Dotcom Search Warrants Ruled Illegal

New submitter StueyNZ writes "Justice Helen Winkelmann of New Zealand's High Court (non-appellate court) has ruled that the search warrants used to search and seize property from Kim Dotcom's Coatsville residence did not properly describe the offenses under which the search was being made. In particular, warrants did not make it clear that the breach of copyright law and money laundering offenses were U.S. federal offenses rather than NZ offenses. Therefore the search and seizure was illegal. I hope this means Mr. Dotcom gets his security footage back, which should shed some light on how many tourists from the FBI were present at the NZ police raid, and how many firearms those tourists were waving around as they joined in."

Comments

It's no surprise..

[intellitech]

It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really despises us because of the way our government throws it's weight around.

I was once proud to be an american. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.

Re:It's no surprise..

[jamesh]

It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really despises us because of the way our government throws it's weight around.

I was once proud to be an american. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.

I'm also both amused and terrified at how stupid the American government can be sometimes. That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly? (eg no obvious cock-ups that get the whole thing thrown out of court).

I wouldn't feel too ashamed though... my government can be just as stupid... it's just they don't have as much weight to throw around and so their stupidity tends to to be more localised and so less newsworthy.

Re:It's no surprise..

[SJHillman]

It's possible to be proud to be American and ashamed of our government. Although we are a government of the people, the government and the country as a whole are not the same thing.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly? (eg no obvious cock-ups that get the whole thing thrown out of court).

yeah, because every branch of the US government is really good at managing it's money..

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to be proud to be American and ashamed of our government. Although we are a government of the people, the government and the country as a whole are not the same thing.

And that is the reason the gun-nuts give when they are asked why they should have the right to bear arms.
Too bad it's just talk.

Re:It's no surprise..

[SuricouRaven]

Here in the UK, you are despised for an extradition agreement which allows you to successfully have someone sent over for prosecution who has committed no crime under UK law and never even entered the US. America has long been seen as the global champion of freedom and equality, but the government over the last few administrations has been striving to correct this.

Re:It's no surprise..

[crazyjj]

I've always maintained that the CIA has done more to damage to the U.S. over the years than any terrorist could ever dream of. Their work has built us up quite a long list of enemies too.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Without government the country is just landmass. Landmass is nothing to be proud of.

Pride is one's country is pride in one's government, unless of course you are proud of the random location you were born in for being arbitrarily better than x other location.

Re:It's no surprise..

[LordSnooty]

They got the megaupload servers offline, with much publicity, even if the whole thing is overturned there's no way it's returning in its old form. I'm sure the US authorities are thinking, 'job done'.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you see the weather at Other Location? The place is objectively terrible.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

hence the reason ever 'true patriotic American' has to have flag outside his house. To remind him which location he thinks is better. In reality its just deep seated resentment and insecurity they gave up being English.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have always displayed your ignorance.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Shagg]

You're assuming they didn't "do it properly". I don't mean in the sense of following proper procedure, but in the sense of achieving their real goals. Maybe they didn't really care whether or not it got thrown out of court, but wanted to "throw their weight around" in order to ruin his business and intimidate others into shutting down out of fear that they would be next. If that was their goal, then it worked out perfectly.

Re:It's no surprise..

[chemicaldave]

We've four times had presidents who lost the popular vote.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Charliemopps]

Yes, it's entirely the United States fault that world governments are slipping into totalitarianism.lol
NZ made their own choices. As heavy handed and anti-freedom as our government is turning, NZ didn't need any coaxing to go along with this.

Re:It's no surprise..

[AngryDeuce]

America has long been seen as the global champion of freedom and equality

Which is, of course, mainly due to American politicians repeating it over and over and over again, not necessarily because of anything we've actually done. Certainly not within any of our lifetimes...

I chalk it up to the last bit of Cold War propaganda that's still kicking around in the global collective consciousness. Give it another generation or two and, much like all the lessons learned during the Great Depression that have gone right the fuck out the window, it will all be forgotten...

Re:It's no surprise..

[Captain Hook]

Have you see the weather at Other Location? The place is objectively terrible.

Hey, I live in the UK you insensitive clod.

Re:It's no surprise..

[i_ate_god]

curious, why would you despise the US government for a treaty that the UK signed?

Re:It's no surprise..

[Hizonner]

Um, your culture? Your traditions? Your ancestry? You can't think of anything that somebody might use to define a country other than its location and its government?

I think those things are BS, and I think patriotism is nothing but soft nationalism and needs to go away. But it's just absolutely idiotic to say that governments are all patriotic people have to be attached to. Or even that governments are what most of them are attached to.

Re:It's no surprise..

[AngryDeuce]

Government has many levels. There are pockets of sanity still left in this country, but they've been marginalized by the fucking crazies for a few decades now.

I'm proud of where I grew up, but where I grew up no longer exists. It's still physically there, but it's nothing like the neighborhood I grew up in, with the people I grew up with, and the sense of community that once existed there is long gone. Now people are more concerned about a mosque potentially going in than the fact that the number of people living under the poverty line in the area has exploded over the last 20 years. Our priorities are so fucking screwed up...

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the US used it's weight and control of the worlds' financial systems to exert so much pressure, those that signed had little choice.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Joce640k]

I'm also both amused and terrified at how stupid the American government can be sometimes. That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly?

The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be covered up later.

Re:It's no surprise..

[drinkypoo]

It's possible to be proud to be American and ashamed of our government.

Possible, but wrong. Having pride in your nation while simultaneously permitting it to get out of hand and shit on the rest of the world is bullshit.

Re:It's no surprise..

[artfulshrapnel]

...That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly? (eg no obvious cock-ups that get the whole thing thrown out of court).

They didn't do it properly because what they wanted to do was not properly legal. The US government wanted to prosecute someone on NZ soil based on flimsy evidence provided by biased parties, without due authorization or process.

Protip for US Law Enforcement: If something you want to do is against the law it doesn't mean the law is bad, nor does it mean the law should be rewritten/removed. It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.

Re:It's no surprise..

[beaverdownunder]

Oblgatory 'The Newsroom' rant clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc

Re:It's no surprise..

[hey!]

Although we are a government of the people ...

... for some value of the word "person".

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, thats like despising the bully for the lunchmoney you handed him!

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

File sharing services are certainly learning from this. Ironic result: by stopping Megaupload, the US government has accelerated the rate of difficulty & expense to track and stop file sharing sites.

Re:It's no surprise..

[gblackwo]

It is their job to make the correct choice, especially difficult ones.

Whether or not they understood the ramifications and signed anyway, they are accountable for that decision.

Posting anonymously only further supports your attitude of minimal liability.

Re:It's no surprise..

[universalconstant]

The last government who agreed to sign us up for the treaty is also despised for its lack of backbone.

Re:It's no surprise..

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

They got the megaupload servers offline, with much publicity, even if the whole thing is overturned there's no way it's returning in its old form. I'm sure the US authorities are thinking, 'job done'.

That, or the US law en-forcers were actually attempting to follow the old thinking of how when the US asks something of a country it's on "friendly" terms with (e.g. allies), the US gets it. But maybe the world has changed. With things like social networking and Wikileaks-inspired news reporting, countries that would once "willingly" oblige might now be more fearful of the local backlash likely to be spawned by bending over a little for a "friend".

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the US authorities are thinking, 'job done'.

I think you mean: 'Mission Accomplished!'

Re:It's no surprise..

[MartinSchou]

I saw that pilot episode. I'm hooked. It looks awesome.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Is dotcom going to be stupid enough to show up in court in the US to sue them? I'll bet he'll be arrested at the airport. ;)
So the damage is done to file hosting industry.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost without fail, the CIA trained most of these "terrorist groups" in the past and they come back to haunt the US after they were abandoned.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

If something you want to do is against the law it doesn't mean the law is bad, nor does it mean the law should be rewritten/removed. It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.

Good advice for copyright infringers, innit?

Re:It's no surprise..

[The Askylist]

Bullshit.

It was the Blair/Brown government that signed the treaty, and if they had bent over any further to gratify Blair's wish to be seen as loyal lapdogs, they'd have won a Nobel for limbo dancing.

The shower we have now aren't much better, but at least they're trying.

Re:It's no surprise..

[davydagger]

I think after this ruling, next time a country might be more skeptical when the US serves a warrant. There might even be just cause for blowing off the US DoJ in allied countries.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

That IS "not doing it properly". Whether that was their goal is different matter.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Pope]

Good thing the electoral system was never set up to elect the President by popular vote.

Oh, wait...

Re:It's no surprise..

[cheekyjohnson]

It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.

It's not necessarily wrong because it's against the law. There is such a thing as a bad law.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

how is this the fault of the us? The raid happened in NZ, shouldn't NZ authorities have properly obtained the warrant?

Perhaps those of you who happen to hate on the US for a living should find a better use for your time.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Without government the country is just landmass. Landmass is nothing to be proud of.

Pride is one's country is pride in one's government, unless of course you are proud of the random location you were born in for being arbitrarily better than x other location.

Without the People, there is no Government. Pride in one's country is pride in one's people, and that pride can exist even when there is no government or the government is distasteful. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that a country under occupation is truly proud of the foreign government being imposed on it. That thought extends just as much to a government comprised of the local population which strays from the ideals held by the citizens.

You're also kind of overlooking the inherent connection which a People has with the land it occupies. But I won't get into that.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ebuck]

That investigation and raid must have cost a lot of money to put together... why not do it properly?

One distrubing issue on why such raids are handled so sloppily has to do with the laws covering the seizure of assets under certain circumstances. If they found any evidence of drug trafficing, for example, then the raid would literally have been profitable in the "you just lost all your assets to police auction" sense (after they use the assets to convict.

Of course, that probably wouldn't happen in a foreign country as easily; but, it is the culture of police work that american police forces bring with them. More raids means more funding, and eventually you get desensitized to the relative merits of a raiding X over Y when they all are affordable.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

None of which America has.

Re:It's no surprise..

[n30na]

Wrong isn't quite the word to use there. None of their damn business though, definitely. It's not law enforcement's job to know what the law should be, but to know what it is and ensure it is executed.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Nadaka]

I have pride in the ideals of America. I do not have pride that the government no longer aspires to those ideals.

And there is only so much that any individual can do. Especially if you hold justice and liberty as sacred.

You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.

All I can really do is be vocal, vote for the least bad option and maybe run for local office.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to be proud to be American and ashamed of our government.

Possible, but wrong. Having pride in your nation while simultaneously permitting it to get out of hand and shit on the rest of the world is bullshit.

Sometimes the rest of the world needs to get shit on. And somebody's gotta take that turd, and have the stink attached to them. Yes, my government has done, still does, and will do things I don't agree with. And the same exact thing is true of your government. Sometimes I will agree with you in terms of the degree of outrage which should be expressed, but most of the time I see your posts, drinkypoo, I can't help but feel rather sad that your posts prove rest of the world is just as vulnerable to hyperbole, rhetoric, and propaganda as any other.
I take pride in the things we do right, and do what I can myself to try and correct the wrongs. Who are you to say that I have or have not done enough? So to you I make this challenge- come to the US. Become a citizen. Then you can stand up and show us exactly what it is that we should do.

Re:It's no surprise..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Some of them, yes.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, your culture? Your traditions? Your ancestry? You can't think of anything that somebody might use to define a country other than its location and its government?

Yeah, but this is the United States of America you're talking about. There is no tradition. There is no culture except popular culture. There is no U.S. ancestry. Unless you're a native, you pretty much can trace your ancestry to some other part of the world within the past 500 years. And around 300 of those years were spent as Europeans. The U.S. has existed for not much more over 200 years, while other countries have existed culturally in some form or another for well over a millenium. There is none of the stuff you've listed in any substantial form. And where there is some (literary greats, important historical events, etc.), there's a whole anti-intellectualist movement dedicated to forgetting about it.

