Slashdot Mirror


FBI Used FedEx To Sneak Dotcom's Hard Drives Out of NZ

First time accepted submitter bpkiwi writes "FBI agents, working with New Zealand police on the Megaupload case, took a copy of Kim Dotcom's hard drives and then immediately sneaked out of the police facility and FedEx'ed them back to the USA. Despite the fact that removal of evidence in this manner without official approval (and a chance for the defendant to challenge it) appears to be illegal, the New Zealand government is now left arguing on a technicality — that the law only covers 'physical' items." Things got slightly better for Megaupload users trying to get their files back today. In a court filing the MPAA said users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked. “The MPAA Members are sympathetic to legitimate users who may have relied on Megaupload to store their legitimately acquired or created data, although the Megaupload terms of use clearly disclaimed any guarantee of continued access to uploaded materials,” MPAA lawyers write.

60 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, what? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, the MPAA is claiming the Megaupload EULA/TOS as a reason why people shouldn't get their data back? That's kinda a dick move.

    Also, if I was the NZ government, I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"

    1. Re:Wait, what? by f3rret · · Score: 5, Insightful

      : "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"

      To which the answer would be something like : "Because we're a hideously rich gigantic corporation operating out of your lord and master the US, suck it Kiwis."

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    2. Re:Wait, what? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, if I was the NZ government, I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"

      How would FedEx know? You may as well blame Level 3 for illegal export of bits.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, the MPAA is claiming the Megaupload EULA/TOS as a reason why people shouldn't get their data back? That's kinda a dick move.

      I'm sure that the MPAA also wants some type of payment for all those illegal copies the FBI stole and shuttled out of NZ.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FedEx only shipped a box - it's hard to imagine they knew the exact contents.

      Also, isn't there a judge in this case? Why the F*** is the MPAA sympathetic to anything?
      It's not in their realm or authority to limit users to their legitimate data, and acting in this
      manner will only garnish more distrust for them. It's not by the grace of MPAA, but the execution
      of legal principles.

      CAPTCHA = waived

    5. Re:Wait, what? by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"

      WTF?

      So you want FedEx prosecuted in every country for millions of crimes?
      You seriously want to bust FedEx because they were the shipper?
      Sure why blame the people shipping shit out of a country illegally when you can just bring down the hammer on FedEx.
      How did you get an insightful mod with that crap in there?
      You prosecute the agents or you penalize the country. You don't go after FedEx or UPS or DHL because the agents used them as a shipper.
      Should FedEx have asked if the hard drives were stolen evidence? Do you think that should be one of the check boxes on the shipping form?
      I can not fathom how it is possible for you to say that and be smart enough to type. I can only come to the conclusion that you put no thought whatsoever into any part of the drivel that spewed froth from your keyboard.
      Next time think about what it is you are saying before you hit submit.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    6. Re:Wait, what? by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"

      I can imagine FedEx's response.

      "What are you suggesting? That we open every FedEx package we ship out? To check against some kind of real-time up-to-second list provided by the police department for what's already in their evidence locker?

      What happens if we don't do that? Are you going to arrest us and freeze all our assets too? Wouldn't it be easier to just put a lock on your evidence locker and carefully vet/punish the people who took out the evidence in the first place? Or at least punish/fire/jail the people who gave them access to that locker? "

    7. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IANAL, but my guess would be they filed papers with the court saying they wouldn't contest the action. It's just makes them sound more ominous and full of themselves to state it as them giving permission.

    8. Re:Wait, what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      NZ already had a pissing match with USA when they banned US vessels that were either nuclear powered or carrying nuclear weapons from entering their waters. That's still in force today, as are the measures US had taken in response.

    9. Re:Wait, what? by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

      The last section of the ANZUS article states that the US and NZ have resumed military cooperation, without NZ having to lift its port ban of nuclear vessels.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:Wait, what? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The MPAA want to make me and my ISP responsible for what goes across my Internet connection. How is this different from the FedEx example exactly?

      And just for the record, I think both are absurb.

