Swedish law requires that for someone to be extradited to another country(not including Denmark, Norway or Finland) the act has to be criminal in Sweden as well and punishable by at least a year in prison, also both the Supreme Court AND the Swedish Government must consent to extradite an individual, if either of those instances does not approve of the extradition then it will not happen.
Assange has yet to be accused for a crime, the police wants to hold interrogations with Assange to help determine whether a crime has been committed or not. Rape and molestation falls under public prosecution in Sweden so the government is by law required to do a thorough investigation and that cannot happen until Assange is returned to Sweden for questioning.
If and when Assange is accused of a crime he will have his day in court and if the accusations are fabricated they can be unraveled in court and he will be released.
Either way the English law is irrelevant, for Assange to be extradited it only has to be a crime in Sweden and a validly filed European arrest warrant.
According to Swedish law either party can withhold consent at any point before completion of the act, continuing after consent has been withdrawn is illegal regardless of circumstances.
To my knowledge no they didn't but since UK's extradition treaties with the US is more generous than the one the US has with Sweden I fail to see the relevance.
Besides the US has yet to request an extradition from either country as far as I know and the only way Sweden would extradite someone to a country with the death penalty is if said country explicitly promises not to invoke the death penalty(and the Swedish legal system has reasonable faith that such a promise would be honored)
It's not about a UK court obeying Swedish law, it's about international treaties that the UK and Sweden have signed and the UK court has to obey treaties signed by the UK government.
Assange is accused of committing a crime while under Swedish jurisdiction and the Swedish legal system has requested that he be returned to Sweden for interrogation and possibly to face charges. As members of EU Sweden and the UK have an extradition treaty and Sweden have requested that he be extradited in accordance with that treaty.
The UK court can refuse if they believe that the extradition request was invalid or improperly filed etc. or if they have serious doubts that Assange would get a fair and impartial trial in Sweden.
What actual law Assange broke in Sweden and what the punishment for that crime is as long as it meets certain minimum requirements outlined in the treaty and that the death penalty is not a possible sentence(but since Sweden abolished the death penalty long ago...)
IANAL
They can't loose safe harbor protection merely by fighting subpoenas in court, all that can happen is that either the judge orders them to hand over the subscriber information or the judge will deny the subpoena. Comcast could possibly loose safe harbor protection if the judge orders them to turn over records and they refuse but simply fighting the thing in court won't be enough.
IANAL
Presumably any such information would have been in the post because it is pretty essential to the post.
You are of course correct that we shouldn't assume the parents are religious fanatics. But even then the information provided clearly speaks against assuming that the parents are competent and/or acting with their child's best interest at heart.
Based on the information given we can assume that either the kid has dyslexia and the parents have not gotten the kid diagnosed either through ignorance or neglect, either way that doesn't exactly speak in the parents favor.
Or the kid has substandard reading abilities because the parents have neglected properly teaching the kid again either through ignorance or willful neglect.
For whatever reason the parents does not seem competent or interested enough to home school their child.
Same thing applies to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another example of US atrocities. Japan had offered a conditional surrender even before this(they wanted to keep some of the territory gained in China, but that could probably have been solved by diplomacy later). So yet another example of completely pointless and inexcusable atrocities.
I disagree, there were several serious attempts made on Hitlers life, but as long as the terms for surrender was such that the only option was to win by all means possible the dissension within Germany and particularly within the Wehrmacht would probably have been a lot worse, a lot of people did not like Hitler or his way of doing things but as long as there was no chance for Germany to surrender with any dignity left there was really no reason to try to replace Hitler and change direction.
