Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Bay Founder Released From Solitary Confinement

TrueSatan writes "Pirate bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm is set to be released from solitary confinement but is still to serve the remainder of a one-year sentence relating to Pirate Bay activities. Five months remain of that sentence and they are to be served in a normal prison with far fewer restrictions on his confinement — assuming no new charges are brought against him. He had been accused of involvement in the hacking of Swedish IT firm Logica, but no charges have been substantiated in that case. He was later implicated in a second case but, once more, no charges have been substantiated against him."

150 comments

  1. Recursive link? by pokoteng · · Score: 1

    Recursive link?

    --
    the game
    1. Re:Recursive link? by auntieNeo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Recursive link?

      It's what Slashdot is using now to drum up ad revenue. It's like printing money!

    2. Re:Recursive link? by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just don't tell their salespeople the submitted version has a working link!

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Recursive link? by cffrost · · Score: 2

      Recursive link?

      Whatever you say, buddy.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Recursive link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very much like his sentence....

    5. Re:Recursive link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically that's iterative, not recursive.

    6. Re:Recursive link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, YOU'RE iterative!

  2. He was never IN solitary confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus christ, torrentfreak, your editors are shit.

    1. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He and his mother have described it as such. I guess it depends on your threshold. He was allowed to receive occasional family visitors, but was held in a cell by himself 23 hours/day, which is a typical solitary-confinement setup.

    2. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by bonehead · · Score: 2

      Well, first you have to actually get INTO prison. That's the easy part. Get creative.

      Once your there, assaulting a few of the guards ought to buy you some time in solitary.

    3. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by dissy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was never IN solitary confinement

      You have an interesting description of being locked in a small room for 23 hours a day and not being allowed visitors, including his lawyer.

      What pray tell do you personally believe solitary confinement would be?

    4. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I take it you aren't familiar with what solitary confinement actually is.

    5. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a person who have myself been in the same situation as Gottfrid, in solitary confinement in a Swedish jail (häkte), I can assure you that it is a very demanding and unpleasing situation. The psychological and emotional effects of being in a small cell is very hard, much harder than it is possible to understand by reason. These cells are used by Swedish police to break people, to break hardened criminals, and for a normal person it is no easier.
      Amnesty International has even issued criticism towards Sweden for the way solitary confinement is used by prosecutors, and this is no laughing matter.

    6. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is interesting, to me, is the fact that charges of fraud and hacking seem to be handled in much the same way that treason and leaking state secrets are dealt with. In the case of treason, I can go a long way toward justifying solitary confinement, especially when the suspect has shown some possibly suicidal tendencies. In the case of mere fraud - no way. And, the suspect is far from suicidal, removing that little justification for close monitoring. More, there is no mention of solitary for his own protection, as was mentioned with Manning.

      Tell me again which judicial system is more corrupt.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, first you have to actually get INTO prison. That's the easy part. Get creative.

      Once your there, assaulting a few of the guards ought to buy you some time in solitary.

      Its perfectly possible to get them to pay for your flights to the US too (and return flight on expulsion at the end of the sentence). It appears that the best crimes to commit are to provide links to torrent sites or to release US government information. You could take some tips from Julian Assange. WHat you don't want to do is anything like funding or encouraging terrorism or the courts will fight to keep you from the USA for years

    8. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As treason is effectively working against the interests of the government, these days copyright infringement probably qualifies.

    9. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      But then wouldn't tax evasion also fall into the same category?

    10. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      He was never in solitary confinement because Swedish jails do not have solitary confinement, therefore he couldn't have been in solitary confinement. No, regardless of if he was, in fact, confined to a cell barely larger than a twin sized bed. That's irreverent, because as I said, they don't do solitary confinement in Sweden. It's also immaterial that he was, in fact, kept out of contact with other people; that certainly doesn't mean he was in solitary confinement.

      The sad thing is that I feel the need to add this disclaimer that I am making fun of the people who fail at logic so hard. I meant it to be woefully obvious parody, but in re-reading it I see little difference between it and what at least a few people have posted in all seriousness.

    11. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      The fact that Sweden does not define its cell as "Solitary confinement" when they are in fact such, is a good example of classic political jokes.

    12. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Having only my own company 23 hours a day and being fed and watered for free sounds... absolutely awesome.

      Which crimes can I commit in the UK to get this?

      Try blowing your brains out wih an unlicensed firearm, we're pretty hot on gun control.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      But then wouldn't tax evasion also fall into the same category?

      Only rich people evade taxes, so no.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      He was never IN solitary confinement

      You have an interesting description of being locked in a small room for 23 hours a day and not being allowed visitors, including his lawyer.

      What pray tell do you personally believe solitary confinement would be?

      Obviously, if it wasn't 24 hours a day it wasn't truesolitary confinement.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Sounds boring.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem to jive, but I will admit it's an AC with no citations.

      Still. Just because they don't call it solitary (how could they? they speak Swedish!) doesn't mean it's not.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by MoaDweeb · · Score: 2

      Tax Avoidance = Rich people. i.e Sending money to the Cayman Islands and having it come back as Capital gains. Tax Evasion = Poor people. i.e. Taking cash jobs and not declaring the income. Avoidance is the LEGAL minimisation of taxation due, evasion is the ILLEGAL minimisation.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    18. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet two more people took your stupid post seriously again. Wow. You could write non-sense like that all year and they'd argue with you every time.

      Jesus fuck this site has gone downhills.

    19. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. No. "X is effectively Y" does not mean that "Y is X", and certainly is not how law is interpreted. Not even in Sweden.

      Treason is rather specifically defined in national laws (or more likely in constitutions), is not extensible, and tends to contain entity called "enemy" as well as definitions of kinds of interaction that could constitute treason.

