Slashdot Mirror


Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself

redletterdave writes "On Wednesday, Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz and his legal team visited the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand, to demand access to the data stored on his computers and hard drives that were confiscated during the police raid, and also requested a judicial review of the general legality of the search warrants police used to raid his mansion. Dotcom's lawyer, Paul Davison, argued that his client needs the data for a few reasons: To mount a 'proper defense' case, to fight possibly being extradited to the U.S., and also to show that 'excessive police action' was used during the raid. Dotcom could prove this in court because the entire raid was recorded by CCTV data, which is stored on Dotcom's confiscated computers. Even though the FBI demanded Dotcom turn over the passwords for Megaupload's encrypted data, he refuses to give up any passwords until he can regain access to his seized property."

26 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. How does it taste? by DigMarx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"? Speaking as an American expat living in NZ: fuck the US government and its thuggish international corporate rent-a-cop policies.

    1. Re:How does it taste? by Eristone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you, unless they think you're already dead." -- Hans Gruber

    2. Re:How does it taste? by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Funny

      And therefore, we shouldn't complain about it when people with guns and money come after people who upset them? After all, if you upset them, you deserve it. They have more guns and money than you do, therefore they are right, and you are wrong.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:How does it taste? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you steal 600 million you can give back 100 mill as a settlement and keep the rest.

    4. Re:How does it taste? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right? When you upset people with guns and money, they will come after you. Its not uniquely American in any way.

      America is supposed to be unique in being a country where that is not how things work.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:How does it taste? by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right?

      As a matter of fact YES he is innocent in the eyes of the law. It is now the job of the government to demonstrate why he is not inocent (which the judge overseeing the case says is unlikely, because they did not have authority to seize the items).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:How does it taste? by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The claim is he 'sold' advertising space based upon allowing others to copy and distribute copyrighted content, not theft involved, no armed smugglers, no gang of armed criminals and, no pirates on the high seas. A straight up civil matter that was totally abused by a twisted by a demented and distorted Barack Obama/RIAA/MPAA Department of in-Justice, flooded with lawyers fresh out of the RIAA/MPAA(who dont give a crap about justice just how much money they are going to make screwing it over for as long as they can get away with it). That sucked in another country to do it's dirty work for them, a big Hollywood show. Now comes the collapsing court case and the massive civil suit not against megaupload but against the New Zealand government. New Zealand was the sheep and the US was wearing the gumboots. It is pretty obvious the current US administration does not give a crap about justice, the law courts are just something to be abused for their financial advantage. They just write up any old crap and say the most obscene abuses of justice are now legal. Barack Obama has betrayed every principle of progressive justice.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:How does it taste? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They take the rights of the unscrupulous first. Then they change their definition of unscrupulous slightly to include more of the population. Once rights only belong to a limited set of people, that limited set tends to shrink until those rights apply to no one but the ruling class. The beginning of this century is being marked by the same gradual slide into totalitarianism that the last century was. Do you really think the federal government cares about pirated movies? This is about power, and control.

    8. Re:How does it taste? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"?

      "Schadenfrisky".

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    9. Re:How does it taste? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, okay. He's making easy money in a legal grey area. Just like loads of bankers and businessmen have done in the United States and all over the world.

      His only "crime" is not "contributing" to the war chests of politicians.

    10. Re:How does it taste? by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really think he had anything to do with it? You think that things would have been different no matter who else but him was in office?

      He's the chief executive. It's his Jutice Department. Where do you think the buck stops? As to whether I think things would be different if someone else was President - that depends on the someone else. The last half dozen or so Presidents - probably not. Certain other people I can imagine as President? You bet your life thing would be different.

    11. Re:How does it taste? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But are they not in the position of a bank laundering money for gangsters?

      No more than Google/Youtube, hard drive makers, creators of encryption algorithms, or any other hosting/storage or ISP related businesses are.

      Is the phone company liable for things like ransom/extortion demands, violent threats, or drug transactions made over their systems? Auto makers liable for transporting criminals committing crimes, illegal drug transportation, or for 14-YO Suzy illegally consuming alcohol and losing her virginity in the back seat to an 18-YO? Is the water company liable for someone drowning in their bathtub?

      So, no. They are not in that position at all.

      It's a ridiculous, facetious, ingenuous, illogical, and baseless bit of convoluted logic being used to end-run around established law, legal rights, protections, and legal procedures in order to step on someone doing something in another country where it's legal that powerful interests in the US don't like while simultaneously establishing and expanding the precedent for more and more-egregious end-runs around "inconvenient" laws, individual rights, and legal restrictions on government power.

      But hey, let's give government more power to fix the problem of...having and abusing too much power? Hmm. Can't quite put my finger on it, but something doesn't make sense with that plan. I'll ask my Congressman.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Hypocritical much? by Mysteryprize · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government has illegally copied his data, in the hope of extraditing him of charges of illegally copying other peoples data.

