Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

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

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the seize-first-and-ask-questions-later dept.

The Courts 111

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.'"

cancel ×

111 comments

A confederacy of douchebags. (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43871731)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (3, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43872307)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (3, Interesting)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#43872443)

Yeah sure. From the boring point of view justice and so on.

From the entertainment side though, not so much.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43872793)

Rule of Law based purely on entertainment value is an interesting idea. I may want to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43873141)

I'll be the judge of that. Seriously.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#43873683)

I'm pretty sure that's what "trial by combat" was.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43875211)

Except now instead of gladiators, we have lawyers.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43876717)

Saturday Night Rehabilitation!

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872723)

I would agree with that sentiment but how often do you see it happen in practice? Look at current events for the transparency we've heard so much about. Eric Holder is investigating himself? Really? Gee I wonder what he's going to find. The woman from IRS didn't do anything wrong, but she's going to plead the 5th? What for if there's nothing incriminating? Fast and furious? Black panther voter intimidation? Solyndra? These people don't get fired. They get reshuffled and turn up somewhere else in the deck, and most of the time whoever takes their place is just as bad or worse.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43873153)

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. . .

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (4, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43871989)

That's what happens when due process is ignored. Governments just come across as bullies when they ignore their own rules.

Amateur douchebags. (4, Insightful)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year ago | (#43872411)

You want to see how it is really done check out washington d.c.
Douchery with the almost complete complicity and full support of the press.
You want to do this kind of stuff, you need the press.

Re:Amateur douchebags. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872713)

That is why Judenschwein put so much money and effort to control all forms of media.

Speaking the Truth = Troll / Flamebait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872969)

Enough said.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

Bumbles (2573453) | about a year ago | (#43872477)

Silly rabbit. Rules are for people, not governments.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43872655)

Correction, rules are for poor people...

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (3, Interesting)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43873203)

. . .because rich people own governments anyway.

For example, the current administration is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs. The previous administration appeared to by owned by a combine of Halliburton and the major Defense contractors.

The question is, which of our Corporate Masters will own the NEXT administration . . .

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about a year ago | (#43873985)

Correction, rules are for poor people...

Don't say that too loudly. A certain degree of illusion is necessary to maintain order.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#43874671)

Don't say that too loudly. A certain degree of illusion is necessary to maintain complacency.

TFTFY. Though I will (sadly) grant you that the two terms are, effectively, the same thing.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43872973)

Oh no. That can not stand! Remember my friend, Corporations are people too.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43874981)

And yet, we can't put corporations in jail, which makes them pretty much a class of 'person' which is very different from actual people.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (5, Insightful)

asifyoucare (302582) | about a year ago | (#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

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43872263)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | about a year ago | (#43872387)

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

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43872465)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43872739)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43872965)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873197)

It wasn't the US it was RIAA telling them to do this stupid shit. The US would have done nothing except some politicians got their nests feathered

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873953)

give me an 'dishonest' scoundrel who openly wants to take my money than an 'Honourable; one who hides behind a facade of governemtn and secretly dreams he is my master.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43875409)

No shit, man. Any. Day.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43876851)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43872469)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43872719)

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

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43876861)

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

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873271)

Yes, you might defend scoundrels. But you're defending them from even greater scoundrels. We have more to fear from our bought and paid for politicians

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#43872631)

That is one of the best quotes I've ever read - thank you!

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43872433)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43873253)

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 while missing the entire point of my post and insulting it at the same time!

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873725)

"Kim Dotcom really comes across as an amazing douche"
 
No character attacks here, folks :)

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43877657)

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 simply managed to post things that are wrong, which I do not agree with. The only true statement is that he has been convicted before. Your whole point, of your OP, was "Dotcom is a douche". There was no other "point" because they weren't made until this reply.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43872643)

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

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

Precedent (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year ago | (#43872651)

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.

Re:A confederacy of douchebags. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43873063)

There is a line in the movie Digby Goes Down that sums it up nicely: "I'm drowning in assholes."

So? (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43876833)

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.

Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871733)

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

What a country!

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (5, Insightful)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43873781)

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 more than a criminal.

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (4, Interesting)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#43873971)

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

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43874267)

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.

