Megaupload neergehaald door de FBI #4 Kim Jing Ping Ping

quote:

Op donderdag 19 juli 2012 20:15 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

twitter:

KimDotcom twitterde op vrijdag 20-07-2012 om 09:20:28 Hi @BarackObama, here is a song for you #MrPresident. Regards, The Internet.

Kim Dotcom - Mr President

reageer retweet

quote:

Government: we can freeze Mega assets even if case is dismissed

The United States government said today that even if the indictment of the Megaupload corporation is dismissed, it can continue its indefinite freeze on the corporation's assets while it awaits the extradition of founder Kim Dotcom and his associates.

Judge Liam O'Grady is weighing a request to dismiss the indictment against Megaupload because (in Megaupload's view) the federal rules of criminal procedure provide no way to serve notice on corporations with no US address. At a hearing in Alexandria, VA, he grilled both attorneys in the case but did not issue a ruling.

O'Grady speculated, with evident sarcasm, that Congress intended to allow foreign corporations like Megaupload to "be able to violate our laws indiscriminately from an island in the South Pacific."

But Megaupload's attorney insisted that this may not be too far from the truth. Megaupload, they said, is a Hong Kong corporation with no presence in the United States. He argued it was perfectly reasonable for Megaupload to be subject to the criminal laws of Hong Kong, but not the United States.

"It's never had a US address"

For its part, the government suggested that it could sidestep the mailing requirement in one of several ways. For example, it could wait for Kim Dotcom to be extradited to the United States and then mail notice to him, as Megaupload's representative, at his address in prison. Or, they suggested, the government could send notice of the indictment to Carpathia Hosting, a Virginia company that has leased hundreds of servers to the locker site.

The government also mentioned the possibility that it could use the provisions of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to send notice to Megaupload's Hong Kong address.

But Judge O'Grady seemed skeptical of these argument. He noted that the "plain language" of the law required sending notice to the company's address in the United States. "You don't have a location in the United States to mail it to," he said. "It's never had an address" in the United States.

And Megaupload pointed out that the government hadn't produced a single example in which the government had satisfied the rules of criminal procedure using one of the methods it was suggesting in this case. Most of the precedents the government has produced were in civil cases, which have different rules. And most involved serving a corporate parent via its subsidiary. That's a very different relationship than, for example, the vendor-customer relationship between Megaupload and Carpathia.

The government brought up one new example during the hearing: an instance in which a judge allowed notice to be sent via e-mail to the Columbian guerilla group FARC. But Megaupload's attorneys dismissed this example as well, pointing out that FARC was not a corporation and that the propriety of that service was never tested in court.

The government also argued that it could keep Megaupload in legal limbo indefinitely. "None of the cases impose a time limit on service," the government's attorney told the judge. Therefore, the government believes it can leave the indictment hanging over the company's head, and keep its assets frozen, indefinitely.

Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. That's because in the government's view, the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity and the prosecution against founder Kim Dotcom will still be pending. The fact that the assets are in the name of Megaupload rather than its founder is of no consequence, the government claimed.

Hollywood, at least, seems nervous that Judge O'Grady might buy Megaupload's argument. In a conference call held Wednesday in advance of today's hearing, a senior vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America argued that the dismissal of the case against Megaupload would have little practical impact, since the company's principals would still be facing indictment. And he rejected Kim Dotcom's efforts to frame the case as a test of Internet freedom, describing Dotcom as a "career criminal" who had grown wealthy stealing the work of others.

quote:

Op woensdag 8 augustus 2012 18:18 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Video van Kim Dotcom inval

quote:

FIGHT TO KEEP POLICE SECRETS

The Crown has lodged an urgent appeal to ensure details about New Zealand's elite police team are kept secret.

Part of the heavy suppression surrounding the movements of the Special Tactics Group was lifted by Justice Winkelmann at the hearing yesterday.

Winkelmann ruled documents, including the police checklist used to determine if Dotcom was a dangerous subject, could be made public.

However, the Crown announced this morning it would appeal this decision.

The Crown has said police believe that making details public would compromise their operational capability.

It was also revealed that part of the suppression was breached last night.

A promo for TV3's Campbell Live show included STG call signs, which were not allowed to be broadcast.

Justice Winkelmann said the suppression breach will be referred to the Solicitor-General.

An appeal hearing will be held in the next day or two.

US authorities claim Dotcom and his three co-accused - Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram van der Kolk - used the Megaupload website and its affiliated sites to knowingly make money from pirated movies and games.

