Sweden Returns Passport To Pirate Bay Co-Founder

Blarg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 18:22 · Score: -1

In before "This is all just a careful ploy by the US government to lull Julian Assange into a false sense of security so they can spirit him away and waterboard him in Cuba."

Re:Blarg by TubeSteak · 2012-10-06 18:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't have to go full conspiracy mode to see patterns of misconduct and odd legal choices in the Piratebay, Assange, and Megaupload cases.
Whether its the US Government or the **AA, someone has been exerting significant outside pressure.
It's a shame that the USA was built on principles of democracy and due process, but chooses to influence foreign events in ways that are contrary to those founding principles.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Blarg by gagol · 2012-10-06 19:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

It has been a trend going back from... war against Spain I guess. It is effectively the US standard operating procedure against anyone who dont have a nuke capability.

--
Tomorrow is another day...
Re:Blarg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 22:26 · Score: 0

The USA is the land of the free, everyone else better lookout though, their foreign policy's a bitch.
Re:Blarg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 23:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a shame that the USA was built on principles of democracy and due process
According to my interpretation of various news articles over the past decade there is a steady process working on removing the principles of democracy and due process from the USA. And there certainly were enough bad choices mixed in among all the great things the USA did in the 20th century.
Don't get me wrong. This isn't anti-americanism. I'm just concerned to see a highly developed, democratic nation which achieved quite a lot of nice things to degenerate slowly.
I'd very much prefer to see you guys repair that damage.
Re:Blarg by fustakrakich · 2012-10-07 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

It has been a trend going back...
to when Europeans first landed on the shores. To misquote, The US has always been at war. The 'democracy' and 'due process' was reserved for rich white males. To a lessor extent, it still holds true today with the war on drugs and various other discriminatory laws.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Blarg by drinkypoo · 2012-10-07 00:40 · Score: 1

To a lessor extent, it still holds true today with the war on drugs and various other discriminatory laws.
if you are rich and you want fun drugs you just shop for a doc who will write you any scrip you want, and then you pay through the nose to get high on designer pills.
we used to have a guy who did that here in Lake county, they even called him Dr. Feelgood. But now he's a weed scrip pimp. No, really, had a billboard for "physician's recommendations" with him in the middle in a suit and four sluts arrayed around him. I imagine they're more prevalent in states other than California.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Blarg by mono_1001 · 2012-10-07 05:22 · Score: 1

Yes, actually, you do have to go "full conspiracy mode." When did slashdot become a gathering place for conspiracy theorists? Most comments in this thread seem to be a half step away from the intellectual equivalent of Creationism. Your arguments are only supported by your political beliefs. How exactly did the USA "influence" Swedish and Kiwi government employees? Was it mind control? Did they use HAARP?
Re:Blarg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 19:23 · Score: 0

Well, for the New Zealand government it was promises of trade agreements and closer relations.

Pathetic, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 18:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

The industry has spent ridiculous amounts of money trying to take ThePirateBay down, and it's still up and running. Even if they take it down, people will find other websites; not to mention that they'll have wasted billions in their efforts to take it down. Instead of doing that, they could focus on treating their actual customers well.

Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by santax · 2012-10-06 19:03 · Score: 1, Flamebait

What billions?
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by PieDude · 2012-10-06 20:51 · Score: 0

What billions? Do you have any concrete proof of how much they have "spent to take TPB down"?
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 20:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not just their own money, but that of the state as well.
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 21:12 · Score: 0

I don't think anyone has (or can get) "concrete proof" of the amount of money spent.
No doubt much of it is spent in unaccountable backhanders and tax-deductible "contributions" from the industry to the politicians and law-makers.
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by PopeRatzo · 2012-10-06 22:04 · Score: 4, Funny

What billions? Do you have any concrete proof of how much they have "spent to take TPB down"?
He's using the same formula that the music industry uses to calculate losses due to piracy.
"Billions" is probably an underestimate.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 00:54 · Score: 0

