Dotcom Search Warrants Ruled Illegal 316
New submitter StueyNZ writes "Justice Helen Winkelmann of New Zealand's High Court (non-appellate court) has ruled that the search warrants used to search and seize property from Kim Dotcom's Coatsville residence did not properly describe the offenses under which the search was being made. In particular, warrants did not make it clear that the breach of copyright law and money laundering offenses were U.S. federal offenses rather than NZ offenses. Therefore the search and seizure was illegal. I hope this means Mr. Dotcom gets his security footage back, which should shed some light on how many tourists from the FBI were present at the NZ police raid, and how many firearms those tourists were waving around as they joined in."
It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really despises us because of the way our government throws it's weight around.
I was once proud to be an american. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really despises us because of the way our government throws it's weight around.
I was once proud to be an american. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.
I'm also both amused and terrified at how stupid the American government can be sometimes. That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly? (eg no obvious cock-ups that get the whole thing thrown out of court).
I wouldn't feel too ashamed though... my government can be just as stupid... it's just they don't have as much weight to throw around and so their stupidity tends to to be more localised and so less newsworthy.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Interesting)
That, or the US law en-forcers were actually attempting to follow the old thinking of how when the US asks something of a country it's on "friendly" terms with (e.g. allies), the US gets it. But maybe the world has changed. With things like social networking and Wikileaks-inspired news reporting, countries that would once "willingly" oblige might now be more fearful of the local backlash likely to be spawned by bending over a little for a "friend".
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the US authorities are thinking, 'job done'.
I think you mean: 'Mission Accomplished!'
Re: (Score:3)
No I think a warcraft (or was it warcraft2) "Job Done" is just about perfect.
That's impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
But.. but.. that's impossible. The US government would never use force to create fear of vigilante justice in the minds of civilians, for purposes of effecting political or behavioral changes. Why? Because US government is against terrorism.
Re:That's impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
US government is against terrorism.
I realise you are being sarcastic, but some other people probably think this is true. I would like to state for the record that the US has been convicted in international court of supporting terrorists [wikipedia.org] and ordered to pay reparations, which are still unpaid to date. In addition the US and Israel were the only two countries to vote against a UN resolution to combat terrorism [un.org] in the 80s when the whole war on terror thing was getting started.
The US is resolutely pro terrorism in policy and has been for a long time, they are only anti terrorism in their PR and propaganda branches.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure the U.S. authorities are not thinking anything, but instead picking-up the phone and telling Universal, "We followed your orders. Mission accomplished." Why Universal? Those are the guys that demanded Youtube remove the Megaupload Song in december. They even filed a lawsuit, which they lost.
Then two weeks later the FBI raids and shutsdown megaupload. Coincidence? I don't think so. Pretty obvious Universal lost their case to remove the Megaupload Song, then called their buddies in D.C. and asked them to remove the company. Ultimately the U.S. government serves the corporations that donate money to its reelection campaigns.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the warrants are invalid the seizures are invalid. That means he gets all his money that was in NZ back and he can pay lawyers to fight the case in the US. One of things the FBI tries to do is take away your ability to fight the case by seizing assets. If Dotcom has the money to pay fancy lawyers he just might win the US case and the FBI will get one huge black eye.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Informative)
You're assuming they didn't "do it properly". I don't mean in the sense of following proper procedure, but in the sense of achieving their real goals. Maybe they didn't really care whether or not it got thrown out of court, but wanted to "throw their weight around" in order to ruin his business and intimidate others into shutting down out of fear that they would be next. If that was their goal, then it worked out perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also both amused and terrified at how stupid the American government can be sometimes. That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly?
The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be covered up later.
Re: (Score:3)
> The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be covered up later.
Ha! The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be placed on their CV they send to MPAA/BSA/etc. See: Revolving Door.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly? (eg no obvious cock-ups that get the whole thing thrown out of court).
They didn't do it properly because what they wanted to do was not properly legal. The US government wanted to prosecute someone on NZ soil based on flimsy evidence provided by biased parties, without due authorization or process.
