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 Indicted For Hacking, Fraud

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the tomorrow-will-probably-be-a-better-day-for-him dept.

Crime 99

An anonymous reader writes "Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, a.k.a. 'anakata,' co-founder of The Pirate Bay, has been indicted by a Swedish court on charges of computer hacking and fraud. The prosecuting attorney said, 'A large amount of data from companies and agencies was taken during the hack, including a large amount of personal data, such as personal identity numbers of people with protected identities.' According to Ars, 'The first count of hacking involves allegedly unlawfully using another person's username and password to search Infotorg, a well-known massive privately held commercial database of "private individuals, companies, properties and vehicles." The second count, as previously reported, involves an alleged hack dating back to 2010 of Logica, a Swedish IT firm that contracts with the Swedish tax authority. In March 2012, Logica was hit by an online attack that resulted in around 9,000 Swedes (Google Translate) having their personal identity numbers and names released to the public. ... The third count of hacking, allegedly taking place between July and August 2012, accuses Svartholm Warg of unauthorized access of major Nordic region bank Nordea's computers. The fraud charges accuse Svartholm Warg of allegedly transferring and attempting to transfer money from Nordea to other unauthorized bank accounts.'"

cancel ×

99 comments

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

Did he really do it? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466041)

Or are they just trying to take down the pirate bay, again.

Re:Did he really do it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466115)

Obviously, he did it. And Asange is a horrible rapist.

Re:Did he really do it? (4, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466143)

As opposed to a really excellent rapist? You know, the kind that brings flowers.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466161)

Well, he was pretty bad at it. I mean, one little blood test would have cleared up the charges, and instead he fled the country.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466389)

This wouldn't clear Assange. He is accused of morning-after rape - i.e., consensual at the time, "rape" after the "victims" were approached by a man in a black suit a few days later.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466487)

Yet the judge in the case, and the prosecutors and everyone else involved in the courts said all he had to do was take a blood test, and the charges would be dropped. That is, if you actually read any of the news articles about it (including the ones posted here on slashdot!) instead of just making shit up to satisfy your own sense of paranoia. The woman involved even stated that it would have been consensual if he'd used a condom like she had asked. Frankly, on that one, I have no sympathy at all.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466569)

A blood test wouldn't clear him, because it would show that he did indeed have sexual relations with the woman. That still doesn't mean he is guilty of rape.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466649)

No, the blood test would not have shown anything at all about him having sexual relations with the woman - neither he nor the woman were denying that you idiot. He quite publicly admitted to having had sexual relations with the woman, admitted that she insisted on a condom, and admitted that he took it off. THAT is what the woman was upset about.

The blood test in question was a "do you have any STDs" blood test, and the specific requirement from the prosecutor to get the charges dropped was "get a blood test to prove you don't have any STDs, send us the results - heck, you can even have it done in another country, as long as it's from a real clinic". Assange's paranoid stupidity responded with "Oh noes! They're out to steal my genetic secretzorz!" Seriously, go back and actually read some of the news articles about it if you're going to spout stupidity.

There is no requirement to take a blood test. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467395)

And taking the blood test would have removed her case, but her case WAS NOT THAT IT WAS RAPE.

The rape case is being taken by the prosecutor, and taking a blood test has nothing to do with that, nor does the original woman get a say as to whether it goes ahead or gets dropped.

Worse, for the case, the condom that was supposedly used broken had NEVER BEEN USED.

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Informative)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467767)

My recollection from reading the news articles was that Assange's lawyers offered to comply with the Swedish prosecutors' request, including depositions and blood tests, if he could do it from the UK, but the prosecutors refused.

It didn't make any sense for Ms. Revenge to demand a blood test after a week had passed, because if Assange did have AIDS, and had transmitted it to her, she could have detected it with her own blood test. Same with any other STDs.

Re:Did he really do it? (-1, Flamebait)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468457)

Talking like an arrogant fool does not make you sound more correct, in fact it makes you look more stupid given that you do not understand what you talking about. The case is not in America and the woman's views do not affect the case. STD tests are not printed, they are given in person. You do not get a certificate. He was in Britain, a British hospital will not give that information to anyone else even if requested.