The U.S. is defined by its government. Not necessarily the people running the show, but the system in place. It is defined by the Constitution and the Declaration. There is literally nothing else that separates someone from the U.S. over someone from say, Europe, Mexico, or even Canada.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. What I'm saying is that if the government fails in its duty to uphold the Constitution and to maintain the values of freedom and openness set by the founding fathers, the U.S. as a country has failed, along with every citizen.

Re:It's no surprise..

[arth1]

I have pride in the ideals of America. I do not have pride that the government no longer aspires to those ideals.

And there is only so much that any individual can do. Especially if you hold justice and liberty as sacred.

And if you also hold the third pillar of the democratic revolution sacred -- equality -- you have no place at all in modern America.

Re:It's no surprise..

[arth1]

The U.S. is defined by its government. Not necessarily the people running the show, but the system in place. It is defined by the Constitution and the Declaration. There is literally nothing else that separates someone from the U.S. over someone from say, Europe, Mexico, or even Canada.

Oh, I don't know. I'd say about 50 kg...

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

A treaty has to be signed by at least two parties. A treaty signed by the UK alone would be pretty useless. And UK does not brand itself as the land of the free.

Re:It's no surprise..

[C_amiga_fan]

I'm sure the U.S. authorities are not thinking anything, but instead picking-up the phone and telling Universal, "We followed your orders. Mission accomplished." Why Universal? Those are the guys that demanded Youtube remove the Megaupload Song in december. They even filed a lawsuit, which they lost.

Then two weeks later the FBI raids and shutsdown megaupload. Coincidence? I don't think so. Pretty obvious Universal lost their case to remove the Megaupload Song, then called their buddies in D.C. and asked them to remove the company. Ultimately the U.S. government serves the corporations that donate money to its reelection campaigns.

Re:It's no surprise..

[chiefmojorising]

The CIA is simply the tool used to do the job. Put the blame where it really belongs -- they're an executive branch agency. Just because they operate with enough shadiness to shield the President with plausible deniability doesn't mean they aren't doing his dirty work.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

In one of the last stories on this, I clamored that there was no way the US gov. could be that stupid. I was denounced as a heretic and promptly sent to the dungeon for re-education.

Though Hanlon's razor is apropos, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", I still maintain wholeheartedly, that this entire operation was a smokescreen to cover a massive data grab under the auspices of espionage. Be it military, corporate or other, I'm thinking the US is grabbing vast amounts of pilferred info from Beijing. So much so that normal transfer methods, a'la Internet, weren't an option.

The US Gov. botched this entire case from the start. This whole scenario is just too far out for it to be a massive infringement takedown gone haywire. Alas, this ruling, IMO, is the nail in the coffin for any case the US might have. Next would be an appeal to the WIPO or something, but I'm betting we won't see that as the US actually got what it wanted.

Re:It's no surprise..

[knitting fool]

Quoting Utah Phillips, who was relating a conversation he had with Ammon Hennacy:

You know you love the country, you just can't stand the government, get it straight. He quoted Mark Twain to me... "Loyalty to the country always; loyalty to government when it deserves it."

(Yes, that is a quote of a quote of a quote.)

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps those of you who happen to hate on the US for a living

I believe I'm qualified for this position. Where should I send my CV?

Re:It's no surprise..

[AtomicAdam]

As long as hollywood/Riaa/Mpaa and their puppets are at the reigns, it will be this way. I am still proud to live in this country but we need to clean up this system somehow. America 2.0

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

the government and the country as a whole are not the same thing

Funny, but it would seem America often invades countries, killing civilians, because of the government they choose.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Internetuser1248]

So the damage is done to file hosting industry.

Tell that to mediafire, which is where all illegal download links started sending me about a week after megaupload went down.

Re:It's no surprise..

[dbIII]

Somebody in the US probably got a promotion for "getting the job done" instead of following due process.
It's not really about weight being thrown around by "the nation", it's about letting uncontrolled losers with their own agenda throw their weight around and give your country a bad reputation.
Maybe if you had some sort of law enforcement that didn't pretend the voodoo of lie detectors that J. Edgar Hoover got kickbacks on is real then you'd have something that isn't a global laughing stock. As it is a ridiculous spectacle is the way to get to the top quickly long before the poor final outcome occurs. It will take years for this to go through courts and the NZ taxpayer will be funding the bill of somebodies ambition.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Internetuser1248]

Popular culture is culture, and US popular culture has changed and is changing the world. I am not saying this is a good thing or that you should be proud of it, but your argument that nothing exists to be proud of is false.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with the "protip" meme? where does that come from?

Re:It's no surprise..

[DM9290]

Here in the UK, you are despised for an extradition agreement which allows you to successfully have someone sent over for prosecution who has committed no crime under UK law and never even entered the US.

Why are you despising the US for an agreement that your own government freely entered into, and enforces against you and your fellow citizens?

All it would take is an act of parliament to guarantee no one shall be extradited on the grounds of an accusation of acts which were committed while the person was inside the UK. Your vulnerability to foreign prosecution in a foreign land is entirely your own government's fault.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

"your either with us or against us!" ?

Re:It's no surprise..

[cc_pirate]

We haven't been 'a government of the people' since at least the 1980s if not the 1890s.

The rise of Corporations as 'people' has completely displaced individuals in having much say in their government. We can provide somewhat of a veto for REALLY bad policy (i.e. SOPA), but the vast majority of our laws are decided without us having ANY SAY WHATSOEVER.

We are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Plutocratic Oligarchy masquerading as a Plutocratic Republic.

Re:It's no surprise..

[rahvin112]

If the warrants are invalid the seizures are invalid. That means he gets all his money that was in NZ back and he can pay lawyers to fight the case in the US. One of things the FBI tries to do is take away your ability to fight the case by seizing assets. If Dotcom has the money to pay fancy lawyers he just might win the US case and the FBI will get one huge black eye.

Re:It's no surprise..

[SJHillman]

You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.

Re:It's no surprise..

[peragrin]

The more i hear details of this case the more I am wondering if it isn't so over the top that it was being done on purpose.

Being that they can tell the MAFIAA see we helped you out but we can't do it again. We don't have (insert excuse).

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's entirely the United States fault that world governments are slipping into totalitarianism.lol

Ummm yes. pretty much. If you get your head out of your ass and read a bit of history, you will see it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

As Sr. Morales said (and Sr. Correa repeated [with attribution] in a recent interview), "The only country that can be certain it is never going to have a coup d'etat is the United States because it doesn't have a US Embassy."

You do realize that Iran had a secular democracy before the US overthrew it and installed a bloody dictator.

You do realize that Guatemalla had a secular democracy before the US overthrew it and installed a bloody right-wing government bent on genocide of the native people.

You do realize that Sadam Hussein was a CIA asset.

That the Mujahideen were armed by the US.

That the Zetas criminal drug gang in Mexico was armed and trained by the US as a counter-insurgency force.

That nearly every right-wing bloody dictator in Latin American history was trained at what was formerly known as, The School of the Americas in Fort Benning Georgia. All of the generals who led the coups were.

That the US was behind the death squads in El Salvador.

That the US was torturing people in Guatemala and elsewhere long before Guantanamo. Read the account of the nun, in Guatemala, who had a knife placed in her hands with the torturers hands firmly grasped around hers, forcing her to stab to death other innocents. Then forced to sleep on the bodies. That torture incident was supervised by the Americans (or at least by her account, a man who spoke English with an American accent, and on his authority she was released).

That the US has laws that permit stopping and shaking down folks without cause that are used to target non-whites, "Stop and frisk." These laws have resulted in more incidents of black men to be stopped and searched by the police in New York, than there are black men in New York.

That the US imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world.

Ad nauseum.

The US is the greatest exporter of pain, misery, and terror to the rest of the world (and at home). And yes, the largest proponent of totalitarianism in the world.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to be proud to be American

Taking pride from something you had no part in is a textbook example of psychosis. So, if you are proud to be an American you are either an immigrant or a psychotic.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Nadaka]

I do hold it sacred, and I don't feel like I have much place here any more.

The reason I didn't mention equality is that it does not place the same restrictions on shooting politicians compared to the others.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

" the rest of the world really despises us"

I hate that people like you think "we" did this, I didn't have anything to do with this.

Stop giving these thugs legitimacy in your attempt to soothe your guilt over being American, they're not fulfilling any mandate from the American people and don't deserve the cover people like you give them.

Re:It's no surprise..

[drinkypoo]

I have pride in the ideals of America. I do not have pride that the government no longer aspires to those ideals.

you are the government

You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.

[citation needed]

All I can really do is be vocal, vote for the least bad option and maybe run for local office.

Oh no, there's a lot more that can be done. As a nation, though, we're not doing anything effective. That's the problem; we refuse to acknowledge our common ground and thus realize that the government that has become is our common enemy.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

"Without government the country is just landmass."

Full of PEOPLE, who form a SOCIETY.

" Landmass is nothing to be proud of."

PEOPLE and a SOCIETY are.

"Pride is one's country is pride in one's government"

Stupid and nonsensical, I can be proud of the PEOPLE in my COUNTRY, and their INDIVIDUAL and COLLECTIVE achievements, without supporting the government at all.

Society is NOT government. Stop your lazy thinking.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Possible, but wrong. Having pride in your nation while simultaneously permitting it to get out of hand and shit on the rest of the world is bullshit."

I love how you're so stupid that you blame every American for the choices of roughly 50% of the populace.

YOU DO KNOW HOW VOTING WORKS DON'T YOU TROLL?

I voted. What else would you expect me to do idiot?

Re:It's no surprise..

[BronsCon]

To a point, yes. However, copyright law SHOULD be changed. The laws that limit what government and law enforcement can do (e.g. the Constitution) should not.

Re:It's no surprise..

[BronsCon]

In the case of government and law enforcement, if it's against the law for them to do it, it IS wrong. Unless you're saying that the US Constitution is a bad law.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Nadaka]

You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.

[citation needed]

Execution without trial is not justice. Depriving life is depriving liberty and should be reserved only as punishment for equal or greater disregard for the liberty of life.

Killing a figurehead often strengthens the resolve of those who support them. There are an uncountable number of people waiting in the wings who want to oppress. It won't do much good.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

"you are the government "

No I'm not. No more than I'm the CEO of companies I own stock in.

"You can't just execute every bothersome politician. And it wouldn't do much good any way.

[citation needed]"

Wait wait wait, you actually ASKED FOR A CITATION to demonstrate that we, as citizens, can't execute every bothersome politician?

YOU ACTUALLY ASKED FOR A CITATION FOR THAT, AND EXPECT US NOT TO DISMISS YOU AS THE NUTJOB TROLL YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE?

Re:It's no surprise..

[BronsCon]

For Europe or Canada, that's body fat, for Mexico, that's cocaine and marijuan.

Re:It's no surprise..

[cheekyjohnson]

In the case of government and law enforcement, if it's against the law for them to do it, it IS wrong.

Appeal to law. Something being legal doesn't make it moral, and something being illegal doesn't make it immoral. I don't believe that's how morals work.

Unless you're saying that the US Constitution is a bad law.

No, I'm saying that laws don't necessarily dictate what is or is not moral (for anyone).

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're feeding a troll who asked for a citation demonstrating that we can't execute politicians at a whim.

How much useful discourse do you expect to get out of someone who thinks "kill em all" and "the US is evil, and it's your fault" is worth posting?

Re:It's no surprise..