      However, if I were a customer of megaupload who had copyright material on their servers, I would like to be putting a case for copyright infringement of my work by the FBI in NZ, since they have no legal authority in that jurisdication. And if they have returned to the US after breaking the law, well, NZ will just have to put in a extradition request.

    11. Re:Wait, what? by Zenin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FedEx only shipped a box - it's hard to imagine they knew the exact contents.

      The same could be said for Megaupload's entire site...

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    12. Re:Wait, what? by JosKarith · · Score: 2

      MegaUpload were busted because they "were the shipper".
      Sauce, goose, gander.
      And surely if the data on the drives is "not a physical object" then surely laws concerning theft and posession are completely inapplicable to it and the whole operation is a bust?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  2. Physical items? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So then what are the hard drives made of if they are not physical?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Physical items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So then what are the hard drives made of if they are not physical?

      Oh, it's funnier than that.

      From TFA:

      "FBI agents who copied data from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's computers and took it overseas were not acting illegally because information isn't "physical material", the Crown says."

      Copying information is theft when MPAA says it is, but copying information is not theft when the NZ Feds, acting on FBI's behalf, who themselves were acting on MPAA's behalf, say it isn't!

    2. Re:Physical items? by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't take the harddrives, they took the copied files. Understand your enemy.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    3. Re:Physical items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, so making a copy isn't stealing? :P

    4. Re:Physical items? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Sounds to me like he should sue them all for copy infringement.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Physical items? by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know that old saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

      A police officer can't break into your room to steal cocaine as evidence against you. Sure, you're breaking the law, but so did law enforcement.

      Yeah. (Oh, and I don't see anyone here regularly saying "there's nothing at all wrong with downloading movies for free", troll. In fact, most posters agree to some degree about copyright. What we have problems with are the specifics of the laws, the methods used to enforce them, and the double standard in which they are enforced.)

    6. Re:Physical items? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We poke fun at rich people for hypocrisy like this. And yet....they get away with it...

    7. Re:Physical items? by I_am_Jack · · Score: 2

      I think if you read the article again, it's fairly clear these were the HD's from Dotcom's personal computers. The actual Megaupload servers are in Virginia in the US and a location in France. Unless he poached files from Megaupload and stored them on one of his personal HD's, there's no copyrighted material.

    8. Re:Physical items? by lightknight · · Score: 4, Funny

      I find this irony particularly delicious.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    9. Re:Physical items? by PPH · · Score: 2

      Stealing isn't stealing if you are the US government.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Physical items? by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

      Unless he poached files from Megaupload and stored them on one of his personal HD's, there's no copyrighted material.

      Anything on those personal hard disks written by DotCom is a work protected by copyright, and that copyright is held by Dotcom. Any email received by Dotcom and stored on those hard disks is a work subject to copyright where the copyright holder is not Dotcom. Any software on those hard disks that was licensed to Dotcom for use on that machine, e.g. Windows, is subject to copyright law and the copyright holder is not Dotcom. To say there is nothing "copyrighted" on those hard disks is to ignore the obvious and swallow the "Big media" line that only they create works subject to copyright law and the protections that offers. Whether Dotcom and others have remedies for unauthorised reproduction of those works available under New Zealand law is a separate matter.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    11. Re:Physical items? by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      "How about America plays by the rules it demands and enforces from the rest of the world"

      Governments generally don't restrain themselves voluntarily, certainly ours doesn't. When nobody stops them, nothing stops them.

      NZ never should have let the FBI in. Probably they would have kept them out if the USA wasn't holding some kind of carrot or stick.

    12. Re:Physical items? by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Interesting

      RTFA. the FBI had no permission from anybody concerned, much less the actual owner of the hard drives! the man doesn't forfeit property rights by being arrested.

    13. Re:Physical items? by kiwirob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah that "fair use" you talk of only applies under US jurisdiction. Here in New Zealand we are a separate country and we have our own laws. So your American FBI can not just come over here and apply your own set of rules in our sovereign country thank you!!

      The FBI broke a court order in NZ that stipulated that a further hearing would be required to decide if the FBI where going to be given access at all. They just copied and stole the information without even the NZ Police knowing what they where doing.

