Would you mind elaborating? Is "attacking Iraq" a metaphor/figure of speech that I'm not aware of? If so, wouldn't that imply the project is based on completely false grounds (ie, "WMDs" that don't exist)? It's been shown pretty clearly that mass surveillance exists and is a part of our every day lives now.
Mass surveillance and copyright have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. If you're going to attack copyright in order to rid us of mass surveillance that's like attacking Iraq in order to get rid of Al Qaeda.
Thanks for clarifying. Admittedly, the article was a PR move to show the inherent security weakness in apps like Dropbox, using copyright as an example. I touched on the actual surveillance aspects of the app here because the original comment asked if doing what I'm doing is something to be proud of. Violating copyright holders' rights is not (and I don't condone it), but providing storage for people who need/want privacy is something to be proud of.
Then don't position yourself as a mechanism to evade copyright law or as a champion against that. Those are different goals with different consequences and it opens you up to a whole pile of attacks that would otherwise be a non-issue.