    20. Re:He was never IN solitary confinement by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      But, but, the cash they got wasn't a payment. It was a loan. The guy just decided that getting it repaid would be too much of a hassle.

  3. Why solitary? by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why would a non-violent criminal be thrown in solitary immediately and also denied access to all but one visitor? I doubt it was to protect him from other inmates.

    "Since then the Pirate Bay founder has been kept in solitary confinement, locked up 23 hours a day for weeks on end."

    "Gottfrid wasnâ(TM)t allowed to meet anyone except his mother during his solitary confinement"

    1. Re:Why solitary? by DreamMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to previous articles, it was to prevent him either directly using his 'leet' computer skills to destroy evidence relevant to the case, or co-ordinating with others to do so. Which I thought was a bit of a croc. After all, they could always monitor any computer use to ensure that he didn't, and if he was going to conspire with any others to destroy any purported evidence, he could do so just as easily through his mother as in person.

      I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence. But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate.

    2. Re:Why solitary? by Swampash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Betcha he's wishing he'd just assaulted, raped, and/or killed a bunch of people rather than running a legal information-sharing website.

    3. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hackers can turn your home computer into a BOMB. Do you want your family to be blown to smithereems?

    4. Re:Why solitary? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      After all, they could always monitor any computer use to ensure that he didn't,

      I have no idea if this is true in Sweden, but in California prisons he could easily get a cell phone without the guards noticing. From there he could ssh into something and do something, assuming that were his desire.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Why solitary? by wwalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who the hell cares if the prosecutor's fears were legitimate? What happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty"?! I can see placing someone in solitary because he/she can potentially cause someone to get killed or do other serious harm. We are talking about goddamn computers here. I have legitimate fears that my neighbors are piggybacking on my WiFi, should we place them in solitary as well?!

    6. Re:Why solitary? by wwalker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a good thing they didn't find pot on him, he'd already be serving life without parole...

    7. Re:Why solitary? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reminds me of why Kevin Mitnick was put in solitary confinement:

      Dubbed the "most dangerous hacker in the world," Mitnick was put in solitary confinement and prevented from using a phone after law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone.

    8. Re:Why solitary? by Miseph · · Score: 1

      It happened in Sweden. The US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is irrelevant to his situation. So far as I am aware, Sweden doesn't even use Common Law, so the entire concept is simply moot.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    9. Re:Why solitary? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the DMCA, which is US law, had a lot with putting him there.

      Almost ten years ago I said that when your "product" can be reproduced in the millions by a single kid using a $100 device and a mouse click, and hundreds of millions of ten year olds have that device, the ONLY way to stop it would be to create a global surveillance network capable of detecting these millions of people clicking their mouse... ...and then a global fascist government to go after them.

      It's scary when I make such predictions and see them starting to become true.

      It hasn't been mentioned on slashdot yet, but this week has seen a MASSIVE attack on NZB indexing sites, several have been taken down, others have been flooded with so many DMCA requests (despite not being in the US) that they can't cope with the load of them.

      This is the beginning of the end of the internet.

      Welcome to your new ComCast Internet, where for the low price of $79.99 you can get our "basic" set of internet web sites, or for $249.99 you can get "unlimited" use of HUNDREDS of approved websites.

      New websites being added yearly to new service level tiers!

      --
      This space available.
    10. Re:Why solitary? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      What happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty"?!

      That's something that academic types talk about amongst themselves.

      In the real world guilt/innocence is mostly determined by the amount of cash you can raise to hire the right lawyer. (Hint: A low cost lawyer is a waste of money, and a court appointed lawyer will frequently do you more harm than good.)

    11. Re:Why solitary? by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's why you setup a dead man switch. If you don't interface with you servers/network for X amount of time, a low-level format process starts automatically.

      Not that I've ever done such a thing. Just saying...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    12. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know it's cool to not read the entire list of things he's being charged with that have nothing to do with the DMCA, but before you go on a rant you probably should.

    13. Re:Why solitary? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      Ladies and gentleman, a most unusual Slashdot post!

      "I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence."

      Here's part 1 - the stereotypical slashdot bit - "more and more" - inferring or at least suspecting some rate change without substantial evidence.. but then...

      "But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate"

      Shock and horror! Actual reasonable measured humility! Wow! We should gold plate this post. Well, done, sir! Well done!

      / now, back to reading the overbroad cocksure outraged conclusions drawn by the usual suspects.

    14. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence. But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate.

      well, this sucks. Aresting people for doing mostly nothing (did he kill anybody? did he hurt anybody) is not normal.
      Laws should protect the people, but now they are made to protect corporations. This is the sad thruth.

    15. Re:Why solitary? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Touche. However human rights violations are human rights violations no matter what legal system you have.

    16. Re:Why solitary? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Innocent until proven guilty may be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but it is also a much broader legal principle that should be expected in any civilized legal system. The U.S. founding fathers didn't just make these things up all by themselves.

    17. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence

      One of Sweden's most senior prosecutors have even stated in public that the solitary confinement can and should be used this way, in the context of sexual abuse. It would not be a surprise if the prosecutor would use it the same way in other cases.

      http://oldwolf-vindenviskarmittnamn.blogspot.se/2012/06/julian-assange-advokat-per-e-samuelson.html

    18. Re:Why solitary? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      he had the ability to start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone.

      Yeah, really, how could law enforcement be so dumb to mix up Kevin Mitnick and Captain Crunch?

    19. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft, he should have just came to the UK and spoke his mind, thousand billion years in prison for obscene comments.

