US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom

Dr Max sends this excerpt from an AP report: "U.S. prosecutors won a New Zealand court victory Friday in their battle to extradite Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three colleagues accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the now-defunct online file-sharing site. The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies."

Comments

I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[crazyjj]

Good boy! Him roll over! Can you sit? Can you sit? Come on, boy...sit!

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Dunbal]

I can't wait for China to start pushing for the extradition of US citizens for breaking some of its more restrictive internet laws. I mean fair game, right?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Harsh to say that about a sovereign nation...but it sums it up pretty nicely.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[fnj]

Easy there. The US thugs haven't "won" anything yet. The extradition hearing isn't until August. This is just a procedural ruling.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but NZ have been well ahead of the US in pro-IP protection laws for years. Viz, they implement whatever US corporations want even before they can buy the laws on US soil.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

The extradition is complete. Everything else is just a formality. The court just ruled that Dotcom isn't going to be able to use any real evidence to defend himself. Now New Zealand has to follow their treaty obligations and send him to a US kangaroo court where he will face 100,000 charges and a million year jail term (or 2 years in jail on a plea agreement). He's fucked. If I were him, I'd think about escaping to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[PolygamousRanchKid]

New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.

What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.

USA.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[mwvdlee]

The only thing the US has won here, is a denial for Kim Dotcom to access all available evidence while he would still have an opportunity to affect that evidence.
It has little to do with the actual extradition request itself.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

They could always go back to sheep-herding.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Chrisq]

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.

USA.

So when they do it will be fair?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Luckyo]

Empire to empire relationship is governed by different kind of realpolitik then empire to vassal state.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[serviscope_minor]

If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

I doubt that. The movie companies are always looking at the bottom line. New Zealand offers the right landscapes at the right price with first world infrastructure. If it was cheaper elsewhere they'd already be going elsewhere. I very much doubt they'd pay significantly more just to make this point.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL all that firepower is practically made in china. And unlike the USA, china owes only 2 trillion vs 16 trillion... and 1.2 trillion of that 16 trillion is owned by China...

They also outnumber the USA. Even if you gave everyone a gun in the USA, they'd need to kill at least 11 people in China in order to kill each and every last one.
What are the chances of that happening?

And last but not least: Lets not forget, that China also has nukes.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing special about NZ in this case. The golden rule always applies. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Treaties and extradition don't work that way.

Are you retarded?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[silviuc]

They might have firepower and whatever, a silly ballerina for president on top of it all, but China has a huge chunk of their economy by the balls. All that firepower is nullified by China's economic power.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Hatta]

In what way would you expect Dotcom to "affect" the evidence? Why would the provide copies in a writable format?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

The country that can't even destroy a bunch of camel jockeys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please. But America has always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[pscottdv]

That's the dirty little secret about federal charges in the U.S. Federal court rules don't require the prosecution to hand over their evidence until the trial unlike state courts where the accused has a chance to see the evidence against him- or herself and prepare a defence. And the minimum penalties are always enormous.

That's why federal charges are so highly feared in the U.S. and it's why almost all federal cases are pleaded out.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570742-how-mandatory-minimum-sentences-distort-plea-bargaining-thumb-scale

The article is about a different issue, but it describes the problem.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants"

I thought you were talking about North Korea.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Dunbal]

Keep that in mind for when you are a vassal state. America is only 300 million people, not even a huge population anymore. It used to dominate economically but haven't you heard? China has now surpassed the US as the largest trader in the world. While the US is celebrating 0.7% growth, China is growing 8-10% every year. They're not even close to being done yet. Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first.
If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn."

For me I speak the southern dialect (Yue, or Cantonese) so Mandarin is a cake walk. But for those who grew up getting used to writing a totally different script, this could be a monumental task.

For starters I would suggest learning writing in "pinyin" first to learn the basic words, definitions and grammar, before moving to writing the actual script.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

also, don't forget that historically speaking, the chinese military has been shown to have all the courage and intestinal fortitude of a bowl of mashed potatoes, having been pwned by practically anyone who has tried.

they're like the big fat kid no one who hoards the marbles cos that's what's currently 'cool', but can't really do anything when the winds of fashion change.

China = big, fat and weak.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[BitZtream]

No it didn't.

The court ruled that a summary of the evidence was enough to go to trial and that Kim isn't going to be allowed to tie the case up 'looking at evidence'.

They just stopped one of his stall tactics.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[BitZtream]

Changing evidence doesn't require physically changing evidence, simply changing its context can change its meaning entirely.

Ask O.J. Simpson.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[ShanghaiBill]

Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.

As someone who has learned to speak Mandarin, I can say that this is not true. I have heard that it takes about 20 weeks of full time study for a native English speaker to be able to communicate in basic Spanish, but 80 weeks to reach the same level in Mandarin. I think this is about right. Mandarin is hard. The grammar is simple, but there are a lot of homophones and weird idioms, and worst of all is the tones. Young kids can learn them, but they are almost impossible for an adult whose brain has already congealed. After years of study, I can order in a restaurant and understand tech-talk, but I struggle with casual small talk, and I almost never understand the jokes.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

'course on the other side we have the USA who only won won war in their existence and that was only

a) with the help of the French
b) when they were still part of the British Empire.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

Well let's see what the statistics say.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[ari_j]

Keep in mind this is an extradition matter. At an extradition hearing, the issues are basically limited to (1) whether you are the person being sought by the other jurisdiction and (2) whether the charges in the other jurisdiction are the type of charges for which a person can be extradited. I am not as familiar with international extradition as I am interstate extradition within the United States, and certainly there will be specific rules spelled out in an extradition treaty between New Zealand and the United States (possibly by way of the UN, for all I know). But those are the real issues: are you the right guy and are the charges extraditable. The extradition hearing is held in and under the procedural law of the court in New Zealand.

