Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts

Megaupload Co-Founder Allowed Bail 132

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the no-one-escapes-new-zealand dept.
New submitter masterfpt writes "TorrentFreak is running the following article: 'The co-founder of Megaupload has been freed on bail by a judge in New Zealand. Mathias Ortmann will be the subject of strict conditions including no Internet access. The U.S. will now rely on a United Nations treaty to extradite the Mega team. Separately, it was revealed that the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Megaupload Co-Founder Allowed Bail

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:36AM (#39044153)

    the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work

    Did they FBI at least have the decency to give them the promised snausage treat?

    • by Theophany (2519296) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:40AM (#39044209)
      Ask Anonymous, they were listening in on the call.
    • the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work

      Did they FBI at least have the decency to give them the promised snausage treat?

      You're assuming that the FBI had permission to remotely monitor the raids. ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by sensationull (889870)

      They were apparently sutibly brutal and uncompromising using all sorts of overkill for a few unarmed people in a house so I'm guessing they got a kindly pat on the head at least.

      • by chrb (1083577)

        a few unarmed people

        Media reports that there were shotguns in the house, two were sawn-off shotguns, and Kim locked himself in his safe room with one of the sawn-off shotguns. Kim didn't have a gun license, so owning these guns was illegal in NZ. Guns were to protect my family, says Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom [theaustralian.com.au]

      • When you say unarmed, did you actually read the articles about this or are you following the great slashdot tradition of deciding on your own what the news should have been?

        Because Im pretty sure "loaded gun" doesnt qualify as "unarmed".

        • by X.25 (255792) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:08PM (#39045317)

          When you say unarmed, did you actually read the articles about this or are you following the great slashdot tradition of deciding on your own what the news should have been?

          Because Im pretty sure "loaded gun" doesnt qualify as "unarmed".

          A gun, stored in gun safe and loaded with a single rubber bullet certainly doesn't make one "armed" either.

          I would presume that SWAT team is doing all arrests in the USA, since pretty much everyone could have a gun. Right?

          • by Ihmhi (1206036)

            I would presume that SWAT team is doing all arrests in the USA, since pretty much everyone could have a gun. Right?

            Actually, one of the more important issues we've been dealing with as a country is the willingness of certain police departments and federal agencies to use "no-knock" warrants pretty liberally.

            FYI, a "no knock" warrant means that some sort of breaching team (usually a SWAT team or officers with vests and heavier weaponry) breaks down the door and sweeps the house rapidly.

            So yes, for the most part this is already happening far, far too much.

        • You can own all the loaded guns in the world - if you aren't holding any of them you are not "armed". The shotgun referenced was locked up in a gun safe. It wasn't like he was hanging on to the thing the whole time. He didn't even get it.

          What do people think he was going to do - shoot his way out? Yeah I am sure nobody would ever recognize that unforgettable figure out in public...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jesseck (942036)

        He may have been armed, but one thing that stuck with me was this quote from New Zealand Detective Inspector Grant Wormald (source here) [arstechnica.com]:

        "Police arrived in two marked Police helicopters ... Despite our staff clearly identifying themselves..."

        Reading between the lines, and from observing pictures released to the Press of the raid, the vehicles and officers on the ground were clad in black. For all Kim Dotcom knew, he was under attack by terrorists pretending to be police. He had to look away from the vehicles, people, and guns, just to find one marked vehicle which indicated a Police operation. And that vehic

    • by Kittenman (971447)
      Hey, I live in NZ and I'd do anything for a good snausage treat! You've no idea how good our snausages are, (you inconsiderate clod).
  • Internet Ban (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin (926209) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:41AM (#39044221)

    Why did they bar him from using the internet? What are they afraid he'll do, start another illegal website?

    If they're afraid he'll try to hide evidence, they'd have to cut him off from all contact, since others could easily just do the hiding for him.

    Do they bar people accused of telephone fraud from using the telephone?

    I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?

    • Re:Internet Ban (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:47AM (#39044275)

      There is a belief that computer criminals are able to cause nuclear attack by whistling into a phone, people are scared of what they dont understand etc.

    • Re:Internet Ban (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xest (935314) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:47AM (#39044287)

      It's to stop him being able to carry out valuable research, or contact people who could aid in his defence.

      In other words, it's to make it harder for him to build a defence now they've stitched him up.

      • by stms (1132653)

        I'm pretty sure that building his defense/contacting people who could help him is his lawyers job.

