
New Zealand Court Rules Kim Dotcom Can Be Extradited to U.S - rmason
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39024596
======
jonathanstrange
I don't understand how civilized countries can even consider extraditing
anyone to the US in light of the known deficiencies of the US justice and
prison system. I don't know about NZ, but for example in Germany the maximum
sentence for intentional, commercial copyright infringement is 5 years,
whereas in the US it seems to be a life-long confinement in some federal
maximum security prison where apparently inmates are sometimes even raped - or
so, I've heard, quite shocking if that's true. Moreover, this guy has never
set a foot inside the US, and the US do often not extradite people for much
more serious crimes.

On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even
some US experts occasionally admit. For example, Marion prison in Colorado was
on a permanent lockdown for _23 years_ , because two prison guards were
killed.[1] That means that all inmates were in strict solitary confinement for
23 years, no matter whether they had anything to do with these murders or not.

NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company
resided in. He can then spend a few years in prison, if he's really guilty,
and justice is served.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/23/marion_prison_lo...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/23/marion_prison_lockdown_thomas_silverstein_how_a_1983_murder_created_america.html)

~~~
veidr
As an American, it's disheartening to see other advanced democracies
succumbing to the same type of cancers that ruined my country. You either have
the rule of law, or you don't.

These farcical legal contortions to allow extradition are an embarrassment to
New Zealand. Sadly, though, my American experience suggests that it's
something most people will just slowly get used to. Eventually, the idea that
the rule of law applies even in cases where powerful corporate lobbies are on
one side, and there are none on the other side, starts to seem quaint.

Although I confess I don't fully understand why _American_ corporate interests
can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the
original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either.

What's the hidden leverage?

~~~
Chathamization
Also worth noting how arbitrary the rule of law has become in the U.S. There
are a lot of little edge cases that are technically illegal but millions of
people do them and they are generally ignored. However, if the government
decides to go after you they'll examine every single tiny thing you've done to
see if they can find something they can trump up charges for.

The charges are often pretty shaky, by they threaten you with decades of
prison time if you don't plead guilty. Most people agree because they're
rather the certainty of a few years of probation or a year of house arrest
than the possibility 20 years in prison.

~~~
mi100hael
[https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594035229)

------
wbhart
New Zealand law has a principle known as natural justice. It's a term that
refers to the right to a trial that is fair when considered in totality, and
the right to have a judge that is not biased. It was argued by Dotcom's team
and the legal team of his coaccused that the District court judge had hurried
the trial so much that there was no opportunity to even present a case. He
wasn't allowed to present expert testimony on the commonplace practice of
using deduplication in filesharing technology, or expert testimony on US law,
etc. The question came up in the trial that if natural justice had been so
badly denied, then it wasn't clear how the problem could be rectified.
Evidence came to light during the trial before this judge that largely
discredited the Crown case, but wasn't properly before the judge (wasn't
allowed to be considered), further compounding the problem the case presented.
The Crown Prosecution Service of course argued that Dotcom and co would have
the opportunity to present such evidence in the US after being extradited.

~~~
wallace_f
Your points reveal the nature of NZ how I found it after living there. It is a
nation of well-mannered, and sometimes incredibly friend people, yet with far-
more-corrupt-than-you-would-imagine institutions. They have the highest per-
capita War on Drugs in the world that includes selectively-enforced laws and
no progress on the harmful impact to society of drug abuse. Yet with all that
money spent on law enforcement, one at a hostel who was mugged could not even
get police to investigate the crime.

NZ ranked as the #1 least corrupt place in the world is some major bullshit.
They have government-sanctioned monopolies in everything from office property
to ski resorts. Telecom industry is even more of a joke than Australia or US.

Nowhere else in the Western world have I seen such a disgusting display of sex
workers as I did in NZ. Of people mugged and beaten up for no reason. Of overt
racism. However, there's also some of the nicest people in the world there,
and it is a beautiful country.

Anyways, Kim Dotcom's case just adds to the list of bullshit to what should
otherwise be a utopia.

~~~
cylinder
>They have government-sanctioned monopolies in everything from office property
to ski resorts. Telecom industry is even more of a joke than Australia or US.

TIL resisting neoliberal market ideology = corruption.

Why is this hard to understand? A tiny nation cannot rely on private capital
to establish massive projects like national telecom or even office buildings.
So people band together through government to do it. Sorry that government
ownership of anything but a global war machine seems to offend you.