Once arraigned in the court where the charges are pending (the United States federal court), the issue becomes whether you are guilty of the offense charged. And the evidence against you is relevant to that issue. The evidence is largely not relevant to whether you can be extradited. And that's essentially what it sounds like the New Zealand court concluded.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

No ever said people on the internet were good at history...

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Tokolosh]

Yup, and the Chinese will have airbases in the US. They will fly drones to take out any Chinese citizens in the US that are siding with the enemy. If the US can do that, why not others?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[fazey]

incorrect.

War of 1812, the brits gave up.
Mexican American war.
Civil war, technically
Spanish American war

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Hatta]

What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

The World Wars don't ring a bell? Or perhaps the Spanish-American War or Mexican-American War mean nothing as well.

I just destroyed you and made you look like a little bitch.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[gorzek]

The US just has much bigger feet.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well to be fair, so far he's pushed for almost everything Hollywood has asked for. He signed the ACTA treaty without even allowing the senate to look at it, let alone vote on it. Big constitutional no-no, but he did it anyways at their behest.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[spire3661]

Any extradition treaty would be in bad faith as the Chinese do not have a working judicial system. Why would we enter into such an agreement?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11. Basically, if somebody within your border commits an act of terror in another country and then takes harbor in yours, it's your responsibility to hunt them down. If you don't, then you need to allow whoever is after them to do so, and do whatever is in your power to assist them. If you aren't with them, then you're against them, and they are allowed to come after you if you are assisting the terrorists.

I agree with this policy, because somebody shouldn't be allowed to commit mass murder and then just hide somewhere with no extradition treaty. This is what is known as the Bush Doctrine, by the way.

The target US citizen in that famous drone strike was actually involved in a few different terror attacks, including the Ft. Hood shootings. He just figured he'd hide in Yemen and then he'd be safe.

Ah...no...the Bush doctrine is like Batman: It has no jurisdiction. It is a bit scary that US citizens can be hit like that, but then he committed the same kinds of crimes that Osama Bin Laden did (although not quite on the same scale.)

Now in the case of Kim Dotcom, this is clearly not an act of terror except possibly on some Hollywood actor's wallet. (And this is of course debatable, but there are plenty of other posts on that topic.) Nobody is dieing and nobody is being sent a "convert or die" message, and therefore this isn't something the Bush doctrine should cover.

For this reason, I think the Bush Doctrine should be codified somewhere. That would go a long ways towards clarifying what is an act of terror and what isn't, as well as when it becomes acceptable to target citizens (it inevitably has to - imagine if OBL was a US citizen, would we have had the same qualms?)

And no, I'm not an Obama supporter, I just think that drone strike was probably the right thing to do given the circumstances.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Runaway1956]

"when China has the might and firepower of the US"

So - might makes right, huh? If you say so.

"when China has the might and firepower of the US"

Just wait for it - it IS going to happen. Like riding a motorcycle - there is no question of "if I go down", the real question is "when will I go down?" It might be twenty years in the future, it might be fifty, but China WILL be as militarily strong as the United States is. We are working hard to ensure that their dream comes true, by exporting anything and everything that they'll take.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Runaway1956]

Your ignorance is so scary, primarily because so many Americans share it.

China declared war on us a couple of decades ago. Assymetrical warfare is working quite well for them, actually. They get all our tech, they get our debt, they get our manufacturing capacity, they get our "intellectual property", they get no-brains Americans investing cash in them, they get everything either free, or at a penny on the hundreds of dollars.

They declared war, and we agreed to help them wage war against us.

Like the British in the 1770's, we think that war is waged in one way, and one way only. We're prepared to fight the wars of the last century, but have zero idea how to fight the war that China has declared on us.

In short, the big, fat, and weak kid is kicking our ass so bad, we don't even know what's happening.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Tokolosh]

Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.

Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.

Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.

Fixed that for you.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama daughters have been promised in marriage to the New Zealand Prime Minister's sons. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's daughters have been promised to some madame in NYC.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Jane Q. Public]

"Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11."

Tracking them down is one thing. Drone strikes are quite another.

Those, in particular, are against international treaty, international law, and also U.S. law.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not! We are the good guys (TM) (c) (R) so only we were allowed by none other than the God hissself to do these things! We will decimate any other country if they try to do it.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't denying evidence to the defense illegal? I thought the state had to pass all evidence to the defense in criminal trials, so that the defense had time to prepare its defense against the evidence. Only the defense was allowed 'surprise' witnesses/evidence.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

You make a very good point. We have this conservation all the time in Canada when our government tries to bend the country over for Washington. The Americans deal with Canada because they need our resources, not because they like us. (Although I'm pretty sure the average American does like us, and New Zealand, too). They won't take their ball and go home because our courts ignored their inappropriate political pressures, as they should.

