Slashdot Mirror


NZ Police Got PRISM Data Before Raid On Dotcom

Bismillah writes "Police affidavits show that the New Zealand Police requested and received assistance from the country's signals intelligence agency, the GCSB, which appears to have used PRISM to intercept Kim and Mona Dotcom and the Megaupload associates' communications."

21 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to wonder who WASN'T involved with Kim Dotcom at this point. It's absurd the amount of time and money that was used to investigate this one man. Personally, I've always felt he was a bit egotistical. But man, When goverment(s) bring THIS much force to you, you kind of deserve to be a bit over the top.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
  2. Re:Was that really necessary? by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the upside, with this cat out of the bag now, at least it is going to be brought up in court. Kim doesn't seem to be the sort of chap who will keep quiet and just let it slide. He is probably straightening his tie as we speak and about to knock on the door of the nearest court in NZ.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  3. Not only for "Terrorism" by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    See how quickly the scope creep sets in. We break the constitution to spy on EVERYBODY without warrants to "protect us from terrorism". And now already other agencies want some of that honeypot data - the DEA, the IRS, New Zealand, and the XXAA media organizations. Now it's being used for COPYRIGHT violations!

    What the FUCK has happened to my country?

    1. Re:Not only for "Terrorism" by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry: someone will be along shortly to point out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never have happened.

  4. Not just for the terrorists. by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how the justification for the program was all about the terrorists. Now, we find out that it wasn't just used for terrorists, pedophiles, and drug traffickers, but also for people the copyright lobby dislikes.

    And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

    Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:Not just for the terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?

      Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.

      You need to read more history. I mean REAL history, not the lies they shoved
      down your throat in high school.

      None of this surveillance+governmental abuse stuff is new. What IS new is the scope with which surveillance
      can be done now, due to technological changes. The "machine" can now be more efficient than ever before.
      The efficiency is really the only new thing here. All the rest is an old story. However, the end of many such stories
      often features the fall of empire. Read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky for more on this idea.

      Could it happen in the US, the fall of empire ? Buddy, it is ALEADY happening, like a house of cards
      falling down in super slow motion video. Look at the true stats on the US economy. Look at how the US
      is HATED in much of the world. Look at how the US has become a bully which uses power instead of
      finesse to attempt to achieve goals. Truly the show in the US is run by idiots, and smart people know this
      is the case because it is painfully obvious if you watch actual events rather than mindlessly consuming
      propaganda. It's not Obama's fault though -- Obama is just an errand boy for the swine who really run the show,
      just as Bush was before him.

    2. Re:Not just for the terrorists. by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mate, it didn't start in 1999, nor did it start with Nixon in the 70's, or McCarthy if the 50's, it's been there forever and all sides do it if given a chance.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. Re:Was that really necessary? by sjwt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the US is in command, nothing is excessive when protecting the income of Big business.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  6. Follow the money by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)just 2 days ago that the GCSB (or NSA wanna bes) have been funded by the US to the tune of millions of dollars.

    So what did they buy? probably a Prism to put in our fibre access to the rest of the world. And I guess enough of a back channel to send it all to the US. I can see now why the second pacific fibre was nobbled because they wouldn't accept the use of Chinese infrastructure - wouldn't do to have some other country's backdoors in the routers rather than the US's.

  7. Re:Was that really necessary? by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Re:Was that really necessary? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cold what do you expect NZ to do when it comes under pressure from the USA? At anytime the USA can turn off the NSA data stream.
    NZ learned a lot from the Rainbow Warrior, international treaties, understandings, letters, assurances, visits, friendships and decades of cooperation are totally worthless.
    When NZ asked Australia, the US, UK for small amounts of basic telco help with France they got very little back.
    So NZ now knows its place, when the US asks for anything, NZ does all it can with all its tools (NSA was very good to the NZ gov and vast, expensive new telco work).
    National security assets where in no way limited and NZ national security staff seemed happy to help before any new telco/spy law changes.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Was that really necessary? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.

    Especially when the "law enforcement" issue was basically a civil matter of copyright.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  11. Re:Was that really necessary? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sarcasm aside, this ridiculous claims has actually been made by not only copyright agencies, but the US government, to justify more money for copyright-enforcement efforts.
    news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/

  12. Re:Was that really necessary? by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not really. I used to believe people gave a shit, but really - they don't. Most people really don't care. Even if the accused is accused of something they do every day they will sit on the jury and convict because the specific circumstance doesn't apply to them, because the prosecutor is so persuasive about how the specific way the accused is claimed to have done it is a criminal act, and take the lesson to mind their ways ever after about that specific way. Until they are in the dock proclaiming that it is not fair to people who were like them and will convict them too for failing to observe a different specific nuance of imaginary property in an exquisitely specific different way.

    This is an odd game where the combatants define the rules dynamically after the fact. For a decade after play ends the outcome is in doubt. The only real way to win is not to play. Or to be one of the many lawyers who get hourly fees to contest the outcome.