[BronsCon]

I think you missed my point, so I'll restate it: In the case of government and law enforcement, the only law that applies, per The Constitution, is The Constitution. The other laws they have enacted to give themselves more power are, in fact, illegal. They are also wrong.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

The rise of Corporations as 'people' has completely displaced individuals in having much say in their government.

Are we talking all corporations, including Unions which are corporations, or just corporations that you personally dislike?

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

Taking pride from something you had no part in

Well, it's a good thing I have a part in America every single day.

So, if you are proud to be an American you are either an immigrant or a psychotic.

OR not an AC troll who is ill informed enough to make a poorly thought out post about how Americans apparently have no part in America somehow...

Seriously, did you actually think your troll made sense?

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all: what is the value of UK citizenship, if the UK extradites its OWN people on demand of a foreign government? Exactly nil. Maybe you should stop paying taxes altogether over there.

It's bad enough that it's possible within the EU to be deported to another EU country you probably never visited, just because someone there thinks "yep, I guess he's our man, we want him".

Re:It's no surprise..

[TheCarp]

That certainly seems to be the opinion of some of the justuces. Look at the "Stolen Valor" decisions today and Kagen's dissent, where she advises congress how they could route around the technical restrictions and craft a law to do the same thing.

So yah, this is constitutionally protected, but we can work around that old trash.

Re:It's no surprise..

[ifwm]

Here in the UK, you are despised for an extradition agreement which allows you to successfully have someone sent over for prosecution who has committed no crime under UK law and never even entered the US.

So you're saying people in the UK are stupid and blame others for legislation the people THEY CHOSE TO ELECT implemented?

Re:It's no surprise..

[Fuzzums]

Here, there and everywhere the government of the people in reality is the government of the corporations. We just get to do our ceremonial duty every so many years. That's all.

Re:It's no surprise..

[cheekyjohnson]

I think you missed my point, so I'll restate it: In the case of government and law enforcement, the only law that applies, per The Constitution, is The Constitution.

Right. I don't want them to break it, myself, but I wouldn't say it's objectively wrong to break it.

Re:It's no surprise..

[BronsCon]

I'll let someone else handle you. I'm at work right now and don't have the time to post what would be required to shut you up.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

I forwarded this post and the rest of the conversation to the FBI and Secret Service.

I hope you enjoy their company.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Hognoxious]

if the people who make the law don't obey the law they aren't exactly setting a good example, are they?

Re:It's no surprise..

[misexistentialist]

Doesn't seem like that solid of an agreement, at least if you like taking them young

Re:It's no surprise..

[Hognoxious]

As long as the special guests at the necktie parties are people rednecks don't like (anyone brown or darker, anyone who believes the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and anyone who likes people with the same toilet parts) it IS all talk.

Shit, they wouldn't be opposing the gubmint, they'd be volunteering to help tie the nooses.

Re:It's no surprise..

[cheekyjohnson]

And we would agree. However, I don't believe that something being illegal makes it objectively wrong.

Re:It's no surprise..

[drinkypoo]

Wait wait wait, you actually ASKED FOR A CITATION to demonstrate that we, as citizens, can't execute every bothersome politician?

These bothersome politicians think it's fine to execute anyone they don't approve of. Our nation has been doing it for as long as we've been a nation. Half our first ten naval battles involved bombarding towns south of the border to force the residents to do business with United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita, aka Bonita. Still around, still killing people for profit, and now poisoning the earth too.

We vote and the votes aren't counted. We protest and they invent new weapons to prevent us from protesting. Are you waiting for a signed invitation to a concentration camp before you'll believe that the system is not working for you and never will?

I'd like to see enough people up in arms that no violence is actually necessary. As long as people are willing to have murder done in their name, though, it will continue.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Hognoxious]

No, they'r smart enough to understand that Blair wouldn't have signed it if Shrub hadn't "asked" for it.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Hognoxious]

Ad nauseum.

Using Latin phrases is like juggling balloons full of piss. Do it right and some people might be impressed, do it wrong and everyone thinks you're a silly arse.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

The treaty was two way, but the US have somehow forgotten to ratify their end of it...

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain about somebody doing it right, and you come across as a silly arse.

Ad nauseum: repeat to the point of nausea.

The US repeats this shit to the point of nausea.

silly arse.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

No they wouldn't. You assume that all those elected to Congress have free will and an instinctual desire to get re-elected. For many, being elected to the legislature is just a pathway to a lucrative career afterward, serving their corporate masters in other ways.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Culture20]

The screwup with the warrant was not really surprising. I've heard from many sources that they still pass around Microsoft word documents amongs each other.

"Here's the warrant you requested. I uploaded the word document to megaupload.com ..." -Judge Irony

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes, there objectively is US tradition. There is no minimum age that a country has to be for its traditions to "count".
2) Yes, there objectively is US culture. Not only does "popular culture" count just as much as any other kind, the definition is subjective in the first place. Furthermore, plenty of "non-popular" culture exists in the US, and always has.
3) Yes, there objectively is US ancestry. Again, there is no minimum number of years before it "counts".

No country, anywhere, throughout all of human history, has ever NOT had these things.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, because every branch of the US government is really good at managing it's money..

Well, the IRS makes more money than it spends...

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was supposed to be a bi-lateral treaty, so we were supposedly able to extradite Americans for breaking UK law. Fortunately the US decided not to ratify it because they realised it was BS. At that point our leaders should have decided the treaty was dead. Unfortunately they didnt, which means the US can extradite with no chance of the UK getting reciprocation.

They should rescind it on the basis of US non compliance.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: If you read the bottom of many common MMO loading screens (WoW, Tera, SWTOR) you'll see little tips pointing out simple and often very obvious suggestions that are useful only to the most clueless of players.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Master Moose]

It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really despises us because of the way our government throws it's weight around.

I was once proud to be an american. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.

It's no surprise that this happened the way it did, and that the rest of the world really sees us as soft because of the way our government lets other nations dictate policy to us mostly in t he name of "free trade"

I was once proud to be a kiwi. Perhaps I still am, but my pride is severely diminished as of late.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Nyder]

It means what you want to do is wrong, and you shouldn't do it.

It's not necessarily wrong because it's against the law. There is such a thing as a bad law.

yes, but the police and fbi shouldn't be breaking laws because it gets in the way of whomever is paying them to do whatever.

If anyone should be following the Law, it is the Police and the FBI (and DEA, and TSA and any other fucking letters that have arresting authority)

Re:It's no surprise..

[sjames]

If someone is holding a gun on your family, the correct choice, the just choice, and the right choice may not align very well.

Re:It's no surprise..

[cc_pirate]

We are talking ALL of them. Corporations aren't PEOPLE until they can be held accountable the same way PEOPLE are. Let's get a Corporate Death Penalty and Corporate PRISON and then I might consider them really PEOPLE.

Re:It's no surprise..

[cc_pirate]

You get your say every 2, 4 or 6 years with the elections. Of course, those are mostly a crapshoot between bad choices and really bad choices but if we stopped re-electing the same people, then the congresscritters might start to listen to us.

That's effectively NO say. Not when we have only two choices, both of which are pre-vetted and pre-bought by the corporations. The technology exists for real democracy. We should start a new experiment in government. There is no need for a Congress any more. Let all of us vote once a week on the proposed laws.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Darinbob]

So you despise the US government as a whole painting it all with the same brush, yet only despise a few individual politicians on the UK side?

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, all of our first 10 naval battles were against the British, and most of those went rather poorly for our side. We didn't have any interaction with South America until the second half of the nineteenth century (excluding Texas, of course, but they were an independent republic at the time).

But, hey - if unfounded allegations that you heard about somewhere make your life better, then more power to you! Your self esteem is, of course, the most important thing in the universe.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

However, applying Occam's Razor, illegal activities most likely are "wrong" according to some kind of social consensus.

Re:It's no surprise..

[jimpop]

> The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be covered up later.

Ha! The people who did this are probably arrogant enough to believe that sort of thing can always be placed on their CV they send to MPAA/BSA/etc. See: Revolving Door.

Re:It's no surprise..

[lennier]

Protip for US Law Enforcement: If something you want to do is against the law launch drones at their lawyers and laugh.

Fixed, by order of the Unitary Executive.

Bush/Obama 2012!

Re:It's no surprise..

[jamesh]

The screwup with the warrant was not really surprising. I've heard from many sources that they still pass around Microsoft word documents amongs each other.

"Here's the warrant you requested. I uploaded the word document to megaupload.com ..." -Judge Irony

Judge Irony sounds like he/she should get their own tv show. Sounds much more entertaining than Judge Judy!

Re:It's no surprise..

[jamesh]

No I think a warcraft (or was it warcraft2) "Job Done" is just about perfect.

Re:It's no surprise..

[riT-k0MA]

You should be grateful for your weather- without it, no Briton would have desired to be Anywhere But Here and there would have been no Empire.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to google... http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/protip

Re:It's no surprise..

[monkeykoder]

It is unreasonable to downright insane to have pride in anything that is not your accomplishment. Your government, the country you live in, etc. These are not things to have pride in. Your children, your family, your house, your friends, these are the things that should inspire you to have pride.

Re:It's no surprise..

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New Zealand. This government, the National party government, would eat dick if it would gain them any traction in the US. They will do anything at all, they'll go against the citizens of the country, and they'll get away with it because of a huge number of morons who believe all the spin that comes out.

Jurisdiction

[Tommy Bologna]

Whatever happened to the concept of jurisdiction?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

They worked with New Zealand police. Or did you forget that part?

Re:Jurisdiction

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Citizen, citizen, nothing whatsoever has happened to the concept of jurisdiction. In fact, we value this legal principle so highly that we've been carefully collecting as many samples as possible, from as many areas of the world as possible, in order to better appreciate its value...

Re:Jurisdiction

[symbolset]

The US Justice department is infiltrated with agents of Big Media. They don't care what the law is, they know what they want it to be and they have power.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Jurisdiction died that fateful day when copyright pirates flew their torrents into the WTC. NEVER FORGET.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Ynot_82]

They strong-armed New Zealand police.

FTFY

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

noone has forgotten that. What America seems to have forgotten is their laws are applicable within their borders.
How about some search warrants are issues to arrest americans in their home because they have handguns. I mean the possession of handguns are illegal under UK law so a UK law should be applied on US soil right?

Re:Jurisdiction

[wild_quinine]

The US Justice department is infiltrated with agents of Big Media. They don't care what the law is, they know what they want it to be and they have power.

Power without intelligence is like a rocket engine without a nozzle.

Re:Jurisdiction

[SJHillman]

The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.

Re:Jurisdiction

[SuricouRaven]

You don't know where it's going, but it'll make quite a bang when it gets there.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

My next door neighbour had an extra-marital affair recently, and she's going to be travelling to Iran in the near future. Does anyone know the contact number for the Tehran Sharia Police?

Re:Jurisdiction

[whisper_jeff]

Don't you get it, we're all within the jurisdiction of the RIAA and MPAA...

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Otherwise Charlie Wilson never would have survived removal from office due to drug usage outside of the country.

Re:Jurisdiction

[David Chappell]

Power without intelligence is like a rocket engine without a nozzle.

I'm having trouble picturing a rocket engine without a nozzle.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

How sad, that you would compare your country with Iran.

Re:Jurisdiction

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, but this is not a general principle. The law regarding underage sex is pretty much unique. Otherwise it's local laws that apply.

Cancun is safe.

Re:Jurisdiction

[FauxReal]

Picture a bomb shaped like a rocket. When the explosive charge (fuel) in the bomb (rocket) burns the rapid expansion of gasses with nowhere to go causes the bomb (rocket) to explode violently.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You have no idea what you're talking about. The PROTECT Act of 2003 shifted the issue of jurisdiction for commercial sex crimes by making Americans liable for the act itself skirting the issue of jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism#Tourists_from_the_United_States

Other crimes do not apply — for example, you cannot be charged for the murder of a Frenchman in France in the United States. Only France has jurisdiction over that crime. You might be able to be held civilly liable, but the US has no criminal jurisdiction.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US.

