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!

NZ Police Got PRISM Data Before Raid On Dotcom

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the here's-a-tip dept.

United States 208

Bismillah writes "Police affidavits show that the New Zealand Police requested and received assistance from the country's signals intelligence agency, the GCSB, which appears to have used PRISM to intercept Kim and Mona Dotcom and the Megaupload associates' communications."

cancel ×

208 comments

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

Was that really necessary? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44651313)

That seems a bit excessive.

Re:Was that really necessary? (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year ago | (#44651333)

On the upside, with this cat out of the bag now, at least it is going to be brought up in court. Kim doesn't seem to be the sort of chap who will keep quiet and just let it slide. He is probably straightening his tie as we speak and about to knock on the door of the nearest court in NZ.

Re:Was that really necessary? (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44651583)

Wait, are you saying that PRISM was used for enforcement of some media company's copyrights?
Or was it used to try to prop up the arrest after the fact?

Because once there is proof that these systems are secret to the population of the USA, but used freely to enforce some copyrights for campaign donners, shit could hit the fan in high places.

Re:Was that really necessary? (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44651733)

Not really. I used to believe people gave a shit, but really - they don't. Most people really don't care. Even if the accused is accused of something they do every day they will sit on the jury and convict because the specific circumstance doesn't apply to them, because the prosecutor is so persuasive about how the specific way the accused is claimed to have done it is a criminal act, and take the lesson to mind their ways ever after about that specific way. Until they are in the dock proclaiming that it is not fair to people who were like them and will convict them too for failing to observe a different specific nuance of imaginary property in an exquisitely specific different way.

This is an odd game where the combatants define the rules dynamically after the fact. For a decade after play ends the outcome is in doubt. The only real way to win is not to play. Or to be one of the many lawyers who get hourly fees to contest the outcome.

In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

It is not fair. It is not right. But this is how it is, and unless people unite to fight it this is ... hey, Wilfred's next season dropped on Netflix. BRB.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44652059)

Your assertion that people don't give a shit is demonstrably false, rendering the rest of your post somewhat of a defeatist rant.

Re:Was that really necessary? (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44652087)

[Citation needed]. Specifically a situation where people in general give a shit, rather than unique powerless individuals.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

Jesrad (716567) | about a year ago | (#44652305)

In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

The sad fact that victims don't get compensated over damages is plain unacceptable, but like the existence of copyright privileges and the ongoing mob-racket of random people suspected of using filesharing services, it's a consequence of normative inflation, or runaway legislation (some might call it lawrrhea). The more complex right and law is, the more costly (in efforts, knowledge, time spent and capital expense) it is to stay out of trouble. This situation artificially creates a market for more and more lawyers, so it's no surprise there are some who take advantage of it, whether prosecuting or defending.

So, make no mistake: the cancer started in the Houses. It merely metastasized across economy from there.

Anton Vickerman Prosecution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652023)

You might like to investigate the Anton Vickerman prosecution which included secret withnesses. That almost certainly was a criminal misuse of the data too.

What the NSA is doing is buying the loyaly of local security agencies by giving them info in exchange they turn on their own populace and spy on them. In court the US Spook knows more than the defendant about the true nature of the evidence.

All very soviet union if you ask me.

http://pastebin.com/WAUm4dbi

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution (5, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | about a year ago | (#44652119)

Funny how the US always criticizes other countries for human right violations and references their constitution as a safeguard against government abuse. Meanwhile, state agencies are collecting information on the entire internet population and handing it out to foreign governments to aid oppressing their population. The irony!

Re:Anton Vickerman Prosecution (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#44652301)

I wish that was funny.

I no longer take the human rights thing seriously when coming from my country. Until they start following the constitution, this country is completely dysfunctional. In the past, when something was declared/ruled as unconstitutional, it mean "you're done. cease doing it." For some reason, it doesn't mean that any longer. Now it's just "yeah? so?"

Re: Was that really necessary? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651623)

It's international communication and PRISM was disclosed under UKUSA. Not sure what the big deal is.