Iraq was won with a small fraction of available US forces and zero conscription (it just wasn't needed), and Afghanistan actually has mostly been won apart from drug-money and Pakistan (ISI and Haqqani) backed remnants of a insurgency. It is fairly clear that the US achieved their aims (kill Osama, destroy afghan terrorist camps, install friendly government) and doesn't feel the need to do much more (doesn't need to turn Afghanistan into a modern European-style civilized country, since the Afghans themselves are not really into this). So yeah, the US doesn't feel the need to commit in a total way to these fights - but it easily could have if it had *really* wanted to (Internet or no Internet). The truth is the US/Pentagon doesn't really care anymore, but don't make the mistake as thinking it is the same as not having the capability if they actually did get fighting mad.
Yes and look where the costs of that limited war got you, it nearly bankrupted the government. The costs of committing to a war that would require conscription would increase those costs exponentially because not only do you have to pay for all the weapons and equipment you're deploying, you are also depriving the industry of necessary manpower(probably base industry manpower because the first to be drafted is usually males with little to no education).
Sure the internet could not in itself stop a total war but it would practically be suicide by media to commit to such a campaign because the internet would make certain that each and every atrocity committed would be on the first page of every newspaper around the world for the entire duration of the war and the public outcry, at least in western nations would most likely ensure severe sanctions against the United States, probably on par or surpassing those currently being leveraged against Iran. That is not something a fragile economy burdened by the cost of conducting such a war.
Another reason that the US military "limits" itself with rules of war is that their leadership recognizes that the US has to keep existing in the political climate after a war. If the US military just went about steamrolling across Afghanistan/Iraq with no concern for civilians there would be huge political repercussions with possible sanctions as a result, not exactly what the US economy needs at the moment.
Another obvious complication with a "real" war is that it would with 100% certainty trigger WWIII and the obliteration of mankind as the countries capable of fighting on similar terms is pretty much limited to Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan and maybe few others and any actions against any one of those nations would trigger a chain reaction that would eventually pull every major industrialized nation into the war.
Soooo, the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC were also legitimate targets? After all All Qaeda considers itself to be at "total war" with the United States(as well as a lot of other people/nations). Because from a military point of view there is absolutely no real difference(except that the firebombings was obviously on a much larger scale), The Pentagon is the headquarters of the US military(so arguably a legitimate military target under any circumstances) and the World Trade Center had considerable importance for the economical infrastructure. They carried the same purpose, to demoralize the nation by striking terror in the population, nothing else because if you want to bomb factories or other infrastructure there are much more effective ways to accomplish that.
That is the entire problem with a political system that favors a 2 party system because there is no realistic alternative to the 2 established parties and they will as time goes become less and less distinguishable.
Compare with most of Europe and the rise of the Pirate Party in several nations, it is much easier to start a political party and gain seats in parliament(and thus potential ability to influence law and policy making). The downside is of course that when the politicians piss off the people enough radical(right or left wing) parties will typically gain a surge of voters simply because they are different from current ruling coalition(an excellent example of this happening is the recent election in Greece).
In the DMCA notice the complaining has to state that they in good faith believe that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
The notice also has to include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.
As a Swedish citizen I'd say that Sweden is hardly neutral anymore, neither is Finland or Austria. Lichtenstein, Malta, San Marino, Costa Rica and Panama so small that no one would take them seriously. Japan has a military alliance with the United States and is therefore hardly neutral, Ukraine was atleast until recently actively seeking a membership in NATO so I wouldn't exactly call them neutral. The Vatican is a bunch of religious zealots which are rarely if ever neutral about anything. The only state I would even consider being neutral today is Switzerland, but that would put all trust on a single nation, not very different from today. No it needs to be the UN, that way atleast every nation would have a vote and a voice.
Yes and the US has been overthrowing democratically elected governments because they disagree with their politics for longer than that. The US has a well established track record for threatening, bribing, invading or otherwise strong-arming other nations to suit your own needs so you are no less of a "Thugocracy" then the UN is, just take the usage of the US veto power in the UN Security Council for example.
But once you control the hardware you can control the flow of information, just because it has not yet been done in any competent way don't believe that it can't be done if the government is motivated enough, that is the reason I have a problem with ICANN being under the control of any one nation.
