Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Crime Government The Courts United States

Kim Dotcom Offers $5 Million Bounty To Defeat Extradition 253

Posted by samzenpus
from the money-talks dept.
heretic108 (454817) writes "Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom has posted a bounty of $5 million to anyone who can dig up any dirt which saves him from extradition to the U.S.. This bounty would be payable not only to government employees, but also to anyone who can retrieve documents clearly proving corruption in the whole prosecution process. 'We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood', Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Offers $5 Million Bounty To Defeat Extradition

Comments Filter:
  • by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:17AM (#47193989)
    Snowden did it to keep his oath and he's still getting prosecuted. Anyone doing it for money would have no leg to stand on in the view of the people who would go after them. Corruption in the US judiciary system is a very real problem and people who expose it are heroes but this reward is the worst possible way to get people to come forward.
    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.

      He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?

      • by mellon (7048) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:29AM (#47194057) Homepage

        If simply being an asshole was just cause to terminate your civil rights, we'd all be behind bars.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          ... Do you know absolutely ANYTHING about kim dot com? If he were JUST an asshole, I'd agree with you.

          Let me guess, you know nothing about his history and you think megaupload was a legitimate file sharing site?

          Being an asshole is one of his better traits.

          • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:19AM (#47194397)
            For anyone who doesn't know, Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom has a history of electronic theft, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, fraud, and has narrowly avoided prison in Germany a handful of times. He's was doing it before his "career" took off, hacking into banks from as early as 1995.

            Go look into Kimvestor, a shoddy investment firm, and Data Protect. He made his "fortune" selling the latter off at the peak of the dot com bubble. Later he straight up pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com, netting over â1.5m in profit.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:52AM (#47194647)

              What is your point? That he was guilty then, so whatever charges the government brings against him now are valid, and no matter how much the government violates standard procedures and illegally obtains evidence, it should be ignored?

            • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Monday June 09, 2014 @10:36AM (#47194927) Journal

              For anyone who doesn't know... Kim Dotcom [is a massive asshat]

              Sure, he is. What's truly incredible is that a piece of lowlife scum such as that can come out looking like the good guy. He's small-time scum, but he's being pursued heavily buy much worse, scummier big-time scum.

              He might be bad, but the people pursuing him are much worse. The fact that they're doing it using your taxes and claims of legality makes it vastly worse still.

              • by Tom (822)

                Kim Dotcom [is a massive asshat]

                What a misleading edit.

                He's a career criminal, fraudster and basically the exact same of professional fraud as the corrupt politicians he's now trying to "expose". If you think his motivations are anything but 100% selfish, I have a few bridges at really good prices.

                He's small-time scum, but he's being pursued heavily buy much worse, scummier big-time scum.

                In this class of sleazebags, there is no small and big or better and worse. They are all the same type of scum, and making us believe we should go after one but not the other is exactly how they thrive - because the good people are easily distra

            • by King_TJ (85913) on Monday June 09, 2014 @11:10AM (#47195131) Journal

              Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Still, I'm not sure how relevant some of that is?

              Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak used to defraud telephone companies with custom made electronic boxes that let people cheat the established system, making long distance calls for free. That was before their careers took off, building and selling computers. Please elaborate on how that activity done as teenagers for kicks invalidates Apple as a legitimate business today?

              • by Tom (822)

                Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Still, I'm not sure how relevant some of that is?

                Because it's not once. Your counterexample doesn't apply.

                Kimble is a career criminal. He's shown again and again and again that he doesn't like honest work and prefers to trick people out of their money instead. He's shown that he changes his methods, but not his ways. He's shown it so often that only a complete moron would believe a single word out of his mouth.

            • by dotancohen (1015143) on Monday June 09, 2014 @12:00PM (#47195605) Homepage

              Kim Dotcom steals from the rich? Kim Dotcom facilitates acquisition of 'protected' material to the poor? Sounds like my kind of scum.