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43877271)

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...

Re:Goodness me, apparently NZ justice is real (3, Funny)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43874091)

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. . . .

Someone hit soulskill with a dictionary, please. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871739)

authorisz....

Captcha (no lie): spell check

Re:Someone hit soulskill with a dictionary, please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871757)

I know! It must the first time that captcha would ever be relevant!!

Re:Someone hit soulskill with a dictionary, please (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#43871957)

He couldn't make his mind between the British 's' and American 'z' spellings, and in the end he traded the 'e' to make room for both letters. (:

Re:Someone hit soulskill with a dictionary, please (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43872907)

He was being multicultural. The one with the sz was the Czech version!

forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871755)

it will still be years to search all that data to see if it incriminating, you'll never see it again

Escape clause included for police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871771)

All that they have to do is say that everything that they seized is relevant to the US extradition claims.

Re:Escape clause included for police (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871865)

If they do that, the judge will *know* they are lying, and will hit them even harder. There were *plenty* of perfectly legitimate files on those servers. People have tried suing to get access to their files. All of that is on the record.

Re:Escape clause included for police (3, Informative)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | about a year ago | (#43871951)

They also were ordered to give Kim a copy of everything that they are keeping.

Re:Escape clause included for police (2)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43872471)

Yes, there seems to be two facets to the ruling:

1) That they hand back anything irrelevant to the case and do not keep a copy themselves.

2) That they hand a copy of everything that is deemed relevant.

So Kim will get access to all the data once more and the police will lose access to all data and hardware that isn't directly relevant to the case itself.

Would never happen in the U.S. (2)

Myria (562655) | about a year ago | (#43875633)

In the U.S., when the Feds take your stuff, they won't give you squat, even if they have nothing on you. They'll keep your computers for years, then finally return your stuff if they don't have a case. They won't let you get copies of your data, either.

With your computer gone for so long, you will have had to bought new ones, and the old one will be obsolete by the time you get them back.

The rule really ought to be that they take your computer, mirror the hard drives, then give it back unless they have immediate proof of wrongdoing on the drive. Seriously, there's no excuse for taking your stuff for years.

or find some child porn any where on the site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872041)

or find some child porn any where on the site and then he will be better off doing time in NZ.

kim dotcom (-1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43871849)

Can we have a month hiatus on Kim Dotcom stories? Please??

Never mind, make it a permanent hiatus. He's now just a grandstanding figure and I think he is beyond the "news for nerds" scope that /. was supposed to have. Do we really need any more info about this attention whore?

Re:kim dotcom (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871971)

Its the rights of assholes and attention whores you have to stand up for. Once those are violated, you get a precedent. Don't let it happen.

Re:kim dotcom (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871985)

Can we have a month hiatus on Kim Dotcom stories? Please??

Never mind, make it a permanent hiatus. He's now just a grandstanding figure and I think he is beyond the "news for nerds" scope that /. was supposed to have.

Seconded. Then we can focus more on John McAfee.

Re:kim dotcom (3, Insightful)

xclr8r (658786) | about a year ago | (#43872009)

It's less about Kim and more about the elements that come into play in a seizure of tech/files. If Slashdot uses any cloud services or other tech that accesses/points to files then this is relevant to our issues. This also deals with international laws and how they are enforced between jurisdictions. Not many people like Larry Flynt but there is value in seeing how his story played out, the same goes for Kim.

Re:kim dotcom (1)

xclr8r (658786) | about a year ago | (#43872029)

2nd sentence should read "If Slashdotters use"

Re:kim dotcom (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872073)

Kim Dotcom sold me a 3D printed Raspberry Pi for 20 Bitcoins you insensitive clod!
I used it to program an Arduino based robot that will deliver GMO wheat to Julian Assange.

Re:kim dotcom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872523)

Best comment of the week. lol.

Re:kim dotcom (4, Insightful)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#43872157)

Do we really need any more info about this attention whore?

Is he the attention whore, or are the authorities? It seems to me he's just defending himself, while the Keystone Cops are going out of their way to maximize any and all bad press that can possibly be brought against them. Whether we know all the intricasies in the law is one thing, but shouldn't the cops have at least some competence in wielding it? They've apparently forgotten entire swaths of related concepts such as warrant procedure, jurisdictions, evidence handling, ... How do they retain their jobs with this level of performance?