I don't see why the IT Commissioner will be all that tied up with the economy hassle, she can recommend the Commission to go after MS and if the rest of the Commission is too busy to look into it they will probably just rubber stamp her request it and pass it along to the courts where it will continue to be tied up for years, hopefully the court will grant a preliminary injunction against MS forbidding them to enact this scheme until the courts are done with them, that way it will be implemented roughly around the time Windows 58 makes it to the shelves.
I'd still bet that the EU Commission will slap Microsoft hard over this unless getting your OS signed is trivial and similar to FRAND rules.
For example Microsoft forbids vendors to offer the ability to disable secure boot in ARM devices, that is very clearly a monopoly abuse by EU standards.
IANAL
Since it's impossible to devaluate our currency to keep competitive
Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.
Actually yes, if you want to be part of the EU (And get all the benefits of free trade etc...) then you have to join the Eurozone eventually.I believe only Denmark and the UK have the option not to, the others have to eventually. Not joining the EU when you're a tiny country in the region will put you at a massive disadvantage.
Sweden found another way to stay out of the euro(and haven't seen any truly negative sideffects of doing so). We signed the Maastricht Treaty but said treaty has certain requirements before allowing a nation to join the euro and puts no obligations on the signatories to attempt to fulfill the requirements. So Sweden did not adopt the euro because the populace turned it down in a general referendum and Sweden has ever since simply chosen not to fulfill the requirements for joining the euro.
Another problem many Southern European countries face is a relatively high corruption and a very large black economy(the figures I've seen so far estimates that the black economy in Greece is about 40-45% of GDP). That is a huge problem because even if there is enough taxable economy to successfully run the country it is simply not getting to the government.And typically the people that will manage evade taxes is not the grassroots population.
An example I saw from Greece is that to get a doctors appointment you are expected to bring a small bribe or you will be waitlisted forever and that doctor will often declare an income just below taxable levels and thus pay little to no income tax. Contrast this with Scandinavia and Germany where bribes and corruption is thankfully very rare and the black economy is also similarly small in comparison so most of the taxable income makes it to the Government who can then properly run the country.
Starting with a system that doesn't hugely favor a 1-2 party system would be an enormous step in the right direction though. The easier we make it for people to start new parties and win spots in parliament etc the more robust the system becomes against corruption.
The problem with the US and to a lesser extent UK systems is that it is practically impossible for political parties to get any meaningful say in politics at a national level. Even if such a system also makes it easier to vote communists and/or fascists into power as we have recently seen happen in Greece it is definitely worth it because the reason the communists and fascists have risen in power in Greece is because they have for all intents and purposes had a duopoly that landed them in the situation they are in now and the people reacted against the policies those w parties represent.
I doubt that, UK has stronger extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has so why not just request that UK turn him over?
H'e suspected of a crime in Sweden and refused to return for interrogation so the Swedish authorities requested that he be extradited from the UK to Sweden so the investigation can be finished.
it typically seems easier to get somone extradited to US from the UK rather than Sweden so that seems unlikely.
No he has not been charged with a crime yet, he is however a suspect fro 2 counts of rape and the Swedish police wants to further interrogate him but Assange refused to return to Sweden so the Swedish authorities requested him to be extradited from UK in accordance with EU regulations which led to the current legal battle.
As long as ACTA(or any furture replacements) require changing the treaties establishing the European Union(which the current implementation would almost certainly require) every single Member State must ratify it for it to be recognized and thus any single parliament or public vote can strike it down.
Another thing is that valid decisions at EU level does not automatically translate into law in the Member States, they just require the Member States to enact laws in accordance with that decision(for example the Data Retention Directive), failure to do will result in fines but on the other hand if a major national Parliament is clear that it is completely unwilling to enact such a law the Commission/European Parliament is much less likely to enshrine such decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the big circular device hidden in a secret military facility under Cheyenne mountain?
