
Kim Dotcom Gets Green Light to Sue New Zealand Spies - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-gets-green-light-to-sue-new-zealand-spies-121206/
======
downandout
The interesting part of this case for me is that it underscores the tremendous
differences between the US justice system and those of the rest of the world.
In New Zeland, Kim Dotcom seems to at least be getting a fair chance. Their
government seems to be willing to admit when it makes mistakes, and their
judges seem apt to attempt to make amends when mistakes occur.

By contrast, in the US, all of the issues he has brought up so far would be
dismissed by judges claiming they were harmless error because they are
unlikely to affect the question of guilt or innocence. Of course, there is
also no possibility of someone being sentenced to life in prison for stealing
a piece of pizza in NZ either, which has happened and does happen frequently
here in the US. It's sad to say, but other countries are making the US look
less and less civilized every day.

~~~
wtvanhest
>Of course, there is also no possibility of someone being sentenced to life in
prison for stealing a piece of pizza in NZ either, _which has happened and
does happen frequently here in the US._

I can't find a single example of this. Some people are convicted for long
sentences for violating 3 strikes rules, which are questionable, but I think
you have exaggerated more than a little here.

[EDIT] [Added] The comment below mentions this case, but the guy only did 6
years:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-
pizzathi...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-
pizzathief10-2010feb10)

I looked around and there just are not many, if any cases like the OP
describes. His comment is an exaggeration to say the least, and may even been
an absurd exaggeration based on something he vaguely remembers from 1995.

~~~
graeme
I read 'frequently' as meaning 'much more than it should'. I'm guessing he was
referring to three strikes violations leading to jail time for pizza-stealing.

I googled 'stealing pizza jail' and came up with one example, which of course
was from California. Doesn't seem like it happens often, but there are enough
stories of long jail time for comparably petty offences.

[http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stealing-one-slice-of-
piz...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stealing-one-slice-of-pizza-
results-in-life-3150629.php)

I also found this odd story from spain, which is a more serious incident of
pizza thievery, with a knife:

[http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/04/25/pizza-
thef...](http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/04/25/pizza-theft-
malaga/)

~~~
mikeash
I find the characterization of that California crime as "stealing one slice of
pizza" to be wildly misleading. It conjures the image of someone sneaking up
and nicking a piece while everybody's attention is diverted, or similar. The
punishment isn't so much for the actual theft as for the threat of violence
that was used to carry it out.

I'm not sure that threat deserves life in prison, but it's much more serious
than the headline makes it sound, and I don't think it deserves to be called
"petty".

~~~
pyre
According to the article he was convicted of "felony petty theft."

    
    
      > Williams, who testified in his own defense during his trial,
      > testified that some of the children nodded their heads "yes"
      > when he asked them for a slice of pizza and that he thanked
      > them for it.
    
      > But a 13-year-old boy in the group testified: "I was scared."
    

Sounds like implicit intimidation. I think that if there were claims that he
threatened violence, it would have been quoted in the article.

    
    
      > While petty theft is typically a misdemeanor charge, Williams'
      > earlier convictions allowed prosecutors to upgrade it to a
      > felony.
    

They used his earlier convictions to upgrade a misdemeanor to a felony, then
claim "3 felony convictions" == "life sentence".

~~~
mikeash
> Sounds like implicit intimidation. I think that if there were claims that he
> threatened violence, it would have been quoted in the article.

This confuses me a bit. I would personally put "implicit intimidation" under
the category of "threatened violence", and it seems that the state agreed.

~~~
pyre
If you look (by your nature) intimidating and give someone a grim look, they
could be intimidated (especially a 13 year old). Does that mean that you
should treat this the same as if he had said aloud, "I'll break your bones if
you don't give me that piece of pizza?"

[This is all speculation anyways since we don't really have the full story.]

~~~
mikeash
There are really two separate questions here which are getting tangled up.

The first question is what crime he was _convicted_ of. The answer to that
seems pretty clear: theft with assault or intimidation.

The second question is what he actually _did_. The answer to that is much less
clear.

But the second question doesn't really matter to this specific discussion,
although it's obviously highly important in the grand scheme of things. He was
sentenced based on the crime he was _convicted_ of, so it was theft with
assault or intimidation which got him a life sentence, and characterizing it
as "stealing a slice of pizza" is tremendously misleading.

Whether he did something that deserves to be considered that crime is another
question, but a completely different discussion. If I get life in prison for a
murder I didn't commit, I still got life "for murder", and it would be wrong
to characterize it as e.g. harsh sentencing for a lesser crime.

