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!

Pirate Bay Co-Founder Detained In Sweden

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the stockholm-syndrome dept.

Crime 95

wiredmikey writes "The co-founder of The Pirate Bay filesharing website was detained in Sweden on Friday, days after his deportation from Cambodia, officials said. Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, 27, faces a one-year prison sentence for promoting copyright infringement in his home country. His current detention is for an investigation into his involvement in the hacking of a Swedish IT firm named Logica. He was arrested in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh on August 30 at Stockholm's behest and expelled late on Monday."

cancel ×

95 comments

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

JESUS CHRIST! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348313)

Will you just fucking jail this clown already?! Either that or don't do it. It's been YEARS and YEARS of this bullshit with new news every months. Why in the hell does everything take so god damn long whenever it's a "celebrity" compared to anyone else?

Re:JESUS CHRIST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348353)

It takes this long for everyone (I mean everyone with a good lawyer who knows when and how to appeal (/keep appealing))

Re:JESUS CHRIST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348485)

I don't know why it took so long in this case, but his visa expired the same day as he got arrested in Cambodia, maybe that had something to do with it?

Re:JESUS CHRIST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348755)

That's my name. Don't wear it out!

Sucks (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348323)

Let him go!!!!! TPB is awesome! :(

Re:Sucks (2)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#41349093)

Which has nothing to do with whether or not he hacked a company. Just like whether Wikileaks is awesome has nothing to do with whether or not Assange waited until a girl was asleep to have unprotected sex with her when she had spent the evening refusing to do.

Get your facts straight (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349891)

Assange waited until a girl was asleep to have unprotected sex with her

Get your facts right before defaming someone by spreading false rumors. Assange had sex with her and they slept together starkers. He woke up with a boner during the night and did what couples do: that's why it is called "making love all night long". One day you will understand... She threw a party for him afterwards and only reported him much, much later when she found out he was two timing her. Get your facts straight: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it [crikey.com.au] -comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

No, get *your* facts straight (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#41350019)

The EAW charge is:

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Her statement is (skilling past the background details and the whole night of him trying to have unprotected sex with her and her refusing, and him agreeing reluctantly a few times to protected sex and ordering her around; also skipping the aftermath):

They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better not have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before.

Not only does the Assange team not dispute that she had been spending all night refusing unprotected sex with him, but she has a "paper trail" a mile long to prove it, including her ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years who testified that she was so paranoid of unprotected sex that not only did she not once allow it in their entire relationship, but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex.

Oh, I'm sorry, "crikey.com.au" is so much better of a source than the actual police statements and the actual arrest warrant.

Beyond that, you're jumbling everything else up. That was a totally different woman at the party, AA instead of SW. The party was planned in advance. The charges in regards to AA are not rape. At the party she described to one friend the "violent" sex with Assange. This is all straight from the police interviews, including witnes testimony. And please don't get me started on the "how a victim has to behave afterwards for something to be rape". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist afterwards to try to make it feel less like rape. I let mine walk me back to my car and even waited for him while he peed in the street. Why? Hell if I know, I was in shock. I didn't exactly have "get raped" on my TODO list for that evening.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350165)

Hope you got some counseling. Sounds like you need it still.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (0)

Jessified (1150003) | about 2 years ago | (#41350245)

Are you seriously going to insult a rape victim? Anonymous Coward indeed, it's no wonder you don't want to stand behind those words.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350385)

Are you seriously going to insult a rape victim? Anonymous Coward indeed, it's no wonder you don't want to stand behind those words.

No but I'll insult some asswipe pretending to be one to make a point on an internet discussion board.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350457)

Are you seriously always going to assume that a "rape victim" is always a rape victim, knowing how trivial it is to bring such charges and how difficult it is to clear them?

It seems you will, given you happily you indulge in equating anonymity with moral standing, you champion.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41352407)

Are you seriously comparing convenience ("how difficult is to clear them?") to trauma ("rape victim")?

Truly, you are a champignon.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (1)

Rei (128717) | about 2 years ago | (#41358269)

I didn't, I probably should have. And it was only six months ago.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (1)

sabri (584428) | about 2 years ago | (#41350485)

If only my modpoints would have lasted one day longer... MOD PARENT UP.

