French Power Company Fined For Hacking Greenpeace

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Power Company Fined For Hacking Greenpeace

Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 14, 2011 @03:22AM from the rubber-boat-envy dept.

judgecorp writes "Electricite de France (EDF) which uses nuclear reactors to generate the majority of France's electricity, has been found guilty of hacking into Greenpeace computers in 2006. EDF has been fined fined €1.5 million and ordered to pay Greenpeace a further half a million euros, for what the judge described as an act of 'industrial scale espionage.'"

196 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

a hefty bill? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:26 · Score: 1

2 million euro is nothing for such a company.
cb
1. Re:a hefty bill? by firex726 · 2011-11-14 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yea, a nuclear reactor costs what? tens of billions to build?
  Two million would be nothing, probably came out of the "Settlement fund".
2. Re:a hefty bill? by Gideon+Wells · 2011-11-14 03:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I used to think like that, but then I worked for a company that cost several hundred million to build. Millions of dollars came in and left through the place on a daily basis at times. They only got to keep pennies on the dollar and most of the money had to go towards the loans and other investors. There were times the company had tens of thousands on its books as usable, owned, cash.
  You can't judge cost to build as the standard for something like this. The investors and owners, probably could come up with that easily. The company itself if there are enough shield corporations between it and the owners? Hard to say.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
3. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They only got to keep pennies on the dollar and most of the money had to go towards the loans and other investors.
  I assume you're point is that it isn't terribly profitable to run a nuclear plant. How much more unprofitable would it be if you didn't have the government subsidizing those loans in the first place?
  
  If the big oil/coal industries want to decry subsidies to green tech, they should also be screaming louder about the nuclear subsidies.
  
  Green also doesn't tend to blow up and render large areas uninhabitable for decades...
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
4. Re:a hefty bill? by Gutboy · 2011-11-14 04:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They made (net income) 1.249 billion last year.
5. Re:a hefty bill? by MimeticLie · 2011-11-14 04:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Green also doesn't tend to blow up and render large areas uninhabitable for decades...
  Cough. Also, which of these numbers is lowest, again? Hint: it's not hydro, wind, solar, or biomass.
6. Re:a hefty bill? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  2 million euro is nothing for such a company.
  cb
  The judge must be got hold of and eradicated before he does any more damage he is very plainly demented and in the pay of a bunch of raving criminals .
  Why have green peace been allowed to exist for so long i find very amusing they shold have been removed years ago .
7. Re:a hefty bill? by Gideon+Wells · 2011-11-14 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't want to get into all that to keep my comment concise and to the point. I was replying to a comment whose logic was "Cost a lot to build, therefore must surely have money to pay this off."
  I was countering that argument with a personal example that I lived. Not hearsay or second hand information.
  I concede and admit that there are numerous other variables in play here. I am not saying $2 million is not a lot for the company currently. Maybe this plant wasn't making pennies on the dollar. Maybe it paid off its construction. I do not know. But you can't argue $2 million is "nothing" just because the project cost a lot to construct. The validity of nuclear power or green energy and the superiority of either did not fact into my statement.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
8. Re:a hefty bill? by the_xaqster · 2011-11-14 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  I bet it will, but I can almost guarentee that EDF bills will go up to compensate them for their loss.
  Gotta pass that sort of cost on to the consumer, dontcha know?
  
  --
  I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
9. Re:a hefty bill? by kiwimate · 2011-11-14 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I will preface this by saying I have no idea of the comparative cash flows in different countries, or between different parts of the utility/electric industry. That said...
  In the U.S., if you are part of the power grid (critical infrastructure, also known as the Bulk Electric System, or BES) and are found in violation, NERC has the power to fine you one million dollars per violation, per day. This fine starts at the outset of the violation (not when it was actually discovered) and can continue until it is rectified. Example trade magazine discussion, second paragraph under NERC Basics.
10. Re:a hefty bill? by rahvin112 · 2011-11-14 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  Loan guarantees cost the government absolutely nothing as long as the company doesn't declare bankruptcy. Because as the name suggests it's simply a guarantee, not a subsidy. It allows the company to borrow at government interest rates (2-3%) rather than market interest rates (6-9%) with the only cost being the government backs the debt with a payment guarantee in the event the company becomes insolvent.
  So again, Loan Guarantee's are NOT a subsidy.
11. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because as the name suggests it's simply a guarantee, not a subsidy (emphasis mine).
  followed by the VERY NEXT SENTENCE:
  
  It allows the company to borrow at government interest rates (2-3%) rather than market interest rates (6-9%)
  cognitive dissonance anyway?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
12. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From your wikipedia reference:
  
  "It infamously failed in 1975, causing more casualties than any other dam failure in history, and was subsequently rebuilt."
  
  I don't see them rebuilding Fukushima or Chernobyl anytime soon...
  
  I didn't say other power sources don't have failure issues, I said other power sources don't render the surrounding 100 square miles uninhabitable for decades.
  
  care to try again?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
13. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  To answer your 'deaths per TWH' reference. That's not the point. The point is how much cost is associated with that figure. Where would coal be on that list if they had to fully scrub their emissions to prevent the mercury and other such stuff from escaping? Now add CO2.
  
  They could easily get their numbers down to nuclear levels but it wouldn't be economical in any sense...
  
  and they might need....wait for it....
  
  government loan guarantees to be able to build such expensive plants.
  
  Lets talk about construction versus operation. Exactly how many people die from solar panels simply sitting on a roof? Does your nuclear figure include the construction costs of the plants? Wind ditto. It just sits there spinning and as long as you aren't within a few hundred yards on a *very* windy day...zero casualties.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
14. Re:a hefty bill? by ddxexex · 2011-11-14 05:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Slightly OT, but just for kicks I calculated the deaths/TWh for nuclear if you included Hiroshima and Nagasaki (~250,000 deaths). I ended up with 6 deaths/TWh from the .04 deaths/TWh originally. Oil is 36 deaths/TWh and US Coal is 15. I think that nicely shows just how deadly Oil and Coal are.
15. Re:a hefty bill? by tnk1 · 2011-11-14 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There was nothing wrong with what he said. He didn't say they were borrowing from the government, he said that they could borrow (from private banks) at government rates.
  The reason that governments get much lower rates is that they are very unlikely to default on their loans so there is much less risk and cost involved in loaning them money. That means that the interest rate they charge can be very low. If you can get the government credit "blanket" extended over you, then the banks can consider your loan to be just as safe as a government one and give you the same deal.
  So he was right, a loan guarantee is NOT a subsidy, unless there is a bankruptcy. It makes it less expensive to build a reactor, but that money does not come from the government. I was also loaned money for my education that was a federal student loan. Since the government was on the hook for the money, I got a low interest rate, but the government did not pay one cent for my education loans.
16. Re:a hefty bill? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's like saying "I'm not giving you more apples, but as part of my 'approval' of your business, you'll get a slight discount on the apples you buy from other people". If you'll note, the Bank is still making a profit, the loan still has to be paid, and nobody is 'getting' anything free.
17. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  the loan still has to be paid
  AT. A. LOWER. RATE.
  
  The company is clearly getting something for free, the loan guarantees and the resulting lower interest rate which means likely millions of dollars in savings.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
18. Re:a hefty bill? by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is a subsidy. And quite frankly, if they are getting those subsidies, then they absolutely should not bitch about anyone else receiving them. The second that happens, they should lose the subsidy.
19. Re:a hefty bill? by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is a fucking subsidy. It just isn't a subsidy that involves money. They are still getting a monetary benefit from the government that they are bitching about other companies also receiving.
20. Re:a hefty bill? by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Quite frankly, passing on costs of violations should be illegal. The company is the one that should have to suffer, not the consumer.
21. Re:a hefty bill? by jonbryce · 2011-11-14 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  A loan guarantee is a subsidy. The alternative would be to get your loan guaranteed by a AAA rated insurance company, if such a thing still exists, and you would have to pay them a pretty hefty insurance premium for that.
  As the government is essentially acting as a credit insurer here, if they give out enough of these guarantees, there will be claims on some of them, so there is an actual cost involved.
22. Re:a hefty bill? by Reverand+Dave · 2011-11-14 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  If we calculated all of the brown people bombed into oblivion by the US for their oil, I suspect the numbers for oil and natural gas would be a bit higher as well.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
23. Re:a hefty bill? by Reverand+Dave · 2011-11-14 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  The lost profit is to the bank at the expense of the company borrowing the capital, not the taxpayers. More to the point, it is not actually lost profit because without the lower interest rates, many of these businesses wouldn't even be borrowing any capital which would mean the profit would be... wait for it...
  
  non-existent without the gov't loan guarantees.
  
