
LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ - vonklaus
http://kim.com/
======
junto
While I find Dotcom to be a epitome of a shill, I doubt Greenwald or Snowden
would back this particular claim if they truly believed it was false.

Both Snowden and Greenwald have choosen to honour the truth above their own
safety and security. Both of them are also acutely aware of the fact that
standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Dotcom reflects poorly on their own
integrity.

Maybe the USG leaked this email as a 'false flag' in order to make Greenwald
look a fool when it gets proved as false, or it is true, and Greenwald and
Snowden are right to back Dotcom in this particular argument, whether or not
he is a crook or not.

A US movie company doing back-room deals (on behalf of the USG) with NZ
politicians, in order to get someone extradited for alleged copyright
infringement is just downright dirty and a waste of public money. It is
corrupt corporatism at it's finest.

If it is true, I hope the shit hits the fan. However, as many others have
pointed out. The fact that a politician is dirty is not an automatic guarantee
that the voting public won't vote for him.

~~~
caractacus
A main question for me is how dotcom got hold of his email. There is no
mention that it came from Snowden's leaks or similar, though it appears that
this is what Dotcom is wanted everyone to believe: host an event highlighting
mass surveilliance of NZ citizens, publicise an email hours beforehand, hope
everyone conflates the issues and thinks that the legitimacy that Greenwald
and Snowden lend to the surveillance event is passed onto the email.

Personally, I doubt the CEO of a major company like WB would send an email
outlining this kind of agreement, especially when he says that Key told him
'in private' that such and such would happen. I'm not saying it didn't happen
but would the CEO of a major movie studio be careless enough to put this in
the clear in an email? Half the employees of a place like WB are lawyers...

~~~
jacquesm
The first rule of email: if you do something incriminating, don't use email.
Oliver North and many many others after him have shown that people are simply
stupid.

From small time crooks to big time politicians and a whole spectrum of stupid
people in between the 'incriminating email' seems to be a staple element in
the arsenal of prosecutions the world over. I don't see why CEO's of major
corporations should be exempt. See recent revelations regarding collusion by
big companies to depress engineers salaries.

~~~
junto
Indeed, even Steve Jobs got caught out by that one:
[http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-
in...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/damning-evidence-emerges-in-google-
apple-no-poach-antitrust-lawsuit/)

~~~
revelation
And not only once, his emails were the key evidence in the antitrust eBook
case, too.

Ref: [http://qz.com/87184/the-steve-jobs-emails-that-show-how-
to-w...](http://qz.com/87184/the-steve-jobs-emails-that-show-how-to-win-a-
hard-nosed-negotiation/)

------
mrmondo
As a New Zealander, I have not felt more disgusted by a Prime Minister since
Muldoon. This isn't news to those of us in the tech sector with experience in
NZ - but it's amazing for international hero's such as Glenn Greenwald, Edward
Snowden and Assange speak out so publicly about the grease-bag that is John
Key and his party. Apologies for the loaded wording, I feel very passionately
about the freedom of New Zealand.

~~~
bitserf
Fellow NZ citizen. Could not agree more. I hope we will have more engagement
of the citizenry this election.

~~~
vorg
It would also be good to have more engagement of non-citizen New Zealanders
this election also!

For non-Kiwis... New Zealand is one of the _very few_ countries in the world
where non-citizens are allowed to vote in national elections. Permanent
residents who have lived in NZ for only 1 year can register to vote, though
they don't have to. They're not allowed to become citizens until they've lived
in NZ for 5 years however. This is in stark contrast to nearby Australia where
only citizens vote, just like in most other countries, but their unusual
electoral situation is that its citizens _must_ vote (or be fined).

~~~
tankenmate
Actually Australians don't have to vote, they are required by law however to
attend a polling station on polling day or have registered for a postal vote
and returned the postal vote envelope. The actual vote papers can be blank, or
indeed you can write in if you want; even for people who aren't on the
official ticket (i.e. you can legally vote for Mickey Mouse). If a write in
gets enough votes they are free to accept the position. In Australia you are
also required by law to be on the electoral roll if you are eligible. In short
in Australia suffrage is universal (for citizens who are of majority age;
currently 18) and mandatory.

