Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dotcom Drags NZ Spook Agency Into Court

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the it-is-your-methods-we'd-like-to-reveal dept.

Government 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awwww (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202925)

Poor widdle government agency lost its sovereign immunity when it started working for the wrong sovereign.

Re:Awwww (2, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#42203017)

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 (4, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#42203645)

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!

Simple Solution (5, Interesting)

maz2331 (1104901) | about 2 years ago | (#42203825)

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 (5, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#42204337)

In my opinion NZ's spy agency behaving like the USA's dog creates way more national security concerns than Kim Dotcom ever did.

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:Simple Solution (2)

ewibble (1655195) | about 2 years ago | (#42205367)

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 copying movies poses.

Re:Awwww (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204153)

So can we label this as a dotcom victory?

This Is The Point (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202983)

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 (5, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | about 2 years ago | (#42203083)

even balls of slime have their uses.

Re:This Is The Point (5, Insightful)

Brucelet (1857158) | about 2 years ago | (#42203163)

And their rights.

Re:This Is The Point (4, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#42203671)

And their rights.

The MPAA is working on fixing that.

Re:This Is The Point (4, Funny)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42203237)

Making sticky pistons?

Re:This Is The Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204231)

I needed that smile. Thank you.

Re:This Is The Point (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#42205079)

The internets are yours for the day.

Re:This Is The Point (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#42203089)

Maybe. Or maybe the agency gets a deal where the judge only makes them discover the evidence they will introduce in court.

Re:This Is The Point (5, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#42203735)

You mean like:

  • Megaupload sent a copy of Men in Black 3 to an IP address in the US after being ordered to by the MPAA
  • 200 people employed by the Universal Music Group in an entrapment operation shared born this way on Megaupload
  • Two employees of Megaupload knew about music sharing but agreed to make sure Kim Dotcom never finds out because he keeps insisting on deleting everything for legal reasons.

Sounds just about as fair as convicting people based on secret evidence discovered during torture at Guantanamo.

Re:This Is The Point (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42203169)

Why is it unfortunate? Compared to the US federal government, and the interests it serves, Dotcom is an angel.

Re:This Is The Point (1, Offtopic)

Shaman (1148) | about 2 years ago | (#42203229)

This, times 1.5 Googleplex.

Re:This Is The Point (2)

Shaman (1148) | about 2 years ago | (#42203239)

Er, wow. I drank the kool-aid... that would be Googolplex.

Re:This Is The Point (0)

PReDiToR (687141) | about 2 years ago | (#42204491)

It's OK "Steve" we understand.
With a UID as low as yours it must be time for your nap and for all us damn kids to get off your lawn.

In case of uncertainty; this was intended to be +1 funny, not -1 asshole.

Re:This Is The Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204605)

In case of uncertainty; the reason you can't get a lover is your poor social skills, bad hygiene, and your ugly face.

Re:This Is The Point (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#42204687)

AC: your daily affirmations are meant to be kept private.

Re:This Is The Point (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42203217)

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:This Is The Point (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 2 years ago | (#42203543)

Seeing as how his business and any credibility he might have had has been pretty well destroyed, he should still take them to court.

Re:This Is The Point (5, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#42203915)

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 (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#42204651)

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 (3, Insightful)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | about 2 years ago | (#42204339)

"Slimeballs" like Kim Dotcom are the only ones who can drag these people into the limelight. Like it or not, your rights are defined by the precedent set in cases involving duplicitous people. It's easy to say "Oh well he's obviously guilty, so in this case it's okay to violate his rights to get the correct result." Problem is, that is one slippery-ass slope you're heading down.

Re:This Is The Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204905)

"In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil."

What are they hiding? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202987)

What methods would it reveal? Surly they follow the law and have nothing to hide?

Re:What are they hiding? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#42203073)

That's stupid. They don't want to tell the world how they gather information. Sources, names of informants, analysis methods, snooping programs, psychic researchers or whatever the hell. You can't run a spy agency without keeping that shit secret. What they're claiming is that if Dotcom's defense team gets to rummaged through their files on him, they will see enough clues that it will show how they get info.

Re:What are they hiding? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203173)

"Sources, names of informants,"

Won't be needed or asked.

