Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

French Power Company Fined For Hacking Greenpeace

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the rubber-boat-envy dept.

Government 196

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

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

a hefty bill? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048464)

2 million euro is nothing for such a company.

cb

Re:a hefty bill? (3, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048664)

Yea, a nuclear reactor costs what? tens of billions to build?

Two million would be nothing, probably came out of the "Settlement fund".

Re:a hefty bill? (5, Interesting)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048812)

I used to think like that, but then I worked for a company that cost several hundred million to build. Millions of dollars came in and left through the place on a daily basis at times. They only got to keep pennies on the dollar and most of the money had to go towards the loans and other investors. There were times the company had tens of thousands on its books as usable, owned, cash.

You can't judge cost to build as the standard for something like this. The investors and owners, probably could come up with that easily. The company itself if there are enough shield corporations between it and the owners? Hard to say.

Re:a hefty bill? (2, Informative)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048986)

They only got to keep pennies on the dollar and most of the money had to go towards the loans and other investors.

I assume you're point is that it isn't terribly profitable to run a nuclear plant. How much more unprofitable would it be if you didn't have the government subsidizing those loans in the first place?

If the big oil/coal industries want to decry subsidies to green tech, they should also be screaming louder about the nuclear subsidies.

Green also doesn't tend to blow up and render large areas uninhabitable for decades...

Re:a hefty bill? (5, Informative)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049078)

Green also doesn't tend to blow up and render large areas uninhabitable for decades...

Cough. [wikipedia.org] Also, which of these [nextbigfuture.com] numbers is lowest, again? Hint: it's not hydro, wind, solar, or biomass.

Re:a hefty bill? (3, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049678)

From your wikipedia reference:

"It infamously failed in 1975, causing more casualties than any other dam failure in history, and was subsequently rebuilt."

I don't see them rebuilding Fukushima or Chernobyl anytime soon...

I didn't say other power sources don't have failure issues, I said other power sources don't render the surrounding 100 square miles uninhabitable for decades.

care to try again?

Re:a hefty bill? (3, Interesting)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049748)

To answer your 'deaths per TWH' reference. That's not the point. The point is how much cost is associated with that figure. Where would coal be on that list if they had to fully scrub their emissions to prevent the mercury and other such stuff from escaping? Now add CO2.

They could easily get their numbers down to nuclear levels but it wouldn't be economical in any sense...

and they might need....wait for it....

government loan guarantees to be able to build such expensive plants.

Lets talk about construction versus operation. Exactly how many people die from solar panels simply sitting on a roof? Does your nuclear figure include the construction costs of the plants? Wind ditto. It just sits there spinning and as long as you aren't within a few hundred yards on a *very* windy day...zero casualties.

Re:a hefty bill? (2, Informative)

ddxexex (1664191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049754)

Slightly OT, but just for kicks I calculated the deaths/TWh for nuclear if you included Hiroshima and Nagasaki (~250,000 deaths). I ended up with 6 deaths/TWh from the .04 deaths/TWh originally. Oil is 36 deaths/TWh and US Coal is 15. I think that nicely shows just how deadly Oil and Coal are.

Re:a hefty bill? (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049372)

I didn't want to get into all that to keep my comment concise and to the point. I was replying to a comment whose logic was "Cost a lot to build, therefore must surely have money to pay this off."

I was countering that argument with a personal example that I lived. Not hearsay or second hand information.

I concede and admit that there are numerous other variables in play here. I am not saying $2 million is not a lot for the company currently. Maybe this plant wasn't making pennies on the dollar. Maybe it paid off its construction. I do not know. But you can't argue $2 million is "nothing" just because the project cost a lot to construct. The validity of nuclear power or green energy and the superiority of either did not fact into my statement.

Re:a hefty bill? (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049492)

Loan guarantees cost the government absolutely nothing as long as the company doesn't declare bankruptcy. Because as the name suggests it's simply a guarantee, not a subsidy. It allows the company to borrow at government interest rates (2-3%) rather than market interest rates (6-9%) with the only cost being the government backs the debt with a payment guarantee in the event the company becomes insolvent.

So again, Loan Guarantee's are NOT a subsidy.

