Dotcom Drags NZ Spook Agency Into Court 165
New submitter d18c7db writes "Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom has won another court victory, today given the right to drag the secretive GCSB into the spotlight of a courtroom. Forcing the GCSB to be tied to the court action opens it up to court ordered discovery — meaning Dotcom's lawyers can go fishing for documents as they continue to fight extradition to the U.S. to face copyright charges. But the GCSB claimed any disclosure of what [was] intercepted would prejudice New Zealand's national security interests 'as it will tend to reveal intelligence gathering and sharing methods.' Dotcom and his fellow Mega Upload accused asked Chief High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann for the right to have the GCSB become part of the proceedings, amend their statement of claim, and for additional discovery. In a judgment issued today she gave that permission."
Awwww (Score:5, Funny)
Poor widdle government agency lost its sovereign immunity when it started working for the wrong sovereign.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should be a little more respectful. The security of the local sheep herding and bungee jumping trades is of the utmost importance.
Re:Awwww (Score:5, Funny)
You should be a little more respectful. The security of the local sheep herding and bungee jumping trades is of the utmost importance.
Don't be so snide, the sheepherding industry was nearly destroyed by the money lost from Dotcom's sharing of Pocahontas 2!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being deported to the US would obviously be way worse. We don't have anything like Guantanamo Bay. And in fact a lot of our CCTV is privately owned.. the Police often have to request CCTV from the company I work for because in fact they don't have cameras "everywhere". There are certainly some around the city centres I guess. I don't see the problem. These are public areas, and it's an efficient way to spot trouble. You can't have Police everywhere, every moment. That really would be a "Police state".
Re: (Score:2)
I would recommend for this guy to apply for political asylum as nothing can be worse than being deported to the U.K., the biggest police state in the world. CCTV camera's everywhere and people getting arrested for posting pictures to Facebook.
Yes, in the UK we have CCTV cameras in public places which will record your criminal activities in those public places. Big. Fucking. Deal.
You will only get arrested for posting pictures to Facebook if you are breaking a law. The fact it's on the internet doesn't give you a magic exemption from your country's laws.
Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I get the argument that some state secrets need to be kept to prevent aiding enemies from circumventing intelligence gathering activities. However, if that privilege is invoked, then the coutrs should simply give a default judgement as if the opposing side's claims are proven by the evidence provided. In other words, keep the secrets and be quiet and lose the case, or defend against it with the requested information - possibly provided under seal and only seen by the judge and a security-cleared lawyer for both sides.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The NZ citizens should be concerned that their spy agency behaved like that, and take measures to ensure that their spy agency is really serving NZ's interests instead of some other entity's interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the spy agency behaved badly but the New Zealand courts are rightly putting them in their place, it is the way the system is meant to work.
No agency, department or person is perfect. That is why we have checks and balances like courts.
If this wasn't working Dotcom would have simply been extradited and but fortunately that is not the case. It shows there are at least some parts of New Zealand with power, that have not gone completely insane over the global threat to world stability that people c
Re: (Score:3)
What annoys me (and I live in NZ) is that while Kim Dotcom is almost certainly a sleezy guy and hardly trustworthy, he didn't break any laws in NZ.
The NZ law enforcement agencies should have told the US agencies to get lost and released a press statement giving the details.
Of course, why the government allowed his residency in the first place is my real concern, given his criminal background. I guess promising to invest 10 mill in a country of 4 million people buy's a lot of bygones
Re: (Score:2)
What annoys me (and I live in NZ) is that while Kim Dotcom is almost certainly a sleezy guy and hardly trustworthy, he didn't break any laws in NZ.
The NZ law enforcement agencies should have told the US agencies to get lost and released a press statement giving the details.
You are aware of the existence of Extradition Treaties? Just because everyone on slashdot doesn't think Kim Dotcom has done anything wrong doesn't mean there aren't criminal charges against him.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point, though, isn't it? Dotcom didn't physically perpetrate any crimes in the US. He didn't flee our jurisdiction. Extradition laws are typically about crimes committed in a jurisdiction from which the the defendant fled.