    20. Re:Why solitary? by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sweden seems to have a hardon for solitary confinement, that's why, and it's been criticised for it's overuse of it on a number of occasions:

      http://www.thelocal.se/1927/20050822/#.UMXFq4Yyryg

      http://www.thelocal.se/22620/20091013/#.UMXFuIYyryg

      They even asked the UK to hold Assange in solitary confinement whilst he awaited the outcome of his extradition appeals (bear in mind, Assange still, to this day, has not been charged with anything so they were asking for solitary without even a charge being brought) but luckily British justice is at least not quite as backwards as in Sweden.

      It's weird because their neighbour, Norway, has arguably the most progressive justice system in the world in contrast and the countries otherwise have a lot of shared history and culture. I don't know why the Swedes handle justice in such a barbaric backwards manner in comparison.

    21. Re:Why solitary? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Hackers can turn your home computer into a BOMB. Do you want your family to be blown to smithereems?

      Couldn't they just put him in a Loki Jar, and keep his head wrapped in tin foil to keep him from blowing up the interweb with his mind?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    22. Re:Why solitary? by TheHonch · · Score: 1

      As someone who spent some time in police custody I can tell you that it's standard practice in Sweden. About 1700/year are put in custody and then found not guilty or not charged with any crime at all (like me). Most lawyers find our system far too harsh, here's one lawyers view on the issue

    23. Re:Why solitary? by tommeke100 · · Score: 2

      aah, the Myth of the dead man switch :)
      Back in my C64 and Amiga days (talking '89-'90), we went to this local 'computer club' where you could 'rent' pirated games (and copy them yourself) for 50 cent a game or something like that.
      It was really small scale, just the local town kids with Amigas/C64's went there (the guys operating the club were in my high school).
      Rumor has it they had some type of pulley lever with a huge magnet at the front door so if there was trouble at the door they could just pull the switch and lower the big magnet on the stock of floppy/3" disks in the back room to erase them :-).

    24. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in Sweden.

    25. Re:Why solitary? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      According to previous articles, it was to prevent him either directly using his 'leet' computer skills to destroy evidence relevant to the case, or co-ordinating with others to do so.

      Wow, and they only kept Kevin Mitnick away from phones because the dumbass prosecution lawyer said he would start a nuclear war with one and the dumbass judge believed it without question...now we throw computer "criminals" in solitary just to be safe. Progress.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Why solitary? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends on the part of the world. Many legal systems have some 1980's vision of voice and retro dual-tone multi-frequency signaling/Touch-Tone with a 2012 CPU doing voice to commands if a skilled person can get to a phone. Any phone 'gifted' or 'loaned' for a few mins could be used to do amazing things to computer networks still online and not yet found.
      Or another country offered paperwork - from a national security or just chilling point of view to see it was done.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    27. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever think you shouldn't have gotten off of your meds? You live a pretty miserable life as is.

    28. Re:Why solitary? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      more like for $79.99 you can get 250GB use and $10 for each 50GB after that. our $250* 50/10 plan has no caps. *2 year lock in with a big ETF.

    29. Re:Why solitary? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      They even asked the UK to hold Assange in solitary confinement whilst he awaited the outcome of his extradition appeals (bear in mind, Assange still, to this day, has not been charged with anything so they were asking for solitary without even a charge being brought) but luckily British justice is at least not quite as backwards as in Sweden.

      What you say is misleading. In some countries, charging you is the first step. In Sweden, it is the last step. Since "being charged" is something completely different in Sweden, it is just fine that he hasn't been charged yet.

    30. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aah, the Myth of the dead man switch :)

      Myth? It's not as though this is at all difficult to configure.

    31. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a dead man switch. It would be a deadman switch if he had to hold the lever down to prevent the magnet from dropping. So if he died it would go off.. hence deadman switch.

    32. Re:Why solitary? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Why would a non-violent criminal be thrown in solitary immediately and also denied access to all but one visitor? I doubt it was to protect him from other inmates.

      "Since then the Pirate Bay founder has been kept in solitary confinement, locked up 23 hours a day for weeks on end."

      "Gottfrid wasnâ(TM)t allowed to meet anyone except his mother during his solitary confinement"

      Now that's not exactly solitary confinement, now is it?

      Perhaps they should rename it "MOSTLY solitary confinement*"

      *See rules and conditions for further information.

    33. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the beginning of the end of the internet.
      Dude, GeoCities.

    34. Re:Why solitary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of makes me want to hack into some Swedish sites and do some real harm.

    35. Re:Why solitary? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      The things that he DID do weren't illegal in Sweden either, yet he still ended up in solitary.

    36. Re:Why solitary? by Xest · · Score: 1

      When you say it's something completely different, then what exactly is it?

      I ask because to date, apologists for the way the Swedish justice system has handled this case don't seem to be able to back up this claim, and even the Ecuadorian's cited it as an invalid claim in their decision to give Assange asylum.

      As such I'm not convinced there is any merit to that argument in reality, even though it seems to be spread as a kind of popular myth.

  4. Give them a break by Y-Crate · · Score: 4, Funny

    They thought they had Gilbert Gottfried in custody. An immediate trip to solitary seemed to be the only humane thing they could do for the rest of the prisoners.

    1. Re:Give them a break by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      They thought they had Gilbert Gottfried in custody. An immediate trip to solitary seemed to be the only humane thing they could do for the rest of the prisoners.

      Especially if he told the one about life in prison not being too bad.

    2. Re:Give them a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny yet

    3. Re:Give them a break by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

      Not funny yet

      Sometimes humor is the only sane response to an insane situation.

  5. When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by cffrost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let my

        Pirate

            Goooooo...