Re:a hefty bill? (0)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049660)

Because as the name suggests it's simply a guarantee, not a subsidy (emphasis mine).

followed by the VERY NEXT SENTENCE:

It allows the company to borrow at government interest rates (2-3%) rather than market interest rates (6-9%)

cognitive dissonance anyway?

Re:a hefty bill? (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049758)

There was nothing wrong with what he said. He didn't say they were borrowing from the government, he said that they could borrow (from private banks) at government rates.

The reason that governments get much lower rates is that they are very unlikely to default on their loans so there is much less risk and cost involved in loaning them money. That means that the interest rate they charge can be very low. If you can get the government credit "blanket" extended over you, then the banks can consider your loan to be just as safe as a government one and give you the same deal.

So he was right, a loan guarantee is NOT a subsidy, unless there is a bankruptcy. It makes it less expensive to build a reactor, but that money does not come from the government. I was also loaned money for my education that was a federal student loan. Since the government was on the hook for the money, I got a low interest rate, but the government did not pay one cent for my education loans.

Re:a hefty bill? (5, Informative)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049058)

They made (net income) 1.249 billion last year.

Re:a hefty bill? (4, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049430)

I will preface this by saying I have no idea of the comparative cash flows in different countries, or between different parts of the utility/electric industry. That said...

In the U.S., if you are part of the power grid (critical infrastructure, also known as the Bulk Electric System, or BES) and are found in violation, NERC [nerc.com] has the power to fine you one million dollars per violation, per day. This fine starts at the outset of the violation (not when it was actually discovered) and can continue until it is rectified. Example trade magazine discussion [powermag.com] , second paragraph under NERC Basics.

Re:a hefty bill? (1)

the_xaqster (877576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049418)

I bet it will, but I can almost guarentee that EDF bills will go up to compensate them for their loss.
Gotta pass that sort of cost on to the consumer, dontcha know?

Re:a hefty bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049268)

2 million euro is nothing for such a company.

cb

The judge must be got hold of and eradicated before he does any more damage he is very plainly demented and in the pay of a bunch of raving criminals .
Why have green peace been allowed to exist for so long i find very amusing they shold have been removed years ago .

Oh, great... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048466)

The last thing we need is a Greenpeace with a million Euros to spend.

Greenpeace == terrorists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048506)

Why should we care, when their own tactics are used against them?

Um, OK. (4, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048528)

As long as this rule applies both ways -i.e. if Greenpeace were to hack into the computers if some other company, they would be fined a more or less equal amount- then I can't say I see any problem with it.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Insightful)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048632)

If by "equal" you mean "of equal impact", then yes, they probably would be fined €15 and be ordered to pay a further €5 to the victim.

Re:Um, OK. (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048648)

What you describe is an unfair system: different parties play by different rules based on a factor of no relevance to the matter at hand.

In a fair system, everyone plays by the same rules, and that's the type of system I'm talking about here.

Re:Um, OK. (3, Insightful)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048774)

How is the degree to which the penalty discourages the behavior not relevant?

Your claim of its irrelevance is wrong.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Insightful)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048818)

But it's not fair to fine a citizen the same as a corporation. You could empty my bank accounts, and the corp wouldn't even notice that amount of money. So you can ruin a persons life, or fine a company effectively nothing, with the same dollar value. Fine me 10,000$, you better fine Exxon 25+ billion.

Re:Um, OK. (2)

bentcd (690786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048834)

"Either would get fined 1M" isn't obviously any more fair than "either would get fined into bankruptcy (alternatively some percentage thereof which is probably more to the point here)".

Variations over "fined into bankruptcy" are essentially just the financial equivalents to either death sentence or life imprisonment, depending on how you look at it.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049104)

I agree, everyone must pay the same fine. Think of this as "penalty should be at most 1% of defendant's net income" , then apply it to non-profits, people and corporations alike. Adjust percentage according to severity of the crime.

This way, the rich have the same incentive as the poor to abide by the laws.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049376)

"This way, the rich have the same incentive as the poor to abide by the laws."

