Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself

Posted by samzenpus on from the let-my-hard-drive-go dept.

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."

13 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 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"
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  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. 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.

  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"
  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.