        • by Xest (935314)

          What if he wants to defend himself? What if he can't afford a lawyer? what if he can't afford a lawyer trustworthy enough to be handed his password? what if he can't afford a lawyer both trustworthy enough, and competent enough to gather the information from Megauploads servers? Could you really trust your lawyer to search through the guts of a large scale distributed system effectively to find evidence showing the relative scale of copyright infringement to legitimate use for example?

          To be fair my previous

      • Yes, because without computers its absolutely impossible to contact lawyers or do research.

        How our parents, or even kids in the 90s, got along, Ill never know.

        Its really telling (and a little sad) that so many people agreed and modded you insightful, being unable to contemplate picking up a phone book or going to a library. Oh no, wikipedia is down, however will I do legal research?

        • by Xest (935314)

          This is the 21st century, where many people only know many other people online, where much useful content is online and many libraries have been outright closed. This is a case about the internet where facts on the internet are important to the case.

          Pray tell how exactly he intends to phone people when he doesn't have their phone number, or perhaps even their address or real name?

          Sure he could ask his lawyer to get these things, but that assumes he can find and afford a lawyer who is competent enough to use

          • Pray tell how exactly he intends to phone people when he doesn't have their phone number, or perhaps even their address or real name?

            Heres a skill more useful than GoogleFu: Pick up your phone, and press '0'. A friendly person will assist you in finding what you need.

            or perhaps even their address or real name?

            You can also get a phonebook, but thats getting rather advanced. Theres this thing called "the yellow pages", and its counterpart "the white pages" where you can find such things.

            Sure he could ask his lawyer to get these things, but that assumes he can find and afford a lawyer who is competent enough to use the internet, whom he can trust with his passwords and accounts, and who knows where online to look for the information in question.

            Googling someone wont really tell you about their competence any more than the yellow pages. And heres yet another free tip: Ask a trusted friend who they recommend for a lawyer. Or even bette

          • One other thing, accused murderers dont generally have access to the murder weapon once the case has started, due to real concerns about evidence tampering. Likewise, someone accused of computer mischief is not likely to be allowed access to said server because of how easy it would be to clear evidence.

            And when you are on bail, there are real restrictions that come with it because of the risk that you could take actions subversive to the case-- such as messing with evidence or fleeing the country.

            • by Xest (935314)

              "One other thing, accused murderers dont generally have access to the murder weapon once the case has started"

              No but they often have permission to visit the scene of the crime to look for anything pertinent to proving whether or not they were there.

              "Likewise, someone accused of computer mischief is not likely to be allowed access to said server because of how easy it would be to clear evidence."

              The police took copies of everything they needed. Unless you think he's going to hack into the police to access da

              • by Sarten-X (1102295)

                he's been granted bail with neither of these things at issue. If he was a flight risk he wouldn't have been granted bail.

                [citation needed]. The article mentions that the bail restrictions include no Internet access. He may be restricted from leaving the country (which is highly likely, since one of the reasons his bail process took longer than others is that he was considered a flight risk, so they had to work out a suitable agreement.

                What was the relevance of this point?

                To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient. Considering that one of the issues is that Mr. Ortmann made $3.5 million more than MegaUpload pai

                • by X.25 (255792)

                  To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient. Considering that one of the issues is that Mr. Ortmann made $3.5 million more than MegaUpload paid him, he very likely already has a competent lawyer. The only reason for him to have direct Internet access would be to unjustly sway public opinion.

                  Considering that they froze all bank accounts, how much money he might have earned is irrelevant.

                • by 0111 1110 (518466)

                  To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient.

                  How convenient that is for the prosecution. I think it's only fair that you deny the prosecution and police involved in the case access to the internet as well. After all, it is not mandatory for them to develop their case and they might use it to unfairly influence public opinion.

                  Could the accused not also use the telephone or even his own voice to influence public opinion? Let's take away his right to use a telephone and gag him until trial too. We could even bind his hands so he can't write in to newspap

                • by Xest (935314)

                  [citation needed]
                  1. I'm too lazy to Google what you said to confirm it's true, so for the sake of my fundamentally flawed argument I'll pretend it's not

                  2. I disagree, and don't really have a decent rebuttal, so I'll just put my hands over my ears, scream "la la la" I can't hear you and pretend you don't have a point either.

                  Guess which definition your usage falls under? Hint: No citation was needed, because it's pretty easy to find the details of the judges decision.

