Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government United States Technology Your Rights Online

Kim Dotcom Wins Case Against NZ Police To Get Seized Material Back 111

Posted by Soulskill
from the seize-first-and-ask-questions-later dept.
New submitter Mistakill writes "It seems the case against Kim Dotcom for the NZ Police isn't going well, with Kim Dotcom scoring another victory in his legal battles. Police have been told they must search everything they seized from Dotcom and hand back what is not relevant to the U.S. extradition claims. Justice Helen Winkelmann told police their complaints about the cost and time of the exercise were effectively their own fault for indiscriminately seizing material in the first place. She wrote, 'The warrants could not authorize the permanent seizure of hard drives and digital materials against the possibility that they might contain relevant material, with no obligation to check them for relevance. They could not authorize the shipping offshore of those hard drives with no check to see if they contained relevant material. Nor could they authorize keeping the plaintiffs out of their own information, including information irrelevant to the offenses.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Wins Case Against NZ Police To Get Seized Material Back

Comments Filter:
  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:37AM (#43871731) Journal

    Kim Dotcom really comes across as an amazing douche.

    The thing is that in this everyone else in this whole saga is SO douchey that he actually manages to come across as a sympathetic character.

    It's really quite incredible if you think about it.

    • by slashmydots (2189826) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:53AM (#43871905)
      I disagree. In this level of douche vs douche, I automatically side with absolutely nobody and just hope it's as large of a train wreck as possible. The fact that this is getting sorted out is really unfortunate.
      • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:21AM (#43872307) Journal

        The fact that this is getting sorted out is really unfortunate.

        Really? I would say that the rule of law shouldn't be suspended simply because the accused is a massive (to quote an AC from a previous thread) chucklefuck.

        Really, it's best for everyone if he wins this, because despite being a prat he was subject to a massive abuse of the law from several governments simultaneously. It's far more important that the rule of law is maintained than one dickhead gets away with being a dickhead.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:34AM (#43872529)

        In this level of douche vs douche, I automatically side with absolutely nobody

        One douche is a threat to no one. Another douche is a threat to you, me, and pretty much anyone in the world. (Wow, how often do you get to say something that grandiose and sweeping without it being an exaggeration?!)

        Root for the first douche, this time. It's ok for him to lose, but it really is important that the second douche lose much worse, publicly and with the most exposure and embarrassment possible. The second douche needs to know that all societies and laws hold them in utter and complete contempt. (The first douche, otoh, already knows that.) And any politician who ever hopes to be elected in the US, needs to know that "fire those guys" absolutely must become a part of his platform. If someone can run for next President or next term of Congress without publicly stating they intend to clean house at the DoJ, then we aren't making enough noise.

        • by Salgak1 (20136)
          And we ALREADY know the answer. It will be blamed on "low-level employees" who will remain effectively anonymous, might get a few weeks off with pay, and go right back to work. Because NOBODY is allowed to out-douchebag the US.gov. . .
    • by dbIII (701233) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:58AM (#43871989)
      That's what happens when due process is ignored. Governments just come across as bullies when they ignore their own rules.
    • by asifyoucare (302582) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:59AM (#43871999)

      Douchiness is irrelevant.

      "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H. L. Mencken

      • Douchiness is irrelevant.

        To what?

        I was merely observing that this involves such unpleasant characters that a normally rather unsympathetic character actually comes off looking better than the rest.

        Douchiness is everything to do with it.

        • Sorry, my comment wasn't meant as an attack on what you said. I had no problem with that, at all.

          But I think that the perceived douchiness of Kim emboldened NZ law enforcement to do what they did, and that's why I added my comment under yours

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            I disagree.

            I think it's the US government that did what they did, not NZ law enforcement. This was proven by the case itself and the push to extradite. I however, do have a problem with serviscope's comment about being a douche, because last I checked how people consider someone "being a douche" is not even consistent between individuals and is not illegal or even relevant, as stated.

            • by gl4ss (559668)

              I disagree.

