Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > guilt by accusation

Reply
Thread Tools

guilt by accusation

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2012

Did you think our law was based on innocent until proven guilty? Not any
more. At least, not if the accuser is an American corporate.

In NZ, we have the Megaupload saga, where people have been imprisoned,
assets and funds seized and business wrecked, all before anyone is found
guilty of anything.

And in USA, JotForm.com was taken offline, shutdown without warning or
reason.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/
JotForm is now back on line, but it and its customers must have suffered
much inconvenience and loss with this little exercise. It certainly will
have advantaged JotForm's competitors.

In the UK, RnBXclusive.com has been taken down, and visitors to the site
warned that they could face up to 10 years imprisonment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17039722

This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
competition. Just accuse them of copyright infringement, and get some over
enthusiastic (but ignorant) government department to take your competition
out. It doesn't matter whether they have actually done anything wrong.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/

This is getting out of hand. The bad guys need to be stopped, but the law
must follow the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ted
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2012
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:01:56 +1300, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:



>This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
>competition.


Money talks.

Power corrupts.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Huebner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ted.8367
@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:01:56 +1300, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
> >competition.


Then there's always the frivolous lawsuit over some far fetched patent
of copyright infringement that can put your smaller competitor out of
business by way of legal costs.

>
> Money talks.
>
> Power corrupts.


Aided and abetted by Ignorant and Stupid (as seen on nz.comp).

It's been seen again and again that politicians without a clue
rush to do their corporate masters' bidding without considering
the consequences in the larger context. Or simply acting out of
paranoia, if you consider the Blair and Brown initiative of making
ISPs hold and forward to the police all British emails (that was a few
years ago now, and was scuttled by the House of Lords, fortunately).

Generally speaking, legal minds seem to be a bit more cautious and
discriminating - but they often only get involved after the
stormtroopers have done their bit.


-P.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2012

"Peter Huebner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) t...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ted.8367
> @gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:01:56 +1300, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential
>> >commercial
>> >competition.

>
> Then there's always the frivolous lawsuit over some far fetched patent
> of copyright infringement that can put your smaller competitor out of
> business by way of legal costs.
>
>>
>> Money talks.
>>
>> Power corrupts.

>
> Aided and abetted by Ignorant and Stupid (as seen on nz.comp).


They say the Americans read every email, anyway.

The more I see of poor old Dotcom, the more I feel on his side,
though I could never use the stuff he is said to have invented.

I stick to Gutenberg, that's free and legal.

> It's been seen again and again that politicians without a clue
> rush to do their corporate masters' bidding without considering
> the consequences in the larger context. Or simply acting out of
> paranoia, if you consider the Blair and Brown initiative of making
> ISPs hold and forward to the police all British emails (that was a few
> years ago now, and was scuttled by the House of Lords, fortunately).
>
> Generally speaking, legal minds seem to be a bit more cautious and
> discriminating - but they often only get involved after the
> stormtroopers have done their bit.
>
>
> -P.



 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2012
On Feb 18, 8:01*am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Did you think our law was based on innocent until proven guilty? *Not any
> more. *At least, not if the accuser is an American corporate.
>
> In NZ, we have the Megaupload saga, where people have been imprisoned,
> assets and funds seized and business wrecked, all before anyone is found
> guilty of anything.
>
> And in USA, JotForm.com was taken offline, shutdown without warning or
> reason.http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/
> JotForm is now back on line, but it and its customers must have suffered
> much inconvenience and loss with this little exercise. *It certainly will
> have advantaged JotForm's competitors.
>
> In the UK, RnBXclusive.com has been taken down, and visitors to the site
> warned that they could face up to 10 years imprisonment.http://www.bbc.co..uk/news/technology-17039722
>
> This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
> competition. *Just accuse them of copyright infringement, and get some over
> enthusiastic (but ignorant) government department to take your competition
> out. *It doesn't matter whether they have actually done anything wrong.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/
>
> This is getting out of hand. *The bad guys need to be stopped, but the law
> must follow the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

So this means that murderers, rapists and burglars should also remain
free and continue to go about their business until they are actually
found guilty.

Looks like those behind the Megaupload site were themselves
deliberately uploading copyright content for their customers to
download. If there is a fuzzy legal line whether a file sharing server
operator is a party to copyright breach because users upload copyright
works, both USA and NZ law are breached when the file sharing service
provider itself uploads copyright works without the holder's consent.
It is on the same level as DVD piracy and maximum penalty under NZ law
is 5 years in jail.

Incidentally a crime victim can seek return of property, reparation or
damages even if the accused is found not guilty. The lower standard of
proof 'balance of probabilities' applies. Same with 'proceeds of
crime' seized by the Crown since legislative changes a few years ago.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2012

"peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Feb 18, 8:01 am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Did you think our law was based on innocent until proven guilty? Not any
> more. At least, not if the accuser is an American corporate.
>
> In NZ, we have the Megaupload saga, where people have been imprisoned,
> assets and funds seized and business wrecked, all before anyone is found
> guilty of anything.
>
> And in USA, JotForm.com was taken offline, shutdown without warning or
> reason.http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/
> JotForm is now back on line, but it and its customers must have suffered
> much inconvenience and loss with this little exercise. It certainly will
> have advantaged JotForm's competitors.
>
> In the UK, RnBXclusive.com has been taken down, and visitors to the site
> warned that they could face up to 10 years
> imprisonment.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17039722
>
> This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
> competition. Just accuse them of copyright infringement, and get some over
> enthusiastic (but ignorant) government department to take your competition
> out. It doesn't matter whether they have actually done anything
> wrong.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/
>
> This is getting out of hand. The bad guys need to be stopped, but the law
> must follow the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.


