Slashdot Mirror


NZ Broke the Law Spying On Kim Dotcom, PM Apologizes

Mad Hamster writes "In the latest installment of the megaupload saga, an official study has determined that New Zealand's Government Communications and Security Bureau broke NZ law by spying on Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom. NZ Prime Minister John Key has apologised to Dotcom and all New Zealanders for this, saying they were entitled to be protected by the law but it had failed them. Link is to writeup in The Guardian." Lots of outlets are reporting this, based on TorrentFreak's report.

235 comments

  1. very simple lesson from this by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people, and it sucks.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who are these "bad people" you write about?

    2. Re:very simple lesson from this by dmbasso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people, and it sucks.

      Only if you have honor. That doesn't apply to 99% of politicians.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:very simple lesson from this by partyguerrilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pirate enablers.

    4. Re:very simple lesson from this by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people

      Cool - and next US can apologize for seizing his assets and we can forget about this little ugly incident?

      How about trying to compensate him for the damage? Who is lining up to do that?

      From the TFA:

      American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based.

      Ah, another proud day for America :(

    5. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They didn't do wrong, they did illegal. And had to apologize. You or me do illegal, its jail-time and fines.

    6. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No the lesson here is if you break the law you go to jail, if government breaks the law you get a half-hearted apology.

    7. Re:very simple lesson from this by schlachter · · Score: 1

      The US could learn a lesson or two from NZ. Impressive. Now NZ should compensate Kim for his business/personal losses.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    8. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the corporations are enablers just so much as Dotcom himself was due to their policies, practices, laws they bought and generally how they treat their customers.

      A Dotcom was bound to come eventually with how they were doing it, it just turned out to be that guy. The companies and corporation promoted them just as much, if not more, than he did just by making sure the pirated versions were almost always superior quality and less hassle than what they put out.

    9. Re:very simple lesson from this by Nitage · · Score: 4, Funny

      What, like people who sell eye-patches, parrots, and wooden legs without asking for ID?

    10. Re:very simple lesson from this by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you have to apologize, you ARE the "bad people."

    11. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are these "bad people" you write about?

      He was speaking in general terms, I'll put it simply so your mind can handle it.

      Don't be an asshat and you won't have to eat crow.

    12. Re:very simple lesson from this by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      *shakes fist* those accursed parrot peddlers! ID or not!

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    13. Re:very simple lesson from this by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everyone screws up sometimes. I'd say that if you feel you DON'T ever have to apologize for anything that's a lot worse. That sort of view is part of why we so often get only psychotics who never admit to doing anything wrong in positions of power. The decent folks admit it when they screw up, try to fix it, are attacked for having displayed a weakness, and so tend not to prosper.

      Of course, to apologize is only part of making things right when you screw up. But it is an important first step.

    14. Re:very simple lesson from this by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure the apology makes him feel much better. He's probably celebrating right now.

      Weirdly enough the article seems to have skipped the bit about where the lawbreakers are being processed by the law along with the return of his property and some restitution for his losses. I'm sure it's happening though. I mean, why wouldn't it?

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You feeling yourself superior now? I'm glad, I could help.

    16. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US could learn a lesson or two from NZ.

      Why? Are they giving a class on sheep shagging?

    17. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to apologize, you ARE the "bad people."

      Or maybe you're just a bunch of spineless pussies.

    18. Re:very simple lesson from this by geekanarchy · · Score: 5, Funny

      General Motors = Dry-by shooting enabler.
      ExxonMobil = Arson enabler.
      Louisville Slugger = Mugging enabler.
      Pacific Lumber Company = Mugging enabler enabler.
      Slashdot = Trolling enabler.

    19. Re:very simple lesson from this by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people, and it sucks.

      I don't think it should matter. Even if he is a "bad person" he has rights until he is convicted of a crime and they are revoked. At least that's how it works in civilized countries. I'm all for busting him up if he did commit a crime, but if a country throws it's own laws out the window when it's convenient then the laws are really pretty worthless. Might as well just take an "every man for himself" attitude at that point.

    20. Re:very simple lesson from this by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      Godwin = Nazi enabler?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    21. Re:very simple lesson from this by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what about pirates like UMG, who sell music for direct profit without the permission of the rights holders, and without adequate accounting controls to even give a proper statement of sales and royalties? If Kim Dotcom can have commandos break down his front door, why aren't you demanding the immediate arrest of the CEO, CFO, CIO and the board of directors of UMg?

      And why aren't you demanding an immediate deep forensic audit by the IRS of every Hollywood film made over the last thirty years?

      Double standards much?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:very simple lesson from this by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or it could be that this mistake was entirely on the side of the NZ government and has exactly jack shit to do with the US's case against Dotcom, as the Ars Technica article states:

      Key told reporters he did not expect the illegal GCSB surveillance to affect the fight over extraditing Dotcom to the United States, because none of the evidence the United States planned to use against Dotcom in those proceedings were derived from GCSB surveillance.

      So, no, thats not going to happen because of this. The US's case may be wrong/illegal for other reasons, but saying they should drop it because the NZ government made a mistake is... rather ridiculous.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    23. Re:very simple lesson from this by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      General Motors = Dry-by shooting enabler. ExxonMobil = Arson enabler. Louisville Slugger = Mugging enabler. Pacific Lumber Company = Mugging enabler enabler. Slashdot = Trolling enabler.

      Any company that sells food = terrorism enabler

    24. Re:very simple lesson from this by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      If you have to apologize, you ARE the "bad people."

      Funny, it's usually the 'bad people' that don't have a conscience.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    25. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and next US can apologize...

      ROFL!

    26. Re:very simple lesson from this by Sprouticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do we know none of the evidence was gathered in the raid.

      THEY WONT LET HIM SEE IT....

      Are you saying we need to rust the NZ government on their word? Seriously. .I mean they are not as bad as the US government, but that's not saying much.

    27. Re:very simple lesson from this by Goaway · · Score: 2

      How about people who make big money off the work of others without giving them a penny?

      How about people who make big money off insider trading?

    28. Re:very simple lesson from this by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      hollywood accounting is really bad, but you see the US government not only not going after the movie and music industries for cheating artists and taxpayers, but breaking the law to go after their perceived enemies.

    29. Re:very simple lesson from this by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      No the lesson here is if you're so much as suspected of breaking the law you go to jail, if government breaks the law you get a half-hearted apology.

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      General Motors = Dry-by shooting enabler.

      I will not apologize for my armed struggle against moisture.

    31. Re:very simple lesson from this by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      They have been touched by his noodlely appendage. Ra-men.

    32. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Level 1:
      Did you know that 100% of all terrorists drank water in the 24h before the attach?
      Make water illegal! It enables terrorism!

      Level2:
      s/water/dihydrogen monoxide/g

    33. Re:very simple lesson from this by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That's why they have their own special ways of apologizing. For instance, making it sound like they're sorry to the dumbasses that voted for them, so they'll never do it again.

      Or the "Half apology while continuing to do whatever it is you're apologizing for." Like Todd Akin's apologizing for his remarks about how women magically don't get pregnant if they don't want to, while his wife was essentially restating that as a fact again.

    34. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the MPAA and RIAA?

    35. Re:very simple lesson from this by sjames · · Score: 2

      Let's check the score. The spying before the raid were ruled illegal and the search warrant for the raid itself was declared illegal. If they thought they had enough without it, why did they bother with the raid?

    36. Re:very simple lesson from this by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the people who sell industrial strength laundry detergent and dry cleaning services. Do you know how hard it is to get parrot shit out of clothes????

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    37. Re:very simple lesson from this by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's awful. Almost as bad as murder!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    38. Re:very simple lesson from this by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You pay your telecommunication company for internet service, and they invest part of their revenue into operating and maintaining the means by which digital information can be "pirated". You are therefore a "pirate enabler".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologised for being criminal niggers? niggers? WTF?

    40. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason why the west needs to be dismantled and started again....

      1. To show ifiots like this that what they're crapping on about is crap.
      2. To regain freedoms lost to people that think crap like this, strong enough to gain power and make laws to prevent crap like this.

    41. Re:very simple lesson from this by T+Murphy · · Score: 2

      Double standards much?

      How did you go from the implied "Kim Dotcom is a bad person" to "I wholly endorse the use of an armed assault team breaking into his place, disregarding laws, and believe all media companies are the best thing ever"? Oh, right, you're just jumping to conclusions to make the /. mods pile on with "+1 agree".

      The original comment even implied that the assault on Dotcom's house was a bad thing, and had nothing to do with media companies. I'll agree Dotcom isn't as bad as the media companies, but then again those companies would make anyone look like a saint in comparison.