The US has been doing this for years. The US has an embargo against Cuba for no apparent reason other than wounded prided. A Canadian citizen who ran a business in Canada trading with Cuba went to the US and was arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed for doing in Canada, while resident in Canada, what it is perfectly legal to do in Canada.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because the good people of the USA, UK, Australlia and other anglo-saxon countries are and always have been countries which defer to women. Thusly they work to end young marraige of girls world wide and have mostly succeeded. Af/Pak was the last place on earth that followed the old ways of giving young girls to men. (Read: old testament (deuteronomy, 2 samual, and related) in hebrew, kama sutra (non-bowlderdised translation, or in original languange), the old greek writings (again, non-bowlderdised), the older german faritails (original snow white), etc etc etc

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Globalization?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Comedic genius.

Re:Jurisdiction

[PRMan]

I thought Afghanistan was giving young BOYS to men?

Re:Jurisdiction

[julesh]

Yes, but *why* is it unique? There is nothing about its purpose (to protect those who are too immature to make certain decisions for themselves from being abused by those who would use various techniques of persuasion to push them into making the decision in a particular way and therefore end up doing something that may well damage them emotionally, psychologically or financially for a large chunk of their life) that means it should be applied any more universally than, say, laws against drink driving (purpose: to protect innocent bystanders from significant risk of bodily harm and/or death). In fact, I'd say the potential consequences of drink driving are far worse than those of underage sex and/or prostitution, therefore there's more of a case in such a situation.

Re:Jurisdiction

[sjames]

The sad part is that as a citizen of somewhere else you can do something that is perfectly legal in that somewhere else and still be arrested and shipped to the U.S. to stand trial.

Re:Jurisdiction

[c0lo]

noone has forgotten that. What America seems to have forgotten is their laws are applicable within their borders.

Currently, their borders include NZ, Australia and UK. They are also working hard to extend them to: Chile, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Canada.

Impressive...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Has there, so far, been a single aspect of this case that didn't turn out to be an embarassing cock-up by the feds? Warrants not in order, video footage of the raid quietly goes missing, seized materials swiftly duplicated and fedexed out of NZ before anybody has a chance to object, Carpathia left sitting on tens of thousands a day in servers-in-legal-limbo, random megaupload customers who were using the place as a backup/transfer system locked out for months...

Was somebody delusional enough to start out thinking that they had an open-and-shut case, and bodged it up? Did they start out thinking that; but start 'improvising' once it became clear that they didn't? Was the whole operation fully intended to be an incrementally-more-legal-than-just-having-a-Reaper-handle-it intimidation job?

Re:Impressive...

[L4t3r4lu5]

You seem to still think that this was about prosecuting Kim Dotcom. It wasn't.

MegaUpload is done and dusted. There doesn't need to be a prosecution; It's Mission Accompllished. Dozens of similar sites shut their doors based upon these actions out of fear and intimidation, and that's what it was all about. "We're bigger than you, and we don't like what you're doing. We're going to beat seven shades of shit out of you in public, nobody is going to do a damn thing about it, and at the worst we'll get a strongly worded letter, which we'll use as toilet paper."

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't think they (our shit USA gov't and law enforcement). They have accomplished what the big media companies donating hundred of millions or more to members of the gov't wanted; the operation shut down. Honestly, even if right now, everything goes back to normal for dot com, how long will it take for him to get everything back and running if he ever does? Did you read about the server the FBI seized and held for 13 month, basically are the request of the RIAA and while the RIAA tried to find evidence of copyright infringment? Or that Obama placed several RIAA or MPAA lawyers to key positionsin the DoJ?

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rules of Evidence - broadly you stuff it up - you cannot use that evidence. Something about the law coming to court with clean hands.
In Australia at least, illegally obtained evidence has been admitted. Back to NZ, extradition is looking gone, and to prove stuff without (admissible) evidence would be a tall feat indeed. That leaves Dotcom to sue for destruction of business and property, which the USA side can ignore, never mind he has no business in the USA.
 

Re:Impressive...

[crazyjj]

Hey, don't blame them. They were just following orders from their FBI superiors.

Re:Impressive...

[AngryDeuce]

Pretty much this. They needed to get the pirates using P2P again so that the new 6-strikes rules the ISPs are all implementing is actually enforceable, and they've got the deep pockets and the influence to do so.

The cat and mouse game will continue as it always has, but at least this way they get John Q. Taxpayer to shoulder the cost of protecting their IP...

Re:Impressive...

[nurb432]

Right, mission was accomplished and the *AA is happy and didn't have to pay a dime to do it.

However, it was short sighted as its only a temporary blip and it will cause the next batch of providers to be harder to catch, AND we burnt some bridges in the process.

Re:Impressive...

[Ihmhi]

MegaUpload is done and dusted

Yep, just like how The Pirate Bay got raided that one time and now they're gone forever.

Kim Dotcom has way more money than a bunch of technically literate Swedish dudes. He'll do the same thing TPB did, though. He'll rebuild the site and make it as difficult as possible to take down on a technical level.

Re:Impressive...

[the eric conspiracy]

Which feds? The NZ ones for sure. However this doesn't say anything about warrants issued by US courts, so until it does it seems the seizure of servers located in the US is still a valid action.

Whether evidence that was leaked out of NZ could be used in US court proceedings, I don't know, but surely there is a lot on the US based servers.

I imagine this means there will still be attempts at extradition etc.

Re:Impressive...

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

And they can do that exactly once. What happens when the next filesharing site opens up in NZ? The official response is going to be "f&#* you", because this operation was such a screwup. How do the NZ authorities involved in this case feel? Is it going to make their career? Or is it going to be a black mark on their record as an unnecessary, unwarranted, and very public cockup?

If their mission was to take down MegaUpload, maybe you're right. If their mission was to prevent piracy in any way, than this is about the worst precedent they could have set.

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which feds? The NZ ones for sure.

New Zealand is not a federal state. Hence, there is no New Zealand federal police.

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever looked at the list of supported sites in JDownloader? There are hundreds and new ones are popping up all the time. Shutting down megaupload, filesonic etc only provided the briefest respite before everything was mirrored. I would argue that it has actually made the job of removing copyrighted content harder as now people are more aware of the danger of their favorite file locker going down and so are more likely to mirror.

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

As it should be — if you're going to allow for DMCA safe harbor, then society also has to shoulder the burden of protecting IP. Can't have it both ways because DMCA safe harbor limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages.

I don't really care which way it ends up, just saying you can have private enforcement, and private liability, or socialized liability, and socialized enforcement; asymmetry creates an exploitable loophole (which is what Google etc have been intelligently doing).

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Megaupload is gone! All that leaves is Filefactory, Shareflare, Rapidshare, Rapidgater, Depositfiles, Megashares, Uploading, Filelocker, Bitshare...

Re:Impressive...

[AngryDeuce]

Can't have it both ways because DMCA safe harbor limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages.

No it doesn't. It limits the ability of a rights holder to recover damages unless they can prove the infringement was deliberate on the part of the site's owners. I know it's just such a pain in the ass when they have to back up their claims, but that's kinda the basis of our entire fucking legal system, the concept of innocence until guilt is proven.

The burden of defending IP should always lie with the IP holders. It's up to Joe Blow to defend his copyrights in court, why should a MAFIAA organization get the government to pick up the tab for their investigations when Joe Blow doesn't get similar consideration?

Oh, right. We're back to that "Corporations are not only people, but they're super people with more rights then real people" thing...

Re:Impressive...

[julesh]

Yeah, but I'm still browsing old threads and finding references to files that were on megaupload and nowhere else. Just today I was looking for an experimental open source firmware for my wireless router, but the developers have long since abandoned the project, and they only left their files on megaupload.

Re:Impressive...

[Nyder]

You seem to still think that this was about prosecuting Kim Dotcom. It wasn't.

MegaUpload is done and dusted. There doesn't need to be a prosecution; It's Mission Accompllished. Dozens of similar sites shut their doors based upon these actions out of fear and intimidation, and that's what it was all about. "We're bigger than you, and we don't like what you're doing. We're going to beat seven shades of shit out of you in public, nobody is going to do a damn thing about it, and at the worst we'll get a strongly worded letter, which we'll use as toilet paper."

ya, but if he gets his money back, what is to stop him from doing the same business over?

he's all ready doing a new music service thingy, and with all the publicity, i think any ventures he goes on will probably be successful just from the attention he's received.

Re:Impressive...

[sjames]

Society is under no obligation to offer copyright AT ALL in any form. We as a society are perfectly entitled to say "POOF" no more copyright. As such, we are also entitled to offer a limited copyright with safe harbor provisions if that is considered best.

You act as if some natural right is taken by safe harbor that deserves compensation. That is simply not the case. You should stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Re:Impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most - if not all - of his clients have moved on to alternate services. It's not as though MegaUpload provided much value over the alternatives.

Re:Impressive...

[Kalriath]

I believe Rapidgator died recently, and several other ones you mentioned now prohibit connections from the United States.

However, LARGE confirmed fatalities of the MU affair are:
MegaUpload
FileServe
FileSonic
Oron

Re:Impressive...

[jasonwalls]

They wouldn't chaff their asses on that letter while they currently enjoy the softness and strength of the constitution.

At Least...

[sycodon]

...they didn't bring SWAT along, bust down her door and shoot her dog (and possible her).

Re:At Least...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they didn't bring SWAT along, bust down her door and shoot her dog (and possible her).

Kim Dotcom is a guy.

Re:At Least...

[sycodon]

Where is Crocodile Dundee when you need him?

Re:At Least...

[ColdWetDog]

In Australia.

Re:At Least...

[SuricouRaven]

He was refering to a recent well-known incident in which a SWAT team was sent to arrest a suspected drug dealer teenager still living with his parents. They proved to be very trigger-happy: Even though no-one at the property resisted, the team still destroyed part of the house, held the entire family at gunpoint and shot dead the two family dogs. To add further insult, the team was sent on false information - the suspect did have a small quantity of pot, but wasn't a dealer, only a user - and none of the family received any compensation for the disruption, distress, property damage or dead dogs.

http://gawker.com/5532226/swat-team-raids-house-shoots-dogs-over-small-amount-of-marijuana

SWAT teams are trained for assaults on property occupied by the armed and dangerous. Their training says to strike hard, without warning, with overwhelming force, and shooting anything that poses the slightest threat to their own safety... like a dog. So when a SWAT team is send to raid an ordinary house and ordinary family, they tend towards overkill and a shoot-first, ask-later policy.

Re:At Least...

[SuricouRaven]

Re-reading, I see my recollection was wrong on one count: It wasn't a teenager living with parents, it was actually the father who was the suspect, not the son.

Re:At Least...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Absent the shooting of pets, this is exactly what they did.

Re:At Least...

[sycodon]

Their training says to strike hard...

Which I think is stupid. Absent someone being in danger inside the location, or (and even this is iffy) the possible destruction of evidence, there is absolutely no reason to be that aggressive. Surround the place, cut off the utilities and wait them out. No one gets hurt.

And actually, there have been many instances which would qualify as the basis of my original comment. Hell, cops just making a call on a house to take a report are ending up shooting the family pets.

Re:At Least...

[wild_quinine]

He was refering to a recent well-known incident in which a SWAT team was sent to arrest a suspected drug dealer...

And here is the (really quite horrifying) video of that incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b-67q0vlCw

The point at which the man realises his dog has been shot is heartbreaking.

Re:At Least...