Protip for US Law Enforcement: If something you want to do is against the law it doesn't mean the law is bad, nor does it mean the law should be rewritten/removed. It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.
It's not necessarily wrong because it's against the law. There is such a thing as a bad law.
Re: (Score:3)
That certainly seems to be the opinion of some of the justuces. Look at the "Stolen Valor" decisions today and Kagen's dissent, where she advises congress how they could route around the technical restrictions and craft a law to do the same thing.
So yah, this is constitutionally protected, but we can work around that old trash.
Re: (Score:3)
if the people who make the law don't obey the law they aren't exactly setting a good example, are they?
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:4, Interesting)
That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly?
One distrubing issue on why such raids are handled so sloppily has to do with the laws covering the seizure of assets under certain circumstances. If they found any evidence of drug trafficing, for example, then the raid would literally have been profitable in the "you just lost all your assets to police auction" sense (after they use the assets to convict.
Of course, that probably wouldn't happen in a foreign country as easily; but, it is the culture of police work that american police forces bring with them. More raids means more funding, and eventually you get desensitized to the relative merits of a raiding X over Y when they all are affordable.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible to be proud to be American and ashamed of our government. Although we are a government of the people, the government and the country as a whole are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Without government the country is just landmass. Landmass is nothing to be proud of.
Pride is one's country is pride in one's government, unless of course you are proud of the random location you were born in for being arbitrarily better than x other location.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, your culture? Your traditions? Your ancestry? You can't think of anything that somebody might use to define a country other than its location and its government?
I think those things are BS, and I think patriotism is nothing but soft nationalism and needs to go away. But it's just absolutely idiotic to say that governments are all patriotic people have to be attached to. Or even that governments are what most of them are attached to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, your culture? Your traditions? Your ancestry? You can't think of anything that somebody might use to define a country other than its location and its government?
Yeah, but this is the United States of America you're talking about. There is no tradition. There is no culture except popular culture. There is no U.S. ancestry. Unless you're a native, you pretty much can trace your ancestry to some other part of the world within the past 500 years. And around 300 of those years were spent as Europeans. The U.S. has existed for not much more over 200 years, while other countries have existed culturally in some form or another for well over a millenium. There is none of th
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Funny)
The U.S. is defined by its government. Not necessarily the people running the show, but the system in place. It is defined by the Constitution and the Declaration. There is literally nothing else that separates someone from the U.S. over someone from say, Europe, Mexico, or even Canada.
Oh, I don't know. I'd say about 50 kg...
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Government has many levels. There are pockets of sanity still left in this country, but they've been marginalized by the fucking crazies for a few decades now.
I'm proud of where I grew up, but where I grew up no longer exists. It's still physically there, but it's nothing like the neighborhood I grew up in, with the people I grew up with, and the sense of community that once existed there is long gone. Now people are more concerned about a mosque potentially going in than the fact that the number of peop
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I live in the UK you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing the electoral system was never set up to elect the President by popular vote.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Oblgatory 'The Newsroom' rant clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Although we are a government of the people ...
... for some value of the word "person".
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have pride in the ideals of America. I do not have pride that the government no longer aspires to those ideals.
And there is only so much that any individual can do. Especially if you hold justice and liberty as sacred.
You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.
All I can really do is be vocal, vote for the least bad option and maybe run for local office.
Re: (Score:3)
"you are the government "
No I'm not. No more than I'm the CEO of companies I own stock in.
"You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.
[citation needed]"
Wait wait wait, you actually ASKED FOR A CITATION to demonstrate that we, as citizens, can't execute every bothersome politician?
YOU ACTUALLY ASKED FOR A CITATION FOR THAT, AND EXPECT US NOT TO DISMISS YOU AS THE NUTJOB TROLL YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE?
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait wait wait, you actually ASKED FOR A CITATION to demonstrate that we, as citizens, can't execute every bothersome politician?
These bothersome politicians think it's fine to execute anyone they don't approve of. Our nation has been doing it for as long as we've been a nation. Half our first ten naval battles involved bombarding towns south of the border to force the residents to do business with United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita, aka Bonita. Still around, still killing people for profit, and now poisoning the earth too.
