Megaupload Co-Founder Allowed Bail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Megaupload Co-Founder Allowed Bail

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @02:36AM from the no-one-escapes-new-zealand dept.

New submitter masterfpt writes "TorrentFreak is running the following article: 'The co-founder of Megaupload has been freed on bail by a judge in New Zealand. Mathias Ortmann will be the subject of strict conditions including no Internet access. The U.S. will now rely on a United Nations treaty to extradite the Mega team. Separately, it was revealed that the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work.'"

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are! by elrous0 · 2012-02-15 02:36 · Score: 5, Funny

the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work
Did they FBI at least have the decency to give them the promised snausage treat?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Theophany · 2012-02-15 02:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Ask Anonymous, they were listening in on the call.
Internet Ban by Aladrin · 2012-02-15 02:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why did they bar him from using the internet? What are they afraid he'll do, start another illegal website?
If they're afraid he'll try to hide evidence, they'd have to cut him off from all contact, since others could easily just do the hiding for him.
Do they bar people accused of telephone fraud from using the telephone?
I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
1. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is a belief that computer criminals are able to cause nuclear attack by whistling into a phone, people are scared of what they dont understand etc.
2. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure I've seen people do stupid things with the internet!
3. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-15 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's to stop him being able to carry out valuable research, or contact people who could aid in his defence.
  In other words, it's to make it harder for him to build a defence now they've stitched him up.
4. Re:Internet Ban by Rich0 · 2012-02-15 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The modern judicial system recognizes that convicting people is hard. Therefore, the process has been engineered to be as punitive as possible before a verdict is rendered, and to tarnish your reputation as much as possible after the verdict is rendered regardless of what it is.
  Get accused of a crime, step one execute a search warrant and be sure to generally destroy all your personal property in the process of rummaging through it. Step two is to grab any computers you own and hold onto them for several years as evidence. That computer you bought for $1500 last week will get returned to you just in time for you to claim a $100 tax deduction when you give it away to a local school. Step three is to drag you through the press. Step four is to charge you with 47 life sentences and a bazillion dollars in fines, and then try to get you to plea to 15 years in prison. If they can't get you to accept the plea they just make the proceedings long and expensive - since so much is at stake you can't afford not to mount a vigorous defense. Oh, if they can seize any property without a trial under forfeiture, we go ahead and do that too.
  By the time it is all over, a guilty verdict is just the icing on the cake for the authorities. They've sent a clear message regardless of the outcome.
5. Re:Internet Ban by stms · 2012-02-15 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that building his defense/contacting people who could help him is his lawyers job.
6. Re:Internet Ban by GodInHell · 2012-02-15 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  Would you like to play a game?
7. Re:Internet Ban by camelrider · 2012-02-15 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, nobody does anything stupid with the internet.
8. Re:Internet Ban by elrous0 · 2012-02-15 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  David Lightman was able to launch nukes with just a payphone and a pull-tab. Hackers are magic.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
9. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  If he told someone else to destroy evidence, the act of communication is likely to leave more evidence. Allowing him the opportunity to destroy evidence himself is much more risky.
  From another aspect, the terms of his bail include no internet access. While I haven't done very much more research than reading TFA, I expect the terms also include no talk show appearances, public opinion campaigns, or other mechanisms where he could directly influence a potential juror outside the court. Even a simple blog post could cause irreparable harm to a jury's ability to be impartial. Being released on bail is a compromise between the complete preservation of evidence that the justice system needs, and the freedom to continue a normal life that the presumption of innocence needs.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
10. Re:Internet Ban by Karzz1 · 2012-02-15 03:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  David Lightman was able to launch nukes with just a payphone and a pull-tab.
  
  That was MacGyver, not this "David Lightman" character. Jeesh.
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
11. Re:Internet Ban by Canazza · 2012-02-15 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hack the Gibson!
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
12. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Funny thing, is that you haven't mentioned if the person is innocent or not. But, honestly, if it's politics, or incompetent police/FBI trying to save face, innocence is a moot point.
13. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · 2012-02-15 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  But announcing his arrest and all the crimes he's supposed to have committed will in no way influence a juror?
14. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Usually the jury is informed about that when they hear evidence, anyway.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
15. Re:Internet Ban by __aamdvq1432 · 2012-02-15 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  No doubt that explains why those old-style pull-tabs are no longer available.
  
  "We got plenty of youth. What we need is a 'Fountain of Smart.'"
16. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is the USA FBI-Gestapo at work. You think "Innocence" is something these jumped up shitwads give a crap about?
17. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because without computers its absolutely impossible to contact lawyers or do research.
  How our parents, or even kids in the 90s, got along, Ill never know.
  Its really telling (and a little sad) that so many people agreed and modded you insightful, being unable to contemplate picking up a phone book or going to a library. Oh no, wikipedia is down, however will I do legal research?
18. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  "You jurors have been called here to determine the innocence or guilt of a person we may or may not have arrested and who may or may not be appearing in court at some indeterminate time in the future...."
19. Re:Internet Ban by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-15 03:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?
  You don't think people can do "something stupid" with the Internet?
  But I agree that this whole thing is bullshit. Why is this guy even in custody? The CEO of MF Global stole billions from lots of people, including seniors and retirees, but I'll bet he's having a nice brunch at some Manhattan eatery about now, or playing squash at some exclusive "athletic club". The bankers at Bank of America admitted to widespread fraud (which is a crime. not a "white collar" crime, but a crime crime. if I sell an old couple a used car and give them a forged title, I will go to jail. Bank of America did that to the tune of a quarter trillion dollars in mortgages, but they get off by paying $5mil in "value" which is like me paying my credit card with a ball of string, which I happen to value at $758.12 (the current balance on my credit card, since I went a little overboard last month, with Valentine's Day and buying a new video card and stuff.).
  Justice is for the rich. The rest of us get stepped on.
  Who did the founder of Megaupload hurt? Show me the damage.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
20. Re:Internet Ban by Sloppy · 2012-02-15 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  I expect the terms also include no talk show appearances, public opinion campaigns, or other mechanisms where he could directly influence a potential juror outside the court. Even a simple blog post could cause irreparable harm to a jury's ability to be impartial.
  I think this is the best answer I've read so far, and it seems reasonable on the surface. Best of all, there's a way to test whether or not it's correct: we just need to find other people the same court has allowed bail for. If it imposes the Internet restriction on everyone, then you're very likely right. If it only imposes the internet restrictions on some people, then you're very likely wrong.
  After all, the nature of crime someone is charged with, has no bearing on whether or not a defendant using the Internet might influence a juror.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
21. Re:Internet Ban by Hatta · 2012-02-15 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're innocent until you're proven guilty. Everything in his post applies to people who haven't been proven guilty.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
22. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  "I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?"
  You'd be surprised to see the number of stupid things you can do with internet.. Go check facebook or chatroulette sometimes ;)
23. Re:Internet Ban by djdavetrouble · 2012-02-15 03:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Pirates don't worry! I have discovered a site with more copyrighted content than 10 megauploads combined!
  
