Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

torrentfreak.com

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes this translates even down to the individual level. I've watched a lot of police bodycam videos and it's surprising how many people make their situation worse by being loud obnoxious tightwads when calmly answering questions and handing over your license would have you on your way in 5 minutes.

I get what you're saying, but being an obnoxious tightwad isn't actually against the rules, and it's not OK that there are some societies in the world where being an obnoxious tightwad towards a force ostensibly tasked with PROTECTING their fellow citizens (including the obnoxious one) will take this as a cue to 1) violate your civil liberties/rights, and/or 2) commit bodily harm to your person, and then 3) get away…

> being an obnoxious tightwad isn't actually against the rules

Growing up or re-evaluating ideas you got when you were 14 is also not against the rules.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#812
post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking at this through too narrow a lens, I think. The Government has a duty to protect domestic industry from foreign threats, and throughout history, that isn't reserved to state actors. Megaupload was a severe threat(*) to major American industries, and Kim Dotcom flagrantly ignored pressure from America to stop what it was doing. When that happens the Government gets to pick which of its heavy hammers to…

I think this is a good take. Much of the commentary here has been on the morality or otherwise of copyright infringement, proportional legal response and extraterritorial reach. All topics of interest, certainly, but clouding the real story here. This is foreign policy, and the US has pursued control of copyright distribution, globally, for a very long time. Being from Australia, I remember the sense of disquiet as o…

> To me, the interests served are the conglomerate of political and corporate powers, which may be at odds with the average US citizen.

That's a fair criticism, and thank you for the insightful comment that I think gets at what I was talking about. I think at the heart of it is the question of whether what's good for American industry is good for the American people, and that question almost never has a good answer.

I have complicated feelings about this issue, because on the one hand, I have experience working with these media organizations and I can tell you they are extremely adverse to change and would prefer dumping money into legal battles than even consider innovating. They will always be dragged kicking and screaming into doing it. And the pressure that piracy put onto the industry did lead to some innovation that was for the better. No example is better than early Hulu, which was an industry collaboration, and at its heart was an admission of failure of legacy business practices to put television and later film on the internet for free (and then later, for a price).

On the other hand, entertainment is an extremely important American industry. It's one of our chief exports and a source of soft power. It gets people around the world to learn English without us shipping teachers to foreign countries, it teaches Americanisms to people who've never visited the country, and helps influence not only the perception of America but allows us to export American values to countries that don't have them (whether or not that's good or moral is up to you to decide). Those are all good things for the American people when we're exporting or importing anything else, and in the globalized economy that's the kind of soft power that has second order effects on every other industry.

When that industry is threatened and they can point to a specific foreign actor that is maliciously targeting them and making it harder for the industry to operate efficiently, then yea, it makes sense for the government to bring down the heaviest hammer they possibly can and flex their hegemony on allies to put an end to it. And in terms of pragmatism, it's easier to shut off the threat at the source than to deal with the effects domestically while suffering those internationally.

This is an antiquated example, but it's why the government invaded Tripoli in the early 19th century. America was dependent on exports of their goods to Europe, and Barbary pirates threatened that. So instead of just accepting what happens overseas, they joined with Sweden and sent naval squadrons and marines to force the state of Tripolitania to enforce peace (through war). You could say that was some conglomerate of political and corporate powers with exporters, but at the end of the day it was crucial for the fledgling state to make others understand they shouldn't mess with American ships at sea. And it's something we do to this day, by putting naval forces on major shipping routes and effectively destroying piracy as an institution. And we, the American people, get lower prices and higher profits as a result.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Comparing Kim Dotcom to Snowden or even Assange feels gross. He was a commercial opportunist, not a real activist or whistleblower.

Regardless of the reason, he gave many kids who couldn't afford to pay, a way to access movies and TV shows. I haven't watched a movie or a TV show for the past 20 years because its a waste of time for kids, but when I was young and couldn't afford to pay, I would use mega

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the ca…

To add: you know with the stable-diffusion function, there are ranges of vectors whereby technically just conjuring them is 15 years federal and possessing them is 5 each. That is 20-25% of a lifetime in one, 7.5% in the other! You know how nuts that sounds to me as a mathematician?!

It’s not nuts when you stop being intentionally obtuse and speak plainly: yes, child abuse material can be represented by a variety of mathematical means, but it’s abhorrent nature makes it morally correct for those laws to exist.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? The problem is that government doesn’t have a line, that line is defined by the resistance it faces. Today it might be people sharing MP3s, tomorrow they will come after you for hosting a parody of mickey mouse. 10 years from now they’ll be busting down doors for sharing illegal memes (Seems to already be the ca…

To add: you know with the stable-diffusion function, there are ranges of vectors whereby technically just conjuring them is 15 years federal and possessing them is 5 each. That is 20-25% of a lifetime in one, 7.5% in the other! You know how nuts that sounds to me as a mathematician?!