And no doubt that's your opinion of what is happening, but you'd be hard pressed to prove any of that. Especially since contributions are, in fact, tracked. As well as gifts. Let's not pretend that it's completely the Wild West out there in terms of contributions. You should be able to see where the contributions come from and where they go.
They get away with things, but lawmakers' reasons for these laws and actions have more to do with them thinking they need to protect US industry and business, and not because the lawmakers' had to somehow be bribed into making those laws. Most representatives, and certainly most senators probably have no idea what a torrent site does other than provide a means to download free content. And honestly, if you look at torrent traffic, it's a very significant portion of it, so you can't exactly blame them.
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by fredprado · 2012-10-07 03:49 · Score: 2

He doesn't need to prove anything that is not already on the press. It is obvious what MPAA and its lobbyists have been doing:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

http://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-advises-movie-lobby-stop-threaten
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by bzipitidoo · 2012-10-07 04:03 · Score: 1

Proof of how much they've spent? Use your brain! We know they've often sicced law enforcement thugs and lawyers on pirates. You think that doesn't happen, or that it doesn't cost taxpayer money?
What makes such enforcement actions possible is the social climate. They would never get away with pulling such high handed and outright illegal moves if the public understood the situation better. The police and courts would not be willing tools if they didn't think there was significant public support. Note the content industry has also spent a lot of money on propaganda and disinformation, trying to equate sharing with theft, and emphasizing the "starving artist" angle. Still, it's amazing how far they've persuaded the law to go. A bit of bribery-- business for lawyers, work for the police and courts, facile justifications, and the like, not outright payments-- has been a key part of winning the law over. Might have to hire more police to deal with the rampant piracy that's sweeping the nation! It's feeding the Prison-industrial complex.
In the spirit of "the end justifies the means", they feel it's okay to harass "pirates" with legalisms unrelated to the issue. And they've too easily convinced the law to see it their way. But this revoking of the passport is over the top. What's next, will they revoke your citizenship for alleged copyright infringement, without bothering to prove anything?

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by Svartalf · 2012-10-07 04:08 · Score: 1

Don't you mean more along the lines of the math they use to calculate royalties owed to performers, etc.?

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Pathetic, isn't it? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-07 08:42 · Score: 1

That would be -billions, after all the advances, touring costs, marketing fees, productions costs, studio time, other miscellaneous fees...

Because I don't know where else to post/ask this: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 18:27 · Score: -1

Why the hell did Jack Thompson do the current Slashdot logo??
Can it really be this Jack Thompson? The image file name suggests so...
And if so: Isn’t he one of the biggest enemies our community has ever had?

Sorry, I really don't know where else to post. Please don’t mod me to oblivion. (Don’t have to mod me up either, of course :)

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi by commlinx · 2012-10-06 18:37 · Score: 0

Do you really think THAT Jack Thompson would be using Photoshop CS6??

Jack Thompson is an incredibly uncommon name though so I get your point. However my guess it was someone more arty-farty like Jack Thompson (actor).

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi by stephanruby · 2012-10-06 18:58 · Score: 0

I would have modded you up, but I have my doubts about your theory, so I'll take the moderation hit and respond instead.

The image file name suggests what exactly?

logo15_gtabin.png ???
It doesn't suggest anything to me, except that it's some type of logo that's placed on some kind of tab.

Even if the name Jack Thomson does appear within the metadata of the image, which I haven't checked, but assuming that's what you meant. I can indeed believe that such a name would appear there. Jack Thompson is indeed a very common name. Not only that, but if the person used cracked software to edit the picture, or a cracked OS underlying their image editing software, it's also very possible that they used the name of a person they didn't like when they first registered such software, or OS. For instance, I could easily see someone use the name George W. Bush to register some cracked software, or even use the name Barack Obama.

seems a bit extreme by thephydes · 2012-10-06 19:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would not revokation of passport imply that he is no longer a Swedish citizen? Or at least that the Swedish government will not support or help one of their own citizens?

Re:seems a bit extreme by dunkelfalke · 2012-10-06 20:03 · Score: 1

No, but probably it would strongly imply that going to another countries is prohibited.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:seems a bit extreme by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 20:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Many governments consider the passport to be the property of the government and it can be revoked. Most countries have some sort of due process for this (such as only revoking it for people who are out on bail or who are delinquent on child support). Revoking it for political reasons would violate Article 13 part 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which Sweden voted for):

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Re:seems a bit extreme by PieDude · 2012-10-06 20:56 · Score: 1

Which is a huge problem for him as he is currently residing in Laos, unable to make it back to Thailand.