I think you should read about the case and get over your idea that it has anything to do with the women or rape. It was solely about getting him physically in Sweden. If the "he said, she said" stuff made it rape, then if I had sex with a 14 year old girl that said she 18 it would be her that had raped me, rather than the other way around. The whole case was obvious BS and the facts of the case have nothing to do with what was happening. He had not been charged, so there were no grounds for an extradition, yet one was granted... There was no evidence, yet an extradition was granted... It was just theatre to convince the plebs that he is a bad man.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43469855)

If the "he said, she said" stuff made it rape, then if I had sex with a 14 year old girl that said she 18 it would be her that had raped me, rather than the other way around.

Where's the rape in that situation? Statutory rape is completely insane.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43471261)

Yet the judge in the case, and the prosecutors and everyone else involved in the courts said all he had to do was take a blood test, and the charges would be dropped

Yeah, they would have dropped the charges about an hour after they extradited him to the U.S.

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Informative)

Catbeller (118204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467233)

He has accused of absolutely nothing. There are no accusations, and no charges. What there is, is a really concerted effort to get him into a snatch zone. "Rape" was a pretext, always was.

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467751)

Everyone agrees he was in a snatch zone. The only question is whether it was rape.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468505)

No legal system in Europe would see consentual sex as rape. Both girl took him to bed, there was no force or coercion and they both bragged about it afterwards without saying that anything had been against their will. There is no case to answer, there is not even a charge. It is only about getting him back on Swedish soil.

He's not accused of rape by the rapees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467369)

you know, the only other people there at the time, say it wasn't rape and dropped the case when it turned out that it was going to be prosecuted as a rape case.

It wasn't rape,even if it was as the women themselves say it was.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466221)

As opposed to a morning after rapist. You know that kind that was consensual the previous night then a rapist the next morning.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466281)

oh, you mean the kind that almost never happen, and is even rarer to end up in court. Or was the kind where it was consensual for you, and she didn't say no, so....

Re:Did he really do it? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466351)

They never say no after the first drink that *I* buy them.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466417)

Sorry, it's the only kind I'm familiar with after watching my room mate go through it first hand. Both the entire night being kept awake, and the next morning. You're right about it not ending up in court, but being accused of rape was not something he took lightly, nor was something he socially wanted to have to explain.

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466147)

Let's apply Occam's Razor. We have two competing explanations.

One is that the Swedish prosecution is hopelessly corrupt and has decided to level very, very specific yet trumped up charges against him, despite having successfully prosecuted him before for running the Pirate Bay (so there isn't much more to be had by doing it again).

The other is that a guy who made profits out of massive piracy of other peoples work doesn't have any moral qualms about stealing things from other peoples computers. Note that even his friend/partner in crime Sunde isn't willing to actually state in public he thinks the guy is innocent - rather telling.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the right answer is probably two. But let's wait and see what comes out at the trial.

what comes out at the trial? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466375)

How sweet! You actually think this is going to get to a trial?

Oh and look! You also believe the trial will be anything but a pony show and the 'truth' is going to come out!

How absolutely adorable. I could just eat you up. Yes I could!

Re:Did he really do it? (5, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466403)

Your assumptions are false. There is a lot to be had by persecuting and searing the reputation of a person who is still seen positively by those you want to intimidate. And Assange's case and the Piratebay judgement already proved that the Swedish judicial system is hopeless corrupt a easily maneuvered by external pressures.

Hans Reiser (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467221)

I'll bet you defended Hans Reiser, as well.

Re:Hans Reiser (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468525)

Why not? He was obviously innocent...

Re:Hans Reiser (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43471371)

I'll bet you defended Hans Reiser, as well.

And I bet you though Dominique Strass-Kahn was a rapist, and not a guy being set up for daring to question [guardian.co.uk] the viability of the U.S. dollar--whose "rock solid case" charges were dropped [nytimes.com] just one month after his U.S.-friendly IMF successor took office.

Re:Did he really do it? (4, Interesting)

schnell (163007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468895)

Jebus, people. Is it really so impossible that a nerdy hacker person who made a website that you like did some cracking that was against the law? Even leaving the Assange stuff aside, I remember how Slashdotters were continuing to argue that Hans Reiser was innocent, even after it was pretty incontrovertibly established that it was obvious he had killed his wife. If OJ Simpson had written Emacs instead of playing football, Slashdotters would still be defending him.