  The way you rail against it you'd think the nuclear power industry molested you or something. This is the point where you have lost credibility due to irrationality. Good day sir.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
24. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  And you sir are fabulously muddying the waters with unrelated information.
  
  No one is talking about the bank. We're are talking about the subsidy given to a power company to build a power plant.
  
  As the OP stated, by receiving federal loan guarantees, the power company receives a lower interest rate.
  
  You do agree this results in a lower cost to build the plant yes?
  
  THAT is the subsidy, whether that loan came from a bank or someone's really large mattress, the cost to build the actual plant is lower than if it wouldn't have had the loan guarantees.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
25. Re:a hefty bill? by Reverand+Dave · 2011-11-14 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  A lower cost to build the plant is relative. Without the guarantees, the plant would not be built so in essence, there is not a lower cost to build the plant, there is only one cost which since lower is a comparative term it is invalid in this case because there is no comparison. That is not a subsidy. Now if the gov't wasn't collecting taxes due on said plant or was deferring its own collection of interest premiums then that would be a subsidy, but neither are occurring in this case.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
26. Re:a hefty bill? by amorsen · 2011-11-14 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  When push comes to shove and you evaluate whether a government is able to pay back what it owes, loan guarantees count just like everything else. A stupid, non-scientific rule of thumb is that a country is in trouble when its loans are up to a years worth of GDP. If the loan guarantees push the government above that psychological boundary, they can get very, very expensive. At lower levels of debt, loan guarantees only push the overall interest rate slightly higher, so they still cost more than absolutely nothing, even if it isn't much.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
27. Re:a hefty bill? by amorsen · 2011-11-14 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Even if none of the loans default, it still means that the government is less able to pay for other long-term investments. That is a cost to society.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
28. Re:a hefty bill? by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-14 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Remember this is a first offense fine (as in first time they actually got caught and prosecuted). Whilst it's true that it's not a big enough fine, it's also true that if they repeat exactly the same thing, or more importantly continue the same operation as if nothing has happened the next fine is likely to be an order of magnitude bigger. About the only thing all judges can agree on is that nobody should ignore judges.
  Much more important than the fine is the fact that three of those involved in the hacking are actually going to prison for periods of up to a year. Even if we assume this will end up as six months or less, this is going to be a big big shock for some of CxOs who basically assume that if they remain SOX compliant they are immune to pretty much anything.
  To be frank this is an amazing result in corporate accountability and I will be totally surprised if they don't get reversed on appeal. (on the grounds that EDF is a major French company and laws don't apply to them)
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
29. Re:a hefty bill? by G00F · 2011-11-14 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Its like having your parents co-sign on your first car purchase. You pay it, but if you don't, then they go after your parents.
  
  Its only an issue when the companies fail to pay it, and that's when the government should take over to fix the situation and look at the leaders of the company to find fault in them.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
30. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Using your example, you also received a lower interest rate on the co-signed loan than you would have if it was on your own.
  
  THAT difference in your cost of the loan is the subsidy.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
31. Re:a hefty bill? by Code+Yanker · 2011-11-14 09:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly how many people die from solar panels simply sitting on a roof? Does your nuclear figure include the construction costs of the plants?
  Most of the death toll from nuclear power since the adoption of the containment vessel probably comes from mining, not construction. I'm willing to bet the same for other forms of generation, except for fossil fuels and hydroelectric. Getting the raw materials out of the ground is a labor intensive process requiring heavy machinery and risky setups, and lives are invariably lost or shortened more so than in normal construction. In China alone, between 5,000 and 20,000 people die each year from mining accidents.
  It has been 25 years since a nuclear disaster occured that resulted in the loss of human lives, 64 lives directly, according to UNSCEAR but up to 4,000 according to the World Health Organization when shortened lives are also accounted for. That means that since Chernobyl, the death toll from mining supercedes the nuclear death toll by between 30 and 7800 times over depending on who you trust. Keep in mind, this is for CHINA ALONE, and is assuming mining in China was NOT more dangerous 25 years ago.
  Now lets take into account that Chernobyl implemented a design created primarily for weapons production, had no containment vessel, and was being run by a communist regime on the brink of collapse. The scale of melt-down that occured there would be near-impossible for a gifted group of well-funded terrorist engineers to cause in a modern reactor with containment. The worst nature has thrown at an ill-prepared plant (read: Fukushima) still resulted in no deaths.
  So here would be my question: which energy source requires the most mined materials per TW. Honestly, I don't know. But my suspicions are that nuclear would be near the bottom of that list.
  
  Wind ditto. It just sits there spinning and as long as you aren't within a few hundred yards on a *very* windy day...zero casualties.
  As long as [ this | that ]. If you are going to hold nuclear to these extreme corner cases, please hold all other energy generation techniques to equally high standards.
32. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 09:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you are going to hold nuclear to these extreme corner cases, please hold all other energy generation techniques to equally high standards.
  I hold them to extreme corner cases as commensurate with the risk of what happens when those conditions manifest themselves.
  
  Nuclear simply has consequences that no other power source does. In each and every other case I can quite safely walk the grounds of a failed power plant the very day after the accident. You simply can't do that with nuclear when it goes tits up.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
33. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  So here would be my question: which energy source requires the most mined materials per TW. Honestly, I don't know. But my suspicions are that nuclear would be near the bottom of that list
  All power sources have a construction portion so there will be mining for the construction materials for all the sources.
  
  Renewable sources do not have any fuel requirements, so once the systems are constructed the mining basically stops. Nuclear has lower fuel/ore requirements than coal or oil, but it still needs to be mined/transported/refined etc before it can be used as the fuel.
  
  according to UNSCEAR but up to 4,000 according to the World Health Organization when shortened lives are also accounted for.
  Well if you read further on this page estimates are as high as almost a million.
  
  A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[11] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[12] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[13] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
34. Re:a hefty bill? by pclminion · 2011-11-14 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Their punishment is not "had to spend 2 million euros." The punishment is they had to give Greenpeace 2 million euros. The money might be a small sum for them, but it's not a small sum for Greenpeace. They obviously consider them enough of a threat to make it worth breaking the law, and now they have to give this apparent enemy 2 million euros. I wonder what Greenpeace will spend that wad of cash on.
  Analogy time. You own a bunch of guns. You're ordered to give one of them up. Big deal, you've got dozens more. Except the guy you have to give the gun to, wants to shoot you with it. Yes, it's a problem.
35. Re:a hefty bill? by Code+Yanker · 2011-11-14 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Renewable sources do not have any fuel requirements, so once the systems are constructed the mining basically stops.
  For that unit, for its lifetime. A finite quantity of mined material produces a finite quantity of energy in both cases, so I don't see why that's relevant. Everything can be recycled up to a point, steel silicon, even spent fuel if you care to.
  
