"Mitnick served five years in prison — four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement — because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone".[12] He was released on January 21, 2000. During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet."
I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but I heard that they put a special cover on the light in his retaining cell because they were afraid he would find some way to "hack" his way out with the wires.
That would be an entertaining plot device in a spy movie: spy gets captured, finds that power fluctuations occasionally flip a bit in the memory of the security system, uses the light in his/her cell to flip all the bits corresponding to the door locks...
Conditions of bail are to protect the public and prevent the actions of the accused jeopardizing the case. He is accused of running massive piracy operation remotely via the internet - naturally the conditions of bail should preclude him continuing to commit the offence.
You can't, after all, set the bail condition of "don't continue committing the crime for which you are accused".
Also, would everyone please remember this is a New Zealand court, where things tend to move a little swifter (and, dare I say it, a little saner) than the US justice system.
The judge violated human right of Internet access. Regardless, they should be disbarred and mistrial called until a replacement judge with technical competence to preside can be found.
You'll understand that this right is inalienable if you can't pay your bills online, transfer money, etc. In fact, in article, he can't even communicate with his team overseas.
The order only serves to punish and discourage honest people from society due to the unenforceable nature of it.
Whether or not internet access really is a human right isn’t really all that important. Human rights can be and are frequently limited or taken away. Prisoner have no freedom of movement, for example.
When two human rights conflict, one or the other has to give. That’s just normal and exactly what judges are there for to decide.
What we are talking about here is someone who used to be in jail. That is a much more severe limitation of his human rights than merely no being allowed to access the internet. People who are prosecuted end up in jail because they might flee, but also because they might otherwise be able to manipulate or destroy evidence.
That is in no way automatically a violation of human rights, at least not on balance. You would have to know how exactly the judge justified the decision.
That's understandable. There was a bail and thus, the charged person has limited freedom again. However, by attempting to order someone with an Internet proficiency to avoid the Internet is impossible due to electronics, wirless, government services, postal, etc. Some people even live off the Internet.
You can enforce restriction of freedom of movement. However, as I said, it's too impractical to restrict Internet access and would only serve to restrict honest people.
The greater concern is that other people to see the judge as incompetent since it's an unenforceable order. It then raises questions on whether the judge can understand the technical issues with the trial, whether Dotcom will get a fair trial.
So how is he going to pay online-only bills? Are the courts going to give him taxpayer money for late fees? Or it's his own fault for not predicting his arrest?
Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter? Due to Internet as a medium for accessing news, he's further restricted on being an informed voter.
How is he meant to send material to his lawyers? "Mail it" So instead of sending it virtually for free, he has to print it out, determine postage, go find a postal office and then ship it. Vice versa to receive it but it takes time. Not to mention the massive phone bill because VOIP is INTERNET.
How is he going to be monitored from accessing Internet that's everywhere? Anti-Satellite jammers? Anti-Wifi jammers?
How is it possible to prevent him from giving the password to someone to start a megaupload website? Better prevent phones, mail, etc, in that case.
Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak. So this order only serves to pad the ego of the prosecution team, show incompetence of judge and punish honest people for being honest.
How did he pay his bills, etc., when he was in jail?
I think you might be overlooking that he's merely out on bail. That means he is still charged with the crimes he was arrested for. The court has decided that he is not a flight risk and so they are going to let him stay out until his trial rather than housing him in jail, but it is quite common for courts to place restrictions on the person as a condition of offering them bail.
Internet access is a fundamental right since it's quickly becoming a necessity. It is also quite common for the courts to disregard asinine restrictions. If he used electricity to infringe on copyright, are they going to turn off his electricity too? Or is the Internet too young?
Did we forget that Library Internet access issue thread already? There are crucial needs being served by the Internet just like water, electricity, security, etc.
"So how is he going to pay online-only bills?"
"Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter?"
Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society.
"Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak."
That's a really bad argument, and I think you know it. He very well may be online as we speak, his neighbors probably have an unsecured network, but why is that a good reason to intentionally give the man internet access? He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access.
> Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society.
I'm sorry, but Internet access is the human right. You're putting human right implications in my mouth.
The alternatives available? Jeez, I wonder how he can find out as an Internet user. Hopefully he had heard about yellow pages? Yes, there actually young people who do NOT understand non-Internet alternatives.
> He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access.
He used electricity too. So, cut off his electricity too? Remember, he needs electricity to run servers and not necessarily the Internet. Seize all electronics instead? He may have files embedded in the house alarm. Personally, I didn't want to respond because your rationale is asinine!
You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen.
No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege.
I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
The prosecution took it that far and the judge does not understand the implications of Internet as a necessity. I even highlighted that it restricts many needs to function as a member of society. The reality is that there are electronics that can easily tap into the World Wide Internet, which gives credence to my argument that his electricity should be shut off along with all electronics (may be battery powered) as part of the effort to prevent access to the Internet.
