6 ms·

The only mention of NSA seems to come from Kim... His logic appears to be that as a Five Eyes member the NSA and GCSB have some shared resources and that means

The only mention of NSA seems to come from Kim... His logic appears to be that as a Five Eyes member the NSA and GCSB have some shared resources and that means the NSA used those resources to spy on him. That might be true, but he has no evidence that the NSA cares one bit about him. I seriously doubt the NSA was tasked with working a non-terrorism related piracy case, but that's me. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=11897719 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=11897719 > Dotcom, who should have been protected from GCSB surveillance as a New Zealand resident, said the GCSB did not know because its equipment was being used by the NSA, which was "directly involved". > The GCSB documents do contain an admission of NSA involvement, although it was not made outright. In response to the accusation the GCSB had accessed NSA networks, the bureau refused to answer on national security grounds and acknowledged that under High Court rules that doing so would be seen by the court as an admission it had. > Dotcom said the details showed some other party was using GCSB systems and he believed it would be the NSA."The US government has requested my extradition. The NSA is clearly the most interested party." > "The NSA has unrestricted access to GCSB surveillance systems. In fact most of the technology the GCSB uses was supplied by the NSA."

moomin 9y ago
Worth pointing out at this point that Kim is a heavily-documented liar. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check.
- peter422 9y ago
  Don't worry, he has been meticulously collecting evidence and can prove everything! Unfortunately he can't post it just yet, but he'll definitely post it soon! Maybe next week! Or next month! But it's gonna be huge!!!
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    (Right after he gives Hannity his other scoop: https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/866016183815942144 https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/866016183815942144)
  - honestoHeminway 9y ago
    Guy is a star citizen
- b3lvedere 9y ago
  Yep. He has been for years and years. http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/ http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    Mega-CAAAAR! (One of the first times I realised that the web was going to be mis-used/abused by morons...)
43gg43g32g 9y ago
> seriously doubt the NSA was tasked with working a non-terrorism related piracy case They go after literally everything. Do people not remember the snowden leaks?
- jonknee 9y ago
  Which Snowden leak showed that the NSA was being used to aid piracy investigations? I'm not disputing they had the technical ability to suck up various Kim Dotcom selectors, just that they have no public reason to do so and there is no evidence that they have.
  - woodman 9y ago
    > Which Snowden leak showed that the NSA was being used to aid piracy investigations? I'm not aware of any assistance rendered to piracy investigations, but there is ample evidence of them sharing intel for the purpose of domestic law enforcement - which is way worse. So the call for direct evidence is nice (and silly considering the nature of the evidence), but the logic of "our boys would never" is pretty soundly blown out of the water. They have every reason to - and no reason not to, as there is no punitive action even after being caught. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      It is fine to speculate, but I believe the "call" for direct evidence (versus unsubstantiated claims) makes sense given the headline stating the unsubstantiated claim as if it were a fact.
      - Natsu 9y ago
        I wish more people would call out all stories on this more often. Given the Snowden revelations, this story is very believable to me, but we should never slack in requesting proof.
bgentry 9y ago
> I seriously doubt the NSA was tasked with working a non-terrorism related piracy case, but that's me. There are many examples of NSA and Five Eyes spying that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (though afaik none specific to copyright infringement). I linked to a handful in this other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907667
- dogma1138 9y ago
  The GP is still somewhat correct. All those cases fall within the domain of legitimate foreign intelligence targets of any organization. Intelligence agencies perform political and economic intelligence all the time. But Kim is just an irrelevant target he's way too of a small fish for them to bother.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
peterashford 9y ago
The GCSB had no reason at all to spy on Dotcom from a New Zealand perspective. The only case being brought against him is a copyright case from US claimants. Who do you think can request GCSB to do it's work for them? I don't think they would have spied on him and raided his home because a foreign business interest was concerned. Unless the request came from a 5-eyes level organisation, I'm pretty sure it would have been illegal for them to act against Dotcom.
incompatible 9y ago
Whether or not the NSA spied on Kim in this instance, it would be interesting to know whether they have the capability of spying on NZ networks without assistance from the GCSB. It would be a classic case of shooting your own citizens in the feet: wire up your telecommunications network to allow unlimited spying on demand, then watch as foreign powers make use of it for whatever purposes of their own.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  >the capability of spying on NZ networks without assistance from the GCSB Of course they do. Read the Wikileaks! The NSA has given itself provenance over the entire planets' worth of digital content. They hack the origin.
nl 9y ago
And of course the NSA "doesn't comment on intelligence matters" and so will neither confirm nor deny this. That means he's entirely free to make up stuff like this knowing that anyone who attempts to call him on it will face the "well it could happen" argument.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
The NSA dishes out intel it has collected to other agencies in the US, including to the IRS and DEA etc. There is no such thing as a person not being a big fish. Its the case being supported that matters. So in this case, the NSA would have a perfectly good reason to have him under surveillance. Primarily, when you think about how Hollywood and the music industry was impacted economically (and culturally) by his company. The DOJ were justified in requesting technical help, and would expect get intel from the NSA (Who in turn would request assistance from the NZ Folks) to support their case.

