As many of you might have already read, the High Court of New Zealand has recently determined that some warrants in the Meagaupload case were not valid.

But, reading the whole Court decision I have found (here):
www.courtsofnz.govt.nz...ey-general
(besides the - see around page 29 - indirect admiission that "Italians do it better" ) more than a few points to ponder.
The distinction between relevant and irrelevant seized material, and who/how/where this should be determined is particularly interesting IMHO, as well as custody and return of the irrelevant materials.

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

I think this is a small victory for common sense.

Imagine if banks were prosecuted for storing stolen money of criminals.

Back on topic, I'll read the article later because I think it is a very interesting case my personal views aside as we are now seeing the US Movie industry starting to flex it's muscles and see just how far it can bully and coerce governments in other countries.  

Oh yes, the FBI case looks weaker and weaker by the day. Now there is an allegation that US vice President may have a finger in it ? Here in tiny NZ Kim Dotcom have a cult following now as we don't like Uncle Sam to tell us what to do. NZ Police looks stupid now, on request of the FBI they send nearly 80 people, 2 x helicopters and the crack Arms Defenders Squad (nz equiv of SWAT) to raid his leased mansion. It took far less resources to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan that go after Kim Dotcom in NZ. The DotCom circus keep rolling and rolling.
www.stuff.co.nz/techno...n-says-FBI

Knowing Kim Dotcom antics I am sure next may will summond vice President Biden to NZ as a witness, Air Force Two coming to Auckland ?  

Just in case it was not clear, the idea for which I started this topic is/was to discuss the procedure used in seizing/keeping evidence and why exactly the High Court deemed the procedure illegal partly or totally.

It has nothing to do with (examples):

• Kim Dotcom (and the other indicted people) being justly or unjustly accused
• FBI being piloted by hollywood majors or being the "big brother" or whatever
• The US or New Zealand and/or their representatives being "evil" or not
• Cults inspired by or number of fans in NZ or elsewhere
• Conspiracy theories of any kind

Those would be topics better suited for a political or "generic" board, this one is a technical one, specifically aimed to "Digital Forensics".

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

I haven't completely finished reading this yet but it does seem as if a lot of the issues came from the original warrants that were provided. Surely if a little more time had been spent just to clarify how the seized items should be handled prior to being handed over to the FBI would have resulted in a much cleaner approach.

It strikes me that the judge issuing the original warrant had little understanding as to how vast computer evidence can be and that with such a vague open-ended warrant issued there was bound to be a huge amount of information recovered that would be in no way relevant.

One little thing that surprised me was that there was no caveat or condition in the original warrants that covered the handling of items seized from the accommodations of Mr Dotcoms live-in staff. I thought this would have been quite an obvious thought to have......