(but citation needed)

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (3, Interesting)

Pav (4298) | about 2 years ago | (#41350621)

In the ideal world I think most people, no matter their position on his innocence, would want to see him tried and for justice to be done. The unfortunate fact is that even feminists who want to see him tried can see that this case is politically motivated [youtube.com] . Aside from the soft nature of the evidence, in many juristictions the case would be thrown out because of prejudicial media attention.

Distracted by this sideshow you Americans don't realise the danger you're in. We Australians had our own bumbling George W Bush, the premier of Queensland Joh Bjelke-Petersen [wikipedia.org] . His only mistake was to stay in state politics too long. His bid for Prime Minister was cleverly outmaneuvered with a snap election, and then the smug superiority in the rest of the nation was replaced by fear of what would happen if he got into power. Much energy was expended in prosecuting him, and it was frightening how completely corrupted the police force, judiciary and many other arms of government had become during his time in power. You guys have got rid of GWB but you must know in your bones how deeply wounded your democracy has been, and the influence of the USA worldwide is wounding other democracies by extension. The special persuit of a publisher (Assange) WAY beyond what is normal in a case of this kind by multiple democracies (USA, Sweden, UK, and abandoned by his own country Australia) is a symptom. Who knows what other criticism or leaks have been chilled as a direct result already... the stereotypical journalist is a drinking, smoking womaniser after all. If you want to emotionally "get" how a journalist would feel, and why Americans and by extension everyone should be afraid watch this [youtube.com] .

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41351271)

It's just an excuse to get him to Sweden so they can ship him off to the USA.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350889)

You got raped, my condolences, but what you endured or how you felt is completeley irrelevant to the Assange case.

It was funny how Assange became a "rapist" and a "violent sex offender" only AFTER the two ladies learnt Assange had sex with both. It was revenge and a setup, pure and simple. To claim otherwise is to have an astoundingly naïve image of the world. Look at what Assange did and what information was released through him and then figure it out.

Talking about sources, how about the tweets from the other "raped" person? They've been taken down since, obviously, but mirrors still exist if you look for them. She was positively glowing and looking forward to meeting Assange again. Doesn't sound much of a rape to me, but what do I know, I've never been raped, so I guess I'm completely unqualified to give any input in this matter.

I think what happened was this: the women wanted to have sex with a Famous Person, but turns out Famous Person had sex with another. Whereas the other woman was probably a honeytrap, the other one just some random woman, and after their visit to the police, magically the situation turns into rape and coercion and whatnot.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41351371)

You got raped, my condolences, but what you endured or how you felt is completeley irrelevant to the Assange case.

It was funny how Assange became a "rapist" and a "violent sex offender" only AFTER the two ladies learnt Assange had sex with both.

When they went to the police they were worried about catching AIDS, not about having been 'raped'. They wanted to know if there was any way they could force Julian Assange to take an AIDS test [google.es] .

The first prosecutor let Julian Assange go and he left the country. That's when somebody high up had an "Aha!" monent and figured out they could use this as a way to get Julian Assange in to Sweden and ship him to the USA from there using the "temporary surrender" law. A new prosecutor was appointed and the rest is history.

Re:No, get *your* facts straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351315)

She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.

Seems fairly consensual to me.

Consented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351657)

She slept with him, hence implicit consent, then this phrase: “You better not have HIV”, there's you're explicit consent. The one condition she attached was that he shouldn't have HIV, he confirms this, she lets him continue. What it ISN'T is RAPE.

"so paranoid of unprotected sex that not only did she not once allow it in their entire relationship, but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex."

That's irrational. If he ever did have consented sex with her, she's probably regret it later and claim rape. He's better off rid of her.

"At the party she described to one friend the "violent" sex with Assange. This is all straight from the police interviews, including witnes testimony. "
Heresay (he said she said), this second woman is the one I think is a CIA girl, she actively sought him out, then she's providing and evidence trail at a party, then talks to the other one and convinces her to go along with it.

" I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist afterwards to try to make it feel less like rape."
And I've known multiple fake rape victims who use rape to get back at boyfriends that dump them. They didn't plan on facing a rape charge for crap sex with a woman they didn't like either.

Do you accept that DATING someone you claim RAPED you is not consistent with it being RAPE?

The Logica hacking ... (5, Informative)

bakuun (976228) | about 2 years ago | (#41348337)

... isn't just a matter of hacking a random IT firm as the summary may lead one to believe. The firm in question was a contractor for the government, and was handling a number of important census databases, including personal details about people with "protected identity" (people that live under threat of violence, and the like). Through the hacking, this data was released.

