Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DOTCOM saga - updates
IainB:
Looks like reason, and especially justice, are prevailing in this saga, at present. At any rate, this report from NZ Herald would seem to indicate that.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Dotcom can pursue case against police, GCSB
By David Fisher
11:50 AM Thursday Dec 6, 2012
Details of the top secret international spy agency ring known as Echelon will have to be produced after a new judgment in the Kim Dotcom case.
The internet tycoon was also cleared to pursue a case for damages against the police and the Government Communications Security Bureau in a judgment which has opened the Government's handling of the criminal copyright case for its harshest criticism yet.
The order for the GCSB to reveal top secret details came as the High Court at Auckland ruled the spy agency would now sit alongside the police in a case probing the unlawful search warrant used in the raid on Dotcom's north Auckland mansion.
Chief high court judge Helen Winkelmann said the GCSB would have to "confirm all entities" to which it gave information sourced through its illegal interception of Dotcom's communications.
She said her order included "members of Echelon/Five Eyes, including any United States authority". The Echelon network is an international intelligence network to which New Zealand and the United States are members, along with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
The judgment also recorded Dotcom's suspicions he had been spied on at least six weeks before the GCSB admitted to doing so, and sought details as to whether others had been swept up in the illegal operation.
The Crown had raised concerns about "secrecy", saying revealing the information could "compromise New Zealand's national security interests".
Justice Winkelmann said the concerns - which included revealing how the GCSB worked with "intelligence allies"- could be managed through the appointment of Stuart Grieve QC. Mr Grieve was appointed by the court to view top secret information and judge its relevance to the case.
The judgment also raised questions about evidence given by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, the officer who commanded the raid on the mansion. It said evidence he had given about possible "live footage" of the raid "contradicted" earlier evidence given during the hearing.
The police were ordered to provide evidence from a senior New Zealand officer in the US who told an internal publication he "monitored" the raid from FBI headquarters.
Mr Wormald is also facing questions about other testimony after he assured the court there was no surveillance other than that carried out by police. The GCSB's illegal spying operation later emerged.
--- End quote ---
TaoPhoenix:
(Cynic)
Microsoft Clippy Sez:
"Hmm. You seem to think there's Justice prevailing. Do you know what a Folded Hand means?"
One huge problem I have with the current media structure is that it rewards faked short term news, both in Clicks for various schemes and longer public control. So despite big problems in the DotCom mess, one "folded hand" leads us to assume "Justice" is at work. But if you metaphorically equate such a saga like an entire *tournament* (of poker, for example, I haven't watched the blackjack ones), this is like one folded hand. So everyone screams in joy, but the player (US Gov-Corp Interests) simply folds a draw of a 3 and a 6 and waits for the next deal. It's not Justice. It's Drama. Justice means supposedly it will actually turn around. A Folded Hand means the player is playing the long stakes, and our media artificially rewards folded hands to the benefit of the Long Term Player.
IainB:
What? You mean Life is like a poker tournament?
Sheesh. And there I always thought it was like a box of chocolates.
I always knew it was a mistake for Cadbury's to sell themselves to Mondelēz International.
IainB:
December 2012, and maybe some Christmas cheer for Dotcom and co, in the shape of a "stay of execution" - of sorts. This is according to an nzherald news item: Dotcom extradition case delayed until August
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images. My emphasis.)
SpoilerDotcom extradition case delayed until August
5:01 PM Wednesday Dec 19, 2012
The extradition bid to force Kim Dotcom to the United States has been further delayed and will not be heard in court until August.
The alleged internet pirate was originally expected to fight extradition in the months after his arrest in January.
Complications revealed in the investigation, including illegal spying on the Megaupload millionaire prior to the raid on his mansion, had pushed the hearing to the first half of next year.
The courts confirmed today that Dotcom's four-week hearing had been set down to start on August 12.
It is expected to run until September 6.
He face allegations of money laundering, online piracy, racketeering and mass copyright infringement.
With appeals likely to follow any initial ruling on extradition, the case could extend into 2014.
Meanwhile, the Green Party says it has been advised by the police that an investigation into whether the Government Communications Security Bureau's surveillance of Dotcom was legal has been held up by the bureau becoming a party to his legal proceedings in the High Court.
The police wrote to Greens co-leader Norman today to say they expected to give him an update on the investigation early next year.
Information and disclosure related to the court cases were impacting on the technical processes in the police investigation, the police reportedly told Dr Norman.
Police are investigating after Dr Norman asked them to establish whether the bureau breached the Crimes Act through its surveillance of Dotcom.
"While we understand the difficulties involved in the court case proceeding while aspects of the GCSB's involvement are under investigation by the police, this investigation must come to a conclusion in its own right,''
--- End quote ---
Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei said.
"Our spies are subject to the laws of this land. They must be held accountable by the police and the courts when they violate those laws.
"The police, being the ones who called in the GCSB and who are now in court with the GCSB against Dotcom, must take extra effort to ensure the independence of their investigation into whether GCSB's illegal spying broke the Crimes Act.
"I take this letter to mean that police are taking such issues seriously, and are formulating measures to make sure the public can have confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation,''
--- End quote ---
Mrs Turei said.
- APNZ
--- End quote ---
To try to make sense of things, my analytical approach is to summarise what seem to be all the salient Dotcom news reports so far, and including the latest news item above, which I have done here:
* 1. The police had apparently (QED) carried out an unwarranted (i.e., illegal) raid in the shape of the Dotcom raid, and had thus effectively and by default seriously compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own actions in this matter, both during the raid and from that point onwards.
