Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers

114 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Meant to have this yesterday, but it took longer than I hoped!

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2968 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    Thanks Graeme - you're a (domestic) national treasure.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 894 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    Good analysis, as usual.

    Me, I'm just stocking up on popcorn. The show has only just begun.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 1701 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    The actions of the Police in using the GCSB as an end-run around laws we have put in place deliberately limiting police powers are of much greater concern.

    So in order to pervert the law you need to know the law?
    The labyrinthine by ways of the legal system need simplifying is all I can say.
    Otherwise they become a law unto themselves

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1149 posts Report Reply

  • barry89,

    You have to put yourself in the police shoes.
    You want to find out about this guy but you know that hes really pretty internet savy - so you ask the obvious question - "Who is the most likely to be able to listen into him and not be found out by him" - answer GCSB

    But when asked to help the GCSB see that they actually shouldnt be doing that - so to give themselves the OK they say to the police "If you tell us that this guy is a foreign national then we can listen in". They also assume that due to secrecy that this sort of carry-on wont ever be disclosed.
    So the police -( who have by now done so many stupid things - so whats one more) tell GCSB that hes a foreign national. GSCB is off the hook.

    But they didnt count on a set of rather smart (and costly) lawyers who would want to check out every inconsistancy, nor a judge who seems to have a dislike for corner cutting and dodgy actions on behalf of law enforcers.

    waikato • Since Sep 2012 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason,

    Does this " Foreign National" link help?

    It reeks of the GCSB/Police (again!) being Amerikanized by their definition.

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1457 posts Report Reply

  • Thomas Beagle,

    I suspect that this Police end-run around our law is part of a pattern of behaviour by the Police.

    There is also some evidence to show that the Police are also using Customs extensive search-at-the-border powers to do intelligence gathering for them. We know that Customs allow the Police direct access to the CusMod computer system that they use to track and intercept people arriving at the border.

    We also know that in the Switched on Gardener case, Customs often took and copied mobile phones that belonged to Quinlan (the owner) and his wife, presumably with a view to passing them on to the Police who were investigating them. (There is no suggestion that the Quinlans were breaking customs laws.)

    It seems that the Police may be wilfully ignoring the restrictions placed on them by Parliament and taking advantage of powers granted to other government agencies to perform their own duties.

    New Zealand • Since Nov 2007 • 36 posts Report Reply

  • Wilbur Townsend,

    … even if Kim Dotcom did not have permanent residence, why on Earth the GCSB would be assisting the police in circumstances such as these currently appear to be…. the overall objection of the GCSB, which should guide its operations, “is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand.”

    Could closer US-NZ relations be construed as contributing to “the national security of New Zealand”?

    Wellington, Aotearoa • Since Jan 2011 • 5 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    My money is on Subsection 2b "to protect the safety of any person:"
    As you point out by quoting Adam Bennet's article in the Herald “location, awareness on the part of the wanted person of law enforcement interest in them, or any information indicating risk factors in effecting any arrest”
    We were told at the time that the reason the AOS were involved was because the police believed that Dotcom and his associated were "armed and dangerous". Is the information gleaned from GCSB the evidence of this "clear and present danger" or was the use of GCSB a means of obfuscating the perceived need for such an over the top operation?.
    I can't help thinking that some people involved in this operation were caught up in the drama and just got carried away with the fantasy.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4437 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Wilbur Townsend,

    Could closer US-NZ relations be construed as contributing to “the national security of New Zealand”?

    In that respect, founding father Benjamin Franklin once wrote that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 3892 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to nzlemming,

    Me, I'm just stocking up on popcorn. The show has only just begun

    Yes! All the elements; and a grumpy and loaded protagonist firing up the lawyers. I particularly enjoyed Ira Rothken's deeply wounded sincerity on TV news a night or two ago: those American lawyers sure know when and how to emote.

    BTW, Key's face is a treat. He's not used to not being able to move on a situation. I wonder what the smokescreen is going to be.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2442 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Police can obtain interception warrants under the Crimes Act 1961, but they are basically limited to terrorism, serious violent offences, and offences of organised crime.* Which I don't believe is alleged.