Americans do business out of self-interest, not out of charity.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[dryeo]

In most civilized countries the defendant has a right to see the evidence against themselves so that they can defend themselves.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the USA has only won one war if you dont include this list :

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

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but then neither does the USA. Have you seen the federal court system's conviction rate? If you're going to send someone to be found guilty, you should make damn sure that they are before you do so.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe he can bunk with Julian

jr

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Mistakill]

As a kiwi, im pretty pissed off about all this... hes been accused of no crime in NZ, the search warrants were incorrect, and its a part of due process that you should know what your accuser is saying the proof of you doing crimes is... atm not only is Dotcom not allowed to see what his accusers have as 'proof', hes not allowed access as his own files which were confiscated

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[bug1]

Perhaps its fairer to say that the US declared war against itself.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of the world's soldiers are Chinese...

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[dryeo]

Don't know about New Zealand but with Canada there is also
(3) Is the punishment comparable to what would be received in Canada.
This includes Canada refusing to extradite in cases involving the death penalty (agreements usually made not to pursue capital punishment) and cases where the punishment is way out of line with the crime. Sadly our law and order Conservative government has no problem breaking these laws, eg Marc Emery was extradited for selling seeds, a crime usually punished by a couple of hundred dollar fine in Canada whereas he got 5 years in the States.
In the same vein I wouldn't be surprised if NZ willingly breaks its own laws and regulations to please the Americans.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass..

USA.

China has a HUGE standing army. They could attack the US and sustain
8:1 losses and STILL have more men left that the US has.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, boy.

.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how the hell they gonna get over here? swim??? Dipshit!

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[doccus]

Well, I simply *can't* agree with this doctrine.. Not because criminals don't deserve to get caught, but because , inevitably, it will be used more for political dissidents, as happens EVERY SINGLE TIME!! Now that the US has pretty much abandoned an pretense of moral behavior in it's dealings towards those it accuses of a crime (shoot on sight, kill orders,Indefinite detention without charges, and all 3 are just as applicable to it's own citizens as foreign nationals) , coupled with the fact that now, there is no more any safe harbor for the innocent to shelter on the whole planet, how could *any* right minded persoon really support such a travesty? So OK a few criminals get away if it's not implemented.. isn't that a small price to pay to avoid a global dictatorship?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Anonymous Coward]

American English is even worse. Here we have all sorts of messed rules.
For example the simple sentence, I lead the dog

Lead can be either past or present tense, or it could be a chemical substance.

Or, You get in a car and on a train. Having dealt with many people in different languages, it is almost always easier for me to learn their conversationalanguage then for them to learn American English

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[lsatenstein]

It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.

So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.

USA.

So when they do it will be fair?

===
Have you thought about what you respondied? China has the economic clout. If China blacklisted the USA, your IT world would quickly become wasteland. From the resister, capacitor, motherboard, to fully manuufactured routers, tablets etc, would be frozen in time. Suddenly you would be required to pay double for smuggled equipment to satisfy your needs.
Why would they do that is the question to answer? They being USA and/or China

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[lsatenstein]

New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.

I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.

What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.

===
Would he have access to full evidence if he was in the American Court. If so, at what cost, and with the "volume" of supposed evidence, how long and how many lawyers would he need to sift through it all?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[KingBenny]

umh ... yea i thought that little trolling game was over already, not then... does this mean i will have to re-stuck my 50gb of data i uploaded to mega.co.nz ?

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[RivenAleem]

I agree, homophobes are weird idiots.

Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too

[Keith Henson]

I suspect that the US use of drones to kill people because we can will turn around and bite the US in the ass.

Back in November 2012 the Indian delegation to China put out a news release that the Chinese had offered to cooperate with India on power satellites and that the offer would be accepted. There is reason to think the Chinese intend to use laser propulsion to get the cost down to where power satellites make economic sense.

A side effect of such lasers is that they are weapons that obsolete virtually all current weapon systems. But given the US use of drones to kill people the expected US objection isn't going to carry much weight.

Assuming the US understands the consequences.

First

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay

I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

" Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.""

Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.

Re:I love this...

[fredprado]

Proof the DOJ apparently doesn't want to "disclose", most likely because they do not have it.

Re:I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you paid for those roads and cars on said roads that all those crimes were committed on.

You think they would manually check who they are paying for the content they upload?
Hell no. That is the job the copyright enforcers have to carry out, not anyone else.

If they have proof of the ACCOUNTS that were uploading the copyrighted content, then those people could be sued, but it isn't up to Kim or anyone else to figure that out. The burden of proof is on them, not him.
He can supply information on those who were uploading content, but even he won't want to do that since he hates the media industry as is and would rather carry this battle out to his deathbed while attempting to undo and remake the industry. (like his original plans before they killed his site all of a sudden when it was announced)

Re:I love this...

[Mitreya]

Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.

The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it

The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.

I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.

Re:I love this...

[BitZtream]

The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it

And he will, at the trial, just like everyone else. So he doesn't have the ability to manipulate context in such a way that makes it appear different than it is.

I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument.

It most certainly is a valid argument. Judges regularly do things to prevent lawyers from dragging things out for years via bullshit tactics.

This isn't law and order, its the real world. You don't generally actually get to use retarded technicalities to get off with a few exceptions where the technicality was created intentionally to get defendants an escape plan against a corrupted situation.

Re:I love this...

[nadaou]

> You don't generally actually get to use retarded technicalities to get off

So you are arguing that full or even partial disclosure is a retarded technicality?

> with a few exceptions where the technicality was created
> intentionally to get defendants an escape plan against a
> corrupted situation.

