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.'"
So colour me surprised...
Two different stories, with possible scandalous implications, both involving Time-Warner companies in one day? Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?
My blog
Ironic that it takes a pirate to spot corruption in the legal system. Perhaps if we hired some fellows in fluffy shirts and a bottle of grog we could get something done about the RIAA.
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.
You quoted those quoting others. Or possibly quoting those quoting those quoting others
Ice Cream has no bones.
Does that mean he could bring information gained during the investigation to Time-Warner?? Is that legal even if he didn't start talking to them until after the investigation concluded??
"But this one goes to 11!"
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!
Check out the pirate bay's new splash screen.
These guys are hilarious.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
If it was with the parties being prosecuted then, yes, that would be totally inappropriate. But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here?
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?
Well, he could have kept it a secret for a little longer if he chose too, since it was him that wrote it on his own facebook page...
c++;
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?
Said conflict of interest opens the witness to accusations of evidence corruption/planting, witness tampering, etc... If he's supposed to supply the evidence, and he has a vested interest in WB winning, then he can easily subvert the due process of law for his own gain by helping them.
Any defense attorney with an IQ above 20 would tear a case built on that evidence to shreds, assuming the judge is a moron and allows it in the first place.
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
Changing careers is one thing, changing jobs to someone who may benefit from *evidence* you gather in a trial against someone else is clearly a conflict of interest and unlawful in most western countries that I know of. You just do not do it. In many locales (not sure about his), he could be looking at jail time depending on what comes out about his involvement, time frames, actions, etc. Too bad we don't have restrictions against lawmakers doing the same thing.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
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.
There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.
Slightly off topic I realize, but my main point is that little things like this happen all the time, all around the country and world. They will continue to happen as well and honestly, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot that can be done about it.
The US Federal judges seem to be the best and most impartial. They are paid well and have liftime appointments, thus they don't have to make decisions in order to appease a public and keep their office. They can decide what is right.
The drawback is that it takes (usually) huge amounts of resources to select these people. Local governments don't have that kind of time/money.
I'd be curious to know what the judicial appointment/election status is in this case.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
In plain english...
If it looks like the cop doing the investigating is on the take, its not unreasonable he'd suppress evidence that proves innocence while collecting all evidence that determines guilt. Sorta like how the police officer was said to have planted the bloody glove on OJ's property. It makes it difficult to get a guilty verdict so the case would either be thrown out directly or through the Jury bringing reasonable doubt into the equation.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Apparently the big media's puppet organisation, "Antipiratbyrån", in Sweden has done the same.
For those who understand Swedish:
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_1149973.svd
In all this mess lets have a look at the scores:
RIAA and the prosecution:
"Ministerstyre" (roughly speaking illegal manipulation of MPs )
Denial of service attacks
Illegal search and confiscation of private property
Bribing police investigators
TPB:
Assistance to commit copyright infringement ( which probably isn't even illegal in Sweden ).
Nice one.
I have to differ with you on one point.
"There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job..."
At least here in the U.S., the "revolving door" of government workers moving into industries they've had contact with previously is more than just common. It is corruptively common.
A huge portion of the higher-ups in the airport screening TSA was former air lines management and as a screener, I had witnessed lots of incidents where the requests and even demands of the airlines resulted in relaxing security of the airport, the flights and all the innocent uninvolved people were put into potential security compromise at the behest of the airlines.
The TSA and the FAA should be regulating the airlines, not the other way around. The same goes for anything the government is charged with regulating. When those connections exist, it should ALWAYS be considered improper.
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.
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?
English-language version of that same page: Taking of evidence and mode of proof - Sweden
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!
It's not necessarily the case that there is anything wrong with the cop taking the job. He may have done a bang-up job preparing the evidence for the prosecution. We don't know. However, I don't think that's the issue at hand. The ex-cop needs to not merely avoid impropriety. He absolutely must avoid the appearance of impropriety. His actions and perceived honour can make or break the case based on his credibility. And now his credibility is shot.
If he's a lead detective, he absolutely cannot take a position with anyone for whom he has gathered evidence for trial. The appearance of impropriety should be enough to quash that. Further, he should have an absolute duty to relate to his commanding officer and the prosecution the offer of the position, whether the offer was during the investigation (which would result in him being removed from the investigation immediately, some sort of sanction against the petitioner, and possibly even the abandonment of the entire investigation) or afterward (which should result in sanctions against the petitioner, even if it's a slap on the wrist). If Swedish law has similar discovery rules as the U.S., the prosecution should then immediately inform the defense. And the cop cannot take the job unless the entire action is dropped with prejudice.
If he's a peon in the investigation, though, the rules are different, though not completely. Informing the lead detective (who is likely their CO) and the prosecution is still required, and their telling the defense still is likely required, depending on the law, and he can only take the position if the lead detective and the prosecution agree that they don't need any of the work he put into the investigation. Generally, this would mean that the prosecution feels confident that they can argue "inevitable discovery" and that the evidence itself could not be tainted. In this case, THEN he could take the job. Though I doubt that WB would be hiring a peon ;-)
Just my thoughts on it.
>
at job interviews with Warner Bros.
I don't know, maybe because selling drugs ARE a crime? Atleast over here. Hosting a torrent tracker may not be. Time will tell.
Note that he was in charge of the preliminary investigation.
And that he is accused of droping investigations against Time/Warner et al.
If this is true, he should be looking forward to some time behind bars.
Whether Swedish police can lift the burden of proof against Time/Warner is more questionable. I wouldn't accept a claim of "good faith", but an actual judge might, I suppose.
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:
I'm really sorry...
/.!!
I was approriately shocked and outraged until I noticed the "Hottest top ten" Sweedes of the week link.... I don't know why, but I kinda got side tracked... sorry....
P.S. Search for "The week's top ten" on the newspaper site if you want to see it.......
P.P.S I'm I the only one who noticed the link?? I thought this was
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
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.
Even being in the grocery business makes you a seller of drugs. Sugar, pepper, salt, coffee, tea... they are all drugs (from the old anglosaxon-old german word "dryg" = "dried").
It is exactly vice versa: It might be morally ok, because the cop in question may be really very integer and able to make a difference between the case in question and the futural job. But in every case it is technically not ok, because we never know if the cop has this personal integrity.
And that's the whole crux behind the affair: It might taint the investigation, because the investigator has a personal interest in a certain outcome of the case. It doesn't necessarily have to bias the investigation, but just because it could do so, it is technically wrong.
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