Sweden Returns Passport To Pirate Bay Co-Founder

An anonymous reader writes "In August, Piratebay co-founder Fredrik Neij had his Swedish passport revoked by the Embassy of Sweden in Bangkok. After an appeal the revocation was dismissed [Saturday], with a ruling that the embassy cannot take away his passport. The full ruling can be read here."

Comments

Pathetic, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just their own money, but that of the state as well.

Re:Pathetic, isn't it?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Pathetic, isn't it?

[fredprado]

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:Blarg

[TubeSteak]

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.

seems a bit extreme

[thephydes]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[tero]

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:Blarg

[gagol]

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.

Re:Because I don't know where else to post/ask thi

[91degrees]

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

Reason for dismissal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Reparations?

[dumky2]

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)?

Re:Reparations?

[strack]

because get back to work peon.

Re:Reparations?

[Sique]

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.

Re:Reparations?

[shentino]

For full information please study "Vicarious liability"

Re:Reparations?

[tnk1]

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:Ummm

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Blarg

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[fustakrakich]

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.