German and Swiss law do this, the fines are expressed in "earned per day" (Tagessätze) amounts between 1€ and 30,000€ per day depending on your income.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048976)

you forgot to add :
while you're clients (who practically don't have any other choice to be your client) will have to pay 50cents more per household, permitting the director to buy his wive a brand new super-car, new outfits and of course a new private jet (since her old jet is the same model as paris hiltons) and of course the same for his mistresses...
if a compagny has to pay, they will make sure their clients will do that for them, and often make some profit while they're at it...

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049388)

You underestimate the finacial sources of Greenpeace. The fossil lobby has deep pockets.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048634)

So far from my observation if a private individual hacks, the private individual risks going to prison.

Whereas if a corporation does it there's no prison time involved for any of the people involved.

I think prison time would discourage both private individuals and individuals acting on behalf of corporations.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048682)

if corporations 'are people' then they should GO TO JAIL like people when caught breaking the law.

it would be fun as hell to design what it means to be a corp 'in prison'. wouldn't it be fun?? imagine how we could stick it, back, to all the fucked up corps who have gotton away with bloody murder (or nearly so) over the years.

the thing is, justice is owned by the state and the state is now owned by corps. don't expect ANY justice toward corps. not until after some revolution (...) comes, anyway.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048942)

I do realize that YANAL, but you should read this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction#Corporate_personhood].

You might also be interested in these: [http://writing.wikinut.com/How-to-Write-a-Proper-English-Sentence/1gune_q3/], and [http://www.wikihow.com/Use-English-Punctuation-Correctly].

Re:Um, OK. (2)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049126)

The best analogy that I can think of for a corporate prison is placing the company under extremely tight restrictions on financial contracts

I.e. not allowed to make any new contracts or service existing contacts.

What is prison if not an artificial limit on the social interactions of the prisoner with the rest of society.

The trouble with that of course is that the actions of a few higher executive officers would most adversely affect the rank and file employee and would likely be a death sentence for any company recieving any such sentence (who'd do business with them afterward they fail to delivery any goods the company is contracted to supply but aren't allowed to).

The only reasonable sentence I can think of is prison sentences for the executive officers.

The real problem of course is that Corporations aren't really people, so they shouldn't have the same rights and responsibilities as a person, Corporations are after all effectively immortal.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049488)

it would be fun as hell to design what it means to be a corp 'in prison'. wouldn't it be fun??

Well, this seems pretty simple:
When a corporation "goes to jail" their taxes increase to the point of having the potential to make $0.25 per every unit equal to minimum wage they would make otherwise, and every night every board member must be fucked up the ass by a person with severe social issues and multiple STDs.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Informative)

data2 (1382587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048688)

To be fair, this incident resulted in several people getting prison time.

Re:Um, OK. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049032)

and yet the corporation continued to do business, they paid a fine and didn't do any time.

Therein lies the problem with corporate citizen-hood. Can you tell the corporation to stop doing business for 3 years while they are in prison?

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049128)

So you want any business that has any member breaking the law in "the name of" the business to be shut down? Imagine what disgruntled employees would do in that case. What you're asking for doesn't make sense and is an easy exploit to get businesses destroyed because Bob, the high school drop out, is mad that he doesn't make as much as a manager in his role as a broom pusher. Hell, Bob has nothing to lose, he'll screw it up for everyone else and break a couple of laws and blame the company.

Re:Um, OK. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049764)

My point was that if we're going to give corporations all the benefits of personhood, they need to be capable of being punished in the same manner.

As you so astutely note, it's not practical to punish corporations in the same manner...so perhaps they shouldn't be given the 'rights' of personhood, which was my actual point.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049138)

>> generate the majority of France's electricity

Yeah, France can probably make do with the electricity they have for the next three years.

Re:Um, OK. (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049444)

Yes, in much the same way that when an individual is imprisoned you don't send their friends and family down too. Shutting down the corporation hurts all its employees and their families, as well as the guilty parties.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049548)

you're an idiot.

Re:Um, OK. (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049794)

Perhaps because the family and friends didn't play a part in the crime? The 'corporation' here was fined, not individuals. Hence the 'corporation' itself was punished...how do you imprison a corporation? Obviously you can't. So perhaps...we shouldn't be so willfully giving them the 'rights' of personhood without the correlated punishments...