    14. Re:Physical items? by kiwirob · · Score: 2

      The NZ Police where told by the NZ Court that a hearing was going to have to be conducted before the FBI got to see anything, which the FBI and NZ Police ignored and broke NZ Laws. The FBI did not even ask the NZ Police permission to remove the information, they took it without even the NZ Polices approval.

    15. Re:Physical items? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2

      You know that old saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

      A police officer can't break into your room to steal cocaine as evidence against you. Sure, you're breaking the law, but so did law enforcement.

      Yeah. (Oh, and I don't see anyone here regularly saying "there's nothing at all wrong with downloading movies for free", troll. In fact, most posters agree to some degree about copyright. What we have problems with are the specifics of the laws, the methods used to enforce them, and the double standard in which they are enforced.)

      Random thought: Wouldn't it be hilarious if NZ uses this as a justification to declare a mistrial and throw the whole thing out? After all, Dotcom's civil rights have been disgustingly violated -- not only in this instance, but his valid, legal business was intentionally destroyed to make a political point (namely: "We don't need SOPA to ruin your lives, nerds").

      There also were the rather convincing arguments that the whole thing was actually a ploy to make sure Megaupload didn't branch out into the Music Publishing business -- with Internet publishing coming into it's own, a site like Megaupload could have really done some damage to the RIAA and MPAA's monopolies.

    16. Re:Physical items? by Anaerin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the content on the hard-drive was original work in any way, it's copyright is automatically legally owned by, and remains with, the creators (As laid out in the Berne Convention), unless they somehow disown or reassign copyright on those items (though a recording or publishing contract, or any other kind of license, for example). Uploading works (files) to a locker site is not disowning copyright, it is merely granting an exclusive license for the locker site to hold (and potentially "transform") them, not a right to distribute those works to third parties (unless said third parties are explicitly granted access). Thus, the New Zealand Police and FBI (And potentially the MPAA/RIAA as well) are guilty of illegally copying copyrighted works without a license, thus infringing on the copyrights of all the users of MegaUpload.

      Therefore, in one fell swoop, the FBI are immediately guilty of 1+ Billion cases of Copyright Infringement, assuming every registered user of MegaUpload uploaded only one original work. If, for some reason, they are not, then neither are the users of MegaUpload guilty, for exactly the same reasons.

      Should be interesting to see the US Government wiggle their way out of that one, to be sure.

    17. Re:Physical items? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are correct. If you can prove it. Not just that he broke into your house, but that he had no "valid" reason to do so. Keeping in mind that whatever he says is presumed to be true by nearly all judges and most juries and whatever you say (assuming he let you live) is presumed to be a desperate lie to save yourself from going to jail. If you weren't alone your friend/roomate/girlfriend will be considered biased and lying for you. The only way to beat a lying cop is to catch it on video and not let the video get confiscated. Or be lucky enough to have the event witnessed by someone you don't know and can later find to testify on your behalf. That still is no guarantee because the cop will have buddies who are also willing to testify to his version of events.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    18. Re:Physical items? by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When dealing with the U.S. legal system, yes he did.

      Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime.

      Yeah, it's that fucked up.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    19. Re:Physical items? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

      But what about under NZ legal system, since thats the jurisdiction he is in?

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    20. Re:Physical items? by styrotech · · Score: 2

      You do realise that New Zealand is not part of the United States don't you? US law does not apply in New Zealand...

      That's just an imminent free trade agreement away.

      In return for NZ being allowed to sell a couple of shipping containers full of cheese and lamb chops to US supermarkets, NZ will cede all sovereignty and law making to US drug companies, movie studios, record labels and patent trolls.

    21. Re:Physical items? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Thus, the New Zealand Police and FBI (And potentially the MPAA/RIAA as well) are guilty of illegally copying copyrighted works without a license, thus infringing on the copyrights of all the users of MegaUpload.

      A New Zealand police officer or an FBI agent who copied those files in order to watch copied movies at home would be committing copyright infringement. But I would think that making copies to collect evidence in a criminal prosecution is allowed by copyright law.

