New Zealand High Court Rules Operation Against Kim Dotcom Was Illegal (torrentfreak.com) 72
Mashiki writes: The New Zealand High Court ruled that spying against Kim Dotcom was illegal and that the GCSB spy agency violated the law, including the observation of citizens and residents within the country. It was also determined by the courts that the operation had gone on longer than was stated by both the police and GCSB. This may leave the extradition case up in the air since the methods used to gain the information have been ruled illegal. In turn, this makes the arrest illegal, along with the seizure of his equipment illegal. "The GCSB has now admitted that the unlawfulness was not just dependent upon residency issues, it went further," reports NZ Herald. The reason it went further was because it didn't have authorization to carry out the kind of surveillance that it was carrying out under the legislation as it was at that relevant time. The GCSB has said that it was impossible to plead the case as it would jeopardize national security.
Not to share information (Score:5, Interesting)
The GCSB has said that it was impossible to plead the case as it would jeopardize national security.
Should that be understood as: "GCSB - and possibly the government of New Zealand - is controlled by a non-public foreign governance."?
I find it very interesting that not disclosing this information was more important to this entity than getting Kim to the USA for (false claims of) copyright infringements.
Re:Not to share information (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclosing the information would probably have exposed GCSB members for the criminals they are. Hence they took the only way out to protect them after lying did nor work anymore. At least morally, that makes the GCSB a criminal organization.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not to share information (Score:5, Insightful)
The GCSB shares info with American Intelligence. They perceive the info they receive to be vital to national security. The Americans probably put up a hefty price tag for that information: raid and extradite Kim Dotcom.
New Zealand should be ashamed of itself, bending its laws so far.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
NOT New Zealand (Score:1)
It was NOT "New Zealand" that did anything, so do NOT blame the kiwis - we had NOTHING to do with it.
No, it was John Key, then Prime Minister Arrogance Supreme, pardon me "Sir John", who was the lovely bloke that called in the hit squad.
The reason GCSB want things quiet is to protect their criminal colleagues in government.
Kim won't get his shit back, but he's got some new magic up his sleeve and now the NZ gummint and GCSB can't do SHIT to stop him this time around.
NZ politics just got very heated, because
Re: (Score:3)
It was NOT "New Zealand" that did anything, so do NOT blame the kiwis - we had NOTHING to do with it.
No, it was John Key, then Prime Minister
He became PM through a coup or succession? Or did people elect the party who listed him as the candidate?
If the latter, then yes, the Aotearoans are responsible, just as much as the people who voted for Trump are fully responsible for his actions. The privilege of democracy comes with responsibility..
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another example of black&white thinking. If part of a "German" company cheats on testing protocols it doesn't mean Germany as an entity is breaking the relevant laws of the US. If part of NZ breaks some law it doesn't mean that NZ as an entity have broken that law.
It's really simple. Just use your brain(s).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know- I might go with alleged instead of false claims of. I'm not a lawyer, but if the AG didn't think that there was evidence of copyright infringement on his part, there wouldn't be a case. That being said, The kiwis have something that the US doesn't: A high court that judges the law without regard to their political puppeteers. Bravo. We saw that some of the SCOTUS judges do disagree with the government on some things, but for the most part, the US government gets away with much more than is al
Re: (Score:1)
>Good Job, kiwis. You're doing something right.
You're kidding, right?
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nzedw8/new-zealand-spied-on-its-citizens-before-making-it-legal-says-snowden
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, fascist. There's a HUGE FUCKING ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between a spy agency spying on other countries and it spying on its own citizens.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. At that point, if the information was gathered legally. It should be turned over to the proper investigative body. In the US that would be the FBI. From there the FBI would get a warrant and continue to investigate.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually know that tapping the phone would help stop something illegal, you go to a judge and explain. Simple.
Return of assets (Score:4, Interesting)
The GCSB has said that it was impossible to plead the case as it would jeopardize national security.
Should that be understood as: "GCSB - and possibly the government of New Zealand - is controlled by a non-public foreign governance."?
I find it very interesting that not disclosing this information was more important to this entity than getting Kim to the USA for (false claims of) copyright infringements.
What struck me is the potential trouble that will happen if the state tries to return his assets.