              I think it's the US government that did what they did, not NZ law enforcement. This was proven by the case itself and the push to extradite. I however, do have a problem with serviscope's comment about being a douche, because last I checked how people consider someone "being a douche" is not even consistent between individuals and is not illegal or even relevant, as stated.

              Just because someone else told them to do it shouldn't get them out from it. Technically everything that happened on NZ soil is the fault of the NZ law enforcement. They did the simple mistake of trusting the US governmental agencies and acting like they were told.

              That is not a minor mistake and makes the NZ prosecution and coppers on the case big douches. Marionette douches are still douches.

              • by poetmatt (793785)

                I agree with NZ still being responsible, and I think that's why the judge is pushing back so much on the NZ prosecution: they basically followed the US's statements without even reviewing them, and already apologized many times. It's not enough, but it's a start.

        • The problem is that, if the first and popular comments address that as a relevant issue, people might get the idea that the personality of the affected characters actually matter.

          That's why it's so easy to effectively use ad hominen against public characters sometimes, discrediting them completely in the eyes of many.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Yes, you might defend scoundrels. But you're defending them from even greater scoundrels. We have more to fear from our leaders than from our criminals.

        • When defending the lesser scoundrel, you still end up with nothing but scoundrels

          • When defending anyone who is on the opposing end of an abuse of power, you're also defending your future self.

        • First, they came for the douchebags, and I said nothing, because I was not a douchebag.
          Then, they came for the assholes, and I said nothing, because I was not an asshole.
          Then, they came for the jerks, and I said nothing, because I was not a jerk
          Then, they came for the loudmouths, and there was nobody left to save me.

      • That is one of the best quotes I've ever read - thank you!
    • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:29AM (#43872433) Journal

      it's not as incredible as a complete shitpost for a first post that has no relation to the situation and instead is an ad hominem comment about Kim Doctom. Whether he has an ego or not, whether he's douchey or not, who *cares*?

      the problem is the US government is breaking the law just to try to prosecute file sharers, and no government in the world (including the US's own caselaw) really support this concept.

      • the problem is the US government is breaking the law just to try to prosecute file sharers, and no government in the world (including the US's own caselaw) really support this concept.

        My whole *point* was that this higlights the incredibly bad behaviour of the law enforcement so very well. Despite Kim Dotcom being a crook (that's not ad-hom: he has been convicted) he still looks all shiny and clean compared to the law enforcement agencies involved.

        You actually managed to be in very violent agreement with me

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          I'm not in agreement with you at all. I'm highlighting that you shitposted on your first post and made no statement other than "Dotcom is a douche".

          "Doctom is a crook" is just as homimen (you stating otherwise just means you're intellectual dishonest) in relation to your ad-hom in your original post. "Doctom was convicted of things in the past" would not be an ad hominem statement. I know that in your world you believe I agree with you, but I assure you as "violently" as possible, that I think you have si

    • It's really quite incredible if you think about it.

      Not really, the entire Middle East thing is the same deal.

    • Well, that's basically how the big boys start a precedent. Before they go and bust your teenage son or grandma, they'll use expanded powers to nail a few low-lifes such as drug-dealers, terrorists, pedos, etc.

      Then, they come and say "see, we're doing this for the good of society"

      Once it's engrained in society, then they move to something more accepted but disliked by many. For example, porn. Then "copyright infringement" etc etc.

    • There is a line in the movie Digby Goes Down that sums it up nicely: "I'm drowning in assholes."
    • Does it matter? What matters is the law. If we change our attitude towards the validity of the law because we like or dislike someone we're going down the wrong path.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:37AM (#43871733)

    An overzealous police force being made to face the consequences of its own misconduct?

    What a country!

    • by SilentStaid (1474575) on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:16AM (#43872223)
      If by consequences you mean that no one is being taken to task for this massive invasion of privacy even though it doesn't take a legal eye to see that the mad grab of Kim's assets was retarded. They basically were able to take his stuff for months and their penalty was to... give copies of it back? Awesome.