This should've happened and should've been utilized to affect the arrest. No one forced him to use an international communication system.

Re: No one forced him to.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651683)

Isn't the same as saying no one forced you to use gas for you car, from a gas station.
Where else are you going to get it. If this is the only possible way to communicate for
business or non-business uses then we need to know that it isn't being filtered through
every government that claims they need to know everything that is going through it.

Re: Was that really necessary? (5, Insightful)

saihung (19097) | about a year ago | (#44651909)

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Re: Was that really necessary? (3, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#44652347)

No one forced him to use an international communication system.

So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

Tyranny & corruption have graduated from the individual-nation level, to being a global/international level game. National leaders/power-brokers have realized the advantages to cooperation, at least on limited terms, with the leaders/power-brokers of other nations toward the goal of controlling ever more of people's lives, liberty, and wealth.

It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.

It's things like TFA describes, and things like the US and UK or NZ each spying on the other's citizens and exchanging the data to avoid legal/constitutional proscriptions against domestic spying. Things like treaties that "force" a (or a set of) national laws to be changed/abolished to comply with treaty terms, when the whole aim was to get said changes made against popular wishes and/or to avoid/bypass legal/constitutional restrictions.

The fact that Snowden's and other's whistle-blower domestic surveillance revelations happened at all indicates that either the surveillance apparatus and infrastructure has grown so enormous and all-encompassing that it was bound to happen, or that things are so much under their control that it really doesn't matter that much any longer to those in power if the public finds out.

Or both.

None of which bodes any good for regular people anywhere, not just in the US, as TFA illustrates so well.

Strat

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year ago | (#44651651)

In all the courtroom pictures I've seen of him, I don't recall ever seeing a tie.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651737)

well, the parent is correct, but it will be as a rambo style headband

Re:Was that really necessary? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652265)

Who gives a shit?

  That fat lump of german shit can get the fuck out of my country and the sooner the better.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

mitcheli (894743) | about a year ago | (#44651367)

Law enforcement using intercepted communications in the pursuit of catching the criminal. <tongue loc='cheek'>Certainly that has never happened before.<tongue>

Re:Was that really necessary? (5, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44651441)

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651525)

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited.

Why? If we absolutely must have these programs (which we shouldn't), we can at least catch some child pornographers or tax evaders so we can pat ourselves on the backs. Why pay for the same thing twice?

I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified, hahahahaha.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44651649)

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence.

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

Captain Old News? [lmgtfy.com]
I don't see how this makes it right.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651705)

I wasn't trying to justify it, I was challenging the quoted part by saying that it isn't true that there is a dividing line between the two.

Also not sure why you're posting that when I clearly just referenced the same thing. Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44651847)

I wasn't trying to justify it
...
Are you implying that I didn't know about it when I just brought it up?

My apologies: your post didn't make very clear if you were attempting a justification or not.

Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified" suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651997)

Additionally, the assertiveness of your "Elaborate." request and the cheeky tone in "Maybe the justification is actually really good, but classified" suggested a total disagreement with the post you replied to (including the fact that you might think there is a justification).

Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44652239)

Hence the "hahahaha" right after that, which was to suggest that the idea that it could be justified is laughable.

Just happens the entire matter with secret courts for national security, there's a justification even if you don't know about it is too serious for me to make jokes about; this comes from the more than half of my life being spent under a former communist regime, with a pretty nasty secret police. (You know? It just happened at that time for people you to just disappear, without anyone around them knowing why: it was secret and it affected your life). I'm rather not inclined to see such things as jokes, even when they genuinely intend to be.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652359)

That's terrible. I'll do my best to never offend you again.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year ago | (#44651711)

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA

Because we give spy agencies greater powers than we give to domestic law enforcement agencies...because of a little thing called the Bill of Rights.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651789)

In theory, but cold fjord claimed that that was standard practice, which it isn't. I want to know what lead him to believe that it was.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651883)

That seems wrong. Neither spy agencies nor law enforcement agencies should be very powerful... because of a little thing called the Bill of Rights. The NSA scandal (and many other past events) has shown that spy agencies are just as much of a threat to our freedoms.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

mitcheli (894743) | about a year ago | (#44651745)

Elaborate. There has never been a difference. If the NSA overhears you talking about buying a brick of weed, they send that to the DEA, who does some parallel construction to find another reason to pull you over. Why wouldn't they cooperate? Do you have any reason to think that they didn't in the past?