  --
  music lover since 1969
24. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm now curious about other cases, but there is a problem with the test. This being a fairly high-profile defendant, his blog posts and public statements are likely to reach more people and be more influential than your average Joe's. The nature of the crime shouldn't have any bearing on the terms of the bail, but the capabilities of the defendant certainly should.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
25. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  my mom thinks i built a death ray i put a bunch of lazer pointers on a old dish with a device that can move them so they focus on one spot with crtic spyder lazers
26. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-15 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  This is the 21st century, where many people only know many other people online, where much useful content is online and many libraries have been outright closed. This is a case about the internet where facts on the internet are important to the case.
  Pray tell how exactly he intends to phone people when he doesn't have their phone number, or perhaps even their address or real name?
  Sure he could ask his lawyer to get these things, but that assumes he can find and afford a lawyer who is competent enough to use the internet, whom he can trust with his passwords and accounts, and who knows where online to look for the information in question.
  Look, I get your point, people are too dependent on the internet nowadays, but your argument doesn't really work in this case - this is a case about a very modern issue, one that is simply not well catered to by the pre-90s disconnected world. The guy should have every right to connect to the net and grab any information relevant to his defence himself - he shouldn't have to depend on anyone else for his defence if he chooses not to, he should have the right to log onto his servers, and extract logs demonstrating the scale of illegal content if it aids his case for example, he shouldn't have to employ anyone else, or trust anyone else.
  The fact is there's also more, and more useful information than one has ever been able to find or access in the disconnected world. Whilst my previous comment was actually a little mischeivous if I'm honest, this has the inherent implication that he is still disadvantaged in his defence, and this should frankly never be the case. Even if it's simply that it'll take him many hours longer travelling to a library and finding something of relevance than it would going to Google, searching, then using ctrl+f to find what he's looking for then that's still time loss that he could otherwise be using to better build his defence.
  Fundamentally the point is that an internet ban is meaningless, if he really was going to do something that'd hide evidence he'd get someone else to do it to avoid the ban anyway and besides police took their own copies of the data. If he was going to do something else genuinely criminal he'd only be worsening the case against himself. The damage he could do by being allowed internet access is completely and utterly negligible relative to the fact that people should not be disadvantaged in building their defence in a fair and just justice system. If a justice system has to do things like this to stack the odds against the defendant, there is something grossly problematic with that justice system in that it is no longer there to administer justice, but instead to push politically charged agendas.
27. Re:Internet Ban by Saintwolf · 2012-02-15 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Only at 2600Hz ;)
28. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · 2012-02-15 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  You were claiming that someone announcing their innocence would taint the jury pool. I'd like to know how announcing that person X was arrested for crime Y is any different? Why should the defendant be prevented from speaking in public, but the police and the prosecutor should be free to do the same? Or should any juror that has heard anything about a case be automatically excluded?
29. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-15 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  What if he wants to defend himself? What if he can't afford a lawyer? what if he can't afford a lawyer trustworthy enough to be handed his password? what if he can't afford a lawyer both trustworthy enough, and competent enough to gather the information from Megauploads servers? Could you really trust your lawyer to search through the guts of a large scale distributed system effectively to find evidence showing the relative scale of copyright infringement to legitimate use for example?
  To be fair my previous post was made somewhat tongue in cheek in order to provoke discussion on the topic, but I think there's a valid debate to be had over how fair it is to ban someone from the internet in a case like this. Consider that you're involved in a car crash where someone died and the police decide to press charges for manslaughter even though you believe you were not at fault - would you be happy if the judge granted you bail, but prevented you returning to the scene of the crash so you could better think through the events to help compose your defence?, or to see if you recognise anyone who witnessed the incident and who you could hence ask to provide their version of events as a statement?, or to take photographs of for example skid marks, or other points on the road that may be relevant such as oil patches or similar.
  Sure your lawyer can do some of these things, but they wont be able to do so effectively as you could. Why should anyone have to suffer such a disadvantage in building their case when the ban on visiting the location (i.e. using the internet in this case) is of negligible value?
30. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wasnt claiming anything. Check who posted what post before making such accusations; I was merely poking fun at the absurdity of jurors not being allowed to know of the defendants arrest.
31. Re:Internet Ban by VortexCortex · 2012-02-15 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  my mom thinks i built a death ray i put a bunch of lazer pointers on a old dish with a device that can move them so they focus on one spot with crtic spyder lazers
  My neighbors think I build a death ray. I epoxied 4cm square mirrors all over the surface of my big-old parabolic satellite dish.
  They were RIGHT!
32. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Pray tell how exactly he intends to phone people when he doesn't have their phone number, or perhaps even their address or real name?
  Heres a skill more useful than GoogleFu: Pick up your phone, and press '0'. A friendly person will assist you in finding what you need.
  
  or perhaps even their address or real name?
  You can also get a phonebook, but thats getting rather advanced. Theres this thing called "the yellow pages", and its counterpart "the white pages" where you can find such things.
  
