

Kim Dotcom, New Zealand PM spar in spy debate - polemic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/kim-dotcom-attacks-new-zealand-spy-agency-ahead-of-anticipated-showdown-with-prime-minister/2013/07/02/be5cb618-e38a-11e2-bffd-37a36ddab820_story.html

======
benologist

        "On Megaupload you would share a file,” Dotcom replied.
        On the GCSB spy cloud you share private information about 
        citizens that you don’t have any right to access. That is 
        the big difference."
    

Hilariously ironic for Dotcom to pretend to give a shit about access rights!

~~~
belorn
It is only ironic if one perceives the right to protect personal information
as identical to copyright of publicly published information.

To me, I value far more that people has a right to keep private information.
People should have a right to not disclose information to the world about
their medical history, religious belief, political opinion, or sexual
preference. To me, to respect peoples right to privacy is not something that
is open for discussion.

To respect copyright is however open to discussion. Is promoting the Progress
of Science and useful Arts better served with a "limited" life time + 99 years
monopoly, or would it work better if we had frictionless creation? What kind
of respect should general useful publicly published information get? Should we
not consider the usefulness in allowing information to flow to any child and
any person in need, regardless of that persons status in society? I would ask
what the moral argument is in denying a child culture, just on the basis that
their parents happen to be poor.

Thus I see no irony in Dotcom arguing in favor of access rights regarding
citizens private information, regardless of any legal disputes he might have
with the copyright industry.

------
lifeguard
Kim Dotcom vs PM John Key - GCSB Bill Select Committee Hearing

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWjdVVNML-M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWjdVVNML-M)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QM-
tUmGHY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QM-tUmGHY)

~~~
contingencies
First link is a short edited news item. Second link looks like it's the full
thing, but the sound is terrible.

~~~
metabren
Here's the full thing with better sound:

[http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Kim-Dotcom-GCSB-
committee-f...](http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Kim-Dotcom-GCSB-committee-
full-speech/tabid/615/articleID/36497/Default.aspx)

~~~
wavesounds
Thanks sound is much better but video is laggy. Wish this was hosted on mega
:-)

------
mkl
There are two bills [1][2] of currently proposed law changes, both granting a
lot of extra power to the GCSB (New Zealand's equivalent of the UK's GCHQ and
to a lesser extent the USA's NSA). You can find much more info and commentary
here:
[http://techliberty.org.nz/tag/gcsb/](http://techliberty.org.nz/tag/gcsb/)

[1]
[http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1305/wstGovernment_Communi...](http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1305/wstGovernment_Communications_Security_Bureau_and_Rela_3.pdf)

[2]
[http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1305/Telecommunications_In...](http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1305/Telecommunications_InterceptionCapability_and_Security_Bill.pdf)

------
lettergram
I enjoyed the comment at the bottom

~~~
fractallyte
You're right, it's an excellent comment, worth re-posting for posterity. Here
it is...

'Martel wrote:

'In New Zealand the actions of the government’s domestic spy agency (the GCSB)
is governed by law. Clearly there are very good reasons why the powers of such
a government agency should be limited by the law. There are certain things
that government agency cannot do. Actually it is more properly said that the
GCSB must not do certain things, because for them to do so would be illegal,
in other words those actions would be criminal, in other words those actions
would constitute a crime. Sorry to be so pedantic but some seem to have a real
problem with the idea that the rule of law pertains to all, including
government agencies.

'When the GCSB spied on Kim Dotcom their actions in doing that were against
the law. Yet, the author(s) of this Washington Post article attempts to
sanitise and trivialise the illegal actions of the GCSB by calling them a
“misstep”, quote unquote. Is that the euphemism you use to describe all
crimes? A misstep?

'Let me make it clear to you that the GCSB knew what they were doing was
illegal. Further more it is known that the Prime Minister was at a meeting
where the question of its legality was raised. They knew that what they were
doing was against the law and you choose to characterise it as a kind of OOPS.
It was not an oops, it was a premeditated crime committed against a New
Zealand resident by a government agency. Why do you seem to have such a
problem calling it what it actually is? A crime. A crime has been committed
and a New Zealand resident has had his whole life and that of his family
practically destroyed and you call the criminal actions that brought about
this egregious situation a “misstep”. Your characterisation of this is simply
defies belief. To whoever wrote this article, if this is the best you can do
with this and if you honestly cannot see the gravity and greater significance
of what has happened in this important case then you have no right to call
yourself a journalist?

'All around us right now so many of we, the people, are increasingly alarmed
at the outrageous and unlawful intrusion of governments into our lives and the
compromising of our freedoms by them and yet you seem to want to characterise
this as a trivial matter. A crime has been committed by precisely those who
should have known better and yet the government tries arrogantly to simply set
it aside, to ignore their complicity or (with the assistance of articles like
this one) to restyle it as in, it was all just a “misstep”. Can you even begin
to justify your position here? A “misstep”? Give us a break.'

~~~
vorg
For non-Kiwis wondering why _resident_ is used instead of _citizen_ in these
quotes, New Zealand is one of the only countries in the world that allows
permanent residents to vote in national elections [1]. Anyone who's lived in
NZ as a permanent resident for at least a year can vote, therefore residency
rather than citizenship is generally regarded as more important in determining
whoa _New Zealander_ is for these types of laws.

[1] [http://www.newswire.co.nz/2011/11/voting-a-unique-
privilege-...](http://www.newswire.co.nz/2011/11/voting-a-unique-privilege-
for-nz-permanent-residents/)

------
junto
Isn't this a case of biting the hand that feeds you?

------
RDeckard
Kim Dotcom is a maverick!