Perhaps a better question is, if the FBI obtains a warrant to "wiretap" would that give them justification to do a narrow search on the pool of data already collected. Probably true that the collected data couldn't be used to initiate an investigation, but if the investigation is initiated through other means, what does that mean?

Re:Was that really necessary? (4, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44651541)

Cold what do you expect NZ to do when it comes under pressure from the USA? At anytime the USA can turn off the NSA data stream.
NZ learned a lot from the Rainbow Warrior, international treaties, understandings, letters, assurances, visits, friendships and decades of cooperation are totally worthless.
When NZ asked Australia, the US, UK for small amounts of basic telco help with France they got very little back.
So NZ now knows its place, when the US asks for anything, NZ does all it can with all its tools (NSA was very good to the NZ gov and vast, expensive new telco work).
National security assets where in no way limited and NZ national security staff seemed happy to help before any new telco/spy law changes.

Re:Was that really necessary? (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44651603)

Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

Especially when the "law enforcement" issue was basically a civil matter of copyright.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651369)

Of course it was necessary. They only way to completely stack the deck in your favor is to lie, cheat and steal. The fact that it's a government doing it, and they're dong it to oppress individuals or groups, only means that it was used to fight terrorism, or to protect the children, or to protect IP rights holders, or to protect politicians and/or their friends. So yes, it was completely necessary.

Re:Was that really necessary? (4, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | about a year ago | (#44651421)

When the US is in command, nothing is excessive when protecting the income of Big business.

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44651475)

Of course! Copyright infringement funds terrorists!

Wait a minute... that's supposed to be YOUR line!

Re:Was that really necessary? (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44651665)

Sarcasm aside, this ridiculous claims has actually been made by not only copyright agencies, but the US government, to justify more money for copyright-enforcement efforts.
news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/ [arstechnica.com]

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44651629)

That seems a bit excessive.

Are you that naïve to think those system are never going to be abused?

Re:Was that really necessary? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44651725)

It case you didn't get the memo the corps rule the governments now, so any and all measures to protect profits, especially from IP whose term limits have been made into "forever minus a single day" SHALL be employed.

I have to wonder if this isn't the reason why all empires fall and governments rarely survive more than a century or two, that an end result of massive corruption and wealth consolidation simply is unavoidable. Sadly I think we have it worse than ever before thanks to the net making it easy to transfer huge sums of money around the world in seconds, thus allowing the megacorps to unduly influence pretty much any country on the planet thanks to the mountains of money they sit upon.

Every time I hear of a government being a pitbull for the megacorps i am always reminded of these words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching; corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Replace the republic with the name of any country and you have what we have now.

Re:Was that really necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651907)

That seems a bit excessive.

Who are you, and what have you done with Cold Fjord?

Wow... (5, Insightful)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | about a year ago | (#44651325)

You have to wonder who WASN'T involved with Kim Dotcom at this point. It's absurd the amount of time and money that was used to investigate this one man. Personally, I've always felt he was a bit egotistical. But man, When goverment(s) bring THIS much force to you, you kind of deserve to be a bit over the top.

Re:Wow... (5, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#44651383)

They didn't just feed the troll. They gave him all-you-can-eat steak and caviar, catering for a party of five, and coupons for tomorrow's main course.

Re:Wow... (5, Funny)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#44651511)

Have you seen Kim Dotcom? Catering for a party of five would only just cover it.

Not only for "Terrorism" (5, Insightful)

surfdaddy (930829) | about a year ago | (#44651365)

See how quickly the scope creep sets in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Now it's being used for COPYRIGHT violations!

