I'm not declaring this a conspiracy. It could have been as easily as some prosecutor somewhere letting zeal exceed judgement. But...
I somehow get the impression that what ever forces perpetrated this don't really care it wasn't legal, so long as MU got ruined for some reason, any reason. Even if it was by accident.
I'm not sure. Such a ruling like this one would give Mr. Dotcom "do not touch this guy" status (if he wins, expect him coming back from ashes and starting this or another online business, whether on the edge of legality, or not, still making big bucks), that means next time a prosecutor will try to go after him whether due to RIAA/political pressures or not, they will be highly discouraged by the outcome of this case.
Such a ruling would also encourage others to do things on the edge of the law because others got away with it. So no, by any means they wanted to put Mr. Dotcom behind bars and keep him there while thousands of his hard drives rot and fall apart.
I personally think this is a very good thing and anyone pushing the status quo and conventional thinking a step further is in my view a worthy cause. Sure, there are going to be backslashes, but I honestly believe that society is moving forward not by rules, but by those who dare to break them.
I wouldn't assume the authorities in question had any of this well mapped out (their preparation indicates they didn't), nor that they're all that interested in this case (it's not that high on the todo list). If this were strictly a matter of stopping Dotcom, and it were that critically important, they'd simply kill him if they couldn't beat him in court (heart attack, he is after all morbidly obese). We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight.
I believe destroying MU was thrown together mostly haphazardly out of desperation. This is an annoying sideshow for an organization like the FBI. They're doing the bidding of a higher up master, that is doing the bidding of the money in Hollywood.
"We kill foreigners 24/7 around the globe for all sorts of reasons (war on drugs, war on terrorism, who knows what else), they could just internally label him an intellectual property terrorist, Obama signs off on an assassination order, and goodnight."
Seriously, what are you suggesting? That the US assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations for no other reason but to support the business interests of large multinational corporations?
Are we really seen to be such a mafia state as this, now? Honestly, when has this ever happened?
You have been seen as a "mafia state" like that for at least a century -- American multinationals (with government support) have left behind a wide swath of destruction in the South and Central America. The only thing that's new is American influence and control extending that far outside the new world.
I was specifically referring to this: assassinates prominent citizens of allied nations inside allied nations
There's many criticisms that can be found for nearly all superpower nations, but I'm not aware of the US having a history of "assassinating citizens". Unless collateral damage is now the same as an "assassination."
adventureful, I agree with your point of view on approved by government killing of civilians for business gains. BUT it usually happens in the cases where you cross the multi-billion dollar schemes that they run, such as drug trafficking (FBI), children kidnapping (Haliburton) and of course so called War on Terror where in some places like US we spent trillions of dollars to fight against Al-Quada, in some others like Lybia we spent trillions of dollars to fight together with Al-Quada. But again, those are trillion dollars per year pure income streams that feed multiple government agencies, both white and blac-type ops. I think someone like Mr. Dotcom and his $115MM stolen is much too little for someone in government to pull the trigger.
NZ authorities are used to being flipped the bird by erstwhile allies. Mossad agents using forged NZ passports, French agents assassinating Greenpeace activists in NZ, French nuclear testing in the south Pacific...
And we caught and shamed them all. It's a small country and we have a strong sense of fairness. This has backfired on the MPAA and other corporate-owner-rights advocates.
This ham-fisted affair bought shame to the police, politicians and judiciary, and, now squarely in the public eye, they are endeavouring to do the right thing.
There were, I would argue, a few bad calls by a few people who should have followed the normal processes, but they likely made them under pressure from within and from the USA, who in turn were pressured by the MPAA. There was not, I surmise, a lot of decision making happening that was informed by the likes Hacker News readers.
That is getting fixed. We have some very smart judges, who are getting across all of this - Judge Harvey springs to mind as someone who got his head around a lot of the online issues. The politicians read the newspapers - and are on twitter, and they are watching the wind and get it too. The Police do not like to be seen to over react and conduct swat raids at the behest of a foreign entity (the MPAA) - I can't see that happening again.
Meanwhile @kimdotcom is fantastic on twitter - open, disarmingly candid and sympathetic.
I somehow get the impression that what ever forces perpetrated this don't really care it wasn't legal, so long as MU got ruined for some reason, any reason. Even if it was by accident.