We vote and the votes aren't counted. We protest and they invent new weapons to prevent us from protesting. Are you waiting for a signed invitation to a concentration camp before you'll believe that the system is not working for you and never will?
I'd like to see enough people up in arms that no violence is actually necessary. As long as people are willing to have murder done in their name, though, it will continue.
Re: (Score:3)
You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.
That's effectively NO say. Not when we have only two choices, both of which are pre-vetted and pre-bought by the corporations. The technology exists for real democracy. We should start a new experiment in government. There is no need for a Congress any more. Let all of us vote once a week on the proposed laws.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
America has long been seen as the global champion of freedom and equality
Which is, of course, mainly due to American politicians repeating it over and over and over again, not necessarily because of anything we've actually done. Certainly not within any of our lifetimes...
I chalk it up to the last bit of Cold War propaganda that's still kicking around in the global collective consciousness. Give it another generation or two and, much like all the lessons learned during the Great Depression that have gone right the fuck out the window, it will all be forgotten...
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
curious, why would you despise the US government for a treaty that the UK signed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Whether or not they understood the ramifications and signed anyway, they are accountable for that decision.
Posting anonymously only further supports your attitude of minimal liability.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the UK, you are despised for an extradition agreement which allows you to successfully have someone sent over for prosecution who has committed no crime under UK law and never even entered the US.
Why are you despising the US for an agreement that your own government freely entered into, and enforces against you and your fellow citizens?
All it would take is an act of parliament to guarantee no one shall be extradited on the grounds of an accusation of acts which were committed while the person was inside the UK. Your vulnerability to foreign prosecution in a foreign land is entirely your own government's fault.
Re:It's no surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always maintained that the CIA has done more to damage to the U.S. over the years than any terrorist could ever dream of. Their work has built us up quite a long list of enemies too.
Re: (Score:3)
NZ made their own choices. As heavy handed and anti-freedom as our government is turning, NZ didn't need any coaxing to go along with this.
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They worked with New Zealand police. Or did you forget that part?
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
My next door neighbour had an extra-marital affair recently, and she's going to be travelling to Iran in the near future. Does anyone know the contact number for the Tehran Sharia Police?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but this is not a general principle. The law regarding underage sex is pretty much unique. Otherwise it's local laws that apply.
Cancun is safe.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So when you come to Europe and have a beer at 18, it's perfectly all right that you be arrested on setting foot in the US if they saw your vacation photos on Facebook ?!? Cancun is gonna close shop.
Legally, yes. In practicality, everyone knows the 21 year age limit on alcohol use is retarded, which is why it's not enforced.
And why I explicitly said in my prior post, "Or else try to change the laws in this country."
So get involved, and get the drinking age lowered to 18 [go.com] where it should be.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
You have no idea what you're talking about. The reason Americans are prosecuted for sex tourism is because there is a specific law on the books making not the act itself, but the planning and conceiving of it illegal making it much easier to convict in the US because you can show evidence of wire transfers, phone calls, internet searches and emails, etc...
This law was written because US jurisdiction is not universal and the government was having a very hard time convicting sex tourists in the US because they could not show that the act actually happened, and/or they could not show that there was any component to the crime of statutory rape inside the United States.
Having a beer over there at 18 is not legally illegal and you could not be convicted of it. Don't spew random garbage.
Heck 14 a beer (Score:2)
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this.
Did you ever shoplift as a child or teen? How would you feel about having your right hand cut off upon entering an islamic country? What if you had a friend who lived in a western country but had dual citizenship by birth?
Or how about this: Have you ever attended a rally or written a letter of complaint to an official? How would you feel about being jailed as a subversive if you went on holiday to China?
If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.
I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this.
Did you ever shoplift as a child or teen? How would you feel about having your right hand cut off upon entering an islamic country? What if you had a friend who lived in a western country but had dual citizenship by birth?
Or how about this: Have you ever attended a rally or written a letter of complaint to an official? How would you feel about being jailed as a subversive if you went on holiday to China?
If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.