What the FUCK has happened to my country?

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44651387)

Don't worry: someone will be along shortly to point out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never have happened.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651863)

The best way to answer those overeducated idiots is to point out that government isn't a logical entity.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (4, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44651423)

Not just your country, UK, NZ, Sweden and others are either in bed with US or in their pocket. Is not enough that US is in fact a plutocracy [salon.com] , a lot of other countries that claim to be democracies aren't either, or are following orders of the same plutocrats (either by being bribed, extorted, scared, or being just retards). US is just out of hope, everything was given to the real rulers in a silver plate for decades, but would think that in some of those countries population opinion mean something.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651465)

or being just retards

ireland in da hizzouse...

[sadly]

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (1, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44651461)

Re What the has happened to my country?
What was once in books and magazines via people like http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm [cryptome.org] is now much more public.
The openness of telco networks, US/NZ/UK politics, US trade groups, favours and sharing is not something new.
What is interesting is how open the NZ side is. The public/press know knows enough to look way beyond what could have been passed off as basic NZ telco/police efforts.
The next question is how will departments (and trusted contractors) within the US/UK/NZ/Aus/Canadian spy networks respond to their coveted generational access been revisited in yet another very public way.
Eastern Europe/South America does provide some history on the prospects for the press.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (4, Insightful)

UPZ (947916) | about a year ago | (#44651571)

Lol...they targeted Kim Dotcom with prism and missed Jamie Dimon and associates on Wall Streets. Who did more damage to the economy?

Is it incompetence or corruption folks? Obama went to Harvard and Eric Holder went to Columbia. So I guess we all know the truth.

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (4, Informative)

TheReaperD (937405) | about a year ago | (#44651905)

Jamie Dimon paid his bribes *ahem* ... I mean donations to the powers that be (both democrats and republicans) and Kim Dotcom's enemies did the same. What's the confusion?

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651655)

If you dont protect The Economy, you must be a terrorist. Think of all the lost revenues!

Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44651687)

See how quickly the scope creep had set in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Earlier than Jan 20 2012 [wikipedia.org] it has been used for COPYRIGHT violations!

What the FUCK has happened to my country?

Fixed those verb tenses for you.

Not just for the terrorists. (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#44651379)

Funny how the justification for the program was all about the terrorists. Now, we find out that it wasn't just used for terrorists, pedophiles, and drug traffickers, but also for people the copyright lobby dislikes.

And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651473)

The real reason for the establishment of a pervasive security state was not 9/11 but "battle of seattle" which happened 1999 and completely caught the government off guard. 9/11 was the excuse they needed to create a massive surveillance network accross the whole country to make sure it never happened again. Why do shit holes like Detroit or some podunk oil town in North Dakota need anti-terrorism control centers or whatever? They don't need them for al-Qaeda but for anarchists, union organizers, environmentalists and assorted other proft-threatening lefty types. Seattle put the fear in the government and they spent the last 10 years making sure if something like OWS pops up it gets put down fast.

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#44651671)

Mate, it didn't start in 1999, nor did it start with Nixon in the 70's, or McCarthy if the 50's, it's been there forever and all sides do it if given a chance.

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (5, Interesting)

TheReaperD (937405) | about a year ago | (#44652003)

I'm not old enough to have been there but, a friend of mine that was part of the protests in the 1960s. One of the things he mentioned that caught my attention was that in the late 60s there wasn't 'the Women's rights protesters' and 'the black protesters', etc. The groups supported and worked with one another to achieve their goals. Then, new people started joining their groups. He stated that they stood out as they always had their dues ready on time and always in exact change. And once they came in, they started infighting between the groups that eventually led to the groups separating. At the time he believed these were government agents and in the last couple decades evidence has come out the the FBI was involved in counter-intelligence operations against protesters during that era.

