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."

13 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. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?

  10. 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.