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    1. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are untold societal benefits for piracy. Sure the funding of creating new media would have to be worked from the ground up, like Kickstarters. But you can't deny that if every work of man was available online for free, that good things wouldn't happen immediately and set yourself up for a more cultured/educated society down the road. And free books alone would save K-12 schools a fortune(10,000$ a student) when they move to ereaders and could be the solution we need. I don't need to preach to the choir(Slashdot), but it is easy to see there are lots of benefits for allowing everything online for free. While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again! We might as well just abandon civilization."

    2. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by Corbets · · Score: 1

      While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again! We might as well just abandon civilization."

      Which, if taken as true, pretty much undermines every argument that you made, as media and textbooks would never advance and people would be stuck using 2012 textbooks forever. Just sayin'. It's not the quantity of arguments that counts, it's the quality.

    3. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      There would be untold societal benefits if everything in the world was available equally to everyone, so that no one ever got cold or hungry again. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. So whether you're a rock star, programmer, toilet cleaner or burger flipper, everyone gets the same basic wage. Everyone gets free education and healthcare and public housing and food and clothing. However, I doubt that most people here would actually be in favour of this form of Global World Communism.

      In the meantime, I don't see why producers of culture should have to do it for free while lawyers, banking software programmers and network engineers get paid large sums of money purely in order to make money for the top fraction of a percent of the population.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again!

      It's not a knee jerk argument, it's a perfectly valid one.

      Money makes the world go 'round. You don't have to like that fact, but it is the reality. All of the utopian arguments in favor of giving everything away for free fall flat on their face when you factor in the fact that new things would stop being created. It wouldn't advance civilization, it would bring progress to a grinding halt.

      There are a very few idealists who would work hard simply "for the betterment of humanity". But only a very few. Thing is they tend to gravitate towards each other, and surround themselves with like minded people, creating a delusion that their numbers are significant enough to accomplish much.

    5. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the number of academics, experts and enthusiasts willing to compile and share free textbooks and resources, there is absolutely no evidence for your statement.

    6. Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again!

      It's not a knee jerk argument, it's a perfectly valid one.

      No, it isn't. Free sells, ask Cory Doctorow. He gives all his books away for free at BoingBoing, yet still managed to hit the New York Times best seller list. He credits his giving books away to being on that list.

      Don't try to sell a novel, sell BOOKS. Don't sell movies, sell DVDs. Don't sell music, sell CDs. The fact is, the media companies themselves saw dollar signs; "gee, we can distribute this digital crap for almost nothing! We have to get folks to hate physical media so we don't have to produce it!"

      The fact is, every non-RIAA study shows that piracy helps sales. As Doctorow (again) says, "nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity."

      If your book/song/movie is good, people will buy it even though they can get it from Pirate Bay or Boing Boing.

  6. hypocrisy exposed again by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The powers that be are clinging hard to their ownership "paradise", demonstrating yet again that they are willing to simply trample upon the law when they can't change it enough to suit themselves. Decency and the good of society be damned, when they aren't clothing themselves in fake morality.

    History is full of reactionary, entrenched interests struggling mightily to hold back change for the better, and failing every time but not before causing a great deal of damage and misery. A few people were burnt at the stake for using the Gutenberg press to print unsanctioned Bibles. Monarchists executed many democrats. The US Civil War was one of the most extreme cases. Today we have Big Oil fighting to deny that there is a global warming problem, to the point it seems they really would rather see hundreds of coastal metropolises drown or go to the prohibitive expense of building dikes along the entire coast, if that meant they could keep selling oil. Otherwise they would have to develop and tap new sources of energy. They might have to hire more engineers and scientists, and even train more, heaven forbid!

    Big Media's hypocrisy is exposed again. What next? Would be nice if humanity advanced to the point that reactionary moves were immediately discerned and those trying any dirty pool were swiftly censured. Then these kinds of differences would be resolved before the mud or bullets flew.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:hypocrisy exposed again by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the average man on the street lacks morality. I mean here in the US we just voted in the same president again that signed in Indefinite Detention - how is that better than this? - and we still continue to believe in (and vote for) violently arresting and locking up innocent people for victimless crimes like smoking a little weed, or prostitution, or violating their natural rights based on their sexual preference ... it's easy to point fingers at "the media" but really the core of problem is ordinary folk like those around us with immoral beliefs, we're the same immoral people who go work in 'big media'. It's not just "the powers that be" that are corrupt - we're all corrupt - we all have 'fake morality'.

    2. Re:hypocrisy exposed again by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yes, but - and (in the words of Ben Goldacre) it's a big butt - you are judging after the fact, while those people who did those things had to judge while the story was still developing.

      I'm sure there are just as many examples of extremist, reactionary, counter-revolutionary or just plain evil changes that were (successfully) fought off, if you were just looking for them. You select strongly. Not every change is positive, just because it is a change. Think of Stalinism or the Nazis, of the plague (brought to Europe by changes in trade routes) or Global Warming. Those are changes, too.

      So basically, we are still at the same spot. Not every change is good, and quite often you don't know until later who was right and who was wrong. Abolishing slavery turned out to be right, even though many people at the time thought it was wrong. Abolishing the regulations on banks turned out to be wrong, even though many people at the time thought it was right.

      I stand on your side regarding this particular case. But I don't think that everyone fighting against a change is automatically on the side of evil, or that we can find the truth just by checking who is for and who is against change. It's not that simple.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. Assange was right after all by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think I now understand why Assange prefers the Colombian embassy over going to Sweden to explain trumped up charges. If someone gets chucked into solitary before trial for running a business that is essentially similar to Google search, then I can't imagine what they will do to a guy that was accused of rape by two bar floozies. You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google hacks IT Logica?

      "But it's never been proven!"

      Well that's what a trial is for, you know, the one he's in custody pending?