                  • Wait, youre suggesting that the order granting bail allows the defendant to travel abroad if he so desires?

                    THOSE would be interesting bail terms.

                    • by Xest (935314)

                      Nope, you just made that up in your head.

                      It's probably one of those things you have to do to rationalise with yourself about being wrong.

                    • Or one of those things about attributing posts and statements to the wrong person, that also explain whats going on here?

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        It's to stop him being able to carry out valuable research, or contact people who could aid in his defence.

        In other words, it's to make it harder for him to build a defence now they've stitched him up.

        So does this mean New Zealand doesn't have full disclosure laws like Canada does? Remind me not to go there. For those that don't know in Canada, when you're accused of something, you get a thing called full disclosure. Showing all of the evidence against you, and I do mean all. Every single bit, right down to how they did what they did, and when they started doing it.

        Remind me not to go to New Zealand...ever.

        • Re:Internet Ban (Score:5, Insightful)

          by X.25 (255792) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @02:43PM (#39047641)

          So does this mean New Zealand doesn't have full disclosure laws like Canada does? Remind me not to go there. For those that don't know in Canada, when you're accused of something, you get a thing called full disclosure. Showing all of the evidence against you, and I do mean all. Every single bit, right down to how they did what they did, and when they started doing it.

          To put things into perspective...

          Megaupload founders have been arrested, all of their assets have been frozen, their company has been destroyed, user files might be lost, bail has been delayed for 2 people who had it granted almost 2 weeks ago (police had to 'inspect premises', which seemingly takes more than a week), they have been 'demonized' in media... all of that without DoJ/FBI presenting *any* evidence to New Zealand police, or the court (for extradition case). Everything was seemingly based on the indictment document, which is not evidence but speculation (and fishing expedition - you should really read it). Judge that was deciding on bails said that he doesn't know whether case against Megaupload (in NZ) will be strong or not, because FBI has not presented any evidence to them. First extradition hearing is scheduled for 22nd of February (unless it was moved), and some evidence should be filed by then. We'll see.

          That 3news reporter tried to talk to NZ ministry of justice and police, in order to find out what evidence FBI possibly presented to them before the operation, but nobody would talk to him. Governments are run like private companies now, they even get to decide whether they'll talk to people who pay their salaries.

          I don't want things like this to happen. I don't want that UK guy to get extradited to the US for hosting a forum with links to 'copyrighted material. I don't want that journalist to die in Saudi Arabia because of a tweet. I don't want US threatening Sweden in order to get The Pirate Bay guys tried in court.

          But people don't seem to care anymore, they think none of this affect them.

          How wrong they are, they will learn in few years time :(

    • Re:Internet Ban (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rich0 (548339) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:53AM (#39044373) Homepage

      The modern judicial system recognizes that convicting people is hard. Therefore, the process has been engineered to be as punitive as possible before a verdict is rendered, and to tarnish your reputation as much as possible after the verdict is rendered regardless of what it is.

      Get accused of a crime, step one execute a search warrant and be sure to generally destroy all your personal property in the process of rummaging through it. Step two is to grab any computers you own and hold onto them for several years as evidence. That computer you bought for $1500 last week will get returned to you just in time for you to claim a $100 tax deduction when you give it away to a local school. Step three is to drag you through the press. Step four is to charge you with 47 life sentences and a bazillion dollars in fines, and then try to get you to plea to 15 years in prison. If they can't get you to accept the plea they just make the proceedings long and expensive - since so much is at stake you can't afford not to mount a vigorous defense. Oh, if they can seize any property without a trial under forfeiture, we go ahead and do that too.

      By the time it is all over, a guilty verdict is just the icing on the cake for the authorities. They've sent a clear message regardless of the outcome.

    • by camelrider (46141)

      Of course, nobody does anything stupid with the internet.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295)

      If he told someone else to destroy evidence, the act of communication is likely to leave more evidence. Allowing him the opportunity to destroy evidence himself is much more risky.

      From another aspect, the terms of his bail include no internet access. While I haven't done very much more research than reading TFA, I expect the terms also include no talk show appearances, public opinion campaigns, or other mechanisms where he could directly influence a potential juror outside the court. Even a simple blog post

      • But announcing his arrest and all the crimes he's supposed to have committed will in no way influence a juror?

        • by Sarten-X (1102295)

          Usually the jury is informed about that when they hear evidence, anyway.

          • "You jurors have been called here to determine the innocence or guilt of a person we may or may not have arrested and who may or may not be appearing in court at some indeterminate time in the future...."

