Vexing bullshit

That's the only way to see the High Court's decision The Attorney-General v Dotcom, released today. In the context of ongoing litigation, Kim Dotcom had filed urgent Privacy Act requests to multiple agencies requesting everything they held about him. The agencies had responded by transferring the requests to the Attourny-General, his opponent in the litigation, who then refused them as "vexatious". The Human Rights Review Tribunal had previously held that both the transfer and refusal unlawful: that the transfer to an agency which did not in fact hold the information being sought was contrary to the Act, and that the bar to vexatiousness being very high - previous rulings had said that it required a request to be such that no-one could make it in good faith - the refusal was also unlawful. The High Court has refused this. Its reason? Because Dotcom had requested information in the context of litigation, and he had had the temerity to demand it urgently.

This, simply speaking, is bullshit. Information held by an agency about you does not become "more closely connected" with another agency simply because you are involved in litigation with the government. And requesting urgency does not make a request inherently vexatious. To the contrary, under the traditional legal interpretation, being involved in litigation with an agency is a good reason to seek information held by that agency, and a strong indication that a request is not vexatious. Insofar as the request for urgent treatment of a request is seen as unreasonable, the appropriate action for an agency to take is simply to process it in normal timeframes - not refuse it.

The High Court has turned the law on its head. It has given licence to government agencies to play that games with each other and transfer requests to agencies which do not hold the information sought, while dramatically expanding the definition of vexatious to allow any request from someone the government labels an "enemy" to be refused. And this affects more than just the Privacy Act, because the Official Information Act shares these provisions. Secretive government agencies will use this decision to refuse requests.

With this decision, a subservient and authoritarian High Court has undermined official information rights for us all. We can only hope that it will be appealed and overturned, or the freedom of information and privacy regimes are in real trouble.

The GCSB has no control over its systems

That's the natural conclusion of their latest admissions about illegal spying on Kim Dotcom:

The GCSB also told the High Court the "majority of selectors" were removed on January 24, 2012, the Monday following the raid, and a further "small number of selectors" were removed on January 30, 2012.

"They say that all activity by GCSB staff relating to Operation Debut ceased by 30 January, 2012."

But it added: "Limited interception of some communications continued beyond the detasking date without the knowledge of GCSB staff."

The GCSB said it was unaware of continued access of Dotcom through its systems until legal action was filed over the unlawful spying.

How did they not know? There's a tacit admission that the NSA might have been involved, and that the GCSB assisted them to illegally spy on a New Zealand resident, in violation of both New Zealand law and the Five Eyes agreement. There's also a suggestion that the equipment really belongs to and works for the NSA, and that the GCSB don't have control over it. Either way, they seem unable to meet their obligations under New Zealand law, or to find their arse with both hands. And it raises the obvious question: if they can't work their toys properly, why do we let them play with them?

Every time the GCSB comes under any sort of scrutiny, they're found to be incompetent muppets at best, if not criminals working for a foreign power. Its long past time this agency was shut down, its spying functions removed, and its privacy invading equipment and records thrown in a volcano. We need a computer security agency. We do not need foreign spies.

The GCSB perjured themselves

Kim Dotcom lost a court case last week over whether he could see the communications the GCSB intercepted from him in order to assess the amount of damages he is owed. But in doing so, we learned something new: that illegal surveillance lasted two months longer than previously admitted, and the GCSB lied about it in court:

The illegal spying which earned Kim Dotcom an apology from former Prime Minister Sir John Key went on two months longer than previously admitted, according to a High Court judgment.

The revelation - if accurate - would open a can of worms over sworn admissions the GCSB has made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal over assistance given to police ahead of the FBI-inspired 2012 raid which saw Dotcom and three others arrested.

It could also raise the possibility of a fresh apology to Dotcom because Key's apology was in the context of spying from December 16, 2011 through to January 20, 2012.

The GCSB had previously given sworn statements on the earlier date in court, so the spies who gave those statements are now on the hook for perjury. But that's not all - because the new date also means that the GCSB continued spying on Dotcom for a full month after they knew it was illegal. Which pushes their spying from "incompetent mistake for which people should lose their jobs" to "knowing illegality for which people should go to jail". Not that that, or a perjury prosecution, will ever happen. Because if we've learned one thing from this whole saga, its that the law simply does not apply to the GCSB. And that makes one of the foundations of consent in the modern state - equal laws, applying to the government as well as the people - a lie.

