How exactly can a company that buy and rents out disk space do a major impact on the fourth-largest country in the world?
I could see how such company could be threatening for those currently funding election campaigns, and thus indirectly causing those ruling the U.S. to take notice, but is/should the reaction cause major impact to the U.S.? If it is, then what does that say about a nation ruled by the people for the people?
Understanding that HN isn't a hive-mind, I still find it deeply ironic that a website full of people saying that the U.S. is overreaching by prosecuting MegaUpload was in a different context calling for the aggressive prosecution of HSBC (a non-U.S. company who broke U.S. laws not on U.S. soil).
What on Earth are you talking about? Some other HSBC?
http://hsbclocations.com/united_states/
>HSBC Bank USA, National Association, an American subsidiary of UK-based HSBC Holdings plc, is a bank with its operational head office in New York City and its nominal head office in McLean, Virginia (as designated on its charter). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act, which means that it is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
© HSBC Bank USA, N.A. 2013. All Rights Reserved. Member FDIC.
If you want to argue that HSBC the larger entity had a presence in the U.S., even though the problems did not arise out of that U.S. presence, how do you deal with the fact that Megaupload had U.S. servers?
>If you want to argue that HSBC the larger entity had a presence in the U.S.
No, I don't need to (they do), the purpose of HSBC's US subsidiaries is so that the parent may operate in the US.
>how do you deal with the fact that Megaupload had U.S. servers?
I guess if MU wants to have servers in the US and serve US-based customers, then the federales ought to be able to go and confiscate the servers (so long as they follow due process) if they have cause to do so. But this seizing foreign-based property is right out. I wonder why the DOJ hasn't raided HSBC and siezed a lot of their office equipment.
That was the New Zealand police, not the fucking FBI. Why is there no outrage at the government that actually arrested him? Was the minister held at gunpoint? If you read torrent freak you probably think so.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/27/new_zealand_kim_dotc... and http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/megameltdown-new-zealands-pri...
"If they had been more thorough in what they had done, they would have worked out that Mr. Dotcom had a residence class visa, and therefore was protected by the law,"
"Frankly, I’m pretty appalled by what I’ve seen because these are basic errors."
"This is really a matter of mistake and human error, not one of a great conspiracy,"
"the agency has let itself down very badly."
The attack against Kim Dotcom cascaded through many intermediaries. Although the NZ police were performing the raid, the FBI were observing and involved in the planning. Their involvement and NZ govt approval were commissioned (deniably, of course) by US politicians such as Joe Biden, ultimately sourcing back to big money in Hollywood.
I'm also the subject of that type of cascading attack, sourcing back to someone in Silicon Valley (http://groovy.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Blog04#8).