Re: Megaupload.com seized

james@smithwaysecurity.com james at smithwaysecurity.com
Thu Jan 19 17:58:23 CST 2012


Yes that's right, just would of slowed down the  process.

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ishmael Rufus" <sakamura at gmail.com>
To: "james at smithwaysecurity.com" <james at smithwaysecurity.com>
Cc: <paul at paulgraydon.co.uk>, <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Megaupload.com seized
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 7:56 pm


That doesn't stop the power of our US government.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:53 PM, james at smithwaysecurity.com
<james at smithwaysecurity.com> wrote:
> Wow, what suprised the servers were, all located offshore.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Paul Graydon" <paul at paulgraydon.co.uk>
> To: <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Megaupload.com seized
> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 7:27 pm
>
>
> On 01/19/2012 12:41 PM, Ryan Gelobter wrote:
>> The megaupload.com domain was seized today, has anyone noticed significant
>> drops in network traffic as a result?
>>
>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
>> http://techland.time.com/2012/01/19/feds-shut-down-megaupload-com-file-sharing-website/
> Ars Technica are implying it was quite a source of bandwidth usage within companies.  I'm curious, are any interesting charts on an ISP side?
>
> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/01/before-shutdown-megaupload-ate-up-more-corporate-bandwidth-than-dropbox.ars
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list