Seizure of Megaupload and Dotcom ruled "Unlawful"

[Clearing the Eye]

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?

If the information is obtained illegally, yes, it is despicable.

But hey, maybe everyone in this thread just doesn't like this world you live in where police can kick down someone's door and look for evidence whenever they feel like without a proper warrant. I'm sure you enjoy the government being allowed to skirt around the law and ignore "little mistakes" to void your civil liberty whenever it is most convenient for them. You don't? You just think it's okay in this situation? It's just okay when you think it's reasonable. Ah, situational ethics. Beautiful.

 

[Heronblade]

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?

If the information is obtained illegally, yes, it is despicable.

But hey, maybe everyone in this thread just doesn't like this world you live in where police can kick down someone's door and look for evidence whenever they feel like without a proper warrant. I'm sure you enjoy the government being allowed to skirt around the law and ignore "little mistakes" to void your civil liberty whenever it is most convenient for them. You don't? You just think it's okay in this situation? It's just okay when you think it's reasonable. Ah, situational ethics. Beautiful.

Like I stated on multiple occasions, find some other way to discourage playing fast and loose with procedure, and make sure it is applied even when such actions yield evidence.

Information is information. So long as it is accurate, it can and should be used.

 

[Vegosiux]

Like I stated on multiple occasions, find some other way to discourage playing fast and loose with procedure, and make sure it is applied even when such actions yield evidence.

And when such a way is found and properly codified, I'll rally behind that flag. Until then, I'll stick with the current ruleset as opposed to no ruleset at all.

 

[Imthatguy]

Out of all this megaupload shit one thing strikes me a hilarious and tragically ironic.

That the RIAA and MPAA can shut site down and seize information related to their clients and at the same time wrongfully seize average civilian's information and hold it indefinitely.

Which is REALLY piracy?

 

[aba1]

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!"

If they did not have that law the police could bust into any place they want and potentially place false evidence without any way to prove it was planted.

"Ohh I broke into the suspects place without permission well look at the evidence that may or may not have been placed there by myself with no way to truly knowing lets arrest the bastard he may or may not be innocent."

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

Its because every human being has the right to privacy and the government should not be allowed to violate that right if it means that they can dig up some incriminating evidence. They need just cause before they can search your home, car, or even place of work. Its been a bit of an issue in cases like Mapp v Ohio.

If you want the man to have a fair trial, then the evidence being used to prosecute him shouldn't be obtained illegally. It defeats the whole point of the system.

 

[viranimus]

Thats great. The US cannot extradite .com, its method of seizing was deemed illegal.

Now how about we quit screwing around and restore perfectly legitimate data of a business that broke no law so that users who legally paid for a legal service can have access to their legal data again.

Or do we really want to continue to piss off the world and drag this out to make our government look even more stupidly evil.

 

[viranimus]

Thats great. The US cannot extradite .com, its method of seizing was deemed illegal.

Now how about we quit screwing around and restore perfectly legitimate data of a business that broke no law so that users who legally paid for a legal service can have access to their legal data again.

Or do we really want to continue to piss off the world and drag this out to make our government look even more stupidly evil.

Well, you let them know about the easy way they can tell the difference between the legal data and the illegal data, and they'll get right on that.

Sure.. they had no place to seize the domain, extract the evidence or any justification to do this whatso ever. You release ALL the data and force the government to go back to the drawing board on how they are going to try again. Its literally just that simple and no different then when a court has to deem a case as a mistrial for police not following proper procedures and have no choice but to let a criminal go free.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

Also, evidence is only as good as it's providence. If it doesn't have proper chain of custody, it could be completely faked, or the details surrounding it could be misleading. For evidence (Since rarely is there anything concrete and probative that entirely proves a crime anyway), there needs to be quality control, because judgement is usually levied on multiple lines of enquiry and cases made on multiple items of evidence. Any one piece that's false can change the case.

In some cases (Like Australia), if the evidence is important enough, and probative, then the judge can deem it admissible.