            • You were claiming that someone announcing their innocence would taint the jury pool. I'd like to know how announcing that person X was arrested for crime Y is any different? Why should the defendant be prevented from speaking in public, but the police and the prosecutor should be free to do the same? Or should any juror that has heard anything about a case be automatically excluded?

              • I wasnt claiming anything. Check who posted what post before making such accusations; I was merely poking fun at the absurdity of jurors not being allowed to know of the defendants arrest.

                • And I'm pointing out that it's just as absurd to prevent the jury from hearing the defendants claims of innocence.

              • by Sarten-X (1102295)

                I was claiming that a celebrity with normal access to media can taint a jury. The defendant's lawyer, assuming competence, will make statements for the defendant that are (usually) suitably phrased to promote neutrality. He'll say things like "my client maintains his innocence, and has been working with investigators to find the truth." A competent spokesman for the police will say things like "We found a bloody handprint in the defendant's car, and a dead monkey in the kitchen" but the police don't often

                • From the FBI press release:

                  According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies—often before their theatrical release—music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors, and accounting for four percent of the total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.

                  It seems to me the jury pool is pretty much tainted now. Or is inserting the word 'allegedly' the thing that makes it all OK? What exactly can the defendant say on a talk show that will taint the jury more?

                  • by Sarten-X (1102295)

                    How many people are actually reading the FBI press release? Is the FBI actively trying to stir up public opinion against Mr. Ortmann, or are they just answering question the media usually has, stating what's alleged?

                    • Any paper/tv news that report on the case will read the FBI release. So it will likely reach more people then a talk show.

                      And what questions do you think the media would ask the accused? They wouldn't include 'Are you innocent?' would they?

                      If the judge is so worried about a tainted jury, he should just ask if they've heard anything about the case during jury selection. If hearing news reports and talk shows counts as having a bias then remove all jurors that have heard them. Don't just gag one side while le

                • by 0111 1110 (518466)

                  most cops are trying to do what's right

                  Something tells me you haven't dealt much with actual real life policemen. Your comment is only true for the ones played by actors on TV.

                  • by tmarsh86 (896458)
                    Something tells me you haven't dealt with many actual real life policeman. Your comment is ignorance personified.
                    • Something tells me you have a police man as friend or family, because you have no idea about the way they operate these days. The police state is well and truly here, run by a bunch of low IQ bullies.

      • by Sloppy (14984)

        I expect the terms also include no talk show appearances, public opinion campaigns, or other mechanisms where he could directly influence a potential juror outside the court. Even a simple blog post could cause irreparable harm to a jury's ability to be impartial.

        I think this is the best answer I've read so far, and it seems reasonable on the surface. Best of all, there's a way to test whether or not it's correct: we just need to find other people the same court has allowed bail for. If it imposes the Int

        • by Sarten-X (1102295)

          I'm now curious about other cases, but there is a problem with the test. This being a fairly high-profile defendant, his blog posts and public statements are likely to reach more people and be more influential than your average Joe's. The nature of the crime shouldn't have any bearing on the terms of the bail, but the capabilities of the defendant certainly should.

    • Re:Internet Ban (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:34AM (#39044913) Homepage Journal

      I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?

      You don't think people can do "something stupid" with the Internet?

      But I agree that this whole thing is bullshit. Why is this guy even in custody? The CEO of MF Global stole billions from lots of people, including seniors and retirees, but I'll bet he's having a nice brunch at some Manhattan eatery about now, or playing squash at some exclusive "athletic club". The bankers at Bank of America admitted to widespread fraud (which is a crime. not a "white collar" crime, but a crime crime. if I sell an old couple a used car and give them a forged title, I will go to jail. Bank of America did that to the tune of a quarter trillion dollars in mortgages, but they get off by paying $5mil in "value" which is like me paying my credit card with a ball of string, which I happen to value at $758.12 (the current balance on my credit card, since I went a little overboard last month, with Valentine's Day and buying a new video card and stuff.).

      Justice is for the rich. The rest of us get stepped on.

      Who did the founder of Megaupload hurt? Show me the damage.

    • by KhabaLox (1906148)

      I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?

      They're doing it so he doesn't download a car.

