NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
from the yet-another-mishap dept
Since the January raid of Megaupload, not a month seems to go by in which another massive error in procedures isn't revealed concerning how US and New Zealand law enforcement handled the whole process. And each time, the mistakes seem to get bigger and bigger. They had the wrong warrants. They mishandled evidence. They mishandled the extradition request. And today comes the big news. New Zealand's Prime Minister, John Key, revealed that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), the equivalent of the NSA in New Zealand, illegally intercepted communications regarding individuals in the Megaupload case and provided those details to law enforcement. Like the NSA, the GCSB is in charge of monitoring electric communications, but is not allowed to use those tools domestically, only on foreign communications. Key has now ordered an investigation.Mr Key says the Crown has filed a memorandum in the High Court in the Megaupload case advising the Court and affected parties that the GCSB had acted unlawfully while assisting the Police to locate certain individuals subject to arrest warrants issued in the case. The Bureau had acquired communications in some instances without statutory authority.Once again, like pretty much all of these "mishaps," this seems to suggest a rather cavalier attitude towards actually following proper procedures under the law to go after Dotcom and Megaupload. Throughout this whole process, it really does appear that law enforcement, under pressure from Hollywood, believed that Dotcom was such a criminal mastermind that they could skirt the law in all sorts of ways to try to shut him down. And each time these mishaps come to light, it just raises more and more questions about whether or not law enforcement really had any legitimate evidence or reasons to do what they did.
After being informed about the matter by the Director of the GCSB on September 17, the Prime Minister referred the Bureau’s actions to the Inspector-General, Hon Paul Neazor. The Inspector-General is an independent statutory officer with the power to enquire into any matter related to a government intelligence agency’s compliance with the law.
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: gcsb, john key, kim dotcom, new zealand, spying, surveillance, wiretapping
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Government being paid to undermine law via Hollywood agenda = pants-crappingly scary (thanks Tim).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, Mr Dotcom (aka Kim the pig) was pretty cavalier about the law himself.
As a side note, this has nothing to do with going after Megaupload, and only about tracing down the people in question after the fact, from what I read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Generally it means that the bad guys get away with it; so if Dotcom really was so guilty you should be just as pissed about the procedure violations as the rest of us are about the government overreach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am pissed like hell that anyone can play this game and get away with it. I have the same feelings when asses like Romney use off shore accounts and tax havens to avoid paying his fair share. It's just as criminal in my mind. It may be "legal" in purely technical terms, but most of us know "wink wink" what is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are many things I would like to make illegal in other countries and copyright infringement is the least of them. Let's start with sex trafficking or laws against women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and because you said it, What is "fair share"?
Though its not like you will understand or respond (and even if you do it will just be talking points by others)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I eagerly await the raid on Romney's home to gather evidence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't excuse anything. You're like a naughty child who, when rebuked by the teacher, says " but he did it toooo"
Due process is important
I'd give the devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
(from "A Man for all Seasons")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And its sad that he/she doesn't realize that this same line of belief can be used against you as well. Without some uniform basis for ethics (usually codified as laws in society), everyone will feel as though everyone else is bending the rules to achieve their own ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The traitor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But he has yet to betray his country. Nor has he committed an act of espionage against his country.
But it's nice to see that you haven't jumped to conclusions and determined guilt before a trial or anything. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I realize the "report" thing is a community driven function, hence, to the community, we should not use it as a "You're wrong" button.
Now to the substance:
You ad hom demonstrates your hysterics here are furthering an agenda without factual support.
Ah, well, that makes breaking the law ok then. "Your honour I only killed the guy after the fact!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Disagreeing with someone, that's okay.
Disagreeing strongly with someone, still okay.
Childish name calling and personal attack, very much not okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As long as it's the only tool available for the community to say "You're wrong", that's what it'll be used for.
Ignore those bleating about "censorship", it's not even close. In fact I'm quite sure flagged comments get more attention than they would if unflagged. Some censorship that is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what the "reply to this" link is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, the guy's so ugly it's only fair law enforcement breaks the law to go after him. Only handsome boys and girls should deserve due process, it's a well known and established fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you get the FUD about them perhaps not having "any legitimate evidence" from this story? I thought you were of the opinion that Dotcom et al. were likely guilty. Funny how all your articles defend him and shine the spotlight on any little speck you can spin into a huge story that disparages the prosecution. It's almost like you're a pirate-apologist or something. Nah. Couldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I think the same about Dotcom. Good thing he's being held accountable as well. I very much look forward to his prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's learning...