      As an example, emails would obviously fall under copyright protection. But even in civil cases, defendants (and plaintiffs as well) are often forced to supply opposing lawyers with copies of those emails, and nobody has ever questioned that for copyright reasons.

    22. Re:Physical items? by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      Making copies of content as part of a criminal investigation is not copyright infringement. Where did you get your legal advice, a bag of Doritos?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    23. Re:Physical items? by kiwirob · · Score: 2

      Nice post Anonymous FBI person.

      First the current act of NZ Parliament in this case is the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, not 2009 as you cite.

      Further in the current act. 113 Powers of persons called to assist
      (1) Every person called on to assist a person exercising a search power is subject to the control of the person with overall responsibility for exercising that power.
      (2)..(j)copy any document, or part of a document, that the person exercising the power has determined may be lawfully copied.


      In this case the FBI can not exceed the powers of the NZ Police. The NZ Court procedure was for the evidence to be held in safe custody until a court hearing was to decide if the FBI would be given any access at all. The NZ Police Officer left the FBI in an evidence room without any supervision at which point the FBI cloned the 18 hard dives and left the building and sent them to the USA via FedEX WITHOUT permission from the NZ Police. This is absolutely illegal. The NZ Police had no legal standing to override the NZ Courts decision for due process to decide if the FBI would be granted access, ergo the FBI had no legal basis for carrying out their illegal acts of copyright infringement and contempt of court on New Zealand soil.

      Time for the FBI agents to be arrested for committing a crime in New Zealand. We arrested and sent French secret agents to jail for violating NZ Laws in the Rainbow Worrior bombing in the past. There as absolutely no good reason the FBI should believe they can act above the law in New Zealand and get away with it!!!!!

  3. If a private individual tried this by Scareduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it would be tortious interference of contract, but because they've bought themselves criminalization of copyright violations, we now have the FBI chasing halfway around the world for stuff like this. Great going, FBI!

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:If a private individual tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      here in the united states of skullduggery we DO have something called the chain of custody. by obtaining the materials outside of what is legally acceptable they have violated the chain of custody, and by using a non governmental agency without judicial oversight they have violated the chain of custody. this SHOULD, according to US law, make the hard drives inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings.

    2. Re:If a private individual tried this by philip.paradis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Law enforcement agencies and cooperating entities send evidence via FedEx all the time. It's an accepted mode of transit. As for chain of custody, sorry, you're wrong there too, as long as it was properly documented. As for legally acceptable means of obtaining the materials (in this case, copies of data stored on hard drives, presumably bit-for-bit images of the drive contents), well, they're federal agents who I'm sure signed affidavits attesting to the means utilized to create the copies. Whether or not NZ decides it was okay is up to NZ, but will probably have little to no effect on proceedings in the US.

      Now, on to the really important point. Where did you get your legal and/or law enforcement experience? I suspect it may have been a crackerjack box. Sorry, old episodes of Law and Order don't count.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    3. Re:If a private individual tried this by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, old episodes of Law and Order don't count.

      are the more recent ones, ok, then?

      *snark*

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:If a private individual tried this by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, chain of custody refers to the ability to prove that the materials presented in court were seized by the police at a particular time and place. It is different from the question of whether the means to seize the evidence or move it from one country to another is legal. If someone can attest to the movement of the evidence, then chain of custody is satisfied, even if normal procedures are not followed. Of course, if normal procedures are not followed, then the defense can put that before the finder of fact and argue the evidence is unreliable. But to be admissible, it is only necessary that the prosecution offer evidence to show where and when a particular item was seized.

      Moreover, even if the chain of custody was broken, fruit of the poisonous tree would not apply to derivative evidence unless the same chain of custody problem infected that new evidence. So, for example, if chain of custody problems keep a gun from being used, it is still possible in many situations to admit evidence seized under a warrant for which probable cause is supported by that gun. Not always - some chain of custody problems would quash the warrant - but there are many situations where the gun would out but fruits of the warrant would be in.

    5. Re:If a private individual tried this by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to bust your bubble buddy but American police as far a New Zealand or any other countries laws are concerned are nothing but bloody tourists. It is illegal to hand over evidence to visting tourists and let them take it out of the country. It even gets more stupid, users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked, WTF! Just because I am not an American and not a member of the RIAA/MPAA/Obama Justice Department club for pigopolists all of a sudden my work is no longer protected by copyright, talk about bullshit. All that work on those drives is protected by copyright, so what the fuck are they talking about, just because a bunch of out of control Fucking Bloody Idiot tourists stole a copy infringing other peoples copyrights doesn't mean that work now permanently loses copyright protection.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:If a private individual tried this by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 2

      Hate to bust your bubble buddy but American police as far a New Zealand or any other countries laws are concerned are nothing but bloody tourists. It is illegal to hand over evidence to visting tourists and let them take it out of the country.

      Not sure what bubble you think you're bursting, but I've said exactly *nothing* about whether sending the cloned drives out of NZ was illegal or not. I was speaking about whether doing that will affect the admissibility of the evidence in an American court. Not whether it should, but whether it will.

      It even gets more stupid, users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked, WTF! Just because I am not an American and not a member of the RIAA/MPAA/Obama Justice Department club for pigopolists all of a sudden my work is no longer protected by copyright, talk about bullshit. All that work on those drives is protected by copyright, so what the fuck are they talking about, just because a bunch of out of control Fucking Bloody Idiot tourists stole a copy infringing other peoples copyrights doesn't mean that work now permanently loses copyright protection.

      It does not appear that the data on the drives shipped via fedex contains files uploaded to Megaupload. The uploaded files was stored on servers in America, and was seized pursuant to a warrant. I'm sure there will be proceedings later challenging that warrant, but if the warrant is upheld, copyright will not prevent the data seized from the servers from being copied or used in court.

  4. Another CEO that needs to be Guillotined by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the revolution comes, MPAA's CEO and the managers under him should be in the line for beheading. (Or we could just pass a constitutional amendment that corporations don't have human rights and are not a fictional "person" under the law.)

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  5. Uhhh... Binary data is physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An actual altering of the magnetic particles on the disk between 1 and 0 states.
    So it is a physical item. Lots and lots and lots of them. Billions of bits worth of physical items.

    What seems to cover this would be say copyrights. And everyones all hard-on for defending copyrights these days...
    So the goverments and riaa/mpaa/whoever broke the ONE rule they expect the rest of us to follow.. Not breaking peoples copyrights and illegally copying data.

    the ONE THING they want us not to do.. they did in this case. lol

    Looks like everyone involved here all agree.... Fuck copyrights. kim dotcom did nothing wrong. the goverment of the usa did nothing wrong. the goverment of new zealand did nothing wrong. Everyone needs to have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up. EVERYONE involved is guilty.

  6. Physicality Matters by davidbofinger · · Score: 2

    One of the reasons for the law about shipping evidence out would be to make sure the evidence isn't lost or modified. So in this case the physicality of the data actually is relevant and the law may make sense.

    Of course there are separate issues of privacy.

    1. Re:Physicality Matters by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      One of the reasons for the law about shipping evidence out would be to make sure the evidence isn't lost or modified. So in this case the physicality of the data actually is relevant and the law may make sense.

      The data was copied, not lost or modified.

      I have no doubt that the copy cannot be used in court, but I also have no doubt that the original can If the FBI finds anything in their analysis of the copy they'll tell the kiwis where to look in the original and the original will be used in court. In fact, it is documented practice for forensic analysts to make a copy of the device they are studying just so that the defence cannot claim that the original was modified during the examination.

      The original was obtained, I assume, under legal kiwi means, and thus the FBI looking at it and telling the kiwis what they found isn't much different than the kiwis hiring a technical specialist to do the same.

  7. Dodgy dealings by josh_nz · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article puts quite a different spin on it, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10811266 From the article: "He said he had contacted the agents to offer to take clones of the items to the United States Embassy only to find they had already sent the clones to the US." Sounds like the NZ cops were going to give it to the FBI but the FBI wasn't waiting from permission anyway.

