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.

14 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.
  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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"
    5. 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.

  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. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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