If this is all true than this is just the next stage against freedom of expression in this country. :-(

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (3)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44651547)

Did they actually target pedos with PRISM? Surely they would have told us if they did; after all, `if only ONE child is saved....'. Many are disillusioned by the War on Terror, and many like to light up every once in a while, but everyone hates sexual deviants. It would be the perfect PR move. 90% of those against the spying programs would be pushing for an even larger program.

Re: Not just for the terrorists. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651641)

In a sense, they probably did. A number of prosecutions for leaders of US neo-nazi and hate or separatist groups ended up as pedo cases, because that's prosecutable and, for some reason, linked to cult-like followings. The FBI tools for catching pedos are basically the same, but with warrants... but who knows if there wasn't some inter-agency sharing that helped point the FBI to the right places to look for admissable evidence, without that help making its way into court?

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651615)

How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

You need to read more history. I mean REAL history, not the lies they shoved
down your throat in high school.

None of this surveillance+governmental abuse stuff is new. What IS new is the scope with which surveillance
can be done now, due to technological changes. The "machine" can now be more efficient than ever before.
The efficiency is really the only new thing here. All the rest is an old story. However, the end of many such stories
often features the fall of empire. Read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky for more on this idea.

Could it happen in the US, the fall of empire ? Buddy, it is ALEADY happening, like a house of cards
falling down in super slow motion video. Look at the true stats on the US economy. Look at how the US
is HATED in much of the world. Look at how the US has become a bully which uses power instead of
finesse to attempt to achieve goals. Truly the show in the US is run by idiots, and smart people know this
is the case because it is painfully obvious if you watch actual events rather than mindlessly consuming
propaganda. It's not Obama's fault though -- Obama is just an errand boy for the swine who really run the show,
just as Bush was before him.

Re:Not just for the terrorists. (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | about a year ago | (#44651919)

It already happened for Occupy Wall Street. I find it extremely unlikely that it isn't being used against other forms of political dissent as well. They're just being more subtle about it... for now.

Oh heads will fall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651419)

so many of them.

Re:Oh heads will fall (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44651693)

Does NZ really have the staff numbers to clean house like that?
Their best and brightest work around the world and it would be hard to track all their past relationships/contacts/loves/any corrupting new sympathies.
People new to NZ are a risk unless cleared by the USA for very unique language skills or past war zone help.
Some people are totally useless due to their close links to other countries spies at any generation.
So you are left with a short list of smart people with histories going back years in NZ, who want to work for the gov with many restrictions and less pay wrt to the private sector.
A lot of interviews of teachers, family, lovers, friends to see if they fit in and the US will clear them too.
ie so short staffed the paperwork got lost and it was all legal as and when presented.

Re:Oh heads will fall (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44651891)

so many of them.

Do you predict an Earth quake so strong?
(otherwise, unfortunatelly, I can't see what makes you believe that).

As a kiwi (2)

Mistakill (965922) | about a year ago | (#44651431)

I'm upset, and yet not surprised.... sigh

Re:As a kiwi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652017)

Mate, make friends with your local iwi, and hopefully you can head to their hills when the defecatory material hits the rotary oscillator. Children of the mist and all that...

Follow the money (5, Insightful)

taniwha (70410) | about a year ago | (#44651433)

What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)just 2 days ago that the GCSB (or NSA wanna bes) have been funded by the US to the tune of millions of dollars.

So what did they buy? probably a Prism to put in our fibre access to the rest of the world. And I guess enough of a back channel to send it all to the US. I can see now why the second pacific fibre was nobbled because they wouldn't accept the use of Chinese infrastructure - wouldn't do to have some other country's backdoors in the routers rather than the US's.

Your PM got into power by email leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652213)

The previous head of the party resigned due to email leaks to be revealed in a book..... gee I wonder which foreign power did that, let me guess, the NSA? Gee I wonder why the current head is so pro-NSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Brash

"During a hastily-called press-conference on Thursday 23 November 2006, Don Brash announced his resignation as the National Party leader, effective from 27 November. Speculation regarding his leadership had foreshadowed this move, and the publicity had had a negative effect on his political party. The publicity came to a head just before the scheduled publication of a book written by Nicky Hager containing leaked emails . "

See how it works? Leak against the people you want out of power, or threaten to leak and keep them compliant against the wishes of voters.