      I think the presidential race is getting to you, saying what you want to say whether it's an appropriate response or not.

    42. Re:very simple lesson from this by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Don't do wrong, especially to bad people, since in the latter case you have to apologize to bad people, and it sucks.

      While what you say appears to indeed be a very good lesson, it should not be the primary item to take away from this experience.

      What really needs to happen is to find out what pressures caused the officials to act in a lawless manner and then pass legislation that nullifies or removes such pressures. The way this is being described, it is like a buffer overflow which allowed unsigned code to run. All unsigned code should be prohibited. Find out how it got in and fix all classes of that particular error throughout the entire codebase.

      (CAPTCHA is contain. Weird)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    43. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck America, keep your fucking greasy fingers out of my country. And fuck my country for letting them put their greasy fingers there.

    44. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that if I break the law and subsequently get caught, I can just apologise and all will be forgiven?

    45. Re:very simple lesson from this by Aryden · · Score: 1

      You should probably re-read his statement. He was condemning the tactics used against Dotcom and positing that it's double standards for the reason that those very same tactics aren't used against companies like UMG.

    46. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/drank/consumed/

      "Terrorists consume Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) prior to carrying out an attack. It is recommended that DHMO should be listed as a Schedule IV substance under the Controlled Substances Act."

    47. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see why you needf to apologize that Secret Services perform extralegal activities.

      Hackers wanrt Kim Dotcom jailed, after all he was a traitor who put black hats in jail and is nothing but an obnoxious fraudster.

    48. Re:very simple lesson from this by jc42 · · Score: 2

      Do you know how hard it is to get parrot shit out of clothes????

      Yeah; it's quite easy. ;-)

      Due to my wife's allergies to most furry critters (luckily not including me), we've long had pet birds, mostly various sorts of parrots. The little darlings are always landing on our shoulders and leaving their calling cards. If we notice right away, we pick it off with a bit of tissue paper, which most bird owners have strategically scattered around their house. If we don't notice, and it dries, a quick brushing with a damp sponge usually removes all signs it was there. No need for detergent (though I'd still advise it in washing, to remove the human sweat and other contaminants).

      Of course, this sorta ruins the joke, which I LOL'd at. Bird owners are always looking around for good bird-shit jokes. Some time back, I was playing music at an event, with a pick-up band. Suddenly one of the musicians, a fiddler that I didn't know, said "Hey, I see you have a cockatiel, too!" She could even identify the species that left the little marking. We both laughed, and went back to playing music.

      The explanation is straightforward. We mammals have digestive systems that try to extract maximum nutrition from our food, because to our ancestors, that was cheaper than going out and hunting for food more often. This leads to a long process that involves many bacteria, in a low-oxygen environment, and the result is familiar to us all. But birds have a strong need to conserve weight. So their digestive systems are short and fast, extracting the most digestible stuff for flight fuel, and quickly reaching the point that it takes more energy to fly the food around than it contains. At that point, typically only a few hours after eating, the bird dumps the rest, which still contains lots of nutrients (and is very good plant food), but hasn't had time for bacteria to use up the oxygen and turn it into a stinky mess.

      If bird droppings were like our output, we probably wouldn't have them at pets. But bird shit is fairly innocuous stuff that's highly water soluble, and birds tend to drop most of it beneath only a few favorite perches, so it's easy to clean up after them.

      OTOH, there's that Far Side cartoon of a bird's view of the world, looking down at a city street scene in which everything has a bullseye painted on its top.

      [Yeah, I know; facts, facts, facts, ... boring. ;-]

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    49. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, that would be a convicted white-collar criminal, responsible for the destruction of thousands of peoples' savings in Germany before he moved to NZ.

    50. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This NZ government is desperate to suck Yankee government cock (pardon my French...), and so will do pretty much everything said Yankee government demands, lest it not offer up its cock to this NZ government for sucking.

      PM John Key is head of NZ's security services. He is briefed on everything they do, or plan to do, or wish to do, or fantasize about doing: He has stated this for the record many times in the past, because he's afraid people will forget how important and powerful he is.

      Yet now he's claiming he is actually just Sergeant Shultz.

    51. Re:very simple lesson from this by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      No, the lesson here was. Next time, don't let them find out the evidence that will be used against them.

      "American authorities are appealing against a New Zealand court decision that Dotcom should be allowed to see the evidence on which the extradition hearing will be based."

      Would the New Zealand court not insist on seeing all that evidence in the first place? I doubt the PM would have apologized for anything.

    52. Re:very simple lesson from this by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, the US should. This whole fuckup is because they went on a global witch hunt enlisting no less than five governments to take this guy down.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    53. Re:very simple lesson from this by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Pirate enablers.

      Huh? - Oh, you mean those greedy corporations who created a massive pirating problem through massive geo-discrimination and obscene local prices protected by IP-monopolies and region controls?

      But what does that have to do with Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload?

      It was a company completely unaffiliated with both the pirate scene and the global media industry. Sure, pirates used it but they also used dozens of other file lockers, not to mention bittorrent and of course the infrastructure below, i.e. operating systems, networks, hardware etc. MegaUpload was nothing special, except in being singled out and illegally prosecuted by FBI and other US law enforcement by inventing am international conspiracy in order to get Interpol and the New Zealand police in on the case.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    54. Re:very simple lesson from this by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, it is neither the US or the NZ taxpayer who deserves to be punished. It is the corrupt politicians who suck up to the media companies (in NZ this was initially Clare Curran who brought in our "three-strikes" downloading law). They should be made to pay.

      How to make the media companies pay? Make non-commercial sharing of copyrighted material legal. It's fair for the citizens, and stops the government having to monitor whether or not we download the odd MP3.

    55. Re:very simple lesson from this by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Any system that allows the copying of data without deleting the original or verifying your license to use the file is a pirate enabler. That makes every computing system known to man nothing but a piracy device.

      Are all gun and knife manufacturers "murder enablers"? Are all US voters "tyranny enablers"? Are loud stereos "illegal public performance devices"?

      I don't need web-based file storage sites to pirate warez. Or bittorrent. FTP works fine. I can name at least a dozen protocols with legit uses that enable piracy. You will NEVER stop piracy. You'll just slowly piss off legit users while your shit will get cracked and distributed DRM-free anyway. Every super-elaborate anti-piracy measure ever devised has been neutered relatively quickly.

    56. Re:very simple lesson from this by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      [Yeah, I know; facts, facts, facts, ... boring. ;-]

      Too bad, because now I want to subscribe to your newsletter. :D

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    57. Re:very simple lesson from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse is that the person who is ultimately responsible - Key - is not going to get in any crap for it. It doesn't matter that his minion signed on his behalf, he is responsible to Key, who is supposed to be responsible to us. Never mind, he's rich and pays fuck all tax, he'll get away with it because he's hard working.

    58. Re:very simple lesson from this by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      why aren't you demanding the immediate arrest ...

      He's responding directly to the parent, in the process putting words in his mouth. I don't disagree with his overall point, it's just he is raging against the parent for no reason, coming across as a jerk.

    59. Re:very simple lesson from this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      People without a conscience still apologize for reasons other than conscience when they're caught. Good people apologize for mistakes, bad people apologize for misdeeds done purposly that they're caught at.

    60. Re:very simple lesson from this by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Then you face the new and improved problem of small time artists being unfairly affected by the actions of the tossers running the big companies. Because while the average slashdotter likes to claim they'd neeeeever pirate from an indie artist, that's bollocks and we all know it. And you don't tend to see indie artists pushing for three strikes legislation and crap like that either.

      I don't think there's really an easy solution to be honest, and there probably never will be.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. Whats this?! by PPalmgren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A politician and government owning their mistake? Color me impressed.

    1. Re:Whats this?! by aeortiz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Happy to oblige! What's the RGB code for impressed?

    2. Re:Whats this?! by haydensdaddy · · Score: 1

      Yes, being from the U.S., this was the part of the story that piqued my interest. An apology from the government? We've never heard of such a thing. In fact if you listen to certain parties in the presidential race, government should never apologize!

    3. Re:Whats this?! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      It appears to be a light blue. .impressed
      {
          color: #impressed
      }

      <span class="impressed">I'm light blue</span>

    4. Re:Whats this?! by nettdata · · Score: 1

      I'm also impressed that the investigation was done so fast and the apology given as quickly as it was.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    5. Re:Whats this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless there is accountability then an apology is simply words. You need both to right this type of wrong.

    6. Re:Whats this?! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      What's the RGB code for impressed?

      I don't know about RGB per se but for the colors of emotions, I'd definitely consult one of Iain M. Banks' non-biological characters. :)

    7. Re:Whats this?! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Owning their "mistake"? No. It's like Janet Reno "taking responsibility" for the deaths at Waco.