~~~
jacquesm
Australia is behind the times in this respect. Voting is a right, _not_ an
obligation and non-participation is a form of protest against the system as a
whole rather than a forced choice between multiple options none of which you
may agree with.

~~~
sjwright
Did you read the parent? You don't have to vote in Australia. You just have to
show up and not vote -- or alternatively accept a trivial fine.

(I personally think mandatory voting is a crappy system, but less crappy than
all the alternatives. Much like capitalism.)

~~~
jacquesm
Having to show up means there is a compulsion in effect, whether or not you
have to make a choice is between you and the piece of paper (otherwise you are
violating another principle of a good voting system: that it is secret what
you voted).

The situation (quoted from the WP page) is precisely this:

"Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and
above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station
and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a
ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the
ballot paper and place it in the ballot box."

So your participation in the election process is mandatory.

I'd wager the vast majority of the people so compelled to show up at the
polling stations will actually vote. This should be easily testable. The proof
would be that in Australia the total number of votes as a percentage of the
population is high compared to other countries that do not have mandatory
participation and that the number of blank or defaced ballots slightly higher
than it would be in a country without compulsory voting (those would be the
people _actually_ using their vote as a protest vote).

edit:

[http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU](http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=AU)
(Australia)

[http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216](http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=216)
(Thailand)

[http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164](http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=164)
(Netherlands)

[http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231](http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=231)
(USA)

Seem to solidly confirm my suspicion.

~~~
ama729
You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other
"difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting
and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An
employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.

~~~
jacquesm
Minorities or 'difficult groups' (whatever they are) have a right to vote, so
they can exercise it if they want to. No excuse needed! This is about being
_compelled_ to participate, not about wanting to go and needing an excuse. You
never need an excuse, there is an election in progress and you exercise your
rights.

Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with
the right to vote?

Are polling stations in those places only open during business hours?

Are the rights of citizens in those places subject to the whims of employers?

That would make for an interesting situation.

I'm not aware of any place where a company could stop its employees from
voting if it wanted to do so, but that's an interesting perspective. I don't
really understand what voting being mandatory or optional has to do with that
though.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with
the right to vote?

In the US.

It has not been too many years since minorities were harassed if/when seen
going to the polls. On the other end of that stick there is the fact that
minorities were paid/coerced into voting a certain way.

It is definitely not the case that an employer can prevent employees from
voting specifically, but they can arrange the workday in such a way as to make
it inconvenient for certain employees. Example: Salaried staff can be given
time off to vote while hourly staff are told to work overtime; not to mention
the fact that salaried workers tend to already have accumulated paid time-off,
where hourly workers have none, or less.

~~~
jacquesm
Then sue the bastards.

~~~
DrJosiah
You need to pay a lawyer to sue, and you need to pay a lot for a lawyer that
will win. The US legal system is "pay for play", despite claims and general
belief to the contrary.

------
vonklaus
Link to the article Snowden authored earlier today about the subject :
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/15/snowden-new-
ze...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/15/snowden-new-zealand-
surveillance/)

EDIT: The segment has ended. You can view the video by skipping to 21:54 at
the following link:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0#t=427](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0#t=427)

~~~
Indyan
As far as I know, this is the first time Snowden is directly penning an
article. He even has a staff page [1] now on The Intercept. This is
interesting because to me because "At the NSA I routinely came across the
communications of New Zealanders in my work" is much more impactful than
"Snowden stated that he routinely came across the communications of New
Zealanders in his work as an NSA Analyst".

[1]: [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/edward-
snowden/](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/edward-snowden/)

------
drinchev
Ironically it's not available in Germany, because of "right issues"[1].

[1] screenshot : [http://imgur.com/JFTYK5u](http://imgur.com/JFTYK5u)

~~~
sschueller
Alternate:
[http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1473236/events/3389825/pl...](http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1473236/events/3389825/player?width=640&height=360&autoPlay=true&mute=false)

~~~
aw3c2
thanks, this works well with
[https://github.com/chrippa/livestreamer](https://github.com/chrippa/livestreamer)

------
davidw
One of these three things is not like the others.