              The fact that he's taking on government corruption is a nice bonus.

            • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

              Irrelevant. His rights are immutable.

        • This is just want prisoners are asking for....more assholes behind bars.

      • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:37AM (#47194099)

        Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.

        He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?

        If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          Why do you have to pick one or the other?

          He's guilty, everyone knows it, why would you willingly let him go? Why not take out both of the criminals instead of exchanging one for the other?

          • Because our justice system is based upon the notion of due process. We've let murderers go because cops bungled far smaller things.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Tom (822)

          If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.

          And this is how sleazy fraudsters survive. It's called misdirection. They're exploiting the weak minds of good people who don't realize that the other thing he's pointing at is simply the same thing in a different place. Politicians and sleazy fraudsters are of the same kind. By constantly pointing at each other, they prevent us from taking them down, because we can never decide which one to get rid of, focus and finally do it.

      • by Rei (128717)

        All these people complaiing about how "horribly corrupt" the US government are are just playing a huge round of "First World Problems". The US is #19 [transparency.org] on the Transparency International list. That's not superb, but it's out of 177 countries... I mean, for crying out loud, Yanukovych in Ukraine had a personal zoo at his house - tens of billions of dolllars stolen from a country whose per-capita income is less than that of Mongolia's. And that sort of stuff is hardly unusual in the world. Have any of you compla

        • OF all the countries in the world, the US should be #1, because of things like the DoI, and Constitution. Our history and the stories we tell, are all about "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" type liberty, and yet, here we are talking about how corrupt our government is and how it acts illegally, from Snowden to Dotcom..

          The problem is that we have too much power accumulated in too few hands, because we don't like the decentralized form of government because it doesn't offer the support for Government Crimin

  • Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:20AM (#47194011) Journal

    What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products. The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.

    The law has been bought and paid for by the corrupt media cartels. The law is a disgrace, as are our bought corrupt politicians.

    • Your argument about a better product is pretty poor. You seem to be saying that it's worth violating the laws of a democracy merely in order to get better-packaged video entertainment. I don't see how a democracy can function well if people are willing to so casually disregard laws they don't support.

      Your argument about a corrupt legislative process is much more interesting, though. It calls into question whether or not we're really a democracy, and thus whether or not obeying the laws per se should carr

      • Re:Cartels (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:01AM (#47194225) Journal

        A democracy *can't* function that way. The laws aren't supported by the people; they're put there when 98% of the population has no idea what they are, what they mean, what they do, or that those things are actually wrong in some way.

        • Re:Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:43AM (#47194575)

          Laws MUST be supported by the general population if they are supposed to be upheld. Laws OPPOSED by the majority of people are actually a threat to the legal system itself.

          If there is laws that most people oppose (like, say, a lot of laws in former communist states), they will break it, or at the very least, they will not report it if they know someone else breaks it. Be honest: Imagine your best friend kills someone in cold blood, would you tell on him? I'd say the chance that you do is at the very least a LOT higher than you ratting him out for downloading some blockbuster movie. Why? Because your support for the law against murder is (at least if you're a somewhat normal human being) a lot stronger than your support for copyright. If the latter exists at all.

          Copyright is a law that is enforced by and for a minority. While at the same time opposed or ignored by a majority. The danger here is now that this not only means that copyright becomes a hollow shell of a law, it means that laws are questioned entirely. Allow me an example.

          I remember an experiment where a "no littering" sign was put up prominently on a corner of the street. And no littering happened. The place was clean. Then, after a week IIRC, they dumped some litter on the spot and it didn't take long for the litter to grow and multiply. When people see a law being ignored with impunity, they will follow suit.

          The problematic thing here is that copyright is one thing. What's next? When you can break copyright laws, why not other laws? We identify copyright laws as unjust and wrong, so what about the others? Are the other laws right? Or should we take them into question as well? Why not break other laws? Once you broke one, breaking another one gets a lot easier.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Laws MUST be supported by the general population if they are supposed to be upheld. Laws OPPOSED by the majority of people are actually a threat to the legal system itself.

