Originally Posted by kennyparker1337
You don't have to be proven guilty for evidence to be gathered.
Imagine if you co-owned a car (your only car) with a serial killer. This person kills 3 people using the car. The FBI comes and impounds the car for evidence. The FBI has not proven this person to be a serial killer yet (no court cases has been conducted yet).
Did the FBI or the serial killer screw you out of your transportation? The killer.
So when Kim Dotcom got caught doing illegal activity, his servers were "impounded".
Kim Dotcom is at fault. No one else (that isn't involved with the illegal activities).
All these terrible analogies...
This situation is akin to the following (related to the above attempted analogy):
You rent a car from a company (owned by Kim Dotcom). He uses his company for illegal purposes, even though people come to him for his services for legal purposes. In order to rent the car, you have to pay for all the days you will use the car up front. While you are in the middle of your allotted rental time, and while you are not presently using your car (like, eating in a restaurant, asleep, etc.), the FBI suspects that Kim Dotcom is using his company for highly illegal operations (and some people who rent his cars MIGHT be trafficking drugs using the rental cars). In order to gather evidence, they confiscate EVERY SINGLE CAR that is owned under the company, without warning to the people who are currently renting them. Now, you had some personal belongings, like a bunch of things for your work, or a handful of family pictures, etc., that you didn't get a chance to backup anywhere else. The FBI, who confiscated this car, also took all your belongings that were contained in the car, and refuse to return your items.
Now, who is truly hurting the client in this scenario? The FBI. Not Kim Dotcom. Kim didn't tell the FBI to confiscate your car and not let you have your belongings, they did it of their own accord. Why is this the FBI's fault? Because although they are attempting to punish Kim Dotcom and take down his service, the client is the one actually using the service. The client is the one who is now missing his personal belongings, while doing nothing wrong himself. Is Kim Dotcom innocent in all this? Not of illegal activity, but he is innocent in regards to punishing the users.