"analysis methods"

Is discoverable and aren't a risk to their operation.

"snooping programs"

They're being asked about one: the one snooping on Dotcom.

"psychic researchers"

Which would be data inadmissable as evidence. Rather pertinent to the case.

What you're demanding is that nobody be allowed to question secrecy organisations because they're secret.

Re:What are they hiding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203637)

Bullshit. These "national security" excuses have to stop; government agencies use them to cover up horrendous shit. I'd 100% rather all their secrets be revealed than let them do whatever they please.

Why bother with the fantasy (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42203843)

Just like the DVD Jon bullshit it's blatantly obvious that the locals were just there to serve a warrant for an investigation run elsewhere. There's nothing to keep secret apart from embarrassment that they were working for another country, which has got to have been authorised by somebody in politics that wants to pretend otherwise. So the real secret is whose arse is being covered.

Re:What are they hiding? (4, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#42203973)

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? (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#42203945)

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:What are they hiding? (2)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42205357)

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... (4, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#42203005)

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... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42203119)

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:If they have nothing to hide... (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#42203235)

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.

Considering the judge ALREADY ruled against the GC (-1, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42204113)

Considering the judge ALREADY ruled against the GCSB, I think it is safe to assume she IS smart enough to see through this.

A kiwi sheep fucker might want to correct me but isn't this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and the right hand now trying to get the left hand back under control?

You would be surprised how much of a country is run by underlings thinking they are doing the best thing and what their masters want and then the masters find out and go "you did WHAT!?!"

It must be said that so far AFTER the case came to light, the NZ powers that be have reacted better then expected in trying to get things in the clear. That this court case is even happening and going this way shows NZ is not as totally morally corrupt as the US. Yet.

Re:Considering the judge ALREADY ruled against the (0)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#42204591)

You would be surprised how much of a country is run by underlings thinking they are doing the best thing and what their masters want and then the masters find out and go "you did WHAT!?!"

True, but the responsibility goes with the delegation of authority. Just like when people delegate authority to their drunk selves and then wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say, "you did WHAT!?!" - they're still responsible.

Re:Considering the judge ALREADY ruled against the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42205449)

A kiwi sheep fucker might want to correct me [...]

Given your user name, I get this disturbing feeling your desire to talk to sheep fuckers stretches beyond a simple challenge to correct your knowledge of legal issues regarding the interactions betwixt the judicial system and national law enforcement agencies in New Zealand.

Translation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203021)

What we did was illegal by the laws of every country involved. And we knew this. AND did it anyway.

Now you want us to admit to breaking every law involved? NO!
We're going to fight this with every illegal or legal thing we can think of until you run out of money or give up.

Put them up aginst the wall. The lot of them. Improve the planet.

Re:Translation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203159)

Yes indeed. [youtube.com]

I have an idea (-1, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42203033)

Can they just charge him with being the world's biggest arrogant douche and get it over with?

Re:I have an idea (3, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 2 years ago | (#42203065)

Has there always been this much Dotcom-hate on /., or is there the beginning of an astroturf campaign going on here?

Re:I have an idea (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42203129)

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.

Re:I have an idea (4, Insightful)

Joehonkie (665142) | about 2 years ago | (#42203195)

Yes, because we should put people in jail based on wether we like them or not.

Re:I have an idea (4, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about 2 years ago | (#42203285)

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:I have an idea (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#42203295)

I didn't have a problem with him until I read his wikipedia page.

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:I have an idea (1)

Metahominid (1368691) | about 2 years ago | (#42205065)

I agree on the right to due process, but before making idealistic declarations
actually consider how it would be achieved and how little benefit it would be.

Re:I have an idea (2)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#42205513)

but before making idealistic declarations actually consider how it would be achieved and how little benefit it would be.

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 the 2000s (and probably still do it today)? If we didn't have to undergo irradiation by an unlicensed medical imaging device to board a plane just because the DHS think silly little things like auditable 3rd party calibration would give away too many of their secrets? If we actually had the right to sue AT&T et al (never mind the actual criminals in the government) for colluding with the NSA so they could illegally watch every bit we send or receive domestically?