    Doesn't the whole extradition case hinge on an alleged criminal 'conspiracy', given that copyright violation on its own is not serious enough?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 15705 posts Report Reply

  • Thomas Beagle, in reply to Sacha,

    I believe you can get five years jail for commercial copyright violation, and that this would be enough to qualify for extradition.

    New Zealand • Since Nov 2007 • 36 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Why were we only told on Monday?

    Those 'other reasons' seem pretty persuasive to us non-lawyers - principally the timing of the visit by Panetta.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 15705 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Thomas Beagle,

    True. Yet that's not what most reporting has concluded over the last year. Seemed the whole 'MegaUpload Conspiracy' angle was pushed pretty heavily by agencies too.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 15705 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    Quite a tangent, but I can imagine the NZ police and perhaps SIS and GCSB now saying "Oh, yes, can we have some of that, too?". Australia worries me.

    Beijing • Since Jan 2007 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Martin Roberts, in reply to Sacha,

    Conspiracy is probably one of those words which doesn't necessarily mean what I thought it did.

    I recall being surprised that Money Laundering includes any movement across borders of money you knew to be illegally obtained. I had thought some sort of secrecy or furtive dealings had to be involved, but apparently not.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Hebe,

    I wonder what the smokescreen is going to be.

    The consensus in the Facebook-o-sphere is that Collins' announcement of more parole changes is the "look over there" action in this case. I've seen a National-friendly columnist in Granny pass comment on how obvious it is that National release pointless-but-headline grabbing policies at points when their reputation is on the line - in that context it was about trying to distract from Banks and child poverty by wailing on beneficiaries yet again. When even your fawning sycophants are talking about how you try and distract from bad news, you've got big problems.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3731 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    I can imagine the NZ police and perhaps SIS and GCSB now saying “Oh, yes, can we have some of that, too?”

    “that” being storage of ISP customer data (including emails) for two years, compulsion warrants for passwords [ETA: which we already have], and interception requirements for things like Skype.

    In the name of all that’s holy, we’re back to this shit again?! The fuckwits who propose these laws have no conception of what they’re demanding, and they certainly have no intention of funding the collection and storage systems that they intend to foist on hapless ISPs. The sanity that has prevailed here WRT the serving of strike notices under the Copyright Act demonstrates that our pollies are persuadable in the face of commercial arguments by those who will bear the financial brunt of compliance, but I don’t know that Key et al are as easily swayed by such arguments when “t3h terroristses!” is the justification.

    And don’t get me started on legal compulsion of passwords, or intercepting streaming communications such as Skype.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3731 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Isn't the issue the breach of s 14.?

    s 14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications
    Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1156 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to DexterX,

    Isn’t the issue the breach of s 14.?

    As Graeme has pointed out there is no crime attached to that section. All it does is make it impossible for the interception to be legal, which then presents the options for Crimes Act prosecutions for unlawful interception.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3731 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    The actions of the Police in using the GCSB as an end-run around laws we have put in place deliberately limiting police powers are of much greater concern.

    So, is this actually going to be part of Neazor's inquiry? Or is the wider problem going to be quietly swept under the rug?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1591 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    So, is this actually going to be part of Neazor’s inquiry? Or is the wider problem going to be quietly swept under the rug?

    Why would it be Neazor's concern, TBH? I would say it's a concern to be raised at the political level by the Justice Select Committee.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3731 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I've seen a National-friendly columnist in Granny pass comment on how obvious it is that National release pointless-but-headline grabbing policies at points when their reputation is on the line

    Oh dearie dearie me. Key looks in off-guard moments like he knows his luck has turned -- there's a point in politics when the luck, the happenstance, the congruities fall out of sync.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2442 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    So, is this actually going to be part of Neazor’s inquiry? Or is the wider problem going to be quietly swept under the rug?

    I'd have thought it was an IPCA matter. Or simply a matter that can be properly dealt with by Justice Winkelmann along with the various other matters she is considering.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2968 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.