Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Encryption Keys For Kim Dotcom's Data Can't Be Given To FBI, Court Rules

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-encrypt-$200 dept.

the simurgh writes: As many who follow the Kim Dotcom saga know, New Zealand police seized his encrypted computer drives in 2012, copies of which were illegally passed to the FBI. Fast-forward to 2014: Dotcom wants access to the seized but encrypted content. A New Zealand judge has now ruled that even if the Megaupload founder supplies the passwords, the encryption keys cannot be forwarded to the FBI.

34 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Umm... by inhuman_4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it is a test case for the limits of government search powers. What they are allow to do to him, they are allow to do to you.

  2. "cannot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is nothing these governments "cannot" do.

    1. Re:"cannot" by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really?

      Ok, challenge accepted: Find me one of THESE governments that can do a balanced budget.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:"cannot" by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Informative

      oh they COULD do that...but they wont

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. ugh by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know who I dislike more in this case. Is there any way we can get Kim Dotcom and the FBI to go all Point Break on each other and get locked into a Patrick Swayze/Keanu Reeves death spiral except without the single parachute?

  4. What a crazy situation by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something seems really, really off kilter if so many of us see the federal government's law enforcement agencies as the enemy.

    There are so many good things that they're supposedly in the business to do: go after child porn producers, rapists, murderers, (actual) terrorists, etc.

    It's stunning that through their tactics (both in the courtrooms and out) and some of the unjust laws they have to enforce, they could actually be viewed as the enemy by a large portion of the public.

    This doesn't feel remotely like a healthy democracy.

    1. Re:What a crazy situation by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something seems really, really off kilter if so many of us see the federal government's law enforcement agencies as the enemy.

      The War on Drugs made law enforcement into the enemy for a lot more people than the War on Copyright Infringement. That's really where the Government started to overreach, in modern times, and if you think what they're doing with cyber criminals (real and imagined) is horrible you should Google "civil asset forfeiture" and start reading.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:What a crazy situation by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      You're actually highlighting the root of the problem. Law enforcement shouldn't be good or evil. They should be an impartial enforcer of the governments laws. Once we started treating them like some benevolent father figure they started seeing themselves in that way as well.

      Do you lie to your children to keep them safe?
      Sometimes you have to give them a spanking?
      Scheme with other parents on how to keep them safe?
      Pox parties anyone?

      Law enforcements not good. It just is. The fact that most police departments have PR firms working on retainer, that the Feds have an honest to god propaganda news agency working INSIDE THE US, that the government now works in secret with the courts to rule on our behalf? That's terrifying. It's no longer a government of the people... it's a government to control the people.

    3. Re:What a crazy situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah... as long as the government uses law enforcement as a form of revenue generation (everything from asset forfeiture to speed traps) and rewards police based on the number of citations rather than some metric of police effectiveness, I will continue to view our institutions as corrupt and law enforcement as the principal instrument of that corruption.

      In a 3rd world country... a corrupt cop pulls you over and you pay him $5 bucks for a bribe. In the US, he gets $5 in salary incentives from the chief. The only difference is that in the 3rd world, it ends at the cop... in the US, the ticket goes to your driving record and insurance and everything else.

      The 3rd world system, in this case, is better.

    4. Re:What a crazy situation by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      They should be an impartial enforcer of the governments laws.

      They usually are. That's kind of the problem. This was the best moment ever of The Wire.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:What a crazy situation by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      This doesn't feel remotely like a healthy democracy.

      Well you answered your own question...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:What a crazy situation by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure I totally agree. The CIA isn't being morally neutral when they torture people. The FBI wasn't morally neutral when they went after Nixon's / Hoover's political enemies. The NSA wasn't morally neutral when they repeatedly ignored the Bill of Rights. Local police officers aren't morally neutral when they form a Wall of Blue. None of them is morally neutral when they lie on the stand.

      Now if none of them did these things, you're right, they'd be a lot closer to morally neutral. But the fact they that sometimes do do these things is I think a big reason they're hated and feared by average citizens.

    7. Re:What a crazy situation by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are so many good things that they're supposedly in the business to do: go after child porn producers, rapists, murderers, (actual) terrorists, etc.

      It should be noted that the 'federal government's law enforcement agencies" have nothing to do with murderers or rapists, unless they perform their crimes on a federal reservation. Normally, that sort of crime is handled at the State or local level.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:What a crazy situation by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Personally, to me, all of that is peanuts next to random beatings and killings of unarmed, defenceless and subdued people.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:What a crazy situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The damage we're doing to ourselves by trying (and failing) to stop drug abuse is worse than the damage we would suffer without trying. That's been self-evident for at least a quarter of a century, if one only considers "drugs." If one considers prohibition, then we've had ample evidence since the 1930's.

      We're creating a large and violent underclass of convicted non-citizens, a breed of corrupt, heavily armed and very militant lawyer-cops, a distorted judicial system that feeds off revolving door drug prosecutions and a vast, costly and nightmarish prison system. And it doesn't work. If you want to ruin your life with drugs you may do so with little impediment.