    2. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I now understand why Assange prefers the Colombian embassy over going to Sweden to explain trumped up charges. If someone gets chucked into solitary before trial for running a business that is essentially similar to Google search, then I can't imagine what they will do to a guy that was accused of rape by two bar floozies. You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

      It's still a Swedish prison, I think you might be getting them mixed up with ones in other countries.

    3. Re:Assange was right after all by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Google hacks IT Logica?

      "But it's never been proven!"

      Well that's what a trial is for, you know, the one he's in custody pending?

      Logica just needed a good explanation for why their uber expensive for government contracts failed to deliver the product they promised...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being a respected Swedish feminist and being easy to pick up in a bar are not mutually exclusive things...

    5. Re:Assange was right after all by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Pretending to be Swedish seems to have helped cover their arses when it came to clients in other countries. But as the name's soon to be confined to the history books, I doubt it matters....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Im a swede, and I do not respect the feminists. I do agree on some of thier standpoints, but.. respect them.. oh never.

    7. Re:Assange was right after all by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a US citizen, and I both understand and agree with your position. Women have been kicked, spit on, shat on, slapped around, taken for granted, denied human rights, bought and sold and given away since time immemorial. They need to stand up for themselves. But - feminazis are no better than the swine that real feminists are fighting against.

      The same argument applies to downtrodden races whose members suddenly want to see all white men put to death. They are the same bigots that their races are fighting against.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Assange was right after all by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      I'm a US citizen, and I both understand and agree with your position. Women have been kicked, spit on, shat on, slapped around, taken for granted, denied human rights, bought and sold and given away since time immemorial. They need to stand up for themselves. But - feminazis are no better than the swine that real feminists are fighting against.

      The same argument applies to downtrodden races whose members suddenly want to see all white men put to death. They are the same bigots that their races are fighting against.

      That's all well and good, but "feminazis" essentially don't exist, and are a myth constructed almost entirely whole cloth to delegitimize feminism. There are maybe, at most, a couple voices out there proclaiming the need for matriarchy, and thousands of people in positions of power who assert that women need to be in the kitchen, and subservient to their husbands. People can and do go onto national television, and blame social problems on woman suffrage, and face no consequences at all.

      By buying into the "feminazis" argument, you are tacitly supporting the lies that allow these people to exist.

    9. Re:Assange was right after all by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have never met a real life feminazi type. This is only an anecdote, so you need not pay it any mind, but here goes.

      I stopped at a truckstop with a restaurant in Nevada. The weather was pretty ugly, lots of wind and rain squalls followed by snow squalls. Just plain cold and ugly.

      The restaurant was equipped with an outer door, and an inner door, kinda like an air lock. It enables a person to open a door without much wind resistance, go inside, allow the outer door to close, then open the inner door. But, the outer door was damaged and tied open, meaning you had to open the inner door against the wind pressure.

      While I was sitting at the counter, a car pulled up in front of the restaurant. California tags, was the first thing I noticed. The second thing I noticed, was that the driver was a female, and that she was small. Almost but not quite petite. I also noticed that she was pretty good looking. So - what would any man worthy of being called a man do?

      That's right, I got up off my dead butt, walked fifteen feet to the door, and opened it for her as she approached the door.

      I listened to her scolding for all of about twenty seconds, took my weight off of the door handle, leaned back, and allowed the wind to slam that door closed.

      I turned around, and announced to the half-dozen men in the restaurant that the women's libber outside didn't want or need any man to open a door for her, and they all busted out laughing.

      And, we all laughed even harder when the little bitty thing struggled to open that door, and couldn't do it.

      No feminazis, you say? Rare, you say? I'll grant that they aren't all as outspoken and rude as that little lady from California, but they are out there. I don't meet them every day, or even every week, but I do meet them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Assange was right after all by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      Bar floozies. Both of these whores put the move on Julian, both seduced him, then both accused him of "misconduct". Whores. Bitches. Low life cunts. Sluts. How many synonyms do you need, to get the idea?

      Respected feminists? FFS, there are other people who worship lowlife drug addicted pedophiles such as Michael Jackson. Respected? We should be impressed that someone is respected? The question is, "Respected by whom?"

      Toss both of those cum guzzling gutter sluts back into the ditches where they were found.

      Seek some therapy, you clearly have issues with adult women.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Assange was right after all by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      Ok, you were sexist to someone, and that validates the "feminazis exist" assertion. I thought you were just flame-baiting me, but you really are the GGP. The only feminist thing this woman did was chastise you for an act you freely admit you only performed on the basis of their gender. You proceeded to insult them at the time to a group of strangers, then belittled them in this post. You seem completely blind to your own prejudice. I don't know how you can live like that, in all seriousness.

    12. Re:Assange was right after all by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You seem to miss the point. My issue here, and Assange's issue here, are that he was set up, and entrapped by someone with an agenda. Do I have a problem with women making the first move? No. Do I have a problem with women demanding respect? No. Do I have a problem with women who enjoy sex, and demand respect at the same time? Absolutely not.

      There IS an issue when a woman sets out to lure a man into her bed, especially a high profile and/or rich and/or influential man, then makes some kind of silly complaint like they have done.

      *YAWN*

      "Hey, honey, I had a great time last night! Wanna go again? Oh, damn, I don't have another condom!"

      "Don't worry about it, Big Boy, come here!"

      Days later, she complains that he boned her without a condom? Let's get real here. It isn't "misconduct" unless she resisted or objected to the act.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:Assange was right after all by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that you are a black lesbian in a position of power? That's cool. And, you're close - I'm mostly white, I'm heterosexual, I'm male, and my education is better than some people ever get. Whiny? I suspect that anything you disagree with would be considered "whining". Well-paid? Hardly. I work hard for a living, and only get little more than half what I'm worth. Fuckbag? Well - I don't know about that one. I have fucked a couple of old bags in my life. I'm not certain though if any of them were black lesbians or not. Maybe you're implying that we have met somewhere?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Assange was right after all by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're illiterate. You obviously missed the "small" bit there. I'd have opened that door for the same size teen age boy. I'd have opened that door for any child. I'd have opened that door for a man who didn't appear to be big and strong enough to have opened it. I'd have opened it for an aged person, of either sex. I'd have opened that door for a male or a female who was carrying a load of (children, baggage, papers, choose your poison). IN FACT - I'd have opened that door for a fully grown, healthy, adult man, if he first attempted to open it, and had difficulty with it.