That's seriously funny, coming from you. Apparently you don't understand the difference between being a US citizen and having Chinese laws apply to you while acting in the US and being a US citizen and having US laws apply to you while in another country. Or being a US citizen and having Sharia apply to you for acts done in the US, versus being a US citizen and being arrested for stolen property that you obtained overseas.
Being outside of the US geographically does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want, just because you happen to be in a country that you can bribe the local official to say its ok. Err, I mean, where the law says its ok. On the flipside, being a US citizen traveling outside the US affords you certain protections and privileges (up to a point).
Apparently some creepy old white guy with mod points is coming after me! That's OK, bring it on! If you can't win an argument, burn your mod points...
Re:And why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's look at this another way then.
You need to be 18 to get a drivers license in Denmark.
If you're an exchange student to the US you can get a US drivers licence at 16.
Should those Danish exchange students be arrested and thrown in jail for having driven a car while in the US, once they return to Denmark?
Keeping in mind, that they broke absolutely no laws while in the US nor while they were in Denmark?
Or how about we turn it around.
In Denmark the age of consent is 15. Suppose a 15-year-old US citizen travels to Denmark on holiday with his or her family and ends up having sex with a 15-year-old in Denmark.
Should the 15-year-old be charged and marked for being a sex offender (statutory rape), travelling to engage in such etc., upon returning to the US?
How about this one. US citizen living in Nevada travels to New York. In New York he's arrested for having paid for sex with a prostitute in a licensed and regulated Nevada brothel. Something that is completely legal in Nevada, but illegal in New York.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that with the humongous number of laws, we're bound to be criminals even without leaving the house.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiments regarding the various criminal activities, US law does not apply to all countries. It just doesn't. We may not like it, but that's how the world works. By applying your laws to other countries you are ignoring their laws and their sovereignty.
Well I take that back, it should not. Apparently it does.
Let's look at some other wonderful applicaitons of your ideas:
Someone comes to the US from another and uses freedom of speech. Returns to their country and is arrested for it.
So
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US Justice department is infiltrated with agents of Big Media. They don't care what the law is, they know what they want it to be and they have power.
Power without intelligence is like a rocket engine without a nozzle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power without intelligence is like a rocket engine without a nozzle.
I'm having trouble picturing a rocket engine without a nozzle.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Funny)
Jurisdiction died that fateful day when copyright pirates flew their torrents into the WTC. NEVER FORGET.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you get it, we're all within the jurisdiction of the RIAA and MPAA...
Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Was somebody delusional enough to start out thinking that they had an open-and-shut case, and bodged it up? Did they start out thinking that; but start 'improvising' once it became clear that they didn't? Was the whole operation fully intended to be an incrementally-more-legal-than-just-having-a-Reaper-handle-it intimidation job?
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
MegaUpload is done and dusted. There doesn't need to be a prosecution; It's Mission Accompllished. Dozens of similar sites shut their doors based upon these actions out of fear and intimidation, and that's what it was all about. "We're bigger than you, and we don't like what you're doing. We're going to beat seven shades of shit out of you in public, nobody is going to do a damn thing about it, and at the worst we'll get a strongly worded letter, which we'll use as toilet paper."
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much this. They needed to get the pirates using P2P again so that the new 6-strikes rules the ISPs are all implementing is actually enforceable, and they've got the deep pockets and the influence to do so.
The cat and mouse game will continue as it always has, but at least this way they get John Q. Taxpayer to shoulder the cost of protecting their IP...
Re:Impressive... (Score:4, Informative)
Can't have it both ways because DMCA safe harbor limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages.
No it doesn't. It limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages unless they can prove the infringement was deliberate on the part of the site's owners. I know it's just such a pain in the ass when they have to back up their claims, but that's kinda the basis of our entire fucking legal system, the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.
The burden of defending IP should always lie with the IP holders. It's up to Joe Blow to defend his copyrights in court, why should a MAFIAA organization get the government to pick up the tab for their investigations when Joe Blow doesn't get similar consideration?
Oh, right. We're back to that "Corporations are not only people, but they're super people with more rights then real people" thing...
Re: (Score:3)
Right, mission was accomplished and the *AA is happy and didn't have to pay a dime to do it.