~~~
wallace_f
We apparently just disagree about what I am assuming to be a right: People to
have just and fair competition in a law-abiding marketplace. In a marketplace,
people get to choose with their dollars which goods and services they want the
most. In socialist or an authoritarian regimes, a government decides for you
what you need, who gets it, who gets the profits, but they make you pay for
it.

Whether they use their citizens wealth to produce Wars on Drugs, ski resorts
or office buildings is up to them. While I'd rather they produce ski resorts
or office buildings, the idea that a government needs to intervene in order to
develop any of those is ridiculous.

>Sorry that government ownership of anything but a global war machine seems to
offend you.

That is not fair, and it's insulting. Nowhere did I say I support war.

~~~
cylinder
I don't even follow what you're talking about. There are three telecom
networks in NZ, the government owned one was privatized long ago and is
publicly listed. There are private ski resort companies. In a lot of ways,
Australia and NZ have gone far deeper into the neoliberal privatization rabbit
hole than the US. NY airports run by the Port Authority isn't corruption? NY
has government run ski resorts too.

And either way, socialism != corruption. You may not like it, but that doesn't
mean it's corruption.

------
rubyfan
Can anyone explain the concept where a foreign person can commit an act on
foreign soil and be considered that the U.S. has jurisdiction to charge them
with a crime? How is that possible?

~~~
Atropos
That concept is actually not that unusual or nonsensical - imagine if we had
the opposite: As long as you and your servers are outside the US, you can not
be charged under US criminal law. This would basically mean that the US would
need to rely exclusively on the goodwill of foreign prosecutors to shut down
things like e.g. securities fraud exclusively targetting US citizens or
hackers attacking US companies etc. Obviously, in many cases foreign
prosecutors would not care too much. Does this seem like justice?

~~~
hysan
I'm going to say yes. If they and their business are completely outside of the
US, then unless they are breaking a treaty (ex: war crimes), I would say that
it is justice. To think otherwise would be to place the expectation that every
person in the world be held to the expectation that they know and understand
the laws of every other country in the world. That to me sounds unreasonable.
For example, how many non-US censorship laws do you think are broken by
Americans on a daily basis? Do you think it is right and just that all of
those Americans be charged with a crime by other countries? And that they be
extradited on request?

If a law is universal to the point that you think charging non-citizens
residing outside of your country is just, then I would expect that declaration
to be recognized via a treaty or an agreement by the United Nations. No matter
what you think of Kim Dotcom and others like him, the charges and approach by
the US government to me do not seem like justice in any sense of the word.

~~~
freehunter
The difference is intent. Kim was intentionally violating American law to
defraud American businesses and help American citizens commit crimes.

While I don't agree with the manner of his prosecution or extradition, let's
all agree to the facts of the case. He didn't incidentally break US law, he
fully intended to break US law to the detriment of US corporations and the
benefit of US citizens.

~~~
hysan
Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere? Because until I
saw your response, intent didn't even cross my mind. Regardless of that, I
still don't think intent changes my point of view when it comes to _justice_.
Trying to take intent into account means treading into very very murky waters
with regards to thought police and trying to determine what people think. And
that is one very slippery slope. I for one would not want countries like China
and North Korea claiming that I "intentionally" broke some censorship law in
their country and asking for my extradition.

~~~
freehunter
>Did I say intent in my reply? Did I even imply it anywhere?

You did not, which is why I brought it up. What you said was that people
should not be responsible for breaking laws they were not aware of in
countries they don't live in. Which is true and I agree with that, but Kim
knew full well what he was doing. Intent is 90% of the law, and Kim knew
exactly what he was doing. He fully intended to break US law to the detriment
of US corporations for the benefit of US citizens.

>[that's assuming non-citizens] know and understand the laws of every other
country in the world

is exactly what you said. There's no assumption needed here. You don't have to
assume Kim knew the laws of other countries. He knew. Intent is a very
important factor here, which is why I brought it up. It was something missing
from your argument.

------
elliottkember
I am from New Zealand, and I had a friend who was working for Kim Dotcom
leading up to the time of the raid. I never got close enough to actually see
anything, but just from the stories I heard I was deeply suspicious. It didn't
sound like much was done "by the book", people were paid in cash, stuff was
hushed up... it all seemed really, really shady.