  • by DJ Jones (997846) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:47AM (#39044277) Homepage
    Since when has the FBI's charter allowed them to operate on foreign soil?
    • by Loughla (2531696)
      Oh, That was passed in 1995, or 1996. I can never remember. Here's the legal document on that [brokenarrowwear.com] Good luck deciphering the legal speak.
    • by chrb (1083577) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:06AM (#39044521)
      Congress gave them the power

      Overview of the Legal Attaché Program [fbi.gov] The FBI’s legal attaché program was developed to pursue international aspects of the FBI’s investigative mandates through established liaison with principal law enforcement and security services in foreign countries and to provide a prompt and continuous exchange of information with these partners. The FBI currently has 60 fully operational legat offices and 15 sub-offices, with more than 250 agents and support personnel stationed around the world. The growth of transnational crime caused by the explosion in computer and telecommunications technology, the liberalization of immigration policies, and the increased ease of international travel has made it necessary for the U.S. to cooperate with countries around the world concerning security issues. The FBI’s role in international investigations has expanded due to the authority granted by the Congressional application of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

      Also note:

      FAQ [fbi.gov] What authority do FBI special agents have to make arrests in the United States, its territories, or on foreign soil?

      In the U.S. and its territories, FBI special agents may make arrests for any federal offense committed in their presence or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, a felony violation of U.S. laws. On foreign soil, FBI special agents generally do not have authority to make arrests except in certain cases where, with the consent of the host country, Congress has granted the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction.

      • The FBIs legal attache program ...

        Whenever a Western governernment wants to pull some legal shenanigans that are abject bullshit, they always turn to French or Latin to give it that cachet of legitimacy.

    • by Robert Zenz (1680268) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:06AM (#39044535) Homepage
      Who said the FBI operated on foreign soil?
    • Probably since 1940. FDR created an administrative branch called the international legal attachés, who were responsible for investigations in cooperation with foreign police forces. I just love answering rhetorical questions.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      It's not unusual for various national police forces to exchange information, cooperate on coordinated raids, apprehending fugitives and that sort of thing. As long as they're not exercising police power on foreign soil, they're well within their mandate to participate in any investigation to bring people in front of a US court. Maybe now it's live video instead of a paper report saying they've apprehended the suspects, but I don't see anything fundamentally new or controversial in that alone.

    • by kiwimate (458274) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @12:02PM (#39045227) Journal

      Am I missing something?

      Yes, yes you are, and so are all the people who modded up up.

      Read the other replies.

      Look up the definition of "extradition", "cooperation", and "treaty".

      Find where it states the FBI operated on foreign soil.

    • by jesseck (942036)
      A few decades longer than the New York City PD has been allowed to operate outside of their city limits (and state and national borders as well).
    • by westlake (615356)

      Since when has the FBI's charter allowed them to operate on foreign soil?

      Since the run-up to the attack on Pearl Harbor:

      The FBI was in charge of domestic intelligence, but there was no CIA at that time to handle overseas intelligence. Roosevelt decided to assign intelligence responsibilities for different parts of the globe to various agencies. The Bureau landed the area closest to home --- the Western Hemisphere.

      Strategically, it made sense --- South and Central America were fast becoming staging grounds for the Nazis to send spies into the U.S. and hubs for relaying information back to Germany. In June 1940, the FBI responded to the president's charge by setting up a Special Intelligence Service that deployed scores of undercover agents to ferret out Axis spy networks.

      The FBI quickly realized that it needed to establish official liaison with the many countries it was working with across the world to coordinate international leads arising from the Bureau's work and to exchange information with the police and intelligence services of those countries. In 1941, the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia requested the assignment of a special agent to the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. This proved to be the forerunner of the FBI's legal attache, or legat, program.

      In 1947, the FBIâ(TM)s Special Intelligence Service was disbanded, and the newly formed CIA was tasked to take over foreign intelligence operations and to coordinate intelligence activities worldwide. But the Bureau's network of Legats overseas had proven its worth.

      In the 1990s, FBI Director Louis Freeh --- recognizing that global crime and terror were on the rise --- made it a priority to open a series of new legal attachés. At the start of his tenure in 1993, the Bureau had 21 offices in U.S. Embassies worldwide; within eight years that number had doubled. Offices were opened, for example, in such strategic locations as Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

      That growth has continued. Today, the Bureau has more than 250 special agents and support professionals in more than 60 overseas offices, pursuing terrorist, intelligence, and criminal threats with international dimensions in every part of the world. The FBI also takes part in all manner of global and regional crime-fighting initiatives, including Interpol and Europol; the Budapest Project; and Resolution 6, which co-locates FBI agents in DEA offices worldwide to combat drugs.