I was under the impression that the State seized his domain and didn't renew it, so that other parties scooped it up. Also, are they going to give back the seized data intact?
Re: (Score:2)
OR if they don't (and can't get his domain back) does he have a case for a *huge* payout? (Basically all his lost income from day of seizure to some time in the future adjusted for inflation)
Re: (Score:1)
"OR if they don't (and can't get his domain back) does he have a case for a *huge* payout? "
From who? The tiny country of New Zealand that has 4.3 million people?
They did done fsck up rather big here. Or, well, let the 'merkins convince them to go and help them fsck up big.
Sure, it's not really fair for the taxpayers, but then again, it's not really fair on Mr. Dotcom, as he did see his businesses yanked from under him, pretty much illegaly. I'd prefer a big fat payout from them 'merkins, but good luck getting them to cough up anything.
What a wanker comment.
How so? Do explain, if you would.
There's substantial damage done by the "justice" system of that country, and if it hurts the taxpay
So what? (Score:1)
Vote the shitlord who cost billions with this criminal act from the government and make the politicians write a law to forbid this shit in future and maybe make the PM personally responsible if nobody else can be held so?
So what if the only other option "is just as bad"? When they fuck up "fire" them too and replace. The alternative to that one just as bad? Rinse and repeat.
These fuckers run because they want the power. Remove it from them. If there's no way they will KEEP power if they fuck up like this, t
Re: (Score:2)
The NZ court found that "this shit" was illegal already. If there hadn't already been a law against this, they wouldn't have ruled like that.
Laws only work when respected and/or enforced, and government goons don't respect the law.
Damn you Trumphitler!!! (Score:2)
From the linked report:
"In the months that preceded the January 2012 raid on file-storage site Megaupload, authorities in New Zealand used the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency to monitor Kim and Mona Dotcom, plus Megaupload co-defendant Bram van der Kolk."
January 2012? Wait a second. Thump didn't become President until 2017!!! That means Ob........and Eric Holder was...........
Never mind. Move along. Nothing to see here. Nothing happening here.
Why (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're going for a laugh, but this shit shouldn't be joked about. Yes Kim Dotcom is a bit of a twat, but his rights still need to be respected and enforced. To paraphrase a wise man - rights must apply equally to everyone or they mean nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
...his body could feed alot of Maori families.
Do all Maori families keep just one alot? [blogspot.com]
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
"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." [quotationspage.com]
H. L. Mencken
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity and bad style are not criminal offences. Otherwise the majority of politicians globally would need to go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Then Stupidity and bad style maybe should be...
Wait! most politicians are criminals anyway and are just protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, realized after I hit post that I was failing the whole grammar thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, he actually did change his real legal name to Kim Dotcom. While born as Kim Schmitz, you can change your name to any crazy thing you want. He just decided to cash into the internet bubble.
It isn't a lame pseudonym, it is just a lame name that he actually chose for himself. It should say something about his sense of taste too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a lame pseudo-name -- he legally changed it to that, so it's a lame real name.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, his extradition is based on accusations of financial crimes committed in the US, and he's still getting prosecuted and extradited.
The GCSB acted illegally, but they're not the ones accusing him, and they're not the ones who collected the evidence that the US is going to use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to consult the extradition treaty first, because generally the process is that they have to assume that evidence is good. Extradition doesn't weigh evidence, that is for the trial court to worry about; extradition proceedings have to do mostly with the paperwork.
What this affects is mostly the civil forfeiture cases in New Zealand.
Also note that they got this victory because the government wasn't willing to defend the civil case because of secrets. That basically means that even if you get th
Re: "...jeopardize national security" (Score:2)
"National security"? (Score:2, Interesting)
"National security"? For a movie pirate? Seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
By a strange coincidence, it's also a movie [imdb.com].
Damn... (Score:1)
National security? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
The translation for this is usually "Someone important would be unambiguously be outed as being a criminal if this gets out".
So who is the crook?
It feels kinda weird that it's a story about Kimmie and he's NOT the biggest asshole involved...
Evidence is in short supply here because USG lies. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have evidence of something he did that can compare with what was done to him and his family? Something that can compare to an armed raiding party invading the Dotcom family house at the behest of the US Government and the MPAA, and being lied about?