Of course, in all of the cases they punish the officers involved, but the point is to rigorously enforce the principles of the criminal justice system (Especially things like the Blackstone Principle), and to hold the police to the same standards as the general public: No-one can be above the law. If you admit the evidence, then you're going to have to work out how to stop police officers from taking the punishment for the conviction, and you're going to have to worry about police corruption a lot more, since the police now can take a punishment for a conviction, which opens up all manner of new opportunities for bribing police officers.

 

[Loonyyy]

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?

If the information is obtained illegally, yes, it is despicable.

But hey, maybe everyone in this thread just doesn't like this world you live in where police can kick down someone's door and look for evidence whenever they feel like without a proper warrant. I'm sure you enjoy the government being allowed to skirt around the law and ignore "little mistakes" to void your civil liberty whenever it is most convenient for them. You don't? You just think it's okay in this situation? It's just okay when you think it's reasonable. Ah, situational ethics. Beautiful.

Also, to add to that: If he wants to submit the stuff that was obtained illegally by the police as evidence in his defence, I'm pretty sure he's still within his rights to. Which would also make it available to the prosecution.

The law doesn't hurt the defendant, it hurts the prosecution. And the burden of proof will always be on them to prove the case, hence, they must also have responsibility for investigating ethically.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

But here we come to the same problem again: We can't know until we've judged them.

Whether the crime occurred or not is irrelevant, we can't know we're missing evidence which changes the case, when we don't know how it should turn out.

And a trial isn't actually about determining fact. In fact, jurors are told not to try to investigate or work out the case. It is their job to assess the arguments and evidence given by the prosecution and the defense. It's up to the prosecution in criminal proceedings to investigate for the truth. So the rules have to be applied to them, not to the court. Also: If the prosecution has insufficient evidence, they have the right to not prosecute, and wait until they do. If they choose to, that's again, their problem.

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.

The job only becomes impossible if those responsible for attaining the facts are unworthy of our trust, and when they are unworthy of trust, we can't trust them, or their evidence. Guilty people going free really isn't as big a deal as you'd think. Thousands get away with rapes, murders and assaults, cases which are never brought to trial. Those who get away due to police impropriety (Which is entirely despicable), is (And I estimate here, I haven't looked it up explicitly), likely dwarfed compared to those who simply aren't tried, or caught. The issue then becomes, are we willing to surrender our civil liberties to a police state, to catch a small portion of the criminals who get away, at the expense of potentially hurting the innocent as well?

There's never been a justice system worth anything that would allow the punishment of the innocent out of fear of the guilty.

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"-William Blackstone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Summary:

Prosecution and Defense investigate facts, find truths: Not the court.
Courts assess the accuracy of the arguments and conclusions of the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution (And the defense), are bound by the laws of the land in which they preside, and their evidence must be procured in accordance with procedure to be useful. Otherwise, there's no way of knowing whether evidence means anything or not.

The harm done by disallowing some evidence (And I sincerely doubt that your example with the high definition video is likely, but some countries, like Australia, have provisions for it), is letting some guilty, and innocent parties, go free. The guilty parties, on the whole, don't present a tremendous danger to all of us, and are dwarfed by those who get away with it without trial.
Evidence being disallowed is the greatest punishment the court can levy to the impropriety.
More to the point: It protects freedom and the innocent, both of which are usually considered worth the trouble they cause.

 

[Bassik]

Well, I guess we all learned from this whole debacle: the almighty Dollar is still the number one God in the United States.

 

[Jerkules]

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.

That is the way of penalizing them. Evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used. Pretty simple. It's also a way of preventing the false or misleading evidence you mentioned.

There's a reason there's a constitutional amendment regarding search and seizure.

 

[Jerkules]

Like I stated on multiple occasions, find some other way to discourage playing fast and loose with procedure, and make sure it is applied even when such actions yield evidence.

Such as? Because the system we have seems to work pretty well. Can you think of another system that's as simple and as preventative of abuse?

Information is information. So long as it is accurate, it can and should be used.

Sorry, that's not how the real world works. If you're going to be idealistic, at least have some good ideals.

 

[Bassik]

Well, I guess we all learned from this whole debacle: the almighty Dollar is still the number one God in the United States.

Better that than any religious God, you ask me.

I tend to disagree. While not religious myself, religions tend to come with morals and laws.