Megaupload Founder Kim Dotcom Released From Prison
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
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.
Despicable judge.
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.
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.
he can talk to his lawyers on the phone.
he should be happy to be out of jail and go enjoy the outdoors!
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.
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.
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?"
"Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak."
This is not a human rights violation.
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
There's a lot of information from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
No hard feelings, mate!
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 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.
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.
They were not prepared i assume, what is an argument against then doing something really illegal.
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 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.
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.