  Well if you read further on this page estimates are as high as almost a million.
  You quote both the TORCH report and the Nesterenko, Nesterenko and Yablokov report, and lets not forget: Greenpeace.
  My general response to this is, yeah we know. My nephew's highschool teacher claimed that Japan would have to be evacuated after Fukushima, and advised students to take precautions to avoid eating even American-grown food that may have been contaminated by the fallout. At some point, we need to set the bar for how much a given claim stands up to peer-review. Everything that falls short can be excluded from the depending-on-who-you-ask colloqialisms, and all of these reports fall below that bar IMHO.
  Don't get me wrong, unlike my nephew's teacher, these studies have all made unique contributions to scientific knowledge and that is valuable. The conclusions they make, however cannot be touted as reputable estimates. None of them do any robust correlation between various reports of deleterious health effects and dosage. None of them account for increased rates of screening and improved screening technologies when calculating statistics on epidemiological diagnoses. Two of them even cite the IAEA Agreement WHA 12-40 as sources of error in previous WHO studies, apparently without having read the agreement and its conflict-of-interest clauses.
36. Re:a hefty bill? by pclminion · 2011-11-14 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Just realized only 500,000 went to Greenpeace, the rest was a fine. Point still stands though.
37. Re:a hefty bill? by firex726 · 2011-11-14 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  From the article it doesn't sound like the full two million went to GP, only about €500,000, which when you consider GP is a world wide organization sponsoring TV ads during the Superbowl (Which are what, $3 million per minute) and other major events, that's not very much. From reading around it sounds like they raised over €100 Million in just last year.
  In the vast majority of cases a fine levied by the government is paid to the government.
  "EDF has also been ordered to pay half a million euros (£428,000) in damages to Greenpeace."
38. Re:a hefty bill? by Code+Yanker · 2011-11-14 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  I hold them to extreme corner cases as commensurate with the risk of what happens when those conditions manifest themselves.
  No, you didn't. Your previous post assumes that people standing in a windy field next to a fatally defective wind turbine is equally as likely as reactor being built without a containment vessel, or being ill-prepared before being hit by a tsunami, this leads to an inaccurate calculation of risk. If risk is defined as probability of an event multiplied by its consequences, wind power is still the riskier bet. This is magnified when you consider that the probability of the windy-field scenario would be magnified if we were to scale wind-energy up to nuclear's specs.
  
  Nuclear simply has consequences that no other power source does. In each and every other case I can quite safely walk the grounds of a failed power plant the very day after the accident. You simply can't do that with nuclear when it goes tits up.
  The costs of nuclear that are not associated with loss of human life are a valid argument. Land becomes unusable for a period of time. Back to my original comment, I'm willing to bet that this area of land is very, very insignificant when you consider the land made unusable when mining for the input materials. Again, I think nuclear will fair favorably, but we would need more resources than I have at my fingertips at this computer to make a reasonable estimate.
39. Re:a hefty bill? by mug+funky · 2011-11-14 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  that's still a few inflatable boats and a shitload of weed.
40. Re:a hefty bill? by Code+Yanker · 2011-11-14 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Its a subsidy. The public is assuming risk or cost on behalf of a non-public entity. That's a subsidy. BUT you shouldn't count this as a strike against nuclear and here's why:
  This is NOT a typical business risk that the public is assuming. The typical business risks are the increasing market value of inputs and the decreasing market value of outputs. Your plain-old honest market forces being plain-old unpredictable. But that is not the case with nuclear.
  Nuclear has big returns, but also has huge investments. It also has a long lead-time. Your typical nuclear construction project has miles of regulatory red-tape, truck-loads of public design review, and a moving-target approval process that must span several political cycles. The public-at-large believes the NRC to be a rubber-stamping revolving door for the industry, but ironically enough, people in the nuclear industry believe the NRC is there to over-regulate, micro-manage and generally crush your hopes and dreams.
  You can play the parlor games of calculating how many Chernobyl-scale accidents would have to happen per year before we would say the nuclear industry regulations WEREN'T ridiculous when compared to other base-load energy sources.
  But the general point is that a lot of the risk of nuclear power isn't from melt-downs or contamination leaks. No, most of it is associated with developing and building nuclear plants, and is artificially contrived from public opinion and the political process keeping the plant from ever getting off the ground in the first place. This is of course true for many business ventures, but it is ESPECIALLY true for the nuclear industry. It seems fitting to me that the public should bare at least part of the burden of risk that the public created.
41. Re:a hefty bill? by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Without the guarantees, the plant would not be built so in essence, there is not a lower cost to build the plant
  Nope. The cost to build the plant without the loan guarantee is effectively infinity dollars since it simply can't be built without the loan guarantees. That makes the actual cost of building it....wait for it....lower than infinity dollars.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
42. Re:a hefty bill? by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  2 million euro is nothing for such a company.
  cb
  Yes, but if the fine had been for a significant amount (say half their profit for 2010) eveyone wuld be whining about the evil socialist government interfering with free trade and the right of private companies to compete in a global marketplace.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
43. Re:a hefty bill? by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  There was nothing wrong with what he said. He didn't say they were borrowing from the government, he said that they could borrow (from private banks) at government rates.
  The reason that governments get much lower rates is that they are very unlikely to default on their loans so there is much less risk and cost involved in loaning them money. That means that the interest rate they charge can be very low. If you can get the government credit "blanket" extended over you, then the banks can consider your loan to be just as safe as a government one and give you the same deal.
  So he was right, a loan guarantee is NOT a subsidy, unless there is a bankruptcy. It makes it less expensive to build a reactor, but that money does not come from the government. I was also loaned money for my education that was a federal student loan. Since the government was on the hook for the money, I got a low interest rate, but the government did not pay one cent for my education loans.
  Why is this bollocks modded as insightful?
  
  If you can borrow money at a lower interest rate because it is guaranteed by the government, of course it is a bleeding subsidy. You will pay less interest out of your bank account, and so your profits will be higher.
  
  Your student loan is different, as you are not a business, but the fact remains that if you can get cheaper loans from the government than from a private bank, you are most certainly being subsidised by the government, as again you are paying less interest, which is a real cashflow.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
44. Re:a hefty bill? by makomk · 2011-11-15 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the reason the banks are willing to loan them money at a lower rate is because they think that there's some non-zero chance the company will fail and the Government's loan guarantee will pay out. Otherwise they wouldn't care about the loan guarantee either way. The subsidy is the money the Government has promised to pay if the company goes out of business.
45. Re:a hefty bill? by tnk1 · 2011-11-15 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  There is always a non-zero chance that a loan will not be paid. Government or not. That's not a subsidy, it is simple risk management. Having the government involved just means that less can be charged to cover potential risk. Nothing is lost by anyone if the risk does not pan out.
  Banks only charge those rates to everyone to offset the defaults in the same pool of loan recipients. Thus, they would make the same money by charging you or me 5% as they would the government 3% because the government will always pay up, but many individuals will default. That extra 2% is simply recouping from the rest of us what the defaulters would lose the bank. It is not extra profit.
  If you could argue that most reactors fail to recoup their losses and default on their loans you *might* be able to argue that it was something like an "informal subsidy" since the understanding is that it would be likely government would have to pay up.
  However, as far as I know, most reactors and operating companies can and do pay the banks. Subsidies are direct government payments to insure a result and they are always paid and are a fixed line item. In this case, this is not a subsidy since the goal is to *avoid* government payout. This is more "insurance" than a subsidy. The government never pays anyone anything up front, just like insurance companies exist and make profits because they don't usually have to pay out much in relation to their assets either.
46. Re:a hefty bill? by Reverand+Dave · 2011-11-15 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure when 0 became equivalent to infinity, but I think you may need to check your math and your reasoning.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
47. Re:a hefty bill? by MMAfrk19BB · 2011-11-15 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  2 million euro is nothing for such a company.
  cb
  The judge must be got hold of and eradicated before he does any more damage he is very plainly demented and in the pay of a bunch of raving criminals . Why have green peace been allowed to exist for so long i find very amusing they shold have been removed years ago .
  Mod -1 incoherent (I know I don't have any points, just something that should be done IMHO.)
Um, OK. by Millennium · 2011-11-14 03:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

As long as this rule applies both ways -i.e. if Greenpeace were to hack into the computers if some other company, they would be fined a more or less equal amount- then I can't say I see any problem with it.
1. Re:Um, OK. by TheLink · 2011-11-14 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So far from my observation if a private individual hacks, the private individual risks going to prison.
  