    1. Re:Hypocritical much? by kiwirob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tell me it's not so!!! Can we now please indite the FBI on charges of copyright infringement please. A story in the NZ papers said that have taken copies of storage devices that contain home movies and other personal items. Will the FBI now have to pay $150,000 for each file they have illegally made copies of? It would seem that the FBI have been working with the NZ Police on getting copies of this private data, would't that mean the FBI are now a party to "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement"!

      As a New Zealander I'd like to send a message to the USA Government, "please get the fuck off my front lawn!".

    2. Re:Hypocritical much? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Usually people making copies for criminal investigations have immunity from that sort of copyright claim.

      In US law it's worded like this:

      Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. â" This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

    3. Re:Hypocritical much? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      "High Court chief judge Helen Winkelmann has told the Attorney-General's lawyer, Mike Ruffin, he has until Monday to explain why FBI agents were allowed to take 135 cloned computer and data storage devices to the United States."

      that's from an article dated 24th of may(today). it seems indeed the action wasn't legal.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. NZ Police has handed them over already by evanh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was on the local news last night. The FBI are confirmed to now have a copy of the personal HDDs.

    It's causing a bit of a stink as it looks like the Police have done it illegally given they had previously agreed to return them first.

    1. Re:NZ Police has handed them over already by Mysteryprize · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's all a bit of a mess really. Here's an article giving a few more details: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10808032

  4. Dotcom should be freed even if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... he's guilty as hell of violating US law. Writing as a non-American living outside US territory who has never set foot inside US territory, I hope that Kim Dotcom succeeds in stopping the US extradition request. Extradition should be reserved for those who committed crimes in the country that is requesting extradition or for war criminals. A case might be made for "hackers" (security breakers) that plant malware that destroys another country's computer systems, but not for people whose crime involves not destruction but the "creation" of more data.

    1. Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, why not?

      George Bush hired people to commit crimes in Iraq and the USA still haven't extradited him to face justice from his victims. Or is extradition something that should only happen to non-US citizens?

    2. Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was no declaration of war. There should have been. Generally speaking, leaders of countries are not subject to legal action in other countries, even if they visit that country. Otherwise, Castro would be in a US jail today, following his arrest decades ago when he came to NYC.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I just honestly don't see this as anything more than a petty matter. Copyright infringement. So what? People are treating it as if it's some sort of national security emergency that we must extradite people in other countries for. Wow, files were copied! That's just terrible.

      What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  5. Steve Jackson Games all over again by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the principles to come out of the Steve Jackson Games case is that the accused can't be deprived of their computer equipment and data. Law enforcement may only make copies of data.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:Steve Jackson Games all over again by djlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

      *If you can afford to lawyer up and get your shit back. Otherwise they'll gladly keep it until you drag them to court."

      The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

      Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?

      Regards,

      dj

      P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.

      Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.

  6. Re:No, read the indictment by X.25 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously go read the indictment, it has money laundering, it has fraudulent take down procedures, it have fictitious users. Copyright infringement was just an underlying thing, they have him banged to rights which is why he's trying for the "excessive force" side defense.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment

    Hahaha. Did you actually read this whole document? You really should.

    It also has child pornography, terrorism propaganda, and many other neat things.

    It also has things taken out of context, examples of Kim uploading his legally purchased songs to his private account on Megaupload (which is perfectly legal, but presented as if he was distributing the music by uploading 2 songs to his own account).

    It has many many assumptions. Assumptions that Megaupload was a 'personal cyberlocker service', then 2 paragraphs later DoJ complains that Megaupload did not have a search function - therefore, they were up to something.

    No, you really should read the document. It is not an indictment, it is a propaganda document.

  7. Re:Read item 24 again by X.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, you need to read it again. Megaupload said that they can hash cp images and automatically block them from being uploaded again. They flip this claim against them for none CP files.

    Read item 24 carefully.

    "Members of the Conspiracy have indicated to each other that they can automatically identify and delete such materials on all of their servers by calculating MD5 hash values of known child pornography or other illicit content, searching the system for these values, and eliminating them; in fact, such files with matching hash values have been deleted from the Mega Conspiracyâ(TM)s servers. Members of the Mega Conspiracy have failed to implement a similarprogram to actually delete or terminate access to copyright infringing content."

    How can you be so stupid?

    I am pretty sure that it is illegal in all jurisdictions to even store child pornography. Preventing it from being uploaded is a no-brainer, since there are no cases where it could be legal.

    However, it not illegal for me to upload a copy of an album that I own, to my private Megaupload account.

    Why should Megaupload automatically prevent me from uploading a backup of a song (or album) that I legally purchased, and which shares MD5 hash with the exact same copy which someone else uploaded and shared with others?

    You seem to think that you are not able to make a copy of purchased song/album onto external hard disk (which is what Megaupload really is).

    That is really sad.