~~~
pyre

      > The answer to that seems pretty clear: theft with
      > assault or intimidation.
    

I don't see any references to 'assault or intimidation' being part of the
charge in that article. There's also the part where the prosecutor got the
charge 'upgraded' to a felony instead of a misdemeanor, which was based on his
prior record rather than the facts of this particular case (at least according
to the article).

~~~
mikeash
Well, a felony implies a serious crime. For a theft to be felony-level, it
either needs to be theft of extremely valuable goods, or the act of stealing
needs to be be aggravated. The pizza was presumably not value, so process of
elimination leaves us with the second.

So again, maybe he didn't actually do what he was convicted of, but that's a
separate question altogether.

~~~
pyre
You're speculating though. The only 'hard information' that we're going on
here is the article that says this:

    
    
      > While petty theft is typically a misdemeanor charge,
      > Williams' earlier convictions allowed prosecutors to
      > upgrade it to a felony.
    

Sounds more like a "pattern of law breaking" argument was used to upgrade it
rather than the facts of this particular matter, but again this is just
speculation because we're not reading a blow-by-blow account of the trial.

~~~
mikeash
Again, doesn't matter. He was convicted of felony theft, a serious crime, and
sentenced accordingly. To say he was sentenced for stealing a slice of pizza
is entirely wrong. Whether the additional factors were threats at the time of
the theft or previous crimes or whatever, _that's_ what he was sentenced for.

~~~
pyre
Is it so hard to believe that a prosecutor used the 'stole a slice of pizza'
incident as a foot in the door, and pushed hard to upgrade it to a felony just
to get a feather in his hat (i.e. as a political power-play)? Would you be
singing the same tune if a prosecutor had tried to get him convicted of
'felony jay-walking' and then sent him away for 25 to life? If 2 felony
convictions + 1 minor infraction are enough to get you to do hard time, can we
really claim that it's a '3 strikes policy?' Though, not a resident of
California, I was under the impression that 3 strikes laws were sold to the
public under the guise of hard criminals that are repeat offenders. This guy
doesn't sound like a hard criminal, so I would venture that this situation is
one that violates the intent of the law (or at least the advertised intent
that the public was sold on).

~~~
wtvanhest
This got out of hand, so let me try to present another viewpoint.

1) No one deserves to go to jail for 6 years (the term he served) or life
imprison, even for intimidation of kids.

2) He wasn't a guy who just took a piece of pizza, he threatened kids and he
did so after he committed multiple felonies.

3) The three strikes laws were designed to stop people from continuously
committing crimes and getting of easily. The mid 1990s were a tough period for
American politicians due to rising crime rates and they tried new stuff.
(Basically they did the lean startup movement on criminal prosecution.)

4) If you ask me, the case and situation were misapplied.

5) My original point that this rarely if ever happens in the US still stands.
This (pizza lifer) was an obvious injustice and it was fixed. It doesn't
happen often, if ever and should not be viewed the way it is.

6) We should never let someone go to jail for 6 years, or even 2 years for
stealing a piece of pizza from some kids. IMO the US should seriously look at
reducing sentences for many crimes and we should take a hard look at reducing
our imprisoned population.

7) Most importantly, The US has not deteriorated to the point of a police
state, or anywhere close to it. Part of the reason it hasn't is that
American's and international citizens have stood up to the government and
demanded that they not violate the constitution. HN/Reddit/others have
defeated SOPA, and will defeat other measures like it.

Great discussion.

------
digitalengineer
police search, illegal seizure raids, great show of force, attacking him in
his safe-house, unlawfully intercepted communications, unlawful surveillance,
(still!) freezing his accounts... But somehow people pirating music/films is
the worlds biggest problem? I'd say any government willing to break so many of
it's own laws is the problem.

~~~
cdooh
Worse is any goverment willing to break their own laws for another government
that is really a proxy for an industry... That's what's really scary about
this

~~~
pirateking
Welcome to Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong!

------
dia80
I'm amazed at how the NZ institutions are putting their hands up and the
courts seem to be working. It seems so different from so many of the
stories/comments here regarding similar stuff in the US.

Corruption Perception Index:

NZ = 90 (1st) vs US = 73 (19th)

Not a coincidence?

~~~
ihsw
The most interesting point of the article is that it is _illegal_ for the GCSB
(New Zealand spy agency) to monitor New Zealanders.

Personally I feel that other nations should learn from this and implement
similar policies.

~~~
btilly
It already is illegal for the CIA to monitor Americans on American soil.

Of course once you are used to breaking laws around the world, what is one
more law?

------
huhtenberg
Gotta admit he got both balls and the backbone to keep pushing this matter
forward.