  Whereas if a corporation does it there's no prison time involved for any of the people involved.
  
  I think prison time would discourage both private individuals and individuals acting on behalf of corporations.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
2. Re:Um, OK. by Millennium · 2011-11-14 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What you describe is an unfair system: different parties play by different rules based on a factor of no relevance to the matter at hand.
  In a fair system, everyone plays by the same rules, and that's the type of system I'm talking about here.
3. Re:Um, OK. by TheGratefulNet · 2011-11-14 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  if corporations 'are people' then they should GO TO JAIL like people when caught breaking the law.
  it would be fun as hell to design what it means to be a corp 'in prison'. wouldn't it be fun?? imagine how we could stick it, back, to all the fucked up corps who have gotton away with bloody murder (or nearly so) over the years.
  the thing is, justice is owned by the state and the state is now owned by corps. don't expect ANY justice toward corps. not until after some revolution (...) comes, anyway.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:Um, OK. by data2 · 2011-11-14 03:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  To be fair, this incident resulted in several people getting prison time.
5. Re:Um, OK. by DinDaddy · 2011-11-14 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How is the degree to which the penalty discourages the behavior not relevant?
  Your claim of its irrelevance is wrong.
6. Re:Um, OK. by trum4n · 2011-11-14 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But it's not fair to fine a citizen the same as a corporation. You could empty my bank accounts, and the corp wouldn't even notice that amount of money. So you can ruin a persons life, or fine a company effectively nothing, with the same dollar value. Fine me 10,000$, you better fine Exxon 25+ billion.
7. Re:Um, OK. by bentcd · 2011-11-14 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  "Either would get fined 1M" isn't obviously any more fair than "either would get fined into bankruptcy (alternatively some percentage thereof which is probably more to the point here)".
  Variations over "fined into bankruptcy" are essentially just the financial equivalents to either death sentence or life imprisonment, depending on how you look at it.
  
  --
  sigs are hazardous to your health
8. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  I do realize that YANAL, but you should read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personhood].
  You might also be interested in these: [http://writing.wikinut.com/How-to-Write-a-Proper-English-Sentence/1gune_q3/], and [http://www.wikihow.com/Use-English-Punctuation-Correctly].
9. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  you forgot to add :
  while you're clients (who practically don't have any other choice to be your client) will have to pay 50cents more per household, permitting the director to buy his wive a brand new super-car, new outfits and of course a new private jet (since her old jet is the same model as paris hiltons) and of course the same for his mistresses...
  if a compagny has to pay, they will make sure their clients will do that for them, and often make some profit while they're at it...
10. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA: The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended. Meanwhile his boss, Pascal Durieux, who was EDF’s head of nuclear production security in 2006, was also sentenced to three years imprisonment, two years suspended, and a 10,000 euros (£8,500) fine for apparently commissioning the spying operation.
11. Re:Um, OK. by Smallpond · 2011-11-14 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So far from my observation if a private individual hacks, the private individual risks going to prison.
  Whereas if a corporation does it there's no prison time involved for any of the people involved.
  I think prison time would discourage both private individuals and individuals acting on behalf of corporations.
  Under US law, corporations shield the owners from financial loss, not criminal behavior. A person commits a crime and goes to jail regardless of whether they acted on behalf of a corporation. The executives at Enron were all charged with fraud, for example. This case is under French law, tho.
12. Re:Um, OK. by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  and yet the corporation continued to do business, they paid a fine and didn't do any time.
  
  Therein lies the problem with corporate citizen-hood. Can you tell the corporation to stop doing business for 3 years while they are in prison?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
13. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, everyone must pay the same fine. Think of this as "penalty should be at most 1% of defendant's net income" , then apply it to non-profits, people and corporations alike. Adjust percentage according to severity of the crime.
  This way, the rich have the same incentive as the poor to abide by the laws.
14. Re:Um, OK. by Captain+Hook · 2011-11-14 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  The best analogy that I can think of for a corporate prison is placing the company under extremely tight restrictions on financial contracts
  
  I.e. not allowed to make any new contracts or service existing contacts.
  
  What is prison if not an artificial limit on the social interactions of the prisoner with the rest of society.
  
  The trouble with that of course is that the actions of a few higher executive officers would most adversely affect the rank and file employee and would likely be a death sentence for any company recieving any such sentence (who'd do business with them afterward they fail to delivery any goods the company is contracted to supply but aren't allowed to).
  
  The only reasonable sentence I can think of is prison sentences for the executive officers.
  
  The real problem of course is that Corporations aren't really people, so they shouldn't have the same rights and responsibilities as a person, Corporations are after all effectively immortal.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
15. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  So you want any business that has any member breaking the law in "the name of" the business to be shut down? Imagine what disgruntled employees would do in that case. What you're asking for doesn't make sense and is an easy exploit to get businesses destroyed because Bob, the high school drop out, is mad that he doesn't make as much as a manager in his role as a broom pusher. Hell, Bob has nothing to lose, he'll screw it up for everyone else and break a couple of laws and blame the company.
16. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  >> generate the majority of France's electricity
  Yeah, France can probably make do with the electricity they have for the next three years.
17. Re:Um, OK. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-11-14 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oooh, a 10,000 euro fine... Greenpeace needs to start salting their secure systems with MP3s from RIAA labels...
18. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  No, the article says they got a suspended sentence.
19. Re:Um, OK. by nospam007 · 2011-11-14 04:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "This way, the rich have the same incentive as the poor to abide by the laws."
  German and Swiss law do this, the fines are expressed in "earned per day" (Tagessätze) amounts between 1€ and 30,000€ per day depending on your income.
20. Re:Um, OK. by Hentes · 2011-11-14 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  You underestimate the finacial sources of Greenpeace. The fossil lobby has deep pockets.
21. Re:Um, OK. by Tim+C · 2011-11-14 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, in much the same way that when an individual is imprisoned you don't send their friends and family down too. Shutting down the corporation hurts all its employees and their families, as well as the guilty parties.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
22. Re:Um, OK. by the_xaqster · 2011-11-14 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  If you are going to RTFA, at least read all of it.
  They got prison, with SOME of the time suspended.
  
  --
  I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
23. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  The Mob should have incorporated.
24. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  it would be fun as hell to design what it means to be a corp 'in prison'. wouldn't it be fun??
  Well, this seems pretty simple:
  When a corporation "goes to jail" their taxes increase to the point of having the potential to make $0.25 per every unit equal to minimum wage they would make otherwise, and every night every board member must be fucked up the ass by a person with severe social issues and multiple STDs.
25. Re:Um, OK. by kiwimate · 2011-11-14 05:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I usually feel obliged to defend France (I think they get a raw deal, especially from Americans who can't see past the last 80 years of history and forget how the French contributed during the American revolution), but in this particular context I'm cynical. I grew up in New Zealand, and was living in Auckland the night the Rainbow Warrior was bombed. The two official French secret agents were sentenced to 10 years, served two, and most of that was in a tropical resort. They've since received medals and accolades from the government, both been promoted, written books...basically made out like heroes from this.
  I won't claim to speak for all my fellow kiwis, but this is about the only incident that I hold a grudge over and think was never handled fairly.
26. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  you're an idiot.
27. Re:Um, OK. by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  My point was that if we're going to give corporations all the benefits of personhood, they need to be capable of being punished in the same manner.
  