      You do realize, that they already sent copies of the hard drives across the ocean to the States. And no matter what that NZ judge says... Kim is already guilty according to our most important citizens - business. This is data they had no right (literally) to take. He's a dick - but they're worse.
      • by Aryden (1872756)
        well, the judge has also ruled that the US has to give back the data and destroy whatever copies they made of it if it is not relevant to the case at hand. Now, will they abide by the ruling? Probably not as that court has no jurisdiction in the US. Will the US appeal the decision? Possibly. I want to see the US as well as the NZ police who executed the warrants taken to task for this. If you are going to catch a criminal and prosecute, fine, but you better do it right and by the book else you are nothing m
        • by swb (14022) on Friday May 31, 2013 @12:22PM (#43873971)

          Failure to abide by the decision may influence the court's decision to extradite him.

          • by Aryden (1872756)
            The court is treating each issue separately. Failure to abide by the order may not cause the judge to toss out the extradition just the seized evidence used in the case. I'm more interested to see whether the US DoJ abides by the ruling or ignores it. This is what will set a major precedent.
            • by Anonymous Coward

              Just a wild guess: part of a defense against extradition will be that the suspect's local rights will not be respected by the requesting country.
              Now in this case, that argument sure gains a lot of ground against a country that fails to uphold NZ law...

      • To paraphrase a golden oldie. . .

        Kim Dotcom is a dick! He's a reckless, arrogant, stupid dick. And the US DOJ are pussies. And the RIAA is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

        You know, it's a sad world, when "Team America" dialogue fits a real-world situation. . . .

  • A fair conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:50AM (#43871885)

    Granted, considering the volume of information would be problematic to sift through, but is it fair to say

    "since there's so much, let's just seize the lot, including every person's legitimate files stored there and keep them to ourselves"?

    Like that wouldn't backfire..

    • Re:A fair conclusion (Score:5, Informative)

      by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:59AM (#43871993) Homepage Journal

      Granted, considering the volume of information would be problematic to sift through, but is it fair to say

      "since there's so much, let's just seize the lot, including every person's legitimate files stored there and keep them to ourselves"?

      Like that wouldn't backfire..

      That's what they get for using American-style strongarm tactics, without an American-style kangaroo court system to back them up.

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@@@aol...com> on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:58AM (#43871987) Journal

    Innocent motorists are routinely relieved of their cash and belongings by police, without ever being charged with a crime, and with no recourse to recover their stolen property.

    They should just extradite him to the US along with all of his seized property, and then the US government can just keep it forever under its insane civil forfeiture laws.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2013 @11:39AM (#43873403)

      If the FBI could get him to the US, they'd put him in a room with a single agent with no camera or recording device. He'd decide to sign a confession, but just before he did he'd try to attack the agent and he'd have to be shot dead with an entire magazine's worth of bullets.

    • by gringer (252588)

      They should just extradite him to the US along with all of his seized property, and then the US government can just keep it forever under its insane civil forfeiture laws.

      That's what they're trying to do. Unfortunately, NZ judges want this other stuff dealt with before the extradition trial.

  • When the large, militarized 'police' force stormed his home, I'm still surprised they didn't just go ahead and kill everyone that was home and then carefully cradle his personal weapons in his cold, dead hands. Perhaps the Kiwis weren't willing to carry out that part of the MAFIAA game plan.

    It still feels like living in a bizzaro simulacrum when confronted with the fact that the fucking entertainment industry can and does send out deadly paramilitary units across the face of the planet to defend their f
    • This is not U.S. law enforcement we are talking about.

      If this happens in the U.S., both side will be engaging in military warfare, and when Kim gets overwhelmed the entire complex will turn into something similar to the Mount Carmel Center.

      The USA was never a Christian nation, no matter what other people have said. The commandment "Thou shall not murder" does not apply to the government.

I use technology in order to hate it more properly. -- Nam June Paik

Working...