Re:kim dotcom (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#43872413)

Oh do fuck off.

This is an important case for the boundaries of where the line between legitimate hosting and illegal file sharing is drawn.

It's about as important and relevant as any news you can get on Slashdot because the result of it has real repercussions - either the internet is safe from the authorities arbitrarily shutting down hosting companies because they feel like it, or the authorities win another battle to the point where state/law enforcement based censorship slips even further towards companies like Google also being guilty of supporting infringement to a legally culpable degree.

Can we have a permanent hiatus on you commenting instead?

Re:kim dotcom (2)

Agent0013 (828350) | about a year ago | (#43873569)

It's also important for the boundaries of where the line between legal and illegal action by the authorities is drawn. Our police forces all too often think the law doesn't apply to them. And even in this case, who in the police have any risk of seeing jail time for the many illegal actions we have seen. It makes me sick to see such blatant disregard for the law and I have no respect for these people or the laws they try to enforce.

Re:kim dotcom (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43872961)

we were having pretty much zero stories on megaupload or dotcom before his arrest... which made him news for nerds.

Re:kim dotcom (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43873879)

I would rather not. Though this does focus around 2 sets of douches, the more important piece is the battle between the US DoJ and NZ. This easily falls into YRO. Depending on what gets decided here, a precedent will be set for future cases that can and will affect people who store files remotely, fileshare, run public storage services etc. Not to mention, the rights violations in regards to search and seizure that the US and NZ police executed.

Re:kim dotcom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43877107)

Well let's look at the consequences of your choice, shall we?

So as you say, Kim is a criminal, and everything done to him is legal and legit.

That makes you personally a criminal, both to the US government, and the government of the country you live in if different.

You posted to slashdot, and have no proof those words are yours. Any proof you DO have does not matter. The government says you pirated those words, and that is all the proof that matters.

So now you personally are in prison for life. Slashdot is down since their servers are confiscated, your family is in jail, all of your belongings are no longer yours (confiscated and given to government officials as gifts)

Since you are in prison for life for your crimes, there is prior case history proving you can continue pirating from your cell, and can even start world war three by whistling into a phone.
Thus, you are in a cell for 23.75 hours a day, no phones, no TV, no visitors, no lawyers, no family or friends, no exercise or movement, one meal a day, no blankets to stay warm in the air conditioned cells, and if you so much as speak a word that isn't "yes sir" you will be tortured.

Conclusion - If you want that type of life, GTFO of our country and move to China or Somalia or Singapore where you can already have it.
Stop trying to destroy an entire nation to turn it into what you can already have elsewhere.

Cost (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43871853)

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.

- wouldn't it be something if the pigs sued Kim for them spending too much time and money in his case?

It would be a perfect trifecta, not only was he violated, his rights, his private property, not only was he threatened with deadly force for ... nothing at all, they should add this one more thing: suing him for wasting THEIR time and resources.

Re:Cost (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#43871929)

It would be a perfect trifecta, not only was he violated, his rights, his private property, not only was he threatened with deadly force for ... nothing at all, they should add this one more thing: suing him for wasting THEIR time and resources.

And ten years later, Buttle is erroneously arrested for being a terrorist heating engineer...

Damn, now I have the "Brazil" theme song stuck in my head...

Re:Cost (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43871965)

I don't think that would fly since, as you quoted, the judge pointed out that the expenses were their own damn fault.

Now, if the citizens of NZ decided to sue their government for wasting so many resources on a personal vendetta against a single individual... THAT I can see making it to court.

Re:Cost (1)

moronoxyd (1000371) | about a year ago | (#43872261)

Now, if the citizens of NZ decided to sue their government for wasting so many resources on a personal vendetta against a single individual... THAT I can see making it to court.

Kim seems to be (or have been) quite cozy with a few of NZ' officials.

So it's not so much a case of personal vendetta but one of those 'le'ts roll over for the US government' cases.

Re:Cost (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43872539)

Now, if the citizens of NZ decided to sue their government for wasting so many resources on a personal vendetta against a single individual... THAT I can see making it to court.