If you replace "technicality" with "fundamental tenet" in the above, you might be getting closer to what disclosure is all about.

Re:I love this...

[Tom]

The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it

Correct.

Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.

Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial. You don't need to have all the evidence presented at that discussion. You just need to establish if there's going to be a trial at all. And the defense claiming that they can't agree on a date without having seen and read all the evidence beforehand is just ridiculous and exactly what the court ruled: An attempt to obstruct the process.

Because obstructing the process is in the interest of the defense. It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.

Re:I love this...

[Tom]

Paranoid ramblings.

In a court of law you do not present your evidence unless you have to. Much like in poker you don't show your cards. Not because you don't have any, or because they are bad, but ... well, if you don't understand why then you've never played the game.

Whether or not their evidence will win them a conviction is another question and entirely irrelevant to the extradition hearing. All that matters is that they do have a proper case, i.e. they have more than "because we'd like to, please" when it comes to bringing this guy to trial.

Re:I love this...

[fredprado]

Sure, sure. You are free to believe in whatever absurdity you wish, my friend.

Re:I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he doesn't get to see the evidence then the prosecutor gets to put together a context which is manipulative and the defense will have no way to research how that manipulated context came about or if it even has any truth to it.

Re:I love this...

[Mitreya]

Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.

Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial.

I suppose I am wondering what the threshold for extradition is then. It is more than "nothing", but less than "guilty". So is it like "possibly guilty"?

If it is like "setting the date for the trial", why don't they just extradite him without any court involvement?

It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.

I know you strongly dislike the guy for being a scumbag, but two wrongs do not make a right. If U.S. screwed up the procedures (of which there is a strong possibility), they deserve to lose because that may encourage them to follow the rules next time.

Re:I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.

Correct, the MPAA paid people for uploading copyright protected content to Megaupload. How exactly does this harm Dotcom's position of innocence?

Re:I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The level of proof depends upon the treaty, but in general the requesting government must provide evidence that a crime has been committed and that the person being extradited is a valid suspect. The threshold is somewhat higher than for an indictment, but not much.

Some countries also place additional restrictions - Mexico, for example, refuses to extradite anyone who is likely to receive a death sentence..

Re:I love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

And he will, at the trial, just like everyone else. So he doesn't have the ability to manipulate context in such a way that makes it appear different than it is.

Right, in a foreign court...

Misleading Title

[Nailer235]

The title - while literally true - implies that a court has decided that Kim Dotcom can now be extradited. In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.

Re:Misleading Title

[Mitreya]

In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.

It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"

Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.

Re:Misleading Title

[ari_j]

Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.

Re:Misleading Title

[rsborg]

Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.

Extradition and Secret Prisons (aka black sites) = Who cares if you're guilty? We'll throw you in our clink and spend a few years mulling over what we're going to charge you with (see Bradley Manning). All of this is highly unconstitutional, but hey, the world has changed since 9/11, and that's all you need to know.

Dotcom's best hope now is to flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Re:Misleading Title

[boorack]

Extradition into US "Justice" system means indenfinite detention, likely abuses and possible tortures for anyone US government (or US corporations) do not like.

Re:Misleading Title

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not mistaken Kim Dotcom is claiming the charges are not valid and thus not extraditable.

It would be like the US charging him with murder for committing copyright infringement. There is no evidence of this and the extradition proceedings should be able to stop the process. Guilt isn't being determined here. It doesn't have enough evidence to proceed. Disturbingly in the US it isn't needed for the defense to be at these hearings. I forget what it is called although basically a jury (I think) gets presented something and has to decide if the trial can go forward. It is basically a rubber stamping process.

In other news

[Sparticus789]

U.S. Prosecutors have arrested the executive boards of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and many other ISPs for their customers using internet connections to illegally download songs and movies.

BAZINGA!

Re:In other news

[Dunbal]

Next on the list: Cisco and Cat5 cable manufacturers.

Re:In other news

[P-niiice]

Plastics suppliers for making the plastic for the wheels that go on the office chairs that pitars use when they do their dirty deeds. They should know that someone might do something illegal on chairs that might use those wheels.

Re:In other news

[steelfood]

Not quite. See, these guys complied with the Fed's warrant-less wiretapping program. They give something to the government, the government gives something back to them. That's how it works.

Remember the CEO of Qwest who refused to play ball? Guess where he is now...

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, we'd better arrest Claude Berrou, because a lot of the pirates use wi-fi!

a summary of the U.S. case would suffice...

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf???

Re:a summary of the U.S. case would suffice...

[pla]

wtf???

US: "He's guilty. And has bad hair."
NZ: "Okay then, you can have him."

Monster Cable Exec Too

[Dareth]

Don't forget to arrest the Monster Cable Exec too! Their cables allow people who bought movies and songs to enjoy them at a higher quality than their license permitted!

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[Sparticus789]

Should we throw in the copper mining company executives as well? After all, the copper make Monster Cable possible.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[Somebody Is Using My]

None of this piracy would be possible without the aiding and abetting of the entertainment industry themselves. After all, if they didn't make the movies, pirates wouldn't have anything to steal! So bang goes the gavel on the CEOs of Universal, Columbia, Paramount, etc.

While we're at it, if it wasn't for the Congress-critters, these laws wouldn't exist to be broken in the first place. Judge, I think you know what must be done...

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[crazyjj]

The guy at Best Buy said that oxygen-free Monster cables offer much faster download speeds on pirated movies than any other cable brand.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[SydShamino]

What?! No! Monster Cables are made from gold and faerie sweat. That's how they can improve the fidelity of digital signals transmitted over short distances.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[Luckyo]

Yet another proof that everything has good sides to it.

Re:Monster Cable Exec Too

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you know what must be done...

I think many of you have known for quite a while, you're just not prepared to make the sacrifice. (Ballot box, soap box, ammo box. Too late...)

Example

[Korruptionen]

Seems like the US government is going to attempt to make more and more examples out of people. Right or wrong.. you had better not oppose the establishment. Shame.

Re:Example

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important thing is not to run any servers in the US and avoid doing business there, though admittedly none of this will protect you from requests for extradition.

Re:Example

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...

And then the yanks wonder why we don't like them.

Re:Example

[flayzernax]

The biggest irony is people think this is something new. The other sad fact is how many American's don't know, don't care to know. The last sad fact is that some think its right. And are glad to see individuals punished to suit an institutions goals. The philosophical education of American's in general is extremely lacking.

Re:Example

[alexo]

And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...

"Starting"?

Re:Example

[Anonymous Coward]

And why not? What else has the US going for it but its huge portfolio of patents, copyrights and trademarks?

On the low end, it can hardly compete with manufacturing in China because American own workers demand a living wage.

On the high end, excessive bureaucracy and an increasingly poorly educated workforce reduces America's competitiveness against other "first world" nations.

America's natural resources, though plentiful, require expensive, destructive mining and processing; nations less concerned with their own ecology reap the benefits by selling their resources more cheaply on the open market.

Even as a potential destination for goods the United States is slipping down the economic ladder, as American consumers have less and less money to buy things, while foreign markets become ever more viable and lucrative.

Intellectual Properties are the one area where the United States still can claim dominance. It is the one area that still reliably brings in the cash. It is the one strong part of the American economy. Is it any wonder American politicians are willing to defend it, and with it the livelihood of their country and fellow citizens, so (dare I say it) valiantly? What alternative do they have?

We all know...

[ZenDragon]

We all know this is coming from the pestering and/or financial contributions of industry lobbyists. It is so blatantly and sickeningly obvious at this point. I've all but lost any hope that things will change. I will be creating my own island with my own laws, in the middle of the pacific, anybody care to join me? :) lol

Re:We all know...

[Luckyo]

No, because if you get big enough to matter, you'll be introduced to concept of "you are a terrorist".

Re:We all know...

[BitZtream]

No, hippie communes fail every time.

You could of course actually do something about it rather than running away.

Horray!

[s122604]

I feel safer already
To Gitmo with his fat ass

Representative Democracy

[hoboroadie]

In this soveriegn nation do they have a thing called television?

He who owns the media controls the government, same as here.

And the Steamroller begins

[SoTerrified]

"May I please view the evidence against me so I might put up a proper defense?"
"The appeals court ruled that disclosure would 'bog down the process' and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice"

If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process... Good luck getting a fair trial in the USA where the judge, prosecutor and all aspects of the legal system are under the control of the corporations. I suspect they won't be happy until Kim Dotcom winds up like Aaron Swartz.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[shentino]

Sounds like the same bullshit excuse the Apple v. Samsung jury used to disregard prior art.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[hawks5999]

Due process doesn't necessarily mean judicial process. h/t AG Eric Holder

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Kim Dotcom won't roll over that easy...

Seriously. He's not that easy to roll over... just sayin'

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[idontgno]

Good point. "Due process" is no process at all if the powers and the courts decide you're not due any process at all. For historical instance...

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[LordLimecat]

From the article:

In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer.

IANAL, so I dont know if this is normal or not; its possible that it is. It would be nice if any international law folks can answer that question (rather than all the wild hysteria and speculation we're seeing).

You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slightly different. This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.

The US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith. That should be all they need for an extradition hearing.

Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you finish reading TFA?

"In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer."

According to the treaty they have with the U.S. the job of the courts is simply to decide if the case is valid or not. As they mention it is nowhere even close to being the trial phase yet.

Of course, this will likely now be punted up to New Zealand's Supreme Court. Unlike the appeals court they can consider broader questions, such as, "Is this extradition treaty even fair?" along with the finer points of the individual arguments. Note that extradition agreements are usually signed between nations with relatively robust legal systems. It is very difficult to fight these things in the western world (which doesn't make much sense with where New Zealand is located - I know!) since the rule of law along with extensive protections for the accused are often in place. Note the differences between the Assange case and that of Gary McKinnon. It more or less took an insanity plea to stop that extradition and I don't think Dotcom can lean on that.

Then again, there are always drone strikes!

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Mitreya]

If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...

By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.

In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear butthurt fandroid,
You are in the wrong thread. The 'all glory to samsung' thread is over there.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Hatta]

This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.

The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.

US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.

What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?

Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.

He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Bacon Bits]

You have to consider the point of the hearing and the appeal. This docket is only concerned with the extradition request. It is not a trial.

The US is asking NZ to turn Dotcom over. Dotcom is fighting the request in NZ court, and he appears to have requested the entire case against him in complete detail. That makes no sense at an extradition hearing, because NZ only has to decide if extradition for trial for the actual charges is warranted. The appeals court is correct: a summary of the evidence the US has would be more than enough to determine if the extradition request should be granted. Dotcom wants the evidence so he can get the court to rule in his favor by weighing the evidence. That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[dropadrop]

That's what the trial is for, and NZ doesn't have standing to hear such a case.

