A legend. I’m still amazed by how ahead of the time MEGA was with full in browser file encryption when the other players weren’t ever starting on that.
Probably because of the cultural goods available for free? I watched ton of Japanese animes back in the day that were not published in my country, or when it was very out of price (I bought manga tho, which were cheaper).
> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.
"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.
> Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole bataillon using that emblem[1], featuring a rune-like SS symbol and the freaking black sun! People having been accused of nazism in the US or Europe for way less than that.
The implication of US in the Maiden Revolution, which is one root of the problem, is also documented in serious newspapers[2].
More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]
"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]
"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]
So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.
It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...
Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.
That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
Pretty weird how Hollywood corpos and lobbyists can convince the US government to prosecute a non-US citizen who's across the globe all while using illegally issued warrants to raid him.
TLDR: a judge in the pocket of Chevron let their lawyers keep the lawyer who won a judgement against Chevron keep him in house arrest. The who case is a misuse of the criminal justice system.
I can't find much information about the Hague decision. The Reuters article is basically a blurb, and the WSJ is paywalled. To summarize Wikipedia, Guerro - the judge which Chevron immigrated to the US - seems to have exaggerated his testimony; he later walks back much of everything involving Donziger (ghostwriting and bribes). I was hoping that the references to the Hague's decision would have more information.
I'll never understand why people think being across the globe matters. Basically all internet crime can be done across the globe (plus tons of other types of crime like drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc).
Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
The problem is that it sort of does. It shouldn't, but laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in. Sure there are extradition treaties, but those are far more malleable and operate at a much higher level, turning what would be a mundane crime into a nation state level concern.
I don't think there's a good solution here. Obviously the police of one country turning up and arresting people in another is a non-starter. The best option is probably just countries agreeing on the same important laws (e.g. it's rare for extradition for murder to be controversial), but copyright infringement is viewed very differently around the world, and the US has rightly struggled to exert its own opinions on this topic on other nation states.
Actually, jurisdiction is not solely based on physical location but fundamentally on the power and authority to enforce laws. While geographic boundaries are significant, they are not the only factor determining jurisdiction. Countries often assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially when crimes committed abroad have substantial effects within their own territory or involve their nationals.
> laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in.
I don’t think this is accurate, wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire. What is t resolved is when there is no escalation path.
> Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries. Or rather, what is illegal differs between countries.
I think what parent is trying to call out unfair, is someone getting arrested in one country where something isn't necessarily proven to be illegal, then taken to a different country and prosecuted there, even if you're not actively involved with that country. Things like drug trafficking arrests are made by either the receiving/sending side (either way, local border control and/or anti-narcotics police) of that particular transaction, not by some other party half-way across the globe, because it isn't really their responsibility.
But then I'm sure you can make the argument that because somewhere, somehow, Kim Dotcom touched USD and/or US movie studios so the US has "right" to make whatever he did their business.
It's easy to just declare something "crime" and then claim justification for anything you do to prosecute it, but the strategy is also often a moral sewer of corrupt interests and mendacity.
If you think that the sort of "crime" that Dotcom committed justified all the measures taken against him, especially given the kind of reprehensible corporate interests working behind these measures for their own entirely self serving extremes, then maybe you should more closely examine how you define your morality on crime.
If an alleged crime affects someone or some company in another country, that country has the right to request extradition to force the accused to stand trial. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.
It has nothing to do with the US uniquely, nor is it about one country making laws for citizens of a different country.
What part of this situation implies one jurisdiction is above another? This is happening because New Zealand has an extradition treaty with the US that they mutually agreed to.
fairly soon it will be illegal to stream pornography in the United States, wanna be arrested for looking at PH for 20 seconds while in some free country like China? :)
NZ isn't some 3rd world country where someone who broke the law can flee. There are plenty of cases where a non-citizen breaks US Law (ex: Sanctions) and is arrested outside of the USA.
The United States and New Zealand have a number of agreements in place to fight crime and are both are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
A legend. I’m still amazed by how ahead of the time MEGA was with full in browser file encryption when the other players weren’t ever starting on that.
If nothing else you have to admire the balls it takes to fight the US for over a decade.
There seems to have something with Kim that make them resist the US :)
The article says Kim Dotcom is fighting deportation to the US. Isn't the right term extradition?
Yes.
For such a controversial figure, he's directly created positive impacts in my life.
Please expand
Probably because of the cultural goods available for free? I watched ton of Japanese animes back in the day that were not published in my country, or when it was very out of price (I bought manga tho, which were cheaper).
I found Mega a good privacy respecting service for keeping backups of my files.
At least until the warrant canary was gone
Age 50, born 1974 for those curious.
I hope he's OK, what a rebel, all the way back to the Chaos computer club. It's been enjoyable watching him fight Hollywood.
I used to root for this guy until he became pro-Putin.
Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.
Maybe he hopes for Russia to give me asylum? The KGB rule is much worse than he can even imagine though.
>Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.
Yep, definitely not the first time. Just look at Scott Adams.
God Scott Adams. What a disappointment.
The Joy of Work should be required reading for every new college graduate.
When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
At this point I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.
Which he was though? Ho Chi Minh definitely wasn't the bad guy in the Vietnam war.