Even party leaders in his own party are threatened with prosecution of leaking GCSB crimes:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/peter-dunne-i-did-not-leak-gcsb-report-5458414

The leadership of 5 eyes is shaped by leaks from the NSA to be pro-NSA. Democracy is a joke at this point. Do you think the USA doesn't have its share of NSA leaks? Shaping its political class to be pro-NSA?

Better re-examine a lot of those US political scandals because many involve data coming from emails.

Children (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#44651455)

Here we learn the value of ethically compromising the Vice President of the US, "Hollywood Joe" Biden, with campaign funds that amount to a trivial fraction of the advertising budget of a "content provider". That gives you private access that you can use to sell your ability to sculpt the empty minds of the populace to achieve desirable campaign objectives (fear of your opponent and his platform, adoration of you and yours) for the politico in return for certain valuable consideration like appointments of your former employees to posts as US Attorney (McBride) or influence over the enforcement of intellectual property law and foreign diplomacy (Dotcom, Swartz). These executive permits run so deep that they affect even the most secret arms of the US intelligence community. The US version of Agent 007 (Licensed to kill) becomes a spy for Steamboat Willy.

The question that remains is how the Intelligence Community, formerly possessed of great self-respect and pride, would sink so low as to be such a puppet to tools that in a byegone era they would be the puppetmaster of.

Perhaps they should reqrite their ad. (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#44651485)

In the advert on /. page for this story: "Spiceworks, easy to use network monitoring." Post Edward Snowdon, they should rewrite their advert.

Spying on Congress? (2)

Esion Modnar (632431) | about a year ago | (#44651517)

Imagine what might happen if one of the revelations-to-be is evidence of spying on members of Congress? Maybe this is suspected by said members, and while this might anger them, they would rather the "revelations" to be kept secret. A secret kept secret is power. A secret revealed forces action in ways that are not preferred.

After all, burning gas in an engine produces useful work, burning it outside just produces a loud bang.

Re:Spying on Congress? (1)

maize (201636) | about a year ago | (#44651573)

I don't see this trend reversing itself any time soon...

Re:Spying on Congress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651575)

Oh my...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice

"On June 19, 2013, Tice claimed while being interviewed that the NSA had spied on Barack Obama while he was a senator, along with monitoring federal judges, ranking military officials, and other members of Congress, saying he himself had seen and held papers ordering such actions.[12][13]"

Re:Spying on Congress? (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44651581)

Scrunch that tin foil even tighter: what if the intercepted information was used to manipulate Congress, and thus public policy, directly, or to influence elections? Senator Smith called in a few favors from old army buddies to win his district (the incumbent was found to be addicted to scat porn after a ``hacker'' broke into his email), so he has to pay back his friends in the intelligence community by attaching a rider to a certain bill to buy some more $500 ``toilet seats''.

Re:Spying on Congress? (1)

Zargg (1596625) | about a year ago | (#44651589)

After all, burning gas in an engine produces useful work, burning it outside just produces a loud bang.

Best car analogy ever good sir!

Re: Spying on Congress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651659)

It's a variation on an old gunpowder analogy: powder burned in the hand flashes uselessly and burns the hand, but confined in a tube it does work. The Masons used it (Pike mentions the analogy early in Morals and Dogma).

Re: Spying on Congress? (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | about a year ago | (#44652053)

"FORCE, unregulated or ill-regulated, is not only wasted in the void, like that of gunpowder burned in the open air, and steam unconfined by science; but, striking in the dark, and its blows meeting only the air, they recoil and bruise itself. It is destruction and ruin. It is the volcano, the earthquake, the cyclone;--not growth and progress. It is Polyphemus blinded, striking at random, and falling headlong among the sharp rocks by the impetus of his own blows." -- The Twelve-inch Rule and the Common Gavel, "Morals and Dogma"

Was not aware of this analogy. Thanks for the reference.

