Slashdot Mirror
Dotcom Drags NZ Spook Agency Into Court
New submitter d18c7db writes "Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom has won another court victory, today given the right to drag the secretive GCSB into the spotlight of a courtroom. Forcing the GCSB to be tied to the court action opens it up to court ordered discovery — meaning Dotcom's lawyers can go fishing for documents as they continue to fight extradition to the U.S. to face copyright charges. But the GCSB claimed any disclosure of what [was] intercepted would prejudice New Zealand's national security interests 'as it will tend to reveal intelligence gathering and sharing methods.' Dotcom and his fellow Mega Upload accused asked Chief High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann for the right to have the GCSB become part of the proceedings, amend their statement of claim, and for additional discovery. In a judgment issued today she gave that permission."
Poor widdle government agency lost its sovereign immunity when it started working for the wrong sovereign.
What methods would it reveal? Surly they follow the law and have nothing to hide?
If the GCSB have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right?
If they were using standard and allowed intelligence methods against this civilian, they have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear.
If however, they were breaking laws, then there may be other consequences too.
The defense only claims that it cannot be touched. Somehow, I think this is not a strong defense.
even balls of slime have their uses.
That could reveal that we illegally shared information with foreign nations!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't really like Kimmie either, but for the first time in his miserable life he's doing something for the greater good. Even if only to save his own sorry ass.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And their rights.
Why is it unfortunate? Compared to the US federal government, and the interests it serves, Dotcom is an angel.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, because we should put people in jail based on wether we like them or not.
. The latest ruling is another milestone in Dotcom's bid to challenge extradition to the US on copyright infringement charges.
His lawyers have already proved that GCSB's surveillance of the mogul was illegal, and search warrants for the January raid were invalid.
Are we supposed to cheer for the judge for making a reasonable ruling, or are we supposed to cheer that the judge allowed for the review of possible criminal / illegal activities by the law enforcement officers of New Zealand? Any way you look at it, it's sad that it came to this: law enforcement in NZ breaking laws (possibly under the external request / direction of others) and using force to execute searches for evidence of copyright infringement.
Arrogant douche or not, when your national spy agency is accused of giving too much information about a citizen to a foreign power so they can investigate the commercial interests of one of their own companies ... well, things might have gone a little too far.
They went outside of their legal mandate so they could go after this guy. They broke the law.
Are you defending the rights of the state to go after people by any means necessary? This is as much about the fact that law enforcement needs to follow the law as anything Dotcom did now.
I don't give a rats ass about what he did or didn't do, but I do expect governments to reign in their security apparatus and make damned sure they're following the law. In this case, they didn't, and now they don't want the evidence of that peeked into.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Making sticky pistons?
I didn't have a problem with him until I read his wikipedia page. Now I have a big problem with him. I suggest you do the same. If you're basing your opinion of him on the fact that you liked downloading things from megaupload and hate the MPAA, you're missing a lot of real info.
I don't like what I heard about his personality, but it doesn't matter: If somebody is a douche or not has no bearing on whether the actions taken against him and his company are legal and befitting the alledged crime or not.
I didn't have a problem with him until I read his wikipedia page.
Complete jackasses still have a right to due process. And secret agencies that consider themselves above the law simply need to cease to exist.
Really, though, unless I missed something, his Wiki page has nothing all that damning. Some petty hacking, some (non-identity theft) carding, and a pump-and-dump on an already-dead company. Woo-hoo.
Except that he has a rare combination of tech savvy with business acumen, you'll find far, far more evil people going about their daily business of screwing the plebes in nearly every corporate boardroom in the world. Kim, at least, sounds like he just did it for kicks.
I never used Mega Video for anything, legit or infringing. I have no opinion of Kim Dotcom. But really, is Dotcom or Ochocinco really worse than "Miller" or "Johnson"? So someone in your history was a miller at some point, now all of his descendants are? Some guy's dad on your history was named John, yay! At least Dotcom and Ochocinco have real personal relevance to those gentlemen. Anyone with a stupid last name like "smith" should think about changing it to something modern. How many smithies are there in ten people, 0.2? 0.1? Retarded last name.
Is Kim Dotcom a "douche"? I don't know, I've never met him. Even if he was, though, he still doesn't deserve two government colluding and breaking laws to arrest him. I don't need a third-person written wikipedia article to determine that you, however, are a judgemental prick.
New Zealand has been the location of terrorist attacks in the past.
In the '80s a terrorist group based in France called the DGSE blew up the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, killing one of the crew.
NZ security personal were able to capture 2 of the culprits (alain Marfard amd Dominique Prieux , but the French Governemnt made us give them back,
The "national interests" reply is getting worn more than a bit thin. The proper reposte is:
"Since national security is so important to you, you ought to take especial care not to violate any laws or commit torts. Then you won't need to worry about being before courts, or can get yourselves severed from actions."
But No. The real problem is that at least some government officals believe themselves to be above the law. The same belief as held by common criminals. These officals believe that their "mission" is more important than obeying the law. Never mind that most of them are breaking some laws to enforce other laws. The irony escapes them -- must have thick heads. And please understand, obeying the law isn't tough -- there are lots of tame judges who will give out warrents. The rogues just don't want to submit, and can get away with it. Power trip.
I wonder why large numbers of office-holders aren't charged with treason as they wilfully violate their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. But then, we live in a praetorian culture, much worse since 2001.
And their rights.
The MPAA is working on fixing that.
You mean like:
Sounds just about as fair as convicting people based on secret evidence discovered during torture at Guantanamo.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I get the argument that some state secrets need to be kept to prevent aiding enemies from circumventing intelligence gathering activities. However, if that privilege is invoked, then the coutrs should simply give a default judgement as if the opposing side's claims are proven by the evidence provided. In other words, keep the secrets and be quiet and lose the case, or defend against it with the requested information - possibly provided under seal and only seen by the judge and a security-cleared lawyer for both sides.
Just like the DVD Jon bullshit it's blatantly obvious that the locals were just there to serve a warrant for an investigation run elsewhere. There's nothing to keep secret apart from embarrassment that they were working for another country, which has got to have been authorised by somebody in politics that wants to pretend otherwise. So the real secret is whose arse is being covered.
That's how it works sometimes. One of the world's lowest slimeballs, Larry Flynt, established the precedent of parody and satire being protected under freedom of speech in the US (a protection missing in many countries).
I like that it works this way. If the precedent of rights and protection is established for even the slimeballs, then the rest of us should be good.
If the precedent of rights and protection is established for even the slimeballs, then the rest of us should be good.
The rights of the majority don't need protection from the majority. Popular speech isn't censored.
Then again, perhaps the premise that a majority has the moral ability to take away the rights of the minority (in any number of instances) is the more fundamental problem.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)