  Sure he could ask his lawyer to get these things, but that assumes he can find and afford a lawyer who is competent enough to use the internet, whom he can trust with his passwords and accounts, and who knows where online to look for the information in question.
  Googling someone wont really tell you about their competence any more than the yellow pages. And heres yet another free tip: Ask a trusted friend who they recommend for a lawyer. Or even better, ask THEM to do the research.
  The possibilities abound, when you dont stake your entire life on a single 1.5mbps connection.
33. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  One other thing, accused murderers dont generally have access to the murder weapon once the case has started, due to real concerns about evidence tampering. Likewise, someone accused of computer mischief is not likely to be allowed access to said server because of how easy it would be to clear evidence.
  And when you are on bail, there are real restrictions that come with it because of the risk that you could take actions subversive to the case-- such as messing with evidence or fleeing the country.
34. Re:Internet Ban by misexistentialist · 2012-02-15 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing "step zero" where you can be held in jail for months or years while you wait for trail. While state investigators build their case, you are investigating how to hold the soap; while they are getting overtime pay, your mind begins to weaken.
35. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · 2012-02-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm pointing out that it's just as absurd to prevent the jury from hearing the defendants claims of innocence.
36. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-15 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  "One other thing, accused murderers dont generally have access to the murder weapon once the case has started"
  No but they often have permission to visit the scene of the crime to look for anything pertinent to proving whether or not they were there.
  "Likewise, someone accused of computer mischief is not likely to be allowed access to said server because of how easy it would be to clear evidence."
  The police took copies of everything they needed. Unless you think he's going to hack into the police to access data that may not even be network attached then this is really really silly. Almost as silly as implying that finding a random unknown lawyer using an operator or yellow pages is a magical solution to the issue of being able to access data essential to your defence stored on a large scale distributed system that requires quite some in depth knowledge to acquire necessary data for defence from.
  "And when you are on bail, there are real restrictions that come with it because of the risk that you could take actions subversive to the case-- such as messing with evidence or fleeing the country."
  Yet he's been granted bail with neither of these things at issue. If he was a flight risk he wouldn't have been granted bail. What was the relevance of this point? it's meaningless in the context of the discussion.
  So are you done now with your irrelevant points, or would you like to scream "get off my lawn" pointlessly for a little longer?
37. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  How our grand-parents, or even kids in the 50s, got along, I'll never know.
  Being unable to contemplate sending a message by carrier pigeon, or going down to the city main square and stand on a bucket screaming that you're looking for an attorney. Oh no, the phonebook hasn't been updated in 5 years, however will I do legal research?
  The funny thing with people who compare the present to the past, is that they don't seem to realize there was a past before their time. The thought of painting cave walls in the absence of pen and paper would seem ridiculous to them, but we're all lazy kids for demanding our internet!
  And Lord Limecat, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and send letter to your local newspaper instead of posting comments on Slashdot?
38. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  )
  Had to.
39. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  You don't think people can do "something stupid" with the Internet?
  No. It's 1's and 0's. Anything disruptive can be throttled or stopped at the ISP level. The rest is just information.
40. Re:Internet Ban by KhabaLox · 2012-02-15 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'd understand if it was a car or gun, where he could do something stupid with it, but the internet?
  They're doing it so he doesn't download a car.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
41. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was claiming that a celebrity with normal access to media can taint a jury. The defendant's lawyer, assuming competence, will make statements for the defendant that are (usually) suitably phrased to promote neutrality. He'll say things like "my client maintains his innocence, and has been working with investigators to find the truth." A competent spokesman for the police will say things like "We found a bloody handprint in the defendant's car, and a dead monkey in the kitchen" but the police don't often say "the defendant killed his wife and pet monkey."
  Either side making statements that are obviously intended to sway public opinion could result in a judgement against the offender. Regardless, it certainly won't make the judge very happy. I know it goes against the popular underdog mentality here, but surprisingly, most cops are trying to do what's right, and most judges are trying to ensure a fair trial.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
42. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure it would be sanctionable behavior for the police, or the prosecutor, to lie to the public in an attempt to taint the jury pool. Simply talking about someone's being arrested doesn't do that.
  By what mechanism could the court control the speech of the accused in such a way as to ensure that they don't tain tthe jury pool or otherwise contaminate the right to a fair trial?
43. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  he's been granted bail with neither of these things at issue. If he was a flight risk he wouldn't have been granted bail.
  [citation needed]. The article mentions that the bail restrictions include no Internet access. He may be restricted from leaving the country (which is highly likely, since one of the reasons his bail process took longer than others is that he was considered a flight risk, so they had to work out a suitable agreement.
  
  What was the relevance of this point?
  To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient. Considering that one of the issues is that Mr. Ortmann made $3.5 million more than MegaUpload paid him, he very likely already has a competent lawyer. The only reason for him to have direct Internet access would be to unjustly sway public opinion.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
44. Re:Internet Ban by undeadbill · 2012-02-15 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  People with computer knowledge are analogs to witches of the Middle Ages. All you have to do is accuse someone of being a "hacker", and if they have any actual computer knowledge, they are pretty much convicted and sentenced to jail terms that others would get for only the most heinous murders and violations.
45. Re:Internet Ban by X.25 · 2012-02-15 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient. Considering that one of the issues is that Mr. Ortmann made $3.5 million more than MegaUpload paid him, he very likely already has a competent lawyer. The only reason for him to have direct Internet access would be to unjustly sway public opinion.
  Considering that they froze all bank accounts, how much money he might have earned is irrelevant.
46. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · 2012-02-15 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  From the FBI press release:
  