However, it was short sighted as its only a temporary blip and it will cause the next batch of providers to be harder to catch, AND we burnt some bridges in the process.
Re:Impressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
MegaUpload is done and dusted
Yep, just like how The Pirate Bay got raided that one time and now they're gone forever.
Kim Dotcom has way more money than a bunch of technically literate Swedish dudes. He'll do the same thing TPB did, though. He'll rebuild the site and make it as difficult as possible to take down on a technical level.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I don't think they (our shit USA gov't and law enforcement). They have accomplished what the big media companies donating hundred of millions or more to members of the gov't wanted; the operation shut down. Honestly, even if right now, everything goes back to normal for dot com, how long will it take for him to get everything back and running if he ever does? Did you read about the server the FBI seized and held for 13 month, basically are the request of the RIAA and while the RIAA tried to f
Re: (Score:2)
Which feds? The NZ ones for sure. However this doesn't say anything about warrants issued by US courts, so until it does it seems the seizure of servers located in the US is still a valid action.
Whether evidence that was leaked out of NZ could be used in US court proceedings, I don't know, but surely there is a lot on the US based servers.
I imagine this means there will still be attempts at extradition etc.
At Least... (Score:3, Funny)
...they didn't bring SWAT along, bust down her door and shoot her dog (and possible her).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where is Crocodile Dundee when you need him?
Re:At Least... (Score:4, Funny)
In Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong country, mate. In NZ ya get Kiwi Dundee, Mick's second cousin twice removed on his mum's side. Never made it as big in the movies, being rather a bit shorter than Mick and with a nose that's not exactly photogenic, if you know what I mean. Apparently got a touch of acrophobia as well - keep hearing he won't fly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:At Least... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://gawker.com/5532226/swat-team-raids-house-shoots-dogs-over-small-amount-of-marijuana
SWAT teams are trained for assaults on property occupied by the armed and dangerous. Their training says to strike hard, without warning, with overwhelming force, and shooting anything that poses the slightest threat to their own safety... like a dog. So when a SWAT team is send to raid an ordinary house and ordinary family, they tend towards overkill and a shoot-first, ask-later policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Their training says to strike hard...
Which I think is stupid. Absent someone being in danger inside the location, or (and even this is iffy) the possible destruction of evidence, there is absolutely no reason to be that aggressive. Surround the place, cut off the utilities and wait them out. No one gets hurt.
And actually, there have been many instances which would qualify as the basis of my original comment. Hell, cops just making a call on a house to take a report are ending up shooting the family pets.
Re:At Least... (Score:4, Informative)
He was refering to a recent well-known incident in which a SWAT team was sent to arrest a suspected drug dealer...
And here is the (really quite horrifying) video of that incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b-67q0vlCw [youtube.com]
The point at which the man realises his dog has been shot is heartbreaking.
Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure that'll make kim happy.
Now that the goverment has destroyed his business and siezed a bunch of his assets.
See, thats how serious the riaa is. Guy starts talking about promoting independant artists himself on his own site... And the riaa gets the usa goverment to stomp on him with both feet. ILLEGALLY!
Such bullshit.
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only does the "goverment has destroyed his business and siezed a bunch of his assets" (which government? please be clear), the damage done to his house, and the money spent in defence is all gone. He won't be compensated for damaged property, let alone mental anguish or similar.
The police in NZ really fucked it up, and nothing will happen. The cop in charge won't even get a blackmark, let alone the judge who signed off on the illegitimate search warrant.
It doesn't matter if this individual is the most foul and awful person ever, they deserve to be compensated (and not a mere pittance either, but damages plus extra) to discourage this sort of behaviour. And some of it should come out fo the pockets of those directly responsible.
But no, we can't have that, we can't have any sort of fetters on the ability of the police to fuck up livelihoods, nor can we possibly actually hold accountable those responsible.
(Most of the above post applies to all the world, not just NZ.)
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So exactly why can't Mr. Dotcom sue over this? It seems to me that damages done during serving an illegal warrant would be recoverable.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US it is quite clear that there is legal liability for law enforcement agents for exceeding their authority.
