Police Admit That NZ Spy Agency Illegally Spied On Kim Dotcom, But Aren't Going To Do Anything About It

from the enforce-the-law? dept

You may recall that it came out last year that the New Zealand equivalent of the NSA, the GCSB, illegally spied on Kim Dotcom (oh, and dozens of others), possibly with the help of the NSA, despite not being allowed to spy on those in New Zealand.

An investigation by the police has agreed that the GCSB clearly broke the law… but the police have said that they don’t plan to prosecute the spy agency. Because, you know, that might hold them accountable. Now, at least, the GCSB knows that it can abuse the law at will with no punishment.

Instead, it appears that the excuse being used by the police is the same one we’ve been hearing from NSA defenders: because these abuses weren’t intentional, they can be ignored:


Today, Detective Superintendent Peter Read told a media conference that in spite of the GCSB committing one breach under the provisions of the Crimes Act, no criminal “intent” by the GCSB could be established.

I’m not sure that actually makes sense. Yes, when it comes to criminal activity, intent can be important in determining if it’s actually criminal, but there’s little doubt that the GCSB intentionally spied on Dotcom. It wouldn’t have taken very much at all to recognize that Dotcom was a resident of New Zealand who GCSB is forbidden from surveilling. So it seems like the intent was pretty clear.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Police Admit That NZ Spy Agency Illegally Spied On Kim Dotcom, But Aren't Going To Do Anything About It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
62 Comments
Anonymoussays:

Guess this calls into question the competency of the GCSB, and they’re ability to perform past, present and future spy operations.

Personally, I think the GCSB knew Kim Dotcom is a law-abiding NZ citizen, and still deliberately chose to carry out their Unconstitutional spy operations.

If there’s one thing citizens worldwide have learned over the last couple of years. It’s that these Unconstitutional global spy agencies have no intention of legally operating within the letter or spirit of the law.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Go Kim Go

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading

Hopefully you’ll look a little less like a dipshit now.

I’m hitting “reply,” but it’s not threading for me. I imagine it’s the proxy I’m using that’s mucking it up. Sorry, but it’s beyond my control. If Mikey weren’t censoring me by routing my posts to his censorship filter, I wouldn’t have this problem. Ask Mikey. He won’t give you an honest answer. But ask anyway.

slinkySlimsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Go Kim Go

Actually, maybe I would ask Mike something.

I’d ask if perhaps he could give some thought to giving the ability to collapse/expand a reported top post’s thread. It seems pollution can get rampant when folks respond to reported comments, especially when the post’s topic pertains specifically to things like copyright it would seem (ahem). It can be hard to resist having one’s reading and thoughts captured by trolls. A quick glance at thread contents might save people from the abyss. The very same abyss that brings forth critters like you and, clearly, attempts to consume critters like me.

Tool.

Anonymoussays:

I’m not sure that actually makes sense. Yes, when it comes to criminal activity, intent can be important in determining if it’s actually criminal, but there’s little doubt that the GCSB intentionally spied on Dotcom. It wouldn’t have taken very much at all to recognize that Dotcom was a resident of New Zealand who GCSB is forbidden from surveilling. So it seems like the intent was pretty clear.

LOL @ Pirate Mike. Doesn’t understand the concept of specific intent. And, no, that silly article you linked to doesn’t explain the concept well. Lawyer-wannabe fail.

Malorsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, because you know someone owns them, and you’re depriving that person of the use of their item.

If, however, you were able to wave your hand and make an exact copy of the electronics you found laying in their house, without changing the original electronics in any way, would that be theft?

What harm would have been done, and to whom?

Unauthorized enjoyment is not a crime.

Zangetsusays:

Kim Dotcom (KD): Yo, Minion

Minion: Yes, sir?

KD: Do we have any lawyers free from that last batch we hired?

Minion: I believe so, sir

KD: Good, I have another civil lawsuit I want to launch. I’m going to sue the GCSB and OFCANZ and use the police report against them

Minion: And how much will you be asking for sir?

KD: I’ll start out at a bazillion dollars but I’ll settle for front row seats with Peter Jackson at the world premiere of the Hobbit Part 2 … and Part 3. Can’t let them get away that easily.

Minion: Yes, sir.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!

In a sane and fair world, it should, considering that in a court case, if the guys doing the prosecuting and gathering evidence had to, BREAK THE LAW, in order to prove that the guy opposite them BROKE THE LAW and deserves to go to jail…can you figure out where I’m going with this?

Anonymoussays:

Funnier still is the fact that you bought the “without intent” argument.

If you truly believe that, let me tell you about this really nice bridge I own in New York…priced to sell!!!