Cause he did not break any laws there?

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[LVSlushdat]

That's the next big thing... "trials" based on the old soviet union model.. A "judge", the "prosecutor", and a gallery filled with drafted people as witnesses to show that the "trial" was fair.. Woe be unto any of them who did not "toe the partyline".. The accused and his lawyer were no where to be found, or more correctly the accused was rotting away in Lubianka prison, and he had what passed for a "defense lawyer", who was employed by the prosecutors office.. Oh yes, every one of the gallery witnesses would testify that the trial was completely fair under the USSR "constitution".. America is heading down THAT road at an ever-increasing rate...

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[chemicaldave]

He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.

Wasn't he operating servers in Virginia?

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think that the decision to extradite a citizen has to pass a certain level of scrutiny to avoid throwing said citizen to a court of lions that is only interested in showing to their masters that they are good little paid judges.

Once Dotcom is extradited there is no hope for him whatsoever. He will be tried, locked up and done in a heartbeat. Everything to appease the *AA masters.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Mashiki]

You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.

True, the courts really don't care about guilt or innocence on an appeals based on procedural issues. What should bother everyone is that he's being denied disclosure of evidence to which the crown has made their case. NZ law and Canuck law are very similar, in both cases the crown must offer full disclosure of evidence when the accused is brought before the judge *insert various reasons* and basically declares innocence on summery or indictable offences. Full disclosure of course is all the evidence so the individual can properly grant themselves a fair defense based upon the evidence.

In turn NZ like Canada has a similar procedural rule for bringing the justice system into disrepute(BAJD-canuck term) by action--this is is an exclusionary evidence rule. Both the crown, judges, peace officers, and other government officials that ordered the original raid, have enacted. If he was tried there, nearly all the evidence against him would be thrown out.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[LordLimecat]

You did not read very carefully. No decision to extradite has been made. AFAICT theyre saying that what mattersis whether the US has a sufficient case for extradition; his innocence and guilt are not relevant to that discussion, and they do not interested in determining them.

He will be tried, locked up and done in a heartbeat. Everything to appease the *AA masters.

You didnt read the part about "wild hysterical speculation", did you?

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Bacon Bits]

Because nobody is trying to prosecute him for breaking NZ laws.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Tom]

Who modded you up?

This is not a trial about the case and thus the evidence he requests is not important. This is an extradition trial, in which the US government would not even present said evidence, because they do not have to prove he is guilty. What they have to convince the court of is something entirely different - namely that he should be extradited to the US. In order to do that, they have to prove that they have a case at all, not that they are going to win it.

Bogging down the process is a usual strategy of the defense. Kim is not currently in a jail cell, remember? He is under "house arrest" - which is a pretty comfortable thing to be if your house happens to be a multi-million dollar mansion with its own tennis court and a dozen servants and other employees. It is obviously in his interest to delay the process as long as possible for two simple reasons:

One, if he delays it long enough, statutes of limitation will become a good way to escape justice. That's not theoretical, that happens quite a lot.

Two, he doesn't have a mansion and a dozen luxury cars in the US. His stay would be quite a bit less comfortable.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Tom]

He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.

Since you brought it up, at least be specific:

A previously convicted finnish-german citizen who worked with the FBI before (ratting out fellow criminals to get a reduced sentence for himself).

That last part is important. There's a lot of things that can legally put you into US jurisdiction. It's not always what you and I would consider just, but it's the reality. I've got a little bit of experience in this field because the movie mafia tried to sue me in a California court many years ago because I had the DeCSS code on my website and refused to take it down. IANAL, but I've talked to several US lawyers on topics like jurisdiction, because it once affected me.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

That would extend the jurisdiction to any and every country which might be after someone. This doesn't make any sense. You are probably connected to and “operating” servers in every country of the world just about on a daily basis.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadening jurisdiction is one of the tricks US legal professionals use to artificially increase the demand for the services of their profession. It's part of the big problem we currently have with legal ethics in many areas of US law.

Unacknowledged ethical conflict of interest has previously been described on Slashdot as a metastasized cancer within the body of the US legal system. There's a lot of evidence to support this.

Naturally, few legal professionals choose to acknowledge the ethics issue here.

Eventually, society is stupid enough to let the current trend continue, you will potentially be liable for any action you take under the laws of every legal jurisdiction in the world, even when those laws contradict one another. Every third member of society will be a lawyer, and nothing useful will ever get done.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case.

Acknowledging this really isn't in the interest of the legal profession. Being able to threaten someone with legal matters in remote jurisdictions creates artificial business for the legal profession. There is a direct business for them here, as, in such situations, you have to go to the expense of hiring additional lawyers to represent you in the remote jurisdiction. There are are also indirect benefits to their profession here.

Thus the judge, as a legal professional, is in a position of ethical conflict of interest here. This has always been a problem in extradition situations. As long as societies let legal professionals ignore ethical conflicts of interest that affect their profession, it always will be a problem.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Tom]

That's a nice theoretical issue, and I do in fact agree that the US courts tend towards arrogance when it comes to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, nothing will be changed in time for this particular case, so the facts as they are today are what matters.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Anonymous Coward]

So he didn't break the laws of the country in which he was resident at the time? He broke the laws of another country of which he is not a resident, nor present in?

I hope your wife doesn't wear miniskirts, and covers her face. I hear those Saudis can be a bit uptight about that kind of thing.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[mgcarley]

He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.

