Forgot your password?
The Courts

Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government 127

Posted by samzenpus
from the time-to-sue dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A Court of Appeal judgement released today has ruled in favor of Kim Dotcom and will let him sue the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) alongside New Zealand Police. During the High Court case, it emerged that the GCSB had been illegally spying on Dotcom prior to the raid on his Coatesville mansion, on behalf of the FBI, who now wants the Megaupload millionaire extradited to face trial in the US over copyright infringements."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government

Comments Filter:
  • Re:His mansion (Score:5, Informative)

    by macraig (621737) <mark.a.craig@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday March 07, 2013 @06:59AM (#43102843)

    When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?

    How Cops Became Soldiers: An Interview with Police Militarization Expert Radley Balko []. There ya go.

  • Re:His mansion (Score:4, Informative)

    by Sique (173459) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @07:45AM (#43102987) Homepage
    Pointing out, where the private property begins.
  • Re:His mansion (Score:4, Informative)

    by RaceProUK (1137575) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @08:13AM (#43103089) Homepage

    From where?

    The Prime Meridian. Dividing East from West since 1851.

  • Re:His mansion (Score:5, Informative)

    by isorox (205688) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @08:14AM (#43103097) Homepage Journal

    DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs,

    Department of Health and Safety bought some UPSes?

    school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces

    You've got a fucked up country if you have an on-campus police force

    The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.

    Does it really?

    There have been 22 police officers killed in the line of duty in the UK since 2000 Half of those were traffic collisions (accidents or delibete), so I'm not sure how a SWAT team would solve that. That's a 1 in 90,000 chance of dying in the line of duty each year.

    New Zealand has 7 deaths (half accidental) since 2000 (1 in 19000)

    Canada had 5 deaths in 2012, 4 of which were vehicle related (1 in 13000)

    The U.S has had 19 deaths SO FAR THIS YEAR. Last year was about 130, out of 794,000 officers (1 in 6000)

    The U.S. is an anomaly, don't lump the western world into your dysfunctional society.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:09AM (#43103821)

    Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.

    If the U.S. Constitution were still in effect, this egregious misconduct would get the perp freed at arraignment, if not cancelling the embarrassment of extradition. L'esprit deLoi of our Constitution is as guidelines for just and effective government, with primacy given toward protecting the citizen from the state.

  • Re:Mega and YouTube (Score:4, Informative)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday March 07, 2013 @10:57AM (#43104313) Homepage Journal

    YouTube's also spent a lot of time making itself legal and started out with a legitimate premise (not a "We're legal nudge-nudge wink-wink" premise, but an entirely legitimate concept from the get-go - a place to share home movies. Things like the ten minute maximum length of each video, considerably shorter than 90% of TV shows and 100% of movies helped demonstrate that.)

    YouTube went to the content industry and worked with them on everything from implementing filters to block identifiable unauthorized content to providing them with royalties should they prefer that over DMCA takedowns.

    I just don't see any of that in the MU case. MU was no different from the other major "Upload up to a gigabyte and then distribute a link that anyone can use to access the same content" services. Even their DMCA compliance system was a joke, focussing on links to content (where an infinite number of links pointed to the same file) rather than on content.

    Was MU intended to be a facilitator of unauthorized material? I can't answer that, but I know YouTube never intended itself to be, didn't want to be, and took pro-active steps to deal with that situation. That's a major difference in and of itself.

"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near