My suspicion is rooted in how flippant the mainstream media have been throughout this case and how ready the public is to believe what the mainstream media (repeating US Government lies) tell them without following up on the details. I've seen allegations (perhaps charges by now) of Kim Dotcom owning child pornography and an allegation of something to do with "terrorism propaganda" that have yet to be backed up by the prosecutors. After the raid, Kim Dotcom was said to be found holed up in his family house with a loaded gun in a locked "safe room", but the police later admitted he was actually found unarmed in an unlocked safe room. The raid was ostensibly justified because Kim Dotcom might set off some kind of "doomsday device that was in the [Dotcom] mansion somewhere that would, if activated, would destroy evidence of wrongdoing anywhere in the world" (David Fisher, around 57m into the documentary) according to yet there's no evidence such a device exists. Then there's the GCSB (New Zealand's NSA equivalent) illegally spying on Dotcom and Prime Minister Key alleging such illicit spying on New Zealanders is "this is really a matter of mistake and human error not one of conspiracy" (around 1h9m). These are a few examples from the "Kim Dotcom: Caught In The Web" documentary which shows the paperwork, names the names of who is involved (including members of the FBI and CIA which were apparently in on this case from the outset) and now we're seeing "The whole New Zealand-based spying operation against Kim Dotcom and his Megaupload co-defendants was illegal, the High Court has ruled". Given that background I see your post which (sans evidence to back up your strong claim of being surprised that "he's NOT the biggest asshole involved") reads more like character assassination or trying to graft an vaguely unpleasant feeling onto his very serious case which Americans ought to be far more concerned about.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, let's say he got back what he dished out throughout his life, with a little bit of interest.
No, not one singular thing he did would warrant this. Not the embezzlement, not the throwing of any of his business partners under the bus and to the sharks, not the swindling of people out of their hard earned money, not a single incident would warrant this.
In total, though? If anything, this whole mess makes me believe in Karma.
Re: (Score:2)
If we allow illegal government action against people just because they're assholes, we're ushering in a police state. Did he embezzle? That's illegal, and he could have been prosecuted for that. Did he do other wrong things? Then hold him to account for them.
First, they came for the assholes....
Who's the criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight... the courts have ruled that the GCSB broke the law (and thus committed a crime). Now for that to happen, some PERSON or PERSONS within the GCSB must have given the order to commit this crime and therefore they must surely be culpable and punished for their law-breaking.
Of course we know that those who are responsible for this crime will never be truly held to account for their actions or punished for their criminal activities -- because they are part of the clique that makes those laws (government).
Oh the hypocrisy... thou shalt not break the law -- if you're just a regular peasant. If you're a government employee then do whatever the hell you like because there will be no penalty associated with your criminal activity.
So explain to me again why those responsible (who receive no censure) would be inclined not to break the law again? Laws without enforcement and penalty are a waste of time.
And here we have Kim... who (unlike the GCSB) has *NOT* been found guilty of a damned thing -- having his assets, his livelihood and his life taken from him on "suspicion", while the true criminals ruled by a court to be guilty of a very serious breach of human rights) suffer no penalty whatsoever.
Tell me this isn't corrupt practice!
Why the hell do we stand for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell do we stand for this?
Because they have the lawyers, guns, and money [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So who would be "the right person"? It clearly didn't accomplish any major policy changes the last [wikipedia.org] two [nytimes.com] times. Anyone higher than that is even more tightly protected, since a certain famous incident [wikipedia.org] in 1963 showed the need for security over PR.
Anyone successfully targeting top officials is going to have to do a lot of collateral damage, and even then, a result is not guaranteed. One thing both sides agree on is wanting to survive their terms in office.
Compensation (Score:1)
Return his equipment. Compensate him for lost profits. His idea could have made millions.
I smell BS (Score:1)
OMG. They literally are saying the reason they broke the law is because the law at the time didn't allow them to do what they wanted.
Now that I know that's a valid excuse, I'll be sure to park my car wherever I want. I'll shoot my neighbor's dog because it barks, and I'll shoplift whatever I want from the Apple Store. When people protest I'll cite the GSCB defense.