They are facing copyright infringement and money laundering charges, and extradition from New Zealand.

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 augustus 2012 02:03 schreef Piet_Piraat het volgende:
En wanneer komt de rechtzaak? Is er al een officiele aanklacht?

quote:

Politie: Kim Dotcom gebruikte zijn buik als wapen

De Nieuw-Zeelandse politie geeft een wel heel bijzondere reden voor de inzet van antiterrorisme-eenheden bij de inval op het landgoed van internettycoon Kim Dotcom, afgelopen januari. Volgens de politie was hun aanwezigheid gewenst omdat de 165 kilo wegende Dotcom kort tevoren een oud-medewerker had mishandeld 'met zijn buik'.

De New Zealand Herald meldt dat de klacht afkomstig is van een video-editor die voor Dotcom had gewerkt en tegenover de politie verklaarde dat Dotcom hem 'met zijn buik tegen de linkerschouder' te lijf was gegaan. Dat gebeurde twee weken voordat de inval plaatsvond.

Tegen Dotcom loopt een uitleveringsverzoek van de Verenigde Staten, die hem en drie medewerkers van de op zwart gezette website Megaupload willen berechten vanwege onder meer internetpiraterij, het inbreuk maken op de copyrightwetgeving en het witwassen van geld.

Een Nieuw-Zeelandse rechter beoordeelt op dit moment de rechtmatigheid van de inval van justitie op het landgoed van Dotcom. Vorige week verklaarde Dotcom dat hij tijdens de inval door politieagenten werd geschopt en geslagen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 augustus 2012 16:34 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Megaupload-chef krijgt excuses Nieuw-Zeeland

Nieuw-Zeeland heeft donderdag excuses aangeboden aan de oprichter van downloadsite Megaupload, de geboren Duitser Kim Dotcom. Hij was in januari opgepakt, omdat zijn site illegale bestanden zou aanbieden. Voor de arrestatie bespioneerden de inlichtingendiensten zijn woning, maar dat mochten ze niet doen.

Iedereen in Nieuw-Zeeland heeft recht op bescherming van de wet, zei premier John Key tegen Nieuw-Zeelandse media.

Eerder bepaalden Nieuw-Zeelandse rechters al dat de huiszoeking in de villa van Dotcom illegaal was. In het huiszoekingsbevel van de politie stond niet waar Dotcom van werd verdacht en waar agenten naar zochten.

quote:

Senior figures knew about Kim Dotcom spying - Shearer

Labour leader David Shearer claims senior Government figures knew about the illegal spying of internet tycoon Kim Dotcom, but says only a full independent inquiry will reveal the truth.

So far there are three investigations into the saga, after it was revealed last week that the Government Communications Security Bureau, which is only supposed to spy on foreign nationals, had been snooping on New Zealand resident Dotcom ahead of a raid on his Coatesville mansion in January.

Shearer told TV ONE's Breakfast that the inquiries that have been announced so far will not provide the "right" answers.

"We're targeting the little guys at the bottom and not looking at the accountability in our intelligence agencies that should be in place and that goes right to the top, to Bill English and John Key," he said.

"(There) are a series of people who should have been responsible, who should have known, and I think they did know. But we're not going to find that out necessarily until we have an (independent) inquiry."

Since the issue was brought up last week three separate investigations have been looking into the matter.

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor's report established the facts of the case, while Secretary of the Cabinet Rebecca Kitteridge has been seconded to the GCSB for an initial period of three months to see if its systems need updating.

Yesterday the police also said they will be looking into the case to see if any criminal charges should be laid.

But Shearer said the police were "conflicted" because they asked the GCSB to spy on Dotcom in the first place. He said an independent figure with authority needs to be in charge of an inquiry.

"If we had someone like a former ombudsman or judge, I'm thinking of Anand Satyanand for example the former Governor General, someone of that sort of standing looking at this and leading an inquiry it will give us the confidence that the issues that are of concern to New Zealanders are looked into properly.

"People in New Zealand have a right to know that their spy agencies are working properly."

ONE News Deputy Political Editor Jessica Mutch said the call for an independent inquiry was gaining traction, and may be in the Government's best interests.

"We've had a number of weeks of talking about Kim Dotcom, I'm sure the PM is tiring of talking about it, and maybe the answer is to do this big broader wider inquiry," she told Breakfast.

Key said yesterday that police are welcome to investigate the GCSB's role in the Dotcom case if "that is going to satisfy someone".