Suits based on civil rights violations by law enforcement do happen.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/37170.htm [courthousenews.com]
Given NZ is a civilized nation I would hope the same applies there.
Most recent interview with Kim (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvrRaeHD5TE&
MegaBoxed (Score:5, Interesting)
The bad news for those guys is that it's still good to go. I wonder if it will be successful.
http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-artists-rejoice-megabox-is-not-dead-120621/ [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How interesting that Kim Dotcom has his assets seized and his business killed just a couple of months after announcing a new service called MegaBox that would have competed directly and legally with record labels.
The bad news for those guys is that it's still good to go. I wonder if it will be successful.
http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-artists-rejoice-megabox-is-not-dead-120621/ [torrentfreak.com]
How interesting really is this? Not very. Bandcamp already does this [bandcamp.com]. Spotify already does this [spotify.com]. And, if megaupload was any indication, both services will be much better than megabox.
Re: (Score:3)
How interesting really is this? Not very.Bandcamp already does this [bandcamp.com]. Spotify already does this [spotify.com].
Whataboutery, and irrelevance.
This is a story about a Filelocker service that has been deemed to be a haven for piracy launching a legitmate service directly in collaberation with the artists themselves. Unlike BandCamp and Spotify what its success would tell you is that many Artists aren't having a problem getting into bed with a so called haven for piracy. And a good number of them may even be choosing it in preference to working with all those 'legitimate' labels.
I would find that very interesting inde
the real reason (Score:4, Funny)
totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a good example of how totalitarian police activity can help to turn a career criminal like Dotcom into a hero. Look at this guy objectively: Has he done a single thing in his whole life which was not about breaking one law after another for his own selfish benefit? Don't delude yourself: he wasn't doing any of this to free our culture from Big Media or even to give you shit without you having to pay for it. This has always been about benefiting himself.
Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes (Score:4, Insightful)
Find me a CEO of any fortune 500 company that can't be described in exactly the same way.
News headline from next week (Score:2, Funny)
"Helen Winkelmann Arrested on Rape Charge"
The next extradiction request ... (Score:5, Interesting)
will it be to have the USA send back to New Zealand those FBI officers who we now know committed illegal acts when they were last in New Zealand ?
I can't see the USA giving this any attention other than to laugh at it .... but what would they say if it were the other way round ?
Payback (Score:4, Interesting)
Sort of payback from NZ officials for being treated like they were by the FBI after they did their best to cooperate. Not real surprised to see a virtual bird flipping back.
But, Kim was put out of business for a while, so the effect was the same. Short sighted goals.
Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder, when the dust settles, as I suppose it one day must, will anyone add up the appalling costs to the NZ taxpayers to play out this farce? The Crown is likely going to have to fold their entire case and may face liability for wrongful conduct. It's all well to say that the Americans have achieved their goals just by putting the fear of god into all the offshore quasi-ethical file-share outfits and screwing up Mega's business. But NZ taxpayers will face millions in court costs and lost police and prosecutor time sorting this out. If the costs are large, the embarrassment significant and the gains are negligible or non-existent, how many more times will NZ or other small powers accommodate American expeditions of this type so willingly?
I think there's an onus on New Zealanders to complain to their parties about the policies that let this happen, use access to information to ferret out the complicit officials into the light of day. Make the costs and embarrassment of following though on this farce a political issue for the government.
If I were Julian Assange... (Score:2)
I'd be asking for a separate cell in Gitmo.
Kim might eat him! What is it about billionaires that makes the majority of them obese?
This might be the waterloo (Score:4, Insightful)
Name some names (Score:4, Interesting)
After the media storm following the arrest of Mr. Dotcom - who has yet to be proved guilty of any crime - can we now hope to have published the names and photographs of all those who took part in these illegal acts. Not to mention descriptions of their homes, cars and financial assets.
If the aim of the action was to scare all the other download sites out of business voluntarily I feel that natural justice requires the DOJ and NZ police forces get an example made of them to make sure they and other national police forces never try to perfom such egregiously illegal acts again.
Way to go, MAFIAA/DOJ. You managed to convert someone most people would have loved to hate into a martyr.