Seizure of Megaupload and Dotcom ruled "Unlawful"

[GoddyofAus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-28/megaupload-search-warrants-deemed-unlawful/4098702

Will this make a shred of difference as far as the US is concerned? Not likely. Dotcom may as well be Julian Assange to that mob.

 

[Heronblade]

Probably not, and due process should make more of a difference, but I'm having a hard time caring. He's no Assange, but based on the information I have, he deserves to be behind bars nonetheless.

Illegal file sharing was a major business on Dotcom's sites, and Dotcom did directly profit from that activity. There's no question about that aspect of this case.

The only question, and the turning point on whether or not Dotcom himself committed an illegal action, is how aware of it he was and how earnest his efforts to prevent it were. His staff's efforts were minimal at best, (far more often than not only going so far as to delete a single reported link out of several links to a file without actually removing the file itself) and he would've had to be an utter moron to not be fully aware of what was going on.

Considering his history of flouting copyright law, I am not remotely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

 

[Absimilliard]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

In that case, do they even have a case against him at all?
Especially seeing as "Justice Winkelmann found the FBI's moves to copy data from Dotcom's computer and take it offshore were also unlawful."

 

[Heronblade]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

That's never made any sense to me. Evidence of a crime is evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If it proved to be false or misleading that would be another matter, but letting a person you just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt to be guilty walk away because of procedure is incredibly stupid. Find a way to penalize the overeager SOBs who couldn't wait to do it right instead.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

In that case, do they even have a case against him at all?
Especially seeing as "Justice Winkelmann found the FBI's moves to copy data from Dotcom's computer and take it offshore were also unlawful."

I think the case is pretty much moot now, yeah.

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

That's never made any sense to me. Evidence of a crime is evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If it proved to be false or misleading that would be another matter, but letting a person you just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt to be guilty walk away because of procedure is incredibly stupid. Find a way to penalize the overeager SOBs who couldn't wait to do it right instead.

Because you can't let people break the law and get away with it. Dotcom and Megaupload are presumed innocent still. The search warrant was invalid and the police had no legal right to search for evidence.

It's about keeping the police in line. There's no margin for police working outside the law.

 

[Heronblade]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

In that case, do they even have a case against him at all?

International law is a tricky matter, particularly when it comes to globally used websites. The US considers their warrants to be perfectly valid, if it was not for the need to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand, it wouldn't matter what the latter country thought of the arrest, and all evidence gathered would be valid. As it is, I simply don't know where this will lead.

 

[Heronblade]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

That's never made any sense to me. Evidence of a crime is evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If it proved to be false or misleading that would be another matter, but letting a person you just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt to be guilty walk away because of procedure is incredibly stupid. Find a way to penalize the overeager SOBs who couldn't wait to do it right instead.

Because you can't let people break the law and get away with it. Dotcom and Megaupload are presumed innocent still. The search warrant was invalid and the police had no legal right to search for evidence.

It's about keeping the police in line. There's no margin for police working outside the law.

So punish the police working outside the law in a manner that doesn't let the guilty get away scotch free.

"Oh, we know you murdered your wife/embezzled millions/robbed that bank, the close up HD video of it was particularly fun to watch, but today's your lucky day! Officer numbskull forgot to file page 5 of form z-176 during the investigation, thereby effectively making you innocent of all charges! Have a nice day!"

 

[sapphireofthesea]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

That's never made any sense to me. Evidence of a crime is evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If it proved to be false or misleading that would be another matter, but letting a person you just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt to be guilty walk away because of procedure is incredibly stupid. Find a way to penalize the overeager SOBs who couldn't wait to do it right instead.

It is to avoid police officers making illegal moves all the time. Otherwise they could knock down anyones door on a slight suggestion of an isue, search for ages untilthey find something, take a temporary punishment and charge them. I am sure you see how this can easily be abused and misused to cause much trama.
As a result, if they do not follow proper proceedure to ensure they are doing things right and only acting where they have every reason to believe they will find something, they are punished in the highest way, by making the entire operation a failure.
The same applies if they do something wrong to get a lead to evidence. If they wiretap someones phone without a warrant and that person gives the exact location of the body and everything else, in court EVERYTHING found using that information (even moreinformation gained as a result of it) is dismissed.
This is all to protect people from Phishing actions (random wiretaps, mailchecks, house searches) all of which are massive breaches of privacy and could easily be used to manipulate elections, make stories for papers or used for blackmail.