Even more to the point. Dotcom is CEO of a corporation that is accused—not convicted—of copyright infringement. Officers and employees of corporations are usually exempt from prosecution for laws broken by the company. There are ways of piercing the corporate veil but to do so typically requires that the officers and employees in question knew the actions were illegal. MegaUpload and Dotcom are arguing that they adhered to the laws and even helped US authorities gather evidence in other proceedings.
There's a great deal of uncertainty regarding the case...uncertainty that might be clarified during trial proceedings against MegaUpload. To argue that Dotcom should be prosecuted at all would, to me, require that MegaUpload be first found guilt of a crime. Once that had been done the extradition request would have been a mere formality.
But that's not what happened. US authorities have seemingly abandoned the niceties of sending officers to the accused's house or place of business during daylight hours. In many cases they've resorted to a shock-and-awe methodology of pre-dawn raids with smoke, tear gas and loaded weapons drawn. The argue it's necessary to prevent destruction of evidence.
Somehow US authorities convinced NZ authorities this method of arrest was necessary to "capture" a rather portly big mouth who's shot more videos than he has firing-range targets.
I don't believe any of it was necessary. I don't believe there's a viable case of criminal conduct. What I suspect is the whole thing is a botched case that authorities in both countries want to sweep under the rug. And, while we're on the topic...the argument that exposing the case to public scrutiny will "reveal intelligence gathering and sharing methods" is straight from the US playbook.
The real shame is they tried to use criminal-case law and methods in what should have been a civil case, screwed it up and as a result have undermined public confidence in the justice system in general.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
This Is The Point (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the point where the charges get dropped.
It's unfortunate that an utter slimeball like Dotcom is the one to drag these agencies and policies out into the sunshine.
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
even balls of slime have their uses.
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Funny)
And their rights.
The MPAA is working on fixing that.
Re: (Score:2)
even balls of slime have their uses.
And their rights.
The MPAA is working on fixing that.
They're voluntarily giving up their own rights?
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Funny)
Making sticky pistons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like:
Sounds just about as fair as convicting people based on secret evidence discovered during torture at Guantanamo.
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it unfortunate? Compared to the US federal government, and the interests it serves, Dotcom is an angel.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This, times 1.5 Googleplex.
Re: (Score:3)
Er, wow. I drank the kool-aid... that would be Googolplex.
Re: (Score:2)
AC: your daily affirmations are meant to be kept private.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the point where the charges get dropped.
I doubt this would safe them.
When they illegaly spied on a NZ resident they broke the law.
If I where Dotcom I would still drag them to court even if all charges would be dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how it works sometimes. One of the world's lowest slimeballs, Larry Flynt, established the precedent of parody and satire being protected under freedom of speech in the US (a protection missing in many countries).
I like that it works this way. If the precedent of rights and protection is established for even the slimeballs, then the rest of us should be good.
Re:This Is The Point (Score:5, Insightful)
If the precedent of rights and protection is established for even the slimeballs, then the rest of us should be good.
The rights of the majority don't need protection from the majority. Popular speech isn't censored.
Then again, perhaps the premise that a majority has the moral ability to take away the rights of the minority (in any number of instances) is the more fundamental problem.
Re:This Is The Point (Score:4, Insightful)
What are they hiding? (Score:4, Funny)
What methods would it reveal? Surly they follow the law and have nothing to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with the fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are they hiding? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that if you dont want to have these techniques made open in court, then dont use these techniques to pursue someone who will have charges brought up in court. National security investigation techniques implies that this was a case of national security. Seems a bit petty to use these resources to defend disney, pop music, and porn.
Re:What are they hiding? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that if you dont want to have these techniques made open in court, then dont use these techniques to pursue someone who will have charges brought up in court. National security investigation techniques implies that this was a case of national security. Seems a bit petty to use these resources to defend disney, pop music, and porn.
I'd love to see a judge say: "Look GCSB, if you can show that Dotcom was a known national security threat to NZ while you were doing this, we can talk about keeping some things off the table. But if you can't, then you weren't doing 'national security' operations and no 'national security' techniques should have been used, and I want to see every single bit that's even tangentially related to this and enter it into the public record."
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that if you dont want to have these techniques made open in court, then dont use these techniques to pursue someone who will have charges brought up in court. National security investigation techniques implies that this was a case of national security. Seems a bit petty to use these resources to defend disney, pop music, and porn.