  As you so astutely note, it's not practical to punish corporations in the same manner...so perhaps they shouldn't be given the 'rights' of personhood, which was my actual point.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
28. Re:Um, OK. by pixelpusher220 · 2011-11-14 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps because the family and friends didn't play a part in the crime? The 'corporation' here was fined, not individuals. Hence the 'corporation' itself was punished...how do you imprison a corporation? Obviously you can't. So perhaps...we shouldn't be so willfully giving them the 'rights' of personhood without the correlated punishments...
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
29. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  I like this idea, but I think it would be hard to determine who is actually to blame. You'll probably end up with scapegoats.
30. Re:Um, OK. by Swanktastic · 2011-11-14 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know this is Slashdot, but the French contributing to the success of the American Revolution was 100% done out of self-interest. The Bourbons loved democracy in the same way Americans loved radical Islam when we gave Afghanistan freedom fighters Stingers to shoot down Russian helicopters. And it came back and bit them in the tail in a much more dramatic and bloody way.
31. Re:Um, OK. by m50d · 2011-11-14 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Um, sending someone to prison certainly hurts their families as well as the guilty party.
  
  --
  I am trolling
32. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  So they go to jail, the corporation goes on business as usual. Jail time is enough to deter some people. Expensive payouts are enough to deter some corporations. Neither, it seems, is enough to deter Greenpeace.
33. Re:Um, OK. by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, his system is far more fair. Fining this company 2 million Euros has a far different impact than if, say, an average household was fined 2 million Euros. One is going to be able to absorb the costs. The other one has absolutely no chance of doing so.
34. Re:Um, OK. by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I would think they'd have to be able to service existing contracts, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for them to exist. I do like the extremely tight controls on what they can charge, and what they can do with their profit. For one, VPs and other C level officers cannot leave the company. Second, their pay is slashed, and they get no bonuses or options as long as the company is in jail. The company cannot issue any more stock. Any profit they make, half of it is taken away. They are also not allowed to use any accounting tricks like the Dutch double dip.
35. Re:Um, OK. by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  It would be possible to liquidate most of the company's assets, and use that to pay the employees for up to a year while they find other employment. And such an action would start at the bottom, not the top. Those making the least amount in the company would be the first to get paid.
36. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Which brings us back around to 'corporations are not people'. Anyone trying to argue as such is retarded.
  However, since I'll be long dead in the hundreds of years it'll take for corporations to be stripped of personhood, I think a good prison sentence would be to 'jail' a corp would be the aforementioned disallow said corp to continue to do business, etc, etc, close all doors, the building is now just there and doing nothing. They cannot sell the business, they cannot trade, everything is locked.
  BUT... to counter the 'employees are hurt' aspect, all employees continue to get paid by way of assets, stocks, IP, etc of the company being sold off in order to do as such (there will have to be some decision as to what order to sell things, but I'm thinking a random number generator to see what's sold will be the most appropriate). This will give them ample time to search for a new job if they so wish. After the 3 or whatever year sentence, if anything of the company should still physically exist (literally, if the building is physically still there and hasn't been sold to pay for wages and property taxes), then they may continue to do business. If they cannot for obvious reasons, well it looks like this jailed 'person' lost his job. Strange how that happens to real people too.
37. Re:Um, OK. by oobayly · 2011-11-14 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Likewise, the US had no interest in becoming involved in WWII until Pearl Harbour (or at least until Hitler declared war on the USA four days later) - over 2 years since the start of the war in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I can see why, after the loss of 110,000 soldiers in WWI.
  It's common for some Americans to go on about how we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for them, so I think it's only fair for them to be reminded that it's quite possible they'd still be speaking the Queen's English and drinking warm beer if it weren't for the French.
  Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.
38. Re:Um, OK. by sjames · 2011-11-14 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  The closest analogy would be that the corporation is forcibly converted to be a non-profit for the period of a natural person's sentence plus a percentage (since an ex-con will require years after serving a sentence to be anything like solvent again). Meanwhile, executive salaries get set to the highest non-management position's salary with no bonuses of any kind. Golden parachutes are null and void (since the executives certainly could and should have prevented the criminal behavior).
  Once paroled, the company is free to make a profit again, but may remain subject to extra scrutiny and oversight for the period of the parole. The oversight will include sharing management decisions with their "parole officers" designed to teach the company how to avoid re-offending.
39. Re:Um, OK. by sjames · 2011-11-14 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Under U.S. practice, unless the crime is truly infamous, the corporation pays an insignificant fine and the matter is declared settled.
  Nobody at Sony went to jail for their little rootkit debacle in spite of infecting DoD computers.
40. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  But the CxOs and board are supposedly the leaders, so everything the company does should be their responsibility. We need to lose the corporate veil in criminal matters for ethics to come back into corporate activities. Sending the CxOs to jail for a bit wouldn't necessarily grind the company to a halt -- let alternates be nominated to run things until they serve their time.
41. Re:Um, OK. by dwpro · 2011-11-14 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Variations over "fined into bankruptcy" are essentially just the financial equivalents to either death sentence or life imprisonment, depending on how you look at it.
  I don't think so. Many companies get a second life when they reanimate: IE: Blackwater->Xe. I'd liken it more to, well, bankruptcy.
  
  --
  Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
42. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace isn't a citizen.
43. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace is a multi million dollar operation too you know.
44. Re:Um, OK. by mcgrew · 2011-11-14 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  How's that different than a speeding ticket? Ever notice that the speeders on the interstate are almost always driving late model luxury cars? That $150 fine is way too high for me to afford, but for someone who spends $500 on a necktie that $150 fine is of less economic consequence than my buying a beer at a tavern.
  I agree that it isn't moral, but the laws are written by the rich, so don't expect much morality.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
45. Re:Um, OK. by mcgrew · 2011-11-14 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  if corporations 'are people' then they should GO TO JAIL like people when caught breaking the law.
  I think the GP was pointing out that they don't. It was a reference to XCP, the trojan that Sony surreptuously installed on PCs that played their BMG CDs. I was a victim, my computer was completely trashed. I think Sony's CEO should have spent more time than Kevin Mitnik, since they hacked far more computers than Mitnik did. But nobody spent a day in the pokey, not even a singlt lowly Sony employee.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
46. Re:Um, OK. by Millennium · 2011-11-14 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  How is your assumption that several million dollars won't make a corporation blink relevant, or even for that matter anything but absurd? Contrary to your crassly class-envious beliefs, even a corporation will blink at a penalty like that.
47. Re:Um, OK. by T.E.D. · 2011-11-14 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  ...and was living in Auckland the night the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] was bombed. The two official French secret agents were sentenced...
  That was the first thing I thought of too. What exactly does France have against Greenpeace anyway? Its almost as if they want to beat up on somebody, but don't feel compentent enough to pick on anyone but the one scrawny little kid off in the corner eating paste.
48. Re:Um, OK. by makapuf · 2011-11-14 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Except that iirc this is a mostly state owned company. Recursivity prison ?
49. Re:Um, OK. by painandgreed · 2011-11-14 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Like Britain petitioning the USA to enter WWII, Benjamin Franklin actively petitioned for support in France in 1776 - the only difference was that the French covertly entered the American War of Independence before formally recognising the USA two years later - causing Britain to declare war on France.
  Then there's not really any difference then. We had entered the war long before Pearl Harbor. We already were drafting men into the army. We were trading destroyers to Britain for bases. We had established the Lend-Lease act already and officially became the "Arsenal of Democracy" in 1940. There were reasons that the Japanese felt that they had to bomb us first, and that was because we were actively moving against them in the war already by denying them resources but not denying them to their enemies. We hadn't entered the war, but we were hardly being neutral before Pearl Harbor.
50. Re:Um, OK. by neutrino38 · 2011-11-14 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Dude,
  Some exec got jailed.
51. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  According to the original The Guardian article, the EDF's 'head of nuclear production security' is going to prison for three years.
52. Re:Um, OK. by Beelzebud · 2011-11-14 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let us know when Greenpeace is convicted of something like this.
53. Re:Um, OK. by Chuck+Chunder · 2011-11-14 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  How is your assumption that several million dollars won't make a corporation blink relevant, or even for that matter anything but absurd?
  Where did he assume that? As far as I could see he made no claim that the amount awarded wouldn't make the company blink, he merely suggested that a lesser amount would have an equal deterrent effect on Greenpeace.
  