Nice distraction, but the fact remains that Mikey doesn’t understand basic criminal law concepts like specific intent, and he looks like an idiot publishing this stuff. I don’t know if there was such intent here or not, and neither do you. But I do know that Mikey doesn’t know what he’s talking about, as per usual. That’s why he’s so scared of discussing anything with me. That’s why he routes all of my posts to his censorship filter all the while being too ashamed of himself to admit publicly that he’s doing it. Alas, such is the substance, or significant lack thereof, of Pirate Mike.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re:

The point still stands that you bought the “without intent” argument.

With the degree in which the raid was conducted and what they were looking for you honestly expect me to believe that they had no idea about the status of Dotcom’s residency?

You’re so obsessed with copyright that you’re willing to break whatever laws are in place to meet that end. And for that, you’re a sad, sad person.

Anonymoussays:

The point still stands that you bought the “without intent” argument.

With the degree in which the raid was conducted and what they were looking for you honestly expect me to believe that they had no idea about the status of Dotcom’s residency?

You’re so obsessed with copyright that you’re willing to break whatever laws are in place to meet that end. And for that, you’re a sad, sad person.

The fact remains that they aren’t prosecuting because they can’t prove specific intent. However you get from that to me being “willing to break whatever laws” is hilarious.

Anonymoussays:

Wait…Let’s say I am driving down the road and accidentally run over a pedestrian. Since I never actually intended to hit him, according to the NZ authorities, I committed no crime right?

If it were an accident, you wouldn’t be prosecuted under a statute that requires specific intent. Other statutes would probably apply though. This stuff isn’t hard. Specific intent means specifically intending to violate a known duty.

Anonymoussays:

So, if I intentionally take a bunch of electronics from a party at another persons house, as long as I didn’t intend to steal those items, its legal right? Because it was unclear if the electronics left lying around were owned or not.

If the statute says you must specifically intend to violate a known duty and you don’t have that intent, you wouldn’t be prosecuted under that statute. This stuff is easy.

Anonymoussays:

…and by the way, how’s that case the US has against Dotcom going?

Got a court date set yet?

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

I love how Pirate Mike lies and pretends like he’s not pro-piracy, yet his boards are full of pirate fools like you. The case is going well. Megaupload is shutdown. The principals are indicted. Assets have been seized. Looks like a win so far to me. Still working on extradition, as you well know. Once here, I think the jury will deliberate for about 10 minutes.

Anonymoussays:

SO if the law states that you can’t spy on someone from NZ and you then spy knowingly on someone from NZ, how is that not specific intent, as you describe it?

Good question. I haven’t seen the particular statute at issue, but what is obvious from the article Mike linked to is that the statute requires specific intent. They did intend to do the spying, which would be general intent, but they didn’t do it knowing that Dotcom had whatever citizenship status he had that made it illegal. They didn’t specifically intend to violate a known duty.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re:

….you do know that you are advocating for GCSB to sidestep the law?
GCSB is told “No, you can’t spy on NZ residents/citizens”. So, according to you, if GCSB wants to do domestic spying, all they have to do is neglect the very important step of checking whether their target is a NZ resident/citizen. That gets them off the hook?

Fentexsays:

This is the NZ Police, as they often do, attempting to side step politically charged cases that involve holding authority to account.

Their argument is transparently incorrect. They are acting as if the GCSB lacked mens rea (an intent to commit a crime) as it is generally held in criminal justice systems with history and traditions similar to NZ (i.e Britain and the U.S) to be a necessary element for a crime to have occurred.

Without it although a law may be broken it’s more likely a civil matter (such as defamation) – to be criminal a criminal intent is required.

However the evidence uncovered clearly demonstrates an intention to commit a criminal act and Police obliviousness to it a deliberate turning of a blind eye.

It is a demonstration of how proclamations that there is oversight of secret squirrel spies are nonsense – authority does not police itself.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: The only job in the world that actually works in your favor if you fuck up.

I for one take extreme offence at the suggestion that GCSB would give someone a paid vacation for screwing up.

The standard reward is a 10% pay rise AND a promotion.

Vacation time (with spending money) is only given by the GCSB in the most serious cases where an employee shoots someone completely unrelated to any ongoing investigation.

art guerrillasays:

well, this *is* highly unusual...

usually, scumbag spook in country A, gets scumbag spook in country B to spy on someone back in country A that they are not ‘allowed’ (i know, i know, i make a funny!) to spy on; then scumbag spook in country A will return the favor and spy on someone in country B for their scumbag spooks…

the mafia had a term for this: one hand washes the other…

and that is about all you need to know: ‘our’ (sic) countries are nothing more than loosely affiliated criminal enterprises to do the bidding of the billionaire puppetmasters…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow