Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#11

Post by corin_ »

acqq wrote: post #6

This was insightful for me: ""Congress, initially as part of the War on Drugs but later expanded to include most federal offenses, criminalized almost every financial transaction that flows from funds that are the proceeds of ‘specified unlawful activity,’" Bruce Maloy, an Atlanta-based attorney and an expert in US extradition law, told Ars by e-mail. "In simplest terms, if you possess funds from a crime and do anyth…

I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way they attached the Patriot Act to terrorism.

I could be wrong about that, but as far as I'm aware it was an innocent connection to drugs. After all, if you are impeaching civil liberties you may need a smokescreen like drugs or terrorism, but making it illegal to use illegally-gained funds is something I suspect most US citizens would be OK with immediately without the need for deception.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#12

Post by Pyxl101 »

new299 wrote: post #10
corin_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only am I not a lawyer, I also don't know/remember many of the details of this case. And I said likely, not definitely, guilty in my opinion. Regarding mens rea, I imagine it's tougher to argue that you thought you were legal technically than to argue you had no idea you might be breaking the law? E.g. Someone who has never heard of magic mushrooms but find then growing and sells them has a better chance of not b…

Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses.…

An objection that I heard mentioned previously: removing the links didn't remove the actual content, which could be available through another link (or hundreds of links, some in private forums, etc.). So actually getting content off the platform was tough. Mentioned in: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smas...

On the other hand, who can say whether content is illegal in all contexts. Perhaps your pirated movie is my legitimate backup.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#13

Post by acqq »

corin_ wrote: post #11
acqq wrote: post #6

This was insightful for me: ""Congress, initially as part of the War on Drugs but later expanded to include most federal offenses, criminalized almost every financial transaction that flows from funds that are the proceeds of ‘specified unlawful activity,’" Bruce Maloy, an Atlanta-based attorney and an expert in US extradition law, told Ars by e-mail. "In simplest terms, if you possess funds from a crime and do anyth…

I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way…

So how US managed to survive without that law for all the years? I can't imagine the law was necessary for anything, except that it allowed US to prosecute those who'd be off the hook otherwise. So yes I do believe it was the "War on Drugs" peddled as the rationale for the law: "look these drug guys are slipping away, we have to make a new law and get them with it."

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#14

Post by lotsofmangos »

corin_ wrote: post #11
acqq wrote: post #6

This was insightful for me: ""Congress, initially as part of the War on Drugs but later expanded to include most federal offenses, criminalized almost every financial transaction that flows from funds that are the proceeds of ‘specified unlawful activity,’" Bruce Maloy, an Atlanta-based attorney and an expert in US extradition law, told Ars by e-mail. "In simplest terms, if you possess funds from a crime and do anyth…

I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way…

I am not entirely sure that it is necessary to charge people twice for the same thing. If someone robs a bank, it is to try and spend that money. Making it an extra crime of spending the money isn't going to stop people from trying to spend the money. That is what the money is for. What it does do, is encourage the bank robber try and get other people to spend the money on their behalf, to try and offload those potential charges, so corrupting and jailing an ever widening circle of people.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#15

Post by new299 »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #12
new299 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just, in case it's of interest, statements from Kim suggest that he was trying to comply with the DMCA. That all major studios has direct access to the platform to delete links. I personally find the issues unclear, as obviously to a degree as he suggests below, Youtube and other providers are in a similar position: "Well, of course everybody knows that the internet is being used for legitimate and illegitimate uses.…

An objection that I heard mentioned previously: removing the links didn't remove the actual content, which could be available through another link (or hundreds of links, some in private forums, etc.). So actually getting content off the platform was tough. Mentioned in: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/why-the-feds-smas... On the other hand, who can say whether content is illegal in all contexts. Perhaps yo…

Yes, I guess it could be argued that this is part of the way they managed their deduplication system, and that once all links had been removed the context would be removed. Certainly similar arguments could probably be used for copyrighted material on Dropbox, and I imagine there maybe a deduplication on Youtube, and similar issues also.