    In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.

    It is not fair. It is not right. But this is how it is, and unless people unite to fight it this is ... hey, Wilfred's next season dropped on Netflix. BRB.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  13. Re: Was that really necessary? by saihung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one forced him to use an international communication system.

    So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

  14. Re:Devil's Advocate by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Secondly, intercepting data of suspected criminals - and there is a lot of good evidence that this guy was engaging in criminal activity - seems sensible. It shouldn't be all cloak and dagger, and "signals intelligence" should just be regarded as another way of collecting evidence.

    If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style? If it's a criminal matter, there's a process for obtaining and serving a warrant. If it's a civil matter, there's a process for bringing a complaint. Neither was followed.

    Thirdly, people like this, who are essentially making huge bank by distributing other people's work, don't really deserve their income. They are the flip side of the copyright cartel.

    He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business. He took down files when requested. He complied with relevant laws. By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.

  15. Re: Was that really necessary? by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one forced him to use an international communication system.

    So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?

    Tyranny & corruption have graduated from the individual-nation level, to being a global/international level game. National leaders/power-brokers have realized the advantages to cooperation, at least on limited terms, with the leaders/power-brokers of other nations toward the goal of controlling ever more of people's lives, liberty, and wealth.

    It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.

    It's things like TFA describes, and things like the US and UK or NZ each spying on the other's citizens and exchanging the data to avoid legal/constitutional proscriptions against domestic spying. Things like treaties that "force" a (or a set of) national laws to be changed/abolished to comply with treaty terms, when the whole aim was to get said changes made against popular wishes and/or to avoid/bypass legal/constitutional restrictions.

    The fact that Snowden's and other's whistle-blower domestic surveillance revelations happened at all indicates that either the surveillance apparatus and infrastructure has grown so enormous and all-encompassing that it was bound to happen, or that things are so much under their control that it really doesn't matter that much any longer to those in power if the public finds out.

    Or both.

    None of which bodes any good for regular people anywhere, not just in the US, as TFA illustrates so well.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  16. Re:Was that really necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm glad I'm not the only one whom is frightened by how screwed up things have become and how willing the masses are to accept transparent excuses. It honestly has my afraid deep down that we're going to see a war on US soil in my life time. We're letting our government get away with overstepping their bounds (on a global scale) so often that they seems to have gotten comfortable being a bully. If history has taught us anything, it should be that countries which bully other countries become the target of large scale warfare.

  17. Re:Was that really necessary? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mirrored my thoughts so well I wanted to thank you for expressing them. Just this morning I am listening to an NPR article where the NPR "reporter" interviewed Mr. Muller, soon to be retired head of the FBI. Generally it was a fluff piece, but what started to bother me was when they talked about 9/11 and how the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, was now tasked with protecting our country from *terrorist* and acting *preemptively*. Really? I thought, When did Investigation turn in to Surveillance (aka FBS).

    So Mr. Muller tells us that instead of focusing on small things like white collar crime and violent crime he now needs to focus on an incredibly small group of people who pale compared to the terrorism Bankers, Hedge Fund managers, and other white collar criminals have committed against the people of this country. He even states, "We only have some much money so we spend it chasing bad guys with bombs that we cannot catch till after they explode"...well, my interpretation of he banal comment.

    Normally I am not a conspiracy type of person, but I cannot help, but wonder that after 9/11 as all of our law enforcement is now shifted to l;ook for bad guys in the desert, laws like Glass-Segal are repealed, Wall Street investment brings this country (and the world) almost to the point of ruin, and the FBI was unable to investigate, because they were spending so much time looking for terrorists. Good timing.

    My final thought as I listened to the end of this fluff was that the NPR reporter was just another tool to be used in a propaganda machine. She didn't ask or talk about why the FBI felt white collar crime was less important, she did not ask or push questions about unwarranted surveillance an d the FBI's role, and she certainly did not act like a reporter; she acted like a prop for a show. Very disappointing. I fear that investigative journalism is all but buried as Corporations hold more control of media centers. Ask the hard questions and soon you are shut out of access and the talking heads still get face time from the toodies trotted out by primary Media conglomerates.

    Fox - Owned by Rupert Murdoch (and branched in many countries)
    ABC - Owned by Walt Disney Corp
    NBC - Owned by General Electric
    CBS - Viacom, but ( Predecessor firms of Viacom include Gulf+Western, which later became Paramount Communications Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
    CNN - Time Warner

    Iit is amazing how only 4 major conglomerates control, TV, Radio, Print, and more and more Internet media to the point where most of the content was absorb comes from only these four sources..

    In a country that championed the idea of the 4th Estate, it has been supplanted by a Jim Taylor machine so vast it may not be brought down. Even NPR, my bastion of good reporting now seems to be losing ground. (sigh)

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  18. Re: Anton Vickerman Prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can I have country option number3 please?!?