Slashdot Mirror
Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government
An anonymous reader writes "A Court of Appeal judgement released today has ruled in favor of Kim Dotcom and will let him sue the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) alongside New Zealand Police. During the High Court case, it emerged that the GCSB had been illegally spying on Dotcom prior to the raid on his Coatesville mansion, on behalf of the FBI, who now wants the Megaupload millionaire extradited to face trial in the US over copyright infringements."
Apropos of nothing at all, I was fortunate to have a client drive me past Kim Dotcoms mansion in a fashionably distant and hilly area North of Auckland a little while ago. It was, he said with evident disdain, a "rented mansion". I've no idea how true that is.
The main gate over which heavily armed special forces apparently had to pass, is barely a metre high, and surrounded by... no fence at all.
When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?
Everyone involved in this case on both sides of the ocean should be strung up from a very tall tree.
It's the only way they won't do it again to someone else.
I know what you are saying, but you may want to reconsider calling New Zealand "western", at least out of respect for the old sailors and explorers that helped map the globe through long travels and considerable danger.
Doesn't this make the appeal against the extradition stronger? Even given the minimal amount of evidence required to pass an extradition hearing doesn't the fact that this evidence is declared to have been obtained illegally render that evidence unusable?
Or is that just the perfect world view?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
I'd like to say that unlike most of you (most of you who post, anyway), I am, in a broad brush "against" mega. The test of copyright infringement in all countries in not a simple yes/no, but rather depends on things like intent, amount of material involved, for profitness, etc. And, when put against such tests, it is clear that megaupload's entire business model was as a facilitator of copyright infringing materials. I don't think there's any legitimate claim for him to be a "common carrier" as an impartial ISP. I agree with the takedown of his site and the seizure of his ill-gotten gains.
HOWEVER
If you read the wiki page on mega, specifically the "basis of indictment" bullet points, what strikes me is this: the exact same list can easily be levied against youtube, which I content is also a business, like megaupload, fundamentally built upon copyright infringement. YouTube is slightly more clever in that they attract non-infringing users to better mask their infringing activities, but still fundamentally the vast bulk of youtube advertising dollars come from showing copyright infringing content. Like megaupload, it has as kiddy-pron filter that works and yet while the same filter could be trivially tweaked or built upon to block at least a good portion of blatantly infringing content, it is not. Furthermore, both youtube and mega technically claim to be DMCA-takedown compliant, but both make legitimate rightsholders go through the maximal numbers of hoops to submit claims AND have trivial mechanisms for replacement of taken-down content (in mega's case, the 'link' system, in youtube's case, users just create another logon and re-upload).
So, if there's one thing REALLY wrong with this case, it's not relatively small prosecutorial oversteps in going after mega. rather, it's the unequalness where mega was procecuted but youtube allows to steam on. do a youtube search for 'full movie' to see how bad it is. we all know that we can find more or less whatever we want on youtube, plus or minus a few recent items from popular/current shows where the rightsholders actively police youtube (like the latest family guy episodes).
in all cases, it is the creators of content, the very people that we should protect the most, that get screwed.
No, I'm rejecting the notion that "western" can be used as a synonym of "democratic", "civilized" or just "not a police state" because those things have nothing to do with geographical or cultural proximity with the USA (or Europe).
The government has basically ruined their ability and right to prosecute him by illegal and ridiculous behaviour. Is he a bad guy? probably. Does he deserve to have his basic freedoms respected? Ya, just like anyone else.
Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
Kim Dotcom is no hero, but the government is definitely the villain of the piece, and their actions have led to Kim Dotcom's credibility (ha!) in this case.
I would prefer if illegal evidence garthering was punished like any other crime, but the evidence garthered could still used. Jail time would be a more powerful deterrent than havibg your evidence thrown out. However, I have no confidence that the guilty cops would receive justice, so perhaps your suggestion works better in practice.
Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
If the U.S. Constitution were still in effect, this egregious misconduct would get the perp freed at arraignment, if not cancelling the embarrassment of extradition. L'esprit deLoi of our Constitution is as guidelines for just and effective government, with primacy given toward protecting the citizen from the state.
The problem is - who should be punished for gathering the illegally obtained evidence?
The policemen who physically gathered the evidence?
The lawyers who signed off on the gathering?
The officers who signed off on the gathering?
The politicians who pushed for a case to be made?
All the policemen who were involved with the case?
It's a tricky situation, because what is to prevent A from getting B to take the possible fall, by telling B to go pick that thing up?
What I'd like to see is somewhat similar, but with clear lines of responsibility.
The prosecutor in charge of the case is held in contempt of court for 10% of the maximum penalty possible for the crimes, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), plus a fine equalling twice the salary that would have been earned in the time. Same for the lead officer/detective on the case.