    1. Re:Dodgy dealings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      With that sort of circumvention in procedure in mind, I no longer think this is about massive amounts of infringed movie files. This is about something else. The US Government doesn't make this many mistakes, and purposefully fuck up this much procedure, especially Internationally and very publically, unless they're using this farce as a distraction for one reason or another.

      To me, it's one of these scenarios:

      1) They're purposefully screwing up procedure, and international treaty in the name of copyright infringement, to permanently sour the MPAA's perception world-wide. They're doing all of this on behalf of the MPAA. The DOJ is stocked with ex-MPAA legal puppets so it's easy to see why they'd pursue this to begin with.

      or,

      2) The US is using the scenario in 1, to get to some data that was put there serruptitiously, by a foreign entity. Think large amounts of 'pilfered' data, that necessarily wasn't able to get transferred over the net by normal means. This smells way too much of a cover for massive industrial espionage. Either government sponsored data, or corporate, and I'm betting it belongs to China.

    2. Re:Dodgy dealings by LeperPuppet · · Score: 2

      It's much more likely that there's no conspiracy and it's just fuck ups all the way down. The FBI doesn't regularly (compared to other crimes) investigate foreign cases of copyright infringement, hence the lack of internally well-known procedures, which leads to mistakes. When the policing of infringement cases have become routine, then there'll be a well understood protocol and these mistakes won't happen. The MPAA probably have used their influence to push the case, but given their incompetence at running legal cases in their own country, it's not surprising that they've managed to fuck this case up too.

    3. Re:Dodgy dealings by mpe · · Score: 2

      Also, funny that the cop who was supposed to report the events 'went on vacation for a month' the day after.

      I thought that was SOP whenever police did something embarrassing :)

  8. FedEx filters by Smiddi · · Score: 5, Funny

    FedEx aided in copying data illegally. FedEx should have filters in place blocking any illegal items (or data) from passing through their services, thus stopping companies and people from breaking the law. /SARCASM

  9. US Behaviour by ThePeices · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember when the prosecution was opposing Kim's bail application, the reasoning for their opposition being that Kim would flee the country, being the dishonest rich person he is.

    He never did.

    And now the prosecution were caught doing unethical and illegal behavior.

    Who are the dishonest ones here? Who are the criminals blatantly breaking the law?

    Unsurprisingly, the majority of the NZ population side with Kim Dotcom throughout this entire farce.

  10. Re:Sounds like a crime has taken place by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2

    Yes, but are FBI an offically sanctioned law enforcement agency in NZ ?

    --
    Just saying it like it are.
  11. NOT "copyrighted files" by ffflala · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...because all copyrightable material is under copyright from the moment of its creation. That would include all original works, all writings, etc... they're copyrighted, and the creator owns the copyright.

    What MPAA wants to disallow is in bold...

    "If the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts."

    To that, I'll add "allegedly illegally uploaded." The court as a finder of law can't determine that the files were illegally uploaded; a finder of fact (jury) needs to do that.

  12. Nonsense. by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    If the evidence had been paper documents and the NZ police had let the FBI take xerox copies back to the USA would you say that they took evidence out of the country? The actual evidence --the actual, original drives-- is still in NZ. No evidence was made unavailable to the defense. I oppose criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, but let's try not to invent bogus outrages. The real ones are quite sufficient.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  13. judgement by Fuck_this_place · · Score: 2

    You people are all insane.

  14. Re:Espionage by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

    Nononono you have it all wrong. The US is against information LEAVING the U.S., this stuff was coming INTO the U.S.

  15. FBI Destroying case? by hengist · · Score: 2

    While it's unlikely that any FBI agents would face charges of contempt of court, judges don't like being lied to, or having their orders ignored. Given the FBI's behaviour, I wouldn't be too surprised if the judge denied the extradition request solely on the basis of the actions of the FBI.

    In short, the FBI are acting like arrogant bullies and they are going to destroy their own case.