~~~
skidoo
Politics make strange bedfellows. That said, I think that ideologically, all
of these men are absolutely on the same page...

of persons who will never in their lifetimes be invited to any White House
gala. And good for them.

~~~
jacquesm
> That said, I think that ideologically, all of these men are absolutely on
> the same page...

I don't think even they would agree to that.

KDC is a serial criminal/fraudster with a ton of convictions to his name that
will pursue a buck no matter what he has to do for it.

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist who will not be pushed or pressured into
behaving as governments believe he should, who has taught a superb lesson in
ethics to a large swath of the journalistic profession. He's this generations
Woodward or Bernstein, take your pick.

Julian Assange is a person that I respect on a professional level for what
he's done with WikiLeaks but who quite probably has some flaws and possibly
something to answer for in his private life.

They couldn't be more different.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I think that's a little unfair to KDC; at the very least, it is no more a
complete picture of the man than "John Doe is a felon" is of anyone else.
There are a lot of other people who see Assange as nothing more than "rapist
on the run".

Dotcom hasn't stopped fighting his imprisonment and the seizure and loss of
his equipment, business, and customers' data, even though he's already won far
more than maybe anyone else in his position could have hoped to win in this
age. He easily could have gone back home, moved to another country, and faded
into obscurity; instead, he relaunched the service that got him into so much
trouble in the first place, and has seemingly made it his mission to embarrass
the governments involved as much as possible.

Whether his motives are entirely selfish, for his own aggrandizement -- as I
suspect they probably are -- or more altruistic, I'm still glad he's pouring
so much of his resources into this.

~~~
jacquesm
KDC is a convicted felon in Germany, has 10 or more counts against him and has
had a 2 year suspended sentence which he did not contest.

He's also been involved in setting up a ponzi scheme and stole 1.5M in a 'pump
and dump'.

I won't take a word of that back.

~~~
thaumaturgy
OK. You can refuse to take back anything you said -- which I didn't ask for,
btw -- but it will still have nothing to do with what I said.

~~~
jacquesm
Apologies for being unclear, I was mostly responding to the bit that states
that I'm being 'a bit unfair' to KDC. I think it is very fair and that he's
simply a bad puppy. If he accidentally does something useful while he's
pursuing his selfish goals then great, but that's not his first and foremost
interest, most probably merely a convenient vehicle for his ambitions.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I'm having trouble understanding how you're able to give Assange and Dotcom
different treatments.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm genuinely puzzled. You're having a
similar argument with idlewords, but in defense of Assange; your comment
upthread acknowledges that Assange has "flaws" and "something to answer for in
his personal life", but when it comes to Dotcom, it sounds like you've got a
much stronger negative impression of him.

This isn't really that important I guess. I should probably just drop it. It
just seems weird.

(FWIW, I've defended Assange too in other conversations, but with full
knowledge that he probably is guilty of a sex crime under his country's laws;
likewise with Dotcom, after his release. It's good that the battle against
mass surveillance doesn't require saints, since we don't get to pick allies
for their winning personalities.)

~~~
jacquesm
To me the difference is very simple:

KDC has shown a structural disregard for the law and his victims to line his
own pockets, this is not a one-time affair or something that you could claim
is a mistake, an accident or something done half drunk, and he's been
convicted of those crimes. It is to me beyond any doubt that he's a common
criminal, he's merely found a nice little gray area in which he can operate
using the proceeds of previous criminal activities to launch a new operation.
He's basically doing what every criminal that is whitewashing his money and
reputation has done.

Julian Assange has done a whole pile of things that _seemed_ to have been for
the common good (no profit motive as far as I can discern, you can of course
debate whether or not they really were for the common good but that's out-of-
scope), he's been too hungry for the spotlight in my opinion and has made
WikiLeaks eventually more about him than about the data, this was definitely a
mistake. I don't think WikiLeaks ever needed a figurehead. By making himself a
figurehead he's become an Achilles heel to WikiLeaks and that in turn coupled
with his flaws has led to his public downfall and a ton of damage to
Wikileaks.

Where I draw the line is that (1) his motives for running WikiLeaks for the
most part seem pure and that (2) Everything KDC does is to enrich himself at
the expense of others and that he's been convicted of crimes that are directly
related to such activities.

This makes them very different kinds of characters in my opinion.

Does that clear it up sufficiently?