The prosecutor's boss (DA/AG etc) gets 5%, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), similar fine. Same for the similar position in the police's ranks.
Any public officials who have provably pushed for the case, gets 3%, but no less than 7 days (no pay etc), similar fine.
Not sure what kind of punishment would be fitting for the policemen, CSI techs etc. who gathered the illegal evidence though. If they planted evidence or gathered it in knowingly illegal ways, they should obviously go to jail, but the problem comes when they gather evidence in good faith, that later turns out to be illegal. I don't want to punish them for simply doing their job in good faith.
Like other cases where a person's legal rights are infringed by investigators (and prosecutors), dotcom deserves to go free and the evidence used against him stricken. That's the only way to ensure that the same tactics won't be used again and again against people.
I argue that is not true. Although I believe in the need of due process, the procedure of striking poisoned evidence hasn't amounted to a deterrance of abuse by law enforcement. Something in the process must be revised, preferrably with the aim of building abuse deterrance.
Something like, being it a crime. Evidence striken? No... evidence is evidence. Proof of fact is proof of fact. But the police men that acted illegally ought to go to jail just as well. Illegal is illegal.
Good... someone has to teach the Govt, and the NZ Police, and the GCSB that we have laws to be followed...
And the FBI as well
I have been following this since it started with eyebrows rising at every new development. That KDC should be able to sue the government and the police is the right decision. However, the real bad guys here are the USA / FBI / MIAFIAA who bullied the NZ Government into acting in this unjust manner. The whole thing was a shake-down, plain and simple. Shame on the NZ government for allowing themselves to be bullied - all they can see is the Free-Trade-Agreement carrot being dangled, always out of reach... "You want a FTA? Then you must act on this terrorist who *allegedly* infringed on copyright". This started with the Three-Strikes file sharing law. Shame on you USA, you have manipulated/bribed another sovereign state into doing your dirty work and now they cop the consequences. Nothing new there I suppose. As much a "bit of a douche" KDC is - I admire him for giving everyone a shake-up, he is showing businesses that it's a brave new world of business models, not the 1950's heyday of *AA.
The problem is - who should be punished for gathering the illegally obtained evidence?
The policemen who physically gathered the evidence?
The lawyers who signed off on the gathering?
The officers who signed off on the gathering?
The politicians who pushed for a case to be made?
All the policemen who were involved with the case?
Yes. That would be all of them, there are rules, regs, procedures, case law, constitution(in NZ's case), and so on that were all violated. It was such a massive breech of public trust that every person should be charged criminally.
Om, nomnomnom...
The government has gotten smart. In the 60s, they prosecuted Rosa Parks. She was an unassuming woman who was not sitting in the front of the bus, nor in the whites-only section. The civil rights activists picked their case carefully. She was not the first, but she was the last (not counting those which happened while the trial was going on). Why? Because the activists picked the test case. An unassuming woman sitting in the Blacks section in the back of the bus.
The government hates losing. Why did it take so long for the US to leave Vietnam? Because no president wanted to be the first to lose a war for the US (I'm sure there was one in the 1800s we didn't win, but nobody remembers it). It took Nixon, getting ready to be impeached, to start the process, and Ford who would be more known for his pardon than anything else he'd do to get us out. So the US tests cases of civil rights against people like "Max Hardcore" now. Or Kim Dotcom. Find the questionable people of low charisma, and present them as criminals, try them later if convenient, but try them in the media first and make sure you won't lose, as the government did when the activists picked the test cases. We'd still have segregation if the courts only put dumb ghetto minorities in court. Give Rosa Parks a ticket for disorderly conduct and get a confession to that by means of a confession in exchange for a $2 fine and apology from the bus driver, and the whole thing would have disappeared without anyone knowing it happened. But no, we couldn't let any uppity black person win, and the activists descended as soon as they heard about it, and the government would not back down, even when they couldn't win.
So they learned from Hitler and they are going after the trade unionists first (how's Fox News feel about unions?), and sexual perversion (see Max referenced above). We are following the Nazi playbook, even if we claim out ideology is different. Segregate and marginalize. Start with the least desirables (the sex offender's list is unconstitutional punishment, but it's ok because he was a scumbag and it was for the kids). Then move on in slow steps, making sure to never hit a group so large or liked that anyone will speak up for them.
Learn to love Alaska
You do realize that the US government is trying to get him extradited in order to put him on trial for crimes in the US. I believe that's the point of his statement.
All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction--Down.
New Zealand does not have a constitution. The violation is of the Bill of Rights Act.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I think this speech sums it up nicely.
Sir Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons" on the rule of law.
No-one is above the law, and we should all abide by the law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Just imagine what they could do if they controlled the prosecution, defense, and judge of a trial.
The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller