Kim Dotcom's 'Mega' goes live

[VaultBoy]

That space sounds interesting.

I'd jump on it if I still hadn't used all the space Box handed out during their Android promotion.

[Kali Yuga]

Even before the recent lawsuits, I wouldn't trust Dotcom with my files.

Seriously, read up on all the scams he's run before you put anything even remotely personal on Mega.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Even before the recent lawsuits, I wouldn't trust Dotcom with my files.

Seriously, read up on all the scams he's run before you put anything even remotely personal on Mega.

That's a good point, but this time the site seems to be built from the ground up to prevent him or anyone else that runs the site from having access to any of the files. The files are encrypted to an almost ridiculous extent and Mega doesn't have access to the key. It's to the point where if you lose your password for the site, your'e basically SOL because Mega can't even recover your password.

[SeaKing]

The only thing I am fretting about is that if you use the site, you might be placed on a US Govt list of suspected "traffickers" in illegal data and your ISP will delve into your activities.

Having been on the other side, I try to avoid lists of any kind.

[TGS]

Interview with the man himself here

[haydnfan]

I'm not supporting those scum. Will never use that service.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

That's a good point, but this time the site seems to be built from the ground up to prevent him or anyone else that runs the site from having access to any of the files.

I agree he has a strong incentive to build the system that way, since it presumably exculpates the service from any files it hosts.

That doesn't change the fact that he's a self-aggrandizing embezzler who I wouldn't trust with anything, let alone a copy of my data.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

It's to the point where if you lose your password for the site, your'e basically SOL because Mega can't even recover your password.

Another good reason not to use the service with anything remotely personal.

So users can't request a new password, if they lost the old one?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

So users can't request a new password, if they lost the old one?

That would somehow defeat the purpose of the whole exercise, no?

[BeccaPrice]

Dunno if you've seen this Gizmodo article or not. The Passive Voice article that links to it is called "This service could dismantle copyright forever."

[Fbone]

I don't understand how the site works.

Everything is encrypted locally before uploading. You send the download link to someone else. How can they download it without the encryption key?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Everything is encrypted locally before uploading. You send the download link to someone else. How can they download it without the encryption key?

They can't, meaning you'll have to send them the key as well. I'm sure it can be part of the URL,though.

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Everything is encrypted locally before uploading. You send the download link to someone else. How can they download it without the encryption key?

Without looking at the details of how mega.co.nz works, they are feasible ways how you can support multiple encryption keys for the same content, for example using a two level encryption hierarchy (see here (PDF)).

With something like this, the original uploader could add a temporary password, allowing someone else to decrypt the content, and have the password later removed again. For that to work with online storage like mega.co.nz, without sharing the actual password with the hoster, one would have to be able to modify the header of the encrypted content without having to reupload everything again.

[Fbone]

Thanks. So each file could have separate keys or even multiple keys. Would these then need to be stored in computer's memory?

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Without looking at the details of how mega.co.nz works, they are feasible ways how you can support multiple encryption keys for the same content, for example using a two level encryption hierarchy (see here (PDF)).

With something like this, the original uploader could add a temporary password, allowing someone else to decrypt the content, and have the password later removed again. For that to work with online storage like mega.co.nz, without sharing the actual password with the hoster, one would have to be able to modify the header of the encrypted content without having to reupload everything again.

Alexander are you saying that the individual user data is therefore very secure?

Or are you saying that the site owner could actually identify ways to get at the data stored?

Or neither, lol.

Or is the question: how does one share data with others?

So, if someone opens an account, loads their data and then wants to share it with others then that is possible by doing?

I know for example, that I've used data share sites to download upgraded Blackberry phone software that wasn't available in my country at that stage, but was officially available in another country. And to test beta software.

So, is that sort of sharing available using Mega?

Edit:

I think I've answered my own question below.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Dunno if you've seen this Gizmodo article or not. The Passive Voice article that links to it is called "This service could dismantle copyright forever."

It seems to me that the ball is back in the court of the user who sends their stuff to others.

' .... with a single right-click, I can generate a download link for the album. And then I can send it to whoever I want. It's Megaupload with a file manager.' *

So, if law authorities suspected someone they would also be sent the stuff generated through that person. Not by identifying that they're law authorities, but by seeking the stuff in whatever way others were seeking it ie providing an email address or whatever.

From an outsider looking in, it seems that it would be easier to catch people sharing stuff once word got around about 'popular' downloads, irrespective whether it's legal or illegal transfer.


PS: I use 'stuff' to explain any kinds of data

* Gizmodo