For a group of people that espouses to value critical thinking so highly, Slashdotters as a group seem to be rife with confirmation bias and a predilection for conspiracy theories. Sometimes, people you want to like do things that are wrong - even criminal. And there doesn't always have to be some big conspiracy behind it.

Re:Did he really do it? (4, Informative)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43469353)

It is not impossible. It is just far more likely that he is being persecuted, though. He was judged guilty for things that accordingly to Swedish law, shouldn't ever grant the ridiculous fines he got and much less prison time by the Swedish law. The judge who judged the case was a member of the pro-copyright lobby as was the judge who judged the in second instance, but neither felt that there was any conflict of interests in their judging the case. And now, after he was hunted and extradited for his heinous copyright crimes some new "evidence" appears against him, after they held him 6 months in prison looking for such evidence, without further explanations or charges.

Next time you try to accuse someone of lack of critical thinking, try to look yourself at the mirror first.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Lesrahpem (687242) | about a year and a half ago | (#43469701)

Sometimes, people you want to like do things that are wrong - even criminal. And there doesn't always have to be some big conspiracy behind it.

And sometimes people are afraid to outwardly admit agreeing with said acts.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43472383)

If OJ Simpson had written Emacs instead of playing football, Slashdotters would still be defending him.

At least then Emacs would run faster.

Goodnight!

Re:Did he really do it? (5, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466489)

The other is that a guy who made profits out of massive piracy of other peoples work doesn't have any moral qualms about stealing things from other peoples computers.

That's like saying that if you've shoplifted, you're also a rapist and murderer in the making for sure. Am I the only one who has a problem with extrapolating like this?

Re:Did he really do it? (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468029)

That's like saying that if you've shoplifted, you're also a rapist and murderer in the making for sure. Am I the only one who has a problem with extrapolating like this?

Yes. The average person believes in the Just World Hypothesis (google it), which is more or less that they believe in a higher moral authority that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. So, whenever someone is accused of something, there's the presumption that they must have done something, otherwise why would they be persecuted? It's the same reason you hear people who are wealthy spouting off about how they deserved it, or got there with "hard work", and everyone else is just lazy freeloaders. These people, on a very basic emotional level, reject the idea of random chance. That you can't just be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It's the same logic that leads to "She was asking to be raped with that outfit". All of this is based on the fundamental idea that the universe gives a damn whether you're a good person, or a bad one.

But in truth, the universe doesn't care. Most people are wealthy because of a fortunate string of events, which all together are improbable, but happen just often enough. It's like winning the lottery -- there's a 100% chance that someone will win, and for them, it's going to be a life altering event. But there's about a 99.999--% chance that it won't be you, which makes playing the lottery an incredible waste of money.

Bottom line? People are superstitious. Even well-educated and literate ones like people who work with information technology all day. I mean, just look at this thread... despite all of their education and intelligence, they're still ever-willing to believe, even subconsciously, that the universe is fair.

It's mankind's oldest delusion.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43470201)

I would like to extrapolate on that lottery theory of yours and say that "some" of us are smart enough to take action and advantage of those lucky coincidences your talking about while many just let them pass us by. Your arguing a fundamental philosophical point. And I think it has been proven time and again that "Man has some control over their destiny, and the destiny of their progeny." By that very nature, yes, SOME REALLY DID EARN, a higher place in life. Through attention, or nobility, or thought, or care, or whatever they did.

The guy with the f'd up broken ass car did deserve the breakdown while the guy with the cars that generally last 20 yrs did deserve the reliability from the attention and time they put into their car. This does happen. Sometimes the beater car guy gets extremely lucky and doesn't break down and sometimes the car fanatic just gets a bad weld an the whole car catches on fire. But hey, in the vast majority of cases when taken all together, odds are that destiny is in our hands despite what the universe throws at us.

Which for the vast majority of us, the universe throws the same things over and over... people living 10,000 miles away from you generally have very analogous daily routines as you.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#43470793)

I would like to extrapolate on that lottery theory of yours and say that "some" of us are smart enough to take action and advantage of those lucky coincidences your talking about while many just let them pass us by.