Considering that he was already wanted for his involvement in the pirate bay, the hacking was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348365)

You seem to be implying that he is guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348433)

You seem to be implying that he is guilty. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Nothing. Detained and interviewed during the investigation of a crime is a pretty standard thing in the due process that may eventually lead to a guilty verdict.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349091)

...may eventually lead to a guilty confession. FTFY

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

detritus. (46421) | about 2 years ago | (#41350819)

There aren't charges, only suspicions. To hold someone and prevent them communicating to anyone (which is preposterous since it's all over the news) just because they may have involvement would never fly in the US. He's being detained for 2 weeks, and they can stretch that out indefinitely.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41355685)

Detailed implies a violation of the right to travel, a fundamental right in any free country. While it may have been necessary in the old days, it is not appropriate in the modern world except under special circumstances, such as a person presenting an extremely strong risk to the public (i.e. a serial killer), or a party that can be expected to use the aid of organized crime or foreign intelligence services to evade trial.

Interviewed implies a violation of freedom of speech, a fundamental right in any free country. Custody + interrogation = silence + lawyer.

No legitimate government has the right to make an arrest or to detain someone if it can reasonably be supposed -- by an ordinary person, not a member of government -- that the matter can be resolved without doing so. No legitimate government has the right to arrest or detain someone until the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the case is not being brought for political reasons.

Honey traps, entrapment, and other forms of falsified or planted evidence are a very real danger that anyone opposing a government running amok must worry about (which means any civil rights activist in this day and age of increasingly unethical governments and abusive legal systems), and thus extra special case needs to be taken in such cases. In the old days, planted drugs seem to have been a popular means for governments to silence persons that posed problems, although in some cases it seems possible that murder disguised as suicide was used. Today, false evidence of terrorist connections, planted child pornography, or false accusations of rape or child abuse are likely techniques for governments engaged in illegal, unethical, or immoral conduct to attempt to silence critics. Not saying that is necessarily happening here, but it could be and appropriate precautions must be taken by officials working for any legitimate government so that they do not inadvertently become parties to such things.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41348439)

Innocent until proven guilty only in the eyes of the law. So unless I am called to be part of the jury (which is unlikely as I live in different country), I can judge him any way I want. I would not act on it, but I would definitely judge.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348543)

Sweden does not even have a jury in court, only employed judges (not elected) and lay judges (politically appointed but not publicly elected). We do, however, have laws prohibiting defamation so innocent until proven guilty still applies.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#41348573)

To sue/convict someone of defamation in Sweden do you have to prove the person isn't telling the truth?

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41348633)

From what I can tell, telling the truth is a defense, but the burden of proof lies on the accused. I'm not lawyer nor Swedish, though.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#41348719)

Putting the burden of proof on the accused sounds pretty chilling. Where I live you can be tried for defamation, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and not only is truth a defense, but the accuser has to prove that you either actually knew you were lying or you had no idea one way or the other and just didn't care.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | about 2 years ago | (#41348835)

IANAL but the way I understand it, if you are trying to defend yourself against a claim of defamation by saying that you told the truth, it then becomes your burden to prove that what you said was in fact the truth. Not just something you believed at the time, but actually true in fact.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41349475)

The burden of proof that you did the defaming lies on the plaintiff. But truth (vertitas) is a defence, and thus the burden to bring it to the court lies with the accused, not the plaintiff.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348663)

IANAL, but my understanding is that you are free to express your beliefs and opinions (although opinions are less protected than beliefs, only the latter is allowed to incite hate and violence) - as long as you clearly mark them as such - but as soon as you present something as fact you either put up or pay up (if someone bothers to pursue it in court that is).

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41348987)

I feel the same way. I long ago judged you to be a malevolent sex fiend, as is my right.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349859)

It is an ideal and one that you ought to uphold, at that.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41349921)

I understand your point. I have been told in my childhood to not judge people quickly. But I always find knowing how biased you are to be more beneficial (and easier) than try to not judge people. I am of the opinion that everyone is judgmental, irrespective of how hard they try.

Sorry for going off-topic, but this was worth addressing.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41352543)

Innocent until proven guilty only in the eyes of the law. So unless I am called to be part of the jury (which is unlikely as I live in different country), I can judge him any way I want. I would not act on it, but I would definitely judge.