So this means that murderers, rapists and burglars should also remain
free and continue to go about their business until they are actually
found guilty.
................................

Aren't they remanded without bail now?

If remand prisoners are officially innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't
they have better conditions than convicted criminals?
................................................



Looks like those behind the Megaupload site were themselves
deliberately uploading copyright content for their customers to
download. If there is a fuzzy legal line whether a file sharing server
operator is a party to copyright breach because users upload copyright
works, both USA and NZ law are breached when the file sharing service
provider itself uploads copyright works without the holder's consent.
It is on the same level as DVD piracy and maximum penalty under NZ law
is 5 years in jail.

Incidentally a crime victim can seek return of property, reparation or
damages even if the accused is found not guilty. The lower standard of
proof 'balance of probabilities' applies. Same with 'proceeds of
crime' seized by the Crown since legislative changes a few years ago.

.............................

That's good to know. I wonder how many people know and use that right.


 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012
On Feb 21, 9:46*am, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Feb 18, 8:01 am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did you think our law was based on innocent until proven guilty? Not any
> > more. At least, not if the accuser is an American corporate.

>
> > In NZ, we have the Megaupload saga, where people have been imprisoned,
> > assets and funds seized and business wrecked, all before anyone is found
> > guilty of anything.

>
> > And in USA, JotForm.com was taken offline, shutdown without warning or
> > reason.http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/
> > JotForm is now back on line, but it and its customers must have suffered
> > much inconvenience and loss with this little exercise. It certainly will
> > have advantaged JotForm's competitors.

>
> > In the UK, RnBXclusive.com has been taken down, and visitors to the site
> > warned that they could face up to 10 years
> > imprisonment.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17039722

>
> > This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential commercial
> > competition. Just accuse them of copyright infringement, and get some over
> > enthusiastic (but ignorant) government department to take your competition
> > out. It doesn't matter whether they have actually done anything
> > wrong.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/

>
> > This is getting out of hand. The bad guys need to be stopped, but the law
> > must follow the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

>
> So this means that murderers, rapists and burglars should also remain
> free and continue to go about their business until they are actually
> found guilty.
> ...............................
>
> Aren't they remanded without bail now?

Yes, in appropriate cases. Similar reasoning applies to Mr Dotcom
>
> If remand prisoners are officially innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't
> they have better conditions than convicted criminals?
> ...............................................

Very slightly. AFAIK they can wear their own clothes and have slightly
freer access to a pay phone. The cost of keeping remand prisoners in
motel type accommodation for example would be extremely large.
Prisoners even if subsequently acquitted have very little political
clout - far less than Sensible Sentencing Trust, so governments are
not going to improve accommodation for remand prisoners even though it
is philosophically warranted.
>
> Looks like those behind the Megaupload site were themselves
> deliberately uploading copyright content for their customers to
> download. If there is a fuzzy legal line whether a file sharing server
> operator is a party to copyright breach because users upload copyright
> works, both USA and NZ law are breached when the file sharing service
> provider itself uploads copyright works without the holder's consent.
> It is on the same level as DVD piracy and maximum penalty under NZ law
> is 5 years in jail.
>
> Incidentally a crime victim can seek return of property, reparation or
> damages even if the accused is found not guilty. The lower standard of
> proof 'balance of probabilities' applies. Same with 'proceeds of
> crime' seized by the Crown since legislative changes a few years ago.
>
> ............................
>
> That's good to know. I wonder how many people know and use that right.

Not too many. Most criminals are virtually penniless. The cost (you
generally need a lawyer) and hassle means it is generally not
worthwhile. It is mostly drug barons etc who have amassed significant
assets and money who would get stripped eg Mr Dotcom.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Geopelia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012

"peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Feb 21, 9:46 am, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Feb 18, 8:01 am, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did you think our law was based on innocent until proven guilty? Not any
> > more. At least, not if the accuser is an American corporate.

>
> > In NZ, we have the Megaupload saga, where people have been imprisoned,
> > assets and funds seized and business wrecked, all before anyone is found
> > guilty of anything.

>
> > And in USA, JotForm.com was taken offline, shutdown without warning or
> > reason.http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...omain-seizure/
> > JotForm is now back on line, but it and its customers must have suffered
> > much inconvenience and loss with this little exercise. It certainly will
> > have advantaged JotForm's competitors.