      I come from a place that is now the social equivalent of necrotized flesh; Detroit, where the drug war was fought in earnest early on. I live in the first state to legalize recreational marijuana; Colorado. So maybe there is hope.

      On the other hand, I see the "war on drugs" as just another expression of the growth of the power of the State. There are so many comfortable, well paid and powerful "civil servants" that have so much at stake enforcing so many laws on so many aspects of every facet of every thing that I just don't see how any one large part of it, such as the police state we're nurturing in the name of the "drug war," gets rolled back.

      Not without a major, constitutional crisis level collapse that defunds them.

    10. Re:What a crazy situation by jxander · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMO, you're conflating the roles of Police and Judges. A judge should be impartial and neutral. They determine if laws are broken or if certain acts even violate laws (for any of the myriad events that aren't spelled out to the exact letter in writing, such as TFA) and mete out proper punishment when laws are broken

      Police are boots on the street, and need to be more personal and empathetic. Their role is to keep everyone safe, even if that does occasionally mean keeping people safe from themselves and their own actions.

      And at the end of the day, even if cops and judges were 100% True Neutral, that would be viewed as an overall positive by Joe Public. They're enforcing laws, catching bad guys, not harassing law abiding citizens, keeping us all safe, etc. The filter on my water pitcher isn't inherently good or evil. It simply does what it's designed to do: impartially filter out the crud I don't want to drink. And I appreciate this action. I like my water filter.

      But as with all things, money infects the proceedings. Police chiefs need money for brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions, to ensure whoever gets elected lets them keep their cushy job. Elected official like to run with campaign puffery like "we caught 10x more criminals during my term, as compared to the previous mayor." So the order of the day becomes less about protecting people, and more about gotta catch em all. Get as many tickets as possible. Invent some new illegal-thing so that we can arrest people. Install red-light cameras, despite the fact that they increase accidents and endanger the people. Who cares about that, they practically print money.

      Add in the War on (Drugs, Terrorism, etc) and we've built a very hostile relationship between police and civilians. Police and judges are no longer performing the actions for which they were designed.

      --
      This signature is false.
    11. Re:What a crazy situation by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Anyone who has ever defined the term "first world" as either "NATO-aligned countries" or "countries with post-industrial economies". The only people who call the US a "third world country" are people who are using incorrect terminology to describe the issues the US faces.

    12. Re:What a crazy situation by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Chariman Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" the Two Superpowers (the US and the USSR after capitalism was restored there in the 1950's) are the First World. The second world is the modernized secondary powers (Europe, etc.) The third world is the exploited nations (i.e. most of Africa.) So Belgium and Germany are Second World powers, the US and USSR are the First World.

      This was in opposition to the classic cold war use of 'Three Worlds' in western foreign policy, which defined the US and allies as 'The First World', the USSR and allies as the Second World, and the rest as the Third World.

      Your definition is the modern mish-mash defnition from after the decline of the Soviet Union, which comes closer to Mao's meaning, but is still significantly different.

      And the existence of Mao's theory and the older Cold War definition trashes your 'Anybody who has ever defined the term' claim. I've shown there are at least three ways the term has been used.

    13. Re:What a crazy situation by rainmaestro · · Score: 2

      The fact that it is the #1 non-disease killer (even in the US) is pretty much meaningless in the overall picture when you consider that over 90% of deaths are caused by diseases. Traffic fatalities represent about 2% of the total deaths per annum. Now factor in that only about 30% of traffic fatalities have excess speed as a contributing factor (according to the NHTSA). And only about 35% of fatalities occur above 55 mph (again, NHTSA), so most people aren't even in the "lucky to survive" range when they are killed.

      So...2% overall death rate, times 30% if speed traps could magically eliminate every instance of excessive speeding causing a crash, AND each of those crashes ONLY had excessive speed as a cause, and we get a *best case* 0.6% reduction in overall deaths if we went balls-out on speed traps. Complete and utter waste of time.

      Your numbers, while theoretically valid, are ultimately pointless in practice. Putting that extra effort into reducing distracted driving or alcohol-impaired driving would both yield a better return. Or, even better, put it into reducing the staggering number of deaths caused by preventable diseases if you really want to cut down the death rate.

    14. Re:What a crazy situation by chenjeru · · Score: 2

      Police are boots on the street, and need to be more personal and empathetic. Their role is to keep everyone safe, even if that does occasionally mean keeping people safe from themselves and their own actions.

      Sorry, but that's not true in the US. I agree that it SHOULD be their role, but cops are there to enforce the law, not to keep you, or anyone else, safe. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

      --
      Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  5. Re:Umm... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't count on it. That guy had more luck than is due, something's really odd here.

    I've followed the whole "Kimmie saga" for a while now. That guy is not lucky, he's DAMN lucky. It's really reaching Rincewind-luck-levels. Every "ordinary" person would either be in jail for the foreseeable future and beyond or would've gotten a pair of fitting cement boots along with a free swimming lesson.