We've had this argument in the UK with the security services bringing charges against terrorists. The way round it is for a judge to decide what is not permissible to be questioned by the defence in so far as it would endanger operational security. This generally just means hiding the identities of certain witnesses (e.g. undercover operatives) which seems fair enough to me.
If the secret service uses (say) wiretapping to record evidence against potential terrorists, then this should be revealed in court
Re: (Score:3)
All you need to know is that the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all signatories to the UKUSA agreement, which allows for the signal intelligence agencies of said countries to share a large amount of data. Therefore, some of the information the GCSB has access to is information which originates from the NSA. So Dotcom is not just taking on the GCSB, he's taking on every signal intelligence agency of the primary English-speaking countries.
UKUSA information sharing agreement. [nsa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
So its possible that the NSA will step in and ask that Dotcom's extradition and US copyright infringement case be dropped. The alternative would be to try him and risk not only NZ intelligence data but that of the US, UK, AUS and others.
Now we'll get to see see just how powerful the MPAA/RIAA really are.
If they have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the GCSB have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right?
If they were using standard and allowed intelligence methods against this civilian, they have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear.
If however, they were breaking laws, then there may be other consequences too.
The defense only claims that it cannot be touched. Somehow, I think this is not a strong defense.
Re:If they have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Funny)
Can you see this dialogue?
"We cannot tell you because it would threaten the national security."
"It would threaten the national security if you tell us how you ignored laws that should protect national security by disallowing the sharing of potential trade secrets with foreign, possibly hostile, nations?"
"Yes"
Re: (Score:2)
That's circular reasoning.
They made a statement that they can't reveal the information under threat of national security, but they have to prove that this is actually the case ... Without falling back on the same dumb one liner.
I hope the judge and parties involved are smart enough to see this.
You cannot do that! (Score:5, Funny)
That could reveal that we illegally shared information with foreign nations!
Re: (Score:2)
And here I was thinking that these are the guys that wanna tell us that sharing information is bad? I'm kinda confused now, I get mixed signals.
Must be one of those "preaching water and guzzling wine" things.
My Neighbours Drill Set! (Score:2, Insightful)
If I told you how I came about it, you might think I stole it!
Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (Score:2)
When I hear [read] the name Kim Dotcom, I thought he was Korean or something along those lines as that is the only place I know of where men can be named Kim. I guess I was wrong on that. Looking at the picture of Doctom in the article, I am reminded of Eric Cartman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which mostly shows that you don't know much about names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_(given_name) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Kimberley is the name of a place. As a given name it is unisex, though in America mostly given to girls. As of late, the inexplicable popularity of a female named Kim is tilting the balance to make it a girl's name. Same as Paris.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where the comparisson ends, though; Cartman has a much higher moral standard than Dotcom.
Judges rules that no one is above the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
.
His lawyers have already proved that GCSB's surveillance of the mogul was illegal, and search warrants for the January raid were invalid.
Are we supposed to cheer for the judge for making a reasonable ruling, or are we supposed to cheer that the judge allowed for the review of possible criminal / illegal activities by the law enforcement officers of New Zealand? Any way you look at it, it's sad that it came to this: law enforcement in NZ breaking laws (possibly under the external request / direction of others) and using force to execute searches for evidence of copyright infringement.
Standard "national security" Reply (Score:5, Informative)
The "national interests" reply is getting worn more than a bit thin. The proper reposte is:
"Since national security is so important to you, you ought to take especial care not to violate any laws or commit torts. Then you won't need to worry about being before courts, or can get yourselves severed from actions."
But No. The real problem is that at least some government officals believe themselves to be above the law. The same belief as held by common criminals. These officals believe that their "mission" is more important than obeying the law. Never mind that most of them are breaking some laws to enforce other laws. The irony escapes them -- must have thick heads. And please understand, obeying the law isn't tough -- there are lots of tame judges who will give out warrents. The rogues just don't want to submit, and can get away with it. Power trip.
I wonder why large numbers of office-holders aren't charged with treason as they wilfully violate their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. But then, we live in a praetorian culture, much worse since 2001.
Separation (Score:2)
Re:Separation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even without the last decade of copyright law stupidity, setting up a business that works by copyright infringement would be a criminal offense in all western countries.