"Police have a responsibility to take complaints seriously and so if they go and decide to have someone look at the matter well I welcome that but at the end of the day it should be seen for what it is - a political stunt," he said.

quote:

Dotcom attorney attacks Hollywood and the ‘draconian’ downing of Megaupload

The attorney for Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has lashed out at the US and New Zealand authorities involved in his client’s case, calling their witch-hunt the work of Hollywood’s “copyright militia” and a nail in the coffin for online innovation.

Ira Rothken, the California-based attorney representing Kim Dotcom in a highly-publicized international copyright infringement case, unleashed on his client’s opponents during a rare interview this week, condemning their tactics and calling them out for illegal practices being paid for by high-powered cohorts in the entertainment industry.

Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz, was arrested on January 20 after his New Zealand estate was stormed in a high-profile raid by local authorities working in cooperation with the US government. The United States says Dotcom operated a vast criminal conspiracy by running the Megaupload.com file-storage site, and will attempt to extrude him to America next year to face charges. In the months since a slew of armed agents descended on his home in helicopters and arrested Dotcom at gunpoint, though, the arguments offered by both the US and Kiwi prosecutors has been put through the gauntlet endlessly and has all but deteriorated.

Despite failing to advance their case against Dotcom past a mere indictment thus far, the US Justice Department has recently remarked that their efforts against Mega are among the Obama administration’s top successes in thwarting intellectual property crime. Overseas, however, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has had to publically apologize to Dotcom for a case that is seemingly falling apart with each and every day.

Speaking to The Inquirer in an interview published to the Web on Monday, Mr. Rothken says the case “demonstrates the tension between the Hollywood copyright militia and the policy issues of copyright balance that are needed for Internet innovation.”

Mr. Rothken remarks that the efforts to eliminate file-sharing sites online are being masterminded by high-powered entertainment industry shot-callers who are ordering Washington to ramp up their case. If it somehow ends up as a win for the Obama administration, though, Dotcom’s attorney says the effects will significantly stifle innovation and general advancements for the Internet.

“Ruling in favor of Hollywood will reduce the availability of cloud storage sites and cause problems for small businesses and individuals who are in the greatest need for competition in the marketplace,” the attorney said.

"The circumstantial evidence demonstrates Hollywood has great influence on this case," Rothken added. "Given what we perceive as the influence of Hollywood on the current administration in [Washington,] DC, we think that the totality of circumstances show that it is likely he would not have a fair procedural landscape here in the US at this time."

On his part, Dotcom has previously offered to fly to the United States and stand trial, as long as the Justice Department agrees to pay for his expenses and offer him a fair trial.

"They will never agree to this and that is because they can't win this case and they know that already,” he told the New Zealand Herald earlier this year.

Commenting on the case this week, Mr. Rothken also blow the lid off America’s illegitimate attempts at prosecuting his client, saying the US has “implemented draconian procedures to take down the Megaupload cloud storage site at any cost.”

"Now that these procedures are coming under scrutiny they appear to have violated the law at nearly every part of the process,” Rothken told the website. “From an illegal search warrant to what we believe is an illegal military style raid, to illegal data sharing with the US, illegal spying and ultimately what we believe is an overbroad takedown of the entire Megaupload enterprise."

quote:

Megaupload Is Dead. Long Live Mega!

They’ve been indicted by the U.S. government for conspiracy and briefly thrown in jail, but Kim Dotcom and his partners in the digital storage locker Megaupload have no intention of quitting the online marketplace.

Instead the co-defendants plan to introduce a much-anticipated new technology later this year that will allow users to once again upload, store, and share large data files, albeit by different rules. They revealed details of the new service exclusively to Wired.

They call it Mega and describe it as a unique tool that will solve the liability problems faced by cloud storage services, enhance the privacy rights of internet users, and provide themselves with a simple new business. Meanwhile, critics fear that Mega is simply a revamped version of Megaupload, cleverly designed to skirt the old business’s legal issues without addressing the concerns of Internet piracy.

(Dotcom and three of his partners remain in New Zealand, where they were arrested in January 2012. They face extradition to the U.S. on charges of “engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement,” according to the Department of Justice.)

What Mega and Megaupload do have in common is that they are both one-click, subscriber-based cloud platforms that allow customers to upload, store, access, and share large files. Dotcom, and his Mega partner Mathias Ortmann say the difference is that now those files will first be one-click-encrypted right in a client’s browser, using the so-called Advanced Encryption Standard algorithm. The user is then provided with a second unique key for that file’s decryption.

It will be up to users, and third-party app developers, to control access to any given uploaded file, be it a song, movie, videogame, book, or simple text document. Internet libertarians will surely embrace this new capability.