    I don't have an explanation (that I could write down in a public place, at least), but I would NOT count on having the same amount of luck if I were in his boots.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. all states but Vermont by raymorris · · Score: 2, Informative

    All US states other than Vermont run balanced budgets, so those same politicians could do the same when they move to Washington. Apparently, the voters don't really care aboyt that any more once governor gets elected president.

    Interestingly, Vermont owes $13,000 per person, or $30,000 per family. It seems that either you keep the politicians on a short leash (49 state) or allow them to overspend and they'll put you $30,000 in the hole (Vermont).

    A couple of states are debatable as to whether or not their budgets are exactly balanced. Either way, none of them borrowed hundreds of billions from social security, spent it, and then bragged that they "balanced" the budget by balancing their spending with borrowing.

    1. Re:all states but Vermont by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      Every state gets money from the federal government for things like roads and law enforcement grants. No state has to maintain a military. If states run balanced budgets only because the federal government is handing them money and giving them services for free, is balancing the state budget really that much of an accomplishment?

      All that "free" money was collected from the taxpayers, and they all live (or exist on paper) in some state. They could have just as easily paid their taxes to their state capitols instead of Washington DC.

      Sure, if your state stopped getting highway money from the feds, the resulting consequences would look bad on the state's books. ("All these roads and no money to repair them! All these assets and we can't afford a military to guard them!") But if your state stopped receiving that money and its residents stopped paying the federal taxes for those uses, and instead those taxes were paid directly to the state, then it doesn't really look all that bad on the books, does it? ("All these roads and look at all this state income tax to pay for them! All these assets and look at all the money this state's residents have paid to hire guards!")

      (On average. I realize that on a state-by-state basis there is variance, but add up all 50 and the fed's contribution is less than zero, or exactly zero if they just happen to magically have no overhead at all.)

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  7. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's called money. Money and resources buy you freedom. Freedom is not free. Often the price of acquiring money, resources, and subsequently freedom is your head. The Universe may be sufficiently chaotic to be impervious to analytical treatment, but nothing in the rules of physics suggests that there's a lack of consistent rules. There is no such thing as luck. If you insist on calling it "luck", you should at least realize that it applies equally to all.

  8. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every "ordinary" person would either be in jail for the foreseeable future and beyond or would've gotten a pair of fitting cement boots along with a free swimming lesson.

    Every "ordinary" person can't afford the right defense.

  9. Re: Umm...damage by chromeronin799 · · Score: 2

    The damage has already been done. It's ended his mirage and torn his family apart, frozen his assets and been gerally inconvenient, all without even trying him yet. This is purely to strike fear into anyone who might want to challenge copyright as the US sees it.

  10. Re:And worse by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'd claim they broke the encryption using some "Super Duper Top Secret Compute Cluster" and attempt to use it

    ...and to nevermind the numerous wrench shaped bruises all over Kim.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  11. Hm? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    > "A New Zealand judge has now ruled that even if the Megaupload founder supplies the passwords, the encryption keys cannot be forwarded to the FBI."

    Yeah. Like copies of the drives can't be forwarded... to... the FBI...

    Wait.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  12. Re: Umm...damage by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Assuming his separation from his wife is not so that she wont go down with the ship and can retain assets etc afterwards...

    I have no evidence for this but I did have to wonder when I heard the news. Also he is cheeky, dodgy and clever enough to do such a thing.

  13. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are correct it is all money. I am/was part of this case with my involvement in a site called ninjavideo. We were the string they pulled to go after Kim Dotcom. Kim helped ICE go after us and then the evidence they got to go after us is what let them also go after him. I being poor had no money to launch a defense and I ended up doing a little 6 month sentence in federal prison and got 2 years of probation and I also now owe the MPAA 26k.

    Kim in my opinion is a scumbag who will through anyone and everyone under the bus including tattling on his competitors to paypal to try and get paypal to cut off their funding.

    wadswerth

  14. Re:US Gov't cannot access encrypted data??? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

    Think "Ultra".
    Kim DotCom is small potatos to the NSA.
    They aren't going to give away their shooting stand just to get a shot at him

  15. Re:Umm... by Mistakill · · Score: 3, Informative

    Luck?

    He has broken no laws in New Zealand... the NZ Police and the GCSB overreached with their spying and the execution of the search warrant (the warrant was found to be not legal). The US tried to get him extradited, so the Judge asked to see some of the evidence... (presumption of innocence you know), and the US said 'were the US, we want him, hes guilty', so the Judge said prove it. Seeing as the extradition hearing still hasn't been heard in it's entirety, he's still here in NZ.

    You can argue luck all you want, but what matters here is New Zealand law, and the opinion of the Judge (btw Kim Dot Com is a New Zealand resident, so is subject to all the rights that kiwi's have)

  16. Re:Umm... by johanw · · Score: 2

    You also appear to be in the unfortunate circumstance to live in the police state the US has become. Kim DotCom lives in New Zealand, and has therefore a little more protection from laws regarding to due proces.

  17. Re:Umm... by EvilJoker · · Score: 2

    He could, however, put up a page (anywhere else) detailing his version of the events.

    Once this has been done, anyone else (such as the person inquiring) can update the wikipedia article with a link to that page.