[SuricouRaven]

Destruction of evidence is a big issue. There's also the disruption of neighbours if the half the street is sealed off for a week or more. If the suspect is indeed armed and dangerous, then it makes sense to send in the big guns and make them trigger-happy so they'll shoot before they get shot. The problem comes when these SWAT teams are used in situations where such force isn't warranted.

Re:At Least...

[swillden]

Their training says to strike hard...

Which I think is stupid. Absent someone being in danger inside the location, or (and even this is iffy) the possible destruction of evidence, there is absolutely no reason to be that aggressive.

Given the number of people (and officers) who are killed every year due to aggressive entry tactics, including a fair number of completely innocent people (not to mention criminals whose crimes did not justify summary execution), I think the only reason those tactics should ever be used is if someone's life is in imminent danger. And I think police officials who use or order such tactics when not necessary should be charged with negligent homicide if they go wrong and someone dies.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Re:At Least...

[sycodon]

...should be charged with negligent homicide...

I would tend to agree.

And SuricouRaven, I doubt anyone would last a few days, let alone a week sucking on tear gas, no water, heat/ac, and in the dark.

Re:At Least...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their training says to strike hard, without warning, with overwhelming force, and shooting anything that poses the slightest threat to their own safety..."

They failed to mention: Be sure you're at the right fucking address!

Re:At Least...

[Odin's Raven]

Where is Crocodile Dundee when you need him?

Wrong country, mate. In NZ ya get Kiwi Dundee, Mick's second cousin twice removed on his mum's side. Never made it as big in the movies, being rather a bit shorter than Mick and with a nose that's not exactly photogenic, if you know what I mean. Apparently got a touch of acrophobia as well - keep hearing he won't fly.

Re:At Least...

[PRMan]

No. My Dad is from New Zealand. If there's one thing I can tell you, there is no New Zealander that won't fly.

Re:At Least...

[swillden]

Loss of innocent life is a much bigger issue than destruction of evidence. Paramilitary tactics create way too much of the former to be justified by the latter.

Re:At Least...

[sjames]

Destruction of evidence is NOT more important than the preservation of human life, particularly innocent human life. Police have killed more than one child and more than one innocent adult using their mercenary tactics. In some cases they have even raided the wrong house and killed people.

No-knock raids should be banned absolutely for any case where they cannot verify that there is an actual human life presently in danger that can only be protected by such a raid.

Further, in the case of any search, they should be obligated to return the search location perfectly to the condition it was in before the search no matter if they find evidence of a crime or not.

Re:At Least...

[Anonymous Coward]

SWAT teams are trained for assaults on property occupied by the armed and dangerous. Their training says to strike hard, without warning, with overwhelming force, and shooting anything that poses the slightest threat to their own safety... like a dog. So when a SWAT team is send to raid an ordinary house and ordinary family, they tend towards overkill and a shoot-first, ask-later policy.

If a SWAT / ERT team ever killed one of my canines they'd be going home in body bags themselves. I am not a violent person but could be driven to take extreme action to strike hard, without warning, with overwhelming force.

Re:At Least...

[robsku]

Destruction of evidence is NOT more important than the preservation of human life, particularly innocent human life. Police have killed more than one child and more than one innocent adult using their mercenary tactics. In some cases they have even raided the wrong house and killed people.

Not to mention how many innocent children (and adults too) have likely been deeply traumatized by the experience - when a small children sees police force busting in, acting violently, threatening people (like their parents) with deadly force, killing family pets, possibly accidentally killing their parent(s) or sister(s), etc. one can only imagine what that does to him/her - hell, it could cause deep mental problems for the rest of their lives even to adults, let alone children.

It's this kind of things why I don't consider USA to be a "civilized modern world country" and won't likely travel there until some major development (although I'd like to see your country once) as it does not seem safe enough... I'm going to visit our eastern neighbor, Russia, someday though - not that there aren't issues there, but I'm not that scared of them.

Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that'll make kim happy.
Now that the goverment has destroyed his business and siezed a bunch of his assets.

See, thats how serious the riaa is. Guy starts talking about promoting independant artists himself on his own site... And the riaa gets the usa goverment to stomp on him with both feet. ILLEGALLY!

Such bullshit.

Re:Well..

[magic maverick]

Not only does the "goverment has destroyed his business and siezed a bunch of his assets" (which government? please be clear), the damage done to his house, and the money spent in defence is all gone. He won't be compensated for damaged property, let alone mental anguish or similar.

The police in NZ really fucked it up, and nothing will happen. The cop in charge won't even get a blackmark, let alone the judge who signed off on the illegitimate search warrant.

It doesn't matter if this individual is the most foul and awful person ever, they deserve to be compensated (and not a mere pittance either, but damages plus extra) to discourage this sort of behaviour. And some of it should come out fo the pockets of those directly responsible.

But no, we can't have that, we can't have any sort of fetters on the ability of the police to fuck up livelihoods, nor can we possibly actually hold accountable those responsible.

(Most of the above post applies to all the world, not just NZ.)

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am disgusted at the handling of this case, I do believe Kim Dotcom was deliberately allowing/encouraging pirating. And while that doesn't justify this at all, I think we, as the community of rights-minded people, need to be careful of our defense here. This is not an example of an innocent man being wrongfully attacked, but of the government significantly overreaching and ignoring all due process / sanity / laws to get a conviction. Change through fear and intimidation must never be a tool of a first world democracy, and the fact that we witnessed that here, and that it was overseas in a foreign jurisdiction, is truly abhorrent to behold.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

'Merika, FUCKA YEA!

Re:Well..

[the eric conspiracy]

So exactly why can't Mr. Dotcom sue over this? It seems to me that damages done during serving an illegal warrant would be recoverable.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because to sue he'd have to visit the United States and get arrested and proven innocent in a court of law stacked well against him.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, why not sue the NZ police, under the authority of which the actions happened?

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

He should be able to sue the local authorities involved for carrying the illegal raid and for the property lost/damage though.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't sue the goverment unless they let you.

and by extension. the cops. altho a step removed behind their buddies the judge.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

With the Americans - the FBI agents have qualified immunity (read as: cannot be sued ever for anything), and suing the government in general will result in them using their ability to deny people the ability to sue them.

With the Kiwis - FIIK, but I would not expect the suit to go anywhere or even vaguely break even if he somehow manages to win.

Re:Well..

[the eric conspiracy]

In the US it is quite clear that there is legal liability for law enforcement agents for exceeding their authority.

Suits based on civil rights violations by law enforcement do happen.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/37170.htm

Given NZ is a civilized nation I would hope the same applies there.

Re:Well..

[magic maverick]

I'm sure there is nothing to stop him suing. However, he isn't going to win. I've been advised (by good lawyers) before not to bother suing over illegal acts by the police, for the simple reason that I wouldn't win. OK, I grant that there are the occasional cases where people do in fact win suits against the police (where they aren't "just trying to do their job"). But, I'm confident (though I don't have anything to hand just now) that most suits in most countries where the police were acting "in good faith" (whatever that actually means....) are won by the police. And even when the police do lose, there is often not any real penalty against individuals to indicate that it would be a very bad idea for them to do such things again.

We'll see what happens here. I would be happy to be proved wrong and for Kim to win big time against the state (and the individuals involved) no matter how nasty he might be (refer the criminals made into hero's comment).

Re:Well..

[Solandri]

Most countries have some form of sovereign immunity, shielding the government from lawsuits. That is, for people, you can be sued unless there's a law saying you can't. For the government, it can't be sued unless there's a law saying you can. It varies by country though. Not sure what the law is in New Zealand. (Overall, I think it's just to stop the government from being sued for every decision it makes by those who don't like the decision - that could quickly bog a government down to ineffectiveness.)

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bloody likely. I mean about your US example, not New Zealand.

In the extremely unlikely event that you are able to get damages as a result of abuse by a government official, you're not going to be taking money from the government official. It's the taxpayers (by way of the police department or the DA's office, or the city/state) that foot the bill, and more often than not, the abusive employee gets a little bit of [s]paid vacation[/s] administrative leave before being set loose on the rest of us again, often by the same authority that had to pay through the nose for their last fuck-up.

And why not? It's not like these government officials are spending their money or anything.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the fucking government! The US has no jurisdiction.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

What I worry about is that Dot Com et al. will sue the NZ police for bending over for the FBI. That can happen here. We'll wind up paying for megaupload to be re-established.

Public opinion has been changing slowly here. At first we had stories about the internet pirate being taken down - video of Dot Com acting like a jerk, how much he stole from record companies etc. Now he is being interviewed very sympatheticly.

Shortly after the servers were shut down, one of our top constitutional lawyers was on the radio talking about a different matter, but she mentioned she no longer had access to files because they were on megaupload. They should arrest her systems admin but ...

We have been having the 40th anniversary of the Marines arriving to fight the Japanese, so we are not anti-american. But we still remember how the US acted over our anti-nuclear policy, and we are not happy about the US trade negotiators attacking Pharmac - our drugs buying agency - and putting sanctions on our produce while subsidising their own farmers etc. This is being seen as just another example of the US trying to push us around.

Fortunately we already have a deal with China.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually here in New Zealand its more likely that Dotcom will sue the Crown and win massive compensation costs. Especially given the illegal invasion of his privacy.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a New Zealand taxpayer... thanks very much. That's just what I want to be doing with my money, paying compensation to a convicted fraudster who's also a millionaire.

Most recent interview with Kim

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvrRaeHD5TE&

MegaBoxed

[wild_quinine]

How interesting that Kim Dotcom has his assets seized and his business killed just a couple of months after announcing a new service called MegaBox that would have competed directly and legally with record labels.

The bad news for those guys is that it's still good to go. I wonder if it will be successful.
http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-artists-rejoice-megabox-is-not-dead-120621/

Re:MegaBoxed

[Stickerboy]

How interesting that Kim Dotcom has his assets seized and his business killed just a couple of months after announcing a new service called MegaBox that would have competed directly and legally with record labels.

The bad news for those guys is that it's still good to go. I wonder if it will be successful.

http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-artists-rejoice-megabox-is-not-dead-120621/

How interesting really is this? Not very. Bandcamp already does this. Spotify already does this. And, if megaupload was any indication, both services will be much better than megabox.

Re:MegaBoxed

[wild_quinine]

How interesting really is this? Not very.Bandcamp already does this. Spotify already does this.

Whataboutery, and irrelevance.

This is a story about a Filelocker service that has been deemed to be a haven for piracy launching a legitmate service directly in collaberation with the artists themselves. Unlike BandCamp and Spotify what its success would tell you is that many Artists aren't having a problem getting into bed with a so called haven for piracy. And a good number of them may even be choosing it in preference to working with all those 'legitimate' labels.

I would find that very interesting indeed.

And, if megaupload was any indication, both services will be much better than megabox.

Hmm, you could be right. Which streaming music service was MegaUpload worse than?

Re:MegaBoxed

[Anonymous Coward]

Game, set, match: Quinine

the real reason

[slashmydots]

Hey, the FBI takes cheating at Modern Warfare 3 VERY seriously, okay? (see Kim Dotcom's wikipedia page)

Security footage + Dropbox = Offsite backups

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny to see the king of filesharing screwing this up so badly

totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good example of how totalitarian police activity can help to turn a career criminal like Dotcom into a hero. Look at this guy objectively: Has he done a single thing in his whole life which was not about breaking one law after another for his own selfish benefit? Don't delude yourself: he wasn't doing any of this to free our culture from Big Media or even to give you shit without you having to pay for it. This has always been about benefiting himself.

Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. But he deserves to enrich himself because he was providing a service that people want. Neither the copyright cartels nor the police currently seem to be capable of doing that, even when they also ignore the law.

Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

Find me a CEO of any fortune 500 company that can't be described in exactly the same way.

Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[davydagger]

Still far less of a criminal than thoose pursuing him.

If he's a criminal, we are all criminals.

Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[jsepeta]

or a Supreme Court justice.

Re:totalitarianism makes criminals into heroes

[hellop2]

Yeah, fuck that guy.

News headline from next week

[crazyjj]

"Helen Winkelmann Arrested on Rape Charge"

Re:News headline from next week

[AliasMarlowe]

"Helen Winkelmann Arrested on Rape Charge"

But did she want a condom or not? Confusing...

Re:And why is this bad?

[dargaud]

So when you come to Europe and have a beer at 18, it's perfectly all right that you be arrested on setting foot in the US if they saw your vacation photos on Facebook ?!? Cancun is gonna close shop.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this.

Did you ever shoplift as a child or teen? How would you feel about having your right hand cut off upon entering an islamic country? What if you had a friend who lived in a western country but had dual citizenship by birth?

Or how about this: Have you ever attended a rally or written a letter of complaint to an official? How would you feel about being jailed as a subversive if you went on holiday to China?

If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.

corporate america runs the US Justice Dept

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again the US Justice department being directed to do corporate Americas bidding and now HOW MUCH is it going to cost the us taxpayer for these outrageous overstepping of their bounds. Talk about a MAJOR FU**UP, every agent and prosecutor involved SHOULD BE FIRED. And I'll be perfectly honest we should bill every bit of cost involved, including lawsuit losses to RIAA and the other entities involved. We the american taxpayer SHOULD NOT have to pay for this. This is an incredible SCREW UP by our government at the hands of private companies.

Re:corporate america runs the US Justice Dept

[Kalriath]

The American Taxpayer isn't paying for any of this. The New Zealand Taxpayer is, and the US Government has no intention of reimbursing it.

The next extradiction request ...

[Alain Williams]

will it be to have the USA send back to New Zealand those FBI officers who we now know committed illegal acts when they were last in New Zealand ?

I can't see the USA giving this any attention other than to laugh at it .... but what would they say if it were the other way round ?

Re:The next extradiction request ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US extraditing FBI officers for some file sharing thing? Laughable.

I remember the US threatening Germany to not try to prosecute the CIA spies who kidnapped a German citizen from German ground and brought him to Guantanamo. (Because even in their own country, they cannot deny one due process. So they go out of their way to break their own and foreign law).

If they demand other countries not follow the law to protect their own illegal operations, you think they would extradite the officers???

2 Cents

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm proud of what America is SUPPOSED to be, but not what it is. Our ellected officials and pawns that go along with it all need their asses kicked, many times over. Especially the law enforcement community.

My question is, where are all the god damn lawyers in the US? I mean ACTA was not ratified by the Senate. Even if it was accepted in NZ, the US authorities are still bound by US law, so there is some clear violation there.

In addition, there have been constnat abuses of power and authority, and until they are held accountable, the problems will continue. I would think all the law firms would jump at the chance to go after these traitors, but I hear almost nothing... WHY?

Re:And why is this bad?

[Sprouticus]

While I agree with your sentiments regarding the various criminal activities, US law does not apply to all countries. It just doesn't. We may not like it, but that's how the world works. By applying your laws to other countries you are ignoring their laws and their sovereignty.

Well I take that back, it should not. Apparently it does.

Let's look at some other wonderful applicaitons of your ideas:

Someone comes to the US from another and uses freedom of speech. Returns to their country and is arrested for it.
Someone comes to this country and dresses they way they want and returns to their country and is arrested for it.
(post above) Someone comes to this country and has an affair and returns to their country and is killed for it.
(post above) Someone from the US goes to cancun under 21 and drinks, and is arrested for it upon return.
Someone goes to Holland and smokes pot and is arrested upon returning to the US.
Someone from th US goes to Korea and eats dog (unknowningly) and is arrested for animal abuse upon return to the US.

All of these things are completely ok by your standard.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the sex issue, there is a law explicitly stating the legal age for any American traveling overseas is 18. There is no such law regarding drinking overseas.

MegaUpload II

[Anonymous Coward]

If Kim Dotcom is smart about this, he'll start up MegaUpload II. After it's been proven that this stuff is in the clear, it will be harder to do another raid. Even if that's the case, set some mirror servers up somewhere where they can't be raided by the US, say China... presto- insurance policy. Advertise the new robustness --> profit! The only problem will be the US MAFIAA twisting legislation in other countries to try and handle this :P

Re:MegaUpload II

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... Call it "GigaUpload".....

Payback

[nurb432]

Sort of payback from NZ officials for being treated like they were by the FBI after they did their best to cooperate. Not real surprised to see a virtual bird flipping back.

But, Kim was put out of business for a while, so the effect was the same. Short sighted goals.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you are a dual citizen?

Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[FeatherBoa]

I wonder, when the dust settles, as I suppose it one day must, will anyone add up the appalling costs to the NZ taxpayers to play out this farce? The Crown is likely going to have to fold their entire case and may face liability for wrongful conduct. It's all well to say that the Americans have achieved their goals just by putting the fear of god into all the offshore quasi-ethical file-share outfits and screwing up Mega's business. But NZ taxpayers will face millions in court costs and lost police and prosecutor time sorting this out. If the costs are large, the embarrassment significant and the gains are negligible or non-existent, how many more times will NZ or other small powers accommodate American expeditions of this type so willingly?

I think there's an onus on New Zealanders to complain to their parties about the policies that let this happen, use access to information to ferret out the complicit officials into the light of day. Make the costs and embarrassment of following though on this farce a political issue for the government.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[MartinSchou]

If I were in Kim DotCom's shoes (and had the financial assets to back the play), I'd go into court with a demand for a massive damages suit.

And then I'd tell the court and public, that I'd be willing to waive all financial claims (other than getting ALL of my assets released and returned), in exchange for the parties responsible going to jail (not minimum security either) for no less than 1 day for every 1,000 New Zealand dollar that was wasted and otherwise destroyed as a result of this case.

Call it contempt of court or whatever.

Then clarify that "the parties responsible" doesn't mean the officers doing the raid, but the administrators, managers, bureaucrats and politicians up the food chain who pushed for this rushjob.

And then I'd just lean back in my chair and watch as those people throw eachother to the sharks and media frenzy.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[Shagg]

how many more times will NZ or other small powers accommodate American expeditions of this type so willingly?

That sounds like a significant gain to me.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[Krneki]

Your blame is on the wrong side. The US of A have ordered this shit, but NZ people are the one who allowed it. So next time you see them on the street, punch them in the face.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[styrotech]

I wonder, when the dust settles, as I suppose it one day must, will anyone add up the appalling costs to the NZ taxpayers to play out this farce?

I'm OK with the expense of all this.

I reckon that this was a useful exercise for the NZ public (and the Police) to find out who they're dealing with. NZ got to try out cooperating with US authorities on a case that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Especially when NZs sovereignty over IP matters is at stake with the current trans pacific trade negotiations with the US.

The fact that it spectacularly and publicly (ie plenty of coverage on the mainstream news) failed while showing up how US authorities and content holders work is even better.

The next time the NZ Police get asked to cooperate like this (and it might be an NZ citizen or business in trouble next time), you can bet they are going to be a lot more reluctant about it after being burnt this time. And it also hopefully makes the general public a bit more aware about the imperialistic approach to IP law that the US is forcing onto other countries via 'free' trade agreements.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron. Do the world a favour: go shoot yourself in the face.

Re:Appalling cost to NZ taxpayers

[stoatwblr]

Don't forget that it took an overly credulous NZ judge to issue the search warrants in the first place. I do find it interesting that there is no coverage of who authorised the raids.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery is still legal in some backwards 3rd world countries.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancun is gonna close shop.

You mean Canada, eh?

Re:And why is this bad?

[Stickerboy]

The fun part is how you can do something overseas that's completely legal in the country you did it in, but then get arrested when you return to the US if it's a crime in the US. This is often used when citizens go overseas, have sex with young girls who are of legal age in their country but under age by US law, then arrested when they return to the US.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this.

Did you ever shoplift as a child or teen? How would you feel about having your right hand cut off upon entering an islamic country? What if you had a friend who lived in a western country but had dual citizenship by birth?

Or how about this: Have you ever attended a rally or written a letter of complaint to an official? How would you feel about being jailed as a subversive if you went on holiday to China?

If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.

That's seriously funny, coming from you. Apparently you don't understand the difference between being a US citizen and having Chinese laws apply to you while acting in the US and being a US citizen and having US laws apply to you while in another country. Or being a US citizen and having Sharia apply to you for acts done in the US, versus being a US citizen and being arrested for stolen property that you obtained overseas.

Being outside of the US geographically does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want, just because you happen to be in a country that you can bribe the local official to say its ok. Err, I mean, where the law says its ok. On the flipside, being a US citizen traveling outside the US affords you certain protections and privileges (up to a point).

Apparently some creepy old white guy with mod points is coming after me! That's OK, bring it on! If you can't win an argument, burn your mod points...

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you truly feel constrained by the US legal system, feel like it shouldn't apply to you, and think another country has a better set of rules, than I highly encourage you to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.

Uhhh... they DID! These people never once set foot in America until they were forcibly dragged back here after being arrested. They are not US citizens. They never set foot here to be able to leave.

So clearly following your advice would still result in a life time prison sentence in the US.
That is SO different than the current life time prison sentence in the US!

Basically what you are arguing for, is to grant the Shinra police the right to come into your home in the USA and arrest you, dragging you back to their country to be tortured and imprisoned before your capital execution. For the crime of not covering your head with a hat.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Stickerboy]

So when you come to Europe and have a beer at 18, it's perfectly all right that you be arrested on setting foot in the US if they saw your vacation photos on Facebook ?!? Cancun is gonna close shop.

Legally, yes. In practicality, everyone knows the 21 year age limit on alcohol use is retarded, which is why it's not enforced.

And why I explicitly said in my prior post, "Or else try to change the laws in this country."

So get involved, and get the drinking age lowered to 18 where it should be.

If I were Julian Assange...

[ChunderDownunder]

I'd be asking for a separate cell in Gitmo.

Kim might eat him! What is it about billionaires that makes the majority of them obese?

Re:If I were Julian Assange...

[Anonymous Coward]

Greed.

Re:If I were Julian Assange...

[Nadaka]

Because being a billionaire (or at least hundred something millionaire) is rich enough to attract a banging hot woman in spite of being a fat slob who plays call of duty all day.

Thus spoke the bald and bold eagle!

[Anonymous Coward]

> In particular, warrants did not make it clear that the breach of copyright law and money laundering offenses were U.S. federal offenses rather than NZ offenses. Therefore the search and seizure was illegal.

You have a logical fallcy here. Please observe that USA federal law is valid in Low Earth Orbit and over the entire surface of the world (expect Israel and the palestinian territories it occupies). If you don't agreee, please send a postcard to any of the 11 US Navy nuclear powered aircraft carriers and we will gladly visit you to prove otherwise! Please note that US Navy is not responsible for collateral damage.

Otherwise, I wonder if NZ is long overdue for an "arabic spring" type popular revolution to overthrow the oppressive regime they have there? I heard they are very oppressive towards the aboriginal native coloured inhabitants of the islands as well as millions of sheep treated inhumanely and the USA should help to liberate them! That would also help send a practical message to the aussies not to get too intimate with the chinese communists, else...

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, I think the gay people of the United States will be glad when they realize they're in for capital punishment because of a number of countries..

Heck 14 a beer

[aepervius]

If youa re accompagned by adult you can have a beer at 14 and spirits / winebrand at 16 IIRC.

Re:Heck 14 a beer

[DarkTempes]

In the states you may be able to drink alcohol at any age (depending on state).