Imagine if agencies like the GCSB had to actually obey the law? How, then, would they secretly get scum like Kim Dotcom, who poses a threat to no one except Hollywood, off for a bit o' the ol' waterboarding? If the KGB (yeah, sure they don't exist anymore) couldn't just go around assassinating political rivals with conspicuous, almost flamboyantly exotic poisons (then again, I suppose they do that more-or-less openly and with permission from their government, so, perhaps not the best example)?


Yeah... How little that would achieve. Why, Americans might feel safe traveling places more exotic than Western Europe and Australia, and where would that leave us? Why, practically anarchy, I say!

Re:I have an idea (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 2 years ago | (#42203327)

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 (5, Interesting)

shoemilk (1008173) | about 2 years ago | (#42203425)

I never used Mega Video for anything, legit or infringing. I have no opinion of Kim Dotcom. But really, is Dotcom or Ochocinco really worse than "Miller" or "Johnson"? So someone in your history was a miller at some point, now all of his descendants are? Some guy's dad on your history was named John, yay! At least Dotcom and Ochocinco have real personal relevance to those gentlemen. <sarcasm>Anyone with a stupid last name like "smith" should think about changing it to something modern. How many smithies are there in ten people, 0.2? 0.1? Retarded last name.</sarcasm>

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:I have an idea (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42203883)

I know full well he's slime but a pile of international paramilitary bullshit is overkill for suspected copyright violation when a court order does the job, with a cop or two to bring him in if he's a flight risk.

Re:I have an idea (2)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#42204029)

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 bad guy" then I have to wonder why we even bother with courts and due process at all. Also, who will be considered a "bad guy" tomorrow? Will we even get to know who it might be?

Without sanity, openness and accountability in government, we cannot hope to protect anyone and definitely not you.

Re:I have an idea (1)

twmcneil (942300) | about 2 years ago | (#42205325)

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:I have an idea (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#42204641)

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 megaupload, i have been getting my stuff from USENET and torrents sites since you could. But regardless, so what? He had a business of storing files. He worked with the MIAA and RIAA when asked, and even that is being used against him. It's a bullshit charge, from a country that has NO POWER over another country, except by trickery, deceit and bullying, which is what is going to be exposed in trial.

Re:I have an idea (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#42203275)

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:I have an idea (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42203391)

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 lots of FUD in the same thread, presumably because they feel if they say the same thing 10 times instead of once then that somehow makes the FUD not actually FUD.

There's a lot of talk about Dotcom's "horrendous" past, but it's documented fairly well on Wikipedia, much of his supposedly horrendous past, whilst I'm not defending it, was from when he was much younger and seems to be more about naivety and stupidity than anything.

Re:I have an idea (1)

flonker (526111) | about 2 years ago | (#42203873)

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 (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42204269)

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:I have an idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42205577)

Has there always been this much Dotcom-hate on /., or is there the beginning of an astroturf campaign going on here?

He changed. His name. To fucking DOTCOM . "Dotcom" wasn't a serendipitous last name. He changed his name to "Dotcom" during the 90s dot-com boom.

Once again, as I don't think it's possible to overstate this fact when determining this man's personality: This is a human being who, under his own free will, willingly, intentionally, and legally changed his last name to "Dotcom" for the purposes of marketing his own name.

Start from there. Start with a man with the utter level of douchebagginess to do shit like that. Remember that he did that back in the 90s. Then, extend that personality through a decade or two to today with apparently nobody ever telling him to stop. Yes. There has always been this much Dotcom-hate on /., and not just from Monday morning armchair economists back in the 90s.

Re:I have an idea (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42203105)

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:I have an idea (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#42203629)

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:I have an idea (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#42203115)

Possibly because that's not a crime.

Re:I have an idea (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42203225)

Can they just charge him with being the world's biggest arrogant douche and get it over with?

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.

His lawyers have already proved that GCSB's surveillance of the mogul was illegal, and search warrants for the January raid were invalid.

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:I have an idea (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#42203553)

Sure, but it would be very difficult to successfully prosecute given the vast level of competition for that title.

You cannot do that! (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42203087)

That could reveal that we illegally shared information with foreign nations!

Re:You cannot do that! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203701)

That could reveal that we illegally shared information with foreign nations!

