NZ Police Got PRISM Data Before Raid On Dotcom 208
Bismillah writes "Police affidavits show that the New Zealand Police requested and received assistance from the country's signals intelligence agency, the GCSB, which appears to have used PRISM to intercept Kim and Mona Dotcom and the Megaupload associates' communications."
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the upside, with this cat out of the bag now, at least it is going to be brought up in court. Kim doesn't seem to be the sort of chap who will keep quiet and just let it slide. He is probably straightening his tie as we speak and about to knock on the door of the nearest court in NZ.
Not only for "Terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)
What the FUCK has happened to my country?
Not just for the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how the justification for the program was all about the terrorists. Now, we find out that it wasn't just used for terrorists, pedophiles, and drug traffickers, but also for people the copyright lobby dislikes.
And yet, I find myself completely unsurprised. How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?
Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.
Re:Not only for "Terrorism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry: someone will be along shortly to point out that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never have happened.
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the US is in command, nothing is excessive when protecting the income of Big business.
Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting is that our Prime Minister effectively admitted in parliament (by refusing to answer in a situation where "no" would have been a far better answer for him and one he would have given had it been true)just 2 days ago that the GCSB (or NSA wanna bes) have been funded by the US to the tune of millions of dollars.
So what did they buy? probably a Prism to put in our fibre access to the rest of the world. And I guess enough of a back channel to send it all to the US. I can see now why the second pacific fibre was nobbled because they wouldn't accept the use of Chinese infrastructure - wouldn't do to have some other country's backdoors in the routers rather than the US's.
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
NZ learned a lot from the Rainbow Warrior, international treaties, understandings, letters, assurances, visits, friendships and decades of cooperation are totally worthless.
When NZ asked Australia, the US, UK for small amounts of basic telco help with France they got very little back.
So NZ now knows its place, when the US asks for anything, NZ does all it can with all its tools (NSA was very good to the NZ gov and vast, expensive new telco work).
National security assets where in no way limited and NZ national security staff seemed happy to help before any new telco/spy law changes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally you see a line between law enforcement "signals intelligence" and national security signals intelligence. I would expect that the use of national security assets for ordinary law enforcement would be limited. I have a hard time seeing that it would be justified in this case.
Especially when the "law enforcement" issue was basically a civil matter of copyright.
Re:Not just for the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
How long before all this surveillance infrastructure gets used against farmers standing up against Monstano, or generic drug makers, or individuals advocating for shorter copyright terms? How long before this gets used to stifle political dissent and free speech?
Soon, if it isn't already happening. Very, very soon.
You need to read more history. I mean REAL history, not the lies they shoved
down your throat in high school.
None of this surveillance+governmental abuse stuff is new. What IS new is the scope with which surveillance
can be done now, due to technological changes. The "machine" can now be more efficient than ever before.
The efficiency is really the only new thing here. All the rest is an old story. However, the end of many such stories
often features the fall of empire. Read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky for more on this idea.
Could it happen in the US, the fall of empire ? Buddy, it is ALEADY happening, like a house of cards
falling down in super slow motion video. Look at the true stats on the US economy. Look at how the US
is HATED in much of the world. Look at how the US has become a bully which uses power instead of
finesse to attempt to achieve goals. Truly the show in the US is run by idiots, and smart people know this
is the case because it is painfully obvious if you watch actual events rather than mindlessly consuming
propaganda. It's not Obama's fault though -- Obama is just an errand boy for the swine who really run the show,
just as Bush was before him.
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside, this ridiculous claims has actually been made by not only copyright agencies, but the US government, to justify more money for copyright-enforcement efforts.
news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/ [arstechnica.com]
Re:Not just for the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I used to believe people gave a shit, but really - they don't. Most people really don't care. Even if the accused is accused of something they do every day they will sit on the jury and convict because the specific circumstance doesn't apply to them, because the prosecutor is so persuasive about how the specific way the accused is claimed to have done it is a criminal act, and take the lesson to mind their ways ever after about that specific way. Until they are in the dock proclaiming that it is not fair to people who were like them and will convict them too for failing to observe a different specific nuance of imaginary property in an exquisitely specific different way.
This is an odd game where the combatants define the rules dynamically after the fact. For a decade after play ends the outcome is in doubt. The only real way to win is not to play. Or to be one of the many lawyers who get hourly fees to contest the outcome.
In my mind it's just one symptom of the cancer of lawyers infesting the body public. Class action laywers have given up even the pretense of giving their clients a coupon for a discount toward their opponent's products in settlement as justification for their disproportionate share of the penalty, and now collect without compensating the victims at all. In cases like Prenda they generate their own plaintiffs, respondents and misdeeds to generate profits out of whole cloth.
It is not fair. It is not right. But this is how it is, and unless people unite to fight it this is ... hey, Wilfred's next season dropped on Netflix. BRB.
