Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself 236
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."
Another key disclosure case (Score:4, Interesting)
Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... he's guilty as hell of violating US law. Writing as a non-American living outside US territory who has never set foot inside US territory, I hope that Kim Dotcom succeeds in stopping the US extradition request. Extradition should be reserved for those who committed crimes in the country that is requesting extradition or for war criminals. A case might be made for "hackers" (security breakers) that plant malware that destroys another country's computer systems, but not for people whose crime involves not destruction but the "creation" of more data.
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case, they physically STOLE his data because his company made it easy for other people to INFRINGE on copyrights. This might be the first time that anybody has ever been able to correctly use the words "steal" and "theft" in talking about a copyright case.
Steve Jackson Games all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the principles to come out of the Steve Jackson Games case [sjgames.com] is that the accused can't be deprived of their computer equipment and data. Law enforcement may only make copies of data.
Re:Another key disclosure case (Score:1, Interesting)
It's pretty damn obvious.
Nature gave me this body which includes my mouth. I may use that body in any fashion I choose. That includes, among other things, the right to speak. AND the right to not speak (hence Arizona v. Miranda rights). No government may overrule the bodily rights that Nature has given me.
Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, no. [1] Physical presence of the perpetrator should not be required -- if the crime causes damage in that country, then that's real presence. [2] Why war criminals? Don't forget they're _accused_ war criminals for starters, and wtf not have the country hosting them deal with them? If they're willing to extradite, then they're friendly to the accused, so can get on with themselves. [3] Creation of data, or anything else, can wipe out jobs -- real damage. Loss of food, health care, infrastructure, homes. Have you never seen real destitution? You can't just say 'creation is always good'. It's nowhere near that simple.
Not saying this whole business isn't full of dubious crap, or that copyright doesn't need a serious overhaul, just that you've got to give this more thought.
Re:NZ Police has handed them over already (Score:2, Interesting)
All the NZ police need to do to get out of hot water and keep from providing evidence of the crime they allegedly committed, is say they don't know how the FBI got the data.
The FBI must have broken into their data store.
Which means we have no reason to suspect any of the evidence is authentic.
Which means there is no evidence, either for Dotcom's defense or to prosecute him.
If they want Dotcom, some NZ cop needs to take the fall and go to jail, admitting the evidence wasn't compromised by the FBI but rather, the NZ police department simply doesn't obey laws.
And yet somehow they need to do this and still have enough credibility to take down Dotcom. That sounds like a tall order. It's starting to look to me like they've really let him go. So there's not even going to be any serious pretense that whatever they did and all the damage they caused, was somehow in the service to law enforcement.
This is a total clusterfuck.
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, you are very correct.
Back in Dallas, in the 90's, I personally knew people that had their door kicked in by the "Drug Task Force", teargas thrown, and the husband was thrown out of his wheelchair, which was then roughly dismantled/broken in front of him while they "searched it for weapons". What were they guilty of? Living at the house when the police went to the WRONG ADDRESS. A similar incident resulted in a newborn baby's lungs being permanently scarred by tear gas.
The police started curbing their actions when they started getting shot going into houses that were supposed to be easy pickings. The drug dealers had started buying "look-alike" uniforms via mail-order, and pulling raids on rival dealers using the same tactics of the police. When someone steals a dealers drugs and money, the dealer is still on the hook to his supplier. When they heard, "Dallas PD! Open up!" all they could think of was "Those bastards are back! Eat hot lead!"
The lesson here? Poor, honest, people can't afford lawyers to sue city hall to behave correctly, but drug dealers willing to kill a cop will make them watch themselves very carefully.
Re:would someone beam this guy out of my country (Score:4, Interesting)
Er, he did not (well he definitely does not have to) bribe his way into NZ. NZ like most other countries, has investors visa. He only had to invest 1 million USD, which is not much at all (his mansion it worth much much more). Well, he did pay taxes in NZ, and NZ govt better bear the costs of taking him to court. I would not be surprised if he paid more as taxes in NZ, than the govt ever had to spend on him. The SWAT team, and the helicopters to raid his mansion, must have cost a pretty penny I admit, but it was unnecessary, and its the NZ govt that has to blamed for this expenditure.
Re:No, read the indictment (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously go read the indictment, it has money laundering, it has fraudulent take down procedures, it have fictitious users. Copyright infringement was just an underlying thing, they have him banged to rights which is why he's trying for the "excessive force" side defense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment [scribd.com]
Hahaha. Did you actually read this whole document? You really should.
It also has child pornography, terrorism propaganda, and many other neat things.
It also has things taken out of context, examples of Kim uploading his legally purchased songs to his private account on Megaupload (which is perfectly legal, but presented as if he was distributing the music by uploading 2 songs to his own account).
It has many many assumptions. Assumptions that Megaupload was a 'personal cyberlocker service', then 2 paragraphs later DoJ complains that Megaupload did not have a search function - therefore, they were up to something.
No, you really should read the document. It is not an indictment, it is a propaganda document.