Swedish law requires that for someone to be extradited to another country(not including Denmark, Norway or Finland) the act has to be criminal in Sweden as well and punishable by at least a year in prison, also both the Supreme Court AND the Swedish Government must consent to extradite an individual, if either of those instances does not approve of the extradition then it will not happen.
Assange has yet to be accused for a crime, the police wants to hold interrogations with Assange to help determine whether a crime has been committed or not. Rape and molestation falls under public prosecution in Sweden so the government is by law required to do a thorough investigation and that cannot happen until Assange is returned to Sweden for questioning.
If and when Assange is accused of a crime he will have his day in court and if the accusations are fabricated they can be unraveled in court and he will be released.
Either way the English law is irrelevant, for Assange to be extradited it only has to be a crime in Sweden and a validly filed European arrest warrant.
According to Swedish law either party can withhold consent at any point before completion of the act, continuing after consent has been withdrawn is illegal regardless of circumstances.
To my knowledge no they didn't but since UK's extradition treaties with the US is more generous than the one the US has with Sweden I fail to see the relevance.
Besides the US has yet to request an extradition from either country as far as I know and the only way Sweden would extradite someone to a country with the death penalty is if said country explicitly promises not to invoke the death penalty(and the Swedish legal system has reasonable faith that such a promise would be honored)
It's not about a UK court obeying Swedish law, it's about international treaties that the UK and Sweden have signed and the UK court has to obey treaties signed by the UK government.
Assange is accused of committing a crime while under Swedish jurisdiction and the Swedish legal system has requested that he be returned to Sweden for interrogation and possibly to face charges. As members of EU Sweden and the UK have an extradition treaty and Sweden have requested that he be extradited in accordance with that treaty.
The UK court can refuse if they believe that the extradition request was invalid or improperly filed etc. or if they have serious doubts that Assange would get a fair and impartial trial in Sweden.
What actual law Assange broke in Sweden and what the punishment for that crime is as long as it meets certain minimum requirements outlined in the treaty and that the death penalty is not a possible sentence(but since Sweden abolished the death penalty long ago...)
IANAL
They can't loose safe harbor protection merely by fighting subpoenas in court, all that can happen is that either the judge orders them to hand over the subscriber information or the judge will deny the subpoena. Comcast could possibly loose safe harbor protection if the judge orders them to turn over records and they refuse but simply fighting the thing in court won't be enough.
IANAL
Presumably any such information would have been in the post because it is pretty essential to the post.
You are of course correct that we shouldn't assume the parents are religious fanatics. But even then the information provided clearly speaks against assuming that the parents are competent and/or acting with their child's best interest at heart. Based on the information given we can assume that either the kid has dyslexia and the parents have not gotten the kid diagnosed either through ignorance or neglect, either way that doesn't exactly speak in the parents favor.
Or the kid has substandard reading abilities because the parents have neglected properly teaching the kid again either through ignorance or willful neglect.
For whatever reason the parents does not seem competent or interested enough to home school their child.
Same thing applies to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another example of US atrocities.
Japan had offered a conditional surrender even before this(they wanted to keep some of the territory gained in China, but that could probably have been solved by diplomacy later). So yet another example of completely pointless and inexcusable atrocities.
I disagree, there were several serious attempts made on Hitlers life, but as long as the terms for surrender was such that the only option was to win by all means possible the dissension within Germany and particularly within the Wehrmacht would probably have been a lot worse, a lot of people did not like Hitler or his way of doing things but as long as there was no chance for Germany to surrender with any dignity left there was really no reason to try to replace Hitler and change direction.
Iraq was won with a small fraction of available US forces and zero conscription (it just wasn't needed), and Afghanistan actually has mostly been won apart from drug-money and Pakistan (ISI and Haqqani) backed remnants of a insurgency. It is fairly clear that the US achieved their aims (kill Osama, destroy afghan terrorist camps, install friendly government) and doesn't feel the need to do much more (doesn't need to turn Afghanistan into a modern European-style civilized country, since the Afghans themselves are not really into this). So yeah, the US doesn't feel the need to commit in a total way to these fights - but it easily could have if it had *really* wanted to (Internet or no Internet). The truth is the US/Pentagon doesn't really care anymore, but don't make the mistake as thinking it is the same as not having the capability if they actually did get fighting mad.