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049464)

The Mob should have incorporated.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049232)

No, the article says they got a suspended sentence.

Re:Um, OK. (2)

the_xaqster (877576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049458)

If you are going to RTFA, at least read all of it.
They got prison, with SOME of the time suspended.

Re:Um, OK. (5, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049546)

I usually feel obliged to defend France (I think they get a raw deal, especially from Americans who can't see past the last 80 years of history and forget how the French contributed during the American revolution), but in this particular context I'm cynical. I grew up in New Zealand, and was living in Auckland the night the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] was bombed. The two official French secret agents were sentenced to 10 years, served two, and most of that was in a tropical resort. They've since received medals and accolades from the government, both been promoted, written books...basically made out like heroes from this.

I won't claim to speak for all my fellow kiwis, but this is about the only incident that I hold a grudge over and think was never handled fairly.

Re:Um, OK. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048982)

RTFA: The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended. Meanwhile his boss, Pascal Durieux, who was EDF’s head of nuclear production security in 2006, was also sentenced to three years imprisonment, two years suspended, and a 10,000 euros (£8,500) fine for apparently commissioning the spying operation.

Re:Um, OK. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049214)

Oooh, a 10,000 euro fine... Greenpeace needs to start salting their secure systems with MP3s from RIAA labels...

Re:Um, OK. (4, Informative)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049018)

So far from my observation if a private individual hacks, the private individual risks going to prison.

Whereas if a corporation does it there's no prison time involved for any of the people involved.

I think prison time would discourage both private individuals and individuals acting on behalf of corporations.

Under US law, corporations shield the owners from financial loss, not criminal behavior. A person commits a crime and goes to jail regardless of whether they acted on behalf of a corporation. The executives at Enron were all charged with fraud, for example. This case is under French law, tho.

Kinda low (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048540)

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

Re:Kinda low (5, Informative)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048572)

Whoops, I jumped the gun

FTFA:

The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment, with 30 months suspended. Meanwhile his boss, Pascal Durieux, who was EDF’s head of nuclear production security in 2006, was also sentenced to three years imprisonment, two years suspended, and a 10,000 euros (£8,500) fine for apparently commissioning the spying operation.

and

As a result of this, the French judge issued a guilty verdict in the case of Thierry Lorho, the head of Kargus Consultants. The former member of France’s secret services was sentenced to three years in jail, with two suspended and a €4,000 (£3,450) fine. EDF was also ordered to pay €50,000 (£42,800) to Jadot.

Re:Kinda low (5, Interesting)

The Askylist (2488908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048864)

Kargus was also the firm involved in hacking the anti-doping lab which had caught out Floyd Landis for cheating in the Tour de France. Landis was given a 1 year suspended sentence, as was his coach.

.

The Kargus guy involved got 3 years, and the hacker himself 2, but with 18 months suspended.

AFP report here [google.com]

Re:Kinda low (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049244)

Incidentally, the French secret service of which the Kargus consulting creep was an alumnus was the same entity responsible for sinking one of Greenpeace's ships with limpet mines in order to avoid being inconvenienced by a protest they were going to lead... Keep it classy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Kinda low (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048596)

The involved executives also got a suspended sentence of 3 years' worth of jail time.

Re:Kinda low (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048694)

Yeah, anytime I start a comment out with "I didn't read the article yet, but..." I should probably realize I'm about to spout out some nonsense. /facepalm

Re:Kinda low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048728)

Actually - considering how many Slashdotters actually do read the articles... I almost automatically assume someone did NOT read it, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Re:Kinda low (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048944)

Of course giving someone a suspended sentance of jail time is very different from actually giving them jail time.

The French really hate Greenpeace (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048546)

I love the French even more now. Squee!

And yet... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048548)

If the situation were reversed... Greenpeace would be declared terrorists and alot of people would be tossed in jail for a long long time.

Once again the lesson is.. If you wanna be a criminal. Start a company first.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048590)

Greenpeace is made up of sacks of shit. I hope they all die, and I hope you get cancer.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048784)

You sound like a sucessfully content individual.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048628)

Greenpeace have already been declared terrorists in most of the world, yet they're not in jail, despite belonging there.

