Slashdot Mirror
"Judicial Scandal" In Pirate Bay Case
dr_d_19 writes "Swedish media are reporting that Jim Keyzer, one of the police officers involved in investigating the Pirate Bay case, began working for Warner Bros. a few months after the investigation was finished. Peter Sunde, one of the men behind TPB, calls this a 'Judicial Scandal.' Quoting from TheLocal article: 'If the police officer is found to have entered into discussions with Warner Brothers before the end of the investigation, which took a year and a half to complete, it is possible that the prosecution will have to scrap its findings and start again.'"
They're busy having coffee and donuts with Time Warner's talent scouts
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
The problem is if he was given the offer during the investigation. That would most likely be considered a bribe, or at the very least conflict of interests under Swedish law, and hence it could trash the entire trial.
Your [insert loved one here] gets accused of fraud by [insert evil corporation here]. They seize your [loved one]'s possessions and spead viscious lies all over the media and the internet about your [loved one]. Right after the investigation is over and your [loved one] is absolved in court (but maybe not in the court of public opinion), one of the investigating officers goes to work for [evil corporation].
Different story? Not really.
My blog
A new multi-national nobility (/mafia) who could fit into the average conference venue, are trying to obtain the wealth and power of the whole world. To do this they are willing subvert all governmental and non-governmental institutions into following the cause of this new monarchy.
The particular aim is to stop any competition or checks and balances that might restrain the growth of their power. Conflicts of interests and corruption don't matter to them, they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.
So a police follows old media companies rather than the good of society. To him he feels no shame because he does not believe in democracy, he believes in "Intellectual Property", a doctrine not unlike the divine right of kings. Like Tudor monarchs gave out monopolies to the nobility and enforced them with the sword, so does the new nobility.
If we really lived in a democracy, then filesharing would be legal, because more people fileshare than vote for the government.
My little Linux and tech blog
Avoid impropriety and the appearance there of? Oh and the guy still has more testimony to give in court. Unbiased witness anyone?
Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
If you're surprised that Big Media appears to have manipulated the judicial process of case against The Pirate Bay, please raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Yeah. That's what I thought. Not surprised in the least.
The police must appear to uphold justice. If it does not people will apply just as they see fit.
Swedes have guns too, you know.
Also, did you know that the most important indicator of long term economic success is trust.
What do you think happens to trust if people believe/suspect that justice is for sale in the marketplace?
Why thank you, now I have scenes from the Crimson Permanent Assurance short burnt into the back of my eyes for the rest of today.
Ice Cream has no bones.
So you think it's proper that during an investigation that an officer is applying for jobs with one of the interested parties? That doesn't even remotely strike you as having any conflict of interest?
Aaah, but that is not how the police is supposed to be working. Their job is not "find evidence that supports the claims of the plaintiff", their job is "investigate the claims of the plaintiff and try to figure out what really happened". But from what I've seen of the US legal system I can understand that you're confused, after all, not calling a traffic cop "Sir" can land you in jail there...
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Because he's a friggin police officer! last i heard, Time warner wasn't in charge of maintaining the peace or fighting crime, so even if he was the best dang police officer they ever dealt with i still wouldn't see a reason to hire him. This smells like a payoff to me. and i hope Time Warner goes down
Well strictly speaking, they're not on the same side. The police and the prosecutor represent the State, not the victim. The State's interest is to see that justice is served for all the people, while the victim's interest is to get back at the party that wronged them. This is why civil and criminal law are separate branchs. (note that several hundred years of legal philosophy have been distilled down to 3 sentences, and thus I have grossly simplified the matter) IANAL...yet.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
It's interesting how often it turns out that the criminals are the ones with the moral high ground.
I was being harrassed for a long time by this cop, and he finally arrested me and roughed me up slightly. I went to the same gym as the local dealer, and he had a word with the police chief over their weekly brewskis, and the fucker left me alone after that.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?
They've recently accepted new jobs at Time-Warner.
Well considering the fact that they are trying to cover/ignore the fact that it even happened is enough to call it a scandal. Without this information before the trial, the prosecution could have gotten away with it. The prosecuting lawyer said "no worries, I trust them" and didn't care more about it. Where is this not a scandal for the justice system. How much can the MAFIAA buy before anyone cares?