      Let me explain this. I'll do it slowly so everybody can follow along.

      If someone "broke the law" that makes them a _______? The correct answer is "criminal". By definition.

      What do we do to criminals? Well, if only we had a system that would try them for their crime and determine an appropriate punishment.

      Oh, wait, we do. It's called a "court" and the punishment is a "prison".

      Unless someone in the government is charged with the crimes and subsequently convicted, the "apology" is meaningless. A governmental official breaking the law (even if "under orders") is far more serious than some guy smoking pot in his house. So let's treat it as such.

    8. Re:Whats this?! by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 2

      What mistake? A mistake is accidental. My understanding is that this spying was not mistaken, accidental spying. "Oh, we meant to spy on your neighbor, the druglord, and accidentally came upon this...."

      This was not a mistake. Someone made a decision to do something in violation of the law, and then carried out acts in violation of the law. "To catch a thief" is not sufficient justification in my mind for violation of the law by government officials.

    9. Re:Whats this?! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Why are people so fucking pleased with an apology? If there is a particularly bad pothole in the road, I want an apology and to have it fixed. If a civil authority fails to follow the same laws it imposes on it's populace, heads should roll and jail sentences should be handed out.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    10. Re:Whats this?! by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      No, we also take mistakes into account.

      If you mistakenly pick up the wrong bag you will usually be able to explain the error and not get arrested and charged with theft. Heck you can shoot someone and if the police believe your story that the guy was attacking you won't get arrested or charged with that either (at least until it becomes a major national news story).

      And of course you only get hit with whatever the law states is the penalty. Often enough such restrictions on government actions don't bother having penalties.

    11. Re:Whats this?! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      An apology is just so great compared to the "fuck you, deal with it" that we've all come to expect.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Whats this?! by The+Moof · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, we also take mistakes into account.

      Yea, we do to an extent. But this wasn't a case of "oops, we accidentally spied on you," this was a case of "we intentionally spied on you, and it turns out that was illegal."

      Ignorance of the law doesn't make you exempt from the punishment for your crime.

    13. Re:Whats this?! by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Unless someone in the government is charged with the crimes and subsequently convicted, the "apology" is meaningless.

      So you'd rather the official in question deny any wrongdoing? If not, then it isn't meaningless.

    14. Re:Whats this?! by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      I fI make a mistake and someone dies, the prison sentence might be lighter, but Im still probably going to jail.

    15. Re:Whats this?! by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ignorance of the law doesn't make you exempt from the punishment for your crime.

      No, but based on the data, direct involvement in writing the laws does.

    16. Re:Whats this?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yes, being from the U.S., this was the part of the story that piqued my interest. An apology from the government? We've never heard of such a thing. In fact if you listen to certain parties in the presidential race, government should never apologize!

      Really? Because I would think, as a fellow American, that you'd be pretty used to phoned-in, insincere "apologies" from political figures by now.

      Words are cheap, bro.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Whats this?! by micheas · · Score: 1

      MIn countries like the US, and NZ that use British common law as the foundation of their legal system. Legislative intent matters.

      If you wrote the law, you can say "That's not what I ment when I wrote the law." Which is work to overcome. (Obviously statements that are were made during the time the law was passed can be used to impeach that statement, but the legislator has an a ace in the hole when being charged with a crime he/she wrote.)

    18. Re:Whats this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was a case of "we intentionally spied on you, and we fully knew turns out that was illegal."

      There, fixed that for ya.

    19. Re:Whats this?! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Not that I've looked closely or anything. But I thought it was a case of they are allowed to spy on X, they are not allowed to spy on Y. Someone put him in category X when he should be in category Y. If that was actually a mistake then it could be an "oops".

      I'm not saying that makes it OK. At the very least somebody high up should be out of a job already. And it should be being investigated, but there's that slight possibility someone actually did make an honest mistake (and losing your job would be a justifiable punishment for such a critical mistake). You'd have to offer me really good odds for me to bet on that though...

    20. Re:Whats this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If what was meant when the law was written doesn't match explicitly with the wording of the law, why was it passed?

    21. Re:Whats this?! by guttentag · · Score: 1

      If someone "broke the law" that makes them a _______? The correct answer is "criminal". By definition.

      IANAL, and I used to believe this was true as well. And then I was informed by a lawyer that this is not the case. From Wikipedia's article on Crime, paragraph 2:

      While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Modern societies generally regard crimes as offences against the public or the state, as distinguished from torts (wrongs against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action).

      While it may seem like I'm splitting hairs or trolling, in reality it actually makes a difference in how a person is dealt with for breaking the law.

    22. Re:Whats this?! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      While it may seem like I'm splitting hairs or trolling, in reality it actually makes a difference in how a person is dealt with for breaking the law.

      Agree. But in this case it most definitely is an offence against the public and the state, therefore the perpetrators are criminals and should be dealt with as such.

    23. Re:Whats this?! by styrotech · · Score: 1

      It was a mistake, and a fairly low level one at that.

      When asked by the cops to snoop on the big german with the funny accent, the GCSB asked the NZ Police if he was a NZ resident, and were stupid enough to take the cops word for it instead of double checking that for themselves.

      This is Keystone Cops stuff rather than Big Brother.

    24. Re:Whats this?! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Aint that the truth. The IRD (our tax department) has used that particular pearler a couple of times to hit taxpayers with millions of dollars in back taxes and penalties for doing things which by the letter of the law are perfectly legal. Often several years after the record keeping statute on the alleged offence expires. And their justification is "that's not what parliament meant!"

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  3. Fair is fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since government broke their side of the "social contract", I expect that citizens should be able to do so with no recourse.

    (If you look close enough, you will find that government routinely breaks their side of the "contract".)

    1. Re:Fair is fair by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I would use the word "always".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. Still not over. by Infernal+Device · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Awesome. Thanks.

    Now, how about handing out some punishments to the people responsible, so they don't try this sort of bullshit again?

    --
    "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    1. Re:Still not over. by davegravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoa Whoa WHOA!

      That's not the kind apology the PM was offering. It was more a "sorry about your luck" kind of apology, not the "this is broken and needs to be fixed" variety.

    2. Re:Still not over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I doubt I could break the law and get away withit by apologizing, so why should they?

    3. Re:Still not over. by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      We're sorry... http://vimeo.com/16337587

    4. Re:Still not over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, how about handing out some punishments to the people responsible, so they don't try this sort of bullshit again?

      Also I don't hear any talk about reimbursing him for the damage done.
      Unless the apology actually means "Sorry, but if we don't like you, we are going to have to fuck you over - illegally if we have to. But we will probably apologize later!"

    5. Re:Still not over. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Can't do that. The whole government and its supporters would be in jail. Until we vote them out we are all responsible. Keeping the government honest is our responsibility.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Still not over. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or at least is was until we started calling whistles blowers enemy of the state (like one Julian Assange) now people that try to keep the government honest are to be executed with extreme prejudiced.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    7. Re:Still not over. by Infernal+Device · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also your job to punish failure and merely "not re-electing" them is a pretty weak gesture, honestly.

      These people ignored the law, destroyed the man's business, and handed the assets over to a foreign government who will never return them. How about I kick in your door in the middle of the night, steal all your assets and hand them over to the Chinese government and say it's punishment for all the slave labor that goes into producing half the goods you and your family use to survive?

      Sorry, but I think it's time some people were very publicly named, shamed and imprisoned for not only their failure to follow the law, but the misinterpretation of it in the first place.

      Public service is a privilege and the failure to properly exercise that privilege should, by definition, come with a higher punishment than standard crimes.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    8. Re:Still not over. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, it still is. If you want to change the rules, you have to change the people who make them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Still not over. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Right. This sounded more like "I'm sorry you're upset about what we did to you." not "I'm sorry about what we did to you."

    10. Re:Still not over. by LVSlushdat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That term "Enemy Of The State" gives me the creeps.. I'm old enough to remember clearly the old USSR and all of the behavior that went on in that country during that time. That term, enemy of the state, was used a LOT back then.. When I hear *my* country using it, I become very upset. Of course, the US government could care less what one 62 year old Vietnam vet thinks.. Clearly it seems the USA is well on its way down the road to being a replay of the old USSR, without the Russian language..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    11. Re:Still not over. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I thought it was more a 'sorry we got caught' sort of apology.

    12. Re:Still not over. by eulernet · · Score: 1

      No, it's more a:

      "I'm sorry that we have been caught spying and lying".

      Of course, a simple apology will help him feel good about himself.

    13. Re:Still not over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The good news being, that the gulags in Arizona will have much nicer weather than the ones in Siberia.

