remember the big dotcom debate

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter Huebner, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. Well here we have it: what a surprise.
    The police raid was illegal ... and they look yet again like the fumbling
    bumbling law-unto-themselves [censored] of Urewera jackboot fame.

    I would have a lot more respect for them if they took their job seriously to
    protect the citizenry, but all they seem to manage is to not turn up or send a
    taxi when we need them. Disney whistles and they bring out the helicopters and
    the paramilitary getup and start breaking down doors ...

    Well, it isn't as if the writing wasn't on the wall for those of us with more
    than 1.5 braincells to rub together, from the very outset there.

    Disgusting, and disquieting.

    Peter Huebner, Jun 30, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peter Huebner

    Donchano Guest

    As mentioned by me in the earlier debate, I requested specific
    information about the total costs of the grandstanding raid under the
    Official Information Act.

    The request was dated 4 April 2012 and I finally received a reply
    dated 14 June 2012. After waiting over two months all I got was a

    The letter from OFCANZ (Organised & Financial Crime Agency New
    Zealand) stated, "By way of background, Police do not operate a system
    that records total costs of individual investigations."

    In other words, they don't know (aka don't care) what the raid on Dot
    Com's mansion cost the taxpayer.

    I'm now pursuing other avenues to get the information, including an
    answer to why a government department like the police don't "operate
    system that records total costs of individual investigation."

    Speaking of disgusting and disquieting, how many other departments are
    allowed to spend taxpayer money without knowing what they've spent it
    Donchano, Jun 30, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peter Huebner

    Dave Doe Guest

    All paid for by us, the taxpayer!
    Dave Doe, Jun 30, 2012
  4. Peter Huebner

    Dave Doe Guest

    Disgusting really eh. How can they not know how much it costs - they've
    got more bean counters than jelly beans.
    Dave Doe, Jun 30, 2012
  5. Peter Huebner

    Donchano Guest

    This is for the nz.comp posters who defended the police raid and
    wouldn't accept that it was grandstanding. Apologies accepted,
    starting with "nospam" and "whoisthis":

    Kowtowing police forgot rules

    5:30 AM Sunday Jul 1, 2012

    This week's High Court ruling that the raid on Kim Dotcom's
    Coatesville mansion was illegal represents a substantial body blow to
    the cause of the commercial and legal interests in the US who want the
    internet tycoon extradited to face charges of copyright violation.

    It is also a huge embarrassment to the New Zealand Police who, acting
    on the request of a US Federal Prosecutor, staged the spectacular raid
    on January 20. There was widespread public unease at the time about
    the "Rambo" style of the raid, which Dotcom described this week as
    more suited to flushing out a hidden Osama bin Laden than a flamboyant
    and highly conspicuous tycoon whose home was probably the country's
    single most famous domestic building. But Justice Helen Winkelmann's
    ruling finds profound cause for concern on legal grounds.

    Police would have been bracing themselves for her ruling since the
    hearing a month ago at which she openly questioned their entitlement
    to do all they did on the day.

    "They were clearly entitled to search and seize evidence in relation
    to the [alleged copyright breach] but that did not give them carte
    blanche to take everything," she said.

    Now, consistent with that observation, she has ruled that the search
    warrants issued by the District Court and used in the raid were
    invalid because they did not adequately describe the allegations
    against the internet multi-millionaire and gave police authority to
    seize too wide a range of items.

    But if Dotcom has won this battle, he is a long way from winning the
    war. His American lawyer, Ira Rothken, has said the ruling was
    embarrassing for both governments and a "tremendous blow" to the case
    against Dotcom. That may be unduly sanguine. It remains to be seen
    what bearing it will have on the August extradition hearing, the
    outcome of which will be influenced by many factors other than the
    legality of the original raid.

    As the Supreme Court ruling in the Urewera case made plain, evidence
    obtained improperly, or even illegally, will not necessarily be ruled
    inadmissible if the charges to which it relates are serious enough.
    And if the substantive case gets to court in the US, some powerful
    forces will be arrayed against Dotcom.

    Still, this is a salutary rebuke to the police for what seems to have
    been an unconscionably gung-ho approach.

    The idea that when the FBI shouted "Jump!", our police would ask "How
    high?"was already distasteful enough. The least that might be hoped is
    that, while jumping, they would show scrupulous respect for our own
    legal process.
    Donchano, Jul 1, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.