~~~
thaumaturgy
Alright, fair 'nuff.

------
aw3c2
This feels like the typical Kimble self-advertising event. Disgusting.

~~~
sschueller
He is actually at this very moment advertising his Mega service :)

------
balabaster
It's interesting how many people have grown so desensitized to the content
being presented that they're back to slinging mud about the credibility of the
persons delivering the content. I'd say regardless of what you may think of
Assange, Dot Com and Snowden personally, the presentation was excellent and
raised an extremely valid critique of the state of Western surveillance.
Perhaps we all need to stay on point.

------
ericHosick
Will any of this really make any difference? I feel that, in the long run, it
won't.

Edit: And to further clarify my question (since I'm being down-voted for a
very legitimate question)... I know a lot of smart people and none of them (as
in 0 of them) seem to take any notice to these conversations. There is a lot
of apathy towards mass surveillance.

Sure, the conversation comes up a lot on HN but HN is not a very good sample
of the general public.

~~~
vonklaus
I think a large amount of people don't understand the full extent more than
intellectually. They are aware that it is happening but it doesn't have real
context. They aren't aware that their position is tracked or logged, their
porn habits monitored and that their is a subset of the population that has
become wildly powerful and extremely clandestine. However, people are taking
note. People like Ladar Levinson and others. They are combatting this with
technology. This is also happening live in NZ right before an election, people
will have more information to make that decision. So things are changing at
their usual pace: slowly. Hopefully for the better.

~~~
prawn
I think base instincts and interests override any interest in acting. It's
easier to pull up your favourite porn and hope no one cares or pays your
actions any attention than it is to speak up and be seen as that guy walking
against the crowd.

I also think "I've got nothing to hide" is overwhelmingly more popular than
people understanding the slippery slopes involved.

------
majani
That fake Obama just below the video is a real blow for credibility

~~~
IkmoIkmo
Hah I was wondering about that

------
mrmondo
Post from Glenn Grennwald and Ryan Gallagher on FirstLook:
[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/15/new-zealand-
gc...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/15/new-zealand-gcsb-
speargun-mass-surveillance/)

------
mrmondo
Another link to a live stream that's very reliable:
[http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Decision14/Video/LIVESTREAMKimDot...](http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Decision14/Video/LIVESTREAMKimDotcomsMomentOfTruthevent.aspx)

------
mrmondo
Here's the full stream recorded and uploaded to YouTube:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0)

~~~
q_no
Too bad, the Youtube video does not play in Germany due to copyright issues.
This is a farce

------
mrmondo
How did Snowden not make the title of this post?!

~~~
4mnt
Snowden was not introduced until after OP posted this link

------
nickdotmulder
It doesn't seem like New Zealanders are taking this very seriously, even
mocking:

[http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/kim-dotcom-s-bombshell-
revelat...](http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/kim-dotcom-s-bombshell-revelations-
video-6081681)

~~~
Intermernet
I hope they take it a bit more seriously once they've watched a bit longer.

I've found that the New Zealander response to many things is one of apparent
mocking, and this is sometimes a good thing. The NZ public don't treat much as
sacred, and this sometimes looks like dismissal. I'd take comfort in the fact
that the current political leaders in NZ are commonly treated to as much, or
more, derision than is being shown here towards Dotcom, Assange, Snowden,
Greenwald etc.

The NZ populous are generally pretty smart. Let's hope that they take these
revelations and act intelligently on them.

------
raldi
Please don't use all-caps in your submission titles.

------
tete
It's interesting despite being a Kim Dotcom event, despite his comments and
ads. The others don't seem too happy about that either.

------
ak39
Were all the slides blacked out while GG presented? Or is this done at YouTube
level? (cf. > 51 minutes in)

~~~
Arcantium
they were blacked out. He only showed the stuff relevant to what he was
presenting.

------
igl
8 hours and 262 points later this moved past page 2 on HN already? Behind the
stupid motorcycle helmet? eh?

~~~
beedogs
I'm guessing it was moved by the admins. For _some_ reason.

------
knotty66
That non-stop banging and drilling under the embassy during the Julian Assange
talk is pretty annoying.

------
lucb1e
Will it be available elsewhere later? I can't watch right now.

------
etiam
Did anyone else have the issue of the flash plugin reloading once?