Yes and look where the costs of that limited war got you, it nearly bankrupted the government. The costs of committing to a war that would require conscription would increase those costs exponentially because not only do you have to pay for all the weapons and equipment you're deploying, you are also depriving the industry of necessary manpower(probably base industry manpower because the first to be drafted is usually males with little to no education).
Sure the internet could not in itself stop a total war but it would practically be suicide by media to commit to such a campaign because the internet would make certain that each and every atrocity committed would be on the first page of every newspaper around the world for the entire duration of the war and the public outcry, at least in western nations would most likely ensure severe sanctions against the United States, probably on par or surpassing those currently being leveraged against Iran.
That is not something a fragile economy burdened by the cost of conducting such a war.
Another reason that the US military "limits" itself with rules of war is that their leadership recognizes that the US has to keep existing in the political climate after a war. If the US military just went about steamrolling across Afghanistan/Iraq with no concern for civilians there would be huge political repercussions with possible sanctions as a result, not exactly what the US economy needs at the moment.
Another obvious complication with a "real" war is that it would with 100% certainty trigger WWIII and the obliteration of mankind as the countries capable of fighting on similar terms is pretty much limited to Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan and maybe few others and any actions against any one of those nations would trigger a chain reaction that would eventually pull every major industrialized nation into the war.
Soooo, the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC were also legitimate targets? After all All Qaeda considers itself to be at "total war" with the United States(as well as a lot of other people/nations).
Because from a military point of view there is absolutely no real difference(except that the firebombings was obviously on a much larger scale), The Pentagon is the headquarters of the US military(so arguably a legitimate military target under any circumstances) and the World Trade Center had considerable importance for the economical infrastructure.
They carried the same purpose, to demoralize the nation by striking terror in the population, nothing else because if you want to bomb factories or other infrastructure there are much more effective ways to accomplish that.
That is the entire problem with a political system that favors a 2 party system because there is no realistic alternative to the 2 established parties and they will as time goes become less and less distinguishable.
Compare with most of Europe and the rise of the Pirate Party in several nations, it is much easier to start a political party and gain seats in parliament(and thus potential ability to influence law and policy making). The downside is of course that when the politicians piss off the people enough radical(right or left wing) parties will typically gain a surge of voters simply because they are different from current ruling coalition(an excellent example of this happening is the recent election in Greece).
In the DMCA notice the complaining has to state that they in good faith believe that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
The notice also has to include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.
As a Swedish citizen I'd say that Sweden is hardly neutral anymore, neither is Finland or Austria. Lichtenstein, Malta, San Marino, Costa Rica and Panama so small that no one would take them seriously. Japan has a military alliance with the United States and is therefore hardly neutral, Ukraine was atleast until recently actively seeking a membership in NATO so I wouldn't exactly call them neutral.
The Vatican is a bunch of religious zealots which are rarely if ever neutral about anything. The only state I would even consider being neutral today is Switzerland, but that would put all trust on a single nation, not very different from today. No it needs to be the UN, that way atleast every nation would have a vote and a voice.
Yes and the US has been overthrowing democratically elected governments because they disagree with their politics for longer than that. The US has a well established track record for threatening, bribing, invading or otherwise strong-arming other nations to suit your own needs so you are no less of a "Thugocracy" then the UN is, just take the usage of the US veto power in the UN Security Council for example.
But once you control the hardware you can control the flow of information, just because it has not yet been done in any competent way don't believe that it can't be done if the government is motivated enough, that is the reason I have a problem with ICANN being under the control of any one nation.