The GCSB are not just undermining our sovereignty and our international relations. They are also undermining the foundations of our democracy. They are a poison in our body politic. And it is long past time we eliminated them.

The Dotcom extradition decision

The High Court has ruled that Kim Dotcom can be extradited to the USA. But not for copyright infringement. Instead, he'll be extradited for conspiracy and money laundering:

After five months of deliberation, Gilbert found that Dotcom remained eligible for extradition to the US - but not on copyright charges.

The judge found in favour of arguments put by Dotcom's legal team, led by Ron Mansfield, that there was no equivalent "copyright" crime in New Zealand that would activate the extradition treaty.

However, the ruling also saw Justice Gilbert finding in favour of the US argument that Dotcom - and his three co-accused - could be extradited because it was at essence a "fraud" case and there was such a crime in the extradition treaty.

Except that what the US is calling "fraud" relies fundamentally on the idea that Dotcom's copyright infringement was criminal (likewise, "money laundering" requires that the money being laundered be criminally obtained). So we have a situation where a man can't be extradited for one "offence", because its not illegal here, but can be extradited for subsidiary offences which depend on the illegality of the first. Which doesn't really make sense. He could never be charged with those things in New Zealand, so why are we extraditing on them?

And it raises an obvious question: if we can't extradite on copyright infringement, will we require the US to drop those charges before extradition? If not, then isn't what is forbidden in law effectively allowed in practice, provided a foreign state can find another charge to stick on the docket?

The judgement is being appealed, of course. So hopefully we'll get some more clarity on this. Meanwhile, given the US government's role as the enforcement arm of the copyright mafia, I think its time we revisited our extradition laws, to make it clear that we will not under any circumstances extradite for such pretend "crimes". If Hollywood thinks Dotcom cost them money, they can sue. But if its not an offence in New Zealand law, our courts shouldn't collude in allowing a foreign state to jail a New Zealand citizen resident.

Correction: Kim Dotcom is an NZ resident, not a citizen.

Muppets

Kim Dotcom's extradition hearing is currently underway, and it appears to have hit a hurdle: the government can't find key documentation:

The Crown has been unable to produce the original notices asking for Kim Dotcom and his co-accused to be extradited to the United States.

[...]

North Shore district court services manager Fiona Parkes - a witness for the Crown - today produced several documents she said appeared to be copies of the extradition requests.

Mr Dotcom's lawyer Ron Mansfield pointed out the documents were not date-stamped and asked Ms Parkes if she knew whether any originals existed.

She said she did not.

Yesterday a Justice Ministry employee was unable to confirm if the former Justice Minister, Judith Collins, had seen the provisional arrest warrants and the supporting evidence before the 2012 raid on Mr Dotcom's mansion went ahead.

Under the Extradition Act, the Justice Minister is meant to be given a copy of the warrants and supporting evidence, as part of a briefing.

This matters. A key question in extradition hearings is whether the supporting documents have been produced to the court. The fact that they can't do that (and apparently failed to follow due process in briefing the Minister, creating instant grounds for judicial review) makes them look like a bunch of muppets. And when it comes to matters of law enforcement and people's freedom (and millions of dollars in damages if they fuck up), you'd think they'd take a little more care...

More harassment of Dotcom

Not content with harassing Kim Dotcom at US behest, our government is now harassing anyone who says they're visiting him:

Welcome to New Zealand - unless you're here to see Kim Dotcom.

That seems to be the message for those arriving in the country after yet another guest visiting the businessman was detained by the Customs Service for hours.

A connection to the accused copyright pirate has been linked on another occasion with a long stay in a detention room - and a lot of strange questions.

Graphic designer Sarah Torrent, 22, spent seven hours being quizzed by officials after landing in New Zealand yesterday and telling border officials she was staying at Dotcom's house.

She had met Dotcom online and he invited her to travel to New Zealand for a holiday.

Dotcom said more than a dozen visitors have been isolated by the Customs Service after declaring his home address for their stay in New Zealand.

A particularly creepy feature: they demanded the passwords to her laptop and phone, allowing them to poke through the most private aspects of her life (and copy and store them for the future amusement of themselves and any partner organisations). Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? It doesn't exist if you're an enemy of the (United) State(s).