I think theres some detail missing. Are you talking about someone crafting a prompt to generate simulated child pornography and being held accountable for the action and content?

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#816
post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those who officially abandoned their green cards are subject to FATCA for life and often struggle to open bank accounts abroad.

That's false. FATCA only applies to American taxpayers like U.S. businesses[1], citizens, greencard holders, and other residents [2]. It does not apply to nonresident illegal aliens, former citizens, or nonresident former greencard holders. [1] In this context, including foreign businesses that file a U.S. tax return. [2] Note that for FATCA purposes, if a person is a US taxpayer for any portion of the year, they are…

Yes, theoretically. Practically though when one applies to open an account they will be asked "do you have or have you ever had a US address or phone number? Have you ever had a greencard? Have you ever had SSN? Were you a subject to US taxation?" and single YES would lead to rejection. For banks which make a few bucks per year per customer dealing with anyone who remotely could be a subject to FATCA is just not worth it.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#817

I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude. But everything has a limit, specifically his resistance against the law, even if he hid it behind virtues. I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. Isn't it wiser to sto…

It's not always black and white; let's be honest, yes, Kim Dotcom was probably more about piracy than freedom of whatever simply because that's where his money was. But: > Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise? Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

>> Isn't it wiser to stop at some point, and find other stuff to do, even if all your nerves say otherwise?

> Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general?

I don't think it's a relevant comparison, but I do think that particular suggestion should apply to them. Imo a fundamental component of "succeeding" in Western culture is in how quickly you learn which parts of which systems act on perverse incentives or actively against the good of the people, and subsequently being able read the room when there's an opportunity to play hero; sticking your neck out might earn you a smily face sticker next to your obituary, but more likely it'll end up screwing you, and it's naive and/or arrogant to think that this time will be different and you'll singlehandedly rid the ocean of pollution (metaphorically). Realizing that you can't rid the ocean of pollution doesn't mean you should start dumping more trash into it, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your civic duty to reduce your personal waste, but it does mean you have to set your ego aside for your own benefit, because in practice and in all likelihood you'll make practically zero or even very negative difference, and put a real tangible target on your back, in whichever context this plays out.

Could be a safety meeting at your company in which you're just a peon and you feel like speaking up about a code violation, could be that you're a young Mr Beast employee that wants to vouch for their co-worker who's making less but doing more, or it could be that you want to make your company's website more accessible, in any case, unless you very clearly have the latitude to do so and control over the outcome, don't, because you'll screw yourself or someone else.

Drive as well as you can in your lane, whatever that means to you, and if you don't like it, signal and change lanes, then do it again.

This also means not overexerting oneself on things that require real tangible sacrifice but have only tenuous, nebulous, or only marginally more financially beneficial outcomes. Don't sacrifice too much time alone or with your partner or family or in nature for shipping yet another arbitrary AI SaaS bs product that will disappear in a week, pick the relevant battles and demand am important outcome, we don't have enough time to squander on such asinine missions. Again, that doesn't mean don't do work, or earn money, or help others, or whatever, just be careful how much of your life you trade for some 1s and 0s.

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country. The USA can, and does, tax non-citizens. Many countries tax non-citizens. Go out and buy a foreign stock-they will tax you on…

What he meant was that the USA can't levy income tax on non-citizens living in other countries.

> What he meant was that the USA can't levy income tax on non-citizens living in other countries.

I did not see that in his comment. He said tax. You are making a pretty big leap.

Your comment is wrong too and here is the IRS link on when nonresident aliens have to file American taxes. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxa...

Re: Kim Dotcom's extradition to the U.S. given green light by New Zealand

#820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kim Dotcom is simply a career criminal, settling on piracy after having previously been convicted of trafficking in stolen phone calling cards and embezzlement. He simply figured out a crime that is socially more accepted than what he engaged in previously, but it was always about the money for him.

Know any decent computer nerds in the 80s/90s that weren’t at least dabbling in that stuff? Hell there was a whole monthly meeting and magazine dedicated to that sort of behavior. Criminal? Yes. Part of hacker culture? Also yes. Too bad Mr Goldstein lost all credibility (that he may or may not have had) when he started shaming folks for not taking the clot shot.

> Know any decent computer nerds in the 80s/90s that weren’t at least dabbling in that stuff?

Off the top of my head, Cliff Stoll did some pretty hackerish stuff on the right side of the law.

Post reply on HN