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."
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
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!
What the FUCK has happened to my country?
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."
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?
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.
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
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"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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/
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.
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?
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.
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.