At the time, Dotcom was loathed by his neighbours in Coatesville for driving
sports cars really fast around the area, scaring people on horseback,
antagonizing the neighbours, and generally being an asshole. I met a few of
them once and they all had the same opinion - they just didn't want this guy
around any more.

Since the raid he's been on a PR kick, including releasing an album called
"Good Times" with pictures of his face holding a flower all over buses around
the country:
[https://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/story_imgs/BeZ4ZHw...](https://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/story_imgs/BeZ4ZHwCAAAigLt.jpg)

I don't know nearly enough about the by-the-book legality of what was
happening with Megaupload. But to your average Kiwi he's a bit of a
disingenuous prick with enough talk of criminal bullshit to make him
unpopular. Our small island nation's culture is precious to us.

~~~
djsumdog
His debate with John Key was spectacular though:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZcFQOOwjTE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZcFQOOwjTE)

..and he did organize the broadcast with the Internet/Mana Party, Snowden and
Assange.

That CD of his, terrible. So terrible. "oh the good good life," fuck it's
stuck in my head now.

Sure he's a huge asshole. The American film industry is worse. The MPAA has a
lot of pull in NZ because of all the contracts that go from Hollywood to
Wetta. Regardless of what you think of Kim Dotcom personally, the way his
assets were seized and this whole process carried out should be of great
concern to all Kiwis because of the far reaching legal implications.

Remember, the GCSB bill that allowed spying was just making legal what the
government was already doing. The original spying on Kim Dotcom was totally
illegal, and no one is in jail for it.

------
contingencies
First, they came for the hackers.

 _Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of
judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime
is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for._ \-
The Mentor, _The Hacker Manifesto_ (1986)

The internet and the hacker community, much like New Zealand, were built on
sharing, which we know to be a net good. Despite character failings and
profiteering - the political ramifications of Mega clearly gave Kim an
enjoyment that many of us (especially those of us living in or exposed to the
developing world, or who made our start in computing through piracy) can and
should empathise with, which clearly demonstrates that his motivation exceeded
that of profit. I would argue, therefore, that _Kim is one of us, and that we
owe him our heartfelt - if conditional - support_.

While Kim - like many of us - is certainly a fallible and occasionally
(quaintly) antagonistic character, if humans are to stand any chance of
solving the more pressing issues of the planet what we need is transparency
and legitimate cross-border community, not "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric
out of the 1950s (via the cold war). Despite the international media saga of
_Kim vs. USA_ , Kim fundamentally wins hands down on the big picture (eg. not
wielding an army of drone-assassins with a stated 'whole planet, intra-minutes
death-dealing' goal, not producing and exporting torture equipment, etc...).
The whole MPAA/US argument basically rests on the allegation of lost
profits... as if commercial exploitation of the entire planet's population is
some kind of global, monocultural, border-free given. Frankly I don't know
what's more offensive: the assumption, or the methodology.

 _I 'm more willing to risk imprisonment (or any other negative outcome)
personally than I am willing to risk the curtailment of my intellectual
freedom and that of those around me who I care for equally as I do for
myself._ \- Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower

~~~
microtherion
> I would argue, therefore, that Kim is one of us, and that we owe him our
> heartfelt - if conditional - support.

Kim Dotcom is a career criminal. Having been convicted
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Investigations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Investigations))
of dealing in stolen phone cards, insider trading, embezzlement, and Ponzi
schemes, he finally figured out that ripping off musicians is one profitable
crime widely condoned in society.

------
rihegher
Basically he won but lost anyway
[https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/833510769362825216](https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/833510769362825216)

~~~
wbhart
I watched quite a bit of the actual trial, which was livestreamed. The judge
frequently pointed out that he knew his decision would be appealed, no matter
what it was, and that it wasn't at all clear how to rectify the problem that
the case presented. There were difficulties if it was sent either forward or
back. Nobody wanted the case sent back to the district court, and there was no
point him making a decision on everything and having his ruling tossed out in
a higher court. What was clear throughout the case is that the New Zealand
parliament had made its intention clear in the law that there was no such
thing as criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. In effect, the judge
made the only sensible decision he could: uphold the intention of parliament
and the law, and yet leave the case in a state that would allow Dotcom and
company to appeal.