    14. Re:Still not over. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You mean because you get sunstroke and dehydration rather than frostbite?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Still not over. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      why would we put them in Arizona near all of that prime retirement land for arthritic party members, when we have all of that Alaskan tundra to build traditional gulags in just like Stalin used to make, where to send all of the inconvenient people to freeze to death I mean be reeducated what i meant to say was be rehabilitate.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    16. Re:Still not over. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Um, his business was destroyed by the US and Hong Kong governments thanks very much. The NZ government only got his personal assets which, while bad, did not destroy his business. His business was destroyed by the US government seizing the servers, and the HK government seizing the company itself.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    17. Re:Still not over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all well and good, but it's not going to happen, and nobody can do anything about it. Fun and games!

    18. Re:Still not over. by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      These people ignored the law, destroyed the man's business, and handed the assets over to a foreign government who will never return them. How about I kick in your door in the middle of the night, steal all your assets and hand them over to the Chinese government and say it's punishment for all the slave labor that goes into producing half the goods you and your family use to survive?

      As opposed to the United States where they can perform no-knock raids in the middle of the night and kill innocent little kids and former marines with zero consequences?

  5. Hollow sentiment by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come back when you've prosecuted those guilty of breaking the law during this process, all the way up to your own staff. I'd also say that he should be compensated for losses, but it would be paid with tax payer money, and ultimately it's not the tax payers who threw him to the wolves.

    FWIW, Kim Dotcom is a scheister with a history of extremely shady business dealings, but even criminals deserve justice.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Dotcom is a scheister with a history of extremely shady business dealings

      Citation needed.

    2. Re:Hollow sentiment by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...

      FWIW, Kim Dotcom is a scheister with a history of extremely shady business dealings, but even criminals deserve justice.

      Yep, well, it seems to me if he was such a bad character, then they wouldn't need to break laws and trample his rights bring him to justice.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Hollow sentiment by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kim Dotcom is a scheister with a history of extremely shady business dealings

      Citation needed.

      Kim Schmitz' criminal history with all of the citations you need.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, look at his Wikipedia entry. Plenty of references there. Let's not try to paint him to be a saint or champion of copyright reform. He's like 99% of the population and quite self-serving. Good for him.

    5. Re:Hollow sentiment by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You do realise that history is the past, right? It's in his past. He has a past history of crime, including breaking in to protected computer systems and selling access for profit, and pump-and-dumping stock fraud.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An asshat who takes advantage of people still deserves the protection of law UNLESS he can be proved to have broken it.

      I don't think any government can legitimately claim that he has, even if he might be a scheister. Obviously, I'm discounting US claims as illegitimate. Even if he was aware the site was hosting copyrighted content, his only legal obligation was to react to legitimate requests for removal, which I believe they did. Beyond that, it blows my mind that this could be a criminal case...

    7. Re:Hollow sentiment by schwit1 · · Score: 2

      No doubt.

      Somebody at the top needs to go to jail for a long time, and anybody who knew about it and didn't try to stop it should be fired and heavily fined.

      For John Key to do otherwise is to tacitly approve it and only be upset that they got caught.

      NB
      In the USA these criminal actions would warrant promotions.

    8. Re:Hollow sentiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...it's not the tax payers who threw him to the wolves.

      Yes it is. They vote for the people who did this, and will do little to remove them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Hollow sentiment by X.25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kim Schmitz' criminal history with all of the citations you need.

      And?

      He did stupid things when he was younger. Real shocker.

      He has been living a decent life for a long time, he has settled down and became a real family man, and you are still going to justify shit done to him now because of things he has done 10+ years ago (and was held responsible for it and was punished)?

      He is turning up to be the most honest of the whole bunch involved in this circus.

    10. Re:Hollow sentiment by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Isn't 'past history' redundant?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Hollow sentiment by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well the solution is simple, pay him with tax money, then recover it from those responsible.

    12. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And?

      And thus the parent's request for proof that he has a bad history has been answered. There is no "and".

      He has been living a decent life for a long time, he has settled down and became a real family man, and you are still going to justify shit done to him now because of things he has done 10+ years ago (and was held responsible for it and was punished)?

      Maybe he has. Maybe he just managed to not get caught. The law has a statute of limitations, I do not. Nowhere did the poster attempt to justify what was done, in fact if you actually bothered to READ the posts instead of posting a knee-jerk response you wouldn't be looking like a grade A idiot right now.

    13. Re:Hollow sentiment by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      He didn't "justify shit done to him now", in fact he explicitly stating "even criminals deserve justice" in the same sentence.

    14. Re:Hollow sentiment by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I felt I needed to be explicit, though, as some people don't seem to understand that "history" is longer than a couple of months ago.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:Hollow sentiment by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Obviously, but apparently Nyder didn't know what the word history meant, and so it was explained to him.

      Making redundant statements to more clearly repeat a claim that has been misunderstood due to an apparent lack of knowledge of a particular word's meaning isn't that unusual.

    16. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, most of that seems to be naivety of youth and that's even with the fact the Wikipedia article seems to be written with a hint of bias against him:

      "With insider trading charges pending, Schmitz decided it was time to lay low (by his standards)"

      By his standards? what's that supposed to mean? that sounds like a pretty subjective jab being made, rather than a simple factual commentary.

      It doesn't look like he's done anything wrong in about 10 years now beyond the Megaupload case so he was still in his 20s when all this happened. If the prosecution had to provide criminal intent in the insider trading case and he genuinely did it with naivety then where is the criminality? It's certainly less criminal than much of the goings on in banks that's been uncovered since the advent of the financial crisis where no one has been punished.

      Honestly, as far as criminal backgrounds go I have more problem with someone who has a driving conviction for driving whilst on their mobile phone - at least that sort of conviction means they were a real actual danger to someone. This isn't to completely defend his actions, but honestly, there are far worse people in the world out there far less deserving of justice than this guy. He's not done anything so ethically or morally wrong that anyone can reasonably suggest it's justification for him to deserve having his rights run roughshod over.

    17. Re:Hollow sentiment by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Please notice also the apparent fact that "...police clearly knew of Dotcom’s residency status when they compiled a planning document known as the 'Blue Folder' in which help from the anti-terrorist Special Tactics Group was requested." (emphasis mine)

      If that's true, they apparently didn't just break the law intentionally, but also got the "Anti-terrorist Special Tactics Group" involved. Because we all know that running a business which might enable people to commit copyright infringement is terrorism.

    18. Re:Hollow sentiment by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An asshat who takes advantage of people still deserves the protection of law [snip].

      FTFY. I know this is hard to get into some people's brains but everybody is under the protection of law, including people who break it.

    19. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is turning up to be the most honest of the whole bunch involved in this circus.>/quote> its a low standard to beat

    20. Re:Hollow sentiment by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Anybody who thinks Kim Dotcom is a sympathetic figure has his head up his ass. He was making lots of money off of piracy while trying to be about as respectable as a "massage parlor" fronting for prostitution. It fits completely with his shady history. Sure, the governments fucked up in how they went after him, but the guy is still a worm.

    21. Re:Hollow sentiment by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Whether is is slime (and I honestly dont care) is not important. He was violated in multiple ways. He deserves way more than an apology.

    22. Re:Hollow sentiment by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, like prostitution, which is a completely legitimate business forced to work around illegitimate laws. Your "moral authorities" all have histories that can't be examined too closely and bank accounts stuffed with cash, but unlike Dotcom they make the lives of the people worse rather than better. Kopimism is the one true faith.

    23. Re:Hollow sentiment by lionchild · · Score: 1

      If you were going to pay compesations, you could give it in tax credits, meaning he didn't have to pay taxes on the next specified amount of money. Then tax payers aren't actually paying out money, they're just not receiving his portion of money.

      He'd file taxes as usual, then instead of having to may his share, he just keeps that money until they've effectively paid him his compensation.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    24. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was making lots of money off of piracy while trying to be about as respectable as a "massage parlor" fronting for prostitution.

      Given that governments should have no business telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, you're not saying much, bub.

      Now if you said he kicked puppies, or served in a legislature, I might buy in to the disparagement.

      As for the piracy bit, he seems far cleaner than the whole of the music industry, which enjoys free money from the sales of blank recording media for the sake of 'piracy', yet is still allowed to waste the time of our courts with such nonsense.

    25. Re:Hollow sentiment by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep, in fact the term "outlaw" comes from the old English legal system. To be made an outlaw meant you were formally stripped of the protection of the law. When you were declared an outlaw you were symbolically taken to the border of the village and then left to the mercy of your accusers. In practice it was a mere formality, most outlaws were escorted to the village trash heap by an angry mob of accusers and simply had their throats slit.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:Hollow sentiment by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If that's true, they apparently didn't just break the law intentionally, but also got the "Anti-terrorist Special Tactics Group" involved.

      Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that someone "mistakenly" put him on the wrong shit list, could it?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:Hollow sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, he is a persona non grata in the German hacker scene. That is difficult to achieve and he made it.

    28. Re:Hollow sentiment by Tom · · Score: 1

      He did stupid things when he was younger. Real shocker.

      Stock manipulation, insider trading and embezzlement aren't "stupid things", and most of his criminal history happened in his 20s and early 30s.
      He's a con man, a criminal and a wannabe-hacker. He's the kind of asshole we don't want. Here in Germany, I don't know of a single person in the hacking szene with any respect for him whatsoever.

      He never settled down, he simply went through several criminal enterprises without getting caught. Why do you think he moved around all the time, changed citizenship and flipped fingers at the FBI at several occasions?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    29. Re:Hollow sentiment by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Need I point out that in NZ, where Kim Dotcom lives, prostitution is both legal and taxed?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    30. Re:Hollow sentiment by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Like fuck. I voted against the cunt.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    31. Re:Hollow sentiment by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      Clare Curran started all this shit. She's the one who introduced S92a. The Labour Party are constantly trying to cuddle up to the media. Clare Curran wants to introduce a levy on our internet use to give to media companies!!

      Don't you realise that John Key is Prime Minister. He doesn't micromanage every trial going on in the country.

      The GCSB was left to its own devices and fucked up. The police fucked up. It's not the Prime Minister's fault. But he stands up, and apologises to NZ for having such a fucked up service. You have to respect someone who does that.

      Unless you're jealous of how he's richer than you.

    32. Re:Hollow sentiment by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      We don't vote for the GCSB or the Police, or our judges for that matter. Those agencies (especially the spy agencies and judges) are very powerful and can do whatever they want without requiring public scrutiny.

    33. Re:Hollow sentiment by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      He never settled down, he simply went through several criminal enterprises without getting caught.

      How do you know this? - If he didn't get caught he wasn't convicted and then it basically didn't happen.

      Why do you think he moved around all the time, changed citizenship and flipped fingers at the FBI at several occasions?

      Well, the FBI are just so stupid that they need any wakeup calls they can get, and flipping fingers at them is a start - as well as the proper response to bottomless stupidity.

      Why do they think they can reshape the law to suit their purposes? - In this matter they twisted the civil matter of alleged aiding in copyright infringement into a major criminal conspiracy just so they could abuse Interpol and the police of a foreign country (FBI is only mandated to work in the US) to act on their behalf?

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    34. Re:Hollow sentiment by Tom · · Score: 1

      How do you know this? - If he didn't get caught he wasn't convicted and then it basically didn't happen.

      You are confusing things here. Reality and court verdicts. There are plenty of unsolved murder cases in every country - nobody was convicted for them, and for some nobody ever will. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. The victims are dead and buried. Whether or not the criminal was caught and/or convicted has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the crime has occured.

      What you are saying is that we don't know if they are criminal or not. That's true. We don't have evidence for it. However, we have circumstancial evidence. Kim was a convicted criminal when he left Germany about 10 years ago. Since then he has flipped the finger at law enforcement at multiple opportunities. Now he was caught in a big criminal enterprise that took a few years to set up.

      How high are the chances that a convicted criminal goes clean for a while, makes tons of money legally, and then suddenly starts another criminal enterprise? For what reason would he do that if he is already rich?
      How high are the chances that he never changed his methods and simply used bribes and influence to stay out of trouble?

      Ockhams Razor says he's been a criminal all along.

      In this matter they twisted the civil matter of alleged aiding in copyright infringement into a major criminal conspiracy just so they could abuse Interpol and the police of a foreign country

      I know a little about how these laws work because my last job was as the IT Compliance manager for a large company. When you say "organized crime" or "criminal conspiracy" you think about the Mafia or the Yakuza. But the legal definition of these terms is that several people conspire to commit a crime. In the eyes of the law, if you and I and two other buddies meet over drinks and come up with a plan to rob the gas station across the street, that's a criminal conspiracy.

      And that is why, even if your personal understanding of the term doesn't fit, Megaupload was a criminal conspiracy.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    35. Re:Hollow sentiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Then vote for politicians that will change the regulations. I find it fascinating the things people do to evade their responsibilities. You all will give me hell while reelecting crooks. It makes no sense. Save your angst for those who are voting these people in. There are the enemy here, not the government itself. To me, all these continuing government abuses are a result of the failure of majority rule if the majority can't/won't correct the problem.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:Hollow sentiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Voted for Kodos, did you?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    37. Re:Hollow sentiment by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      You've got an overly optimistic view on the power of democracy. Even in NZ where we get a semi-representative government, crap like this is not really a voting issue. There isn't the option to vote for anyone who would disband these agencies.

      The agencies made stupid mistakes. So who do I vote for? The guy who says "under me government agencies won't make mistakes"? Because if he says that, he's bullshitting.

      The root cause is lobbying by media companies and other interest groups who want to restrict what the public can do on the internet. Unfortunately all parties (especially the Labour Party in opposition who wants to levy the internet and give the money to media companies) are swayed by this. You can't win.

    38. Re:Hollow sentiment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You've got an overly optimistic view on the power of democracy.

      Yeah, maybe it's because I have yet to see it exercised. People oughta give it a shot before giving up on it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    39. Re:Hollow sentiment by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      In retrospect, it certainly feels like it. I voted for the Greens because their platform while incomplete aligned mostly with my interests. After all, they unanimously voted against the Skynet Bill.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    40. Re:Hollow sentiment by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The GCSB reports to the Office of the Prime Minister. He personally is where the buck stops - it is his fault, same as how it would have been Helen Clark's fault if the GCSB did it on her watch.

      An no, I'm not jealous of him. I despise National and all it stands for with a fiery rage only slightly less than the one I reserve for ACT. They exist solely to undermine the social fabric of our perfectly well balanced country in favour of the rich individuals and the overseas corporates. Under National, we've seen education eroded, healthcare eroded, increased armament of the police, prisons outsourced to a company which consistently fails 16 of 19 performance metrics, the impending sale of the entirety of the profitable SOE portfolio, our national debt more than quintupled, billions of tax dollars wasted in roads which noone wants or needs except maybe Fulton Hogan and Mainfreight, the largest region of the country merged into a massive city which is resulting in rates increases anywhere from 100% to 500% (under the guise of saving money, of course), social support for single mothers crushed into oblivion (with crippling work-testing obligations), increased crime (they claim it decreased though - because they started excluding family violence), and the list just goes on. But hey, if you're earning over $70,000 a year and you don't give a shit about your fellow humans, then I suppose that's fine by you.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  6. Kudos! by zixxt · · Score: 2

    Kudos and well done John Key you have earned my respect, New Zealand sounds like a awesome place.

    Here in America we are still waiting for Obama to apologize for murdering American citizens, and putting us in concentration camps.

    --
    ---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Kudos! by OverkillTASF · · Score: 1

      I knew I didn't like Obama, I just didn't realize I had been killed and have been living in a concentration camp?

    2. Re:Kudos! by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      The apology is worthless. If you set up the same intercept kit the government is using - which is not actually illegal, all on NZ soil, then used it to intercept the PM's phone and data channels via a box in the telco exchange, a satellite link, or the cell tower microwave trunks in his area, you would be fined or more likely end up in jail.

      The law is quite clear on this, if one end point is overseas and one domestic, the domestic party can never be identified. Ever. Regardless of citizenship.

    3. Re:Kudos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term they used is "foreign agent". The fact Dotcom is a permanent resident makes him outside the jurisdiction of the GBDGSBSGSGS (sic). You can have foreign agents on NZ soil (on a visit, waiting for their status to clear, etc) and they could be monitored in the manner that they did this mess in.

      This is not unique to NZ. The CSIS in Canada can do pretty much the same as proved since 9/11.

    4. Re:Kudos! by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I'm an ex-3-letter agency drone of more than a decade, your qualification on the subject good sir is what exactly? Best guess?

    5. Re:Kudos! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That's because you aren't Anwar Al-Awlaki, or his son (neither of which were ever proven to have anything to do with terrorism in any kind of judicial process).

      As far as living in a concentration camp, I assume he's referring to Gitmo, which last I checked had released the US citizens imprisoned there (e.g. Yaser Esam Hamdi, in 2004).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Kudos! by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      Here in America we are still waiting for Obama to apologize for murdering American citizens, and putting us in concentration camps.