The hacking charge I can understand ( if they can prove it ).
However, what exactly constitutes "Promoting copyright infringement" ?
- The idea that/believing copyright is a bad system and should be abolished ? That would be freedom of though
- Voicing your opinion on copyright, and promotion the idea that it to should be abolished ? That would be freedom of speech.

I guess at a certain level, it could be seen as promoting criminal activity, which indeed be illegal ( just as promoting violence would be ) .
It's a thin line, and I don't see it.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348423)

Well, even without the info you provide about the nature of the Logica haching, those kind of people, like the founders of pirate-bay, deserve what the get - let's not make it political by starting a debate about free thief.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348561)

It's not theft. It's at best copyright infringement. What he did was almost certainly not hacking either. Hacking is the pursuit of knowledge. Unless we are talking about what he was after and not what he did he was not hacking.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#41349125)

It's not theft. It's at best copyright infringement.

Oh, well then, that's all right, as long as it's not theft. Umm...wait...copyright infringement is still an illegal and criminal act.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349869)

Oh, well then, that's all right, as long as it's not theft.

Is that what he said?

Umm...wait...copyright infringement is still an illegal and criminal act.

What does that have to do with whether or not it's all right? Laws aren't the same as morality.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | about 2 years ago | (#41352793)

All he said is that it is copyright infringement at best. Saying crime a [or civil tort a] != crime b is not saying crime a is ok. I'd defer to my book on discrete mathematics to demonstrate the fallacy in this specific statement. As to your second act - illegal yes - but only criminal past a certain point before which it squarely remains a civil issue.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348611)

Well, by calling it theft, *you* started it. Now enjoy the responses.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (3, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41348807)

...he founders of pirate-bay, deserve what the get - let's not make it political...

Someone should cut off your head - but let's not make it violent! :)

Re:The Logica hacking ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348523)

Personally I hope this fuck gets the AIDS rape in prison and dies for being as asshole.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (0)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41348783)

... the hacking was an incredibly stupid thing to do.

For who to do? Because for all we know, it could have been you. Fucking asshole.

Re:The Logica hacking ... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41348845)

except that we have no idea whether he has been involved or not. It's ALLEGED .

Way to show your bias as clear as day there.

Weird (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348405)

The whole thing is surrounded by weird things. At the same time he arrived in Sweden the (completely) new charge was made public. Also the court hearing was magically timed to occur at exactly the same time as the two journalists that was released from Ethiopia (major event in Sweden), thus hardly no journalists where at Wargs hearing.
Some swedish newspapers have printed articles about it, but nothing major. They all seem perplexed, and are suspicious about it too. Conspiracies, american interests and so on. I guess Gottfrid will have a really hard time from now on. My guess is that he will not be released for many years.

Nothing weird at all (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348517)

Nothing weird at all here.

1) Its best not to make new charges public while the suspect is still outside the country.

2) Real journalists have far more interesting things to pursue, like stories their readers care about. It has to be a really really slow news day for someone like this to garner much attention ... and the past few days have been pretty busy news days.

Re:Nothing weird at all (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348589)

1) Debatable. He was already in custody. Sweden does not have any extradition agreements with Cambodia. But things moved _very_ quick this time.
2) "Real journalists"? Right. Quite a lot of people care about The Pirate Bay, as is evident in the last few years.

Nonetheless. Why do Sweden take so much care in bringing him home like this? He's been living quite openly in Cambodia for a while. Sweden do not usually act like this. It's not like he's a major threat to, well, anyone.

Anyhow, speculation is the only thing there is, right now. Let's wait a few weeks and see. I'd bet a fair amount on things going not-that-good, for him.

Re:Nothing weird at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349385)

1) Debatable. He was already in custody. Sweden does not have any extradition agreements with Cambodia. But things moved _very_ quick this time.

And if additional charges came to light while he was still in Cambodia that may have affected the extradition. Again, what is the upside to announcing new charges prior to his landing in Sweden, *especially* when the government who you do not have any extradition agreement is currently cooperating? I don't see anything debatable.

2) "Real journalists"? Right. Quite a lot of people care about The Pirate Bay, as is evident in the last few years.

"Quite a lot"? Now there is something quite debatable. But that is off topic, we are talking about a person who nearly no one cares about, even users of TBP. His being a cofounder is more trivia than material.

Re:Nothing weird at all (1)

Pav (4298) | about 2 years ago | (#41352983)

You're either a know-nothing or a shill. The Pirate Party is the fourth largest party in Sweden. It reached this size from a membership surge following the conviction of those other Pirate Bay guys. A significant proportion of Swedish people get angry politically active over this kind of thing - we could all learn something from them.

Re:Weird (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41348541)

Plus there's the whole deportation business. We all know he broke Cambodia's immigration law, but what did he actually do that was illegal?

Re:Weird (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about 2 years ago | (#41348583)

He doesn't need to have broken a law in Cambodia. Sweden can't go into Cambodia and drag him out, but there's nothing preventing them from asking Cambodia to expel him. Now, hopefully Cambodia has some standards in place for determining whether they will comply with such a request, like asking for enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Re:Weird (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41348597)

Wouldn't breaking Cambodia's immigration law be enough to get deported? I figured that was usually what they did with people who they catch on immigration law issues. It's not like they want them in their own jails, sucking up taxpayer dollars.

Re:Weird (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41348647)

Yeah, it is enough to get him deported, but not extradited. The difference is, when you are deported you have the right to go to any country you want to. When being extradited, you are in custody the entire time, and you are forcefully moved to the country you are being extradited to, and handed over to the authorities of the country.

Re:Weird (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41349507)

The difference is, when you are deported you have the right to go to any country you want to.

I don't know anywhere where you have such a right. If you're being deported, the authorities put you on a plane, it's not your choice what plane you get on. Generally they'll send you back to the country you came from. But if they don't know where that is, they'll send you back to your native country.

Re:Weird (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41349863)

The US does - search for choice in this page [uscis.gov] . I cannot find sources for Cambodia, but from what i hear they do (from what I hear most countries do)

Re:Weird (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41349971)

Generally they'll send you back to the country you came from.

This is worth addressing, so I will post again. I believe you are referring to case where you are refused entry into the country (which is different from deportation). The usual procedure is to send you back to the last port of call (the airline/ship/who_ever_brought_you is responsible for this, often at their own expense)

PS: IANAL, in case it was clear.

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41360775)

Normally, if the person who is about to be deported is cooperative and doesn't challenge the deportation, he or she would get to choose where to go, but normally the person in question would also have a valid passport.

Considering the fact that Gottfrid Svartholm Warg did not have a valid passport: which countries could he realistically choose to travel to?

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348651)

People have written elsewhere that based on Cambodian law, he would have choice where to be deported to himself. He's also supposed to be able to legally fight the decision, but because his lawyer was prevented from contacting him, he wasn't notified of this right.

Something is rotten in the state of Sweden (... I know).

Re:Weird (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41349315)

And my question remains unanswered. Cambodia says he broke immigration law. What did he do to break it? Does anyone know?

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41356801)

What makes you think that the law is important in Cambodia, of all places?

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41361299)

Fighting the deportation would not get him anything other than a potentially lengthy wait in a Cambodian prison before being sent to Sweden. Seriously, look at the facts! He's a convicted criminal, there was an international arrest warrant issued through Interpol, he is under investigation for new crimes, he didn't have a valid visa to Cambodia and he don't even have a passport. You don't really think the Cambodians would just say "Ohh, you don't want to be deported? What the hell, you can stay here after all"?

Also, did anyone consider that Warg might have agreed to the deportation after 2 weeks in Cambodian custody thinking through his options? Even if the Cambodians were to let him stay he'd still be a fugitive and have an arrest warrant attached to his name.

Meanwhile in Laos Fredrik Neij has discovered how impractical international travel without a passport can be.

Re:Weird (2)

X.25 (255792) | about 2 years ago | (#41350151)

Plus there's the whole deportation business. We all know he broke Cambodia's immigration law, but what did he actually do that was illegal?

Is this a joke?

Do you think breaking immigration law is not an 'illegal' thing go do?

Do it in any country, and you'll be deported. There is no mystery there.

It's not illegal if its not illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41351763)

Laws are laws, if he broke the law, he'd be in jail. Immigration rules are also guidelines backed by a law permitting deportation. It can be as simple as 'not having enough money in the bank', or 'being a sound person'. It's not illegal to have less money than they want in a bank, however it will get you deported. According to what I read, he was flagged as undesirable after the Swedes said they wanted him. Being undesirable isn't illegal, but can get you deported.