Wasn't he operating servers in Virginia?

IIRC his company was Hong Kong based, not New Zealand based. The *new* company is NZ based though.

Re:And the Steamroller begins

[Bacon Bits]

Considering Saudi Arabia doesn't have an extradition treaty with the United States, this will not happen.

New Zealand, however, does.

Holy God, people, do you even understand what extradition means?

By virtue of logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's found guilty of "facilitating massive copyright fraud" because of the product he offered, then it sets a precedent which will spell doom for the following good fellows:

- American Airlines, United Flight and United Airlines should be found guilty of "facilitating terrorist attacks" since their planes were used.
- Alcoholic product makers should be found guilty of "facilitating disorderly conduct, rape and drunk driving"
- Car makers should be found guilty of "facilitating reckless endangerment and road rage"
- Gun makers should be found guilty of "facilitating homicides and mass murders"
- All ISPs should be found guilty of "facilitating exchange of child pornography material" through their network
- I wouldn't want to be one of the civil engineers who "facilitated suicide" by designing those bridges they jump off of

Then again: USA! USA! USA! Fuck logic. Money talks.

Re:By virtue of logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except none of those scenarios factors in people being rewarded for abusing the product, and internal emails showing the staff of those companies promoting and engaging in such abuses. You're not being "logical", you're being fallacious and irrational, and apparently pretty uninformed. Even if you weren't missing the actual point and making flawed comparisons, you're still ignoring the facts of the case against him and trying to dismiss them by appealing to the potential case law consequences of it - that's not "logic".

Re:By virtue of logic...

[Dr Max]

Are you saying auto manufactures don't make cars that are purposely sexy, and insanely fast, to get males to drool over them and pay massive amounts of money that quite often kills them? How about making a gun cheap, effective and available enough for genocide? And if you don't think the Alcohol industry profit from others misery, and play all kinds of mind games with there customers through advertisements and promos then your quite mistaken.

Looks like money changed hands

[Anonymous Coward]

How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.

This looks like yet another DOJ politically motivated prosecution.

Re:Looks like money changed hands

[alexo]

How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.

So?

Re:Looks like money changed hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a valid question?

Re:Looks like money changed hands

[Anonymous Coward]

So... given that extradition requests are often DENIED in cases where there are plausible reasons to believe the person-to-be-extradited will not get a fair trial/treatment, guess what?

Re:Looks like money changed hands

[alexo]

My guess is that they will drop all modicum of impartiality and due process and extradite him anyway.

China, please do us Americans a favor

[MikeRT]

We could end this crap in a day if China would pull this on us. They have the leverage and motivation to get US citizens extradited on equally flimsy grounds. It would be hilarious to see several American bigwigs taken to China and sentenced to 20 years of labor in a laogai.

Re:China, please do us Americans a favor

[Luckyo]

Empire to empire relations are different from empire to vassal state.

Re:China, please do us Americans a favor

[Anonymous Coward]

We are waiting for the precedent to be absolutely solid.

- The Chinese government.

Shades of the Napster case

[hessian]

It's one thing to run the equivalent of an open anonymous FTP site, but once you have an inkling that most users are doing illegal stuff with it, there's a responsibility imposed on you to do something effective about it.

If you don't, the law assumes you're a bad guy.

While I see their point, this blows. Megaupload was the best way to swap all kinds of files. I mainly miss it for the ability to send huge amounts of non-confidential data to clients and friends, and to legally share things like video and audio creations with others.

The problem is that there's no solution for this situation. If you set up an anonymous ftp server, those who need one will most commonly be sharing controversial stuff. Everyone else just publishes the normal way.

Thus, in with those whose use justifies the service existing, there are many whose use will be seen as the purpose. Ultimately, it's a loss for the users.

Re:Shades of the Napster case

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a legal responsibility to follow the laws of other countries which you're not in?

Re:Shades of the Napster case

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to run the equivalent of an open anonymous FTP site, but once you have an inkling that most users are doing illegal stuff with it, there's a responsibility imposed on you to do something effective about it.

If you don't, the law assumes you're a bad guy

Doesn't the DMCA cover this, giving a very well-defined way to deal with it?

Scare tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really scare tactics. It's an attempt to scare everybody else in the world into complying with THEM.

Hopefully, Kim Dotcom is smart enough to sed aside a lot of money for a rescue operation, in the event he ends up in US Custody.

Re:Fuck the USA

[Luckyo]

It would be far too costly to uphold appearances on assassinating Dotcom in comparison to just buying local legislative and judiciary.

Doesn't have the gun lobby an interest in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is working along the same lines as "megaupload doesn't violate copyright, people violate copyright".
I.e., if there's a ruling which says that the provider of means to commit a crime is guilty, wouldn't that apply to gun producers too? (And lots of other things too, actually). And it still applies if it is only "facilitating/enabling/making easer to commit a crime".

Re:Doesn't have the gun lobby an interest in this?

[BitZtream]

True. Servers didn't violate copyright. But thats not what this is about. He's not being prosecuted for uploading it himself. He's being prosecuted for knowingly and intentionally facilitating copyright violations FOR PROFIT. In fact he ENCOURAGED IT.

We also go after weapons dealers who don't follow the law and facilitate crime as well. For instance, a gun store owner encouraging people to buy his guns to commit murder would be charged with all sorts of things if someone actually went out and did it.