Sometimes it results in murderers getting away yes, but they are there to uphold the law, and breaking it is just as bad for them as it is for the criminals they aim to catch.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

doesn't let the guilty get away scotch free.

You've already failed basic first-world law; parties are innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. Until someone has received a fair and legal trial, you cannot claim they are guilty. No ifs ands or buts. I don't care what evidence you think you have or what you claim to know.

Give up that civil right and the country falls apart.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

That's never made any sense to me. Evidence of a crime is evidence, regardless of how it is obtained. If it proved to be false or misleading that would be another matter, but letting a person you just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt to be guilty walk away because of procedure is incredibly stupid. Find a way to penalize the overeager SOBs who couldn't wait to do it right instead.

Because you can't let people break the law and get away with it. Dotcom and Megaupload are presumed innocent still. The search warrant was invalid and the police had no legal right to search for evidence.

It's about keeping the police in line. There's no margin for police working outside the law.

So punish the police working outside the law in a manner that doesn't let the guilty get away scotch free.

"Oh, we know you murdered your wife/embezzled millions/robbed that bank, the close up HD video of it was particularly fun to watch, but today's your lucky day! Officer numbskull forgot to file page 5 of form z-176 during the investigation, thereby effectively making you innocent of all charges! Have a nice day!"

I know I have already covered it bu this is agood one to highlight.
You said punish the Police, well who will do it? The same guys who let them go in and get it. Do you think they will think it bad?
And I refer to the possible results of this, police have been used in the UK to get News stories. As a result newspapers could start using them to get stories, and with a good excuse. We have this and this suggestion that this person has a bit of dirt, not illegal, but dirt. Fine we will do a search and maybe we will find something illegal, speciually if he already has dirt. And the result it, light slap on the wrist for the officer involved, vs. a possible Major pay off for the Newspaper and the Police. (Who would pass up random searches with those odds?)

 

[Heronblade]

doesn't let the guilty get away scotch free.

You've already failed basic first-world law; parties are innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. Until someone has received a fair and legal trial, you cannot claim they are guilty. No ifs ands or buts. I don't care what evidence you think you have or what you claim to know.

Give up that civil right and the country falls apart.

Whether or not a person is innocent or guilty is a factor quite independent of a court of law. Being released on a technicality does not by any means make a person less personally responsible for a crime. When speaking of criminals, I tend to speak of them in terms of actual guilt if it is known, not official legal status, deal with it.

With that stated, I am not by any means advocating that we give up on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Merely that we always strive to make sure an individual's legal culpability matches what we know of their actual guilt or innocence. If that includes using information that wasn't obtained strictly by the book, then so be it.

 

[Esotera]

And in a hilarious turn of events, the judge also declared that the US government had no legal right to copy data held on Megaupload's servers.

The damage is done now, and those servers are not going to be retrieved. But maybe Megabox will bring something slightly better for rightsholders than Megaupload was.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Whether or not a person is innocent or guilty is a factor quite independent of a court of law.

No. No. A thousand times, NO. You do not get to decide who is and isn't guilty without trial. Ever read something called The Crucible? Witch hunts? Being convicted on public opinion? Everyone is innocent until they've had their day in court. If you consider that a formality, you've already lost.

 

[TwiZtah]

If the search warrant was actually invalid, all the evidence obtained though the execution of it should indeed be dismissed--as defined by law.

Whoopsie.

In that case, do they even have a case against him at all?

International law is a tricky matter, particularly when it comes to globally used websites. The US considers their warrants to be perfectly valid, if it was not for the need to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand, it wouldn't matter what the latter country thought of the arrest, and all evidence gathered would be valid. As it is, I simply don't know where this will lead.

Ofcourse US thinks their opinion is the true one, they always do. WE'RE GONNA DEMOCRATIZE THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR COUNTRY!

 

[Vegosiux]

"Oh, we know you murdered your wife/embezzled millions/robbed that bank, the close up HD video of it was particularly fun to watch, but today's your lucky day! Officer numbskull forgot to file page 5 of form z-176 during the investigation, thereby effectively making you innocent of all charges! Have a nice day!"

Actually, you're presenting that incorrectly. Officer Numbskull's mistake would not result in an innocent verdict but in a mistrial. The case can still be built, and he can't plead double jeopardy, seeing as he wasn't actually tried on his charges yet.