      Any man worthy of being called a man would have opened that door for ANYONE who appeared to be incapable of doing so for themselves.

      As it turned out, I judged that person's ability to open that door accurately. She proved herself incapable of doing so.

      And, that makes me a sexist?

      You're so full of shit, your eyes are turning brown.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Assange was right after all by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Rather than debate your mind with you, which would be folly, all I can say is it would seem that way to most people.

    16. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By buying into the "feminazis" argument, you are tacitly supporting the lies that allow these people to exist.

      You are correct to not demonize a group of people. Consider the connections between woman's suffrage and prohibition (see MADD for the modern day version which has less and less to do about safe driving levels):

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

      Also note the anti-porn movement and many descency campaigns. Not all are women-driven and many - if not most - have a religious overtone. There is a reason the Simpson's Rev Lovejoy's wife is the "think of the children" screecher.

      These women are not alone and they have plenty of male co-conspirators.

      Another factoid to consider is the amount of men who self-identify as libertarian versus the amount of woman. That said, the numbers may be small - the statistical voting difference - but it is enough to give an evolutionary advantage to certain themes.

      I can't speak the nazi aspect of feminazi - only the pro-state aspects of the same. But even then I can't say if we are better off or worse off. E.g., the campaign against marijuana may have been driven by it competing with other men's businesses (paper, cotton, tobacco, booze versus hemp). That was more economic imperialism/fascism than nanny-statism but the effects are similar.

    17. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, you can make up stories. That's nice. Didn't happen, though, did it?

      This one time Runaway1956 raped a dog.

    18. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read what he just wrote? There's literally nothing sexist at all in his story.

    19. Re:Assange was right after all by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Did you even read what he just wrote? There's literally nothing sexist at all in his story.

      Hmm, I wonder how I could have gone down that route...

      The second thing I noticed, was that the driver was a female, and that she was small. Almost but not quite petite. I also noticed that she was pretty good looking. So - what would any man worthy of being called a man do?

      No idea...

    20. Re:Assange was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second thing I noticed, was that the driver was a female, and that she was small. Almost but not quite petite. I also noticed that she was pretty good looking. So - what would any man worthy of being called a man do?

      Sounds like you're angry that a petite female was actually too weak to open a door, and this fuels you with rage rather than make you realize that if it were a 5 year old boy we'd be in the same situation.

      Wait, was it the "good looking" part? Because that's completely unrelated, considering we're talking about feminism and all.

    21. Re:Assange was right after all by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry your too sexist to recognize your own sexism. There's really not a lot else to say here.

    22. Re:Assange was right after all by gparent · · Score: 1

      If you had something to say you would. I think you're scared that your explanation wouldn't be up to par, so you refuse to explain yourself. That's what I thought in the first place, anyway, your argument holds no meat to it. It's just "SEXIST!11!!"

    23. Re:Assange was right after all by gparent · · Score: 1

      And if it wasn't obvious, yes I'm the AC.

  8. Manning was totally isolated by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    Manning was (is?) totally isolated from his family and only got to see a guard every few hours that came to check on him being alive and people interrogating him. That's a bit different from being able to sleep and meet your family. Both aren't a situation where I'd would want to be in, but if I had to choose....

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Manning was totally isolated by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      they're both fucking retarded situations.. would you prefer to have 1 finger cut off or 2? or should people be leaving your fingers the fuck alone?

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    2. Re:Manning was totally isolated by backslashdot · · Score: 0

      You changed the real situation which is mild stress situation versus major stress situation into a comparison of major stress situation vs major stress situation. Therefore your analogy fails.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.

    3. Re:Manning was totally isolated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning was (is?) totally isolated from his family and only got to see a guard every few hours

      Yup, that's the definition of Solitary Confinement alright.

    4. Re:Manning was totally isolated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you smoking? A year or two of your life are easily worth more than a finger.

    5. Re:Manning was totally isolated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually manning should be seeing a guard every 30-45 minutes. If he claims to be suicidal he'll see em every 10-20 minutes.

    6. Re:Manning was totally isolated by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      locked in a box for 23 hours a day is trivial?

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  9. Slipping through their fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more they try to tighten their grip, the more will slip through their fingers.

  10. Ecuadorian embassy. by mapuche · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ecuadorian embassy. Colombia has a right wing govnt. Ecuador a left wing one.

  11. Disgusted by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    It's disgusting that they would put him in jail over this.

    He should be getting an award for founding The Pirate Bay, not punishment.

    1. Re:Disgusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your personal views vs the views of law makers. Good thing you're still on your couch eating cheetos.

  12. Re:reply by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

    In China crushers are high tech. I guess it's reasonable that someone from China posts adverts for crushers and vibrators on slashdot. Only 50 years ago, EVERYTHING in China was done by hand! (well, except for getting pregnant, maybe, but we can't be to sure of that)

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  13. Swedish Law/Constitution by andersh · · Score: 3, Informative

    it is also a much broader legal principle that should be expected in any civilized legal system.

