Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts The Internet Hardware News Technology

Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself 236

Posted by samzenpus
from the let-my-hard-drive-go dept.
redletterdave writes "On Wednesday, Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz and his legal team visited the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand, to demand access to the data stored on his computers and hard drives that were confiscated during the police raid, and also requested a judicial review of the general legality of the search warrants police used to raid his mansion. Dotcom's lawyer, Paul Davison, argued that his client needs the data for a few reasons: To mount a 'proper defense' case, to fight possibly being extradited to the U.S., and also to show that 'excessive police action' was used during the raid. Dotcom could prove this in court because the entire raid was recorded by CCTV data, which is stored on Dotcom's confiscated computers. Even though the FBI demanded Dotcom turn over the passwords for Megaupload's encrypted data, he refuses to give up any passwords until he can regain access to his seized property."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself

Comments Filter:
  • How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DigMarx (1487459) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:31PM (#40094985)

    What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"? Speaking as an American expat living in NZ: fuck the US government and its thuggish international corporate rent-a-cop policies.

  • Hypocritical much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mysteryprize (2466438) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:36PM (#40095023)
    The US government has illegally copied his data, in the hope of extraditing him of charges of illegally copying other peoples data.
  • by evanh (627108) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:49PM (#40095119)

    It was on the local news last night. The FBI are confirmed to now have a copy of the personal HDDs.

    It's causing a bit of a stink as it looks like the Police have done it illegally given they had previously agreed to return them first.

  • by Eristone (146133) * <slashdot@casaichiban.com> on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @07:49PM (#40095123) Homepage

    "Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you, unless they think you're already dead." -- Hans Gruber

  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:01PM (#40095197)

    Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right? When you upset people with guns and money, they will come after you. Its not uniquely American in any way.

    America is supposed to be unique in being a country where that is not how things work.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:08PM (#40095249)

    >>>Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right?

    As a matter of fact YES he is innocent in the eyes of the law. It is now the job of the government to demonstrate why he is not inocent (which the judge overseeing the case says is unlikely, because they did not have authority to seize the items).

  • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:22PM (#40095341) Homepage

    The claim is he 'sold' advertising space based upon allowing others to copy and distribute copyrighted content, not theft involved, no armed smugglers, no gang of armed criminals and, no pirates on the high seas. A straight up civil matter that was totally abused by a twisted by a demented and distorted Barack Obama/RIAA/MPAA Department of in-Justice, flooded with lawyers fresh out of the RIAA/MPAA(who dont give a crap about justice just how much money they are going to make screwing it over for as long as they can get away with it). That sucked in another country to do it's dirty work for them, a big Hollywood show. Now comes the collapsing court case and the massive civil suit not against megaupload but against the New Zealand government. New Zealand was the sheep and the US was wearing the gumboots. It is pretty obvious the current US administration does not give a crap about justice, the law courts are just something to be abused for their financial advantage. They just write up any old crap and say the most obscene abuses of justice are now legal. Barack Obama has betrayed every principle of progressive justice.

  • by C_amiga_fan (1960858) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:28PM (#40095383)

    Sadly the government also kills innocent people, not just criminals. Typically it happens after knocking-open the door, and shooting the pet dog, or a little boy, or a daughter, or an Iraq veteran, or a grandmother (all documented cases published in the news). Then they call this an "accident" instead of what it really is: Murder.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:50PM (#40095569)
    They take the rights of the unscrupulous first. Then they change their definition of unscrupulous slightly to include more of the population. Once rights only belong to a limited set of people, that limited set tends to shrink until those rights apply to no one but the ruling class. The beginning of this century is being marked by the same gradual slide into totalitarianism that the last century was. Do you really think the federal government cares about pirated movies? This is about power, and control.
  • by LordLucless (582312) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @08:59PM (#40095641)

    Either you really do have the morality of a particularly sociopathic cockroach, or you're shilling for the mafia.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @09:29PM (#40095805)

    Yeah, why not?

    George Bush hired people to commit crimes in Iraq and the USA still haven't extradited him to face justice from his victims. Or is extradition something that should only happen to non-US citizens?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @09:36PM (#40095837)

    That has nothing to do with this. As in, it doesn't prove he's guilty.

  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @10:03PM (#40095993)

    [1] Physical presence of the perpetrator should not be required -- if the crime causes damage in that country, then that's real presence.

    Copied files! Oh, the horror! That's almost as bad as a kid selling lemonade without a permit!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @10:07PM (#40096021)

    You missing something here?

    He's not American, he doesn't live in America, American laws don't directly apply to him, He's about to be extradited for a case based half on speculation and half on accusation and assumption that a data provider is somehow responsible for the content of the users (which, either in the US OR NZ is NOT THE CASE), he's had his doors kicked in, had it all recorded on video, and then effectively been denied access to the evidence that will be used against him in a criminal court for an alleged civil crime.