* 2. Prior to the raid, the police had engaged the services of GCSB and possibly other SS ("Secret Service") agencies.
* 3. The GCSB (SS) services were provided to the police prior to, and (possibly) during and post the raid, and - for all we know - may still be being provided in some official/unofficial capacity.
* 4. The Prime Minister declared - apparently unequivocally - that he had known nothing of Dotcom or of the imminent raid, or that GCSB involvement had been approved by his Deputy in his absence, or that he had been informed about the matter subsequently until GCSB informed him directly, some time after the event. Teflon-coated.
* 5. After the raid, it was progressively revealed that the GCSB services had been provided - and illegally at that - so the GCSB had thus effectively and by default seriously compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own actions in this matter, but also, by association and complicit action, the legality of the police actions (as the police were the ones to have engaged GCSB to carry out this illegal act in the first place).
* 6. After the raid, it was revealed by a senior New Zealand police officer in an internal police publication that details of the raid itself had been transmitted live, online and in realtime via telecomms channels to the FBI HQ in the US, where he happened to be so that he could watch the proceedings in company with US FBI officers. The mind boggles.
* 7. Evidence given by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, the police officer who commanded the raid on the Dotcom mansion is being questioned by the court, and it seems that he may have knowingly committed perjury. Evidence he had given about possible "live footage" of the raid "contradicted" earlier evidence given during the hearing.
The police were ordered to provide evidence from the senior New Zealand police officer in the US who told an internal police publication that he "monitored" the raid from FBI headquarters.
Mr Wormald is also facing questions about other testimony after he assured the court there was no surveillance other than that carried out by police. The GCSB's illegal spying operation later emerged.
* 8. In response to the Greens party co-leader Dr. Norman's request (he had asked them to establish whether the bureau - GCSB - breached the Crimes Act through its surveillance of Dotcom), the police wrote to him on 2012-12-19 to say they expected to give him an update on the investigation early next year.
Curiously, despite the police and GCSB having apparently acted in complicity and having effectively compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own and each others' actions (QED), and despite the fact that both parties are now engaged as the State in a court action versus Dotcom, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei has indicated in press statements that she seems to expect the police to carry out a proper and balanced investigation:
"I take this letter to mean that police are taking such issues seriously, and are formulating measures to make sure the public can have confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation''
--- End quote ---
Yeah, right.
This amazing statement brings to mind memories of the the sorts of loopy imaginings I used to have recounted to me in the sixties by our strange, acid-popping hippie neighbours in Kensington, London, before they ended up in hospital with hepatitis, liver damage and brain damage, and being treated for drug addiction. It seemed impossible to get a rational thought out of them, no matter how hard the poor creatures tried.
This case had already become a monumental fiasco/clusterfark of the first magnitude, and a political time-bomb, and with each new step/revelation it just seems to get worse.
The police and GCSB have demonstrated themselves in a very poor light indeed, and the PM seems to have been clueless as to what the heck was going on, and apparently had been deliberately uninformed on this important matter by his deputy.
As to the amazing statement: "...confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation", it has to be some kind of a cynical joke, surely?
None of this could possibly impart confidence in the electorate that any of the above parties - and especially the police - could be trusted to manage their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone make an independent, objective, transparent and robust investigation into such a foul-up as this, in which the police would be investigating themselves, after having apparently been complicit with GCSB in illegal actions.
The only authority that so far seems to have remained objective and open from the start of this case is the judiciary.
Probably the only thing that could satisfy any sane member of the NZ electorate at this stage would be to have a Royal Commission of Enquiry.
However, the judicial proceedings are in train, and if they are left to get on with it, the justices should be able to continue to an appropriate finish - including a judicial enquiry - in an objective and open manner, in line with the standard they have already demonstrated that they can set and follow. Maybe by then an RC Enquiry might be generally acknowledged as being unnecessary.
This could be an interesting test of the integrity and mettle of the NZ justices and of the NZ justice system, now that it has removed itself from under the former highest court of the land, the British Privy Council, using the Supreme Court of New Zealand instead and as set up in 2003.
IainB:
There's a rather good editorial on Dotcom in the NZ Herald, summarising the relevant events before during and after the raid. The editorial reckons that, for a variety of reasons, Dotcom "has been good for New Zealand". This includes such things as, for example:
* the exposure of "irregularities" in the abuse by John Banks (ACT party leader) of NZ political party funding legislation, highlighted by Dotcom, investigated by police, and subsequently changed by statute (humorously known as "the John Banks bill") to prevent it from recurring;
* the exposure of "irregularities" of police and GCSB/SS procedures in undertaking what it has transpired were apparently illegal actions before, during and after the SWATfest raid on Dotcom;
* the exposure of police deliberately and knowingly giving apparently false/misleading testimony on the case, in a court of law.
Take a read - I reckon you might find it interesting: Editorial: Kim Dotcom sets off year of fireworks for politicians
Also take a look at some of the comments. It seems that the electorate is evidently watching this case with keen interest and is skeptical enough to be unlikely to be hoodwinked by any political sleight-of-hand. They will want a demonstrable correction of anything wrong/illegal and categorically will not want to see the corruption covered up or continued.
There's also a link to that editorial in a post at arstechnica: New Zealand's largest paper calls Kim Dotcom “good for this country”
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version