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

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

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by troad »

gengwyn wrote: post #412
vasco wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing you learn over the years is that people make up everything. I can't recall the exact quote but the character Frank Underwood once said something to the effect of "the law is the law, but the law is people and I know people". Meaning he could control the situation regardless. The opposite also happens and you can see cases like this or Shkreli, Dotcom and others where they think being edgy on top of minor cr…

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.

"Obnoxious tightwad" is in the eyes of the beholder. Asserting your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights won't make you popular with the police, and yet you're far safer asserting those rights than getting overly talkative and compliant with the police. [0]

The tricky thing about a principled stand in favour of civil liberties is that you spend a lot of your time defending scoundrels, because it's their civil liberties that are most in danger from the mob and government. And once their rights go, yours are sure to follow.

[0] If you disagree, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

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

#863

Post by fnordian_slip »

rustcleaner wrote: post #795
oceanplexian wrote: post #732

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…

>that line is defined by the resistance it faces THIS is why the Second Amendment. It's easy to revenge-kill a crazy, it's harder to revenge-kill a government. Keep your governments small and your crazies armed!

I've never understood that sentiment. The US has the second amendment, and it doesn't seem to do much for personal freedom there. Europe does not, and I feel a lot more free in most European countries than I do in the US, especially when it comes to encounters with representatives of the state (LEOs).

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

#864

Post by ezoe »

I still don't understand how could he got an extradition to US.

He doesn't have US nationality and he was living most of his life in Germany and New Zealand.

We have copyright treaties signed by most nations. I think the copyright infringement crime shall be judged at the jurisdiction the suspect is living and committed the suspecting act.

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

#866

Post by scotty79 »

toolz wrote: post #675
scotty79 wrote: post #644

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? > Do you think this should apply to, say, Snowden, Assange, and whistleblowers in general? Or maybe even more generally to people like Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet? Because maybe at some point enough should be enough?

I find this mentality is always directed at rich people, but never applied consistently in anyone's life, so I have a hard time taking this opinion seriously. Hopefully, you can convince me otherwise, but I've never heard anyone suggest the best sports teams should stop competing when they've won enough, or that the best inventors should stop, or the best artists, and so on. Money isn't zero sum. We're constantly cre…

Money is just a way of keeping track of to what fraction of future output of other people you are entitled to (as agreed upon by human race).

Why shouldn't this quantity be softly capped at some value to prevent natural runaway towards 100%? What's wrong about capping it on the other side slightly above zero for the purposes of personal survival and preventing organic deterioration?

> Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away?

Obviously that.

> and who would they give it away too?

That is really irrelevant. The money they gave away can literally be burnt and it would still improve the situation. Money is not value. Money is just a score indicating how much value are you entitled to obtain in the future.

> The federal government controls more money than any entire private business

Is that true? Despite trillions of debt? There are national governments in the world (and not small ones) that currently owe more to businesses than they own assets.

Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success. Once you win everything you should step aside and let others have their fun. You shouldn't feel compelled to punish your body even harder for years to come and others shouldn't have to wait till your performance deteriorates.

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

#867

Post by bArray »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #373
bArray wrote: post #358

It is rumoured (by locals) that Kim Dotcom has been allowed to reside in New Zealand (being a German/Finish) on the basis that he spent his money in New Zealand. I don't think they are in a rush to extradite him to the US, and the US will not come after NZ for the money spent.

How is that a rumour? That's literally how the Investment 1 and 2 resident visa worked before 2022 when they finally scrapped the program. You invest at least NZD $750,000 in growth investments. Given that that's 450k USD, and kim dotcom's net value was quite a few million, that was barely an inconvenience. Then he just needed to spend the majority of his time in NZ to qualify for citizenship.

> How is that a rumour?

That they were purposefully delaying the extradition process to get money out of him.

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

#868

Post by klez »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #776
csallen wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor nitpick, but he was not stealing, he was infringing copyrights. To "steal" is to take another's rivalrous property without permission, such that you now possess it, but they no longer have it. To "infringe a copyright" is to make and distribute a copy of another person's work without their permission. Both illegal, but very different things. What targets of copyright infringement are losing is not their propert…

If someone happily says "they stole my heart" do you go: a. Go and correct them about using language wrongly b. Find the heart and return it to its owner c. Understand the meaning correctly

C, because in this case it's a figure of speech, not an attempt to characterize an act as something that it is not for economic reasons.

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

#869

Post by interactivecode »

jenadine wrote: post #824
liamwire wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No child is being abused when someone play with weights on a model. "Abhorrent nature" is very subjective and relative.

The models are trained on something. By definition you can’t separate the output from the input.

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

#870

Post by actionfromafar »

ezoe wrote: post #864

I still don't understand how could he got an extradition to US. He doesn't have US nationality and he was living most of his life in Germany and New Zealand. We have copyright treaties signed by most nations. I think the copyright infringement crime shall be judged at the jurisdiction the suspect is living and committed the suspecting act.

More than 100 countries have extradition treaties with the US, and extraditions go both ways.

(Sample https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57883892 )

Post reply on HN