If the gun store owner does his job properly, doesn't sell to people that he shouldn't, runs background checks and doesn't encourage people to commit crime, and if he sees crime in progress he alerts authorities or otherwise tries not to let it continue, then he's not going to have an issue if he's gun store sells a gun that kills someone.

Re:Doesn't have the gun lobby an interest in this?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

We also go after weapons dealers who don't follow the law and facilitate crime as well. For instance, a gun store owner encouraging people to buy his guns to commit murder would be charged with all sorts of things if someone actually went out and did it.

If the gun store owner does his job properly, doesn't sell to people that he shouldn't, runs background checks and doesn't encourage people to commit crime, and if he sees crime in progress he alerts authorities or otherwise tries not to let it continue, then he's not going to have an issue if he's gun store sells a gun that kills someone.

Oh? We went after Eric Holder and his justice department employees who facilitated the sale of thousands of guns to murderers in Mexican drug cartels?

Good to know.

DANGEROUS AND DISTURBING

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess now you don't have the right to disclosure in a legal case if you are the defendant. This is a DANGEROUS and DISTURBING turn in our legal system and any first year legal student or judge should know that and for sure this is a situation where this could hurt the case.

Re:DANGEROUS AND DISTURBING

[BitZtream]

Of course you do, at the hearing to determine your guilt or innocence. This is not for that hearing. This is for the hearing to determine if the US meets the extradition requirements. There is a good chance he won't even make a real statement at that hearing as the judge isn't supposed to decide anything other than did the US meet NZ requirements for extradition. He can't really 'defend' himself here as there is nothing to defend. The judge will look over the charges and evidence provided by the US and make a decision as to if it seems to be valid. The judge could think the evidence prove Kim is innocent of all charges, but that is entirely irrelevant as long as the US met the requirements for extradition. Note: Its unlikely that the judge would feel he is innocent based on evidence and still allow him to go, obviously but from a legal stand point it is possible.

Re:can't be held responsible

[BitZtream]

Heh, this got modded as flamebait ... awesome. Good to see slashdot is overcome by 12 year old warez tools who think engineering criminal activity for your benefit should be legal and is good for the world.

So no need to show evidence of guilt now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is that only the case if you're an "enemy" of the USA?

People are overreacting.

[asmkm22]

A lot of people here seem to be making this out to some kind of grand conspiracy, when it's not. Evidence will be submitted and reviewed by all involved parties if and when a trial actually happens. Right now, there is no trial set because he's not even in the U.S.. NZ isn't the country holding the trial, so for people to think they deserve to have access to all of the information (at least publicly since they very well could have been given access behind closed doors) is rather silly. Unless NZ had reason to believe that Kim would get executed for his crimes or something crazy like that, it's not really their place to try and determine guilt before processing an extradition request.

There's a reason criminals try and avoid countries with U.S. extradition treaties in the first place. While Kim may or may not prove to be a criminal, he knew damn well that he wasn't making his fortune legitimately. His life history is basically one big string of exploitation schemes.

Get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Once Dotcom is on US soil he will be locked up indefinately while waiting for trial. Which will be a mockery of justice anyway.

But hey, a dangerous criminal is off the streets, right?

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

At some level, I wouldn't be completely againt those Monster execs dragged off to jail. Lesser of two evils and such...

it is just how the process works

[bussdriver]

You go to foreign nation break their laws you and you are stuck with them. Operate a business in a foreign nation and you are stuck with them too.

He did operate a business in the USA; however, it was hiring a US company and not actually doing it himself which becomes tricky. Use a CDN that is in the USA and you are subject to all US laws. Wonder if this works for FedEx...a physical CDN.

He personally is the target despite being a corporation; which is inequitable because we all know CEOs are rarely EVER touched for their actions. The corporation ends up in court. Recent big case: drug money laundering of HSBC (although if it weren't so powerful they would get some employees...but probably not all the right ones.)

Charges of crimes that are valid for extradition let all the invalid ones pass. Something should be done about that. The judge has to decide to block it based upon the whole list; problem is that some good ones are all that are needed to let a whole list of others that would be rejected pass. Then the US could change the charges once they get you. The extradition should decide WHICH charges can be applied and nothing else can be done outside those. Take US conspiracy law- that is one of the toughest things to survive because it is so broad.

Re:it is just how the process works

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder when will end US arrogance... there's simply no reason for him to be extradited because, mainly he has *nothing* related to US. Also, as I've read somewhere, for US to process a company, it have to have some real presence in US, which he has never.
That's reality, but there is even more, even if they have no legal reason to extradite him, they have done many illegal things to get their deal done (and that are real proofs already disclosed to public) so in my opinion, even if DoJ had a chance, they should have that chance lost due to their behavour.

All of this is a real nonsense! As you point, if in USA, sending blue papers is forbidden by law, and I use FedEx to send them in EU, and paying it with paypal....should I be extradited the same way? Absurd..

If he is guilty so is his ISP.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if his employees are too so is the maker of the network equipment software and everything else involved.

It's about time

[Provocateur]

Isn't this the guy doing the gangnam style dance almost everywhere?

Oh, wait...

Bogged down?

[Existential Wombat]

So, bogging down the legal process is actually grounds for totally ignoring it and shipping someone off to the US for 'justice'?

Wow. I thought NZ was better than that.

Indictment details

[weegiekev]

Has anyone here actually read the indictment?

It's online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf

Try from page 31 onwards.