By the way, doesn't anyone wonder how they're all living the dream in tropical countries? TPB wasn't supposed to be making lots of money, right?
Re:seems a bit extreme by ToThoseOfUs · 2012-10-06 21:05 · Score: 1

Do you realise how cheap it is to live in these countries?
I went to Cambodia/Thailand a couple of years ago, a three course meal a a decent restaurant cost under US$20 for two of us including many beer/wines. Much much cheaper at a "local's" restaurant or cook yourself.
I would assume that accommodation would be similarly cheap.
Unless this is sarcasm as Laos is basically third world.
Re:seems a bit extreme by PieDude · 2012-10-06 21:30 · Score: 1

I've also been to Cambodia/Thailand several times. Yes they are cheap countries to live, but they all seemed to live quality life there. The other TPB admin had a rent of $750 per country on Phnom Penh's most touristy street. Remember that people usually make around $30 per month there, if even that. It's also much higher than what the cheapest apartments in Sweden are.

They obviously made lots of money running the site and then ran to live in beautiful countries (in Cambodia's case to use drugs) with their millions.
Re:seems a bit extreme by gl4ss · 2012-10-06 22:05 · Score: 1

I've also been to Cambodia/Thailand several times. Yes they are cheap countries to live, but they all seemed to live quality life there. The other TPB admin had a rent of $750 per country on Phnom Penh's most touristy street. Remember that people usually make around $30 per month there, if even that. It's also much higher than what the cheapest apartments in Sweden are.
They obviously made lots of money running the site and then ran to live in beautiful countries (in Cambodia's case to use drugs) with their millions.
it's cheaper to go there than to go to jail in sweden and be under constant risk of even more ridiculous happenings than passport revocation.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:seems a bit extreme by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 22:24 · Score: 0

No. In most countries citizenship is not tied to a physical object or even being eligible for such an object. If you're a swedish citizen, then you are, regardless of what documents you might have or might exist somewhere.
Re:seems a bit extreme by tero · 2012-10-06 22:47 · Score: 3, Informative

No. Citizenship is not tied to a physical object like passport.
The passport is property of government and can be revoked.
It's a standard method of trying to stop criminals from running - but it's not usually exercised for petty crimes (like the one Neij is wanted for). That's the only "extreme" bit about it, but I'm glad he got it back.
Re:seems a bit extreme by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 23:09 · Score: 0

They obviously made lots of money running the site and then ran to live in beautiful countries (in Cambodia's case to use drugs) with their millions.
Exactly, because someone with the skills to run a site like TPB absolutely need to have obtained millions before moving to another country since he would never be able to find a well paid job in the IT industry in the new country.
Re:seems a bit extreme by jrumney · 2012-10-07 00:49 · Score: 1

Would not revokation of passport imply that he is no longer a Swedish citizen? Or at least that the Swedish government will not support or help one of their own citizens?
Probably quite the opposite. They are trying to force him to return to Sweden. Sweden has discretion to allow Swedish citizens into the country without any documentation on them, but he's going to find it difficult to enter any other country. He can try staying in Thailand, but without a passport it would be difficult to do so legally.
Re:seems a bit extreme by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 01:05 · Score: 0

Exactly, because someone with the skills to run a site like TPB absolutely need to have obtained millions before moving to another country since he would never be able to find a well paid job in the IT industry in the new country.
In Laos? Do they even have IT there? I mean, Thailand, sure, but Laos is like one step up from living in Burma, sorry Myanmar.
Re:seems a bit extreme by fredprado · 2012-10-07 03:52 · Score: 1

Even if that was true, better them than the MAFIAA. They at least provided the superior service...
Re:seems a bit extreme by _Shad0w_ · 2012-10-07 07:17 · Score: 1

No, it just means that generally the only place he'd be able to go is back to Sweden, unless another country chose to allow him entry without a passport (which they're entirely at liberty to).

