Police Admit That NZ Spy Agency Illegally Spied On Kim Dotcom, But Aren't Going To Do Anything About It
from the enforce-the-law? dept
You may recall that it came out last year that the New Zealand equivalent of the NSA, the GCSB, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom (oh, and dozens of others), possibly with the help of the NSA, despite not being allowed to spy on those in New Zealand.An investigation by the police has agreed that the GCSB clearly broke the law... but the police have said that they don't plan to prosecute the spy agency. Because, you know, that might hold them accountable. Now, at least, the GCSB knows that it can abuse the law at will with no punishment.
Instead, it appears that the excuse being used by the police is the same one we've been hearing from NSA defenders: because these abuses weren't intentional, they can be ignored:
Today, Detective Superintendent Peter Read told a media conference that in spite of the GCSB committing one breach under the provisions of the Crimes Act, no criminal "intent" by the GCSB could be established.I'm not sure that actually makes sense. Yes, when it comes to criminal activity, intent can be important in determining if it's actually criminal, but there's little doubt that the GCSB intentionally spied on Dotcom. It wouldn't have taken very much at all to recognize that Dotcom was a resident of New Zealand who GCSB is forbidden from surveilling. So it seems like the intent was pretty clear.
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: criminal, gcsb, intent, kim dotcom, mens rea, new zealand, spying, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do you think that excuse will work for the rest of us?
-except when we're the law enforcers, then its a whoopse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I think the GCSB knew Kim Dotcom is a law-abiding NZ citizen, and still deliberately chose to carry out their Unconstitutional spy operations.
If there's one thing citizens worldwide have learned over the last couple of years. It's that these Unconstitutional global spy agencies have no intention of legally operating within the letter or spirit of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Come back
3. Post comment that's identical to the one you just posted
That's what I expect of you...simply because you're obviously dense.
Can you explain how any of that applies to the United States' case against Dotcom? I expect not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you explain THAT? I expect not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got a court date set yet?
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no constitutional loophole for hiring someone else to do something the hirer is forbidden to do.
[ 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 ]
Go Kim Go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go Kim Go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading
Hopefully you'll look a little less like a dipshit now.
I'm hitting "reply," but it's not threading for me. I imagine it's the proxy I'm using that's mucking it up. Sorry, but it's beyond my control. If Mikey weren't censoring me by routing my posts to his censorship filter, I wouldn't have this problem. Ask Mikey. He won't give you an honest answer. But ask anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go Kim Go
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go Kim Go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go Kim Go
The only thing I see making any muck here is your bitch ass.
And the only thing I need to ask Mike is where his mama is because she's late.. I mean, if, you know, whatever.
dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Go Kim Go
I'd ask if perhaps he could give some thought to giving the ability to collapse/expand a reported top post's thread. It seems pollution can get rampant when folks respond to reported comments, especially when the post's topic pertains specifically to things like copyright it would seem (ahem). It can be hard to resist having one's reading and thoughts captured by trolls. A quick glance at thread contents *might* save people from the abyss. The very same abyss that brings forth critters like you and, clearly, attempts to consume critters like me.
Tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL @ Pirate Mike. Doesn't understand the concept of specific intent. And, no, that silly article you linked to doesn't explain the concept well. Lawyer-wannabe fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 30th, 2013 @ 1:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you truly believe that, let me tell you about this really nice bridge I own in New York...priced to sell!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If, however, you were able to wave your hand and make an exact copy of the electronics you found laying in their house, without changing the original electronics in any way, would that be theft?
What harm would have been done, and to whom?
Unauthorized enjoyment is not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minion: Yes, sir?
KD: Do we have any lawyers free from that last batch we hired?
Minion: I believe so, sir
KD: Good, I have another civil lawsuit I want to launch. I'm going to sue the GCSB and OFCANZ and use the police report against them
Minion: And how much will you be asking for sir?
KD: I'll start out at a bazillion dollars but I'll settle for front row seats with Peter Jackson at the world premiere of the Hobbit Part 2 ... and Part 3. Can't let them get away that easily.
Minion: Yes, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!
Mega-grifter Kim Dotcom got millions by hosting infringed content. That's not even capitalism, that's THEFT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!
2. Come back
3. Post comment that's identical to the one you just posted
That's what I expect of you...simply because you're obviously dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!
I bet the Stasi and KGB thought they were pretty 'civilized' too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you truly believe that, let me tell you about this really nice bridge I own in New York...priced to sell!!!
