Today the Editor of the N Z Herald steps in to shore up the ill at ease about the NZ Government's involvement in surrendering one of it's residents to the United States following an over the top 'raid' probably unparalleled in NZ history.
The editorial quotes Kit Dotcom as saying that he and his 3 co-defendants have nothing to hide and therefore the editor points out that they should therefore not resist deportation to face the charges. Clearly the editor is naive enough to consider that having nothing to hide equates in full measure to a belief that the United States authorities are playing with a straight bat. Of course this is despite the international concern that the United States are acting on behalf of private interests in what in other jurisdictions, if provable, would result in civil action. Additionally, the editor also fails to realise that while hopefully Dotcom and his fellows would not be subjected to a 'rendition' in order to find out the 'truth,' it might well be that Dotcom's confidence is not high in the US Government. Having reached that point after considering the nature of his arrest, that his business has been closed down whilst he remains without any conviction on any of the charges brought against him, and certainly not withstanding that the 'good faith' employed by the FBI saw the FBI effectively take ownership of the property of users of the megaupload site - some would call that theft.
Consider say a police exercise targeting an individual home-owner, but which for some reason requires a general evacuation for safety reasons of 30 surrounding houses. The owners co-operate, the arrest is successful but then the police don't lift the evacuation order, but instead confiscate the homes. Effectively users of Dotcom's site have had their property taken, not just in circumstances of a specific evaluation of their property and perhaps it's connection to the charges, but every one's property regardless of the circumstances.
All so think of an implicit message the actions of the FBI have shown to internet users - 'if you belong to a site of interest to us, not only might we close the site down, but we will take any of your property stored there regardless of your property rights.' To me that makes good reason why Dotcom probably realises that he shouldn't in anyway co-operate with the task ahead of him by surrendering what rights he has after others have already been stripped from him.
Even the money which Dotcom is said to have made and invested in NZ to the satisfaction of the authorities now becomes reason for the Herald wishing to see him taken from these shores as soon as possible and into an uncertain future far from a level playing field. Where once Dotcom was celebrated as an investor in NZ, a resident, and now millions of dollars worse off for the 'experience' he should be immediately placed into the hands of our overseas masters, discarded it seems.
The Herald discusses copyright laws, concluding 'but countries such as ours should be unequivocal in their support of efforts to police global copyright.' The Herald rightly points out that 'masters' in this scheme invest heavily in their technology under a Hollywood brand of film and music. However, heavy investment that ultimately costs end users more money and limited choice has always been superseded throughout the ages because of demand for popular goods and a resistance to wealthy cliques, or providers, benefiting from a captive audience that has no choice.
It's far from clear what the case against Kit Dotcom might be, or the validity of the charges he faces and indeed what protection he has due to his rights as a NZ resident. But something which is clear is that he's been dealt with heavy-handedly and out of all proportion to say crimes of violence, or those where the victims are left in poverty, losing their homes or something of that nature. He's also been seen to have been dealt with using maximum 'dramatic effect,' his victims are those whose revenue in even a small period of time could eclipse that of many of our larger businesses in a whole financial year, even his customers have been dealt to, stolen from. The Herald sees Dotcom as slaying his own golden goose, however millions of users are looking for more cost efficient access to products of their desire, artists support less 'conformity' to the requirements of cartels who look only to produce bigger golden eggs despite the fact that cyber technology and the way people do business continues to evolve. The story of the Golden Goose is century's old, a wonderful simple illustration of the dangers of greed. Both films and cartoons have featured the story, Hollywood films with no doubt Hollywood music scores - but who is it that time will reveal has slain the Goose, having it trapped for so long and to the point of being unable to discern greed from fable.
No comments:
Post a Comment