Actually, they did nothing wrong. The fact that foreign nations downloaded the information is not GCSB's fault. /sarcasm

My Neighbours Drill Set! (1, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 2 years ago | (#42203101)

If I told you how I came about it, you might think I stole it!

New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (0)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#42203135)

Why does a peaceful, isolated little country need an intelligence agency?

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (2)

Vicarius (1093097) | about 2 years ago | (#42203155)

To make sure all of the intelligent people are accounted for.

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (2)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#42203175)

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:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42203499)

UK is much more crowded though; ~62.3 million citizens vs. ~4.4 million in NZ.

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#42203785)

I queston it. Half the reason these agencies are needed is because if the trouble they cause, with most of the remainder being fixable by decent practices like not hiking up electrical grid controls to the internet.

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203223)

66 Why does a peaceful, isolated little country need an intelligence agency? 99

Precisely because it is part of the Anglosphere, that's why. Furthermore, why hasn't Kim Dotcom been disappeared? That is ALWAYS an option, even in the Anglosphere. Is it that the great [racist] sharks don't like the water around NZ?

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (4, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#42203551)

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? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42203849)

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:Made you give them back? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42204387)

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:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42203951)

They've had trouble with an intelligence agency from another country blowing up a ship and killing a photographer for one thing. The story about how they caught the agents is very cool and involved using a laser in a new technique to detect fingerprints on cloth.
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 other nations intelligence services.

Re:New Zealand? Intelligence Agency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204207)

To remain peaceful and isolated, duh.

Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#42203151)

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:Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 years ago | (#42203191)

I always figured it was a name he took because he was a pompous twit (and his family was embarrassed to be associated with him).

Re:Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203303)

"where men can be named Kim"

I find it socially interesting that you'd phrase it that way, rather than, say, "where Kim is a common male name".

Re:Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | about 2 years ago | (#42203457)

In Korea, Kim is a surname. Koreans do refer to each other by surnames rather than given names so it gets a bit confusing.
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:Kim Dotcom == Eric Cartman?! (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42203511)

That's where the comparisson ends, though; Cartman has a much higher moral standard than Dotcom.

hi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203187)

I liked it. http://www.nhadep24h.vn

Judges rules that no one is above the law. (5, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#42203205)

So finally a judge states the obvious for countries that have constitutional systems that provide for laws restricting the powers of the government: that no one is above the law and that no one is above being reviewed/judged by the judicial system. Note in this country (USA) how often the executive branch pleads/claims executive privilege in attempting (and succeeding in) avoiding judicial review of the president's actions and powers.
.
The latest ruling is another milestone in Dotcom's bid to challenge extradition to the US on copyright infringement charges.
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.

Now, let's try that here in the USA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203565)

If only we could find a federal judge in the court system that had any backbone to challenge the NSA's illegal wiretapping programs instead of giving them carte blanche with their immunity/state secrets privilege.

Spook agency? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203577)

Who ya gonna call?

GhostBusters

Standard "national security" Reply (4, Informative)

redelm (54142) | about 2 years ago | (#42203579)

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 (2)

zenopus (114516) | about 2 years ago | (#42203609)

The lesson to be learned is to keep investigative branches separate; do not have the same body responsible for investigations into issues of national security and investigations into trivial copyright infringement.

Re:Separation (3, Insightful)

twmcneil (942300) | about 2 years ago | (#42203893)

May be the lesson here is that we shouldn't be asking national security agencies to investigate copyright claims at all in the first place. Copyright claims should be handled as the civil matters they are. There is absolutely no just reason that any government agency should be involved in investigating these civil matters amongst private entities.

Re:Separation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204303)

There's absolutely no reason that the government should have laws on the books that give people monopolies over ideas and tell what people can and cannot copy in the first place...

Case Dismissed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203683)

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:Case Dismissed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204323)

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:Case Dismissed (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | about 2 years ago | (#42204789)

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.

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] floating around I suppose it has gotten easier.

If those methods are so important for anti-terror (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204129)

If those methods are so important for fighting terrorism than perhaps they shouldn't have wasted them on a commercial copyright case?
Whoever made the decision to use them here is the one that burned those methods and info and should be the one help liable; but they should be released.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?