--
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Re:seems a bit extreme by LordLimecat · 2012-10-07 07:20 · Score: 1

TPB wasn't supposed to be making lots of money, right?
Are you for real? What do you think all of those zillions of ads on the site were for?
Re:seems a bit extreme by 0111+1110 · 2012-10-07 09:00 · Score: 0

I used to live in Vientiane, Laos. I rented a two story house for $100/month. I had a perfectly good Chinese motorcycle that cost around $250. Laos is not an expensive place to live. My house wasn't that nice, but you can get a beautiful large house for around $400 - $600 per month in Vientiane, which of course is the most expensive part of the country.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi by 91degrees · 2012-10-06 19:22 · Score: 2

Could this just be a bad pun? GTA Bin - i.e throw GTA into the Waste Bin.

Reason for dismissal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 19:36 · Score: 5, Informative

For those not reading Swedish, the reason of dismissing the revocation is (as far as I understand it) simply that as a citizen you are allowed to know the reason for a decision (with some few exceptions), which wasn't done in this case. So the dismissal is, in itself, not saying that the decision was wrong, only that it was formally incorrect.
You can read the law here.
http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/19860223.HTM (google translate needed).
And the relevant section is (in my sloppy translation):
20 Ett beslut varigenom en myndighet avgör ett ärende skall innehålla de skäl som har bestämt utgången, om ärendet avser myndighetsutövning mot någon enskild. Skälen får dock utelämnas helt eller delvis
20 A decision by which an agency decides a case must contain the reasons which determined the outcome, if the matter concerns public authority against any individual. The reasons may be omitted completely or partially
1. if the decision is not against any party or if for any other reason it is obviously unnecessary to disclose the reasons,
2 if the decision relates to appointments, admission to voluntary training, grading, allocation of research grants or something comparable,
3 if it is necessary in the interests of national security, protection of an individual's personal or financial circumstances or any comparable circumstance,
4 if the matter is so urgent that there is time to design the grounds, or
5 if the case concerns the communication of regulations referred to in Chapter 8. Government law and it is not a question of review by a higher court on appeal.
Have reasons been omitted, the authority at the request of the party, should if possible, inform him about them afterwards.

Re:Reason for dismissal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 15:58 · Score: 0

There's an analysis of the decision here http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/07/court-positively-scolds-embassy-for-revoking-pirate-bay-founders-passport

Reparations? by dumky2 · 2012-10-06 19:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I always wonder about the repercussions when government officials abuse their power and the law, such as in this case (or the illegal spying of Kim DotCom). After all, they were recognized to have committed illegal actions.

When civilians commit illegal actions, there is usually damages, reparation, or even jail. Why are government bureaucrats able to get away with it (or with just an apology)?

--
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.

Re:Reparations? by strack · 2012-10-06 22:05 · Score: 4, Funny

because get back to work peon.
Re:Reparations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 22:12 · Score: 0

Because the civilian illegal actions you are referring to are specifically proscribed activities with stated penalties. Whereas the government illegal actions can be things they are not allowed to do, while not being activities that are specifically proscribed with stated penalties.
Hence remedy is limited to reversing the action, plus sometimes an apology to grease democracy. But the government is also usually now exposed for a civil case for the specific damages caused.
Just, you know, if you were seriously asking.
Re:Reparations? by Sique · 2012-10-06 22:21 · Score: 2

It's the same with corporations. Basicly, if you act on behalf of someone else, be it a person or an institution, it's the other one who is liable. The guy who did the actual spying on Kim Dotcom is thus not personally liable, only the institution, that gave him the order to spy. If the cable guy breaks your antique Ming vase from the late 14th century, it's the cable company you go for the $1 mio in damage. It's then up to the corporation or the institution to go back to the actual person screwing up and slap his wrist.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Reparations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 22:39 · Score: 1

"The guy who did the actual spying on Kim Dotcom is thus not personally liable, only the institution, that gave him the order to spy"
Aha, the "Befehl ist Befehl" excuse.
The guy is liable if the order to spy was illegal. I work for a ISP, I am the contact for lawful interception. But if I would put an unlawful tap on a customer I personally would be liable, it is up to me to check if the request (courtorder) was lawful in the first place. No matter what my boss tells me to do.
The vase is an accident, something completly different. The victim makes a claim on its home insurance, that company will try to reclaim te money from either the cable guy or the cable company.
Re:Reparations? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 22:59 · Score: 0

