Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
from the seems-sketchy dept
As lots of publications are reporting, over in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom took the stand to testify about how the police treated him during the raid on his home as part of the international effort to seize and shut down everything related to Dotcom and Megaupload. I have no idea if the claims he makes of being kicked and punched and the like are accurate. I'm sure his detractors will question how trustworthy the testimony is. Frankly, I have no idea how accurate it is.But here's the thing that I find most interesting. Buried all the way at the end of the Stuff article linked above is the following line:
The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.To me, that seems like a point that should be made up top. If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case? The fact that they're trying to suppress that very evidence certainly lends credence to his claims, and (at the same time) calls into serious question the conduct of law enforcement during the raid.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: details, evidence, kim dotcom, new zealand, prosecution, raid, suppression, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
We can punish those who displease as as we wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FTFY
How many politicians does Kim have in his pocket? That is how you measure big or little in this context. And from everything that has happened, I'd say the answer is "none"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They have to learn how things work in the democratic dream. They will find out about how reality works eventually and prefereably when they are already trapped in a situation they themself want to get out of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't it make sense that there would be an MPAA rep similar to how the RIAA is in raids on CDs?
So it makes sense that they want to destroy the tapes and cover up any evidence that MPAA officials were involved in the raid. We already have a list. And NZ has the iiNet scandal to look forward to negotiating. Is it a large stretch that an MPAA official possibly was on scene just in the shadows?
Or could it be that the police are just covering their own tracks when they knew they screwed up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is speculative, and who knows what NZ law says, but at least under US Law, a third party accompanying law enforcement during the execution of an arrest warrant can be held liable for trespassing. (Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 [1999])
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, if he would have been charged with using Windows as his operating system, the US could have put Kim in Guantanamo till hell freezes over and nobody would have cared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Were there things like 'protecting identities' of involved personnel, then they should never have been at the site to begin with.
The whole thing smacks of cover-up, just like the rest of it. I notice to date, no article has shown the US returning the data they got shipped to them from the raid. That too, says a lot by itself on legality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not necessarily. A lot of the time, the authorities try to suppress evidence because it's embarrassing -- not because it disproves their case.
For instance, imagine if the video footage showed a MPAA representative accompanying the police on the raid. Or if it showed a police 'technology expert' trying, and failing, to turn on a computer. Or if it showed the police standing around, after the raid, making offensive jokes about the suspects. None of these things would be illegal, per se...just intensely embarrassing to the people involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more proof that the raid was unnecessary
Apparently Kim had a police officer, who is part of the group that provides security for VIP's, as part of his security detail. In testimony, he said if he was given search and arrest warrants, he would have given them full access.
This information was given to the raid team beforehand, but they still proceeded to go through with things commando style. Could have made things much easier for everyone, as well as saving taxpayer money. I guess they decided to go for headlines at time (not realizing it would show incompetence later on)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10825297
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even more proof that the raid was unnecessary
The raid was meant to make a point. That the *AA's can order the police in any country to drag you out of your home, treat you like an RPG toting terrorist, and do the same to your family at the same time, law be damned.
Doing things legally, or even sanely, wouldn't have gotten the point across nearly as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even more proof that the raid was unnecessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Even more proof that the raid was unnecessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even more proof that the raid was unnecessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's reminiscent of the whole "videoing cops" idiocy
Yet we're constantly being told that surveillance is a good thing "if you've got nothing to hide". Apparently, that only applies in one direction.
Barring a reasonable explanation, it sounds like suppression of the truth - a classic Police State move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a super villain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And apparently she likes jumping out of helicopters with a parachute too. Or so I saw on TV once. Nice lady though, I can understand why you guys hang on to her. Though evil witches can sometimes be nice too, not saying that she is one, just saying they can be nice sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
also: most people don't care about the monarchy As Such that much so much as they really, REALLY don't trust the idea of the type of people who can win elections being the ultimate authority on anything.
then there's the whole 'moral authority' thing... a reigning monarch makes it much harder for would-be dictators to amass the personal authority needed to actually take over. legitimacy, ya know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's insulting deeming and even with the total lack of actual power I find it deeply disturbing that one unelected and uncountable person could technically shut down the elected branch of my government just because of who her parents were.
I have a fundamental and deeply held problem with being subjected to authority and any one who is happy with a monarch even as a figure head is some one I simply can not understand.
I might be a little bit of a republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to see here
We just want to save you all the time and effort of going through the evidence only to find out that everything was 100% on the up and up.
Trust us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Had to say it before he turns up).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look, Mike is writing another pro-Megaupload, pro-piracy FUD piece.
Oh look, Kim Dotcom likes what Mike writes about him: http://twitter.com/techdirt/status/231442445928394753 & http://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/230991331395268608
That's so cute how you both adore each other. Why would anyone think that Mike Masnick is a pirate-apologist? That's crazy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious troll is obvious...
Also, you might be a putz (get checked today!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get with the program its lord high pirate-apologist.
