Seems like the kind of hypothetical that can only be kept aloft by frantically flapping one’s willingly suspended critical faculties.
Are you shooting holes in my argument?
245 Application of section 243 to acts outside New Zealand looks ominous.
Part of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill.
And Dot Com's defence could be screwed if this is retroactive..
245 Application of section 243 to acts outside New Zealand
Section 243 applies to an act that has occurred outside New Zealand and that is alleged to constitute an offence resulting in proceeds only if—
the act was an offence under the law of the place where and when it occurred; or
it is an act to which section 7 or 7A of this Act applies; or
an enactment provides that the act is an offence in New Zealand, and no additional requirement exists for the act to be an offence in the place where and when it occurred.
If a person is charged with an offence under section 243 and subsection (1)(a) applies, it is to be presumed, unless that person puts the matter at issue, that the act was an offence under the law of the place where and when it occurred.
Dot Com’s defence could be screwed if this is retroactive
It wouldn't be retroactive, because when the Supreme Court decides on law, that's the way the law has always been since it was enacted.
This might not be too bad for Kim Dotcom, if he could be prosecuted in NZ, plead guilty and get home detention (as is the norm for far greater white collar crimes), then he'd have been tried on the facts (of running Mega) and would be protected from further criminal prosecution by double jeopardy.
This happened in the case of a young hacker some years ago, I think - the US wanted his ass, but he'd already had a slapped wrist from the District Court and was thus untouchable.
This might not be too bad for Kim Dotcom, if he could be prosecuted in NZ, plead guilty and get home detention
Hadn't thought of it that way, let's hope so. Much as many people dislike the man injustice is still injustice.
The rest of that bill makes pretty scarey reading though, the paranoid loon in me sees US influence all through it.
those bloody Australians...
Police fishing trips…
Detectives investigating the Dirty Politics hacker Rawshark sought the banking, telephone and travel records of author and journalist Nicky Hager without any search order or other legal power.
Court records show Westpac – the government’s banker for 26 years – handed over “almost 10 months of transactions from Mr Hager’s three accounts” at the request of detectives investigating the hacking of Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater’s email and social media accounts.
The court documents show Detective Inspector Dave Lynch testified that the banking inquiry was intended to track Hager’s travel movements and to see if there was a financial link to Rawshark. It was also to see if “he was generating income from the proceeds of the book that could be considered for proceeds of crime action”, suggesting the book’s income could be sought for seizure.
plus fuller coverage from Scoop
It was very naughty of the Herald to suggest that Westpac did what they did because of some financial tie to government. The sad truth is that the police often ask all sorts of companies for information, invoking the exception in the Act "to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences". And those companies generally just roll over. This isn't some especially wicked thing Westpac did because it was Hager. It's standard operating procedure. Good that it's becoming widely known though.
Especially odd since the Herald ran a story on exactly this in March:
Broad swathes of people's personal data are being sought regularly by police from airlines, banks, electricity companies, internet providers and phone companies without search warrants by officers citing clauses in the Privacy Act.
The only angle I can think of, since David Fisher wrote both stories, is that he tried to get some noise made and failed, and is now using Hager's case as a hook.
The only angle I can think of, since David Fisher wrote both stories, is that he tried to get some noise made and failed,
From the Herald article
The police decision to seek detailed information without a legal order appears contrary to the position stated by Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess to the Weekend Herald last March.
He said there were "controls around how information is both requested and provided ... While the Privacy Act provisions can be used to access low-level information, such as basic account details, higher-level data must be obtained through a production order," he said.
I'd even suggest this may have been an issue for Fisher.Also, seeing that Scoop got access to the court file and could divulge the information, he may have just been reaffirming what he suggested back in March and what was proof that Burgess was full of shit.
Another point gleaned in Scoops is that no other agency that the police requested information from would give them any.
LPrent over at The Standard offers an analysis.
I've only glanced at it but it reads more like an angry rant than an analysis.
Perhaps justified, nevertheless.
Has Slater won any day in court yet?
a judge called him a journalist once.
an angry rant
more like an angry rant than an analysis.
Mea culpa. I could have chosen my words more carefully. But keep in mind that LPrent laid a Police complaint in July last year alleging Slater paid Ben Rachinger to hack the Standard servers. This crime was freely admitted by Rachinger in a bizarre series of blog posts shortly after.
Given the lack of any Police action since then, a little anger may be justified.
Obviously a case to be tested in the courts. As usual our police seem more intent on protecting our govt from embarrassment than protecting the public from an obvious breach of our laws. To break in and steal names and credit card details of the public and have these details in the hands of such unscrupulous individuals, all be it "friends of the PM" is akin to mafia tactics of intimidation. For the police to sit back with a "nothing to see here" mentality puts them in a position of being complicit in the crime.
Name suppression has just been lifted to reveal that Slater Junior was charged last December with hiring Ben Rachinger to hack The Standard site.
Slater faced a single charge of trying to procure a hacker to access the computer system of The Standard's website "with dishonest intent and without claim of right in order to obtain property and/or a benefit, namely computer files, or information from computer files".
While Slater usually campaigns against name suppression for others, he made an exception this time and claimed that publication of his own name would cause him "severe hardship". He also alleged there was an "orchestrated campaign" against him by Rachinger and the media. Paranoia, much.
Slater effectively admitted the offence and was offered diversion if he undertook counselling and community work. He completed his diversion by May 6th, Police dropped the charge and no conviction was entered. Slater asked for his name supression to be permanent. The judge said 'no'.
Rachinger was also charged with taking $1000 from Slater by deception. What's that saying about honour amongst thieves?
While Slater usually campaigns against name suppression for others, he made an exception this time and claimed that publication of his own name would cause him “severe hardship”.
Lovely piece on pundit re this http://pundit.co.nz/content/time-which-sees-all-things-has-found-you-out
Geddis at his bestest!
So far, so par for the course in Crazytown.
But what really, really, really provides the bright red cherry of irony on top of this delicious confection of egomaniacal delusions of being able to engage in House-of-Cards-style chicanery is the fact that the blogger who used to be semi-famous (Mr Salter, I believe) sought to have his involvement in this escapade suppressed by the Courts. Yes, the same Mr Satler who pursued a wonky jihad in opposition to the very concept of name suppression went in front of the District Court and had the gall, the sheer bare-faced effrontery, to ask that he be given the protection of the very laws he had campaigned so hard to have abolished.
AG must have been really, really, really holding that in for quite some time.
Geddis at his bestest!
Decidedly delicious. ;-)
As the oily one sets out to paint himself as the victim, Nicky Hager’s lawyer Felix Geiringer sets out the seven reasons why Slater didn’t qualify for diversion. You'll need to scroll down the page or here's a summary at the Standard.
And Alistair Thompson asks, Was Judith Collins briefed?
Comedy gold from Rachinger over at badgertown "Rawshark is a coward. The reason there is no prosecution is that I am required to testify and was too scared of him before to do so". Yep, the reason Rawshark hasn't been identified and brought to justice is all down to Ben.
ooh, I like that