~~~
illuminate
His most honed skill is self-promotion, so that's a given.

------
denzil_correa
Kim is turning into a Julian Assange of the Internet and he is now taking this
to a whole new level.

~~~
sigzero
Assange is a douche. Let's not lump the two together.

~~~
flyinRyan
What and you think Kim is a great guy?

It's really important to separate the work from the person. I doubt many of us
would have wanted to be friends with Steve Jobs but man I'm glad he existed
and did the (professional) things he did.

~~~
illuminate
Dotcom is trying to make a buck, not sincerely change the system.

~~~
flyinRyan
If making a buck ends up changing the system, why would I care about why he
did it? If you go back and look at history with a critical eye you'll find
none of your heroes had you in mind when they did whatever it is they did. If
we only celebrate the self-less then we have no one to thank for much of
anything. That doesn't strike me as very fair.

~~~
illuminate
Hey, I'll be happy if this changes anything for the better. I feel I'm setting
my expectations reasonably low.

He's best known for bluster and charisma and promises unfulfilled, after all.
I'd happily eat these words if anything positive comes from this.

------
nvmc
Rapt when I saw this on the news last night. A hugely influential decision.
Not only is the GCSE now liable for their actions, but it opens up the
opportunity to sue other organizations, which we have been unable to do since
the eighties.

------
joeblau
I've been following Kim since my friend showed me the kimble.org flash website
back in the early 2000's. All the events in his life could be an amazing story
for a movie.

------
maeon3
There is a worldwide effort going on right now to put a ownership sticker on
the worldwide internet, that goal has been failing, so now they are settling
for an "ownership of the internet in their jurisdiction", and that is failing
too, so they do the next best thing: "Digital rights management" because oh
god won't somebody think of the children with child pornography and music
downloads!

It's about expanding the power base, the ultimate goal here is for governments
to acquire the ability to tax every bit and byte that travels across their
borders. Kim stands for freedom. Government, stay out of my shit, you have a
few defined jobs and you're not doing any of them here.

Power corrupts and seeks more power, it's the human condition. I'm afraid a
free neutral and open internet and the explosion of technology it brought will
be a phenomenon for the history books either soon or eventually.

~~~
kahawe
> _Kim stands for freedom_

I think you mean "...stands for the freedom to make money off of people in the
same way he has been the last 2 decades, namely through at best shady and
several times completely illegal and fraudulent means".

Yes, even scumbags have rights, absolutely! No, don't ever paint this
egotistical, opportunistic allegorical hyperbole of a man as any sort of
"hero" or "freedom fighter".

> _It's about expanding the power base_

On this point, I could not agree more with you. It has been my own impression
for a LONG time that all those "you wouldn't steal a car" ads and all the
media attention the RIAA/MPAA-mafia are getting for their strong-arm methods
is really nothing but a very clever and calculated PR campaign to implant this
actually non-existent problem in people's minds so that they then can lobby
and extort money and continue increasing their power and influence/leverage on
governments the world over. So what I am saying is, it was never about
changing people's minds to not copy a CD or a movie but it was mainly about
rallying and lobbying for their cause; a self-feeding cluster-frakk because
the topic is then obviously "en vogue" so politicians can no longer ignore
them and have to give in to their demands. When actually they do not make less
money now than they did 15 years ago.

It is very sad to see how successful this has become, seeing NZ fold like
that.

~~~
pyre

      > Yes, even scumbags have rights, absolutely! No,
      > don't ever paint this egotistical, opportunistic
      > allegorical hyperbole of a man as any sort of "hero"
      > or "freedom fighter".
    

Larry Flint stood for freedom too, doesn't mean he's a humanitarian only
thinking of the greater good of mankind.

Even the 'Founding Fathers' of the US were rich landowners that didn't want to
get taxed by England. For all of the "fluff" that the history books talk about
them being warm and fuzzy about human rights, their philosophies didn't
disagree with their pocketbooks.

    
    
      > When actually they do not make less money now than
      > they did 15 years ago.
    

Their profits/revenues do fluctuate, but they use piracy as their scapegoat
for _everything_.

Is the economy down, so people have less disposable income to spend on
consuming entertainment media? It's piracy at fault! It _definitely could not
be_ because people have less money to spend, therefore they spend less money
in aggregate.

Are other industries encroaching into the consumption media space (e.g. video
games industry)? It's piracy at fault! It _definitely could not be_ because
people are now choosing to distribute spending of their finite amount of
disposable income in other industries (e.g. buying few movies, and more video
games).