Individual infringements are civil matters. Running an organization based on them is not. The law knows about a point where intentional, continued civil matters become criminal matters.
Case Dismissed (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the GCSB will say their methods are secret and can't be disclosed in open court, and the court will dismiss the charges against Dotcom, giving the government a way out. It's happened in the US a few times.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe the GCSB will say their methods are secret and can't be disclosed in open court, and the court will dismiss the charges against Dotcom, giving the government a way out. It's happened in the US a few times.
This is not a case that can be dismissed. He is fighting extradition to the US. Either he wins and stays in NZ, or he loses and gets on a plane to America.
It should be noted that Mr. Dotcom was more or less done for until he hired an American law firm [twitter.com] to represent him; his new legal team is lead by one of President Obama's law school classmates. That firm, of course, also represents Google and almost every Android phone manufacturer against Apple and Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering how much of GCSB's equipment and methodologies are genuinely indigenous, versus how much is supplied by larger Echelon [wikipedia.org] nations like the UK and US. It's pretty amazing that a nation of less than five million has a full-blown NSA equivalent. Then again, with manufacturers like this [wikipedia.org] float
Frankly... (Score:2)
...I'm tired of various entities somehow being above the law and able to just say no whenever they want. The things they do are on the taxpayer dime. They are arms of the government, which is a servant of the people. In no way are they nor should they ever be above the law, period.
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Has there always been this much Dotcom-hate on /., or is there the beginning of an astroturf campaign going on here?
Re: (Score:2)
In short, yes, there's always been this much, but it's mixed with heavy doses of support from the "I want something for nothing", "Big Media is killing us" and "gub'mint is bad" crowds.
Re: (Score:2)
Dotcom was done previously for fraud, though when I read about the case it didn't sound much different to what some bankers do day in day out for a living, so it seemed more like Dotcom, being rather young at the time, was just being naive about how you play the game the big boys play.
A poster here previously admitted he was one of Dotcom's "victims", and hence that I believe is probably why you see a campaign here, only I don't think it's much of a campaign, it's actually just one or two people posting lot
Re: (Score:2)
There has always been this much Dotcom-dislike on /. There isn't really any ill-will, just a general dislike of his character; "arrogant douche" sums it up nicely.
With that said, we still want him to win, because there are so many things wrong with the whole affair, such as shutting down a multi-million dollar business without a trial.
Engineers are conservatives and DotCom rocks the b (Score:4, Insightful)
DotCom rocks the boat and conservatives don't like that. Not for any reason. Most people don't. Rock the boat even to stop people from drowning and the very people who are drowning will complain the loudest about being saved. People want a quiet life. They REALLY don't like someone who makes them think or do anything. Not even if they agree. Oh you might THINK you are left or right wing but as soon as someone starts hinting you actually do something about it, you start to resent that person. It happens to all of us to a greater or lesser degree. We LOVE pragmatist and hate idealist where pragmatist stands for: what you are doing goes against everything you believe but hey, it is the easy way out so as long as you don't feel 100% happy about doing wrong, it is okay to do wrong. An idealist is an extremist who dares to suggest that if you believe something to be wrong maybe you should consider doing just the tiniest bit less of it. RADICAL EXTREMISTS!
Julian Assange, Kim DotCom, Richard Stallman, they are all hated because they don't just say on accasion we do wrong but actually expect us to change, claim that if we keep doing X there are consequences! Linus Torvald is loved because he has no opinion and just lets us do what ever we were doing.
We love environmentalists just as long as we don't have to anything about, love opensource just as long as we can keep paying companies to lock us into walled gardens and Kim DotCom reminds us to much that filesharing is not just about copying a file from your friend but a huge economic battle between two ways we can run our economy in the future. Thinking about the effects of this battle going either way would do us good but thinking hurts and the Simpsons are on, a show that for a quarter of a century hasn't changed ANYTHING. We like that. It is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
You're pretty silly. Slashdot may have hardons for assange and stall man are 2 of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Dot com is nothing more than a fraudster and a thief using ignorant people like you to fanboy for him.
You can't name one redeeming quality about him that isn't entirely self serving and will no longer be his concern the instant it no longer benefits him directly.
He isn't fighting for your rights, he's trying to keep the shit he stole and hide behind some righteous pretend cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we reading the same /. ?