Understand the difference?

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349529)

It's called "förundersöknings sekretess" (pre-investigation secrecy). Only the investigators and the prosecutor have the full details. Even if you are a suspect and get to be interviewed the material you divulged is secret and will not be divulged to you yourself. This secrecy is released when you get charged, and this is what happened. There are reason for this, among them is that no one should be able to mess with the investigation, second is that if there will not be a charge you can go on with your life without everyone knowing you are a suspect.

Demonizing charges to bulk up a weak case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349741)

His involvement in the hack will be something like 'Pirate Bay linked to trackers of it'. Or perhaps he downloaded and read a copy.

It sounds like they're trying to bulk up a weak case by adding outrageous claims. By doing this is Sweden, it means they don't have reveal the weakness of those claims to foreign powers who might then not extradite him when they saw the bulking.

Several European countries have implemented 'secret witness' clauses. This was used* in the UK copyright case to introduce an unchallenged witness who gave private evidence to the judge. They can be used to create fake providence in a charge that has no merit. Does Sweden have this? If it does, expect to see a secret witness introduced.

They'll wheel in someone with a big sounding title, surrounded by security guards, who'll explain he has secret information that is pivotal, and blah blah blah terrorism, blah blah blah, world at risk, blah blah blah , to create the idea in the mind of the judge that he should find a way to convict the guy even if the law says he shouldn't.

Just like FACT did with Anton Vickerman of Surfthechannel.com to try to get this 'conspiracy to defraud' charge to stick, when it clearly didn't fit. There was no evidence of conspiracy offered, and no evidence of fraud. Clearly that charge can't stand, but yet as long as secret witnesses can poison the court witness chain, it could.

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

* Where's the article Anton did explaining the details of his prosecution? It seems to have gone.

Swedes are all paedophiles (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348411)

You know it. I know it. They know. We all know it.

Re:Swedes are all paedophiles (0)

Pi Is A Rational (1106177) | about 2 years ago | (#41349489)

lol KimmoA pizza pizza hagersten fucking billionaire, etc.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348553)

Since google translate was unable to translate this article. I used bing (oh noes). click, and wait a few seconds.
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/oisincantwell/article15442685.ab

This should shed some light on the situation.

Logica isn't Swedish (3, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 2 years ago | (#41348567)

Logica used to be a UK company, but since 2012 it is owned by the Canadian CGI group

Re:Logica isn't Swedish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350513)

VM-data used to be a Swedish company, bought by Logica, bought by CGI group, probably outsourced to India, Pakistan or Cambodia.

And they're worried "confidential data" about Swedish citizens have been spread by him hacking goverment databases. yeah, right, that's the real problem ;)

Re:Logica isn't Swedish (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 2 years ago | (#41357137)

I was wondering what it's recent history had been. The last time I knew anyone who worked there, it was a UK company. But that was a good few years ago.

Piracy keeps me... (3, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41348599)

from committing more serious crimes to get money to purchase legal overpriced entertainment not including the money I save also keep my children fed. Now you don't want my children to starve or be sold on the black market, do you?

If he "hacked" an IT firm (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41348635)

If he did this, then yes he should be paying the penalty as that is a legitimate crime and uncool.. If he just 'promoted piracy' then no he shouldn't be detained, regardless of the 'law' as its a sham.

i have no problem with it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348643)

when did people start feeling they were entitled to rip off creative works?

don't do the crime if you can't do the time... and it is a crime. deal with it.

Re:i have no problem with it (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348865)

Em, no in Sweden its not a crime, moron. How dumb are you exaclty that you can't understand that different countries have different legal systems. People feel entitled to infringe copyright as a form of civil disobedience against criminal cartels who bribe corrupt politicians to instigate corrupt persecutions such as the campaign against the Pirate Bay, and to illegally extend copyright indefinitely.
And just to reiterate moron, the Pirate Bay ripped off exactly nothing, they hosted not a single piece of copyrighted material, they simply provided links, so genius, as an example, do you think Slashdot should be prosecuted for infringing the copyright of every story they link to, well do you, dumbass?

Re:i have no problem with it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349281)

Like the typical criminal when cornered you spew insults and blame "the system". Get a job, become a productive member of society and stop being a bottom feeder. Creep.