Interesting point, however you are wrong. They have a sophisticated argument about privacy in the digital age. That what private persons do, on a non-commercial basis, has no relevance to the government.
Whether those two people are man and wife in bed, or two people connected only by a bittorrent, they still have a right to privacy.
My little Linux and tech blog
It's a good thing the TSA doesn't actually increase security then or we might be in serious trouble!
I don't know, maybe because selling drugs ARE a crime? Atleast over here. Hosting a torrent tracker may not be. Time will tell.
A drug dealer, on the other hand, is clearly violating laws in many countries. I feel confident when I say that dealing drugs (depending on the drugs) is illegal in Sweden. From the US DOJ's World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems:
While police and judges fill different roles, *BOTH* need to appear to be acting in the interests of the government, as opposed to a private interest. A police officer being employed by the people who are a party in an investigation he is actively involved with is just as wrong, in a fundamental sense, as say a judge ruling on a case against a company whose CEO takes him on vacation (actual case in my home state, vacation photos of him paling around with the CEO got out, and there were immediate demands that he recuse himself from the case).
I'm not sure why you're picking this apart, it's very simple. He was a police investigator working on the PB case and now he's an employee of WB. That's all the information you need to realize that the situation is pretty shady and needs more investigation. They're hyping it up a little sure, but I would agree this guy needs a little public pressure to figure out just what is going on.
It doesn't matter that he is no longer a PI. It would certainly help the PB's case if they could prove that he was in fact employed by both at the same time but they don't need to. Nice cushy jobs are often used as under the table bribes.
Finally I'm not sure why you're attacking their writing, they are not journalists. And as far as competent lawyers go the PB seem to have the legal aspect figured out pretty well.
Throughout the ages there have been many laws that have made 'legal' ideas and concepts we now find despicable.
Those who wish to control you like to conflate 'criminal' with 'wrong','immoral','evil', etc...
This assumes that the law is never wrong, when in fact, the law is often wrong.
It's a common misconception, especially in the USA.
Blar.
Selling drugs definitely is not a crime, you just have to be in the pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco, or coffee business. Selling drugs is big business, pretty much everywhere. "Illegal" drugs, on the other hand...
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
While I too personally don't see dealing in drugs as wrong, but as for other people, there is a large group that thinks it is wrong, and a large group that thinks its right. The fact people think its right or wrong does not at all change the fact drugs are illegal, both in the US (where you are talking about) and in Sweden (where every one else is talking about.)
Running a tracker also has nothing to do with right and wrong here.
In the US, doing so in this way is illegal (conspiracy and accomplice to copyright violation) however no such law exists in Sweden (again where everyone else is talking about) thus this is called legal.
There are a lot of things that are wrong that are illegal. There is also a lot of things that are right that are illegal.
Also there is plenty of things that are right that are legal, and plenty of things that are Wrong which are legal.
Once you realize the two groups have nothing to do with each other, you will understand everyones outrage with this.
Lawyers should not use the term "clearly." If their position is valid and well supported it adds nothing to the discussion. Otherwise, it indicates that the lawyer has no authority for the proposition. Now, go back and study some more. The term "criminal" itself is so imprecise . . .. What does it mean? A person who does criminal acts? A person who is convicted of committing a criminal act? None of those definitions make any sense.
The determination of criminal behavior has a huge subjective element. What is today a crime may be socially encouraged tomorrow. What is perceived as a crime by one juror (or judge) may not be perceived as a crime by another. Of course there can be widespread agreement as to whether certain conduct is criminal or whether certain behavior constitutes criminal conduct--but when you're talking about intellectual property and the internet, the frontier is not drawn in discriminate black and white tones.
The other idea--the idea of the criminal--is useless. That concept just boils down to stigma. Some individuals get the criminal stigma, others don't. Stigma has never been (and cannot be) fairly and uniformly dispensed--and it certainly is subjectively applied. I would argue that Jean Valjean was not a criminal. Javert would beg to differ with me.
The term "criminal" has its purpose, just like any other epithet has its purpose. Just don't pretend that you can logically demonstrate that someone is a criminal.
The attachment of criminal stigma or not is also so sugge Defining crime as the commission of a criminal act