I don't see why the IT Commissioner will be all that tied up with the economy hassle, she can recommend the Commission to go after MS and if the rest of the Commission is too busy to look into it they will probably just rubber stamp her request it and pass it along to the courts where it will continue to be tied up for years, hopefully the court will grant a preliminary injunction against MS forbidding them to enact this scheme until the courts are done with them, that way it will be implemented roughly around the time Windows 58 makes it to the shelves.
Sounds like Microsoft is begging the EU Commission to slap them with another multibillion euro fine and then some.
I'd still bet that the EU Commission will slap Microsoft hard over this unless getting your OS signed is trivial and similar to FRAND rules.
For example Microsoft forbids vendors to offer the ability to disable secure boot in ARM devices, that is very clearly a monopoly abuse by EU standards.
IANAL
Leave the Eurozone. Don't recall that anyone actually forced you to give up your native currency.
Actually yes, if you want to be part of the EU (And get all the benefits of free trade etc...) then you have to join the Eurozone eventually.I believe only Denmark and the UK have the option not to, the others have to eventually. Not joining the EU when you're a tiny country in the region will put you at a massive disadvantage.
Sweden found another way to stay out of the euro(and haven't seen any truly negative sideffects of doing so). We signed the Maastricht Treaty but said treaty has certain requirements before allowing a nation to join the euro and puts no obligations on the signatories to attempt to fulfill the requirements. So Sweden did not adopt the euro because the populace turned it down in a general referendum and Sweden has ever since simply chosen not to fulfill the requirements for joining the euro.
Another problem many Southern European countries face is a relatively high corruption and a very large black economy(the figures I've seen so far estimates that the black economy in Greece is about 40-45% of GDP). That is a huge problem because even if there is enough taxable economy to successfully run the country it is simply not getting to the government.And typically the people that will manage evade taxes is not the grassroots population.
An example I saw from Greece is that to get a doctors appointment you are expected to bring a small bribe or you will be waitlisted forever and that doctor will often declare an income just below taxable levels and thus pay little to no income tax. Contrast this with Scandinavia and Germany where bribes and corruption is thankfully very rare and the black economy is also similarly small in comparison so most of the taxable income makes it to the Government who can then properly run the country.
Starting with a system that doesn't hugely favor a 1-2 party system would be an enormous step in the right direction though. The easier we make it for people to start new parties and win spots in parliament etc the more robust the system becomes against corruption.
The problem with the US and to a lesser extent UK systems is that it is practically impossible for political parties to get any meaningful say in politics at a national level. Even if such a system also makes it easier to vote communists and/or fascists into power as we have recently seen happen in Greece it is definitely worth it because the reason the communists and fascists have risen in power in Greece is because they have for all intents and purposes had a duopoly that landed them in the situation they are in now and the people reacted against the policies those w parties represent.
I doubt that, UK has stronger extradition treaties with the US than Sweden has so why not just request that UK turn him over?
H'e suspected of a crime in Sweden and refused to return for interrogation so the Swedish authorities requested that he be extradited from the UK to Sweden so the investigation can be finished.
it typically seems easier to get somone extradited to US from the UK rather than Sweden so that seems unlikely.
No he has not been charged with a crime yet, he is however a suspect fro 2 counts of rape and the Swedish police wants to further interrogate him but Assange refused to return to Sweden so the Swedish authorities requested him to be extradited from UK in accordance with EU regulations which led to the current legal battle.
As long as ACTA(or any furture replacements) require changing the treaties establishing the European Union(which the current implementation would almost certainly require) every single Member State must ratify it for it to be recognized and thus any single parliament or public vote can strike it down.
Another thing is that valid decisions at EU level does not automatically translate into law in the Member States, they just require the Member States to enact laws in accordance with that decision(for example the Data Retention Directive), failure to do will result in fines but on the other hand if a major national Parliament is clear that it is completely unwilling to enact such a law the Commission/European Parliament is much less likely to enshrine such decisions.