I've recently switched to Mediafire until this case is over, and it saddens me that Mediafire's CEO actually said "We're not like them."
But eventually US courts will have to reach a verdict about this too, and the government has to follow the verdict.
I'm sure the court's going to rule on the seizure part if it falls under US jurisdiction.
edited 28th Jun '12 10:03:25 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.If I were a federal prosecutor in the employ of the RIAAdisclaimer, and New Zealand refused extradition, I might keep the case against Dotcom open, and try to have him declared a fugitive, thus barring him from any civil access to the drives (as well as allowing him to be extradited if he so much as sets foot off NZ soil).
If someone is a fugitive from justice, they're generally barred from receiving any legal relief through the courts.
In recent news, the extradition hearing has been delayed till March.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818588
You could explain what it is for people who don't click on the link, y'know.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Short extract from the article coming up, but the gist of it is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand is pissed at the intelligence services of New Zealand bending over and letting those of the Americans shaft them over the Kim Dotcom case:
"New Zealand's security services failed at a basic level, both in fact and law, in the Dotcom case.
The head of New Zealand's Government Communications and Security Bureau (GCSB), Ian Fletcher, has been roasted by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key over the Kim Dotcom case. Basic failures in fact and in law, said Prime Minster Key in a video interview, were what caused the GCSB to blunder so badly.
"I apologize to Kim Dotcom, and to New Zealanders," said Prime Minister Key, who went on to say that he was "appalled" at GCSB's mistakes. When asked whether he had asked for an explanation from GCSB head Fletcher, Prime Minister Key said that he had, but that "I'm not entirely sure I've had a completely satisfactory answer. "
Kim Dotcom has already responded to the Prime Minister's apology via Twitter. Dotcom accepted the apology, but demanded a "full, transparent and independent inquiry" into the Megaupload case. "Show the world that your government is not an American dancing bear and that fairness and due process matter in New Zealand," Dotcom Tweeted."
In Imperial Japan, that kind of anger from either the Emperor or the Shogun would cause its recipient to get the old family shortsword out and gut himself like a kipper.
lol actually Tam, all the NZ PM is doing is damage control, since the actions of the GCSB are supposed to be known to him, since that agency reports directly to the Prime Minister. But if he really doesn't know anything, then that means he's a useless PM who doesn't even know what those under him are doing.
Eh nope. No intelligence agency tells a prime minister or a president even a tenth of the stuff they get up to. Especially when it comes to what amounts to committing treason and conspiring with foreign powers to subvert the laws of their own country. Which is what the New Zealand spooks were doing.
They got caught, and the prime minister is having to back track frantically. I don't think the spook agency boss is long for his job.
The GCSB is like the CIA in what they are tasked to do but not like the CIA in their "accountability." Apparently all of their "operations" need the PM informed, or at least the Deputy PM.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836884
And it's quite weird that there is "confusion" regarding Dotcom's residency when in the "planning document" for the raid itself, they explicitly stated that he "has New Zealand residency."
edited 27th Sep '12 10:20:36 PM by entropy13
Do I sense relatively massive bureaucratic blunders involved? Really, that would be the only plausible explanation for the NZ PM not being at least fully informed by the GSCB, and the confusion about Mr. Dotcom's place of residence.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

There will BE no evidence of that, I'm sure. It's just a stuff made up to exagerrate the site's 'crimes' to facilitate the takedown
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...