    It is guaranteed by law in all European countries including Sweden.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

    1. Re:Swedish Law/Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sweden's use of "häktning" has repeatedly been criticised on human rights grounds as it is repeatedly used to keep people in detention without bringing charges for a long time without charges brought, often under stricter conditions than in prison. It is one of several features of the Swedish judicial system that is cause for concern.
      A person can be put in häkte as soon as a degree of suspicion is established (in an objective manner the law says, circumstantial evidence is OK for this). The purpose of the detention is basically to keep the suspect from interfering with the investigation or legging it, hence the quite severe restrictions on interaction with anything outside of the cell. It is a prosecutor's wet dream.
      For the lower of the two degrees of suspicion, the detention order has to be renewed every 7 days, for the higher degree every two weeks. Repeat as necessary. This can (and does) cause people who are merely under suspicion (that is, has not yet been charged with a crime) to be held in häkte for extensive period of times.
      For some really worrying bits of the Swedish judicial system, look at the practice of lay judges, or for that the professional judges, the obsession with procedure rather than justice being served.

    2. Re:Swedish Law/Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not to mention there's no upper limit on how long a person can be "häktad" (detained). There was a recent case of a guy who was detained for ~3 years before being released (the case was dropped).

      http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/folkmordsmisstankt-slapps-ur-hakte_6352020.svd [Swedish]

    3. Re:Swedish Law/Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are numerous people in US jails for years without trials. Frankly in some US jails solitary would be a lot better then being mixed in with the inmates. Solitary might make you crazy but other inmates can make you dead or extend the capacity of your nether regions by the size of a large fist or two.

  14. Fully Protected, High Risk Convict by andersh · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are very few countries in the world in general that use Common Law, it is however no requirement for a bill of rights or human rights. All European countries have equal protections [to the US Bill of Rights] and more by way of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    What I find strange is that none of you considered the fact that he is convicted of the crime for which he is serving time. He subsequently fled the jurisdiction and is obviously not only a flight risk, has the ability to and great interest in destroying evidence against himself. It's perfectly understandable that the police would want him isolated.

    Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

  15. Outside the Court by andersh · · Score: 2

    The presumption of innocence applies to the trial, not when gathering evidence. In the previous case for which he is serving time, he was awarded his freedom pre and post trial. He fled the country to escape justice afterwards! Now, they have every right to ensure he does not make arrangements to have evidence destroyed in the ongoing investigation [of the Logica case].

    You may disagree with the conviction and the evidence in the previous trial, but it's a valid conviction as it stands. We have to respect the law and authority of Swedish courts.

    1. Re:Outside the Court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And IIRC in the US you are considered guilty for purposes of bail

  16. beer by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    At HAR2009 (see their website) I bought him a beer.
    Will I be able to do so again at OHM2013?

  17. Overly Concerned by andersh · · Score: 2

    Sweden's use of "häktning" has repeatedly been criticised on human rights grounds

    Yes, criticised on the basis of the convention. It's a cause for concern, but it doesn't diminish the importance or value of the treaty in general or with regards to Swedish law. I'm also a Scandinavian (Norwegian/Swedish family) and a trained lawyer.

    That you would attack the practice of "lay judges" surprises me! I find that it gives our system a democratic element without burdening the average citizen too much and avoids making a mockery of due process with American style juries. I think our system is excellent, full juries are not needed in courts of first instance. Are you Swedish by the way?

    1. Re:Overly Concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am Swedish. Not a lawyer. Very happy to not have been on the receiving end of the Swedish judicial system - I am absolutely terrified by the mere thought - not that there has been reason for it. I find the lay judge element, while well-intentioned and rooted in tradition, inappropriate at best. This view has been reinforced by living in a common law jurisdiction for quite a few years. Juries are present in the Swedish judicial system, though only for freedom of the press processes IIRC. They are for sure not without their own set of problems.

      Speaking of mockery, how about the numerous reports of lay judges being asleep during trials? Sure, it is the lower court, but that is still devastating to most private persons not used to the workings of the judiciary. Try finding a job to pay your lawyer's fees while appealing a criminal charge could be quite a challenge I'd say.

      How about the lay judges being appointed by the political party they happen to represent? It hardly gives the general public any insight into how they are appointed, and it hardly reflects what the current variety of "common sense" is, not to speak of perception of justice. Instead you get people who like to meddle with the way people want to live being appointed by the very same sort of people - with the same set of views! As the appointments are made on political party basis, what about Sverigedemokraterna? They have several municipal mandates, and even worse, the National Democrats as well, and that they will be able to nominate lay judges - is that the sort of people we want to have in on the trial against someone who does not fit the stereotype of what it means to be Swedish?

      The most common comment I hear about those appointments is that they are rewards for long and faithful service to the party (whichever party that might be).

      Further, their lack of proper training in legal matters risks their political views having an impact in their work (which it should not have, but the mere perception of the risk is bad enough). That sort of thing is what gives the nutjobs yet another thing to have a hang-up on. They are lay judges, they are by definition not professionals. They make decisions that are life changing, and their main merit is the party book, not that they have a good understanding of the law and how to value evidence?

      What about them completely ignoring the guidance given by the proper judge - a quick google brought up this one from one of your trade rags: http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2012/06/namndemannen-rostade-ned-rattens-ordforande-aga-och-aga-det-maste-ju-ha-blivit-marken (in case someone is wondering, the case is about parents beating their children, which is generally considered A Very Bad Thing in Sweden). Or the one in the Arboga case, who had to recuse him/herself because she had told media she was past any stage of considering guilt?

      And what about the recent cases of lay judges failing to recuse themselves when having conflicts of interest? There was the trial in Sodertalje which there was a big hoo-haa about recently, and more well known to the audience here, in the pirate bay trial. These are fairly basic things in my opinion.