[ 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:
Secondly, these aren't some small, minor infractions here, some of these "missteps" are huge gaping holes you could drive a truckload of law books through. We're talking the type of errors that will likely render most evidence, even if it exists in quantities enough to convince even his strongest supporters, completely unusable in a court of law.
Personally I don't care for the man. He's just the sort of prick people ordinarily like see get the smackdown laid on their candy ass. But the more details come to light it just becomes clearer to a growing number of people that this was never about stopping wrongdoing (because if they really had the proof they could have done it up to 3 years ago), but about protecting a small number of businesses from real competition (given the choose to pull the plug on him right before he started an serious alternative to the major labels and studios).
When I find myself siding with someone like DotCom, and watch him become something of a cult hero, it really shines a light on how truly disgusting/detestable the major labels/studios (and increasingly the US government as well) are becoming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the ultimate irony of the situation. For all the effort on the part of the government and Hollywood to end Megaupload's devious pirate "subterfuge", they've managed to turn Dotcom into a martyr and a blow to their PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To emphasise this point, the fact that the arrest was made without the right warrants in question ended up pushing the case back. That's pretty damn big "FUD".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what crimes and evidence are you referring to? because what's in the indictment looks very questionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You and I have very different understandings of the word "little".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait. It doesn't count because the judge followed the law when that was declared, making the judge an "activist judge", right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you haven't, the core concept is that if someone is guilty then there is no need for "dirty tricks" and that aligns with another concept that justice is blind or that everyone is equal under the law or that law enforcement should be honest. But that's assuming we live in a civilized society...
I don't care if Dotcom is innocent or guilty. The crime or trial should not be deceided in headlines, based on public relations and no individual should loose their rights or business should be shuttered without due process - and certainly not to bolster a case for trade policy largely developed in secret.
That's where I see the Dotcom case. It's the same process that convinced the public that fair use was limited vs. copyrights. All the John and Jane Doe cases made headlnes and very few people read that the labels had no case. They got settlements out of fear (extortion) without making a case.
Going after MegaUpload was very public, scared most of the data industry, shuttered cloud services and created public opinion without much facts. The fact that the case is turning out to be manufactured and cooked hasn't gotten much more than a paragraph on the back page. No major media outlet is covering it.
All I've heard is "copyrights are too complicated", which is BS. Ask friends, family and neighbors. They assume MegaUpload was found guilty already. They have no idea how this might impact them. A trial would reveal that and I doubt the U.S. even cared if this went to trial.
Due process is important. This isn't just about MegaUpload.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom gets a free pass while the prosecution gets put under the microscope."
1) Nothing has actually been proven against Dotcom.
Remember "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
2) If the evidence was illegally-acquired, it MUST be thrown out, by rule of law.
3) The legally-acquired evidence we've actually seen so far doesn't prove him guilty of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such as? I suspect whatever your answer, no one would ever use the horrible to describe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha. You fucking hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Horrible? Horrible is trafficing 12 year old girls to sell as sex slaves. Horrible is selling methamphetamine to middle schoolers. Horrible is murdering innocent people for kicks.
Running a legitimate business that followed laws it didn't even have to(the DMCA) and giving rights holders direct access to your servers is hardly what I'd call "horrible".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, as I've said before--I don't think a conviction (or even taking this to court) was the ultimate goal. I think this has been more about shutting Megaupload down long enough to make it difficult or impossible for them to expand into legitimate media distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The number of supporters he'll have then will be absurd, a percentage of them will pay, and he'll have enough money (remember, cash is like magic that anyone can do) to make a legitimate media distribution empire whenever he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's pretty sad for a "free" society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's no doubt that Dotcom definitively skirted the law in this case and was a criminal in other areas. Those are facts. What isn't a fact is the level of evidence provided to NZ law enforcement, from which the arrest and raid was ordered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is real evidence that MegaUpload was being used, legitimately, for personal backup of files. I used a cyber locker for it's unlimited storage offer to backup my files. Many of those are copyrighted, but they were not shared. I had a hard drive and desktop die within 4 days of each other and learned I needed a backup for my backup. Why not use a service like MegaUpload? As it turned out, the fact I did saved my ass again.
I think that if MegaUpload's servers were honestly examined, a good portion of those files were not shared. They were backups of personal material, including copyrighted music or movies that people had BOUGHT. We have that right still.
