Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Clarifies Circumstances of Release, Testimony
*ZiggyP0P* writes: "We remember hearing how Dmitry was let off and released (so he can finally go home) but how he had to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of his employer as a plea bargain. Turns out that this was all a lie by the Justice Dept. Skylarov has released his own statements which explain what exactly happened. He has entered into no legal plea bargain and he is still employed by Elcomsoft (even though the justice dept called him his former employer)."
The FULL TEXT of the document regarding Skylarov
Further, deponent sayeth not (at least in this message ...)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
My only problem with this lie is that the "admissions" Dmitry was supposed to have made would be part of the public record. Therefore there would have to be a document somewhere with Dmitry's signature on it. If there isn't, than this becomes just as embarrasing for the gov.
Why go through all this? A lie like this is too obvious. Once Dmitry is out of the country, he is out of reach. Somehow I doubt very much that Moscow is going to send him back here as a witness against his current (not former) employer, in a case that involves something that isn't a crime in Russia.
Maybe the prosecutor's Christmas bonus depends on not losing face.
What a farce.
This proves two things:
1) It must be obvious to everyone that the DMCA is unconstitutional
2) DMCA type laws are never going to go away till we attack the root of the problem, copyrights
Unless you think that we're going to conjure up a propaganda machine the size of the movie industry, or that the government will suddenly start protecting liberties again, civil disobedience is the only way to go.
It's one thing to accuse the government of being corrupt. It's quite another to pin the blame for this corruption on the very parties who tried to clean it up.
I'd very much appreciate you explaining each one of these incidents.
I'm very much curious what you think Janet Reno did that was wrong. The only thing I can recall is her listening to the Republican appointees in the FBI when she first took office. Thus begat Waco. Both her and President Clinton apologized for that, and cleaned house in the FBI.
What always amazes me is how ignorant, stupid and partisan Republicans are. This idiot is trying to pin the blame for Ruby Ridge on the Clinton Administration when the event occured in '92.
But I'll bet back in '92 if it had gained any news coverage this moron would have claimed we shouldn't criticize the FBI because that's not patriotic.
It makes me want to puke just thinking that my family has died protecting the rights of scum like this.
Context: The U.S. Attorney came up with a spin that is making Dmitry look like a guilty person that is being let go in exchange of incriminating evidence against Elcomsoft.
It is true that DOJ never uses the term Plea Agreement--that would be outright lie, and not a "mistake" like the "former employee" incident. What they did was to make it _sounds_ like ("promotes the notion") a plea agreement. And I totally agree with Burton on that one. What Joe Burton said was to counter that spin: that there was _no_ plea agreement, that it only sounded like a plea agreement. I don't see it as a spin, it was rather to counter what people (very likely) might conclude in a careless reading of the US Attorney press release.
If you consider the counter as a spin, well, pretty much everything is a spin, maybe except for math.
As for the "mistake" of "former employee", if the US Attorney can misread "continuing through July 15, [he] was employed by . . . Elcomsoft" as Dimtry is no longer an employee, well, the lawyer that wrote that press release must not be paying attention. Just imagine, a US Attorney lawyer persecuting such a high profile case, and don't even know if Dimitry still works for Elcomsoft. They must be either stupid, careless, or purposefully misleading.
Also, Dimitry's statement of "not cooperating with the government" should be taken in two context:
From my reading of the various press releases, and the history of the case as recorded in places like slashdot (the paragon of unerring reporting :-), the aggression and the spin is being done by Adobe/govt. The defendents has been behaving in a very honorable manner: no ratting, no firing, no disavowal. If the press releases from the defendents are considered as spin, then there is not much under the sun that cannot be classified as spin.
Cheers,
e.