I see lots and lots and lots of people rooting for a career criminal who made copyright infringement a business concept. The exact kind of people you do not want to be associated with when you are interested in a sane copyright reform, because they are more useful to those crying for more and stricter laws than to anyone fighting for the public good.
Re: (Score:2)
Has there always been this much Dotcom-hate on /., or is there the beginning of an astroturf campaign going on here?
One anti-Kim post and you say there's an astroturf campaign going on?
I can only assume you're a paid Megaupload shill.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You (The U.S.A) is already killing people you don't like in other countries and then letting POTUS announce the killing.
So, what's stopping you?
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't have a problem with him until I read his wikipedia page. Now I have a big problem with him. I suggest you do the same. If you're basing your opinion of him on the fact that you liked downloading things from megaupload and hate the MPAA, you're missing a lot of real info.
I don't like what I heard about his personality, but it doesn't matter: If somebody is a douche or not has no bearing on whether the actions taken against him and his company are legal and befitting the alledged crime or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody is a douche or not has no bearing on whether the actions taken against him and his company are legal and befitting the alledged crime or not.
In theoretical universes, sure.
In the real world how you act has consequences. Your past actions DO GET HELD AGAINST YOU in a court of law and the damn well should be. Previous actions show patterns. People don't actually change, sometimes people aren't bad but do bad things. They may only do it once out of some need or ignorance. People who lie, cheat, and still over and over again don't suddenly stop doing it. He is getting what he deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but given your theme of "people who lie, cheat and steal... don't suddenly stop doing it", I'd be far more worried about a nation's intelligence agency apparently selling out to a foreign corporate cartel - what else might they have done?
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Complete jackasses still have a right to due process. And secret agencies that consider themselves above the law simply need to cease to exist.
Really, though, unless I missed something, his Wiki page has nothing all that damning. Some petty hacking, some (non-identity theft) carding, and a pump-and-dump on an already-dead company. Woo-hoo.
Except that he has a rare combination of tech savvy with business acumen, you'll find far, far more evil people going about their daily business of screwing the plebes in nearly every corporate boardroom in the world. Kim, at least, sounds like he just did it for kicks.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, consider what it would mean if the CIA hadn't turned the entire Middle East against us by selling arms to both sides just for shits and giggles? If they hadn't run the world drug trade through the 80s, leaving all of Central America and most of Mexico under the control of the drug cartels? If they hadn't made the whole world hate us by running secret torture prisons through
Re: (Score:2)
Every single point I made (with the possible exception of the Russian government actually having control of their own intelligence agencies - I'd call that one open to debate) amounts to pure documented fact [huffingtonpost.com]. Not speculation, not even stretching the data to fit an information vacuum.
Though, I suppose you might not remember the Iran Contra affair [wikipedia.org]. You might not have flown in the past 10 years [propublica.org]. You might not read Slashd [slashdot.org]... Oh... No, I guess you do. Huh, funny that.
Re: (Score:2)
Declined to hear an appeal to a lower court's ruling that we couldn't sue. As the US has no higher authority to petition for redress - We can't sue, simple as that.
you have failed to actually list any of their worth.
I maintain that they have no worth. You've said nothing to counter that, but, as I obviously can't prove a negative, I guess that ends the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, it appears to me that's exactly what an argument is. If you were taking into account what benefits both sides, it would be compromise, or cooperation, or synthesis, whatever. If you aren't actually arguing with him, from this seat in the audience I'd say you're not doing too well (and if you are, I'd also say you're not doing too well).
Also, this:
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'd guessed it wasn't his surname from birth before I read his wikipedia page. I'm not sure I see anything there that classes him as "class A jackass", either. Care to be more specific?
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Kim Dotcom a "douche"? I don't know, I've never met him. Even if he was, though, he still doesn't deserve two government colluding and breaking laws to arrest him. I don't need a third-person written wikipedia article to determine that you, however, are a judgemental prick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I just read through most of his wikipedia page and it's a whole lot of "wow!" Dotcom is amazing. As a criminal, you simply have to admire his drive, guts and ability. Of course he's a criminal scum-bucket and deserves to be removed from society to better protect society's interests. But that said, it does not and cannot excuse misbehavior by our governments. If they expect us to respect and live by the rule of law, they should do the same. And if they are willing to break the law "to get a b
Re: (Score:2)
if they are willing to break the law "to get a bad guy" then I have to wonder why we even bother with courts and due process at all.