  According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies—often before their theatrical release—music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors, and accounting for four percent of the total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.
  It seems to me the jury pool is pretty much tainted now. Or is inserting the word 'allegedly' the thing that makes it all OK? What exactly can the defendant say on a talk show that will taint the jury more?
47. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  No, MacGuyver *built* nukes out of a pay phone and a pull-tab.
48. Re:Internet Ban by Mashiki · 2012-02-15 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's to stop him being able to carry out valuable research, or contact people who could aid in his defence.
  In other words, it's to make it harder for him to build a defence now they've stitched him up.
  So does this mean New Zealand doesn't have full disclosure laws like Canada does? Remind me not to go there. For those that don't know in Canada, when you're accused of something, you get a thing called full disclosure. Showing all of the evidence against you, and I do mean all. Every single bit, right down to how they did what they did, and when they started doing it.
  Remind me not to go to New Zealand...ever.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
49. Re:Internet Ban by 0111+1110 · 2012-02-15 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  most cops are trying to do what's right
  Something tells me you haven't dealt much with actual real life policemen. Your comment is only true for the ones played by actors on TV.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
50. Re:Internet Ban by 0111+1110 · 2012-02-15 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  By what mechanism could the court control the speech of the accused in such a way as to ensure that they don't tain tthe jury pool or otherwise contaminate the right to a fair trial?
  By the same mechanism you are implying keeps the prosecution and police in line. It would be 'sanctionable' behavior.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
51. Re:Internet Ban by 0111+1110 · 2012-02-15 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  To point out that Internet access is not mandatory for any legal defense, but merely convenient.
  How convenient that is for the prosecution. I think it's only fair that you deny the prosecution and police involved in the case access to the internet as well. After all, it is not mandatory for them to develop their case and they might use it to unfairly influence public opinion.
  Could the accused not also use the telephone or even his own voice to influence public opinion? Let's take away his right to use a telephone and gag him until trial too. We could even bind his hands so he can't write in to newspaper editorials. Of course we won't restrict the prosecution in that manner as that would be unfair.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
52. Re:Internet Ban by X.25 · 2012-02-15 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So does this mean New Zealand doesn't have full disclosure laws like Canada does? Remind me not to go there. For those that don't know in Canada, when you're accused of something, you get a thing called full disclosure. Showing all of the evidence against you, and I do mean all. Every single bit, right down to how they did what they did, and when they started doing it.
  To put things into perspective...
  Megaupload founders have been arrested, all of their assets have been frozen, their company has been destroyed, user files might be lost, bail has been delayed for 2 people who had it granted almost 2 weeks ago (police had to 'inspect premises', which seemingly takes more than a week), they have been 'demonized' in media... all of that without DoJ/FBI presenting *any* evidence to New Zealand police, or the court (for extradition case). Everything was seemingly based on the indictment document, which is not evidence but speculation (and fishing expedition - you should really read it). Judge that was deciding on bails said that he doesn't know whether case against Megaupload (in NZ) will be strong or not, because FBI has not presented any evidence to them. First extradition hearing is scheduled for 22nd of February (unless it was moved), and some evidence should be filed by then. We'll see.
  That 3news reporter tried to talk to NZ ministry of justice and police, in order to find out what evidence FBI possibly presented to them before the operation, but nobody would talk to him. Governments are run like private companies now, they even get to decide whether they'll talk to people who pay their salaries.
  I don't want things like this to happen. I don't want that UK guy to get extradited to the US for hosting a forum with links to 'copyrighted material. I don't want that journalist to die in Saudi Arabia because of a tweet. I don't want US threatening Sweden in order to get The Pirate Bay guys tried in court.
  But people don't seem to care anymore, they think none of this affect them.
  How wrong they are, they will learn in few years time :(
53. Re:Internet Ban by tmarsh86 · 2012-02-15 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Something tells me you haven't dealt with many actual real life policeman. Your comment is ignorance personified.
54. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · 2012-02-15 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  How many people are actually reading the FBI press release? Is the FBI actively trying to stir up public opinion against Mr. Ortmann, or are they just answering question the media usually has, stating what's alleged?
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
55. Re:Internet Ban by StikyPad · 2012-02-15 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Quote fail.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
56. Re:Internet Ban by StikyPad · 2012-02-15 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Justice is for the rich.
  If that's true then Dotcom can sleep soundly...
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
57. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · 2012-02-15 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Any paper/tv news that report on the case will read the FBI release. So it will likely reach more people then a talk show.
  And what questions do you think the media would ask the accused? They wouldn't include 'Are you innocent?' would they?
  If the judge is so worried about a tainted jury, he should just ask if they've heard anything about the case during jury selection. If hearing news reports and talk shows counts as having a bias then remove all jurors that have heard them. Don't just gag one side while letting the other have virtually free reign in the media.
58. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Sanctionable how? Are you going to give the court the power to jail him for as long as it would have given him on the charge if he taints the jury pool?
  That's... an interesting mechanism for control of the individual.
  The problem is that the prosecutor (and police) have no per se interest in tainting the jury pool; they gain nothing substantial and personal from it. The accused most certainly does.
59. Re:Internet Ban by pitchpipe · 2012-02-15 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Phucking Phreaks!
  