moomin 9y ago

Worth pointing out at this point that Kim is a heavily-documented liar. If he told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check.

peter422 9y ago
Don't worry, he has been meticulously collecting evidence and can prove everything! Unfortunately he can't post it just yet, but he'll definitely post it soon! Maybe next week! Or next month! But it's gonna be huge!!!
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  (Right after he gives Hannity his other scoop: https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/866016183815942144 https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/866016183815942144)
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  Guy is a star citizen
b3lvedere 9y ago
Yep. He has been for years and years. http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/ http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/kimble/
- mmjaa 9y ago
  Mega-CAAAAR! (One of the first times I realised that the web was going to be mis-used/abused by morons...)

43gg43g32g 9y ago

> seriously doubt the NSA was tasked with working a non-terrorism related piracy case They go after literally everything. Do people not remember the snowden leaks?

jonknee 9y ago
Which Snowden leak showed that the NSA was being used to aid piracy investigations? I'm not disputing they had the technical ability to suck up various Kim Dotcom selectors, just that they have no public reason to do so and there is no evidence that they have.
- woodman 9y ago
  > Which Snowden leak showed that the NSA was being used to aid piracy investigations? I'm not aware of any assistance rendered to piracy investigations, but there is ample evidence of them sharing intel for the purpose of domestic law enforcement - which is way worse. So the call for direct evidence is nice (and silly considering the nature of the evidence), but the logic of "our boys would never" is pretty soundly blown out of the water. They have every reason to - and no reason not to, as there is no punitive action even after being caught. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    It is fine to speculate, but I believe the "call" for direct evidence (versus unsubstantiated claims) makes sense given the headline stating the unsubstantiated claim as if it were a fact.
    - Natsu 9y ago
      I wish more people would call out all stories on this more often. Given the Snowden revelations, this story is very believable to me, but we should never slack in requesting proof.

bgentry 9y ago

> I seriously doubt the NSA was tasked with working a non-terrorism related piracy case, but that's me. There are many examples of NSA and Five Eyes spying that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (though afaik none specific to copyright infringement). I linked to a handful in this other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907667

dogma1138 9y ago
The GP is still somewhat correct. All those cases fall within the domain of legitimate foreign intelligence targets of any organization. Intelligence agencies perform political and economic intelligence all the time. But Kim is just an irrelevant target he's way too of a small fish for them to bother.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

peterashford 9y ago

The GCSB had no reason at all to spy on Dotcom from a New Zealand perspective. The only case being brought against him is a copyright case from US claimants. Who do you think can request GCSB to do it's work for them? I don't think they would have spied on him and raided his home because a foreign business interest was concerned. Unless the request came from a 5-eyes level organisation, I'm pretty sure it would have been illegal for them to act against Dotcom.

incompatible 9y ago

Whether or not the NSA spied on Kim in this instance, it would be interesting to know whether they have the capability of spying on NZ networks without assistance from the GCSB. It would be a classic case of shooting your own citizens in the feet: wire up your telecommunications network to allow unlimited spying on demand, then watch as foreign powers make use of it for whatever purposes of their own.

mmjaa 9y ago
>the capability of spying on NZ networks without assistance from the GCSB Of course they do. Read the Wikileaks! The NSA has given itself provenance over the entire planets' worth of digital content. They hack the origin.

nl 9y ago

And of course the NSA "doesn't comment on intelligence matters" and so will neither confirm nor deny this. That means he's entirely free to make up stuff like this knowing that anyone who attempts to call him on it will face the "well it could happen" argument.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

The NSA dishes out intel it has collected to other agencies in the US, including to the IRS and DEA etc. There is no such thing as a person not being a big fish. Its the case being supported that matters. So in this case, the NSA would have a perfectly good reason to have him under surveillance. Primarily, when you think about how Hollywood and the music industry was impacted economically (and culturally) by his company. The DOJ were justified in requesting technical help, and would expect get intel from the NSA (Who in turn would request assistance from the NZ Folks) to support their case.