Re:And yet... (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049576)

Greenpeace have already been declared terrorists in most of the world

Sources please?

yet they're not in jail, despite belonging there.

Why?

Re:And yet... (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048720)

quite OT but slightly humorous: if you are an adult and pay to have sex with an adult, that's a crime.

EXCEPT when you are a corporation and are filming it. then its 100% perfectly legal.

corps have more rights than people. they actually do.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048802)

Still OT but that got me thinking. Prostitutes should carry a digital camera around and offer sexual performance art rather than just sex. Offer the John the exclusive rights to any performance, and he gets the memory card when done, to publish if he so chooses.

Re:And yet... (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048822)

I have a lot of faith in the enterprising abilities of the ladies of the night in this world. I can't believe they haven't thought of this.

Re:And yet... (1)

colesw (951825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048832)

So the solution is to start a company and only pay for sex with an adult who is comfortable with you filming it?

Re:And yet... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048998)

Well actually it's only officially legal in California I think. The laws in other states are quite fuzzy and enforcement is even fuzzier.

Re:And yet... (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049212)

Damn, I thought everyone had gone to HD by now. (Memories of watching scrambled Playboy channel shows in the 80s...)

They got jail (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049122)

RTFA please, two people got jail for this. Contrary to Greenpeace that can get away with causing real damage like chaining themselves to shit.

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048614)

They were probably worried that Greenpeace was onto them for also hiring the 'Ndrangheta to dump waste in Somalia, or just sink a ship somewhere in the Mediterranean. I don't have any proof or links regarding EDF and the 'Ndrangheta, but a similar Italian company did this, and some barrels from France were amongst those found in the shipwrecks.

WTF?! (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048644)

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

I'm confused (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048666)

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

A bit off topic, but an entirely new and very cool method of fingerprint detection using lasers was developed which led to the arrest of the French agents that planted the bomb on a Greenpeace ship some years ago. It's a pity they didn't get to serve their prison sentence.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38048730)

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

Not anymore, and that's too bad.

Re:I'm confused (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049112)

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

Not anymore, and that's too bad.

Amateur troll is amateur.

Get away with murder? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048938)

The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties. What the French could have quite legally have done is waited for the Rainbow Warrior and the yachts it was bringing to illegally enter French territorial waters to disrupt legitimate weapons testing is have their navy open fire on them.

That's not murder. Murder assumes the attack had no legitimate right to attack. If Greenpeace had disrupted the French military's operations, they would have been quite legally justified in using force.

Re:Get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049100)

Fortunately, most people are not that sociopathic.

Re:Get away with murder? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049324)

The Rainbow Warrior was attacked in a way that was supposed to have no civilian casualties.

A very large quantity of explosives? There's no point trying to pretend that it's OK to use deadly force if you don't actually mean to kill anyone. I assume you are in the USA. Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today. I know it happened in Reagan's time with Orlando Letelier getting blown up in Washington D.C. but what would happen now?
It appears we are straying a little into "might makes right" and "ends justifies the means" territory here. Even China is at least pretending to respect the rule of law on occasion these days.

Re:Get away with murder? (3, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049620)

Consider what would happen if a foreign power tried the same thing in the USA today.

...in Baltimore Harbor. The Rainbow Warrior wasn't blown up at sea; this occurred in harbor in the largest city in the country, with a lot of other completely unrelated ships and their personnel in the vicinity.

Re:Get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049710)

The guy that drowned on the Rainbow Warrior got back in the boat to collect camera films ...
from wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

While the ship was initially evacuated, some of the crew returned to the ship to investigate and film the damage. A Portuguese-Dutch photographer, Fernando Pereira, returned below decks to fetch his camera equipment. At 11:45 P.M., the second bomb went off. Pereira drowned in the rapid flooding that followed

There is no excuse for the bombs in the first place, but I don't think there was any intent to hurt anyone. Looks like other countries learned the lesson and are now just sawing off equipments on ships they don't want to see reach their neighbors shores. I don't see many soldiers brought to justice for killing innocent women and children in Irak, Palestine or Afghanistan.