      Murdering American citizens, Check.... Putting us in concentration camps.. Coming up!! Watch and see what happens when Obama gets handed his ass
      on a plate in November.. He's then a lame duck with nearly 3 months to do all sorts of mischief, armed with the NDAA and all of his EO's... Just watch and see what kind of even MORE blatantly un-constitutional stuff he can come up with in that time,

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    7. Re:Kudos! by rolfeb · · Score: 1

      OK, well why not refute his comments then, rather than engaging in a penis-length comparison?

    8. Re:Kudos! by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I've read the law, which makes me more qualified to answer than you.

      Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

      Your assertion is incorrect. The law is perfectly clear on this - intercepting domestic communications is perfectly legal, provided that neither party is a citizen or permanent resident.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    9. Re:Kudos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Because the NEXT guy in will just clean things right up, because he's a True American! He'll make sure that terrorists get their comeuppance! He'll see to it that Gitmo is closed! He'll make absolutely sure that choice is removed in favour of his religious beliefs! But he'll be better than Obama.

  7. Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This report shows that officials broke the law. People that break the law should be investigated, if they did it willfully or worse, for profit, then they should go to jail.

    Fairly sure that won't happen.

    Hope Kim DotCom has the balls to sue the hell out of the New Zealand government, basically they are now responsible for disrupting his business and the service to millions of users with no cause. No point in sueing the US, Americans have no honor but if the New Zealand government has to cough up several hundred millions, other governments might grow a backbone. Human rights matter little but no politician like to be held accountable for such a visible waste of tax payers money. HAHA, yeah, I know.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hope Kim DotCom has the balls to sue the hell out of the New Zealand government

      New Zealanders don't really do lawsuits. It's more of a "oh well, it was a learning experience" sort of thing. New Zealand has "government inquiries" and "investigations", which can occasionally result in victims being given money for bad practises (and maybe levies going up), but those tend to be trying to push the perpetrators to spend money (or fix problems) instead of the victims pulling money from others.

    2. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hope Kim DotCom has the balls to sue the hell out of the New Zealand government, basically they are now responsible for disrupting his business and the service to millions of users with no cause. No point in sueing the US, the **American Government** has no honor but if the New Zealand government has to cough up several hundred millions, other governments might grow a backbone. Human rights matter little but no politician like to be held accountable for such a visible waste of tax payers money. HAHA, yeah, I know."

      There. Fixed that for you. Do not assume the general American population agrees with our governmental policies. However, it seems that no matter who is elected to replace the last idiot in charge, we simply end up with another one. This will remain until our two party system is abolished, the media is no longer controlled by a few companies and folks put down their phones and Starbucks long enough to give a sh*t.

    3. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a simple american that's just living his life by the day and actually *trying* to lead his life in the direction that he wants, I'd like to send a big FUCK YOU to the foot of your bed.

      Don't lump all of us in with our government and/or mega-corporations.

    4. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here in reality, the U.S. is by far the number one country in the world when it comes to allowing people (citizens or not) to sue the government for wrongdoing. American courts are far more open to those cases that anywhere else.

    5. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, it wasn't the NZ govt that shut off his Mega site and destroyed people's data, it was the United Shithole of Arse. NZ just bent over to their demands and ARRESTED Kim. Then apologized when they realized they made a mistake. Go seek your justice and reparations from the real criminals and good luck with that!

    6. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You can sue anyone over anything, if you have the money, and you dare. Getting any justice is another matter. What you get is lawyer's bills. You can also get stuck with whopping court costs that equal your opposition's lawyers bills, and perhaps with their lawyer bills to boot. (I'm assuming that you are suing someone, or some corporation, who is wealthier than you are, and better politically connected...though that's not a simple thing to figure out, and some corporations have been surprised.)

      Now what I said doesn't apply in all cases, but suing anyone over anything is dangerous.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Tom · · Score: 1

      Hope Kim DotCom has the balls to sue the hell out of the New Zealand government,

      Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

      This would be a first. I haven't yet heard of drug dealers suing the government for busting them and disrupting their business.

      Megaupload was a criminal enterprise, and illegal wiretaps or no there is still more than enough evidence of it. It was correct to bust it. It was not correct to do it the way they did it. There's a difference between arresting an innocent and arresting a criminal in an incorrect way.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? Fuck off, troll. The government broke the law, and you're an idiot. Everything they did is null and void.

      There's a difference between arresting an innocent and arresting a criminal in an incorrect way.

      The trial isn't even over, imbecile. Innocent until proven guilty.

    9. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The US GOVERNMENT shut down his business and disrupted those users, idiot. The New Zealand government arrested two people - which impacts on just those two people. The Hong Kong government seized all his business assets.

      How the fuck is this shit insightful?

      Also, you can't sue our government without their permission - sovereign fucking immunity.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    10. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      Criminal enterprise? What for? For having a site you can upload things to?

    11. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone said a few threads up, "by not doing anything about it, [you're] effectively condoning it."

    12. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Tom · · Score: 0

      Reading skills would be useful.

      Megaupload intentionally and knowingly invited and rewarded copyright infringement. That's a crime. That's the exact kind of crime you do not want if you want to keep making a copy of a love song for your girlfriend legal.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Apology means nothing, words are cheap. by Tom · · Score: 1

      Get a brain and use it, it would help.

      First, no, not everything they did is null and void. Some of the evidence they collected will become inadmissable at court. The part they collected illegally. The other evidence will remain.

      Two, innocent until proven guilty is a concept of the legal system and I am neither judge nor court, so I can say whatever the fuck I want, and everyone who has half a brain can look at just the evidence presented so far and it is crystal clear that they were criminals. Sure it needs proving in court, which takes time and isn't done yet, but when you have the criminals themselves on record colluding on their criminal activities, the yes/no question becomes boring and the "what do they get?" question becomes primary.

      Three, he is a convicted criminal for other crimes. The guy isn't a clean sheet, he's not a freedom fighter caught by evil big brother, he's a career criminal and whether or not this time they can prove it doesn't change the fact that he has multiple convictions on his record already.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  8. Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whoopsie, we illegally destroyed your multi-million dollar company and damaged the brand to the point that even if we gave you all your servers back your user base will never recover to what it was! Our bad!

    Talk is cheap. Sending the people who actually broke the law to jail and paying Kim for lost revenue would be a step in the right direction. Even then, his company has been irreparably damaged by these actions.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by cpghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even then, his company has been irreparably damaged by these actions.

      Which was precisely the point of the drill, wasn't it? Legalities matter little to those in power: results do.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I'm certain Kim will chase after the NZ government for damages in a civil court.

      The PM's apology is hollow. No mention of any action on the accountable parties and no mention of reviewing processes to ensure that this never happens again. Someone was too keen to ingratiate himself with the Americans and he should pay the price!

    3. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by schlachter · · Score: 1

      not multi million dollar company...but BILLION dollar company...according to some valuations bf the incident

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    4. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why we have punitive fines. e.g. those in power should be stripped of such power. forever. You destroy a company illegally, the remainder of your life will suck.

    5. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What "lost revenue"? Is that like when media companies "lose revenue" to piracy because someone else's actions result in them getting less money than they think they deserve?

      That argument cuts both ways. Since "Dotcom" was - let's be honest - growing rich from ripping off the MPAA et al, I find it hard to sympathise with his predicament.

      No, that doesn't mean I'm pro MPAA - we're just watching a struggle between an engorged leech and the bloated tick that fastened onto it.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      But NZ is not responsible for the servers, or are they? They'd point to the US government for that, and I think that would be correct in this case.

    7. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Is that like when media companies "lose revenue" to piracy because someone else's actions result in them getting less money than they think they deserve?

      That's a poor analogy between the two. A better one would be if pirates, instead of copying music/movies, literally kidnapped all the actors/performers.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    8. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      What "lost revenue"?

      Well, US did seize his servers. And cut out access to his customer accounts, including his paying customers. So (orthogonal to legality questions), there is some actual, lost revenue.

      Since "Dotcom" was - let's be honest - growing rich from ripping off the MPAA et al, I find it hard to sympathise with his predicament.

      You don't have to sympathize with him to insist on legality of his treatment. Let them punish Dotcom legally, if he's such a bad guy

      Or do you mean illegal means are fine with you as long as the guy is scumbag?

    9. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Sending the people who actually broke the law to jail and paying Kim for lost revenue would be a step in the right direction.

      Are you fucking kidding me?

      Kim is a criminal, period. Has been for over a decade. I'm more surprised by the fact that it took them so long to take him down than anything else. Heck, when he left Germany, many of us would've taken bets on how many months it'll take for his crimes to catch up to him and land him in jail.

      Yes, they broke the law. Doesn't mean he didn't. Can you stop thinking in terms other than good/bad, black/white, 0/1 ? If anything, then this whole story is evidence that in real life, the story often isn't about good vs. evil but about evil vs. other evil.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      He's done nothing wrong. Except for being rich - but I bet you think that's a crime too.