But this is what happens if you have a government body obsessed with getting "brownie points" with the FBI: people's rights get stomped on, all so some petty manager can big-note. And our international reputation and basic decency get to be collateral damage for US bureaucratic bribery.

This'll work well

Buoyed by his fantastic success in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom wants to launch the Internet party in the United States:

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom says he will be "Hillary's worst nightmare" as he revealed plans for a US version of the Internet Party.

Dotcom, who is fighting extradition to the US where he is wanted on piracy charges took to Twitter today to announce the new political movement.

"The Internet Party is coming to the United States in 2015. Stay tuned for our celebrity founders from the music, film and Internet industry," Dotcom posted.

This is a mad idea. It is extremely difficult to break into politics with a new party. What made the Internet Party potentially viable in New Zealand was MMP, and an alliance with Mana supposedly guaranteeing it a seat (whoops). The US has neither of those advantages. Instead, it has an extremely regressive form of FPP, with gerrymandered districts and restrictive ballot-access laws designed to keep politics firmly in the grasp of the current oligarchy. On the plus side, he's free to throw millions of dollars at candidates in an effort to buy a result, but while he's rich by New Zealand standards, Dotcom is a minnow in the US funding pool. US donors blew US$3.7 billion buying influence in this year's midterms; Dotcom's paltry millions are a drop in the bucket.

A stretch

This morning the Herald revealed that Kim Dotcom had been convicted and fined for dangerous driving in 2009, but had not declared it on his application for residency. Immigration is now talking about deporting him.

So, this is what we are now: a country where the government talks openly of deporting its political enemies for traffic offences.

Deporting Dotcom would require the Minister to find that his residency was procured through fraud. That would require the Minister to find that Dotcom knowingly concealed his conviction, rather than viewing it as a speeding ticket. But given the summary nature of the proceeding, that would be a stretch. If the Minister did make such a finding, it would be subject to appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and to judicial review for bias. And I'm not sure the government would win such a case.

Sadly, this being third-term National, I don't think we can rely on them not to try. Which at least will be entertaining as they buy themselves another legal nightmare.

Key lied about knowing Dotcom

Back in 2012, John Key told us he had never heard of Kim Dotcom until the day before the infamous raid.

He lied about that too:

The email being relied on by Dotcom is dated October 27, 2010 and is purported to be from Warner Brothers chairman and chief executive Kevin Tsujihara to a senior executive at the Motion Picture Association of America - the lobby group for the Hollywood studios.

[...]

The claimed email reads: "We had a really good meeting with the Prime Minister. He's a fan and we're getting what we came for. Your groundwork in New Zealand is paying off. I see strong support for our anti-piracy effort.

"John Key told me in private that they are granting Dotcom residency despite pushback from officials about his criminal past. His AG will do everything in his power to assist us with our case. VIP treatment and then a one-way ticket to Virginia.

"This is a game changer. The DOJ is against the Hong Kong option. No confidence in the Chinese. Great job."

I guess when the PM said this morning that there were "no records", he didn't stop to think that other people might have kept some, however informal.

But while it matters to Dotcom, its small news compared to the GCSB revelations. What it does tell us though is that Key is a liar, and a systematic one at that. He has consistently been deceitful with us on this issue. And if he's lied about this, what else has he lied about?

Do the people of New Zealand really want a proven liar as Prime Minister?

In case anyone had forgotten

The moment of truth is nearly here:

Vaguely creepy

Its launch day for the Internet party. So naturally, its time to dish the dirt on Kim Dotcom:

Kim Dotcom’s political aspirations have taken a hit after he admitted owning a rare piece of Nazi memorabilia, a signed copy of Hitler's autobiographical manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

Speaking on 3 News, the German born internet entrepreneur said it was among several rare pieces of rare World War II memorabilia he had bought. Other items in his collection include a cigar holder that once belonged to British leader Winston Churchill and a pen that belonged to Soviet leader Josef Stalin.

This doesn't mean that Dotcom is a Nazi, but it is vaguely creepy (and ditto on the Stalin stuff), and its unlikely to endear him to voters. Yes, I grok that his favourite game leads naturally to an interest in World War II (just as mine has led to an interest in medieval history), but owning stuff by the Twentieth Century's greatest criminal (and the runner-up) is really taking that too far.

But then, as an unsentimental person, I just don't get memorabilia in general.