>
> > In the UK, RnBXclusive.com has been taken down, and visitors to the site
> > warned that they could face up to 10 years
> > imprisonment.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17039722

>
> > This appears to be developing as a way of wiping out potential
> > commercial
> > competition. Just accuse them of copyright infringement, and get some
> > over
> > enthusiastic (but ignorant) government department to take your
> > competition
> > out. It doesn't matter whether they have actually done anything
> > wrong.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/

>
> > This is getting out of hand. The bad guys need to be stopped, but the
> > law
> > must follow the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

>
> So this means that murderers, rapists and burglars should also remain
> free and continue to go about their business until they are actually
> found guilty.
> ...............................
>
> Aren't they remanded without bail now?

Yes, in appropriate cases. Similar reasoning applies to Mr Dotcom
>
> If remand prisoners are officially innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't
> they have better conditions than convicted criminals?
> ...............................................

Very slightly. AFAIK they can wear their own clothes and have slightly
freer access to a pay phone. The cost of keeping remand prisoners in
motel type accommodation for example would be extremely large.
Prisoners even if subsequently acquitted have very little political
clout - far less than Sensible Sentencing Trust, so governments are
not going to improve accommodation for remand prisoners even though it
is philosophically warranted.
............................................

Does New Zealand have Habeas Corpus like Britain? Could that be used to get
a remanded prisoner tried within a reasonable time?
If a remanded prisoner is acquitted, is there any provision for compensation
for the time they have spent on remand?
(Don't worry, I don't intend to commit any crimes!)

.................................................. ......
> Looks like those behind the Megaupload site were themselves
> deliberately uploading copyright content for their customers to
> download. If there is a fuzzy legal line whether a file sharing server
> operator is a party to copyright breach because users upload copyright
> works, both USA and NZ law are breached when the file sharing service
> provider itself uploads copyright works without the holder's consent.
> It is on the same level as DVD piracy and maximum penalty under NZ law
> is 5 years in jail.
>
> Incidentally a crime victim can seek return of property, reparation or
> damages even if the accused is found not guilty. The lower standard of
> proof 'balance of probabilities' applies. Same with 'proceeds of
> crime' seized by the Crown since legislative changes a few years ago.
>
> ............................
>
> That's good to know. I wonder how many people know and use that right.

Not too many. Most criminals are virtually penniless. The cost (you
generally need a lawyer) and hassle means it is generally not
worthwhile. It is mostly drug barons etc who have amassed significant
assets and money who would get stripped eg Mr Dotcom.
...........................................

I thought his alleged crime was some sort of copyright offence.
Isn't it more of a civil affair than a serious crime?



 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012
On Feb 22, 7:45*am, whoisthis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > I thought his alleged crime was some sort of copyright offence.
> > Isn't it more of a civil affair than a serious crime?

>
> It will probably go like this.
> Because of his previous convictions, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
> He will at the very least be deported to Germany and from there to the
> USA.

He is a German citizen. He wants to be deported to Germany as much as
Brer Rabbit wanted to be thrown into the briar patch. No doubt his NZ
lawyers have checked for possible means to force NZ Immigration
Service to order his immediate deportation to Germany. As a German he
would not be deported from there to USA. For some peculiar reason
there is no extradition treaty between Germany and USA so he cannot be
extradited from there.

>
> Given this persons long history of criminal behaviour I fail to see why
> he is receiving such support. If he was Mongrel Mob people here would be
> baying for blood.

It is because some people consider that NZ copyright law is
inappropriate especially with regard to criminal and other sanctions.
I have some sympathy here, US entertainment interests have coerced the
US Government to widen copyright law and to extend copyright periods
(such that there would be indefinite copyright), and the US Government
has used its superpower strength to coerce other nations like NZ into
line.

>
> He should NEVER have been let into NZ, but it clearly shows how people
> with money can buy their way though the system.

Virtually all 'rich pricks' granted NZ residency do behave themselves
and benefit the NZ economy. It would be unreasonable to close this
immigration 'channel' just because of Mr Dotcom, as much as Winston
Peters would like to.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012
On Feb 22, 12:37*am, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Does New Zealand have Habeas Corpus like Britain? Could that be used to get
> a remanded prisoner tried within a reasonable time?

NZ has Habeas Corpus and the NZ judges take it very seriously, even
the Supreme Court will hear a Habeas Corpus appeal on an urgent basis.
However it applies only where a prisoner is unlawfully detained,
either through corrupt behaviour of officials (common historically but
very rare today), or incorrect interpretation of the law (eg regarding
actual release date).

Habeas Corpus cannot be used to release a remand prisoner held for a
long period unliss presumably the wheels of justice have stopped
turning completely. A prisoner remanded in custody must appear in
court periodically (video link may be OK. Depending on circumstances
judges may dismiss cases where delays are excessive. Simon Power's
reforms are supposed to try and speed things up.

> If a remanded prisoner is acquitted, is there any provision for compensation
> for the time they have spent on remand?

Possibly the same as for sentenced prisoners where convictions are
overturned. the remand prisoner would need to show on the balance of
probabilities that he or she was innocent, and unless the police and
Crown Law have goofed up, this would be very rare.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
java guilt Giles Bowkett Ruby 22 03-17-2007 02:22 AM
False accusation Maxime Ducharme Computer Security 4 10-14-2003 09:26 PM



Advertisments