    11. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Do I need to spell it out for you? He's already a convicted criminal, multiple times in fact.

      Megaupload was a criminal enterprise and while legally he is innocent until proven guilty, if you look at the facts that were collected, it is highly unlikely he will walk free. Some parts of the evidence will become inadmissible because of this blunder, but others will remain.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      Megaupload was not a criminal enterprise. It was a website you could upload things to.

    13. Re:Oh! "We're Very Sorry"?! by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'm really sorry that they took out your brain last time you were at the hospital. Does it hurt much? ;-)

      megaupload.com was a website. Megaupload the company was a corporate entity, and its employees and owners were engaged in a conspiracy to aid copyright infringement, if you want the full legal terminology. That is a criminal enterprise by the law books of pretty much every western country.

      I hope you find someone to explain that to you in simple words, because unfortunately the wikipedia page is not available in simple english.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. Good, now prosecute the people responsible by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now the PM needs to follow up by tasking their equivalent of the US Attorney General to investigate and prosecute. If that equivalent is implicated, the PM needs to appoint a special prosecutor to carry out the investigation and file charges where appropriate. As a conservative American, I gladly include our representatives to New Zealand in that mix if legally possible and they conspired to break the laws (meaning were briefed and involved in the strategy for taking down Dotcom). If the roles were reversed, I'd want to see New Zealand's people taken away in dark SUVs by G-Men on charge of violating civil liberties under color of authority (a felony in the US).

    1. Re:Good, now prosecute the people responsible by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Now the PM needs to follow up by tasking their equivalent of the US Attorney General to investigate and prosecute

      Well, the same position, but different in that the NZ guy needs to actually prosecute government officials when they commit crimes.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Good, now prosecute the people responsible by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, diplomatic immunity would apply so we couldn't arrest your representatives (and vice-versa).

      We could always found a Royal Commission of Inquiry? That would probably be a bad idea though, since all they ever tend to do is recommend shit which violates established law (the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland, which resulted in an illegal local authority merger by some right wing cock trying to hand the city to his business mates).

      We don't have Attorney Generals, or an equivalent, so that's out. And the highest authority in the land, the Governor General, is... former director of the Government Communications Security Bureau. Uh oh.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  10. AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This business is amazingly stupid on the part of the US and New Zealand governments. MegaUpload really was a criminal enterprise: their entire business model was facilitated on fake takedowns, incentives for copyright violations, and other games. That it is gone is good riddance.

    But they didn't need to create a massive violation of the law like this and create a huge circus about it: They had enough evidence to get plenty of legal wiretaps. They didn't need to come in with the SWAT team. If they played it by the book, Mr Dotcom would probably already have been extradited to the US.

    But instead it is horribly misplayed, and as a result there is a non-trivial chance that Dotcom will slip free with his millions intact.

    This is why law enforcement needs to actually follow the law.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Eh, the MPAA busted up his racket pretty effectively. That's how mob turfs wars works. Far more efficient than dull old due process.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      They had enough evidence to get plenty of legal wiretaps. ... But instead it is horribly misplayed, and as a result there is a non-trivial chance that Dotcom will slip free with his millions intact.

      His servers have been seized long ago, though. Even if he gets them back, the business is presumably damaged beyond repair (whether it was legal or not)

      That was probably the point -- why bother with unpredictable "legal" routes, when you can just quickly eradicate his business? But yes, law enforcement _should_ follow laws, even if it is easier not to.

    3. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by ram.loss · · Score: 1

      It's only stupid if you think it was about upholding the law to take down an illegal enterprise, which it wasn't. It was to send a message to all other sites: 'you could be next'.
      And now the message is complete: we did this, it was illegal and your business is over and even the local government admits it, an yet there will be no consequences for those who did it.
      So, it's a nice little service you have here, would be a shame if something happened to it.

    4. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by Drogo007 · · Score: 1

      "This is why law enforcement needs to actually follow the law."

      Except that's NOT what the conniving bastards behind this will take away from this.

      THEY will take away the fact that they need to ram through even HARSHER laws that prevent the need for apologies.

      Why yes I'm bitter and cynical, why do you ask?

    5. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by mounthood · · Score: 1

      How do you get from unfounded accusations ("fake takedowns, incentives for copyright violations") to "MegaUpload really was a criminal enterprise"?

      If you think the takedown compliance was "fake" because it un-linked a file without deleting it, you should know that Google does the same thing with their music service -- uploaded music is hashed and linked, not stored uniquely. Accusing MegaUpload of "incentives" is as nebulous as it gets. What did they do that was illegal?

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    6. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That it is gone is good riddance.

      Fuck you with a rake.

      Some of us liked that service. Just because you didn't like it, it doesn't mean it should be taken away from the rest of us.

      Very much alike the islamists, if something offends you, it should be completely removed from everyone?

      As I said: fuck you.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That he is actually *is* guilty is an interesting assertion. I wouldn't say it's implausible, but I certainly haven't seen any proof. Just lots of assertions without evidence.

      OTOH, I had never heard of his company before this action. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they couldn't find any evidence is because there isn't any to be found. Hearing lots of assertions of his guilt recited over and over makes me skeptical. And the more so because a large number of those reciting the accusations are "anonymous coward".

      Still, the name of his company is a suspicious name, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually is guilty, to some extent, of something. But that isn't the reason that I feel the police should be forced to follow the law, and punished SEVERELY when they break it. The reason for that is that anyone can have a politically powerful enemy, one they may not even know of. (There is an example of someone using police powers to aid his brother-in--law. This was, IIRC, a British police sergeant [equivalent?], so not someone you would normally think of as a high ranking political enemy, but because of access to police computers and records, he effectively was one.)

      Whenever any individual is in a position of greater than normal power, that individual should also be held to a stricter than normal standard of behavior. WHENEVER! It's much more reasonable to forgive those who are relatively powerless for minor transgressions.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:AMAZINGLY stupid on the US/NZ government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this has undeniably hurt him, he has also got a lot of publicity from it, which he can make good use of. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up better off in the long run.

  11. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Look, if you're going to be the United States of MPAA's bitch, these things are bound to happen. Just don't let it happen again without modifying your laws to comply with MPAA guidelines, or your units^H^H^H^H^Hcitizens will start to get uppity.

  12. Bullied by neghvar1 · · Score: 1

    That's what happens when you allow yourself to be pressured, harassed and bullied by Hollywood. Hastily comply with their demands before checking to see if it is legal.

    1. Re:Bullied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we all remember who owns Hollywood, right? At the heart of every plot and every evil, there you will find the jew.

  13. I'm fond of Jacobin's article on the topic by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, a willfully tacky fat guy with a baby face and a vanity license plate that says "guilty," has styled himself as a kind of comic villain, a composite of everything people love to hate. He effectively serves as empire's face of piracy: an overweight nouveau-riche wannabe hacker who finally gets his comeuppance through the macho justice of Uncle Sam. It's so easy to hate Kim Dotcom that you almost forget that the US convinced the New Zealand government to send in an assault brigade, bereft of a valid warrant but outfitted with automatic weapons and helicopters, to arrest a Finnish citizen at the demand of Hollywood studios. If Kim Dotcom didn't exist, the FBI, with the help of the MPAA, would have invented him."

    http://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/gimme-the-loot/

    1. Re:I'm fond of Jacobin's article on the topic by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Megaupload's Kim Dotcom, a willfully tacky fat guy with a baby face and a vanity license plate that says "guilty," has styled himself as a kind of comic villain, a composite of everything people love to hate. He effectively serves as empire's face of piracy: an overweight nouveau-riche wannabe hacker who finally gets his comeuppance through the macho justice of Uncle Sam. It's so easy to hate Kim Dotcom that you almost forget that the US convinced the New Zealand government to send in an assault brigade, bereft of a valid warrant but outfitted with automatic weapons and helicopters, to arrest a Finnish citizen at the demand of Hollywood studios. If Kim Dotcom didn't exist, the FBI, with the help of the MPAA, would have invented him.

      Hate him because he's overweight? Really? Is the world so full of stupid psychopaths that such a thought is taken for granted?
      Or hate him for providing a valuable service? Sure, if you're the MAFIAA then you'll be nuthugging the God of Copyright. But the rest of us, we ordinary people (including scientists) have little to like about copyright, and hence, little reason to hate someone who helped provide copyrighted material.

      Besides, if you want to get all legalistic (though, I think it's clear by now, I don't give a shit about copyright laws, which I believe are unethical), Megaupload is in no way different from DVD writers - used to save and share copyrighted material, just as well. Or the internet, used to distribute copyrighted material. So even legally, there is no ground to hold Kim Dotcom guitly of anything.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:I'm fond of Jacobin's article on the topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides that he's not Finnish...