Re:Spying on Congress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651609)

Of course the system is used to spy on Congress. Is there any place more obvious or useful to the administration? And having captured enough of the day-to-day dirt of politics to take out any member of Congress who might vote to oppose the spymasters, it should not be much of a surprise that none do.

No words to describe this other than (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651527)

Assfuckery of the highest order...

A National Security Matter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651543)

This was a national security matter. This was most definitely not a matter of NZ requesting that the US spy on its own to circumvent any legislation that might have prevented or confined such behaviour. There's no way this had anything to do with wanting to assist substantial campaign contributors with a quid pro quo. Kim Dotcom is a terrorist, paedophile, drug dealer, serial copyright infringer who needed to be surveilled. For your safety.

Re:A National Security Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652349)

I'm sorry, but you've got that completely wrong. Are you trolling?

It's not a National Security Matter, it's a National Party Security Matter.

Wait, what? (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44651601)

If I am reading it right, it is just circumstantial evidence based on the NZ documents using the term "selecrtors" with respect to real-time data collection. But no actual mention of NSA programs.

After the DEA and IRS were found to have access plus the boondoogle with the presidential airplane over europe and the revelation that the decision to detain Miranda came directly from the office the UK PM James Cameron, I am completely ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the reporting, I just want to make sure there isn't any more concrete proof besides what may be terminology common to multiple LE agencies.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#44651611)

Lol, I meant David Cameron. They haven't sent a xenomorph after Snwoden, at least not yet...

Two US House members ask identical questions (5, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#44651627)

Here is a video of two members of the US House asking identically worded questions during a congressional hearing on copyright. Unfortunately the sound volume is very low, so it is a bit hard to hear.

http://youtu.be/JtVbHBIyFKw [youtu.be]

They don't even bother to check the script they are given. It's not even as professional as books on tape or someone blindly reading the news.

They may be elected officials, but they certainly are not working for the public. To make it worse, you know that they sold themselves for next to nothing. A few hundreds of dollars of campaign contributions and an empty promise of fundraising is all it takes. They're not just whores, they're cheap whores.

YAY !! MORE SNOWDEN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651645)

Bring it on !!

Devil's Advocate (3, Interesting)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44651731)

Firstly, there's no difference between "law enforcement" and "national security" except in the eyes of egomaniacs who think that there brand of crime investigation (e.g. "terror" - seriously, could you get any more emotive?) is Totally More Important and should receive all sorts of Special Dispensations.

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

The copyright cartel are also leeches and ought to be just as thoroughly investigated for their dirty bribery and lawyering practices.

A pox on all their houses.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651979)

Fascist cunt.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44652253)

I call for an end to excessive investigative powers in the name of the "national security" bogeyman, and I suggest that powerful leeches be dealt with whether or not they act with the support of the powers that be, and I'm a "fascist cunt"? Elaborate.

This is a spat between two sets of businessmen who want to make money distributing other people's work. While you're taking sides, the system continues.

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#44651981)

Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style? If it's a criminal matter, there's a process for obtaining and serving a warrant. If it's a civil matter, there's a process for bringing a complaint. Neither was followed.

Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business. He took down files when requested. He complied with relevant laws. By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44652227)

If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style?

Because the copyright cartel, which should be treated with as much contempt as he has been treated, infiltrated the justice system, and demonstrated such an incredible level of hubris that it managed to fuck up its own efforts.

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.

It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.

By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

They don't deserve any of the income gained from facilitation of drug trades, as long as drug-trading is illegal (let's assume for a moment that it shouldn't be legal). But unless you're arguing that ziplock bag manufacturers make a hefty profit from drug trades, the two aren't comparable.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#44652277)

He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business.

It doesn't matter how often you argue that, it doesn't make it any more accurate. He has no right to the proportion of income he gained from illegal activities, especially not once he'd become aware that his service was being used that way.