Sheesh cant you AC's get anything right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It shouldn't matter if you like Dotcom or not- when the prosecutor tries to suppress potential evidence of a crime, something is very very fishy. If the video shows Dotcom being treated appropriately it would be a win for the prosecution, and there would be no legitimate reason to not show it. Is there a reason to not release the video, other than to cover up some aspect of the raid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Somehow my brain suppressed the "stupid" leaving it as "awesome logic" and I lol'd.
We are used to this specific shill already. You can count on him for the comedy ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, what the article is actually about how the crown is attempting to suppress the footage of the illegal raid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, what the article is actually about how the crown is attempting to suppress the footage of the illegal raid.
Wow, really? You don't see how this article is pro-Megaupload FUD? He asks the question, but then makes no attempt to find out what the Crown's argument actually is for requesting suppression. Maybe it's a good reason, maybe not. Nor does he explain how the video is even relevant. Is there video of what went down in the safe room when Pirate Kim was tackled? I dunno, and neither does he. It's classic FUD. Just leave a bunch of doubts hanging there, but ignore relevant facts that bear on the reasonableness of the request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What have they got to fear? o3o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
D'uh. By noting that the proescutors want to bury it which obviously makes it relevant to anyone not playing willfully daft as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The government offers no explanation for the suppression.
If they don't offer it,how does he "make an attempt to find out"?
They obviously don't want to tell, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like the part starting at 6:58 where they admit the FBI was there and that even though the threat was so low that they didn't feel the need for body armor they still felt the need to show force by bringing 2 helicopters and 4 vans both full of officers to storm the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, Mike is writing another pro-Megaupload, pro-piracy FUD piece.
Oh look, Kim Dotcom likes what Mike writes about him: http://twitter.com/techdirt/status/231442445928394753 & http://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/230991331395268608
That's so cute how you both adore each other. Why would anyone think that Mike Masnick is a pirate-apologist? That's crazy!"
As has been noted, Masnick is Dotcom's Mini-Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quoting another troll in toto: 0
Not using "yellow journalism": 0
Saying "Masnick" instead of "Pirate Mike": 0
Total troll points: 0/10
Man, I'm so riled up, I'm going to flame the livin...zzzzzzz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice to know.
Yes, I want truth, and if the truth makes the government look bad and Megaupload look good then so be it. You, on the other hand, just want whatever makes your position look good irrespective of truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and its you that wants to spread 'uncertainty an doubt' by suggesting the videos be suppressed. What we want is certainty which is why we want the videos released. As far as fear, why are the videos being suppressed if the prosecutors have nothing to fear? and how is discussing the suppression of these videos spreading fear? The govt can respond to this alleged fear by simply suppressing the videos?
Oh, and (in the very unlikely event that) if the govt. tries to re-stage another raid with Kim present (unlikely), Kim should be smart to think of something to say that only someone would know well after the raid occurred and to repeat it over and over. For instance, he could repeatedly mention an unpredictable event that occurred well after the raid, perhaps an earthquake, date, and location, or find something more subtle that wouldn't take as long to say. Make sure he's looking in the camera while saying it if possible so that cutting off the sound won't prevent the message from being released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More From Today's Stuff.co.nz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More From Today's Stuff.co.nz
"Information provided to the STG by OFCANZ said Dotcom had access to weapons and was "exhibiting violence". The file included pictures of Dotcom grinning and holding a shotgun. It also said there was a "reasonable risk of injury or death" to police from Dotcom or those on his property.
Asked if he believed there truly was a risk of death or injury, the sergeant answered "no". "
That photo if Kim holding a shotgun has been floating around the web for years, before he moved to NZ. How it could an indication of anything is beyond me. If that's the rational the police are going to use to escalate from 'a knock on the door' to 'tactical assault', I would be very afraid if I was one of the people featured in the 1,240,000 results you get from typing "grinning holding gun" into Google Images. Even more scary is the 8,710,000 results from "smiling holding gun"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To me, that sounds more like they don't want the activities of the SWAT team to become public knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I actually can see how the footage could be prejudicial - SWAT teams are aggressive by nature, otherwise they would have taken the civil approach and knocked on the door. Once you've got that many people, all on an adrenaline rush, trained to use force to neutralise a target... of course they didn't walk up to him and say "Excuse me, would you mind coming with us?"
However, it's only prejudicial because they took an overly aggressive stance with Dotcom in the first place. They would need to show reasonable grounds to believe that the measures they took were justified, IMHO. I really don't see how they had reason to hit him with that amount of force to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only real reason I could think of to show the footage is to show that there was interference from a foreign (US) presence. An MPAA stooge being there would go a long way to showing a prejudice by the cops. An MPAA stooge touching a computer could be proof of tampering with the evidence. Same points go for US law enforcement types as well.
However, if Dotcom wanted to file suit against the police, I could see the footage being highly relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
there is the Armed Offenders Squad, but it fits in differently. (not least in that it has the ability to pick up actual Military Units as subordinate attachments to get it's job done if needed. ... an NZLAV which is quite capable of chewing the building you're hiding in to bits just to get at you and willing to do so if necessary is a good incentive to surrender, ya know?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not really surpressed
OR...
The MPAA is windowing the release and region restricting it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not really surpressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upper Darby
I dont doubt for a second they beat him. After all he has plenty of cushion to hide blows.
