Dotcom wants data returned, won't reveal passwords

Lawyers for internet tycoon Kim Dotcom are today trying to get back some of the computer data seized from his mansion in January, including home video footage, and the switches that operate the house’s lights.

Paul Davison, QC, told the Auckland High Court the search warrant was overly broad and police took more from the property than they should have.

He is seeking a judicial review into the raid on Mr Dotcom’s house and the seizure of his property.

Mr Dotcom was arrested with three of his associates on January 20 after a raid on his Coatesville mansion for alleged copyright infringements relating to the operation of his website Megaupload.

He denies doing anything wrong, and maintains the site was a legitimate way for people to share files and information.

The Crown is prosecuting Mr Dotcom on behalf of the United States government.

The search warrant allowed police to take computer-related items relevant to the charges brought against Mr Dotcom.

But instead they took everything with a digital component, including items which Mr Davison argues were not directly relevant to the charges brought against his client.

He told the court police took about 135 digital devices, including Mr Dotcom’s personal computers and a large collection of family video footage.

He says they also took data from the “closed circuit television system, which could not be responsibly considered to contain relevant information to who was living in the property”, as well as the switches that control the mansion’s lighting and entertainment system.

Mr Davison says Mr Dotcom needs access to some of the data so they can properly prepare for a hearing on extradition charges sought by United
States authorities, due to be held on August 6.

Some of the data on the seized computer devices is encrypted, meaning the Crown cannot access it.

Mr Dotcom is refusing to hand over the passwords and encryption codes because some of the information is private and needs to be distinguished from information relevant to the case, Mr Davison said.

He says Mr Dotcom may provide the codes, but only subject to provisions protecting him.

“It’s not a matter of him saying no, it’s a matter of him saying yes, but on terms which preserve his access, legal privilege and privacy.”