There is usually damages? In what world do you live. Most illegal actions, including crimes, are not detected. Of those which actually do lead to court proceedings, so many are "let go with warnings" or simply ignored on the basis of not being worth prosecuting that it actually takes rare eagerness in the *level* of crime, or politically sensitive behavior of particular notice to the authorities, to be prosecuted.
If you think this is not true, take a good look at jaywalking, spamming, and insider trading for illegal behavior that is very, very rarely prosecuted in any noticeable way compared to their frequency.
Re:Reparations? by YttriumOxide · 2012-10-06 23:58 · Score: 1

Because the civilian illegal actions you are referring to are specifically proscribed activities with stated penalties. Whereas the government illegal actions can be things they are not allowed to do, while not being activities that are specifically proscribed with stated penalties.
Hence remedy is limited to reversing the action, plus sometimes an apology to grease democracy. But the government is also usually now exposed for a civil case for the specific damages caused.
Just, you know, if you were seriously asking.
AC parent is entirely correct. The highlighted is my own.
Would it not make sense to start considering voting in laws to give penalties to illegal actions that do not currently have penalties stated? This is especially in the case of laws stating a governments responsibilities and limits of power - if they fail to perform their responsibilities or step beyond their limits of power, there needs to be defined penalties for the individuals responsible for the government doing so.

--
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Re:Reparations? by shentino · 2012-10-07 00:28 · Score: 2

For full information please study "Vicarious liability"
Re:Reparations? by shentino · 2012-10-07 00:31 · Score: 1

Jaywalking is seen as low priority.
Spammers are hard to catch because they are evasive and often make use of stolen computer time to hide their tracks.
Insider trading is privileged and people are paid off to look the other way.
Re:Reparations? by Sique · 2012-10-07 00:43 · Score: 1

The order to spy was signed by a judge. Who are you to overrule the order signed by a judge? And the judge didn't know that Kim Dotcom was an newzealandean citizen, making spying on him illegal. And somewhere in the chain of command this crucial bit of information was overlooked. It might be by accident. So who is liable now?

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Reparations? by tnk1 · 2012-10-07 01:10 · Score: 3, Informative

When civilians commit illegal actions, there is usually damages, reparation, or even jail. Why are government bureaucrats able to get away with it (or with just an apology)?
Because the other government employees in the building down the street from them refuse to prosecute. That's why.
That's not to say that there may not be a reason for it which could pass muster, but that's what happens. There may be a situation where the people taking the action are covered under government immunity, or sometimes the prosecutors recognize that it is not in their interests to bust them. They don't even have to be ordered to not prosecute, there's usually just an "understanding" about these things.
Re:Reparations? by dmacleod808 · 2012-10-07 02:08 · Score: 1

But the govenment makes the laws. Even in a direct democracy the govenment writes the law the people vote on.

--
There Can Be Only One...
Re:Reparations? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-07 09:00 · Score: 1

Jaywalking? Where I live jaywalking is illegal. There is no punishment for it however, apart from the occasional jaywalker getting hit by a bus. It would be amusing to be taken to court for jaywalking only for the judge to find you guilty and sentence you to.... say you're sorry and won't do it again?.
Re:Reparations? by marka63 · 2012-10-07 11:24 · Score: 1

While I don't know where you live, I suspect that there are fines that can be levied against you if the court was to decide so as well as court costs. For example the fines in NSW are up to 20 penalty units Road Rules for Pedestrians which equates to $2200.
Re:Reparations? by viperidaenz · 2012-10-07 12:06 · Score: 1

Sorry I was mislead, Its a $35 fine for Jaywalking in New Zealand, but the police don't bother because it's not worth their time.

Ummm by maroberts · 2012-10-06 19:36 · Score: 1

Why are we being directed to some sort of site that requires mobile phone number entry

Could some Slashdot guy download the ruling and host it locally on Slashdot ? Judicial rulings are public domain so there's no copyright issues.