  There doesn't seem to be anything unreasonable about that.
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
54. Re:Um, OK. by ravenshrike · 2011-11-14 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
55. Re:Um, OK. by mug+funky · 2011-11-14 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  the two people responsible got three years jail... (true, mostly suspended, but then they have soft rich-boy arses, so a short time in the joint will change them a lot).
56. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  This is your first thought after finding out that France's nuclear power plants are being run by criminals? "Forget that! Greanpeace is BAAAAD!"
57. Re:Um, OK. by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  your crassly class-envious beliefs
  Yes, everyone is equally free to dine at the Ritz.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
58. Re:Um, OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-15 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  4 people have been sentenced between 1 and 4 years of prison. The company Kargus Consultant, that performed the attacks have been closed.
Kinda low by itchythebear · 2011-11-14 03:30 · Score: 2

I didn't read the article yet, but 1.5 million euros seems like kind of a slap on the wrist for a power company. They'll prob make that much profit just from people using their computers to read this slashdot story (ok, that's kind of a hyperbole, but you get the idea). If this was "industrial scale espionage" like the summary said, you'd think there would be more than just a "small" fine for punishment.

--
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
1. Re:Kinda low by itchythebear · 2011-11-14 03:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Whoops, I jumped the gun
  FTFA:
  
  The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended. Meanwhile his boss, Pascal Durieux, who was EDF’s head of nuclear production security in 2006, was also sentenced to three years imprisonment, two years suspended, and a 10,000 euros (£8,500) fine for apparently commissioning the spying operation.
  and
  
  As a result of this, the French judge issued a guilty verdict in the case of Thierry Lorho, the head of Kargus Consultants. The former member of France’s secret services was sentenced to three years in jail, with two suspended and a €4,000 (£3,450) fine. EDF was also ordered to pay €50,000 (£42,800) to Jadot.
  
  --
  If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
2. Re:Kinda low by xouumalperxe · 2011-11-14 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  The involved executives also got a suspended sentence of 3 years' worth of jail time.
3. Re:Kinda low by itchythebear · 2011-11-14 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, anytime I start a comment out with "I didn't read the article yet, but..." I should probably realize I'm about to spout out some nonsense. /facepalm
  
  --
  If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
4. Re:Kinda low by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually - considering how many Slashdotters actually do read the articles... I almost automatically assume someone did NOT read it, unless specifically stated otherwise.
5. Re:Kinda low by The+Askylist · 2011-11-14 03:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Kargus was also the firm involved in hacking the anti-doping lab which had caught out Floyd Landis for cheating in the Tour de France. Landis was given a 1 year suspended sentence, as was his coach.
  .
  The Kargus guy involved got 3 years, and the hacker himself 2, but with 18 months suspended.
  AFP report here
6. Re:Kinda low by petermgreen · 2011-11-14 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Of course giving someone a suspended sentance of jail time is very different from actually giving them jail time.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:Kinda low by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-11-14 04:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Incidentally, the French secret service of which the Kargus consulting creep was an alumnus was the same entity responsible for sinking one of Greenpeace's ships with limpet mines in order to avoid being inconvenienced by a protest they were going to lead... Keep it classy.
And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:31 · Score: 5, Informative

If the situation were reversed... Greenpeace would be declared terrorists and alot of people would be tossed in jail for a long long time.
Once again the lesson is.. If you wanna be a criminal. Start a company first.
1. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace is made up of sacks of shit. I hope they all die, and I hope you get cancer.
2. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace have already been declared terrorists in most of the world, yet they're not in jail, despite belonging there.
3. Re:And yet... by TheGratefulNet · 2011-11-14 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  quite OT but slightly humorous: if you are an adult and pay to have sex with an adult, that's a crime.
  EXCEPT when you are a corporation and are filming it. then its 100% perfectly legal.
  corps have more rights than people. they actually do.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:And yet... by BMOC · 2011-11-14 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's very tough to be a Greenpeace terrorist these days, you have to show up to court so you can get acquitted for criminal damages to a power plant.
  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/kingsnorth-trial-verdict100908/
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
5. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like a sucessfully content individual.
6. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  Still OT but that got me thinking. Prostitutes should carry a digital camera around and offer sexual performance art rather than just sex. Offer the John the exclusive rights to any performance, and he gets the memory card when done, to publish if he so chooses.
7. Re:And yet... by BMOC · 2011-11-14 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  I have a lot of faith in the enterprising abilities of the ladies of the night in this world. I can't believe they haven't thought of this.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
8. Re:And yet... by colesw · 2011-11-14 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  So the solution is to start a company and only pay for sex with an adult who is comfortable with you filming it?
9. Re:And yet... by RazzleFrog · 2011-11-14 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well actually it's only officially legal in California I think. The laws in other states are quite fuzzy and enforcement is even fuzzier.
10. Re:And yet... by Pope · 2011-11-14 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, I thought everyone had gone to HD by now. (Memories of watching scrambled Playboy channel shows in the 80s...)
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
11. Re:And yet... by kiwimate · 2011-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Greenpeace have already been declared terrorists in most of the world
  Sources please?
  
  yet they're not in jail, despite belonging there.
  Why?
12. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace would be declared terrorists
  They are. Can't say I feel too bad for them. The power company was probably just checking to see if they were next on the list. Maybe if they didn't destroy things that ran counter to the fearmongering they use to generate donation revenue I'd feel differently.
13. Re:And yet... by Swanktastic · 2011-11-14 05:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2845/why-arent-porn-actors-charged-with-prostitution
  The key quote FTA:
  But in 1988 his conviction was overturned by the California Supreme Court, which cited precedent establishing that "for [an act] to constitute 'prostitution,' the genitals, buttocks, or female breast, of either the prostitute or the customer must come in contact with some part of the body of the other for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the customer or of the prostitute" [emphasis added]. The court found that the "payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. . . . There is no evidence that [Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'." Thus, no prostitution.
14. Re:And yet... by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  There usually is quite a bit of paperwork that has to be done in order to do adult films. Typically there has to be signed and notarized paperwork indicating all of the actors are over 18. Most states usually also require STD tests to be done every so often, and results to be kept on file.
15. Re:And yet... by Jedi+Alec · 2011-11-14 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't porn sets typically have a few girls whose sole purpose is to make sure the male actors stay in a state of physical arousal in order to be able to perform?
  I believe they're called Fluffers
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
16. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  What you're implying is a common misconception. "Fluffers" are stagehands and assistants - they bring you water and lube, they wipe off fluids and reapply makeup. They stand in for setting up the scenes.
  If an actor can't get it up with his own hand, or the person in front of him, what makes you think some intern is going to help? If they had magical penis-powers, they would be in the shot, not on the sidelines.
17. Re:And yet... by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, there are a lot of AC postings in this thread, is it too difficult for the military-industrial complex shills to create accounts or something?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:36 · Score: 0

They were probably worried that Greenpeace was onto them for also hiring the 'Ndrangheta to dump waste in Somalia, or just sink a ship somewhere in the Mediterranean. I don't have any proof or links regarding EDF and the 'Ndrangheta, but a similar Italian company did this, and some barrels from France were amongst those found in the shipwrecks.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2011-11-14 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
WTF?! by sgt+scrub · 2011-11-14 03:39 · Score: 1

Why 70-30 in favor of the government? Was the government harmed more than the defendant?

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I'm confused by dbIII · 2011-11-14 03:41 · Score: 1

I thought the French could literally get away with murder as far as Greenpeace were concerned.