If this really is the only issue it seems like quite a weak case to me, as with more diligence the copyright holders could have removed all copies. But I guess we'll never know all the details.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#16

Post by corin_ »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #14
corin_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way…

I am not entirely sure that it is necessary to charge people twice for the same thing. If someone robs a bank, it is to try and spend that money. Making it an extra crime of spending the money isn't going to stop people from trying to spend the money. That is what the money is for. What it does do, is encourage the bank robber try and get other people to spend the money on their behalf, to try and offload those poten…

My argument isn't that the law is good/bad (I don't know much about it, other than what was in this Ars article), just that I think they wanted the law to make it easier to catch criminals in general and it just so happened the criminals at the top of their list were drugs related, rather than the implication that the war on drugs led to this law.

With a bit more knowledge I could certainly be persuaded (not that it matters) into thinking this additional law is either good or bad for society - and I'm someone who supports the decriminalization (and probably the legalization, but my mind isn't quite made up on that) of all drugs, so purely within the scope of the war on drugs I'm against any law that furthers it.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#17

Post by lotsofmangos »

corin_ wrote: post #16
lotsofmangos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not entirely sure that it is necessary to charge people twice for the same thing. If someone robs a bank, it is to try and spend that money. Making it an extra crime of spending the money isn't going to stop people from trying to spend the money. That is what the money is for. What it does do, is encourage the bank robber try and get other people to spend the money on their behalf, to try and offload those poten…

My argument isn't that the law is good/bad (I don't know much about it, other than what was in this Ars article), just that I think they wanted the law to make it easier to catch criminals in general and it just so happened the criminals at the top of their list were drugs related, rather than the implication that the war on drugs led to this law. With a bit more knowledge I could certainly be persuaded (not that it…

Saying "making it illegal to use illegally-gained funds is something I suspect most US citizens would be OK with", is making an argument that the law is good in the eyes of US society, even if it doesn't state your specific position.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#18

Post by rayiner »

acqq wrote: post #13
corin_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way…

So how US managed to survive without that law for all the years? I can't imagine the law was necessary for anything, except that it allowed US to prosecute those who'd be off the hook otherwise. So yes I do believe it was the "War on Drugs" peddled as the rationale for the law: "look these drug guys are slipping away, we have to make a new law and get them with it."

A lot of the financial transaction laws are contemporaneous with RICO, and were aimed at organized crime which is as a huge problem back then. Mafia families were conducting hits in midtown Manhattan back in the 1970's, in highly public places like high end restaurants. This is pre-1980's escalation of the drug war too.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#19

Post by pyre »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #17
corin_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument isn't that the law is good/bad (I don't know much about it, other than what was in this Ars article), just that I think they wanted the law to make it easier to catch criminals in general and it just so happened the criminals at the top of their list were drugs related, rather than the implication that the war on drugs led to this law. With a bit more knowledge I could certainly be persuaded (not that it…

Saying "making it illegal to use illegally-gained funds is something I suspect most US citizens would be OK with" , is making an argument that the law is good in the eyes of US society, even if it doesn't state your specific position.

Just because a majority of society agrees with something doesn't mean that someone stating so agrees, or that it is a benefit to society in general.

Re: Why Kim Dotcom hasn’t been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload

#20

Post by longlivegnu »

ObviousScience wrote: post #5
corin_ wrote: post #3

When will the US DoJ hire a decent PR firm? Again and again during these three years they've made cock-ups that push people (like myself) towards supporting Dotcom even if we don't particularly like the guy, and even if we think for the actual charges he's likely in the wrong. > In the forfeiture case, prosecutors will argue why Dotcom’s claim on the frozen assets should not be allowed—and therefore forfeited to the…

It doesn't help their case in my mind that they probably broke the law with the seizures they performed: I was using Megaupload to store backups and distribute files I legally owned, such a game maps or documents. During their raids, they seized the funds used to provision the servers, failed to preserve the data, went so far as to prevent efforts on the part of Megaupload to return the data to me, and failed to allo…

Many Americans do not care if the government breaks the law and I'm sure the lawyers will try to justify it in courts.
Post reply on HN