It doesn't matter how often you argue against that - it doesn't make you any less wrong. He operated a service that had potential for legitimate and illegitimate uses. I used it maybe twice to shift encrypted zip archives of music projects I was working on with friends. I never downloaded infringing material from it. I remember it being plastered with ads. I didn't click any of them, but I'm pretty sure those ads are how Dotcom was making his money.

Last time I checked, online advertising wasn't illegal. In fact, Google and others are praised for their advertising-based "free to play" revenue models. Dotcom wasn't making money off copyright infringement, he was making money off advertisements on a file sharing service that had substantial non-infringing uses. No-one was actually directly making money off copyright infringement on MegaUpload. Well, unless someone was uploading encrypted media, then selling decryption keys or something, but then the use of MegaUpload is incidental anyway.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652327)

Kim Dot Fraud operates illegal file sharing sites *because* they're illegal.

think about it - if by some magic, the laws were changed tomorrow and file sharing was completely 100% legal, then Kim would shut it down, and start searching for a different illegal activity to engage in.

Kim's not on your side, he's not on my side, and he's not on their side either. All he does is take. Frankly, I'd be fine if he ends up rotting in jail. That's where parasites like him belong.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

_merlin (160982) | about a year ago | (#44652337)

You've launched an emotive personal attack and presented no evidence. I don't believe Kim's on my side, I think he's just opportunistic. But if his file sharing network really was illegal as you claimed, he could have been charged on summons. He still hasn't been charged with any crimes. You're the one making accusations - the onus is on you to provide evidence. Put up or shut up.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652193)

and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity

Such as?

Where can i Download this wonderous application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44651751)

ok This "prism application" im a bit lost here are we talking about the intersil prism wifi stuff? forking a fibre cable with with a prism? if its the latter Checking the outbound illumination intensity gives that away.

Seems perfectly logical in hindsight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652013)

The human natural instinct is grab any advantage to win. These bastards can't be trusted to self regulate. It starts off with terrorism and child molesters. Then it's a perfectly logical move to "monitor" government officials in case any of them feel the compulsion to talk to journalists. Then it's a small hop to monitor your general populace, in case you know undesirable elements are lurking about. You can't find the needle without a haystack.

Man, Obama is the biggest fraud in modern history I reckon. We all swallowed his bullshit hook, line and sinker. And if you think Obama is bad wait till the Clintons get back into the White House. Bill was the guy who wanted the "Clipper" chip in every computer, phone and fax machine. And he is the one who repealed Glass Steagull and got Wall Street on the feeding frenzy.

We all know what's coming. All the fucking democrats and liberals will have a massive hardon for Hillary, completely ignoring any flaws or past behaviors. While the republicans (along with the tea baggers + libertarian nutjobs) will present a candidate so completely repulsive that an intelligent person will have to choose between not bothering to vote or just hold down the vomit and vote Clinton. NSA + Private Defense complex + Wall Street will carry on building the Police State. And people who otherwise would like to post under their normal usernames on Slashdot will be too scared and post as AC instead.

PRISM being used for Copyright? (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a year ago | (#44652153)

Considering Copyright isnt even supposed to be a criminal offence but a civil one in any SANE legal system, deploying military extra-judicial surveilance to police it is completely out of control.

Really , this shit has to stop and people need to start actually monstering their reps to let them know who actually is supposed to be in charge, US.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652209)

Copyright under Title 17 does include criminal offenses. Not sure where you got that copyright is civil only. There are various levels of infraction, some of which ARE criminal.

Re:PRISM being used for Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652321)

Being told you're the one in charge doesn't actually make you be.

I don't think this is about media companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652175)

The U.S. and their cronies just want to make it as hard as possible to share data without them being able to peek into it. Dotcom's company did make that possible and they did not do as told, so it was decided it had to be destroyed. They found some media companies who were willing to claim MegaUpload was used to share content they own the copyrights to and government agencies did the rest.

The Lives Of Others (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44652203)

Everyone, if you haven't seen it I highly recommend the movie 'The Lives of Others'. Its a little harrowing in places but we've already been down this road in East Germany. The US must NOT become (the prior) East Germany writ large.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?