That extrapolation is completely baseless. The chances are low enough without it, there is no reason for accusing people of failing to take advantage of something -- that is, unless you are trying to justify the "Just World" fallacy.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43473759)

Your right, you cant use anyones personal success as a measure of their self worth. But that does not stop someone from using it to justify their place in the world. Either we all deserve to be kings or to some degree we must acknowledge that "MIGHT" is relevant to the equation of life.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43475601)

would like to extrapolate on that lottery theory of yours and say that "some" of us are smart enough to take action

And what made you smart? Your wise choice of parents that gave you the right set of genes -- THAT is the luck of the draw. It's no different than inhereting a fortune when your rich parents die. Nobody chooses to be born stupid.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43470627)

Your view is like the extreme counter-view to those who believe there is some inherent grand designer controlling the universe though which is equally as false.

The fact is that some degree of order can and does arise out of randomness, that's the whole reason we're here- evolution is an emergent process. There are species of plant, all different, that have still managed to evolve identically shaped and coloured flowers, the reason being that they're all pollinated by a specific population of hummingbird that is more attracted to this colour and can more effectively pollinate this shape of flower. If we find a new species of plant not in bloom in the region but that is otherwise likely to be pollinated by said hummingbird then we can predict with an incredible degree of accuracy what that flower is going to look like, we couldn't do this if at least some degree of order didn't arise from the randomness of the universe.

As such, this is why statements like this, aren't exactly correct:

"It's the same reason you hear people who are wealthy spouting off about how they deserved it, or got there with "hard work", and everyone else is just lazy freeloaders. These people, on a very basic emotional level, reject the idea of random chance."

To make these sorts of statements you don't have to reject the idea of random chance at all, it can simply be that you believe that on average, those who work hard, are more likely to do better, whilst those that are lazy, are more likely to be less well off. Neither guarantees either outcome, but they do increase the possibility and as a result, allow for a generalisation based on the fact that in general it is true. This is because intentionally, or unintentionally, much of the human race has structured it's society towards this goal (though various ideologies do act against this).

Believing "Nothing I do matters man, the universe is just random" is as silly as believing "Everything will be okay, our Lord is looking over us to make sure that's the case".

Research into chaos theory tells us that minor changes in starting conditions for some processes can result in wildly different outcomes, but it also doesn't preclude the fact that sometimes these outcomes are such that the process tends towards some value. It's perfectly reasonable to consider that something resembling a just world is an attractor in this respect that we are tending towards - certainly although modern justice for example is far from perfect, many would surely argue that in the UK for example we're still doing much better than the mediaeval days of dunking many thousands of women declared witches and if they drown declaring them innocent, or if they survive declaring them witches and burning them alive. Tending towards a more just state could simply be a result of an evolutionary process whereby our species inherently tends towards it because it aids the survival of our species, there doesn't need to be some overarching actor pulling the strings.

But here's where I think the point you're getting at lies - even if we are on a tendency towards the world being more just, we still shouldn't put absolute faith in it now precisely because we're certainly not there yet (and hence would still be tending towards it) and so if such a state exists, and is some kind of state that we do indeed tend towards, then there's still the possibility of fluctuation and variation along the way that folks like Assange could be the victim of, and I suspect it is this randomness that you are alluding to?

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year and a half ago | (#43472747)

Most people are wealthy because of a fortunate string of events

It seems that these days may people are wealthy because they have no moral qualms about stepping over others and/or bilking them out of money...

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43476159)

People are superstitious. Even well-educated and literate ones like people who work with information technology all day. I mean, just look at this thread... despite all of their education and intelligence, they're still ever-willing to believe, even subconsciously, that the universe is fair.

The Christian bible says it isn't fair. "It rains ion the just and the unjust." In Christianity, you can be Timothy McVeigh (who was a Catholic) and blow up men, women, and children, repent your horror, and go to heaven.