The federal law is 21 to purchase alcohol. State and other local laws cover consumption and possession with associated permission (parents) and location (private property) exemptions.

Or at least that's my understanding of the situation, IANAL, etc.

Re:Heck 14 a beer

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, in WI you can drink at any age. The guardian has to buy it and give it to you, but there is no law against giving your 6 year old a shot of whiskey in WI.

Did you read ANYTHING????

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is about the US government giving duff information to the NZ government so that it could break the law and enforce totalitarianism on Dotcom.

The ENTIRE REASON why the NZ were involved were because the USA told them lies.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the sex issue, there is a law explicitly stating the legal age for any American traveling overseas is 18.

Oh God, does that mean I have to check her age, and her passport too?

Re:And why is this bad?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

If you don't understand the reason for jurisdiction, you really shouldn't be commenting. Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave. Without some limits and barriers everyone who ever went overseas would risk jail.

I suspect that with the humongous number of laws, we're bound to be criminals even without leaving the house.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Laws vary so widely that you're bound to be a criminal somewhere no matter how you behave."

Not only are sets of laws very diverse, most jurisdictions are equipped with a very broad set of laws, many of which are on the books but simply never enforced. If you take a few weeks worth of activity into account, most people will be criminals almost everywhere.

Re:And why is this bad?

[MartinSchou]

Well, let's look at this another way then.

You need to be 18 to get a drivers license in Denmark.

If you're an exchange student to the US you can get a US drivers licence at 16.

Should those Danish exchange students be arrested and thrown in jail for having driven a car while in the US, once they return to Denmark?

Keeping in mind, that they broke absolutely no laws while in the US nor while they were in Denmark?

Or how about we turn it around.

In Denmark the age of consent is 15. Suppose a 15-year-old US citizen travels to Denmark on holiday with his or her family and ends up having sex with a 15-year-old in Denmark.

Should the 15-year-old be charged and marked for being a sex offender (statutory rape), travelling to engage in such etc., upon returning to the US?

How about this one. US citizen living in Nevada travels to New York. In New York he's arrested for having paid for sex with a prostitute in a licensed and regulated Nevada brothel. Something that is completely legal in Nevada, but illegal in New York.

This might be the waterloo

[davydagger]

This might be the waterloo for copyright enforcement, and outrageous demands by the DOJ worldwide. Think about it. Since an NZ court threw out American charges, other allied countries get the nuts to do the same. The government might have to resort to *gasp* diplomacy, or even trying to respect the rights of citizens to maintain credibility.

Re:This might be the waterloo

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very less likely to happen. Kim guy happen to have the will and wherewithal to fight back but not everyone will be in the same position. So it is more likely that they will chose their victim a little more carefully next time.

That's impossible

[Sloppy]

They got the megaupload servers offline, with much publicity, even if the whole thing is overturned there's no way it's returning in its old form. I'm sure the US authorities are thinking, 'job done'.

But.. but.. that's impossible. The US government would never use force to create fear of vigilante justice in the minds of civilians, for purposes of effecting political or behavioral changes. Why? Because US government is against terrorism.

Re:That's impossible

[Internetuser1248]

US government is against terrorism.

I realise you are being sarcastic, but some other people probably think this is true. I would like to state for the record that the US has been convicted in international court of supporting terrorists and ordered to pay reparations, which are still unpaid to date. In addition the US and Israel were the only two countries to vote against a UN resolution to combat terrorism in the 80s when the whole war on terror thing was getting started.

The US is resolutely pro terrorism in policy and has been for a long time, they are only anti terrorism in their PR and propaganda branches.

Re:That's impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose Slashdot adds "Ultra-Interesting" level to comments.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, you're out to lunch and don't understand the topic of exporting local laws to international locations.

The poster is saying a person should be bound by the laws of the location they are currently in. No matter their citizenry

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The reason Americans are prosecuted for sex tourism is because there is a specific law on the books making not the act itself, but the planning and conceiving of it illegal making it much easier to convict in the US because you can show evidence of wire transfers, phone calls, internet searches and emails, etc...

This law was written because US jurisdiction is not universal and the government was having a very hard time convicting sex tourists in the US because they could not show that the act actually happened, and/or they could not show that there was any component to the crime of statutory rape inside the United States.

Having a beer over there at 18 is not legally illegal and you could not be convicted of it. Don't spew random garbage.

Name some names

[UnoriginalBoringNick]

After the media storm following the arrest of Mr. Dotcom - who has yet to be proved guilty of any crime - can we now hope to have published the names and photographs of all those who took part in these illegal acts. Not to mention descriptions of their homes, cars and financial assets.

If the aim of the action was to scare all the other download sites out of business voluntarily I feel that natural justice requires the DOJ and NZ police forces get an example made of them to make sure they and other national police forces never try to perfom such egregiously illegal acts again.

Way to go, MAFIAA/DOJ. You managed to convert someone most people would have loved to hate into a martyr.

Re:Name some names

[Cow Jones]

[...] Mr. Dotcom - who has yet to be proved guilty of any crime [...]

Let's keep the facts straight: he has been convicted for computer fraud, trading credit cards, insider trading, and embezzlement.

He hasn't been convicted of any crime in the MegaUpload case, yet, but that's not possible before there's a trial.
Notwithstanding the fuckup by the FBI and NZ authorities in this case, the question of his guilt will be decided much later.
Just don't paint the man as a saint, cause he isn't.

Re:Name some names

[bussdriver]

Defending him, his rights, or saying he is innocent does not make him a saint. His sainthood has nothing to do with the case at hand. I don't care if he is a nazi; everybody has rights!

We followed procedure during and after WW2 but now days wimpy terrorist losers with websites get assassinated without due process; we kidnap people anywhere in the world and then... We have sunk so low.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that every corporation who has dodged safety regulations, environment regulations, minimum wage, etc. by moving their factories to foreign countries are in serious trouble. Oh wait, they aren't. Because what just typed was total bull shit.

Re:And why is this bad?

[DramaGeek]

The drinking age is never set in national law. The states are allowed to set their own drinking ages.
However, it IS in the law that any state that sets their drinking age under 21 loses a ton of funding for highway construction and repair.

Re:And why is this bad?

[TFAFalcon]

I think the point is not in applying your own laws to other countries, but to your own citizens that happen to be located in other countries. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. There may be something wrong with specific laws that you plant to enforce, but the principle of holding your citizens responsible for their actions even when they are abroad seems reasonable to me. If people don't want to follow the laws of a specific country then they can renounce their citizenship and move away.

Let me give you an example where only local laws need to be followed:
An African country has a revolution, and the new government declares all of the supporters of the old regime no longer have any rights, and shooting them is allowed. A group of bored US billionares decides to organize a 'human safari' in this country, then return back home with tales of the wonderful time they had, as well as pictures of the old president that they shot. The US government does nothing, since all of their actions were legal in the country they were done.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's seriously funny, coming from you. Apparently you don't understand the difference between doing something legal in your home country and doing something illegal in a foreign country you are visiting. The original post was concerned with people doing legal activities in their home country and becoming guilty of those crimes simply through the virtue of visiting a country where the aforementioned activities are illegal. You were being mod bombed, but only because you grossly distorted and completely misunderstood the original argument.

Doing something legal in US =/= Physically committing a crime in China

Re:And why is this bad?

[locofungus]

Being outside of the US geographically does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the fuck you want, just because you happen to be in a country [...] where the law says its ok.

I don't see why not. Here in the UK you can usually travel to a foreign country and do something legal there that is illegal in the UK without fear of repercussion when you return to the UK.

In fact, for most crimes, you will not be prosecuted for the crime in the UK even if it's illegal both in the UK and in the country you visited.

TPTB had to make a special change to the law to be able to prosecute child sex tourists in the UK rather than having to rely on the destination country to prosecute.

Tim.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Glarimore]

It's not enforced? Are you kidding me?

In the US bars/restaurants/liquor stores all take carding their patrons very seriously. Obviously their are individuals and particular locations who don't take it seriously, but for the most part, they do. This is because in most jurisdictions, getting caught serving underage twice within a year (which cops do buy hiring underage people to buy drinks) will cause your establishment to lose their liquor license for 6 months. For any establishment that serves alcohol, this usually means going out of business.

Maybe some parents give their kids beer occasionally (4th of july, new years, etc.) and let older high schoolers drink at their house because they think the law is unreasonable, but the fact is there is no way those kids went out and got the beer themselves without getting an older person to buy for them or using a fake ID.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're coming up with preposterous examples that miss the point.

The US wants to discourage underage sex exploitation. This includes not letting people legally go overseas and not be prosecuted for it.

This is a specific and conscious decision with intent, not just a vague statement of principles as you are trying to treat it.

I don't know that Denmark wants to discourage driving by 16-17 year olds. If they have some reason to stop that, then I would say they're allowed to do it in the manner they see fit. If for some reason it exceeds the bounds of what I, or my nation considers reasonable, we'll decide how to react to it.

Since as far as I know, the Danes aren't brutally executing these drivers upon return, I'm not exactly going to be concerned.

Sorry, but it seems to me you're missing the tree for the forest, and trying to construct some weird scenarios that aren't happening, because you're somehow concerned about a principle when it's the particulars that matter. I suppose if you were trying to argue that the articulation of the situation should be more nuanced and specific that would be a legitimate attempt, but I don't get that impression from your words, and other people just don't recognize the problem when they're talking with you since they're more concerned with what they're saying than understanding the point of what you just said.

Re:And why is this bad?

[steelfood]

No, because the drinking age is a state law, not a federal one. All states have adopted the 21 minimum because of some Federal road money though.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've misspelled "Won't somebody think of the children!!!!"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, bars and restaurants are using pretty serious about enforcing the drinking age due to worries about losing their liquor license. But acquiring alcohol in college is trivial for most students (I assume the older students by the alcohol so no businesses are breaking the law). The university I went to had a pretty clear policy that underage drinking by their students was de facto legal because they didn't want students dying of alcohol poisoning. I gather that is pretty common.

Not to say that high schoolers have that much trouble getting alcohol, but I gather they tend to do more illegal drugs because they are easier to acquire than alcohol.

Re:And why is this bad?

[arth1]

The US wants to discourage underage sex exploitation. This includes not letting people legally go overseas and not be prosecuted for it.

This is a specific and conscious decision with intent, not just a vague statement of principles as you are trying to treat it.

But the intent doesn't match the laws. If I, a middle aged man, go to Europe and happen to bonk a 15 year old, I can't be arrested when I return to the US, because what a non-US citizen does in a non-US country is not subject to US jurisdiction. However, if my neighbor does the same, he can get arrested? Unless the intent is to scare residents from applying for US citizenship lest they be subjected to additional restrictions, I fail to see how this works.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US want to discourage underage sex, where what underage means is defined by the US. That definition does not come from a universal morality, it comes from US law. And for some reason, sex-related laws are deemed more important than other laws and zealously enforced.

It is you who are missing the point. It's not about who is more right about the definition of underage, it's not about whether sex-related law is more important than other laws, it's about the US wanting to enforce its own laws outside of its borders.

Re:And why is this bad?

[arth1]

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the downside of this. Except for creepy old white guys who can't get laid otherwise or, worse, have a fetish about having sex with underage girls.

An 18 year old wanting to have sex with a divorced mother of two who happens to be 15 would also fall under this law.
So that makes him a creepy old guy with a fetish for underage girls, and not entitled to the same protections as others in the country he visits?

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got modded down, because slashdot is full of perverts. You're not new here, so I assume you already knew that.

And if you doubt the perverts are in full force on this site.. the law they are saying is unjust is: it is illegal for a US citizen to travel abroad to obtain sex with someone under age 18.

