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

New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#71

Post by vacri »

craigds wrote: post #25
philliphaydon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a kiwi. This entire case makes me sick. This should have been thrown out of court a long time ago. This is a political move and nothing else. It's NZ on its knees sucking off the United States. From day 1 it's been illegal. Hidden process, and laws changed to make the process more legal. I hate my country now.

This is exactly how I feel about it. It's not just this case obviously. I used to be proud to be a New Zealander, but the last 5-10 years have made it dreadfully obvious we're actually being operated by foreign and commercial interests, and local/national leaders have no interest in changing that. Sure, it's probably not as bad as certain other places, but it no longer fills me with pride. I'm tired of this country :…

I went to NZ in January, and I was a bit sad how much traction the LotR films had gained as 'proxy for kiwiness'. From the airline to the airport to posters and promotional material everywhere; on city streets, in supermarkets... it almost felt like LotR had become part of the national psyche, that LotR was NZ, rather than something cool that NZ had done.

I imagine it's waned a bit by now, though.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#72

Post by fixermark »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #47
philliphaydon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. It's the other charges they slapped on top to justify it.

Ahh, so they're fraudulently charging him in order to justify it. Why haven't the US attorneys responsible for this been disbarred?

Because the charges aren't fraudulent.

They're dependent upon the secondary copyright infringement charge, but racketeering and money laundering are quite serious.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#73

Post by schrodinger »

pheroden wrote: post #50
xupybd wrote: post #39

Unrelated, but does `Bollocks` mean anything to people outside of NZ?

Literally, it means testicles, but more colloclially it means bullshit in every English speaking country I know of. edit: Apparently not. Just messaged my American buddy, and he thought it might be a wig for cows... So, maybe not Americans.

I'm an American, and I think most Americans would recognize it as meaning "bullshit"; I certainly did. it's not commonly used but it is commonly understood.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#74

Post by xupybd »

circlecrimson wrote: post #70
xupybd wrote: post #39

Unrelated, but does `Bollocks` mean anything to people outside of NZ?

I don't mean to flame but even the slightest cursory look at world culture would have given you the answer to this question.

Sorry, I thought it would make interesting conversation.

I'll happily delete my question, if this is detracting from the discussion?

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#75

Post by vacri »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #43
eliudnir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- I'm glad. He's a scumbag who profited TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS off content that he knew to be copyright infringing. He deserves prison time. Riiiiight.... Not conflating at all....

It is my opinion that Kim Dotcom's actions are both unlawful and wrong. They could have been unlawful but not wrong. Or lawful but wrong. Or even lawful and not wrong. However it is my opinion that they are simultaneously unlawful and wrong. Both the unlawfulness and wrongness are arguable on their own terms and merits without reference to the other. You're free to disagree with me. You may hold a different opinion.…

> I don't mind downvotes for disagreeing with the HN HiveMind.

When you have to hedge your comments like this, it's generally because your arguments are weak.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#76

Post by grecy »

revelation wrote: post #57

The precedent here being that you may be extradited to a country you have never even visited on the basis of something on the internet. If your country is friendly with Uganda, try not discussing your nontraditional sexual orientation online. There's a bigger picture here. We desperately need to rethink what laws and in particular which jurisdiction applies. The previous approach ("all of them, all of the time") has…

This is the slippery slope that terrifies me.

It's also not worth mentioning online you drink alcohol unless you want to be extradited to certain middle eastern countries.

Females might not want to mention online they've had sex before marriage unless they want to extradited to certain countries.

Americans might not want to mention online they have semi and fully automatic weapons unless they want to extradited to Canada/Australia/UK/Etc.

etc. etc. etc. The list is endless when a country a person has never been to can have anyone in the world extradited for something they did online which breaches local laws.

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#77

Post by rosege »

philliphaydon wrote: post #14
forrestthewoods wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Zealand is a sovereign nation. One that has laws which established residency for Kim Dotcom. And one that has signed international treaties with other sovereign nations. New Zealand has used their own judicial system to reach this decision. They are behaving in accordance to their own laws and agreements they were willing participants to. In short, there's nothing wrong here. Not in the slightest.

As a kiwi. This entire case makes me sick. This should have been thrown out of court a long time ago. This is a political move and nothing else. It's NZ on its knees sucking off the United States. From day 1 it's been illegal. Hidden process, and laws changed to make the process more legal. I hate my country now.

And NZ used to be one of the few countries that wasnt afraid to tell the US no, like they did with nuclear bases/vessels

Re: New Zealand court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to US

#78

Post by tacos »

vacri wrote: post #64
meric wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If U.S. citizen who does not reside in New Zealand who is not a New Zealand citizen broke an New Zealand law while living in the U.S. operating a U.K. operation, I don't think he will be extradited to New Zealand. If I wanted to be subject to U.S.'s laws I'd go to the U.S. The content owners should be forced to file lawsuits in Hong Kong or New Zealand. Otherwise it'd be as if New Zealand and Hong Kong are mere U.S.…

Welcome to 'international treaties', the new kind of law that you can't change by simply voting in a different party.

Welcome to 'contract law', the old kind of law that you can't change by voting in a new CEO. Not sure that I want President Trump being able to nullify the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties.

There are clear procedures for modifying and ratifying treaties for good reason.

Post reply on HN