Most people are wealthy because of a fortunate string of events

There are only two ways to get rich: Luck, and dishonesty. My late uncle became rich (my grandparents were poor). Yes, he worked his ass off and did without for a long time, living in his factory with and eating little except beans and working his ass off, but he was incredibly lucky, nonetheless. Hand/eye coordination, intelligence, and creativity run in my family; that's dumb luck. You can't choose to be smart, creative, and coordinated. But the luck only started there. Had he not been injured in WWII he would never had met his partner while in the hospital, who had lost his leg in the war and was unhappy with the prosthetic the Army gave him. Uncle Dan said "Hell, I can make a better leg than that" and did it. His new partner was a born salesman anyway, and would walk into a hospital to see an amputee and start giving his speil, the new ampute would snarl "what the fuck would YOU know about it?" Dan's partner just rolled up his pants leg, instant sale.

You're more likely to win the lottery than be born intelligent, creative, have eye-hand coordination, and have events unfold that without which you'ld never be rich. Again, they worked their asses off on the business, but working their asses off alone would never have done it.

There is no such thing as a self-made man. Dumb luck plays into every facet of your life, good or bad.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468603)

Am I the only one who has a problem with extrapolating like this?

You obviously don't have a problem with extrapolating like that. Even thought you say you do, you either don't or don't realize you didn't.

If you believe that Warg feels okay about making digital copies of intellectual property, it is not a stretch to think he has no moral qualms about making copies of other protected data. I can buy that. I don't, but I can suspend disbelief and at least accept it.

On the other hand, if you want to say that making *copies* of intellectual property, keeping the original intact, is the same as stealing, you are functionally mentally handicapped. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean you should either get diagnosed or stop posting your opinion on the internet.

If you want to assert that copying data is the same as physically invading a human being's body against someone's will, potentially implanting either a disease or an unwanted life, you are completely insane. Stop posting, stop talking to people, and check yourself into the nearest mental hospital. For the good of everyone you are likely to come into contact with.

If you think it is even remotely close to ending person's life on this plane of existence, you are psychotic, and need mental help immediately.

Think about it. Stealing my credit card information from my computer, which is really annoying but something I can live through, is the same as murder? Stealing my complete identity is the same as killing me? Physically invading my home and removing my property is the same as rape, or murder? I can take a weekend off from endless forms, phone calls, paperwork, installing home security systems, and financial tracking, and go to Cancun, which I can't do if I'm dead.

It it nothing like

saying that if you've shoplifted, you're also a rapist and murderer in the making for sure.

.

Stealing is often seen as a victimless crime, because the "big corporation" absorbs the cost. Everyone who shops there absorbs the cost of either prosecution or the loss, not the company. But it's easy to lose that, and I'm not willing to assert that "sticking it to the man" is the same as raping or murdering.

I may have no qualms about stealing data from your computer, where everything is digital and depending on the jury likely refutable. I posit that as an hypothetical. But you can be damned sure that I will not rape or murder anyone, where the physical evidence is likely to put me away for a long time. I know the difference, and I am certain Warg knew this.

The only difference is whether he left that knowledge behind. And it's not a rape trial, nor a murder trial, so that is irrelevant. Nor is it stealing. It's illegal access, in the digital world, where everything is made of bits. Much more believable.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43469897)

Are you retarded? He was saying, "Just because you do 'evil' thing X, that doesn't mean you would also do 'evil' things Y and Z." Your reply is just garbage and completely misses the point.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470057)

"On the other hand, if you want to say that making *copies* of intellectual property, keeping the original intact, is the same as stealing, you are functionally mentally handicapped."

"Stealing my credit card information from my computer"

"Stealing my complete identity is the same as killing me?"

I'm most interested to know how you can steal credit card information from my computer in such a way that I no longer have access to it (it's written on the damn card). And if you can steal my identity in such a way that I no longer have it, how is that not killing me?

Or are you in fact functionally mentally handicapped?

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43471037)

If you believe that Warg feels okay about making digital copies of intellectual property, it is not a stretch to think he has no moral qualms about making copies of other protected data.

It is a stretch. There is a significant difference between the two cases. The first is about spreading data with artistic or functional value - data that is already public and intended to be widely disseminated - based on either the economical ("it's too expensive!"), moral ("readers/viewers/listeners don't deserve to be limited in their usage of these works simply because some new technology allows us to erect artificial hurdles"), or simply pragmatic ("due to the immaterial nature of goods in question, those hurdles won't work anyway") considerations. The second is about making private, intimate data public - said data not being considered public in the first place. This is why I made the analogy - just because a person A is known to be willing to commit an act of X, said act considered nasty by at least some people, doesn't automatically mean that that person is necessarily willing to commit an act of Y for a random value of Y.