      History of Legal Attaches [fbi.gov]

  • He didn't seem to be internet troll in the first place. OK, he did troll FBI, but who didn't??? Someone called Ananymous do it all the time. Heck, only lazy people didn't, it's so easy to do.
  • Real crime (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @10:56AM (#39044403) Homepage Journal

    It's good to see the governments doing what their citizen given mandate is asking them to do. Not making sure that the money is good enough to support the economy. Not making sure that the States are not engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, such as requiring different professionals to license in every State (well, at least your driver license is good everywhere, yes?) Not making sure that the government is not treating different groups of citizens preferentially based either race, gender, age, political or religious affiliation or size of the bank account. Not making sure that the will of the people is actually exercised whenever a new war is started or another individual is arrested or even killed without a warrant and a court order and a day in court. Not making sure that the country is on an actual solid economic path in terms of total government spending, borrowing, printing, taxing, regulating. Not making sure that the trade is in fact free.

    But the government is doing what all the citizens want it to do - fighting the absolute evil that the people of the world are facing - distribution of copyrighted materials.

    FBI is doing a good job, it has absolutely paid for its own existence, as the Constitution mandates it to be. Now it's just a matter of ensuring that the criminals, these terrorists are properly and Constitutionally renditioned to the best and most aligned foreign ally that USA has - Saudi Arabia, and that the warrant says: Muslim apostates.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by LordLimecat (1103839)

      Yes, until every hint of bigotry is stamped out and the economy is fixed, the FBI should cease all of its operations. They should recall all of their field agents and have them start working on the economy right away, and on a campaign to end discrimination.

      You do realize that "the government" isnt a single entity, right? And that the FBI has nothing to do with how the economy is doing and how our money is spent?

      (Hint, that second part is what Congress is working on right now. I suppose the FBI should go

      • by 0111 1110 (518466)

        Are you an LEO of some kind? You certainly seem to love them or at least jack of to pictures of them. I'd say we should fire most of the FBI field agent thugs. Restrict them to bank robberies and serial killers and leave it at that. They should not be involved with foreign governments in any way. Since there aren't all that many bank robberies which cross state lines or serial killers that do the same I don't think we need that many of them. They can just sit inside their cubicles and play some video game w

    • by ScentCone (795499)
      Right, because the government can only do one thing at a time.

      Did you note that the president's new budget only adds $17,000 to your personal share of the national debt this year because of the number of things that it's setting out to do simultaneously? Regardless, which government policy would you change, in terms of how the government treats people based on skin color, since you bring that up? What is your worry in that area ... that things like government contracts and government backing of things li
      • by Sir_Sri (199544)

        Right, because the government can only do one thing at a time.

        Did you note that the president's new budget only adds $17,000 to your personal share of the national debt this year

        er... ~900 billion dollar deficit, 313 million americans = 2875/person. If you want to count working age or whatever, you can double that since there's only about 157 million working age people in the US. Which is in no way 17k.

        Are you talking about projected future liabilities maybe? Or the 10 year budget assumptions? Because those are basically nonsense numbers.

  • by jduhls (1666325) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:17AM (#39044709)
    Ah, the Corporate States of America: it even outsources its storm trooping duties to the New Zealand police.
  • Not surprising they allowed bail for this guy. Ortmann is a totally believable name for a website founder, unlike Dotcom.

    • Not surprising they allowed bail for this guy. Ortmann is a totally believable name for a website founder, unlike Dotcom.
      Seeing as how Dotcom had a history of fleeing jurisdictions where he was charged, that probably had more to do with denying him bail than what his name was. Oh and the multiple passports with different aliases didn't help either.
  • I wonder if that includes telephone?
  • I was wondering how long their jail sentence would be while waiting for trial. At least one of them isn't doing time while the U.S. government finds there isn't sufficient evidence to imprison the prisoners. Why not have the trial, invite the accused to present evidence against the accusations, then put them in prison if found guilty? I thought we were trying to make the world more civilized.

  • What I find disappointing is the negative way the media in New Zealand is portraying Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz.

    NZ police acted on US request for help
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780138 [nzherald.co.nz]

    They raided him with freaking helicopters!! :

    Police complete Dotcom search
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780142 [nzherald.co.nz]

    Dotcom birthday party targeted
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780321 [nzherald.co.nz]

    Dotcom's lavish life of parties and luxury

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...