  --
  Look where all this talking got us, baby.
60. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Pirates don't worry! I have discovered a site with more copyrighted content than 10 megauploads combined!
  When I clicked your link, the #2 video listed was uploaded by "OMGStolenClip".
61. Re:Internet Ban by Falconhell · 2012-02-15 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Something tells me you have a police man as friend or family, because you have no idea about the way they operate these days. The police state is well and truly here, run by a bunch of low IQ bullies.
62. Re:Internet Ban by Kalriath · 2012-02-15 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Jury Nullification isn't valid in New Zealand - you'd get hit with contempt charges so fast...
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
63. Re:Internet Ban by Kalriath · 2012-02-15 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  How? He has no money - the Official Assignee has seized it all.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
64. Re:Internet Ban by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  Hack the planet!
65. Re:Internet Ban by GodInHell · 2012-02-15 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Heh "fail" requires a goal.
66. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-15 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  1. I'm too lazy to Google what you said to confirm it's true, so for the sake of my fundamentally flawed argument I'll pretend it's not
  2. I disagree, and don't really have a decent rebuttal, so I'll just put my hands over my ears, scream "la la la" I can't hear you and pretend you don't have a point either.
  Guess which definition your usage falls under? Hint: No citation was needed, because it's pretty easy to find the details of the judges decision.
67. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-16 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, youre suggesting that the order granting bail allows the defendant to travel abroad if he so desires?
  THOSE would be interesting bail terms.
68. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · 2012-02-16 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, you just made that up in your head.
  It's probably one of those things you have to do to rationalise with yourself about being wrong.
69. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · 2012-02-16 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or one of those things about attributing posts and statements to the wrong person, that also explain whats going on here?
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-02-15 02:41 · Score: 0

the FBI remotely monitored last month's raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work
Did they FBI at least have the decency to give them the promised snausage treat?
You're assuming that the FBI had permission to remotely monitor the raids. ;-)
Am I missing something? by DJ+Jones · 2012-02-15 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since when has the FBI's charter allowed them to operate on foreign soil?
1. Re:Am I missing something? by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-02-15 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, That was passed in 1995, or 1996. I can never remember. Here's the legal document on that Good luck deciphering the legal speak.
2. Re:Am I missing something? by chrb · 2012-02-15 03:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Congress gave them the power
  
  Overview of the Legal Attaché Program The FBI’s legal attaché program was developed to pursue international aspects of the FBI’s investigative mandates through established liaison with principal law enforcement and security services in foreign countries and to provide a prompt and continuous exchange of information with these partners. The FBI currently has 60 fully operational legat offices and 15 sub-offices, with more than 250 agents and support personnel stationed around the world. The growth of transnational crime caused by the explosion in computer and telecommunications technology, the liberalization of immigration policies, and the increased ease of international travel has made it necessary for the U.S. to cooperate with countries around the world concerning security issues. The FBI’s role in international investigations has expanded due to the authority granted by the Congressional application of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
  
  Also note:
  
  FAQ What authority do FBI special agents have to make arrests in the United States, its territories, or on foreign soil?
  In the U.S. and its territories, FBI special agents may make arrests for any federal offense committed in their presence or when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed, or is committing, a felony violation of U.S. laws. On foreign soil, FBI special agents generally do not have authority to make arrests except in certain cases where, with the consent of the host country, Congress has granted the FBI extraterritorial jurisdiction.
3. Re:Am I missing something? by Robert+Zenz · 2012-02-15 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Who said the FBI operated on foreign soil?
4. Re:Am I missing something? by i+kan+reed · 2012-02-15 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Probably since 1940. FDR created an administrative branch called the international legal attachés, who were responsible for investigations in cooperation with foreign police forces. I just love answering rhetorical questions.
5. Re:Am I missing something? by Kjella · 2012-02-15 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's not unusual for various national police forces to exchange information, cooperate on coordinated raids, apprehending fugitives and that sort of thing. As long as they're not exercising police power on foreign soil, they're well within their mandate to participate in any investigation to bring people in front of a US court. Maybe now it's live video instead of a paper report saying they've apprehended the suspects, but I don't see anything fundamentally new or controversial in that alone.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to the world.
  It is now 2012 by the calendar you are probably most familiar with. The political/economic situation has changed a bit, most notably, China has emerged as a Great Power. There has been a decline of Britain and France to second-rate. Russia is no longer communist. Africa is no longer a patchwork of colonies, but it's still poor and scary. There is a new awful weapon called an "atom bomb" (you may have read about the possibility of such a weapon already) which has shaped most of world history since the end of the second Great War (which happened in 1938-1945).
  Other than that, things are pretty much as you left them at the beginning of the 1930s. I see you've found the Web already. Good on you. A site called wikipedia.com probably has most of the answers you will be looking for in the next few months.
7. Re:Am I missing something? by kiwimate · 2012-02-15 04:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Am I missing something?
  Yes, yes you are, and so are all the people who modded up up.
  Read the other replies.
  Look up the definition of "extradition", "cooperation", and "treaty".
  Find where it states the FBI operated on foreign soil.
8. Re:Am I missing something? by jesseck · 2012-02-15 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  A few decades longer than the New York City PD has been allowed to operate outside of their city limits (and state and national borders as well).
Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 02:49 · Score: 0

The Windows Ouija programs are nothing -- few hundred lines of code. My OS is 130,000 LOC.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by sensationull · 2012-02-15 02:49 · Score: 1, Funny

They were apparently sutibly brutal and uncompromising using all sorts of overkill for a few unarmed people in a house so I'm guessing they got a kindly pat on the head at least.
Why ban? by dimko · 2012-02-15 02:50 · Score: 1