    3. Re:I'm fond of Jacobin's article on the topic by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia claims he has both German and Finnish citizenship
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

    4. Re:I'm fond of Jacobin's article on the topic by Tom · · Score: 1

      If Kim Dotcom didn't exist, the FBI, with the help of the MPAA, would have invented him.

      Who says they didn't?

      Well, not directly, but known crooks like Kim very often stay out of jail - at least for a long time - by having the right connections, greasing the right palms, or by being useful to the right kind of people.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  14. I'm in shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A government admitting and apologizing for its illegal/immoral actions!? I'm in shock and awe..... Surely a model for the rest of the "democratic" nations of the world which upon noticing their own errors tend to first attempt to cover them up, and if they do come to light then proceed to claim that they're not failures, but "features" of government enabling them to get "the bad people".

    1. Re:I'm in shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely a model for the rest of the "democratic" nations of the world

      Why do you restrict this to the democratic nations? Are you trying to imply that other forms of government do a better job of admitting wrongdoing and owning up to their mistakes?
      If so, I laugh in your face, good sir.

      There are plenty of abuses to lay at the feet of most any nation which they have not, but should, apologize for. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to ever happen, such things only occur when there is a political benefit, either domestically, internationally, or both.

    2. Re:I'm in shock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose where I was going with that statement is that many "democratic" (in this case a parliamentary democracy) nations pretend to be fair, just and impartial when they have just as much corruption, mismanagement & power pedaling as theocratic, communist and autocratic governments. The Dotcom case is an especially effective example, large corporations using their influence in US politics to get ever increasing restrictions and punishments codified as law to protect their outdated business models, and the politicians using that influence to increase their power in the form of increased para-military assaults on civilians (or influencing others to do so), increasing surveillance and control. 30 years ago strip searches (body scanners), warrant-less searches, para-military arrests & other events would have been something most Americans attributed only to other forms of government. Today it is unfortunately commonplace.

  15. Yeah, thanks by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    Does this mean you're not about to grab me, throw me handcuffed onto a plane, and send me to the U.S. to rot in a prison for pissing off the RIAA/MPAA?

    What, no?

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Yeah, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we'll just send the commandos in to drag you from your home in the middle of the night (for dramatic effect) with a black hood over your head (also for dramatic effect). Then you spend some time in a cell, but in your own country (if applicable). Spontaneously, we later apologize and release you. It's all part of our new anti-anti-anti-terror campaign. It's like reverse psychology, with ninjas!

      Next up, they'll do the same, but it'll be the wrong person from the household taken - so the troops get sent back in repeatedly.

  16. Bad people == adversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opponents, adversaries, etc. Anyone you're in conflict with. If you're trying to beat someone, and if it's going to end up in public (i.e. you can't just have a quick stab in a dark alley) then don't go out of your way to put yourself in a situation where you are the one who must crawl on your belly before them.

    Take the high road and then when they make the first mistake, you can righteously sit there on your horse, looking down with disgust at them and their shocking behavior. You are clearly the good guy, and your shit doesn't stink. And if you're the good guy, the other guy must be the bad one.

    In this case, the government(s) didn't even try to do things right, which is funny because it would have been so easy. Making Dotcom end up being the bad guy, would have been trivial. Instead, overwhelming incompetence and a complete disregard for both law and appearance took over, and government tripped over itself to make sure that if there's ever a question of "who is the criminal?" nearly every single member of the public, and likely any judges and juries, would know the answer is "the government, of course."

    They made Dotcom the victim of vigilante force, and if there's a court case it's going to be about how much we owe him in compensation.

  17. NZ: Crime and Punishment by ljaszcza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, The next time I break the law, I will issue a sincere apology. This apparently makes everything all right and obviates the need for punishment, prosecution, or any such things. Or, are politicians simply a different class of people with different rules and consequences than the rest of us? Orwell said: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Oh yeah.

  18. US govt has apologized before by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

    here although it only goes through 2003...but yes it has happened..perhaps 2003 was the last time...

    --
    #include bier;
  19. Wrong, the MPAA hurt themselves badly by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Kim Dotcom is unlikely to even have to go to court with this many screw ups, let alone do any time.

    And he already has backing for a new megaupload, this time better setup to not be so easily taken down. And you got to be really stupid as a foreign prosecutor to go after this guy a second time when the first time was such a disaster.

    Kim Dotcom is back, with more resources, more experience and now untouchable.

    I doubt this is what the content mafia wanted.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  20. On the other news, Kim Dot Com reveals MegaBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410257,00.asp

  21. The apology is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The law was broken. Those responsible should be charged and punished for breaking the law.

    Is that happening? Or are our efforts at justice just mere words?

    1. Re:The apology is not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or are our efforts at justice just mere words?

      Or are they only replete with redundancies?

  22. Nice analysis by local lawyer by MrTree · · Score: 1

    http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/kim-dotcom-questions-and-answers/

    Government Communications Security Bureau ensured Dotcom was a "foreign national" before beginning surveillance, but that's not he definition they should have been working with. Dotcom is not a "foreign person" by New Zealand law, as he is a permanent resident.

  23. Meanwhile, in America... by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, in America, the NZ Prime Minister is declared a terrorist and an enemy of the state.

  24. Apologizes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see you and me get away with major organized crime, by simply apologizing!
    I wanna see that!

  25. Law enforcement in NZ by klui · · Score: 2

    So if you break the law in NZ, all you need to do is apologize?

    1. Re:Law enforcement in NZ by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      An apology is a lot better than a:

      "Yep, we did! But you can't do anything about it because it's a state secret we broke the law in the first place and we're going to keep doing it!"

      That's a typical US govt response when confronted with hard evidence of illegal wrongdoing.

  26. Related headline by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    PM Shocked (Shocked!) to Hear There is Gambling in Casa Blanca.

  27. Loyal Opposition by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Where is the party opposite (or even an alternative such as a Pirate party) that should be shouting to the televised heavens: "They broke the law but claim to be above the law!"?? Seriously; the copy writes itself!

    1. Re:Loyal Opposition by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      We don't have one. The so called opposition is the "Labour" Party, who advertise as far-left, and act left, actually are responsible for our 3 strikes mp3-downloading law. It means you're guilty upon accusation of downloading some Rihanna. The National Party (current government) watered it down slightly, but all the fuckers (Labour and National, and the other parties) voted for it.

      Except the Green Party, they're the only ones who opposed it. They are filled with anti-American lunatics, vegans, hippies and maybe once had a guy who sexually assaulted a teen. Unfortunately they don't actually do much for the environment, but like to control what lightbulbs we use, and believe they know what is best for your money, much more than you do. They also hate mining, business, and dihydrogen monoxide.

      But if you were voting solely on the view regarding copyright, you'd vote Green.

  28. Re:burning sensation... by zlives · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I will not apologize for my palmed struggle against moisturizer."
    FTFY

  29. About those servers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were rented, and he hasn't paid the rent in quite a while. So the servers are the property of the hosting company. There's nothing to "give back".

  30. Equality before the law by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2

    So, since the Government Communications and Security Bureau broke the law, are they going to go in with a swat team, take all of their computers, and shut them down for six months?

    ~Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
    1. Re:Equality before the law by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No but they won't be able to drive around in Dotcom's sports cars anymore. Awww.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  31. As Evil as any other dotcom millonaire by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    No, Dotcom is as evil as any other dotcom millionaire. Getting rich from basically selling nothing has to be a scam. This goes for the guys running Facebook, Google, or even pre-dotcom Microsoft. None of them has been threatened with serious jail time or had their assets "frozen" or confiscated.

  32. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NZ Prime Minister: "I apologize."
    US President: "Bush did it."

  33. Re:burning sensation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uncircumcised for the win!

  34. "Didn't happen", huh? by danaris · · Score: 1

    How do you know this? - If he didn't get caught he wasn't convicted and then it basically didn't happen.

    Oh! OK, then.

    How about I come over to your house, steal absolutely everything of value in it, and clean out your bank account, and leave you a note so you know I did it—but I never get arrested because I've got plenty of money to bribe the cops and the DAs? You'll still think I'm a great guy, right? Because if I don't get convicted, "then it basically didn't happen."

    Seriously, though, that's some of the dumbest logic I've seen in a good long while.

    It's perfectly possible to know someone has committed crimes, even though he's not legally guilty of them. And saying that it "basically didn't happen..." Well (assuming you're from the US and at least 20-odd years old), do you think Nicole Brown Simpson came back to life when OJ was acquitted of her murder?

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.