~~~
tsileo
Me too, a few seconds after playing, it reloaded itself.

~~~
etiam
Thanks for the information.

This is uncomfortably close to the way I imagine a glitch from something like
a FOXACID exploit might look, and youtube is a known exploitable service.
Maybe I need to get someone more skilled than myself have a close look at this
machine.

Knowledgeable people here, would you please comment if there's reason to rule
out concerns about this.

~~~
roel_v
No "knowledgeable people" can rule out anything. You must consider any machine
that is connected to any network compromised, if you have anything "sensitive"
on there. You have to define for yourself what "sensitive" means.

(not even being facetious here)

~~~
etiam
This is a fair point, but I find that in practice I usually need something
more like a probability assessment to act on, or better information about
mechanisms.

Disambiguating information such as 'the flash component reloading normally
occurs under condition X and Y, you guys may have been compromised but you'll
have to decide if that's more plausible than X or Y' or technical constraints
like 'to pull off exploit delivery that way an attacker would have to P, Q and
R. If they did it should leave traces in S which you could try to check by
doing T' would be a real help.

I'm certainly not disagreeing in theory with taking a pessimistic view on the
security of any networked machine, but unfortunately that's way too
restrictive as basis for action in most situations.

------
makaveli8
I didn't realise I had so many right wing friends on facebook (Read: Not real
friends). All they can come up with in response is "omg Kim Dotcom is fat lol"

------
Keyframe
Is this a way to discredit Assange?

------
beedogs
It's weird how this story seems to have disappeared from the front page of HN,
despite sitting at 265 points currently and being only 10 hours old.

It was there a few hours ago. Makes one wonder...

~~~
singularity2001
Yep, seems like Playboy interviews are more important today ( __less points,
less comments, more hours ... how does the HN algorithm work?) ...

Reopened for our timezone, with better link:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8320292](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8320292)
(is that ok?)

------
idlewords
We have got to get a halfway respectable public face for this movement. These
are Bond villains.

~~~
MrJagil
There is an argument though, that this issue is so deeply ingrained that we
need a rather rebellious approach to actually change anything...

What's more appropriate for a rebellious movement than rebellious leaders?

Just a thought...

~~~
idlewords
Maybe with less rape? I'd settle for that at this point.

~~~
jacquesm
KDC or Glenn Greenwald raped anybody?

Has Assange been _convicted_ of rape?

Has a charge even been brought?

~~~
U006D
>Has a charge even been brought?

He cannot be charged until they question him. Since he is avoiding Sweden and
Swedish authorities, they cannot charge him.

Not that that makes him any more or less guilty of the accusations, but still.

~~~
jacquesm
I'm well aware of that. So until he's been charged there is no process, until
there has been a process he hasn't been convicted (or declared not guilty) and
until he's convicted using terms like 'rapist' is - for now - inappropriate.

What you can accuse Assange rightly of at this point in time is being a
douchebag and phenomenally stupid. But fame has done similar things to lots of
other people and he doesn't have the monopoly on either in this particular
case.

The Swedes had him on their soil, declared that there was no case, told him he
was free to go, then changed their minds and then a whole circus ensued. In
the UK he was at some point in custody.

There is enough fodder for a whole slew of in-depth investigations but so far
there is no movement on that and the standing invitation of the Equadorians to
interview Assange 'on site' has been steadfastly refused, which is curious
indeed.

Other notable points in this case are that Sweden doesn't normally make such a
hoopla over _much_ more serious cases (including rape cases) and the too
convenient timing.

Lots of food for thought on this one.

------
ogijaoijfawje
Snowden is a controlled pawn, though even he might not know it. This is all
too....Hollywood.

Edit: Feel free to downvote as much as you like, the points don't mean
anything. If it's determined later on I was right, I hope you remember this
post and consider it for future events.

~~~
Crito
An account created for the _sole purpose_ of criticizing
Snowden/Greenwald/company accuses others of being a controlled pawn. Rich.