~~~
philliphaydon
As a Kiwi, I hope he wins the appeal! Everything the NZ government has done in
regards to this entire case makes me embarrassed to be a kiwi.

~~~
kogepathic
> Everything the NZ government has done in regards to this entire case makes
> me embarrassed

Not a Kiwi, but I agree the NZ government has mishandled this situation from
day 1.

I don't think Kim Dotcom should be extradited to the US. The way this was
handled just reeks of judicial overreach by the Americans.

But, from everything that I've read, and what I've seen on his Twitter, Kim
Dotcom is not someone I would want to be friends with. In general he seems to
be a bit of a scumbag.

He likes the law, but only when it's in his favour. He even tried to finance a
NZ political party, which failed spectacularly. [0]

If the Americans are intent to prove a point that he's a criminal, instead of
trying to get him for copyright violations (which judges have repeatedly shown
don't apply in NZ), they could always chose to hit him for money laundering
which is a crime in NZ.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Dotcom.27s_involvem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Dotcom.27s_involvement_in_New_Zealand_politics)

~~~
sjwright
It makes sense that we want to see someone get a fair hearing in court, even
if we didn't particularly like them. If I ever find myself in a similar
position, I would want judicial fairness in my case too.

I am reminded of a quote from the film _The Contender (2000)_

"Principles only mean something when you stick to them when its inconvenient."

~~~
icu
I echo your sentiment, however after being called into jury service in New
Zealand, I was dismayed to discover first hand that the probability of a fair
hearing in court is based on the degree to which you can afford a defence.

My perspective now is to avoid legal problems at nearly any cost, but to also
advocate for understanding, respect--and when necessary--defence of the Law.

To give an example, I believe Trey Gowdy (the U.S. Representative) is a
shining example of this approach and if you are interested I would recommend
watching a few of his speeches on YouTube.

------
Zorlag
I recall getting a letter from megaupload a couple of years ago after I
downloaded Firefox through their services "for free", asking me to pay some
bullshit amount of money. Somehow they got their download link on top of all
the others in Google. Did not pay because it was clearly a fraud. Many paid
though. Later they busted the operation. In Germany that was. That's my share
on Kim Dotcom. Filesharing is fine but the dude is a criminal trying to
rationalize his deeds to evade punishment.

~~~
skilled
It would help if you could back your claims. Were the Mozilla servers down
that you couldn't get it from an official source?

~~~
freehunter
Years ago Firefox used to have a disclaimer of "Only use this software from
official sources, you should never pay money for this software" kind of thing,
because that practice happened all the time. Companies made money reselling
Firefox to people who didn't know any better or weren't paying attention.

No idea if Megaupload was responsible or not, but it was certainly a popular
fraud.

------
coldcode
Note that he can't be extradited for copyright infringement, but they allowing
it for fraud, which makes no sense.

------
d--b
Am I the only one to think he had it coming?

I mean, the guy publicly boasts to have made hundreds of millions of dollars
ripping off the entertainment industry. The US wouldn't be so aggressive if
the guy hadn't been in hiding and taunting them for years.

As far as I know, Sean Parker didn't go to jail over Napster...

~~~
tptacek
No, you are not. But Schmitz's outcome is not going to be the same as Sean
Parker's.

~~~
d--b
Sure, but that's only because he clearly violated a lot of laws and fled
instead of facing trial.

I am surprised that most people here seem offended by NZ's decision. The guy's
clearly a thief, he got a lot of money from people who wanted to watch TV
shows, while he didn't make those shows.

If someone stole my stuff, fled to NZ and bragged about it online, I'd be
pretty pissed too, and surely I'd like the guy to be extradited.

~~~
syshum
>>and fled instead of facing trial.

Where did he flee to? Megaupload was started when he lived in NZ, was shutdown
when he lived in NZ, and as far as I am aware he still lives in NZ. So where
you do you that he fled somewhere?

>I am surprised that most people here seem offended by NZ's decision.

That is because clearly you do not value due process

>The guy's clearly a thief

That is not clear to me, of course I also reject the very idea of
"Intellectual privilege" and do not believe a download is the equivalent of
theft.

Which by the way is the factual legal position as well, because when you
infringe on copyright, you do not "steal" you infringe.

>If someone stole my stuff,

What did he steal, I have seen no complaints, or charges in regards to theft.
Copyright infringement sure. But that is not theft

>fled to NZ

he did not flee to NZ,

~~~
undefined0
Just a slight correction, he lived in Hong Kong when he founded Megaupload and
moved to New Zealand later on. Pure speculation but I imagine he moved to Hong
Kong to avoid German law after his past conviction there for insider trading.