Think about that for a second. They are complaining about a law that says you can't leave the US specifically to have sex with underage girls.

Sometimes this site can be pretty sickening.

Kim Dotcom: Mastermind

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to still think that this was about prosecuting Kim Dotcom. It wasn't.

I know. It was all about saving him.

For all his money, he could never shake the reputation for being a scumbag. But geniuses never give up. That's when he realized: The key to buying a reputation as "The Good Guy" is to not spend your own money, but spend someone else's. NZ taxpayers volunteered for the job, and US government agreed to assist.

To be fair

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...it's about the US wanting to enforce its own laws outside of its borders.

To be fair, there are a number of countries that have similar laws and will punish their own citizens for traveling abroad for sex that wouldn't be legal at home.

Where sex is concerned, there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who lose their reason and tend to view outmoded concepts like jurisdiction as outmoded, too.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Kjella]

If the US wants to prosecute a US citizen for something he did in Denmark, who's going to do something about it? Nobody, that's who because what happens to you when you return to your own country is an internal matter. Denmark isn't going to invade the US to protect foreign citizens against persecution for things they did in Denmark. If you want to leave most the laws behind, go abroad. If you want to leave all the laws behind, get a new citizenship. Until then you're stuck with the rules of the old one, just like you're stuck with domestic law until some other country grants you admission.

Re:And why is this bad?

[PRMan]

Maybe when this starts happening, the US will re-think its position on this.

Re:And why is this bad?

[misexistentialist]

And actually that definition might be higher than the one in your home state. Your 16-year-old gf could become incapable of consent when you take her on a romantic vacation?

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the whole point of ever increasing number of laws -- to pick up anyone from anywhere at anytime the powers that be feel like it.
One of the ways to prevent the explosion of laws is to have a law which imposes automatic life time imprisonment for people who are behind laws ruled unconstitutional at any time. One of the ways to prevent a repeat of this kind of fiasco is to jail the "authorities" involved in these sort of underhanded display of power.

Re:And why is this bad?

[julesh]

Here in the UK you can usually travel to a foreign country and do something legal there that is illegal in the UK without fear of repercussion when you return to the UK.

Erm, no you can't. We have some laws against this kind of behaviour (although not as strict as the US ones), e.g. Section 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which prevents you from arranging for a person to leave the country with plans that involve a "relevant offence" (which includes "anything done outside England and Wales and Northern Ireland which is not an offence [...] but would be if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland") being performed on them. This means that you can't, for instance, take your 14 year old girlfriend to Spain for the purposes of having sex with her, despite the fact that it would be legal to have sex with her if you met her there.

Big opps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like NZ is trying to clean their hands of this SNAFU. That's what you get for giving US officials the go ahead in your country.

Re:And why is this bad?

[yacc143]

The problem is that the US likes to prosecute non-US citizens located outside the US, with no connection to the US, for doing things that are completely legal at the place where they have been doing them, by extradition to the US. For an additional example, in most countries you can change over at an airport without entering the country legally, not so in the US, for changing planes you need to officially enter the US, so they can arrest anyone they don't like ;)

Furthermore, by local standards US punishments are all cruel and inhumane, which works locally usually quite well, despite some extreme examples like Mr. Breveik that could be sentenced only to 21 years. Despite these mild punishments, we have all over way less problems with crime, so something must be done better here. Anyway, so even if something is illegal here and there the punishments can vary quite a bit, e.g. something that a Brit would be sentenced to say 6 months on probation might result in multiple life sentences in the US. (Hint: in most European countries, all sentences are always running concurrently, so no adding up like in the US, "He did steal 100 credit card numbers, so it's 100 times 1 year = 100 years in jail")

Now this might sound funny, till you realize that someone might play the game the other way, e.g. there are some places where homosexuality is a capital crime (Must been funny for the German foreign minister to decide if he should bring his partner for the state visit to Saudi Arabia, ....), ...

Basically, jurisdiction is there for a reason.

It's "Mission Accomplished"

[DarthVain]

Mission Accomplished!

Re:And why is this bad?

[Nyder]

...

In Denmark the age of consent is 15. Suppose a 15-year-old US citizen travels to Denmark on holiday with his or her family and ends up having sex with a 15-year-old in Denmark.

Should the 15-year-old be charged and marked for being a sex offender (statutory rape), travelling to engage in such etc., upon returning to the US?

...

Are you stupid?

A 15 year old can have sex with a 15 year old in the USA. It's not statutory rape. And it doesn't matter where they have sex at. It's okay. In fact, 15 year old are allowed to have sex with 13 year olds. omg, omg, what?

Now, if a 18 year old had sex with the 15 year old in America, yes, that is statutory rape.

Do you feel stupid now?

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 15 year old can have sex with a 15 year old in the USA. It's not statutory rape. And it doesn't matter where they have sex at. It's okay. In fact, 15 year old are allowed to have sex with 13 year olds. omg, omg, what?

This varies greatly from state to state. Look up Genarlow Wilson, he was convicted of aggravated child molestation for getting a BJ from his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 17.

Now, if a 18 year old had sex with the 15 year old in America, yes, that is statutory rape.

This varies as well, although not as much. Some states have "Romeo & Juliet" laws on the books which allow sex between partners within 3 or 4 years of age, even if one of them is under the age of consent. Interestingly, in the Wilson case, the state of Georgia did have a "Romeo & Juliet" provision but it applied only to vaginal intercourse - if they'd had regular sex, it would have been fine, but because they did oral, he was convicted.

These laws are far more convoluted than you seem to think.

So the big question is

[wisnoskij]

Did someone just screw up filling out the forms or were did they purposely bend the law because if they told the truth they would not of be allowed to do what they did?

Re:So the big question is

[lpq]

Do you even need to ask?

Violating the law in order to uphold the law has been SOP for US "law enforcement" for decades and has only gotten worse.

Re:And why is this bad?

[richlv]

oh. so us has a law that is meaningless, even harmful, invasive... and still universally enforced ? wait, not just enforced. whenever i'm in the usa, they ask for my "id" (whatever that might mean - i don't think they have much expectations beyond usa driver's licence. i'v had a shop person go away with my eu driver's licence shouting "i can't accept this"). i'm somewhere around 30, bearded and usually not looking very happy.

usa, grow up. you are allowing kids (by your own definition) at 16 to use a dangerous weapon (car), kids at 18 to buy a gun, kids at 18 to join army and kill - or get killed. but they may not have a beer after shooting some infidels.

Dear America.

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK OFF
Signed,
The rest of the world

Let's now hope Mr Dotcom, subject of USA terrorism sues that country for copyright infringement and false imprisonment.

Re:It's no surprise...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a New Zealander with some familiarity with our judicial system, so let me say that this decision stems from a decade of ongoing judicial idiocy within NZ relating to technicalities of search warrants in general rather than anything particularly wrong with the Kim Dotcom prosecutors.

In 1990 the NZ Bill of Rights Act included the words "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure". Fair enough, one might say, "unreasonable" search is, of course, unreasonable. We can imagine the Gestapo breaking down the doors and midnight and dragging the occupants away. Or we can imagine vigilante organizations who break into people's properties on a regular basis to search them for books containing the wrong political ideology. Those are what unreasonable search and seizure is about. Such things have never happened in NZ and so no one thought twice when this statement about unreasonable search was included in the law, as it merely stated what everyone already agreed upon and already happened.

This sort of 'unreasonable' search stands in contrast to what virtually everyone would consider 'reasonable' search. Which is where the official government law enforcement agency (eg Police) gains some reasonable suspicion and suggestive evidence that a person is breaking the law; applies to an independent judicial court for a search warrant; where that independent judge reviews the reasons for suspecting the person and finds there is sufficient grounds for issuing a search warrant; and where the courts then issue such a warrant and the official government agency carries it out. Given the basic premise that some sort of search and seizure is "reasonable" in some instances as part of law-enforcement, then this sort of process seems pretty "reasonable" and indeed is what has been followed in most civilized countries for a hundred years or more.

Unfortunately the NZ judges in their not-so-infinite wisdom have been systematically using the Bill of Rights statement to attack the warrants issued by courts to police. ie the courts are ruling against the warrants that they themselves are issuing. This has resulted in numerous warrants being rejected after-the-fact on technicalities; in guilty parties getting away free; and in greatly increased time and costs for law-enforcement agencies. It was brought to my attention that one law enforcement agency recently spent 3 months writing a 70-page warrant application in order to ensure that the warrant wasn't struck down after the search. I doubt anyone other than the NZ judiciary thinks having law enforcement agencies spending three months on paperwork any time they want a search warrant is a good use of taxpayer money.

In the case of this particular judgement against the warrant issued for Kim Dotcom, reading the judgement is enlightening. The primary reason that the judge ruled the warrant invalid is that she felt that at the time the search warrant was being carried out, when police handed the warrant to Kim Dotcom, that if he had sat down and read what the warrant said on the piece of paper it was written on (and not talked to any police officers present regarding the warrant), that he might not have fully understood what it was exactly they thought he was guilty of from the piece of paper aline, since it "only" stated they thought he was guilty of copyright infringement (and various other things) but didn't state exactly how they thought this copyright infringement had occurred (ie it didn't state what copyrights had been infringed or how he'd infringed them). At face value the ruling seems idiotic, because (a) he would have found out rather quickly after the search by dialoguing with police regarding exactly what they thought he did wrong, so who cares if he understood 'immediately' or not what he was in trouble for? (b) Is anyone actually calm enough during a police raid to carefully read what is on the bit of paper and fully understand it anyway? That's what the lawyers are for afterwards to explain things to their clients.

At any rate,

Re:And why is this bad?

[Kalriath]

Now this might sound funny, till you realize that someone might play the game the other way, e.g. there are some places where homosexuality is a capital crime (Must been funny for the German foreign minister to decide if he should bring his partner for the state visit to Saudi Arabia, ....), ...

Hence Diplomatic Immunity. Saudi Arabi would have faced severe sanctions were they to try to enforce that law on a diplomatic mission without permission from the originating country.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

...there is a specific law on the books making not the act itself, but the planning and conceiving of it illegal...

This sounds a lot like thoughtcrime.

...making it much easier to convict in the US...

This should *never* be the basis for a new law. If something is wrong, you make it illegal. If you're having trouble convicting someone for it, that's because the legal system is working as intended: they're not guilty of the crime, or you don't have enough evidence to determine whether they are or not.

This law was written because US jurisdiction is not universal...

...and so this law was written to try to make US jurisdiction universal. This is a mistake. If someone, overseas, commits a crime in that jurisdiction, then they should be prosecuted under those laws. If they've since returned to the US, then the US should cooperate - collect evidence, extradite them - but the crime did not occur in the US and should not be prosecuted there.

Re:And why is this bad?

[locofungus]

*usually*

As I said originally, sexual offences against the child have special rules.

For your specific example the offence occurs on British soil. The offence is *arranging* for a person to leave the country...

Additionally, British subjects have some protections under British law from other British subjects when outside of the country. The courts will entertain a complaint even though the crime was committed abroad and was not a crime where it was committed.

And there are some things where it's an offence even to try to go abroad in order to commit them - one obvious one would be selling official secrets to China. Just because you do it in China and it's presumably not illegal there, you still commit an offence under British law.

But, in general, if you do something abroad that is legal in the country that you do it in then there is no crime committed at all. Possession of controlled substances is the canonical example.

Tim.

Re:And why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian Assange is not a US citizen, he is from Australia. So by your resoning he should not be handed over to the US.

Animals...

[robsku]

...and I don't mean the dog :(

The last NZ judge

[stoatwblr]

Who made a ruling like this was hounded out off the bench.

Look up "orchestrated litany of lies"

I think Judge Winkelman has seriously shortened her career.