And because the decryption key is not stored with Mega, the company would have no means to view the uploaded file on its server. It would, Ortmann explains, be impossible for Mega to know, or be responsible for, its users’ uploaded content — a state of affairs engineered to create an ironclad “safe harbor” from liability for Mega, and added piece of mind for the user.

“If servers are lost, if the government comes into a data center and rapes it, if someone hacks the server or steals it, it would give him nothing,” Dotcom explains. “Whatever is uploaded to the site, it is going to be remain closed and private without the key.”

Dotcom’s belief is that even the broad interpretation of internet law that brought down Megaupload would be insufficient to thwart the new Mega, because what users share, how they share it, and how many people they share it with will be their responsibility and under their control, not Mega’s.

Dotcom says that according to his legal experts, the only way to stop such a service from existing is to make encryption itself illegal. “And according to the U.N. Charter for Human Rights, privacy is a basic human right,” Dotcom explains. “You have the right to protect your private information and communication against spying.”

Dotcom says that the new Mega will be an attractive product for anyone concerned about the state of online security. And to address the concerns about data loss of the sort that affected Megaupload customers whose files were seized by the FBI, Mega will store all data on two sets of redundant servers, located in two different countries.

“So, even if one country decides to go completely berserk from a legal perspective and freeze all servers, for example — which we don’t expect, because we’ve fully complied with all the laws of the countries we place servers in — or if a natural disaster happens, there’s still another location where all the files are available,” Ortmann says. “This way, it’s impossible to be subjected to the kind of abuse that we’ve had in the U.S.”

Ultimately, Dotcom envisions a network hosted by thousands of different entities with thousands of different servers, in countries all over the world.

“We’re creating a system where any host in the world — from the $2,000 garage operation to the largest online host — can connect their own servers to this network,” Dotcom says. “We can work with anybody, because the hosts themselves cannot see what’s on the servers.”

One of the more unique wrinkles of the new service may come from Mega’s decision not to deploy so-called de-duplication on its servers, meaning that if a user decides to upload the same copyright-infringing file 100 times, it would result in 100 different files and 100 distinct decryption keys. Removing them would require 100 takedown notices of the type typically sent by rights holders like movie studios and record companies.

While Mega is adamant that this is not the point of their technology, others fear the service may atomize the piracy problem, turning internet policing into an even more elaborate game of Wack-a-Mole. “As we learned from the first iteration of Megaupload, how it describes itself and how it really operates can be two very distinct things,” says one industry spokesman who asked not to be named. “We’d rather not wade in here until we can see the thing with our own eyes.”

Julie Samuels, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that while the new Mega may present an interesting development for internet users, it doesn’t answer the issues raised by the unique and, by her lights, questionable interpretation of Internet law used in the case against Megaupload. “It’s likely to change the cat-and-mouse game that goes on in terms of this issue on the Internet,” Samuels says. “But it’s still a cat-and-mouse game.”

Samuels says that the technology may affect how easy or difficult it is for rights holders or law enforcement to determine exactly what kind of files are being shared. “But there are still some fundamental questions that need to be answered. At this point, it’s not technology but the courts which need to address them.”

Dotcom insists that Mega is not “a giant middle finger to Hollywood and the DoJ,” or a relaunch of Megaupload. And Ortmann points out that if users choose to violate copyright with the new technology, there are already rules in place to address it. “If the copyright holder finds publicly posted links and decryption keys and verifies that the file is an infringement of their copyright, they can send a DMCA takedown notice to have that file removed, just like before,” he says.

As with Megaupload, Ortmann says, Mega will also grant direct access to their servers for entities such as film studios, allowing them to remove copyright-infringing material themselves. “But this time, if they want to use that tool, they’ll have to accept, prior to getting access, that they’re not going to sue us or hold us accountable for the actions of our users,” Dotcom says.

In any event, the Mega team believes that a government takedown of their new service is extremely improbable. “Unless our legal team tells us that the DoJ is likely to go berserk again,” Ortmann explains. “But in my view, they can’t pull off this stunt a second time.”

quote:

Inside the Mansion—and Mind— of Kim Dotcom, the Most Wanted Man on the Net

quote:

His bed of choice is a remarkable piece of custom Swedish craftsmanship made by a company called Hästens. Each one takes some 160 hours to produce and is signed by a master bed-maker who lays out the most perfect matrix of horsehair, cotton, flax, and wool. Price after custom framing: $103,000. Kim has three such beds in his New Zealand mansion, one of which faces a series of monitors and hard drives and piles of wires and is flanked on either side by lamps that look like, and may well be, chromed AK-47s. This is Kim’s “work bed” and serves as his office. It was here that he returned in the early morning of January 20, 2012, after a long night spent on his music album, one of his many side projects.

quote:

Police got Dotcom's bank details

Personal details of internet boss and staff handed over without a search warrant

Police got personal banking details of Kim Dotcom and his staff without getting a search warrant in a move that has implications for bank customers.