He didn't seem to be internet troll in the first place. OK, he did troll FBI, but who didn't??? Someone called Ananymous do it all the time. Heck, only lazy people didn't, it's so easy to do.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by chrb · 2012-02-15 02:55 · Score: 1

a few unarmed people
Media reports that there were shotguns in the house, two were sawn-off shotguns, and Kim locked himself in his safe room with one of the sawn-off shotguns. Kim didn't have a gun license, so owning these guns was illegal in NZ. Guns were to protect my family, says Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom
Real crime by roman_mir · 2012-02-15 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's good to see the governments doing what their citizen given mandate is asking them to do. Not making sure that the money is good enough to support the economy. Not making sure that the States are not engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, such as requiring different professionals to license in every State (well, at least your driver license is good everywhere, yes?) Not making sure that the government is not treating different groups of citizens preferentially based either race, gender, age, political or religious affiliation or size of the bank account. Not making sure that the will of the people is actually exercised whenever a new war is started or another individual is arrested or even killed without a warrant and a court order and a day in court. Not making sure that the country is on an actual solid economic path in terms of total government spending, borrowing, printing, taxing, regulating. Not making sure that the trade is in fact free.
But the government is doing what all the citizens want it to do - fighting the absolute evil that the people of the world are facing - distribution of copyrighted materials.
FBI is doing a good job, it has absolutely paid for its own existence, as the Constitution mandates it to be. Now it's just a matter of ensuring that the criminals, these terrorists are properly and Constitutionally renditioned to the best and most aligned foreign ally that USA has - Saudi Arabia, and that the warrant says: Muslim apostates.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Real crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  I see. So the people whose livelihoods depends on copyright are not citizens? That includes not just the copyright holders, but all the people employed by music companies, movie studios, software houses, etc. They don't count for anything. The government is doing exactly what it is supposed to - enforcing the laws that are in place to protect it's citizens.
2. Re:Real crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  "The government is doing exactly what it is supposed to - enforcing the laws that are in place to protect it's citizens."
  You mean "its citizens".
  I bet you're a cop.
  You are certainly stupid enough to be one.
  Learn to use an apostrophe correctly, you stupid shit.
  I am weary of semi-literate morons like you.
3. Re:Real crime by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 03:30 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Yes, until every hint of bigotry is stamped out and the economy is fixed, the FBI should cease all of its operations. They should recall all of their field agents and have them start working on the economy right away, and on a campaign to end discrimination.
  You do realize that "the government" isnt a single entity, right? And that the FBI has nothing to do with how the economy is doing and how our money is spent?
  (Hint, that second part is what Congress is working on right now. I suppose the FBI should go on leave till they make a decision?)
4. Re:Real crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Not a cop, it speaks in complete sentences. It smells like MAFIAA.
5. Re:Real crime by ScentCone · 2012-02-15 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because the government can only do one thing at a time.
  
  Did you note that the president's new budget only adds $17,000 to your personal share of the national debt this year because of the number of things that it's setting out to do simultaneously? Regardless, which government policy would you change, in terms of how the government treats people based on skin color, since you bring that up? What is your worry in that area ... that things like government contracts and government backing of things like student loans and home loans take skin color into account, and favor some over others? That is a worry. Regardless, please be specific.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
6. Re:Real crime by Sir_Sri · 2012-02-15 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because the government can only do one thing at a time.
  Did you note that the president's new budget only adds $17,000 to your personal share of the national debt this year
  
  er... ~900 billion dollar deficit, 313 million americans = 2875/person. If you want to count working age or whatever, you can double that since there's only about 157 million working age people in the US. Which is in no way 17k.
  Are you talking about projected future liabilities maybe? Or the 10 year budget assumptions? Because those are basically nonsense numbers.
7. Re:Real crime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, the government is serving its citizens and fulfilling its mandate perfectly! ... the government's citizens being MAFIAA and the corporations. Everything is done for their benefit.
  Everybody else are not real citizens. Joe "on welfare, don't pay income taxes" and Jane "unemployed, in debt, with a useless degree" are not citizens. They don't own any capital. They do not produce anything of value. They are not the job creators.
  Not even the guys with an honest job are citizens. They're just employees for the rich owners, at best subcontractors. Only those at the very top (the rich, MAFIAA, corporations, etc) are citizens.
  This is America, the Randean paradise where you're only a free man if you're at the top. Anything less and you're a moocher, trying to get the rich to sacrifice their wealth for you.
8. Re:Real crime by 0111+1110 · 2012-02-15 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Are you an LEO of some kind? You certainly seem to love them or at least jack of to pictures of them. I'd say we should fire most of the FBI field agent thugs. Restrict them to bank robberies and serial killers and leave it at that. They should not be involved with foreign governments in any way. Since there aren't all that many bank robberies which cross state lines or serial killers that do the same I don't think we need that many of them. They can just sit inside their cubicles and play some video game where they get to massacre innocent civilians while they stroke each other's dicks. That's much preferable to letting them outside so they can hurt real people.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 02:59 · Score: 0

What news report of the raid did YOU read. Kimble was far from unarmed. The dude was well armed in a secure compound.
corporate overlords by jduhls · 2012-02-15 03:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Ah, the Corporate States of America: it even outsources its storm trooping duties to the New Zealand police.
Makes sense for this guy by Sloppy · 2012-02-15 03:19 · Score: 1

Not surprising they allowed bail for this guy. Ortmann is a totally believable name for a website founder, unlike Dotcom.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
1. Re:Makes sense for this guy by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2012-02-15 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not surprising they allowed bail for this guy. Ortmann is a totally believable name for a website founder, unlike Dotcom.
  Seeing as how Dotcom had a history of fleeing jurisdictions where he was charged, that probably had more to do with denying him bail than what his name was. Oh and the multiple passports with different aliases didn't help either.
  
  --
  I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by LordLimecat · 2012-02-15 03:21 · Score: 1

When you say unarmed, did you actually read the articles about this or are you following the great slashdot tradition of deciding on your own what the news should have been?
Because Im pretty sure "loaded gun" doesnt qualify as "unarmed".
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by omnichad · 2012-02-15 03:23 · Score: 1

Wait, his legal last name is Dotcom??
No internet!!! by raymansean · 2012-02-15 03:43 · Score: 1

I wonder if that includes telephone?

--
insert inflammatory comment here!
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by JosKarith · 2012-02-15 03:43 · Score: 2

Sure they did - RIAA gave it to them.