From his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Promotion_of_conspi...
"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.
Although, the sources in this case are basically articles citing things he said on Twitter.
> Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole bataillon using that emblem[1], featuring a rune-like SS symbol and the freaking black sun! People having been accused of nazism in the US or Europe for way less than that.
The implication of US in the Maiden Revolution, which is one root of the problem, is also documented in serious newspapers[2].
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9giment_Azov#/media/Fich...
[2] https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/ukraine-la-cia-en-sous-main-05-...
More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]
"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]
"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]
[1] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...
[2] https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/
I wonder what all those pro-Hitler Americans had to say in the years and decades after WWII.
Mao didn't start the war in Vietnam.
Remember when he said he had personal knowledge about Seth Rich, I.e. lying to further a Russian disinformation campaign? I do.
So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.
It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...
Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.
The American left has always been against every war*
* Except for the war that was happening at that time
An increasingly common issue in this infantilized society.
"I'm not friends with Jacob because he likes celebrity A and I like celebrity B".
Is Putin celebrity A or celebrity B here?
Your pick!
isn't this comment very infantilized in and of itself?
That is indeed a problem.
That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-pro-russian-falsehoods-...
[flagged]
Yeah when he started simping for elon musk I do not care what befalls him. Mega was good for piracy back in the day, and maybe still is today.
[flagged]
Pretty weird how Hollywood corpos and lobbyists can convince the US government to prosecute a non-US citizen who's across the globe all while using illegally issued warrants to raid him.
Even weirder how corporations are able to persecute US citizens for holding them legally accountable in other parts of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Class_action_l...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Counter-litiga...
TLDR: a judge in the pocket of Chevron let their lawyers keep the lawyer who won a judgement against Chevron keep him in house arrest. The who case is a misuse of the criminal justice system.
I can't find much information about the Hague decision. The Reuters article is basically a blurb, and the WSJ is paywalled. To summarize Wikipedia, Guerro - the judge which Chevron immigrated to the US - seems to have exaggerated his testimony; he later walks back much of everything involving Donziger (ghostwriting and bribes). I was hoping that the references to the Hague's decision would have more information.
It's like corporations are in control, not the people, right?
I'll never understand why people think being across the globe matters. Basically all internet crime can be done across the globe (plus tons of other types of crime like drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc).
Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
The problem is that it sort of does. It shouldn't, but laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in. Sure there are extradition treaties, but those are far more malleable and operate at a much higher level, turning what would be a mundane crime into a nation state level concern.
I don't think there's a good solution here. Obviously the police of one country turning up and arresting people in another is a non-starter. The best option is probably just countries agreeing on the same important laws (e.g. it's rare for extradition for murder to be controversial), but copyright infringement is viewed very differently around the world, and the US has rightly struggled to exert its own opinions on this topic on other nation states.
Actually, jurisdiction is not solely based on physical location but fundamentally on the power and authority to enforce laws. While geographic boundaries are significant, they are not the only factor determining jurisdiction. Countries often assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially when crimes committed abroad have substantial effects within their own territory or involve their nationals.
> laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in.
I don’t think this is accurate, wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire. What is t resolved is when there is no escalation path.
> Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.
"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries. Or rather, what is illegal differs between countries.
I think what parent is trying to call out unfair, is someone getting arrested in one country where something isn't necessarily proven to be illegal, then taken to a different country and prosecuted there, even if you're not actively involved with that country. Things like drug trafficking arrests are made by either the receiving/sending side (either way, local border control and/or anti-narcotics police) of that particular transaction, not by some other party half-way across the globe, because it isn't really their responsibility.
But then I'm sure you can make the argument that because somewhere, somehow, Kim Dotcom touched USD and/or US movie studios so the US has "right" to make whatever he did their business.
>"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries.
Which is why countries only extradite for things that are crimes in both countries. Which is what happened here.
It's easy to just declare something "crime" and then claim justification for anything you do to prosecute it, but the strategy is also often a moral sewer of corrupt interests and mendacity.
If you think that the sort of "crime" that Dotcom committed justified all the measures taken against him, especially given the kind of reprehensible corporate interests working behind these measures for their own entirely self serving extremes, then maybe you should more closely examine how you define your morality on crime.
half the things you've said and done on the internet were probably illegal in russia/china/best korea/iran/random shithole.
So the US should just be able to make laws for citizens of other countries?
If an alleged crime affects someone or some company in another country, that country has the right to request extradition to force the accused to stand trial. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.
It has nothing to do with the US uniquely, nor is it about one country making laws for citizens of a different country.
Or the EU can make me click cookies banners the rest of my life
why should one jurisdiction be above another? what even is the jurisdiction of the internet? sorry, but your answer is just out of touch
What part of this situation implies one jurisdiction is above another? This is happening because New Zealand has an extradition treaty with the US that they mutually agreed to.
fairly soon it will be illegal to stream pornography in the United States, wanna be arrested for looking at PH for 20 seconds while in some free country like China? :)
NZ isn't some 3rd world country where someone who broke the law can flee. There are plenty of cases where a non-citizen breaks US Law (ex: Sanctions) and is arrested outside of the USA.
The United States and New Zealand have a number of agreements in place to fight crime and are both are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
[flagged]