      The point is that their failings make the judiciary look entirely arbitrary and not representative of the general public's perception of justice. If you are to pass judgement, you have to come across as unbiased, fair, and well-informed. Then you would have the rather formidable task of valuing evidence, witness statements and determining guilt, and if such has been established, a judgement has to reflect the law as written, practised and interpreted.

      And I don't even try to keep track of these things.

  18. Ran from a 12 month sentence? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    No surprise they had him in solitary, they are going to make it rough on him because he ran. The guy went to Cambodia to avoid a 12 month sentence! Maybe things are a lot worse for prisoners in Sweden? I had a friend in the US who was sentenced for 20. He was out in 2. He would have been out even sooner but they were giving him classes and they wanted him to finish first. Now he has a new career from those classes! He also had access to an exercise yard and a playstation.

    1. Re:Ran from a 12 month sentence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Was out in 9 months, and those 9 months were spent in a work release facility. For those keeping score, yes, I completed my 5 year prison sentence and did it without even losing my job. Did have to use up a week of vacation, though, as I wasn't allowed to leave the prison for the first week during "orientation". After the first 30 days, I also qualified for weekend furloughs. 24 hours at first, then 48. My last month and a half I had worked my way into 72 hour furloughs. So I only had to be "in prison" during the evenings, and mostly only on weekdays.

      Now, even with a sweet deal like that, we still had people "escape" every now and then. I put that in quotes because it's not at all like prison breaks you see on TV, it was simply a matter of walking out the unlocked front door. At that point they lost their work release privileges and had to do the rest of their time in a real prison, the kind with bars and razor wire. Plus the additional time that comes along with being convicted of escape.

      People are fucking stupid.

      Running is a life long commitment. Now, if you're already planning to leave the country for reasons unrelated to your legal troubles, then those legal troubles might make this a good time to make the move. But if you have friends, family, etc... and would like the option of coming home EVER, then running to escape a short sentence is just plain idiotic. Especially when you take a look at the list of countries you can't get extradited from. Shitholes. All of them.

      I keep my nose squeaky clean these days, so it won't be an issue for me, but if it were, I'd have to be looking at a minimum of 5 years actually locked up before I'd consider going on the run. If I was a younger man with more time to rebuild a life, that would probably be more like 10.

  19. Never forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never forget: We live in a world in which those who work for freedom of access on the Internet are captured and locked down in solitary confinement.

    I'm amused when people say that 2001-09-11 happened because "they hate our freedoms". They completely ignore the fact that the people who run OUR countries hate our freedoms just as much. They become red-faced with anger when we defy their authority and trade amongst ourselves without their authorization. And, conveniently for them, their bosses are paid handsomely to create an oppressive regime -- by the corporations whose financial interests are threatened by our freedoms. They most assuredly had smiles on their faces when they tossed Svartholm into the hole -- it's a wonderful thing to get paid for expressing your anger and hatred.

    This is the world you live in. Do not forget it for one instant.

    1. Re:Never forget by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They become red-faced with anger when we defy their authority and trade amongst ourselves without their authorization

      You can trade with who the fuck you want to, but that doesn't mean you get to use other people's work. Make stuff yourself if you want to trade.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Never forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make this statement like it's a universal truth - in fact it would be quite an alien concept through most of human history. If you could make it, you could trade it - having the 'idea' wasn't a legally-enshrined golden ticket. Plato wasn't distributed with a royalty scheme, neither were the works of Shakespeare, and Mozart couldn't prevent others from playing what he had written down.

    3. Re:Never forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing for you no-one had a patent on agriculture, or metallurgy, or patent-0: "system of syllables represented in graphic form". Everything you know, and everything you create, uses the work of better men than you.

    4. Re:Never forget by AbominousSalad · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear.

      --
      Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
  20. HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seen it. With my own two goddamn eyes. You can't fool me, babylon.

    1. Re:HA! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yep, sure. O.K. Your single unspoken anecdote, unsupported by evidence, a description, or even the word of a pseudonym totally undermines my point. That sure is a strong argument.

  21. Whistling into a phone by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    Obviously they had to prevent him form whistling into a phone and starting WW3.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  22. Sickening by Dunge · · Score: 1

    Governments can't do thing like this any longer. Revolution is coming

    1. Re:Sickening by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Governments can't do thing like this any longer. Revolution is coming

      Yeah, fucking governments and their rule of law.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  23. Re:reply by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

    Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects

    Says a lot about Chinese manufacture if they need to be crushed before they are considered built.

  24. Title of this /. article by AbominousSalad · · Score: 1

    The title of this article immediately proves itself to be false. This is a problem.

    A person is in prison, in solitary confinement, and your title claims he has been released.

    Your title: "Pirate Bay Founder Released From Solitary Confinement"
    The implied meaning of these words: So and so HAS ALREADY BEEN released.

    Immediately following those words, comes these: "...is set to be released from solitary confinement..."
    Meaning, HAS NOT BEEN released.

    This is a person who is sitting in a solitary confinement cell right now. Slashdot's usual piss-poor editorial standards have resulted in your site claiming he is out. Perhaps he will be released on schedule, perhaps not. I hope nobody made the mistake of believing this headline since it is not true and falsely represents that a political prisoner has been freed from solitary.

    FIX YOUR EDITORIAL STANDARDS GODDAMNIT.

    --
    Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
  25. Your facts are wrong by rundgong · · Score: 1

    As usual when someone "understands" this they have the facts all wrong.

    Not so important error: It's the Ecuadorian embassy.

    Important error: He is in solitary so he will not disrupt an ongoing investigation for other crimes. Not for anything related to the pirate bay sentence.

    I'm not saying it's justified to keep him in solitary for these suspected crimes, but at least get your facts straight.

  26. Just to be clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were not the only person making that prediction ten years ago.

    In fact, most people who was aware of the situation were predicting the exact same thing.