Of course, the problem is what else they have to build a case with.

 

[DoPo]

there's nothing stopping you from uploading that shit to fucking Google's Cloud. Or Rapidshare.

And they do, particularly on Rapidshare and other similar sites. In fact, RS might be the biggest offender after MU, right now.

It's a simple question. Did he pirate anything? No?

It's not so simple a question. This is somewhat similar to the Richard O'Dwyer case - he didn't exactly do anything unlawful, at the very best, it's a murky grey area, but there was money involved. Just by hosting the files, there wouldn't be much of a case, but by making money out of them, there is. Now, whether or not it was intentional is the question. And that is a hard question to answer.

Also, I remember that there was something about taxes, I think he mid some of them from the government or something.

But most importantly, we all know he was the top player in CoD - this must be a punishable offence.

 

[Heronblade]

Whether or not a person is innocent or guilty is a factor quite independent of a court of law.

No. No. A thousand times, NO. You do not get to decide who is and isn't guilty without trial. Ever read something called The Crucible? Witch hunts? Being convicted on public opinion? Everyone is innocent until they've had their day in court. If you consider that a formality, you've already lost.

You badly misunderstand. I'm not talking about my decisions or opinions, nor am I talking about the decisions or opinions of any other individual or group, I'm talking about cold hard fact. If person Y committed crime X, they are guilty of that crime, whether or not it is brought to court. I do not imply that I or anyone else are necessarily capable of determining guilt independent of a legal ruling. I only mention this in order to remind you that there is a difference in between the decision of a legal court, and the unburdened and unbiased TRUTH. If we're lucky, the decision of a court reflects the truth to a tolerable degree. My objection in this matter is in terms of cases where we know it does not.

I don't consider courts to be a formality, they are the only reasonable means we have to determine the official version of events involving legal issues. The primary purpose and goal of a trial is to analyze fact, to the best of our badly flawed ability. Withholding critical data that is relevant to the case, for whatever reason, gets in the way of that purpose, and can easily make that job an impossible one.

Ofcourse US thinks their opinion is the true one, they always do. WE'RE GONNA DEMOCRATIZE THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR COUNTRY!

Amazingly enough, there are differing opinions on legal matters, even among nations that otherwise agree. In this case, the New Zealand court is of the opinion that there was not enough quite enough detail behind the listed accusations on the warrant. I was of the opinion that the accusations were pretty damn specific, only stopping short of listing specific examples. Of course, my opinion counts for zilch.

"Oh, we know you murdered your wife/embezzled millions/robbed that bank, the close up HD video of it was particularly fun to watch, but today's your lucky day! Officer numbskull forgot to file page 5 of form z-176 during the investigation, thereby effectively making you innocent of all charges! Have a nice day!"

Actually, you're presenting that incorrectly. Officer Numbskull's mistake would not result in an innocent verdict but in a mistrial. The case can still be built, and he can't plead double jeopardy, seeing as he wasn't actually tried on his charges yet.

Of course, the problem is what else they have to build a case with.

The term effectively was chosen deliberately. If a case cannot be built without the withdrawn evidence, the man walks, regardless of what the evidence shows. THAT is what I have a problem with.

Let me put it this way. Let's say there is a serious legal case on the line, but critical evidence was obtained improperly. The evidence in question is conclusive, effectively impossible to dismiss, and otherwise quite relevant to the court's decision. If excluding that data changes the court's decision, whether from guilty to innocent or vice versa, you have a major problem. Either a person who would otherwise have been proven guilty is free, or a person who would otherwise be proven innocent is in jail, all because of a technicality.

I'm willing to tolerate some error when it comes to such decisions, it is inevitable. But deliberately withholding information required to make the decision in question is incredibly stupid, regardless of the context.

It'd be like charging Walmart for murder because of a string of murders within their stores.

Assuming at least that the accusations are true, it'd be like charging Walmart for taking bribes to look the other way as a string of murders occur within their store. Wee bit of a difference.

snip

I guess innocent until proven guilty is truly dead.

If they cannot build a case based on the contents of those servers, then so be it, he probably was innocent. If they can, then good riddance. I don't claim to know the outcome beforehand.

In the meantime however, we have a reasonable belief that Dotcom committed the crime in question, the same requirement to begin every legal case. Because of that, I want this man to have a fair trial, and I want them to be able to use any relevant and factual information available, on that server or elsewhere. Is that really so despicable?