotcom is the accused, and you stop that crap right now, or you'll get sanctioned.
Lawyers may have greater professional consequences if they are caught knowingly telling outright lies in certain contexts, but it is absolutely not the case that they cannot knowingly tell outright lies.
This thread adds nothing interesting to the conversation. Please just stop.
Deleted comment
Ok what are those numbers? And how long are they valid for? I've got 35TB on one of my servers, and 20GB on 2 other ones. My Laptop is 256GB but my last one was 1TB... These numbers mean nothing at all. It's a stupid comparison. I doubt the averages would last for ever a year without changing pretty drastically.
Edit: deleted parent comment:
> both servers and alptops obviously do have an average HD size, so the average may not be all that meaningful -- for servefs especially. But i suspect they used the actual size of the servers, not an average, though implicitly they used something like an average for laptops.
Doing a very hasty lookup (the site I use got diagrams that represent number of products with each drive size), cheap <1000$ laptops got in average 600G and 1000$ and up got an of average 800G or 1T if you include SSD's.
Average on a server is irrelevant, since the report was of specific servers, and the storage of those specific servers was compared to a number of laptop drives (implicitly invoking some "average laptop" to warrant the comparison.) No idea of an average server HD size is necessary in that comparison.
Of course, it would have been more useful to people who actually know anything about the field just to have had the actual size of the seized storage reported, rather than a comparison to laptop hard drives, but that's a different issue.
This is true, unfortunately I somehow missed the sizes when I read through the article the first time around. For that I am sorry. I found my mistake only about an hour ago due to another comment. That said I stand beside both the fact there there is no such thing as an average server/computer HD size (not one anyone can calculate at least) and the fact that it's still a stupid comparison to try and make.
It is true by definition that there are average HDD sizes for servers and laptops. If you disagree with their estimates, do you have reasoning to show that they are wrong?
$20,000
$30,000
$25,000
$35,000
$100,000
You can reasonably ask that they state their assumptions or clarify their categories, but beyond that it seems to me that you just don't know enough to critique their illustration.
What I DO know is that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to calculate the median HD size for laptops vs servers. There simply DOES NOT exist the data needed to do the calculations. Period. Not sure how not knowing an impossible to know stat somehow makes me unqualified to discuss this topic. Using your logic I'm expecting a response with the median sizes as you must possess this knowledge or else you wouldn't have commented given your statement.
If you are claiming that estimation is 100% impossible, then you are indeed unqualified to discuss this topic.
I don't understand why you put "business" within quotation marks, as a business is a business if it generates money - regardless of the legality of the business.
If the authorities don't know what constitutes incriminating evidence it raises serious questions about why the warrant was issued in the first place.
So "notorious" sounded right to me too.
For more downvotes, try suggesting that working for an adware and spyware based company could (and should!) lower your social status, even if not yet in the eyes of other people working for adware and spyware giants. But with growing awareness in the wider population, the outcome is inevitable.
EDIT: actually your comment is exactly what I despise because thinking like this makes you a non-free person. I'm sure people who worked for the Stasi or currently justify the actions of their employers (Google, Facebook and other FVEY collaborators) would exactly justify their existence with similar reasoning. Point being, if you feel that your employer does something shady it's up to you to change it. If this process makes you unemployable or an outcast in your current environment then I'd still have more respect for you serving me at McDonalds than doing what you do.
So if you don't toe the line all your equipment gets seized. If you ever get it back it will be obsolete. You will also be tied up with legal stuff for a long time. That is the real message being sent here. The facts of the case don't matter.
Easier to just hire a bunch of interns to do the work.