"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.'"

Comments

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[morgan_greywolf]

If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?

Okay, let's change the circumstances and see if you still think so nonchalantly about this.

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.

Conflicts of interests

[Marcion]

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.

Re:Conflicts of interests

[morgan_greywolf]

they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.

Really? Think so, huh?

In the East, Judeo-Christianity has never had much of an influence on society. The strongest moral and ethical influences in the East come from various forms Buddhism and Hinduism, along with Shinto and other Eastern philosophies.

In the West, most of what some might call "Christian values" or "Christian ethics" actually have their roots in Greco-Roman pagan thought. St. Augustine, Sir Thomas More, and many other shapers of modern 'Christian values' were all essentially platonists (or more precisely, neoplatonists) In fact, one could argue that there is really no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian values' and that even many of the moralistic concepts of Judaism came straight out of another conetmporary religion, Zorastrianism.

Oh, well, mod me off topic.

Surprised?

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[What Would NPH Do]

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?

Re:Makes sense

[mikael_j]

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

Re:Makes sense

[m.ducharme]

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.

Role reversal

[thegnu]

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.

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day?

[laiquendi]

Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

They've recently accepted new jobs at Time-Warner.

Re:You know what the thing is...

[Marcion]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[dq5 studios]

It's a good thing the TSA doesn't actually increase security then or we might be in serious trouble!

Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there

[aliquis]

I don't know, maybe because selling drugs ARE a crime? Atleast over here. Hosting a torrent tracker may not be. Time will tell.

Criminal != Wrong

[FatSean]

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.

Re:Criminal != Wrong

[BlargIAmDead]

This is an idea I have also been kicking around for several days in my head. There used to be such laws as, if you were African American and you "stepped on a white man's shadow" or looked at his wife too long, you would quickly find yourself facing a tree and a rope. Now we look at these laws and say "How barbaric! We would never do something like that again....Weeeellll, except for you illegal immigrants, non-violent drug users, Muslims, gays, lesbians, political dissidents, and anyone else who looks at us funny...But you African Americans are safe."

Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there

[tholomyes]

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...

Re:Interesting viewpoint you've got there

[MarkvW]

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