A bit off topic, but an entirely new and very cool method of fingerprint detection using lasers was developed which led to the arrest of the French agents that planted the bomb on a Greenpeace ship some years ago. It's a pity they didn't get to serve their prison sentence.
1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  I thought the French could literally get away with murder as far as Greenpeace were concerned.
  Not anymore, and that's too bad.
2. Re:I'm confused by drinkypoo · 2011-11-14 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the French could literally get away with murder as far as Greenpeace were concerned.
  Not anymore, and that's too bad.
  Amateur troll is amateur.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What is it with the French and Greenpeace? by Chrisq · 2011-11-14 03:46 · Score: 0

What is it with the French and Greenpeace? Well at least this time they didn't kill anyone like when the sank the Greenpeace ship.
Perhaps they're desperate to show that there is someone they won't surrender to!
1. Re:What is it with the French and Greenpeace? by jwijnands · 2011-11-14 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not only did noone get killed but someone got convicted and that's pretty impressive especially if you consider how close EDF is to the government.
Typically French by the+eric+conspiracy · 2011-11-14 03:50 · Score: 1

The French are one of the world leaders in the field of industrial espionage. This should not be a surprise.
1. Re:Typically French by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  They are lots of ideological remains of the Vichy Government still in the French society.
Fined? by eof · 2011-11-14 04:04 · Score: 1

Fined? If this was an individual they'd be looking at extradition and jail time.
1. Re:Fined? by uncanny · 2011-11-14 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment
  TFA
2. Re:Fined? by eof · 2011-11-14 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, thanks for that. I only saw the bit about the guy from Kargus getting jail time.
Get away with murder? by MikeRT · 2011-11-14 04:05 · Score: 1

The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties. What the French could have quite legally have done is waited for the Rainbow Warrior and the yachts it was bringing to illegally enter French territorial waters to disrupt legitimate weapons testing is have their navy open fire on them.
That's not murder. Murder assumes the attack had no legitimate right to attack. If Greenpeace had disrupted the French military's operations, they would have been quite legally justified in using force.
1. Re:Get away with murder? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Fortunately, most people are not that sociopathic.
2. Re:Get away with murder? by dbIII · 2011-11-14 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties.
  A very large quantity of explosives? There's no point trying to pretend that it's OK to use deadly force if you don't actually mean to kill anyone. I assume you are in the USA. Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today. I know it happened in Reagan's time with Orlando Letelier getting blown up in Washington D.C. but what would happen now?
  It appears we are straying a little into "might makes right" and "ends justifies the means" territory here. Even China is at least pretending to respect the rule of law on occasion these days.
3. Re:Get away with murder? by kiwimate · 2011-11-14 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today.
  ...in Baltimore Harbor. The Rainbow Warrior wasn't blown up at sea; this occurred in harbor in the largest city in the country, with a lot of other completely unrelated ships and their personnel in the vicinity.
4. Re:Get away with murder? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  The guy that drowned on the Rainbow Warrior got back in the boat to collect camera films ...
  from wikipedia:
  
  While the ship was initially evacuated, some of the crew returned to the ship to investigate and film the damage. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, returned below decks to fetch his camera equipment. At 11:45 P.M., the second bomb went off. Pereira drowned in the rapid flooding that followed
  There is no excuse for the bombs in the first place, but I don't think there was any intent to hurt anyone. Looks like other countries learned the lesson and are now just sawing off equipments on ships they don't want to see reach their neighbors shores. I don't see many soldiers brought to justice for killing innocent women and children in Irak, Palestine or Afghanistan.
5. Re:Get away with murder? by H0p313ss · 2011-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I know it happened in Reagan's time with Orlando Letelier getting blown up in Washington D.C.
  
  I had never heard of this, which surprised me. So I looked it up, turns out it was 1976 so you're off by a decade and two presidents, Ford was president in 1976.
  The reason I had not heard of this was that I was 7 years old in 1976 and not aware of much outside of cartoons.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
6. Re:Get away with murder? by dbIII · 2011-11-14 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops. My only excuse is I didn't hear about it until Reagan's time.
7. Re:Get away with murder? by dbIII · 2011-11-14 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's a common terror tactic to have a second bomb go after some time later to kill rescue workers or others that turn up to investigate the first blast.
8. Re:Get away with murder? by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  So you believe that the French government actually did Greenpeace a favour by mining their ship in harbour instead of blowing them out of the water while they were at sea?
  
  You're a fucking loony, mate.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Lol by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2011-11-14 04:13 · Score: 1, Troll

Because Greenpeace is well known for their entirely benevolent and respectful code of conduct that does not resort to any dirty tricks.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah Beavis, because not being perfect totally makes it OK to commit major crimes against you...
  Dumbass.
there's always an American.. by jwijnands · 2011-11-14 04:18 · Score: 1

Ready to prove my prejudice that environmentally friendly seems to be forbidden in their constitution. Sustainable energy hasn't made it across the ocean yet? Or is it just a few trailer parks in Alabama that have been bypassed by progress the last 30 years?
1. Re:there's always an American.. by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-11-14 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhhh- jokes on you. I'm French- at least on the internet I am... for today at least.
  France uses a lot of nuclear energy- which is cleaner than America's reliance on coal- however it isn't perfect (although better).
  It creates pollutions where it is mined and creates a lot of long-term waste.
  Although France is better about not using fossil fuels- they still use a decent amount.
  As for sustainable, no doubt France does a better job of this than the US- but most of their energy still comes from non-renewable sources.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:there's always an American.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Hello mister Troll!
  
  Sustainable energy hasn't made it across the ocean yet?
  I was going to inform you that sustainable energy hasn't made it anywhere yet (as there is no such thing so far that scales to cover the power demands - yet anyway). Then I realized you might mean actual transport - in which case, yes, sustainable energy made it across all the oceans years ago. They were called "ships" with "sails".
3. Re:there's always an American.. by BMOC · 2011-11-14 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  At least you admit your bigotry. I recall generations of Europeans who were convinced they had none.
  
  --
  I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
4. Re:there's always an American.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Seems odd that your prejudice is to assume it's an American when they don't have the same outlook as you. You're the biggot here.
They got jail by Hentes · 2011-11-14 04:21 · Score: 1

RTFA please, two people got jail for this. Contrary to Greenpeace that can get away with causing real damage like chaining themselves to shit.
industrail sabotage? by drwho · 2011-11-14 04:30 · Score: 1

Industrial sabotage? Turnabout is fair play. That's what Greenpeace has been doing to multiple industries for decades.
Well by Jiro · 2011-11-14 04:42 · Score: 2

Because, of course, Greenpeace's activities are fully legal.
Think of EDF's hacking as civil disobedience aimed at Greenpeace. They're violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Greenpeace is also in the business of violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
1. Re:Well by LWATCDR · 2011-11-14 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really?
  Okay I am no fan of Geenpeace at all. I do not think their tactics and often their goals are correct.
  However...
  EDF is a heavily regulated utility company that is responsible for the running of nuclear facilites. They should without a doubt be held to an extremely high standard when it comes to following laws and regulations.
  Greenpeace is a bunch of hippies that think they are doing good. Just as their is no room for Police officers and the military to be allowed to commit institutional acts of civil disobedience there can be no room for EDF to do the same.
  Plus I am sure that Greenpeace members have spent the night in jail in the past and will again.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  greenpeace always admit 100% what they did, when they did it, why and who did it. They don't hack into computers and hope they will get away unnoticed.
3. Re:Well by cheesybagel · 2011-11-14 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK Greenpeace had nothing to do with it, but "Green" movement activists hit the Superphénix experimental molten liquid sodium nuclear reactor with an RPG-7 rocket in 1982. So I would be little surprised if EDF spends some time screening these sorts of organizations for people with the correct profile to conduct attacks on their physical infrastructure.
RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:18 · Score: 0

And did you see the holier-than-thou statement from GreenP at the end of the article?
It's like, Oh, WE never do anything illegal! No sir! Not us! HAH!
Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:18 · Score: 0

