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

NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#31

Post by tenpies »

philip1209 wrote: post #26
1024core wrote: post #16

Since when did the NSA become the copyright industry's police? There were no security implications of Kim's operation; why was he targeted by the NSA?

I'm more interested in how much corporate espionage and counter-espionage they do. If a foreign company steals/hacks domestic IP and that hurts the US economy, I wouldn't be surprised if they took action. So, if we can agree that this type of action is reasonable by the NSA, then I could see them justifying the surveillance of Kim Dotcom under industrial counter-surveillance.

It's not just protective. Snowden indicated that part of what they consider national security involves economic security. In their interpretation, their mandate includes corporate and economic espionage, and ensuring that the US maintains its economic edge.

See:

Spying on Petrobas, a a Brazilian oil company: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra...

Spying on an EU Anti-trust official: https://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spied-on-eu-antitrust-official...

And there are a number of cases where the NSA spied on payment processing companies. I haven't included those because you could argue that those may be related to tracking terrorism funding.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#32

Post by e12e »

Fifer82 wrote: post #13
aptidude187 wrote: post #12

Can someone state in a nutshell why this guy keeps getting bullied by the government?

Piracy. MegaUpload was a huge warez distributor around the same time as RapidShare. File Hosters over HTTP

I think it's a little more to it than that - it's not just that they made money of piracy, but also the publicity and prestige around the case. I'd liken it to what happened with Kevin Mitnick - when he eluded the FBI for so long - and the surrounding pressure to increase sentencing around unauthorized access to computer systems. The lobby powers are a bit different this time around, with copyright being the main issue - but "damages" are just as, if not way more, overblown IMNHO.

Piss off large conglomerates, and they'll in turn get the government to throw the book at you, even if they have to write a new book to get it done...

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#33

Post by revelation »

sunsetMurk wrote: post #21
1024core wrote: post #16

Since when did the NSA become the copyright industry's police? There were no security implications of Kim's operation; why was he targeted by the NSA?

(Un)Fortunately they have the tools that others want to use, so other agencies request info & access. Very similar to how the FBI manages a database of faces for facial recognition [1] and your local LEO can query w/o a warrant or probable cause [2]. 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/smile-youre-in-t... 2. ...I'll try to find the link but recently watched a YouTube video of a government hearing on this w…

You phrase it as if this is a daily occurrence, "other agencies request info & access". In Germany, when intelligence agencies merge with ordinary law enforcement, we call it Gestapo.

There should be by definition very little overlap between the two. Law enforcement works nationally, where law applies; intelligence agencies can not work where law applies, because they would be in flagrant violation of it.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#34

Post by revelation »

philip1209 wrote: post #23

Putting aside the target of the surveillance - Yes, the NSA is a spy agency. It's their job to spy outside the country. And of course the spying is illegal outside of the country - no country endorses being spied on by foreign governments.

None of the information obtained by a spy agency can ever enter a court of law, and none of it should ever be "passed" or "shared" with ordinary law enforcement so they can act on it & parallel construct.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#35

Post by toyg »

cavanasm wrote: post #20
aptidude187 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why are rapidgator and uploaded or any other upload services getting off the hook

I'm not sure they are, they're just not nearly as public. Kim Dotcom is / was notoriously boastful about his actions, and all the money he made off those actions. I've never heard similar things about the founders of any other file hosting service founder/owner that is well known for piracy. Makes him an incredibly appealing target I think.

Same as PirateBay, which made its name when they publicly replied to copyright enforcement letters with insults. Refusing to be humbled by established authorities is the real crime, because it corrodes their legitimacy and hence their whole existence.

It's a bit like being homosexual in countries with harsh state-religions but tolerant attitudes: keep it quiet and nobody will bother you, but if you flaunt it then the law will crack down on you, because you're attacking the basis of the whole legal edifice.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#36

Post by dane-pgp »

toufka wrote: post #28
gozur88 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a confusing headline. What the NSA does is probably illegal in every country but the US, but the implication is it's illegal in the US. It's probable they do things that are illegal under US law, but I doubt this is one of them.

The concept of legality gets awkward when talking about the military force of a nation, but even in the United States there are limits to what the military (NSA, DOD, etc.) are authorized to do. Though the matter at hand could be framed as a matter of 'economic security' to the US, it is unclear that such an argument is sound. And if that argument is not sound, the consequences that stem from the US military being in…

I don't know enough about US law, but if the president is required (at least in theory) to receive authorisation from congress before (or after) attacking an enemy nation, is there not some equivalent requirement for using the military apparatus against an ally?

Perhaps the constitution allows the president to do whatever he or she wants with the military (as long as it is within the historic bounds of what militaries do) without triggering the need for congressional approval unless it reaches a "state of war" at which point people might actually start dying.

That would seem like the sort of practical level of discretion that a country would give its executive branch, but I can't help thinking that there could or should be some law somewhere that gave the president's actions against allies some type of legislative basis, so that voters had an idea of how the president would use these secretive powers, and could hold the executive to account at the ballot box.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#37

Post by k-mcgrady »

abfan1127 wrote: post #19
koolba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of political assassination, is anything done by the US government outside the US illegal under US law?

only if its forbidden by treaty.

Even then it doesn't really matter. I'm pretty sure it's now fact that the US broke the United Nations Convention against Torture during the war on terror. I seem to remember the USG even admitting this. Nothing was done. For now the US is powerful enough that it will do what it wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#Comma...

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#38

Post by fenwick67 »

openmosix wrote: post #8
koolba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of political assassination, is anything done by the US government outside the US illegal under US law?

Political assassination has been a thing for the US gov for a while https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/05/cia-long-his...

Yes, thank you.

Similar to how "The president can't have a conflict of interest", the three-letter agencies can basically do whatever they want and get away with it.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#39

Post by wildmusings »

1024core wrote: post #16

Since when did the NSA become the copyright industry's police? There were no security implications of Kim's operation; why was he targeted by the NSA?

The US intelligence apparatus exists to protect the interests of the citizens of the United States. A foreigner who violates millions of dollars of intellectual property belonging to American citizens and companies is a threat to our interests, and also of the interests of the nearly 200 nations that participate in the global copyright regime, whose copyrights he was also violating. Foreigners on foreign soil have no rights as far as US law is concerned.

Re: NSA Unlawfully Surveiled Kim Dotcom in New Zealand

#40

Post by wildmusings »

tenpies wrote: post #31
philip1209 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more interested in how much corporate espionage and counter-espionage they do. If a foreign company steals/hacks domestic IP and that hurts the US economy, I wouldn't be surprised if they took action. So, if we can agree that this type of action is reasonable by the NSA, then I could see them justifying the surveillance of Kim Dotcom under industrial counter-surveillance.

It's not just protective. Snowden indicated that part of what they consider national security involves economic security. In their interpretation, their mandate includes corporate and economic espionage, and ensuring that the US maintains its economic edge. See: Spying on Petrobas, a a Brazilian oil company: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra... Spying on an EU Anti-trust official: https://w…

Economic security is national security. You can't really separate them once you're thinking past the immediate short term. A richer enemy will have better weapons, better technology, better surveillance, and better leverage.
Post reply on HN