Once Again, New Zealand's Spying On Megaupload Execs Found To Be Illegal
from the because-of-course dept
Earlier this week, the new documentary by Annie Goldson about Kim Dotcom, Kim Dotcom: Caught In The Web was released. It's available on basically any authorized platform (and, not surprisingly, quickly showed up on a number of unauthorized platforms as well). I should note that I sat for two interviews with the filmmakers, and am very briefly in the film. It's really worth watching. While it doesn't go as deep into the weeds of the specific legal issues at play as I, as a legal geek, might enjoy, that's understandable as a more mass market documentary. And I think it does a really great job of at least getting across the basic issues, of how people in Hollywood, the DOJ and New Zealand law enforcement, intelligence and government were so won over by the image of Kim Dotcom, that they didn't bother much with the legal details.
One aspect of the legal case that is definitely discussed in the documentary is the fact that the New Zealand intelligence service, GCSB, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom on behalf of the US government. That's supposed to be forbidden, as the GCSB is only supposed to spy on foreigners, and not citizens or permanent residents. This came out fairly early on in the case against Dotcom, but there's been an ongoing legal battle (one of many...) into what it means concerning the case against him. GCSB had said that they didn't mean to break the law, so it shouldn't matter. And New Zealand moved to change the law to expand GCSB's surveillance powers over New Zealanders in the future.
But on Friday, New Zealand's High Court officially unveiled a ruling from back in December, saying that the surveillance of two of Dotcom's colleagues was illegal. This goes beyond what was previously revealed a few years back. Of course, it appears that part of the ruling is based on GCSB refusing to provide any details, claiming they are "top secret" and that to respond to the charges would "jeopardise the national security of New Zealand." Yes, or perhaps just jeopardize GCSB.
It's not entirely clear that this will have much of an impact on the case for Dotcom directly, though it once again highlights how the investigation and case against him involved an awful lot of cut corners by officials who totally bought into Hollywood's repeated story about how Dotcom was "Dr. Evil." Dotcom's lawyer, Ira Rothken, is arguing that this is yet another reason why the case should be dropped -- but so far the courts haven't really seemed to care much about all of the errors, law breaking and over reaction in building the case against Dotcom. However, as Rothken notes:
"This case and extradition should now be dismissed in the interests of justice.
"The government's illegal conduct has reached such an extreme level that we believe that no court should entertain an extradition proceeding so tainted with state sponsored abuse and violations of basic human rights."
For years now, I've explained why the case against Dotcom has serious problems -- mainly in that it makes up elements of criminal activity that simply don't exist in the law. The fact that there was also illegal spying on Dotcom and his partners only raises more questions. Yet, so far, the courts don't seem very interested in dealing with any of that, preferring to smooth things over with a simple "but bad stuff happened, therefore he should be punished." It's one of the most extreme examples we've seen of what law professor Eric Goldman has called out concerning lawsuit about infringement online: the courts frequently ignore the actual law if they sense there was "too much infringement." The fact that the government also got some of its information through illegal spying may not be enough to counteract the massive gravitational pull of "but... but... infringement."
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, kim dotcom, new zealand, surveillance
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See, in particular: http://lawtheories.com/?p=2592
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(P.S. The commenter on that article is wildly entertaining)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, the above is limited to US law. In other jurisdictions the domestic law would govern. Bear in mind though that even persons outside the US may be subject to US prosecution depending upon the factual situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and this article is about Megaupload ... Trying to remember where that occurred - Oh, wait a sec, heh, it's in the title!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that it is. It's the basis for which they decided to extradite him based on fraud.
If the DOJ had to wait for Dotcom to be in the US for the courts to decide if it was an issue of copyright law, this extradition nonsense wouldn't have happened. Inconveniencing the RIAA is not an extraditable offense, which is why they had to have it changed to fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Various criminal charges ... I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, those witches all got trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witch Hunt
- if they survive they are a witch & kill them!
- If they don't....well at least they died without being a witch!
Megaload - Seize all his assets and extradite him to the US!
- If he is convicted (because he can't afford a decent defense after the US seized all his assets) then he was guilty all along
- If he successfully defends himself....then he's got something else going on so repeat again from the top!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting.
.. and it is "non-sensical".
My contributions - lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, that link is totally unrelated to the argument it appears Mike has made. *That* argument is that to have aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement, you first have to have some criminal copyright infringement. But the problem with these cases is that they show "aiding and abetting" in *civil* copyright infringement. The users of the site's actions do not elevate to criminal infringement -- just civil. The operators of the site are making money, but not by infringement. Thus, there's no clear criminal copyright infringement at all, and without that, how do you argue aiding and abetting a crime that does not exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Easy. Just get yourself a sympathetic and/or ignorant judge, claim that it is, get it rubber stamped, and move on to the conviction phase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course this isn't going to raise questions about how the alleged departments of justice around the globe have fallen under their sway.
The case should have never happened.
The spying should never have happened.
We have a case where not being in the US is being held up as PROOF he must be guilty, because we don't think he should have the right to question the extradition.
We have a case where an untold number of people have been denied their property because an infringing file MIGHT get out.
A case is based on a twisted non-existent version of the law, created to shut down 1 person who joyfully thumbed his nose at Hollywood.
We've been so petty we've denied the accused access to funds to have a proper defense, because if you can't win in court bankrupting him is just as good.
Somehow we get our hands on tons of internal communications from a private business, yet no one really knows how.
We base this all on the word of the **AA's who have literally LIED to the government about crimes, gotten property seized, & then never delivered the proof they claim to have had.
Kim Dotcom isn't the nicest guy in the world, but we aren't winning any points with our behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not for Snowden, it'd be a lot easier to enforce copyright without inconvenient things like warrants and ethical boundaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember when it was discovered that Dotcom and 88 people were illegally spied on. NZ then changed the law to make that legal going forward. I would not be surprised that when this matter reaches the NZ Supreme Court on appeal as the prosecution is sure to appeal this "illegal" spying the NZ Supreme Court will no doubt overturn the High Court's decision and paint the GCSB as angelic angels in comparison to the devil and the GCSB will be found to be not guilty in this matter.
Ira Rothen is right to say that this extradition should now be dismissed and dropped because of the illegalities so far but I have a feeling that more illegalities will be brought to light and still the case will continue as though nothing has been noticed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court TV
For example, on Judge Joe Brown, there was a case of a dog biting another dog. In California law, the dog owner is culpable whether or not the owner was in charge of the dog at the time of the incident. In the state where the unfortunate incident took place, the owner is not automatically culpable. The person in charge of the dog at the time is culpable.
I am pretty sure this was not brought out on court TV, even in the parts that were not aired.
Even in the state where the incident took place, the person from animal control had no clue that the owner was not legally responsible for the incident when the owner was not present, and had left the dog inside the house before going to work. Animal Control said, "Well the responsible party was asleep when I came to investigate, so I went after the owner who was willing to come to the door." And the person charged could actually challenge whether they were the "owner," as another person was named on the Vet. records.
Regardless, the person charged was not legally responsible under the state law, and technicalities are brushed aside for the mediation conducted on Court TV, and sacrificed for Hollywood drama.
Court TV would be such a good place to educate the public about what laws and precedents actually say, and could make everyone a legal analyst. Laws are not that hard to understand, and case law is not that hard to read.
Many years ago, when some people couldn't read and write, using Street Justice was totally understandable. Even 30 years ago, law books were not available to the general public. But today there is no excuse for people in official positions to impose their interpretation of Pop TV Street Justice on everybody.
You no longer need a lawyer to access the law books, and accessing case law in other localities was one of the first uses made of the internet in universities, even before dial-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court TV
I don't care much for our system where one's ability to afford high priced lawyers is intrinsic with a good defense. Good lawyers do exist, and some of them are high priced, and some not. Finding the right one, for a particular situation can be difficult. Even then with the plethora of laws and case law that impact a case can be difficult to untangle.
Stating "You no longer need a lawyer..." is really stupid, even if all the laws and rules and case law are available. Comparing Court TV with the real thing is just batshit crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Court TV
I think people concoct stories just to go on that show and get some money.
If people acted like that in a real court room they would be put in jail for contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court TV
I think you're misunderstanding the other AC, they seem to be saying that Court TV could be a good place to learn about the law but, it's subverted by the want for drama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule of law
Simple: Fear of what the government will do to them. It's as if though the government has given up on respect and decided to militarize the police and rule by fear instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule of law
I doubt they have thought this through to its inevitable end, because they are not students of history they seem clueless, anyways - on their schedule there is probably a milestone which reads "and then a miracle happens".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's good to know where the bodies are
That is so eff'd up and especially because it is not a NZ exclusive thing.
As a normal person I would love if the Gov "expanded my powers" and removed the speed limits. As in:
I didn't mean to break the law but I was late for work and 200km/h (120mph) in the city should be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As illegal and inequitable as this case is, it's not going to go away.
If the US gives in now, if the judge in NZ finds that there's no case to answer (and thus, no cause for extradition), if if if, they'll be facing allegations that they knowingly stole and/or destroyed tremendous amounts of intellectual property belonging to others, that they unlawfully destroyed a business worth millions of dollars, that they misrepresented their legal rights and evidence to steal millions in foreign financial assets, that they falsely imprisoned someone and pressured him into perjury...AND, this has been going on for years and years, they will be facing someone (or lots of people, class-action and all) with the money and patience to prosecute these matters.
And if the US fails to successfully defend its committing these crimes under colour of authority, they will be looking at paying out millions, if not billions, to Kim Dotcom for his lost business and wrongful asset seizure, various Megaupload users for their lost intellectual property (and remember, other big companies were storing stuff on Megaupload too), Andrus Nomm for his false imprisonment...and they might be facing imprisonment themselves for such flagrant violations of the law.
In short, the US prosecution HAS to cling on to this case and never let go, because if and when their case against Megaupload is inevitably destroyed, the prosecutors, the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone else involved in this mess are going to go down with it, for gross violations of due process, fraud, and (ironically) criminal copyright infringement.
...Keeping that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Dotcom is targeted for a discrete 'make it look like an accident' assassination. It's a bit harder to sue or bring charges when the richest plaintiff comes down with an inconvenient case of dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As illegal and inequitable as this case is, it's not going to go away.
Nah, some government judge would just grant them all immunity and they'd all be whistling on their way out of court with big smiles on their faces. That is if it ever even got that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As illegal and inequitable as this case is, it's not going to go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i didnt mean to cut off that guys head ( wink wink)
and then beat him with a hammer to make sure he was dead...no really i didnt honest
hahahaaahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i didnt mean to cut off that guys head ( wink wink)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Fair Trial
If the USA government cannot manage to stay away from obvious corruption, when Hollywood is involved, then they do not get the presumption of extradition being justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aiding & Abetting
AT&T, VERIZON, etc - go ahead and turn yourselves in at the nearest PD. I'm sure you'll be treated fairly just like MegaUpload has been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]