--
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
well by unity100 · 2012-02-15 03:48 · Score: 1

french aristocrats were also french citizens too, whose livelihood depended on their property ownership.
albeit, they practically owned all property. others, did not.

--
Read radical news here
Sovereign country by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 03:52 · Score: 0

...and I thought New Zealand was a sovereign country.
In jail for being accused much. by sgt+scrub · 2012-02-15 03:53 · Score: 1

I was wondering how long their jail sentence would be while waiting for trial. At least one of them isn't doing time while the U.S. government finds there isn't sufficient evidence to imprison the prisoners. Why not have the trial, invite the accused to present evidence against the accusations, then put them in prison if found guilty? I thought we were trying to make the world more civilized.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by X.25 · 2012-02-15 04:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Media reports that there were shotguns in the house, two were sawn-off shotguns, and Kim locked himself in his safe room with one of the sawn-off shotguns. Kim didn't have a gun license, so owning these guns was illegal in NZ. Guns were to protect my family, says Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom
He had gun safes, shotgun in panic room was in gun safe and had 1 rubber bullet, and Kim was nowhere near the safe when arrested.
Since noone has bothered to give Kim DotCom a chance to say anything or defend himself, one NZ reporter tried to present things from different (one that doesn't burn witches) angle. You should watch the videos, at least for amusement factor.
Links are listed in the order reports were broadcast:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Campbell-Live-enters-Kim-Dotcoms-Coatesville-mansion/tabid/817/articleID/242116/Default.aspx
http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-defend-actions-during-Dotcom-raid/tabid/423/articleID/242115/Default.aspx
http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcom-charges-fraction-of-world-awash-with-copyright-breaches/tabid/817/articleID/242208/Default.aspx
http://www.3news.co.nz/Kim-Dotcoms-mansion-seized/tabid/423/articleID/242276/Default.aspx
There might be more reports, I might have not seen them all.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by X.25 · 2012-02-15 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

When you say unarmed, did you actually read the articles about this or are you following the great slashdot tradition of deciding on your own what the news should have been?
Because Im pretty sure "loaded gun" doesnt qualify as "unarmed".
A gun, stored in gun safe and loaded with a single rubber bullet certainly doesn't make one "armed" either.
I would presume that SWAT team is doing all arrests in the USA, since pretty much everyone could have a gun. Right?
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Mister+Whirly · 2012-02-15 04:11 · Score: 2

You can own all the loaded guns in the world - if you aren't holding any of them you are not "armed". The shotgun referenced was locked up in a gun safe. It wasn't like he was hanging on to the thing the whole time. He didn't even get it.

What do people think he was going to do - shoot his way out? Yeah I am sure nobody would ever recognize that unforgettable figure out in public...

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by jesseck · 2012-02-15 04:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

He may have been armed, but one thing that stuck with me was this quote from New Zealand Detective Inspector Grant Wormald (source here):

"Police arrived in two marked Police helicopters ... Despite our staff clearly identifying themselves..."
Reading between the lines, and from observing pictures released to the Press of the raid, the vehicles and officers on the ground were clad in black. For all Kim Dotcom knew, he was under attack by terrorists pretending to be police. He had to look away from the vehicles, people, and guns, just to find one marked vehicle which indicated a Police operation. And that vehicle was high above him.
Laywers.... you get what you pay for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 04:43 · Score: 0

I don't know how much experience you've had with lawyers, but from this comment I'm going to go out on a limb and say none.
Basically, when it comes to lawyers, you have to do the work and pass it on for them to formalize or nothing other than form letters will get done. This is from multiple experiences :( -- And no, I do not have a criminal record either but I have friends and family who do because of lawyer screw ups. I do admit, if you can afford the good ones you can get good service but truthfully, most can NOT EVEN come close to affording that...
I had a friend dragged in handcuffs at 10pm from his home (in front of his kids) because the lawyer didn't tell him his court date and then at the court hearing the lawyer told the judge his client was moving to another state.... Ah, gotta love lawyer mistakes.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 05:07 · Score: 0

The US is a different beast. Here whether the person has a gun or not, the team performing the raid will shoot the suspect multiple times along with their dog and sometimes immediate family. Many raids end in injury and/or death and are more and more often occurring at the WRONG ADDRESS altogether. AMERICA!
First, They Came for the Terrorists by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-15 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

And I did not speak out --
Because I was not a "Terrorist".
Then they came for the operators of file-sharing sites, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not the operator of a file-sharing-site.
Then they came for the blog-posters, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a blog-poster.
Then they came for me --
And there was no one left to speak for me.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:First, They Came for the Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  We ... will ... adapt
2. Re:First, They Came for the Terrorists by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-02-15 07:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And I did not speak out --
  ...
  Then they came for me --
  And there was no one left to speak for me.
  By the time they came for you there was no one left to listen either.
3. Re:First, They Came for the Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  I'm fine with them taking the terrorists and people who widely benefit monetarily from the copying of other peoples hard work..
French or Latin by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-02-15 06:31 · Score: 1

The FBIs legal attache program ...
Whenever a Western governernment wants to pull some legal shenanigans that are abject bullshit, they always turn to French or Latin to give it that cachet of legitimacy.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Ihmhi · 2012-02-15 07:01 · Score: 1

I would presume that SWAT team is doing all arrests in the USA, since pretty much everyone could have a gun. Right?
Actually, one of the more important issues we've been dealing with as a country is the willingness of certain police departments and federal agencies to use "no-knock" warrants pretty liberally.
FYI, a "no knock" warrant means that some sort of breaching team (usually a SWAT team or officers with vests and heavier weaponry) breaks down the door and sweeps the house rapidly.
So yes, for the most part this is already happening far, far too much.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Ashamed....again by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:29 · Score: 0

Once again I'm completely ashamed to be Kiwi. Since when did being accused mean that you can have your life and business destroyed?
If the extradition goes ahead, this will set a dangerous precedent. What's next, extradition to the USA for format shifting (which is not illegal here), or for people operating VPN companies circumventing regional locking (which is explicitly not illegal, it's specifically mentioned in a law)?
1. Re:Ashamed....again by Kalriath · 2012-02-15 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Since John Key wanted a Free Trade Agreement with the US, against all warning signs that FTAs with the United States are in all cases highly detrimental to the economy of a nation.
  What's next, of course, is TPPA - treaty to make both of the two things you mentioned illegal. Write your MP, so they too can get shouted down in Parliament while National MPs mumble about Skynet and compilation CDs of Korean music.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Kittenman · 2012-02-15 07:46 · Score: 1

Hey, I live in NZ and I'd do anything for a good snausage treat! You've no idea how good our snausages are, (you inconsiderate clod).

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
WHat a stupid fat fuck. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 07:56 · Score: 0

He's saddled with a girl's first name, and yet when he legally changed his name, he changes the normal last one and keeps THE GIRL'S name?!?!? A moron like that deserves whatever he gets.
What I find disappointing... by DiSKiLLeR · 2012-02-15 09:20 · Score: 1

What I find disappointing is the negative way the media in New Zealand is portraying Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz.
NZ police acted on US request for help
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780138
They raided him with freaking helicopters!! :
Police complete Dotcom search
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780142
Dotcom birthday party targeted
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780321
Dotcom's lavish life of parties and luxury
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780514
Dotcom 'extreme' flight risk - Crown
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553
Dotcom case 'not open and shut'
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10781113

--
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by master5o1 · 2012-02-15 09:32 · Score: 1

Apparently, according to a TV interview with Dotcom's Head of Security at the mansion, there was one (or two?) shotguns in a safe in an attic like security room, inside a safe (with key in lock), where Dotcom went to hide. The guns licensed to the head of security.
Sawn off? Probably fabricated media sensationalism, but I don't know. NZ Police claim they were acting upon the intelligence they were given, however that intelligence could have been exaggerrated. Being a New Zealander myself, I would love to imply that FBI gave over the top intel to make NZ Police raid with an over the top style.
I'm an expert because I saw him say it on TV.

--
signature is pants
Injustice by m1ndcrash · 2012-02-15 09:49 · Score: 0

Rape & Murder = 20 years Copyright Infringement = 50 years
Not arrested because of copyright by tylutin · 2012-02-15 11:34 · Score: 1

It seems that the megaupload guys may not have been rounded up because of illegal copyright infringement, but because they were trying to go ligit. I haven't seen anything in English, but this article in a French paper explains that megaupload was starting a new product called megabox and had signed up dozens of artists directly to distribute their music legally; many big name artists too.

http://www.letelegramme.com/ig/loisirs/multimedia/megaupload-pourquoi-le-site-a-t-il-vraiment-ete-ferme-25-01-2012-1578204.php?xtmc=kim%20dotcom&xtcr=3

Megaupload supposedly already had over a million users of their MegaKey software that provided the music with adverts, and the artists receive as much as 90% of the proceeds.
Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by rtb61 · 2012-02-15 15:57 · Score: 1

Come on. An uncover police officer was there the day before and spoke directly with Kim and could have arrested him there and then, unarmed and to chubby to run anywhere. Instead they had to go nuts with a full on assault to impress the FBI, get there pat on the butt and a promise to allow them into a US free trade agreement, good little lamb http://satwcomic.com/bedtime-drama-2.
So now have locked in your mind the image of the cute little lamb chasing around the everso naughty Kim Dotcom at the behest of a big burly US shepherd with a elastrator behind his back (the lamb not realising it is soon to be http://www.sheep101.info/201/dockcastrate.html, it's in the best interest of the shepherd of course, youch).

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
1941 by westlake · 2012-02-16 03:50 · Score: 1

Since when has the FBI's charter allowed them to operate on foreign soil?
Since the run-up to the attack on Pearl Harbor:

The FBI was in charge of domestic intelligence, but there was no CIA at that time to handle overseas intelligence. Roosevelt decided to assign intelligence responsibilities for different parts of the globe to various agencies. The Bureau landed the area closest to home --- the Western Hemisphere.
Strategically, it made sense --- South and Central America were fast becoming staging grounds for the Nazis to send spies into the U.S. and hubs for relaying information back to Germany. In June 1940, the FBI responded to the president's charge by setting up a Special Intelligence Service that deployed scores of undercover agents to ferret out Axis spy networks.
The FBI quickly realized that it needed to establish official liaison with the many countries it was working with across the world to coordinate international leads arising from the Bureau's work and to exchange information with the police and intelligence services of those countries. In 1941, the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia requested the assignment of a special agent to the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. This proved to be the forerunner of the FBI's legal attache, or legat, program.
In 1947, the FBIâ(TM)s Special Intelligence Service was disbanded, and the newly formed CIA was tasked to take over foreign intelligence operations and to coordinate intelligence activities worldwide. But the Bureau's network of Legats overseas had proven its worth.
In the 1990s, FBI Director Louis Freeh --- recognizing that global crime and terror were on the rise --- made it a priority to open a series of new legal attachÃ©s. At the start of his tenure in 1993, the Bureau had 21 offices in U.S. Embassies worldwide; within eight years that number had doubled. Offices were opened, for example, in such strategic locations as Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
That growth has continued. Today, the Bureau has more than 250 special agents and support professionals in more than 60 overseas offices, pursuing terrorist, intelligence, and criminal threats with international dimensions in every part of the world. The FBI also takes part in all manner of global and regional crime-fighting initiatives, including Interpol and Europol; the Budapest Project; and Resolution 6, which co-locates FBI agents in DEA offices worldwide to combat drugs.
History of Legal Attaches
tawkle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 19:43 · Score: 0

mega upload will soon be forgotten and tawkle will so take its place its easier convenient and faster to use . plus its unlimited