The Internet did not help him commit crimes, it's a neutral platform. They are merely carriers just like roads, servers, etc.
> I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
Nope, I'm talking specifically about the human right to the Internet due to the necessities, abundance of electronics with access to Internet, many potential outlets and most of all; unenforceable to prevent access. I think you're overstepping your position again by implicating me with other positions when I've been quite clear.
I don't think you have been that clear, but I don't want to see this discussion turn personal. I have nothing against you, and your opinion is just as valid as my own.
On the question of if the internet is a human right, I think it's quite obvious the answer is no. It has never been viewed as one in the past as far as I know, I've yet to see a judge rule that to be the case.
A better question is, should it be? I'd like to see that happen, though I think it will take time to get there.
I apologise. I was explaining that I did not like being misrepresented by others. I would have been less defensive to a request to clarify my posts.
As for it being a human right from precedent, it's already recognised in some European countries (some of it even includes minimal Internet transfer rates) and discussed at UN. Unfortunately for UN, I believe certain influences do not want it to happen, eg USA based on ACTA's proposal that had included demands for three strikes among other Internet access restrictions.
Ok, how about this one. Suppose his entire music collection was stored online in something like Google Music. And that all his books were eBooks, stored on Amazon. Lets assume he had his Kindle siezed. Is it right to deny him books and music?
It's a shame, but it's still not a human right. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a significant inconvenience, it absolutely would.
When it comes to cloud-based media though, realize that you don't own the content. You could have your account banned or content removed at any time, as decided by the courts or the company you're relying on.
If its a human right then why don't people in jail and prison have access to it and why do no human rights groups demand that they should?
If you get arrested for committing crimes on the internet and are free on bail it is perfectly reasonable for a condition of your bail to be that you can't use the internet. If its really important he can have somebody else do it for him, as he surely did while he was in jail.
Here's hoping he stashed some cash and can make a clean getaway. 50 years is what they want to charge him with for copyright infringement, ludicrous. Rapists get a fraction of the time.
Wouldn't any traditional outlet use the phrase "released on bail" or similar? Released from prison is typically only used after a sentence has been served or overturned.
"Dotcom had been held in custody since an anti-terrorist police squad raided his Coatesville mansion last month..."
Doesn't anyone find it odd that the entertainment industry can manipulate governments into sending these specialized teams (anti-terrorist in New Zealand, SWAT in the US)? What are they telling these people? Are you telling me that if the police had sent over one or two squad cars with a couple of cops that Dotcom would have escaped?
How much does an operation like this cost? I can't believe it's that cheap.
And the US government's attempt to intimidate a foreign national in the name of piracy fails again. Maybe they'll eventually get the idea and stop worrying about file sharing and start spending money on schools again.
I don't think he even needs to make it to Germany. In theory it should be sufficient if he boards a ship sailing under the German flag that is located on international waters.
IANAL but this is the text of the US-Germany extradition treaty. It seems to say that neither country has an obligation to extradite their own citizens.
"The article thus takes into account the law of the FRG prohibiting the extradition of its nationals but allowing for their prosecution in the FRG."
Article 7
EXTRADITION OF NATIONALS
(1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to extradite its own nationals. The competent executive authority of the Requested State, however, shall have the power to grant the extradition of its own nationals if, in its discretion, this is deemed proper to do and provided the law of the Requested State does not so preclude.
(2) The Requested State shall undertake all available legal measures to suspend naturalization proceedings in respect of the person sought until a decision on the request for his extradition and, if that request is granted, until his surrender.
(3) If the Requested State does not extradite its own national, it shall, at the request of the Requesting State, submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. If the Requested State requires additional documents or evidence, such documents or evidence shall be submitted without charge to that State. The Requesting State shall be informed of the result of its request.
And now he's in for a long, slow battle with an unforgiving, bloated system that will try to boil him alive. Man, seriously, having to spend years in legal battles with restrictions placed on what you can do is probably worse than immediate imprisonment... And no Internet? Just shoot me, please...
I wonder how they'd stop a helicopter from landing in his yard. Even if the place is locked down with police/surveillance, what are they going to do when they see that helicopter - shoot the damn thing down? If this guy wants to flee, he'll make it happen one way or another.
Germany. It has an extradition law but not for it's own citizens. Thus Kim would face jurisdiction in Germany, but under their law. And in contrast to the US, it would far less worse. Maybe two years in jail, or even just a fine.
You're going to need something to fly you over about 2000km of water - which gets you to Australia, which is the last place you want to be if you're fighting extradition to the US.
What kind of insane argument is that. You can't just start a new MegaUpload and have the big crime profits flow in instantaneously. It takes time to build a new user (and data) base.
I wonder how they shut it down in the first place. They obviously can take the .com domain, but MU should have been online on a different domain on the same day.
They were not prepared i assume, what is an argument against then doing something really illegal.