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Re:Ummm by bs0d3 · 2012-10-06 20:02 · Score: 1

it looks youre clicking the wrong thing on the download page, beware of crappy ads
Re:Ummm by YoungJules · 2012-10-06 20:07 · Score: 1

Seems one of those annoying sites. Am I downloading the pdf or a FREE Video Conversion Tool (bound to work like a lucky charm on Linux) or FREE Download Manager... (ooh, I want one, I can't manage my own downloads...)! Anyone got a link to the pdf that DOESN'T involve all this nonsense?
Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 21:06 · Score: 0

The link in the summary just sent me to something called BayFiles, with seemingly a single button to click marked "premium download". I stopped there. If this is how Sweden usually distributes their court rulings then I have to say that I don't find it very impressive.
Re:Ummm by gl4ss · 2012-10-06 22:06 · Score: 2

bayfiles seems pretty sucky, I mean, ui with a single button and they manage to make that confusing.
BUT!! the premium download is actually premium download! it gets you the pdf.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Ummm by PieDude · 2012-10-07 01:28 · Score: 1

bayfiles seems pretty sucky, I mean, ui with a single button and they manage to make that confusing.
It's intended to be. It's just another scammy way TPB guys are making money.
Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 02:07 · Score: 0

Okay... I assumed that the 'premium' bit meant there was going to be a charge. What did they intend it to mean?

Be Slut PDF by iYk6 · 2012-10-06 21:29 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Worked fine for me. But I have adblock. No javascript necessary.

Here is a direct link that works for me. I can't guarantee that it isn't time limited or connected to IP address or anything like that.

http://s7.baycdn.com/dl/377d46a9/5071587b/0/181506/10/5501203/ot50V9/60ce6b27ac4690f09a39852f58c014a1f2a24d91/beslut.pdf

Heh heh. Be slut.

Repercussions? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-06 23:09 · Score: 0

There are none for government bureaucrats - they get to hide behind governmental immunity; and the government gets to decide when-and-if this immunity gets lifted.

There really needs to be a separate organization, perhaps a citizens' tribunal, that can be called to independently review situations like this. Government bureaucrats should be held personally liable, if they demonstrably abuse their authority.

Re:Repercussions? by shentino · 2012-10-07 00:32 · Score: 1

There is something called the stripping doctrine whereby someone acting outside the scope of their authority is effectively disqualified from using the cloak of sovereign immunity to cover himself.
Re:Repercussions? by tnk1 · 2012-10-07 01:27 · Score: 1

Yes, but that is only going to apply if there is a reasonable belief that the individual knew they were acting out of the scope of their authority. If you made a mistake, and that mistake passed through all the normal procedures without being caught, and then something illegal happened, you're not going to be prosecuted for your mistake. You might be fired or demoted, but even though there should be consequences when you misuse government power, even accidentally, it's unrealistic to bring people to trial for making mistakes, even big ones, unless you know there is definite intent to act illegally. Otherwise, no one would want to be a government employee in these positions. Would you take a job where they could not only fire you, but jail you for making an honest mistake?
Re:Repercussions? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 02:54 · Score: 0

I believe you're describing Mens Rea, or guilty mind. Essentially if the intent wasn't to commit a crime by your actions then you are held to a much lower standard than a person who fully intended to commit a crime. Hence the difference between Manslaughter and Murder is that in a Murder case, the person doing the killing has to have intent to kill by their actions. If I accidentally discharge a handgun into a person while I'm clearing it or cleaning it, thereby killing them, then I'm only guilty of Manslaughter, not Murder, because I didn't intend to kill them in the first place.

Bribes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 03:28 · Score: 0

well, politicians don't come cheap, so it is probably a big number. However that buys multiple agendas, so I doubt TPB is he only one.

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi by LordLimecat · 2012-10-07 07:18 · Score: 1

Since when does slashdot have enemies? Here I thought it was a news aggregation / discussion board site, but come to find out theres a list of those to be shunned?

This mentality illustrates how digg went down the drain, and why slashdot could easily end up there.

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi by viperidaenz · 2012-10-07 08:44 · Score: 1

Perhaps its Jack Bauer in disguise?

Now Official! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 18:14 · Score: 0

You can't be serious? You didn't actually think the Swedish government would be using [The Pirate] Bay Files to distribute their documents? Hehe, come on!

Swedish Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-07 18:22 · Score: 0

The Swedes operate more nuclear plants than most countries in the region and have since 1947...

Now, they don't have nuclear weapons, but that's by choice as they hardly seem necessary with peaceful neighbors and an overwhelming Russian force next door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden

Slashdot Mirror

Sweden Returns Passport To Pirate Bay Co-Founder

74 comments