Kim Dotcom wins battle in ongoing fight against U.S. extradition • Hacker News Board

Re: Kim Dotcom wins battle in ongoing fight against U.S. extradition

#141

Post by jashmatthews » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

jhayward wrote: post #140

jashmatthews wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like SWAT than anti-terror, but yes, our police execute 3+ tactical responses per day. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...

You are quoting stats on the Armed Offender squads, which are analogous to US SWAT teams. Kim Dotcom was taken by the anti-terrorism Special Tactics Group, which is definitely not the Armed Offender Squad. They train with SAS, and are explicitly designed to take on high risk terrorist assaults. I'm asking how often they are deployed, and of course implicitly, whether serving warrants for copyright infringement is in…

Yes, serving warrants and raiding gang houses is what the STG normally do in their jobs as Armed Offenders Squad officers. They're the same officers. The equipment is exactly the same. It just means it's the top few officers who get to train with the SAS.

We don't have a separate military police force in New Zealand.

Re: Kim Dotcom wins battle in ongoing fight against U.S. extradition

#142

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 2:35 AM UTC

Mononokay wrote: post #51

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn’t hack anything nor get rich off of the bubble. He was always a fraud.

> nor get rich off of the bubble. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/jan/26/internetn... > He didn’t hack anything He claims to have, and I'm fairly sure he's convicted of doing so in his home country, but I'm not going to contest it because I'm not incredibly familiar with that part of the issue. I was going off of his Wikipedia page, which as always can be innaccurate.

[deleted]

Re: Kim Dotcom wins battle in ongoing fight against U.S. extradition

#143

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 2:44 AM UTC

Mononokay wrote: post #51

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn’t hack anything nor get rich off of the bubble. He was always a fraud.

> nor get rich off of the bubble. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/jan/26/internetn... > He didn’t hack anything He claims to have, and I'm fairly sure he's convicted of doing so in his home country, but I'm not going to contest it because I'm not incredibly familiar with that part of the issue. I was going off of his Wikipedia page, which as always can be innaccurate.

He was well known to folks in the security scene in the late 90s/early 2000s. He had many bold claims, but knew nothing about security and generally bragged about his fictional transgressions for attention. It's not that it's difficult to believe that someone of even low to moderate skill could have hacked such targets during that time, it's just that he was a big talker that could never back up what he was saying.

He initially got rich off of a blatant pump and dump engineered by himself, followed by some Ponzi schemes, and a lot of credit card fraud, most of which he probably wasn't busted for. It wasn't what we typically think of as Dot Com Bubble money, it just happened to take advantage of that investment climate.

Megaupload was the closest thing to legitimate he has done.