Re:i have no problem with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349677)

Wow- it's people like you why I firmly believe we need a system which includes execution of the masses (note: i'm still against it though).

Re:i have no problem with it (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41349545)

People feel entitled to infringe copyright as a form of civil disobedience against criminal cartels who bribe corrupt politicians to instigate corrupt persecutions such as the campaign against the Pirate Bay, and to illegally extend copyright indefinitely.

Generally speaking no. People infringe copyright because they'd rather not pay for music and movies if they can get away with getting them for free. They don't have the quasi-moral justification you suggest.

Re:i have no problem with it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349705)

Be it this little bit was wrong/right it really doesn't matter. Copyright exists only because the people allow it. The people have clearly shown (regardless of the law) that they don't support it for one reason or another. This is the masses we are talking about. The willful disregard for copyright by the masses should make one think there is something seriously wrong with the political system. The system is not doing what the people want. It's pretty apparent it is doing the bidding of those with an interest somewhere else. No matter what propaganda you may push copyright should not exist as it is today. You don't need a vote to see it's not what the people want.

Re:i have no problem with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41356303)

The statistics and research says that it is most likely the former. People who pirate are more prone to buy things.

Perhaps the former should be re-worded the people who provide and readily facilitate piracy are more interested in cvil disobidience, ide say 50/50 of those guys are self interested.

Either way its a shity law that should have never been created anyway and does not benifit our nations or world in any way. It hinders progress and is used abusively by the power elite.

Re:i have no problem with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350605)

Not to rain on your parade but piracy is a crime here. They where sentenced because regardless of the technicalities they obviously ran a service with the sole purpouse of unlicensed distribution of content. And I'm saying this as a person who hasn't paid software for many years and only paid for a Spotify account because it was convenient.

Re:i have no problem with it (3)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41349045)

Been going on since the dawn of time. How else would you describe Ovid's work?

Release Your Warg Riders! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41348941)

Warg Riders (n, pl.) - the addenda to bills already under deliberation by the Swedish legislature that pertain specifically to Pirate Bay co-founders.

And For A 'Possible' One-Year Prison Sentence? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349161)

This seems very ASS BACKWARD.

Two and more governments spend a BUTT-LOAD of their countries cash for arraignment on a charge that only garners at most a ONE-YEAR prison sentence.

This is just NUTTS.

Why spend the hard earned monies of the peoples of the countries involved on such a low potential of pay-back on such a low criminal offense?

This is so STUPID.

Barak Hussein Obama II is an admitted, by his own words and actions, MURDER. Yet HE walks. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does being the President of the United States of America absolve Barak Hussein Obama II of all of his acts of larceny, debauchery, unethical behavior, Immorality, Petty Theft, Grand Larceny, MURDER?

NO!

"BRING IT DOWN ... BRING IT DOWN ... BRING IT DOWN".

This is the battle cry to LIBERATE the United States of America from the MONSTER BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA II.

8D

 

Man up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41349217)

Why can't these guys man up and serve their sentence?
It's 1 year and it's in Sweden. I love the piratebay just as much as the next guy, but these guys knew what they were doing, and got their shit handed to them.
Now they run around all over the place trying to avoid a prison sentence. It only makes it look worse.

file sharing site? (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 2 years ago | (#41350171)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, does TPB actually "store" files? I thought they only had torrents? So why does the media continue to call it a file sharing site? (yes it was a rhetorical question)

Re:file sharing site? (2)

Golden Section (961595) | about 2 years ago | (#41350545)

They don't even store torrent files anymore, as of February 29, 2012. They only have Magnet links (links with hashes), which lets your P2P app find a torrent file based on a hash match (not based on server name/location), which in turn... well, you get the drift.

Slashdot reports that, but not this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41350829)

please discontinue the liberal bias at slashdot

if you're going to report free speech issues, then do so:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/

Editors, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41353809)

"He current detention is for an investigation into his involvement in the hacking of a Swedish IT firm named Logica. He was arrested in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh on August 30 at Stockholm's behest and expelled late on Monday."

Editors, please.

If you fail to do enough research to find out that the Company formerly known as Logica (Now part of CGI) was based upon London (Now Canadian owned), then could you please even fix the grammar?

Thank you,
-j

Billions of bay users no longer vacation there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41355653)

Would be awesome.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>