Banks, including the ANZ, BNZ and Westpac, turned the information over after deciding there was no Privacy Act reason not to.

The police request referred the banks to a Privacy Act principle which allowed them to release information to "avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences".

The mechanism led to banks releasing - without a legal warrant - the name of the account holder, the account number and home address.

The information was sought in October last year by Ofcanz - the same policing unit heavily criticised this week for its tactics during an investigation of the Red Devils gang. Police headquarters will not comment directly on either case.

The banking industry last night said customer privacy was taken "very seriously" but offered no information about the level of proof needed to turn information over to government agencies.

The Dotcom extradition court file at the North Shore District Court shows Ofcanz Detective Sergeant Nigel McMorran got information on Dotcom and Megaupload staff through the police Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

The request to banks for information on October 10 last year came after the FBI accessed email accounts through US-based search warrants.

At that stage, police assistance to the FBI was limited to basic co-operation. The formal request for assistance, which elevates the case's seriousness and powers police can use, was made on November 28.

Mr McMorran said the FBI passed on information and asked the police to find out more about account numbers and staff identified in emails.

An analyst at the FIU emailed a string of banks on October 10 and received information back the same day from the BNZ showing names of account holders, account numbers and home address details. The other banks replied the next day.

Other documents filed with the North Shore District Court show a later request by the same analyst.

The request matched those which bank staff say they got in October in which police referred to money laundering and asked for personal details to be released to assist the "maintenance of the law".

The email in the later case offered no additional information to support the police claim and there is no record showing the banks asked for any.

Dotcom was charged with money-laundering when arrested - the only charge he faces on which he can be extradited. Criminal copyright violation charges are not serious enough for extradition. If they are dismissed, then the money laundering charge also collapses.

Assistant Privacy Commissioner Katrine Evans said it was up to agencies asked for information to form a "reasonable belief".

"They need to make their own judgment calls but simply because the request comes from the police isn't necessarily enough."

She said police needed to specify a reason - and general descriptions of "money laundering" could be enough.

Lawyer Steve Rollo, who represented the Red Devils, said a wider inquiry was needed into police practices. He said information was frequently withheld by police in court cases, leaving a veil of "secrecy" which could mask skulduggery.

Assistant Commissioner Mike Bush said yesterday police were reviewing all aspects of handling organised crime under a new strategy called "Prevention First".

twitter:

KimDotcom twitterde op donderdag 01-11-2012 om 01:12:37 Servers overloaded. Adding capacity. Stop reloading :-) reageer retweet

twitter:

KimDotcom twitterde op donderdag 01-11-2012 om 02:13:38 ANNOUNCEMENT: The new #Mega domain is http://t.co/WahyM7DE - Check it out. RT!! reageer retweet

quote:

Me.ga Hackers: We’re Real Pirates & We’ll Sell Dotcom’s Domain To Universal

A Gabon government minister has said that his country will not be used as a base for committing copyright infringement and has announced that his country will seize the new Me.Ga domain. But while Dotcom blames the United States and entertainment company Vivendi, a group of hackers say they have taken over the domain. Speaking with TorrentFreak the group say that they are the true pirates and that Dotcom is a megalomaniac. “He himself is an industry, only here to pollute,” they say.

On January 20, 2013 Kim Dotcom is set to launch the successor to Megaupload, along with a promise for it to be bigger and better than before.

In anticipation of opposition, Dotcom previously revealed that the site would use encryption to boost the site’s safe harbor protections. Furthermore, it would not use a .com domain as these are easily seized by the United States government.

But, after announcing less than a week ago that the site would use the Me.ga domain, already the plan has run into trouble from not one but apparently two different directions.

First, and just hours ago, came news that the Communications Minister of Gabon, the African country where .ga domains are based, would be suspending the Me.ga domain.

“I have instructed my departments to immediately suspend the site www.me.ga,” announced Communication Minister Blaise Louembe.

“Gabon cannot serve as a platform or screen for committing acts aimed at violating copyrights, nor be used by unscrupulous people,” the minister said.