            I feel I must pick a nit here. Laws which people will not follow are a threat to the concept of "the law" itself, but these laws are only a threat to a legal system which seeks to act honorably, and in the best interest of The People.

            • Re:Cartels (Score:4, Informative)

              by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 09, 2014 @10:37AM (#47194935)

              That's not even a requirement.

              People follow the law out of, well, custom. People actually like living in a predictable environment, and it's predictable to live in a world that has laws you can rely on. Do this and you're a good citizen, do that and you're not. That's something that is generally very well liked among humans. Most people like a predictable life.

              And as long as this predictable environment does not conflict too much with their own version of morality and legality, they will support it. They might not support all laws, they may even not care about most of them, and they will probably not understand the reasoning behind some, but, and that's the important part, they don't openly oppose them.

              And as long as this is the case, a country is stable and will be supported by its citizens. Only if you start ruling against your population, you will need more and more rigid and oppressive structures to keep up the status quo. And if history has shown us anything, then that such a situation is not sustainable in the long run because you need to waste resources to prop the system up against the own population, which not only costs you resources you could spend elsewhere, it also means that your population will only offer you the bare minimum of support needed. And you will need to watch them closely to ensure that they actually do it, there's no "voluntary" work you can depend on.

          • Yes, you're talking about Promise Theory. Attempting to enforce a policy which a population hasn't promised to conform to is an attack. In group dynamics, the promise of the group is complex: it's not a straight 50-50 majority, and it's often affected by social structures (e.g., special interests, minority groups, and their impact on rights of the majority and other minorities). Regardless, the concept holds: if your group hasn't agreed, as a group, to the rules, then your group is under attack.

      • Learn a little [questioncopyright.org].
      • Re:Cartels (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:51AM (#47194645) Journal

        If a law is so easy to casually disregard, and violating it provides a clear benefit to the violators and the harm it causes is theoretical, that's a sign the law itself is bad. Eating at Burger King should not be thought such a harm to McDonalds that it should be outlawed.

        We ought to have digital public libraries by now. Such a thing is a clear benefit to society. Searchable works of art! No more archaic card catalogs. No more denying a patron because all the copies are currently checked out. No more losses from patrons being careless with the physical media and damaging it. Far less storage space needed, space which can be used to hold more works, or repurposed. No more late fees and returns. No more having to physically travel to the library, twice, spending time and most likely gas. Did you see the article some days ago about streaming saving society lots of money compared to fooling around with DVDs? We could have all of this, now, if not for copyright law.

        Everyone should be willing to practice civil disobedience of bad laws. Be like Rosa Parks and don't meekly go along with racist seating arrangements. If US citizens are no longer willing to do that, maybe we ought to petition the British Monarchy to let us back in the fold, and we'll all issue a national apology to George III.

    • by Jmc23 (2353706)
      +5 insightful?

      Why, you sound like you know exactly what you're talking about. Why don't you just go pick up your $5,000,000 cheque?

      Oh right, because you're just talking out your ass.

    • What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products.

      It's their product and they can sell it under any circumstances they want. Don't like DRM? Don't buy it, but don't use DRM as an excuse to pirate something. Or, buy it and use one of the many products that will rip a copy free of DRM and the notices.

      The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.

      No, pirates are simply giving people an excuse to get stuff for free. You argument is akin to saying "I don't like GPL terms so I will go ahead and take the source and do whatever I want with it and distribute it without providing the source code; the desires of

      • I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.

        I am actually honestly sad that I will never play some of their more recent games. They sound quite good.

        • by Tom (822)

          I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.

          This.

          It's know that the problem with monopolies is that they can offer products to the market at conditions (price or otherwise) that only a fraction of the market is willing to accept. In a non-monopoly situation, a competitor would offer the product at more acceptable conditions, and make a sale.

