FBI Didn't Break Law When Copying MU Data Because the Data Wasn't "Physical"

FBI agents who copied data from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's computers and took it overseas were not acting illegally because information isn't "physical material", the Crown says.The agents were accused of underhanded behaviour by Dotcom's lawyers in the High Court at Auckland yesterday, after revelations that the information was already in US hands.
Megaupload's lawyer, Willie Akel, told Justice Helen Winkelmann how two FBI analysts flew to New Zealand on March 20 and reviewed seven hard-drives of information. The analysts cloned the computers in Manukau.
When police returned to pick them up to take them to their hotel, the agents had already left to FedEx the copies back to the United States.
"The first [copies] were sent without the New Zealand Police having any say in it whatsoever," Mr Akel said. The commissioner of police had "lost control of the items" once the FBI had them.
"If [they] went offshore without the consent of the attorney-general, it was an illegal act."Mr Akel said that there had been an agreement that none of the evidence against Dotcom, seized after his arrest, would be provided to the FBI without prior agreement.
However, Crown lawyer John Pike, for the attorney-general, said the material stored on the hard drives could be shipped overseas for the FBI to examine because it did not constitute "physical" material.
The relevant legislation applied only to physical possessions rather than information, Mr Pike said. "[Information] may be the most valuable thing we have, but it is not scooped up by the act".
He said that there were "gremlins" all through the exercise, which made the situation difficult to understand. "Nothing of the physical items have gone overseas and that was our undertaking."
Justice Winkelmann said that there was an obligation that material deemed irrelevant to the investigation be returned.
However, Mr Pike said it was too difficult to know what was relevant and what was not. "Police, to put it bluntly, would not have a clue what is relevant and what is not relevant. How could they?"
Dotcom, 38, is on bail awaiting an extradition hearing.
US authorities say he and his three co-accused – Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram van der Kolk – used Megaupload and its affiliated sites to knowingly make money from pirated movies and games.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7054878/Dotcom-info-not-physical

Pirating is no longer illegal because it isn't "physical material". You fucked up big, FBI.

I'll be upfront and say I don't have anything relevant to add to this. I only find myself in a state of sinister glee upon witnessing such a display of careless stupidity, and I, for one, am overjoyed to see such a facepalm-worthy attempt at bullshitting backfire so gloriously.

I kinda like it when people show their asses in this way. I know, I should hope for tact and competency in the people who are supposed to be protecting the social order which I value so greatly, but this is so much more fun.

So...Kim Dotcom did nothing illegal, according to the FBI.

Whoops.

So...Kim Dotcom did nothing illegal, according to the FBI.

Whoops.

I am giggling like a schoolgirl XD

snicker

The article doesn't link to any of the statutes in question, so this is just a guess, but I don't think this would backfire on the FBI at all. The argument the FBI is making is that the New Zealand statute defines the activity in question as only being illegal if physical material was taken. That is simply a matter of statutory interpretation, and the fact that a New Zealand statute might only prescribe against physical material being taken doesn't invalidate US legislation that defines piracy without incorporating any sort of physical requirement.

In other words, NZ Statute A might only define something as theft if material is physically removed from the owner, but that wouldn't invalidate the operation of US Statute B which defines something as theft even when material is only transferred electronically. The FBI wouldn't be precluded from prosecuting someone on US Statute B just because they relied on NZ Statute A to obtain the evidence.

Statutory definitions generally apply only to the statute in which the word is defined, so the fact that two statutes define the same word differently does not indicate that a Court must choose only one of the two. It just means that when applying Statute A, the Court uses the definition in Statute A, and when applying Statute B, the Court uses the definition in Statute B. In this case, there is not enough information provided even to say whether it is the same word in question or not. Alternatively, laws vary by nation, so something can be legal in NZ that isn't legal in the US.

wait! if megaupload had no physical illegal pirated product... that means is isn't illegal... but if they declare that is sin't illegal because is isn't physical product and also showing the loophole on getting Kim Dotcom lawyer's to use it against court to save himself... if they want him down they shouldn't do that.. i mean that they reveled the loophole to the law dotcom broke right...?

edit: but then again the fbi have already have the right to copy the content dotcom pc...

They copied all the pirated movies and deleted all the legitimate and fanmade stuff just to make the trial as one-sided as possible so Smith can summon Rapidmegafire and my project will come true