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."
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.
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.
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.
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: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.
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:Case Dismissed (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:Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)