          It's high time these monopolies get smashed. I'm for copyright, but against licensing. Why not have compulsory licensing for copyrighted works, so that you and I could start up a distributor who offers these works

          • I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.

            This.

            It's know that the problem with monopolies is that they can offer products to the market at conditions (price or otherwise) that only a fraction of the market is willing to accept. In a non-monopoly situation, a competitor would offer the product at more acceptable conditions, and make a sale.

            It's high time these monopolies get smashed.

            The studios are hardly monopolies - they have plenty of competition no one exerts enough market pressure to eliminate the others. What you want is lower prices, but that is not the result of monopoly prices but rather a number of individual actors deciding what price point ensures sufficient demand to make the desired profit. In addition, since ether cannot price discriminate on initial release they price high and drop the price over time to try to extract as much revenue as possible form each buyer; which

    • Cartels (Score:5, Informative)

      by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday June 09, 2014 @10:05AM (#47194751)

      That's really only true in the United States and somewhat less so in Europe. In most of the rest of the world they don't really give a damn about copyright, at least in practice. Oh sure, foreign governments will sign the copyright conventions or promise to enforce local laws, but in practice they turn a blind eye.

      First, film and music piracy is largely considered to be an American problem and it's hard to get people to care much about rich foreigners being less rich (and all Americans are rich by their standards). Second, in Mexico, Brazil and other South or Latin American countries, media piracy is looked upon with about the same seriousness as jaywalking if it's looked upon as a crime at all, which it's often not. The police down there largely couldn't care less and they look the other way in return for modest bribes. Third, in societies such as Mexico and Brazil, which are very unequal in terms of wealth and income, pirated or knock off goods are the only way that most people have any access to consumer items. Without pirated media and knock off goods, they largely wouldn't be able to afford any foreign things like DVDs, name brand fashions, music, video games and the like.

      Lastly, the copyright business in Mexico especially is frequently under the control of the cartels (the drug cartels not the American media cartels). The two biggest are Los Zetas [wikipedia.org] (who based their logo on the title card of The Godfather) and La Familia Michoacana [wikipedia.org]. The pirated DVD business doesn't bring in as much scratch as drugs, but it does provide walking around money to pay cartel foot soldiers and helps the cartels maintain presence and better control territories in Mexico. Of course, it goes without saying that they're not very concerned about copyright laws being that they torture and kill as a matter of doing business. The Mexican government itself already doesn't have a large enough budget for their own internal needs, never mind enforcing foreign copyrights. So you see, copyright is essentially de-facto meaningless outside the United States and Europe.

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:43AM (#47194125)
    buy a nice boat an disappear and dont forget plenty of fishing gear and a shortwave radio-receiver, go find some abandoned Polynesian island with a fresh water source and just retire and forget modern civilization
    • by Trepidity (597)

      Polynesian island with a fresh water source

      If one exists, the Polynesians themselves would be very interested in hearing about this island...

      • by FudRucker (866063)
        no fresh water source>? then bring a distiller or material to build a distiller and make fresh water from seawater, with 5 million bucks you can buy a lot of hardware
  • by rossdee (243626) on Monday June 09, 2014 @08:52AM (#47194175)

    Why doesn't he just go to some other country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA

    EG North Korea, he'd fit right in with all the other Kim's there

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 09, 2014 @09:27AM (#47194449)

    ...I wouldn't count on him actually planning to pay a cent.

  • slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Monday June 09, 2014 @10:37AM (#47194933) Homepage Journal

    Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom

    Which PR agency do you work for that Kimble has contracted to polish up his image?

    When will the /. crowd understand that the guy is mostly a career criminal and he's the exact kind of person who will feed you to the sharks if he's your boss? His goal in life is winning and living large, and he doesn't give a fuck about politics, inventions, freedom, Internet or any of the other tools he uses to accomplish his goals.

    Suckers, all of you.

All constants are variables.

Working...