Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Megaupload Co-Founder Allowed Bail

Posted by Unknown on 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.'"

32 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are! by elrous0 · · 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.
  2. Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Theophany · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ask Anonymous, they were listening in on the call.

  3. Internet Ban by Aladrin · · 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 · · 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 Xest · · 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.

    3. Re:Internet Ban by Rich0 · · 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.

    4. Re:Internet Ban by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      Would you like to play a game?

    5. Re:Internet Ban by elrous0 · · 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.
    6. Re:Internet Ban by Sarten-X · · 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.
    7. Re:Internet Ban by Karzz1 · · 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.
    8. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      But announcing his arrest and all the crimes he's supposed to have committed will in no way influence a juror?

    9. Re:Internet Ban by LordLimecat · · 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...."

    10. Re:Internet Ban by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    11. Re:Internet Ban by Sloppy · · 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.
    12. Re:Internet Ban by djdavetrouble · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pirates don't worry! I have discovered a site with more copyrighted content than 10 megauploads combined!

      --
      music lover since 1969
    13. Re:Internet Ban by Xest · · 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.

    14. Re:Internet Ban by undeadbill · · 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.

    15. Re:Internet Ban by TFAFalcon · · 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?

    16. Re:Internet Ban by 0111+1110 · · 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.
    17. Re:Internet Ban by X.25 · · 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 :(

  4. Am I missing something? by DJ+Jones · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who said the FBI operated on foreign soil?

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by kiwimate · · 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.

  5. Real crime by roman_mir · · 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.
  6. corporate overlords by jduhls · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah, the Corporate States of America: it even outsources its storm trooping duties to the New Zealand police.

  7. Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by JosKarith · · 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.'
  8. Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by X.25 · · 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.

  9. Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by X.25 · · 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?

  10. Re:Who's a good police force? You are! Yes you are by Mister+Whirly · · 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!"
  11. First, They Came for the Terrorists by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · 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..."