Another portion would be software and material that had copyright ownership but was independent and being distributed outside of traditional means. The second strike.
The smallest portion might be pirating. It exists and probably always will like tax cheaters. Is that a reason to take out after an entire industry? Were camcorders made illegal because a few used them to shoot movies in the theater? Were banks shut down because a few ... (never mind). You get the drift.
Hollywood is tring to pull a Napster and make all P2P or bit torrent services illegal. YouTube and Google would not have evolved and existed under the same rules. That's what's criminal. It's the dark ages for developing technology and ways of sharing information,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those are facts."
Citation, please?
In which jurisdictions was he CONVICTED of the crimes the RIAA and MPAA are claiming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and average_joe pulls through for us yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It's almost like you're a pirate-apologist or something. Nah. Couldn't be."
Thats lord high pirate-apologist to you buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Personally I was thinking "King of the Pirate Apologists," but I think a certain King will call him out for using that title.
[ 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:
[ 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:
You're right. My bad. Lord High Pirate-Apologist. I'll get it right next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your entire schtick is to rush to post something (anything) critical of the posted article. It doesn't matter what the article is actually about or how irrelevant the nitpick.
If Mike posted something critical of Mussolini you'd be the guy who rushed in to post that Mussolini made all the trains run on time and "why isn't Mike talking about that??"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's almost like you were just too busy being an RIAA/MPAA apologist or something to actually read the article. Nah. Couldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sure you're reading the same article? I'll even quote it:
"And each time these mishaps come to light, it just raises more and more questions about whether or not law enforcement really had any legitimate evidence or reasons to do what they did."
He explicitly questions whether they "really had any legitimate evidence." Of course, he must have completely "forgotten" about the evidence presented in the superseding indictment that's got nothing to do with this story. But Mike tends to "forget" the inconvenient parts when it suits him. Why let anything get in the way of a good anti-government/pirate-apologist rant, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uncontested evidence.
Just because a grand jury was swayed by one side (and one side only) of an argument doesn't mean it's evidence of anything yet, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the "evidence" that was so vague and nebulous that the New Zealand officials refused to allow Dotcom to be extradited?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I started off thinking that, but as I learn more and more about the case he looks more and more innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Curious. Weren't you the person going on and on and on about how any violation of someone's "rights" was clearly "immoral."
You don't think spying on their personal communications outside of what the law qualifies as a violation of rights or being immoral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't think spying on their personal communications outside of what the law qualifies as a violation of rights or being immoral?
And I said that if someone did something wrong, they should be punished. And the fact that they are tasked with upholding the law, it makes it all the more deplorable.
But you're skirting the question (surprising!): How does this story lead you to question whether they have "any legitimate evidence" about Dotcom's guilt? What does this have to do with all the evidence in the superseding indictment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? That wasn't what you criticised - the first thing you did criticise was Masnick being a pirate apologist. If Masnick hadn't brought the point up you wouldn't have mentioned this.
It's pretty clear where your priorities lie, average_joe. You're not concerned about violation of rights - you're exclusively centered around criticising this site wherever you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny that. Your comment was the fifth one for the article and in no way did you lead with "And I said that if someone did something wrong, they should be punished. And the fact that they are tasked with upholding the law, it makes it all the more deplorable."
But, I guess leading with "those who break the law, regardless of who they are, and most especially those in positions of authority, should be punished" wouldn't fit in with your usual rants and ad hom laden comments aimed at the site or Mike in general. Can't let a little thing like "justice" get in the way of slinging mud, right AJ?
And, for a supposed lawyer to be, it's quite easy to see how this story leads one to question whether they have any legitimate evidence. As a lawyer to be, you of all people should know that any "evidence" gathered in illegal manners or manners that violate the law, especially when done by law enforcement officers and people in positions of any kind of authority, it is almost always thrown out and considered to be non-existent as far as the courts are concerned.
So, to put it simply, if those responsible for upholding the law obtained the evidence themselves, and not through third parties (where they could at least potentially claim to believe it was gotten through legitimate and legal means), and did so in a manner that was illegal, or seriously skated the lines of legality, then it is considered tainted and as such will be deemed inadmissible in a court of law. (Note, I'm not a lawyer. Nor have I studied law. But I know enough to know that.)
Does that answer satisfy you, AJ? Or since Mike himself didn't state it is it not acceptable? Per your usual reactions to such a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those new charges haven't been backed up, have they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck getting the kiwi's to sign off on another raid.