And here is the proof:
The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.
Mike is 100% correct to come to the conclusion:
If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case?
Hiding/Destroying evidence. Hmmm. Where have we seen that before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Kim's own CCTV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Kim's own CCTV?
/s, but probably true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about Kim's own CCTV?
"It clearly shows an FBI agent spraying Dotcom's kitchen sink with piss the color of Jack Daniels, then taking a massive wet dump on his coffee table."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell we have seen cops do this at traffic stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Romney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Romney
1) It's the New Zealand authorities, not American authorities who are suppressing the footage.
2) Romney won't do as his own father did when HE ran for the Presidency.
What's he hiding that his father wasn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Romney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Romney
If they were "acting as sock-puppets", Kim would've been deported by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I begin to see a trend here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Handy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate to be a party pooper.....but.....
If the latter then I would agree with the sentiments that this is BS and only makes the Crown look worse.
Otherwise is this not just a media-gag order?
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to be a party pooper.....but.....
somewhat important. (i don't really have the time or inclination to be chasing up all the linked articles.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to be a party pooper.....but.....
Though there could be a case under Recording Devices legislation if audio was involved (non dissemination other than to parties involved is a normal restriction within these legislations).
If the footage was taken by LEO's than they have an absolute right to deny the media access to it, though it would still be probative evidence that any defence would require full access too whether it was being used by prosecution or not.
Another reasoning a court might normally allow a release order (gag order) is if it could be shown that it could influence a jury pool one way or another. Impartiality must be shown. Though this ONLY applies to jury trials and in this instance a jury is not used in extradition hearings, or in any of the the other current matters before the NZ courts.
For all those who state the media must be given this data please understand that criminal cases are not always open to the public, and evidence definitely never is. Different country diff rules.
Personally I think this footage will surface no matter what the Crown and courts say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A tiny (and dickless) male (like you) with a gun can overpower the largest and most masculine man in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's see the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How much fun would that have been to see?
Pirate Kim whining about his arrest is too funny. Um, don't hide in the safe room with a loaded shotgun if you don't want the cops to use force while arresting you. Duh. And maybe don't pose for pictures like this: http://kimbleblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cropped-schmitz_kim_megaupload_gun.jpg
LOL! What an idiot. Too bad he didn't make a move for the shotgun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gosh it would be nice to live life that simply wouldn't it?
Fuck, I should've been a couch cowboy and then I could've rounded up them long haired hippy freaks all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless I heard POLICE SEARCH WARRANT!!!! I would come out shooting too.
"Pirate Kim whining about his arrest is too funny."
So you are OK with a good ole boy smackdown huh?
I hope the next time you run a red light you get some good ole boy treatment too. Boots to the head are not just reserved for accused, ACCUSED copyright infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Run a red light then high-tail it to a safe room and lock yourself in with a gun and see what happens to an accused, ACCUSED traffic violator. Odds are that you'll get your candy ass kicked too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not "AND" but "OR". What is the fucking point of even asking for opinions from an able bodied law enforcer doing their job when you have fucking video that has the potential to tell you exactly how well they're doing their job? What's the point? The point is that subjectivity is multiplied tenfold, hundredfold. My word against yours and you're a fat fuck (convicted felon) and I'm a sworn upholder of the law is all. I'd listen to me too.
There is nothing that I've found that attempts to speak to WHY the video is suppressed, nothing.
Unless you're a just another pretty fucking ignorant excuse for maximalist you're playing your hand at simply being pretty fucking ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, I'm glad that no "sworn upholders of the law" have ever been shown to be corrupt or exhibited uncontrolled violent tendencies.
What a relief!
I can sleep easier tonight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he didn't. Get your facts right before acting like such a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
who served their time and is now "rehabilitated"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the mission is to arrest a 6'4 400lb convicted felon who has retreated to a safe room with a gun
- convicted felon - ah, judge him for mistakes of the past, classic. I'd like you to prove he did anything wrong now. Then we can talk. The law is pretty clear and the United Police States of America could not support any of the charges so far.
- safe with a gun - so you hear your house being torn down by an unknown force. You blissfully wait till they shoot you in the head instead of running for safety, right? Also, if you actually care to read the article you'll find links that provide the information that Kim did not go for the gun once he realized what was happening precisely to avoid any misunderstandings.
Your comment reaches pretty abyssal levels of fail. If that was your intention then you are doing it right at failing ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The footage needs to go public to either have those officers arrested or exonerated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that how nz cops do things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no it's not.
not unless they changed how they do things recently.
(besides, if they were going to do anything of the sort, we have our own intelligence agency(s?) for that sort of thing. no need to pin it on the cops.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Protecting Their Identities”
After all, the supposed “bad guys” in this piece (Kim Dotcom and his mates) already know what they look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the hallmark of someone without enough command of the language to actually express themselves.
I get a lot of smiles per post on some that do get in there and try. But this one particular troll that insists on attacking Mike personally, instead of addressing the topic is beginning to be annoying. I'm about ready to see if he can be dealt with in a manner befitting his status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]