Allow me to introduce you to at least 95% of our beloved law enforcement personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have a problem with him until I read his wikipedia page. Now I have a big problem with him. I suggest you do the same. If you're basing your opinion of him on the fact that you liked downloading things from megaupload and hate the MPAA, you're missing a lot of real info. He's a class A jackass. Anyone who changes their last name to something that stupid is right up there with Chad Ochocinco.
Wow, MIAA/RIAA shill? How much they pay you?
He's a jackass? He's not part of the industry that sicks police on a 9 year old girl. And as much as you have a right to change your name to something you want, he changed his name to something he liked. Doesn't matter if it's stupid or not, it's his legal last name. To not like someone because of their last name sounds bad, in fact, almost sounds racist.
I never to rarely used Megaupload. And when i did, if was for legal stuff. I don't need megauploa
Re: (Score:2)
Then we should throw G.W.Bush Jr. under the bus along with Praetorious and any other politician. Oh and don't forget Bill Gates, Elison, Jobs and a whole host of others such as most of Hollywood and RIAA. Hell lets just start throwing everyone under the bus that I don't like, which means Humans since we can't live with them and they bring property values down.
Personall, I don't give a damn how much of an a*hole dotcom is since I don't have to put up with him at all. All I want is the service he provided whe
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really like Kimmie either, but for the first time in his miserable life he's doing something for the greater good. Even if only to save his own sorry ass.
Re: (Score:3)
His asshole of a personality is going to benefit him, actually. He's got those psychopathic traits to succeed because he's willing to trample anyone who gets in his way. The fortunate thing for us is that the crummy FBI and the MPAA are the ones in his way.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly because that's not a crime.
Re:I have an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrogant douche or not, when your national spy agency is accused of giving too much information about a citizen to a foreign power so they can investigate the commercial interests of one of their own companies ... well, things might have gone a little too far.
They went outside of their legal mandate so they could go after this guy. They broke the law.
Are you defending the rights of the state to go after people by any means necessary? This is as much about the fact that law enforcement needs to follow the law as anything Dotcom did now.
I don't give a rats ass about what he did or didn't do, but I do expect governments to reign in their security apparatus and make damned sure they're following the law. In this case, they didn't, and now they don't want the evidence of that peeked into.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it would be very difficult to successfully prosecute given the vast level of competition for that title.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To stay peaceful?
The UK isn't that much bigger (probably 5-6% larger) and you don't question us having several.
I'd say an intelligence agency of some sort was probably vital to any non-trivial country (i.e. one that you've heard of). You don't have to be invading foreign countries to be able to benefit from knowing when others are planning to do that to you.
Re: (Score:2)
UK is much more crowded though; ~62.3 million citizens vs. ~4.4 million in NZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (Score:5, Informative)
New Zealand has been the location of terrorist attacks in the past.
In the '80s a terrorist group based in France called the DGSE blew up the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, killing one of the crew.
NZ security personal were able to capture 2 of the culprits (alain Marfard amd Dominique Prieux , but the French Governemnt made us give them back,
Made you give them back? (Score:2)
New Zealand is a sovereign nation right? (or were b4 you sold out to big media) How can France force you to give them back?
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand is a sovereign nation right? (or were b4 you sold out to big media) How can France force you to give them back?
New Zealand has sticks, rocks, and men with testicles, right? How can etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
NZ was broke and economics always wins over principles.
Re: (Score:3)
NZ was hoping that at least one other country would support them over the issue. Even the UK wasn't going to help prevent France hurting NZ trade to Europe. So the best NZ could hope for was a token compensation payment from France and handing the spies back.
Extra galling when tens of thousands of NZers died in two world wars defending France and the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I think of blowing up green peace related stuff as counter-terrorism work myself. They aren't exactly law abiding citizens or even ones you'd actually want to be around.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately they were only jailed for a year before a deal was made where they were supposed to have been transferred to a jail in their home country, but they were released immediately instead. That episode has left NZ with some distrust of oth