I think they pissed off the wrong large angry austrian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would they "risk their jobs" allowing a guy who pumps millions into the local economy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
maybe to start with.
problem is, he started off as a relative unknown, while the US government started off as a known, potentially hostile, threat and the current NZ government Really Is unpopular (even a fair number of those who voted for them are unimpressed with some of their actions during the last term).
Dotcom, consequently, became popular pretty much the moment he made the news, here. massive over reaction by the government is attention getting (usually because it results in them screwing themselves over, which is always entertaining), while sailboarding and miscarriage of justice get the population's attention and quite easily raise their ire.
throwing him out of the country would probably actually be worse for the current government than having to soak the costs of the mess they've got themselves into. (especially as they're already proving less honest even than the usual run of politicians and completely incompetent when it comes to budgets and economics anyway.)
or so it seems to me, at least.
[ 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:
And his Techdirt Mini-Me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course that won't matter one iota to the number 1 US bitch, the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pity conclusion-jumping isn't an Olympic event. You'd be a lock for the gold medal.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
In his own fucking house. In New Zealand. He had not gone anywhere, he had not decided to run. He was not a fugitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, suspects. And it's not clear that Fat Bastard was among those.
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
Due process was never an issue. Getting the most powerful file sharing site off the internet was, and that goal was accomplished.
Even if every defendant gets off due to these "missteps", the damage to MegaUpload is done, as well as the fallout from its method of being taken down.
The average person still buying blurays doesn't give a damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPfeTBwrGAw
I truly hate my Corrupt Government and the Corrupt Rich Pricks.
I truly hate and Boycott all Big Content MAFIAA Material.They have been Censored for life from ever touching my wallet.
The USA has become a very Corrupt and Above the Law out of Control Government.
Expect to lose more of Our Rights before the election even happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The almighty US of A won't even get a slap on the wrist for this, and will do it all over again. If we learned anything in the past years is that the US gov will not be put to shame, not even by itself, even though the entire world is ashamed of them.
What will happen? Charges will be dropped. So what? MU is already dead. They probably won't give him his money back. He'll be listed as a criminal in the states forever. More? If wikileaks are terrorists, then surely Kim is, no? They'll probably destroy his credit too.
If they want you, they'll get you, no matter how badly they did it. It's the US of A, they are not ABOVE the law, they ARE the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not quite. Many american aren't ashamed of the US Gov't, at least not for the right reasons.
Too many are caught up in the "Democrats want to raise taxes, take away guns and sell the country to terrorists/Republicans want to carpet bomb Iran and outlaw abortion" spectacle, and it's deliberate. People are fighting a fake "culture war". Because after an election, the party changes(at most), but the US Gov't, by and large, does not. The two-party system and the artificial culture war are propagating a sprawling and overbearing government, distracting voters with a vitriolic and nonsensical fight being "waged" by two sides of the same coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In all seriousness, do you think that is true? If the Republicans win the WH, healthcare reform is dead. This is a big deal for anyone with a pre-existing medical condition or kids in their early 20's. The Republicans rabidly advocate for less government intrusion..... unless it involves a woman's reproductive rights or you are gay and wish to live in a committed relationship. Even more remarkable is the hypocrisy that has Pro-Life governors signing execution orders in their prisons. Mega-millionaire Romney pays a lower tax rate (14%) than a teacher or firefighter? Ryan wants to fix Medicare by handing you a voucher and having you buy insurance from the insurance industry? How will that work in an industry that had to be forced to insure people with known health issues? Does anyone think it wouldn't take more than three years for the insurance industry jack rates through the sky and bankrupt seniors? And they want to convert Social Security into a government run 401(k) account who is under age 55. That completely violates the social contract with those under 55 who have been paying into the system for decades. How is that right?
I'll grant that on many issues, they are the same but there are also huge differences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you ever think...
They had the perfect patsy...
He was loud, fat, obnoxious, rich, and unconcerned with how people saw him.
They turned him into a hero.
They broke the law at every turn, they have destroyed even further the image of justice being fair, and we are paying the price for all of this crap.
If they had a real case, they wouldn't have been so stupid to put their arm on the scale of justice trying to make sure they won.
They ruined this case, wasted millions of dollars, and only ended up screwing innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why the new MegaUpload is going to remove some of this confusion, and dis-allow 'merkans from using the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]