Kim seems to be (or have been) quite cozy with a few of NZ' officials.

So it's not so much a case of personal vendetta but one of those 'le'ts roll over for the US government' cases.

it seems like a case of damage control after they had a case of stupid by assuming that the US government wouldn't ask them to do anything stupid and illegal.

Re:Cost (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43873329)

Kim seems to be (or have been) quite cozy with a few of NZ' officials.

I admit to not knowing much about NZ politics, but if it's anything like what we have here in the States, friend of politician A == enemy of politician B.

Re:Cost (2)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about a year ago | (#43877121)

Now, if the citizens of NZ decided to sue their government for wasting so many resources on a personal vendetta against a single individual... THAT I can see making it to court.

Never going to happen.

NZers have a "she'll be right" attitude to everything.

No matter how shocking or horrifying the actions of their government, Kiwis just sit back and say "oh well, never mind" and then ask "what's for dinner, where's my beer?"

The government(s) of this country have forgotten that that their job is to *represent* the citizens, not rule over them like some despot dictator.

In just the past year or three we've had a raft of instances where the courts have ruled that the government or its agencies (such as the police or GCSB) have acted illegally/unlawfully.

In the case of Kim Dotcom, they raided the man's house, held him and his family at gunpoint then took away virtually everything he owned. The courts said "that was unlawful".

Now if *you* or *I* did such a thing it would be called armed robbery and we'd be playing "find the soap" with Bubba in the big house by now -- but when the government or its agencies do it -- they simply sweep the whole damned thing under the carpet and citizens are supposed to accept it.

We've also had armed police in black riot gear invade a small town, hold its people at gunpoint and carry out searches, interrogations and detainments which the courts have again ruled to be "unlawful". And yet again, nobody is held to account for this. Nobody is censured. Nobody is fined imprisoned or even loses their job.

The GCSB (our version of the NSA) was found to have unlawfully spied on over 80 NZ citizens or residents (including Kim Dotcom) in recent years, despite laws that prohibit such activities. The government's excuse was that people were apparently building weapons of mass destruction here and needed to be monitored. Really??? Nobody censured, nobody fined, nobody imprisoned for these breaches of the law.

In the latest fiasco, the courts have ruled that government moves to unilaterally change the way that accused citizens are entitled to legal aid (a public defender) is also illegal. So what was the government's response? "Too bad -- we're sticking with those changes anyway."

And they call this a free democracy?

Surely no government should be above the law and all must answer to the courts for their actions.

You may think that all the above is a horrible crime against the people -- but ultimately, the biggest crime of all is that the people of this country just sit back and take it. Aside from a few "radicals", nobody seems concerned that the government(s) of the day hold themselves and their agencies to be above the laws that have been created to control them. Unbelievable!

A fair conclusion (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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 (4, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43871993)

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.

Re:A fair conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873721)

What the fuck is an American kangaroo?

Re:A fair conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874299)

Authorize or Authorise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871969)

Definitely not Authorisz.....
We don't use an SZ in spelling here.

Meanwhile, in America (4, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43871987)

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.

Re:Meanwhile, in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872399)

...and then presumably ship him off to guantanamo.

Re:Meanwhile, in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873469)

Why all the trouble to send him in that cesspool ?
It's quicker to just torture him on the plane to the US and throw him outside, food for sharks.

Re:Meanwhile, in America (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#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.

Dam.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872069)

While I sure don't agree with the way the U.S handled this entire thing, I hate to see people like Dotcom get away with blatant piracy..

Re:Dam.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873439)

While I sure don't agree with the way the U.S handled this entire thing, I hate to see people like Dotcom get away with blatant piracy..

Weird, how can you pirate something that doesn't exist ?

Re:Dam.... (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43874089)

I know. Certain information being copied without permission... it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it! I can feel myself melting away... my artificial scarcity is vanishing!

Wonder if he can sue for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872091)

Pain and suffering...
Lost profits...
Lost business...

and then there is always the lawsuits from all of the customers that lost as well...

Biggest Surprise (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#43874785)

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 filthy middleman lucre.

Re:Biggest Surprise (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year ago | (#43876347)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...