Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DOTCOM saga - updates
IainB:
@wraith808: Thanks for the explanation and links.
US law is a bit of a mystery to me as I have only studied UK and NZ criminal, contract and commercial law.
You suggest that "...but this was most likely a civil seizure..." but if that is the case, then I do not understand why the police/FBI/SS etc . were so heavily involved with the police and SS (GCSB) in NZ.
As far as I was aware, in any civil actions in NZ, the police would not normally get involved - only if a crime had been committed.
For example:
I was reminded of this a while back when trying to retrieve some property of mine that a previously trusted friend had inexplicably deliberately taken and disposed of - sold and/or given away - knowing that it was wrong to do so. I wanted to recover the property which had some real financial value but which - more importantly - was irreplaceable and had a high intrinsic value for me. I phoned up my local police HQ, gave them the details, and asked for advice,, and they promptly asked me for full details of the person, their home address, etc. When I asked "Why?", the officer I was speaking to said that what I had described was an instance of "common theft", which is a crime, and which they deal with a lot, and that they would pursue the offender and charge them on that basis. I asked "Would you also recover the stolen goods?" and they said probably not, because it was usually difficult to retrieve stolen goods except when someone was "fencing" them to known contacts for a living (which I don't think was the case here).
When I said that I didn't actually want to lay a charge against the thief (it would have given them a police record and made life very difficult for them in future employment), but that I did want to recover the stolen goods, they advised me to take out a civil action in the Civil Court to recover the goods or the financial equivalent/replacement costs, and they (the police) would not need to be involved.
--- End quote ---
wraith808:
You suggest that "...but this was most likely a civil seizure..." but if that is the case, then I do not understand why the police/FBI/SS etc . were so heavily involved with the police and SS (GCSB) in NZ.
As far as I was aware, in any civil actions in NZ, the police would not normally get involved - only if a crime had been committed.
-IainB (October 11, 2012, 12:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
The civil seizure is not predicated by a criminal procedure. However, the two are related, i.e. they seized him based upon criminal proceedings. During the criminal seizure of his person, they also seized his assets based on civil forfeiture rules, so that this part would not be based on the criminal proceedings. This is usually used in the case of drug lords and such, as they deal in cash and other assets with ready liquidity and as such if immediate seizure and forfeiture is not enacted, there might be nothing to enact it against.
IainB:
In the US, the EFF having become involved, there are moves afoot to have access to the currently sealed US seizure warrant for the Dotcom servers.
However, one suspects that the authorities and judiciary are likely to be in lockstep and, as in all cases where there may be something the State wishes to hide (and this certainly appears to be one of those mysterious cases), the hard light of scrutiny might be the very last thing the State wishes to have shine on the sealed seizure warrant.
EFF Files Motion To Have Court Release Seizure Warrant In Megaupload Case
Renegade:
In the US, the EFF having become involved, there are moves afoot to have access to the currently sealed US seizure warrant for the Dotcom servers.
However, one suspects that the authorities and judiciary are likely to be in lockstep and, as in all cases where there may be something the State wishes to hide (and this certainly appears to be one of those mysterious cases), the hard light of scrutiny might be the very last thing the State wishes to have shine on the sealed seizure warrant.
EFF Files Motion To Have Court Release Seizure Warrant In Megaupload Case
-IainB (October 23, 2012, 05:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, c'mon now... Let's just stop being completely silly and pretending that people have a right to know things like, oh, what criminal charges are being filed against them and all that. Pure silliness! :P
40hz:
I think the best way to make sense out of this is to view the whole Dotcom debacle as nothing more than the United States teaching a lesson in realpolitik and raw governmental power to those who either still believe in constitutional limitations, or feel they can use legal strategies to advance their own ends against the wishes of those in power.
There's nothing mysterious about this case. Any more than there's a mystery behind Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, or places like Manzanar, or the new and unlimited (in fact) powers granted by the US government to itself under the rubric of "homeland security."
Some years before the mixed blessings of post-apartheid government came to South Africa, then president Pik Botha was famously quoted as saying "Do not push us too far" in response to the World's condemnation of his government. There were UN resolutions, boycotts, and widespread condemnation in all quarters against South Africa's government. And all to no avail. Nor did any nation seriously suggest the world take military action and remove SA's government from power. Because deep down inside, every government depends on a high level of unquestioned obedience and indifference from its citizens. A fully engaged general public is the last thing a career politico or apparatchik ever wants to see. What comes around goes around. So to question any one government's actions is to call into question virtually every other government's behaviors. And the sad truth is, there's very little difference between them these days.
The Dotcom saga isn't really a saga. It's a waiting game with a healthy dose of 'puppet theater' thrown in for "good press."
The US will continue to be defiant and stonewall. The NZ judiciary will make their statements to mollify their citizens. And issue their rulings. All with the full knowledge it will have no real effect.
Eventually the brouhaha will die down. And it will be back to business as usual.
But that's because the real goal and message wasn't about file sharing to begin with. It was about an outspoken individual publicly and repeatedly thumbing his nose at a powerful government - and then openly defying it to do anything about it.
It's a dangerous game that all too frequently provokes a similar response. Because no government can afford to allow such a challenge to go unanswered. And, as was noted in the movie V for Vendetta, when pushed to the brink, governments invariably respond in the only way they know how: with men and guns.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version