Nice distraction, but the fact remains that Mikey doesn't understand basic criminal law concepts like specific intent, and he looks like an idiot publishing this stuff. I don't know if there was such intent here or not, and neither do you. But I do know that Mikey doesn't know what he's talking about, as per usual. That's why he's so scared of discussing anything with me. That's why he routes all of my posts to his censorship filter all the while being too ashamed of himself to admit publicly that he's doing it. Alas, such is the substance, or significant lack thereof, of Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They'd practically rip their own genitals off with joy....hence no more troll posts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With the degree in which the raid was conducted and what they were looking for you honestly expect me to believe that they had no idea about the status of Dotcom's residency?
You're so obsessed with copyright that you're willing to break whatever laws are in place to meet that end. And for that, you're a sad, sad person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The specific intent is right there. Why allow a foreign domestic intelligence organisation to operate on your lands after ignoring the laws you are sworn to uphold?
Way to make the people trust you, GCSB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you explain THAT? I expect not.
So you can't explain how the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine based on the actions of the NZ government applies to the case in the U.S. Got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I know rocks who are more honest than Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- based entirely on an analysis of your posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the degree in which the raid was conducted and what they were looking for you honestly expect me to believe that they had no idea about the status of Dotcom's residency?
You're so obsessed with copyright that you're willing to break whatever laws are in place to meet that end. And for that, you're a sad, sad person.
The fact remains that they aren't prosecuting because they can't prove specific intent. However you get from that to me being "willing to break whatever laws" is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But no worries - you keep overlooking that they are not allowed to spy on NZ residents (and did).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it were an accident, you wouldn't be prosecuted under a statute that requires specific intent. Other statutes would probably apply though. This stuff isn't hard. Specific intent means specifically intending to violate a known duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading
Hopefully you'll look a little less like a dipshit now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the statute says you must specifically intend to violate a known duty and you don't have that intent, you wouldn't be prosecuted under that statute. This stuff is easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got a court date set yet?
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
I love how Pirate Mike lies and pretends like he's not pro-piracy, yet his boards are full of pirate fools like you. The case is going well. Megaupload is shutdown. The principals are indicted. Assets have been seized. Looks like a win so far to me. Still working on extradition, as you well know. Once here, I think the jury will deliberate for about 10 minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a lack of due process. Thanks for further making my point.
Pirate fools? No. Just ordinary people who don't care for governments that are clearly out of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading
Hopefully you'll look a little less like a dipshit now."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is basic first week of Crim Law stuff. Ask any 1L. They'll know more about the law than Mikey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is basic first week of Crim Law stuff. Ask any 1L. They'll know more about the law than Mikey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good question. I haven't seen the particular statute at issue, but what is obvious from the article Mike linked to is that the statute requires specific intent. They did intend to do the spying, which would be general intent, but they didn't do it knowing that Dotcom had whatever citizenship status he had that made it illegal. They didn't specifically intend to violate a known duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GCSB is told "No, you can't spy on NZ residents/citizens". So, according to you, if GCSB wants to do domestic spying, all they have to do is neglect the very important step of checking whether their target is a NZ resident/citizen. That gets them off the hook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"why not? because fuck you, that's why not"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah good old double-standards...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their argument is transparently incorrect. They are acting as if the GCSB lacked mens rea (an intent to commit a crime) as it is generally held in criminal justice systems with history and traditions similar to NZ (i.e Britain and the U.S) to be a necessary element for a crime to have occurred.
Without it although a law may be broken it's more likely a civil matter (such as defamation) - to be criminal a criminal intent is required.
However the evidence uncovered clearly demonstrates an intention to commit a criminal act and Police obliviousness to it a deliberate turning of a blind eye.
It is a demonstration of how proclamations that there is oversight of secret squirrel spies are nonsense - authority does not police itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only job in the world that actually works in your favor if you fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The only job in the world that actually works in your favor if you fuck up.
The standard reward is a 10% pay rise AND a promotion.
Vacation time (with spending money) is only given by the GCSB in the most serious cases where an employee shoots someone completely unrelated to any ongoing investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, this *is* highly unusual...
the mafia had a term for this: one hand washes the other...
and that is about all you need to know: 'our' (sic) countries are nothing more than loosely affiliated criminal enterprises to do the bidding of the billionaire puppetmasters...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Newsletter is crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your Newsletter is crap
In case you're still watching:
http://www.techdirt.com/contact.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]