What is it with the French and Greenpeace? (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048734)

What is it with the French and Greenpeace? Well at least this time they didn't kill anyone like when the sank the Greenpeace ship [wikipedia.org] .

Perhaps they're desperate to show that there is someone they won't surrender to!

Re:What is it with the French and Greenpeace? (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049108)

Not only did noone get killed but someone got convicted and that's pretty impressive especially if you consider how close EDF is to the government.

Typically French (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048772)

The French are one of the world leaders in the field of industrial espionage. This should not be a surprise.

Re:Typically French (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049692)

They are lots of ideological remains of the Vichy Government still in the French society.

Fined? (1)

eof (33820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38048926)

Fined? If this was an individual they'd be looking at extradition and jail time.

Re:Fined? (2)

uncanny (954868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049082)

The judge sentenced Pierre-Paul François, who was EDF’s deputy head of nuclear production security in 2006 to three years imprisonment

TFA

Re:Fined? (1)

eof (33820) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049304)

Ah, thanks for that. I only saw the bit about the guy from Kargus getting jail time.

Lol (1, Troll)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049030)

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

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049164)

Yeah Beavis, because not being perfect totally makes it OK to commit major crimes against you...
Dumbass.

Greenpeace will not surrender! (-1, Flamebait)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049034)

So why are greenpeace using computers- don't computers use electricity?

Doesn't electricity pollute the environment?
Don't they know that the computer servers they use are powered by electricity stations that burn whale fat and endangered 3 legged Borneo toads as fuel?

Hypocrites!

there's always an American.. (1)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049090)

Ready to prove my prejudice that environmentally friendly seems to be forbidden in their constitution. Sustainable energy hasn't made it across the ocean yet? Or is it just a few trailer parks in Alabama that have been bypassed by progress the last 30 years?

Re:there's always an American.. (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049192)

Ahhhh- jokes on you. I'm French- at least on the internet I am... for today at least.

France uses a lot of nuclear energy- which is cleaner than America's reliance on coal- however it isn't perfect (although better).

It creates pollutions where it is mined and creates a lot of long-term waste.

Although France is better about not using fossil fuels- they still use a decent amount.

As for sustainable, no doubt France does a better job of this than the US- but most of their energy still comes from non-renewable sources.

Re:there's always an American.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049242)

Hello mister Troll!

Sustainable energy hasn't made it across the ocean yet?

I was going to inform you that sustainable energy hasn't made it anywhere yet (as there is no such thing so far that scales to cover the power demands - yet anyway). Then I realized you might mean actual transport - in which case, yes, sustainable energy made it across all the oceans years ago. They were called "ships" with "sails".

Re:there's always an American.. (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049442)

At least you admit your bigotry. I recall generations of Europeans who were convinced they had none.

Re:there's always an American.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049624)

Seems odd that your prejudice is to assume it's an American when they don't have the same outlook as you. You're the biggot here.

industrail sabotage? (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049216)

Industrial sabotage? Turnabout is fair play. That's what Greenpeace has been doing to multiple industries for decades.

RIGHT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049728)

And did you see the holier-than-thou statement from GreenP at the end of the article?
It's like, Oh, WE never do anything illegal! No sir! Not us! HAH!

Well (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049360)

Because, of course, Greenpeace's activities are fully legal.

Think of EDF's hacking as civil disobedience aimed at Greenpeace. They're violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Greenpeace is also in the business of violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Re:Well (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38049644)

Really?
Okay I am no fan of Geenpeace at all. I do not think their tactics and often their goals are correct.
However...
EDF is a heavily regulated utility company that is responsible for the running of nuclear facilites. They should without a doubt be held to an extremely high standard when it comes to following laws and regulations.
Greenpeace is a bunch of hippies that think they are doing good. Just as their is no room for Police officers and the military to be allowed to commit institutional acts of civil disobedience there can be no room for EDF to do the same.
Plus I am sure that Greenpeace members have spent the night in jail in the past and will again.

Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38049740)

Kevin Mitnick spends 5 years in prison for hacking while these guys spend just a short time. Talk about a slap on the wrist.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>