Kevin Mitnick spends 5 years in prison for hacking while these guys spend just a short time. Talk about a slap on the wrist.
Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by rbrander · 2011-11-14 05:45 · Score: 1

I just spent 20 frustrating minutes at the Greenpeace web site and couldn't find their budget.
Finally I just googled "Greenpeace budget" and was surprised to not find it declared anywhere by them. I'm not saying they keep it secret, but man, it sure isn't easy to find.
I did find some site called "activistcash.com" ,which sounded pro-activist, but had this odd phrase:
"its Amsterdamits Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire."
The "radio free europe" web site quoted: Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, now has offices in more than 40 countries and claims some 2.8 million supporters. Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from "direct action" activists to scientific researchers.
Last year, its budget reached $310 million. Greenpeace does not accept money from companies, governments, or political parties in order to maintain independence.
I think your "15 euros" argument imagines them in a community centre at a card table. Maybe in 1971. That's 40 years ago.
The ad campaign where they picked on the tar sands as "The worlds dirtiest oil" (70kg carbon to extract a barrel vs 50kg conventional...but both are burned to produce 200-300kg depending on what your refine it into) was just a lot of expensive ad time, not to mention all the billboards. They're really quite wealthy.
1. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by inpher · 2011-11-14 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here you go: Greenpeace annual reports.
2. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by rbrander · 2011-11-14 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. HIdden in the PDFs, google usually pulls those out. 208M euros spent in 2010, so the news reports were about right.
  Clearly 1.5M Euros would be painful but hardly crippling for them; barely more than 2 days operating costs. About the right fine, really, should they pull a stunt like EDF did. So I really think the original poster about the 15 euros was dead wrong.
3. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-14 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Given Greenpeace at 208M; EDF has annual revenue of 33Billion Euros (according to Reuters) so approximately three orders of magnitude greater. 15Euros seems a bit understated but 1500Euros would be proportionate. That's certainly closer to 15Euros than 1.5M.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
4. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by rbrander · 2011-11-14 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yoicks, have a look at the posts about a metre uphill from here. "revenue" "income". Net income was about 1.249B. So - about half an order of magnitude, or so.
  Not that fines should be pro-rated to income, as others have argued; they should be large enough to hurt. 15,000 euros would not hurt 200M/year Greenpeace worth mentioning. $1.5M euros would trim 1% off their budget for that year...
5. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by rtfa-troll · 2011-11-14 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, but then those aren't comparable numbers. Income as used above basically means "profit" (with relations through taxation). Greenpeace is a "non-profit" (net income ==0) so on that argument the original 15 Euro fine becomes unfairly large. Revenue is a much better measure for such calculations since it is much less subject to manipulation and choice than profit.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
6. Re:Greenpeace takes in over $300M/year by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. HIdden in the PDFs
  What, just like every other organisations's financial statements? Those evil green bastards.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:fine a Citizen by TaoPhoenix · 2011-11-14 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Aren't the citizens getting fined more than Corps?
So "Industrial Espionage" is only worth a penalty of a million or two but Anonymous hackers are Terrorists for Life?
Remember that Corporations are People? How did Corps manage to NOT get on the Terrorist Lists?!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Too Small A Fine by glorybe · 2011-11-14 05:55 · Score: 0

Look at what has been done to individual hackers in the US over trivial hacking or piracy. Copy a few pieces of music online and an individual can easily lose an entire life of earnings. Hack into a site and you can actually receive a life sentence. So here we have a major power company getting caught and no suggestion is made of long prison sentences or total financial destruction of the business. That is the very type of thing that is fuelling the 99% , occupy, movement. Equal justice for all is taking a beating when a power company gets less punishment than some lowly nerd banging away trying to get info about About Area 57.
Why is the fine so large compared to the damages? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 05:58 · Score: 0

Why is the fine so large compared to the damages? It seems that it should be the other way around.
WTF? by bussdriver · 2011-11-14 06:20 · Score: 1

1)
The EDF is a heavily government tied organization! They are an essential service and a monopoly power PLUS their hands in government gives them more influence than most elected individuals.
If EDF is functionally a form of government then it is nowhere near what is thought of as civil disobedience because its a gov backed corp.
2)
Civil disobedience is a subtle definition; its not literally breaking some laws:
That wasn't robbery, I was doing "civil disobedience" that wasn't trespassing it was "civil disobedience..." not murder, its only "civil disobedience!"
Civil disobedience pretty much is an OPEN PUBLIC ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE, it falls under the classification of protest. A secret protest is stupid if not impossible. This is why civil disobedience is done openly, with time/place/date and what is going to be done -- in advance, if not calling the press beforehand or during the act.
3) Greenpeace is a free speech organization which provides many people an organized voice of opposition to corporations/governments who have more resources than individuals. Like all advocacy organizations-- they are collectives of free speech. Greenpeace messing with EDL in ways that draw public attention is the job their donors want (since bribery doesn't seem to work for them like it does for corporations.)
EDL messing around with a free speech representative organization to undermine their ability to communicate is not "civil disobedience" anymore than me jumping you at a protest and duct taping your mouth shut and stealing your sign. It is a form of censorship - doesn't matter if you like it or not.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Re:Greenpeace will not surrender! by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 06:21 · Score: 1

Shitty troll is shitty.
Re:fine a Citizen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you're missing the point: corporations are people *when it suits them*
Ignorant American(s) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 07:14 · Score: 0

Damn Americans, don't know their own, British or French history.
How come so many of your countrymen imagine they have the right to insult the French? If only the French knew what a monster they helped liberate! Never mind the fact that the French never were cowards, but did in fact conquer large parts of Europe.
Simple people like you make me laugh. Go look for WMDs in Iraq again!
The British should have kept their colonies, at least the world would have been more civilized. I hate Americans far more than I hate the French.
We're Listening... by andersh · 2011-11-14 07:18 · Score: 1

I sure hope you're not American... because Echelon is a pretty big stone in a glass house!
We all know by now that the American intelligence agencies use their assets for the benefit of American companies...
What an astonishing claim by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 08:31 · Score: 0

To misquote Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.
Where in Eric's name do you imagine a company will find the money to pay a fine? Hint: it is not, and cannot be, profits, in case that's what you had in mind.
You may like to spend a little time thinking about the nature of all the resources available to a company.
1. Re:What an astonishing claim by s73v3r · 2011-11-14 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why the fuck shouldn't it be profits? Again, they did something wrong. They should not be allowed to simply pass that on.
  Quite frankly, I'm confused as to why you think that the company itself shouldn't be the one punished, but rather their customers.
2. Re:What an astonishing claim by tehcyder · 2011-11-15 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Where in Eric's name do you imagine a company will find the money to pay a fine? Hint: it is not, and cannot be, profits, in case that's what you had in mind.
  A company gets money (a) from investors and (b) from profits. The investors are not liable for the company's debts other than for the nominal value of their shares, so of course the fucking fine is paid out of profits, just like wages and bribes.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
At least the French didn't murder anyone this time by hodma727 · 2011-11-14 10:00 · Score: 1

Unlike when they sent their terrorist team to blow up the Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior" boat in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/the-bombing-of-the-rainbow-war/ With the French for "friends" who needs enemies?
Re:At least the French didn't murder anyone this t by neutrino38 · 2011-11-14 10:14 · Score: 1

Bla bla bla ... the French ... bla bla Slashdot ... bla bla surrender ... bla bla bla unrelated. Pffff
The fact is that two execs from a powerful public utility got jail sentence. So it is not "unlike the rainbow warrior case" but it is rather very good sign on how justice worked in France for this particular cases regardless of the past and despite the fact the French govt would have more interest in supporting nuclear business.
Re:fine a Citizen by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-14 19:41 · Score: 0

Aren't the citizens getting fined more than Corps?
Actually in France, fines for companies are 5 times bigger than fines for individuals.
Of course it's still unnoticeable for major companies (see : Total), but you have to take into account small businesses too.