Re: Was that really necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one forced him to use an international communication system.
So two governments cooperate to spy on each others' citizens with no judicial oversight and you are ok with it because ... wait. Why are you OK with it? Because the communication was international? So you believe that no international communications should enjoy privacy protections? Why?
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's plenty of good evidence, why didn't they charge him on summons? Why did they break down his door special ops style? If it's a criminal matter, there's a process for obtaining and serving a warrant. If it's a civil matter, there's a process for bringing a complaint. Neither was followed.
He operated a file sharing service. What you shared on it wasn't his business. He took down files when requested. He complied with relevant laws. By your logic, manufacturers of zip-lock bags don't deserve their income, because the product is used to facilitate drug trades.
Re: Was that really necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tyranny & corruption have graduated from the individual-nation level, to being a global/international level game. National leaders/power-brokers have realized the advantages to cooperation, at least on limited terms, with the leaders/power-brokers of other nations toward the goal of controlling ever more of people's lives, liberty, and wealth.
It's corruption and betrayal/treason/tyranny on a global, international scale. This is the non-tinfoil/black-helo, real-world "NWO". It isn't some wild super-secret conspiracy theory. It's just your everyday human corruption and lust for wealth and power that has evolved over time and with the opportunities that technology advances and mass media propaganda over time provide to operate across borders, political systems, and even sovereign interests.
It's things like TFA describes, and things like the US and UK or NZ each spying on the other's citizens and exchanging the data to avoid legal/constitutional proscriptions against domestic spying. Things like treaties that "force" a (or a set of) national laws to be changed/abolished to comply with treaty terms, when the whole aim was to get said changes made against popular wishes and/or to avoid/bypass legal/constitutional restrictions.
The fact that Snowden's and other's whistle-blower domestic surveillance revelations happened at all indicates that either the surveillance apparatus and infrastructure has grown so enormous and all-encompassing that it was bound to happen, or that things are so much under their control that it really doesn't matter that much any longer to those in power if the public finds out.
Or both.
None of which bodes any good for regular people anywhere, not just in the US, as TFA illustrates so well.
Strat
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad I'm not the only one whom is frightened by how screwed up things have become and how willing the masses are to accept transparent excuses. It honestly has my afraid deep down that we're going to see a war on US soil in my life time. We're letting our government get away with overstepping their bounds (on a global scale) so often that they seems to have gotten comfortable being a bully. If history has taught us anything, it should be that countries which bully other countries become the target of large scale warfare.
Re:Was that really necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mirrored my thoughts so well I wanted to thank you for expressing them. Just this morning I am listening to an NPR article where the NPR "reporter" interviewed Mr. Muller, soon to be retired head of the FBI. Generally it was a fluff piece, but what started to bother me was when they talked about 9/11 and how the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, was now tasked with protecting our country from *terrorist* and acting *preemptively*. Really? I thought, When did Investigation turn in to Surveillance (aka FBS).
So Mr. Muller tells us that instead of focusing on small things like white collar crime and violent crime he now needs to focus on an incredibly small group of people who pale compared to the terrorism Bankers, Hedge Fund managers, and other white collar criminals have committed against the people of this country. He even states, "We only have some much money so we spend it chasing bad guys with bombs that we cannot catch till after they explode"...well, my interpretation of he banal comment.
Normally I am not a conspiracy type of person, but I cannot help, but wonder that after 9/11 as all of our law enforcement is now shifted to l;ook for bad guys in the desert, laws like Glass-Segal are repealed, Wall Street investment brings this country (and the world) almost to the point of ruin, and the FBI was unable to investigate, because they were spending so much time looking for terrorists. Good timing.
My final thought as I listened to the end of this fluff was that the NPR reporter was just another tool to be used in a propaganda machine. She didn't ask or talk about why the FBI felt white collar crime was less important, she did not ask or push questions about unwarranted surveillance an d the FBI's role, and she certainly did not act like a reporter; she acted like a prop for a show. Very disappointing. I fear that investigative journalism is all but buried as Corporations hold more control of media centers. Ask the hard questions and soon you are shut out of access and the talking heads still get face time from the toodies trotted out by primary Media conglomerates.
Fox - Owned by Rupert Murdoch (and branched in many countries)
ABC - Owned by Walt Disney Corp
NBC - Owned by General Electric
CBS - Viacom, but ( Predecessor firms of Viacom include Gulf+Western, which later became Paramount Communications Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
CNN - Time Warner
Iit is amazing how only 4 major conglomerates control, TV, Radio, Print, and more and more Internet media to the point where most of the content was absorb comes from only these four sources..
In a country that championed the idea of the 4th Estate, it has been supplanted by a Jim Taylor machine so vast it may not be brought down. Even NPR, my bastion of good reporting now seems to be losing ground. (sigh)
Re: Anton Vickerman Prosecution (Score:2, Insightful)
Can I have country option number3 please?!?