    Enjoy your freedom :(

  • by djlowe (41723) * on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @10:19PM (#40096111)

    The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

    *If you can afford to lawyer up and get your shit back. Otherwise they'll gladly keep it until you drag them to court."

    The previous post is missing a disclaimer:

    Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?

    Regards,

    dj

    P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.

    Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.

  • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @10:41PM (#40096255)

    Sure, okay. He's making easy money in a legal grey area. Just like loads of bankers and businessmen have done in the United States and all over the world.

    His only "crime" is not "contributing" to the war chests of politicians.

  • by ChrisMaple (607946) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:03PM (#40096385)
    There was no declaration of war. There should have been. Generally speaking, leaders of countries are not subject to legal action in other countries, even if they visit that country. Otherwise, Castro would be in a US jail today, following his arrest decades ago when he came to NYC.
  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Wednesday May 23, 2012 @11:15PM (#40096465)

    No, I just honestly don't see this as anything more than a petty matter. Copyright infringement. So what? People are treating it as if it's some sort of national security emergency that we must extradite people in other countries for. Wow, files were copied! That's just terrible.

    What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

  • by blackfireuponus (2026394) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @12:24AM (#40096767)
    News at 12 - Philistine idiot defends IP, thinks his "ideas" will soon make him perpetual money for finite work.
  • by oreaq (817314) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @01:53AM (#40097111)

    True. But outside of America the people with guns hat come after you because they are upset are called the criminals. In America they are called the police.

  • by fnj (64210) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @03:00AM (#40097363)

    You really think he had anything to do with it? You think that things would have been different no matter who else but him was in office?

    He's the chief executive. It's his Jutice Department. Where do you think the buck stops? As to whether I think things would be different if someone else was President - that depends on the someone else. The last half dozen or so Presidents - probably not. Certain other people I can imagine as President? You bet your life thing would be different.

  • by X.25 (255792) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @06:13AM (#40098123)

    No, you need to read it again. Megaupload said that they can hash cp images and automatically block them from being uploaded again. They flip this claim against them for none CP files.

    Read item 24 carefully.

    "Members of the Conspiracy have indicated to each other that they can automatically identify and delete such materials on all of their servers by calculating MD5 hash values of known child pornography or other illicit content, searching the system for these values, and eliminating them; in fact, such files with matching hash values have been deleted from the Mega Conspiracyâ(TM)s servers. Members of the Mega Conspiracy have failed to implement a similarprogram to actually delete or terminate access to copyright infringing content."

    How can you be so stupid?

    I am pretty sure that it is illegal in all jurisdictions to even store child pornography. Preventing it from being uploaded is a no-brainer, since there are no cases where it could be legal.

    However, it not illegal for me to upload a copy of an album that I own, to my private Megaupload account.

    Why should Megaupload automatically prevent me from uploading a backup of a song (or album) that I legally purchased, and which shares MD5 hash with the exact same copy which someone else uploaded and shared with others?

    You seem to think that you are not able to make a copy of purchased song/album onto external hard disk (which is what Megaupload really is).

    That is really sad.

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @07:04AM (#40098273) Journal

    I think a more valid question is why should MegaUpload be expected to prevent you from doing anything illegal? We don't require manufactures of other products to do that.

    How come GM is not required to have cars verify all passengers are willing in some way to prevent kidnapping and human trafficking? How come nobody is prosecuting the guys who painted John Edward's house for not verify they were not being paid with illegally converted campaign contributions?

    I think setting the precedent that service providers or manufactures are responsible for the actions of their users is wrong.

  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Thursday May 24, 2012 @11:13AM (#40099949)

    But are they not in the position of a bank laundering money for gangsters?

    No more than Google/Youtube, hard drive makers, creators of encryption algorithms, or any other hosting/storage or ISP related businesses are.

    Is the phone company liable for things like ransom/extortion demands, violent threats, or drug transactions made over their systems? Auto makers liable for transporting criminals committing crimes, illegal drug transportation, or for 14-YO Suzy illegally consuming alcohol and losing her virginity in the back seat to an 18-YO? Is the water company liable for someone drowning in their bathtub?

    So, no. They are not in that position at all.

    It's a ridiculous, facetious, ingenuous, illogical, and baseless bit of convoluted logic being used to end-run around established law, legal rights, protections, and legal procedures in order to step on someone doing something in another country where it's legal that powerful interests in the US don't like while simultaneously establishing and expanding the precedent for more and more-egregious end-runs around "inconvenient" laws, individual rights, and legal restrictions on government power.

    But hey, let's give government more power to fix the problem of...having and abusing too much power? Hmm. Can't quite put my finger on it, but something doesn't make sense with that plan. I'll ask my Congressman.

    Strat

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...