Re:Did he really do it? (0, Flamebait)

hackus (159037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466537)

Not insightful.

First of all, Pirate Bay is not a site to download illegal wares. If you use it for that purpose, it is not the problem of the people running the site who also have science and mathematics, education and other materials for download.

The result of this sort of fascist thinking is that Science and Mathematics are also criminal to download. Not surprising because as we read in our history books, fascism likes to burn books. This is just a modern equivalent, burning web sites.

This sort of mind numbingly dumb thinking is what destroys a society and allows its government to rape and pillage its citizenry. Right now in the United States you are witnessing how a free country self destructs. First, a bunch of wacked out people on psychotropic drugs take a gun and shoot people. The response? All law abiding citizens must be disarmed and be prevented from defending themselves from such freaks and common criminals and ban all guns.

The result? Criminals get guns, and you get to watch people die including yourself because it is illegal to do otherwise. Chicago is coming to a community near you!

We have had other countries in the past bomb our soil, we didn't need to do these things to our constitution. This is a fascist bankster take over, and if you are reading this in Europe, you already know what that is like.

They want the guns because unlike you yellow ass euro's we will shoot the f*ckers if they try anything like the Cyrpus crap.

I don't believe for a minute this is about copyright. They do not like the free flow of information public point to point systems provide, period.

It is against the fascist educational system that wants to make you pay for every thought, and it is against the banksters who only want those that can pay for an education to have one so that they can control who gets educated.

-Hack

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466677)

We have had other countries in the past bomb our soil, we didn't need to do these things to our constitution.

Really? I can only count one.

They want the guns because unlike you yellow ass euro's we will shoot the f*ckers if they try anything like the Cyrpus crap

Ah, now I see the sort of person you are.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43469809)

Britain, Canada, Mexico, Japan.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466717)

First of all, Pirate Bay is not a site to download illegal wares. If you use it for that purpose, it is not the problem of the people running the site who also have science and mathematics, education and other materials for download.

Yes, we know, Pirate Bay has downloads of files that are licensed such that they can be freely shared. But that is not the majority of their traffic. And, come on, the site is called Pirate Bay. I think it's pretty safe to assume they know they are hosting magnet links for a good amount of pirated content.

I do agree with the common opinion on /. that the attack on Pirate Bay and its ilk is partially driven by an inability by the content industry to give up control of distribution channels. This does make distribution of legal materials more difficult, but you are making it sound like some conspiracy against an educated populace when it's really just a boneheaded effort to squelch indie content.

I'm not sure where the rest of your rant came from. Gun control is simply off-topic.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467055)

And, come on, the site is called Pirate Bay. I think it's pretty safe to assume

I grew up in a place called Cow Bay. In all my years there, I don't ever recall seeing a cow there.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467321)

I grew up in a place called Cow Bay. In all my years there, I don't ever recall seeing a cow there.

Maybe not, but if you had a time machine and went back far enough you might be lucky enough to meet a man named Robert Cowie.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470983)

> Yes, we know, Pirate Bay has downloads of files that are licensed such that they can be freely shared. But that is not the majority of their traffic.

Au contraire, It is their *only* traffic. The Pirate Bay does not host the content of the torrents.

Re:Did he really do it? (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466629)

One is that the Swedish prosecution is hopelessly corrupt

Okay, I'mma let you finish, but I just wanted to know... how's Julian Assange doing? I heard something about... something happening in Sweden... something about... being hopelessly corrupt, something about the United States and backroom deals. Oh, sorry for interrupting you. Please, continue...

and has decided to level very, very specific yet trumped up charges against him,

Rule #1 about lying? Be specific. And Rule #1 about prosecuting? Trump it up -- it gives you something to negotiate with. Also, it may scare the defendant into cutting a deal. So both of these are things routinely done by any prosecutor. Routinely.

The other is that a guy who made profits out of massive piracy of other peoples work doesn't have any moral qualms about stealing things from other peoples computers. Note that even his friend/partner in crime Sunde isn't willing to actually state in public he thinks the guy is innocent - rather telling.

Okay, let me fix this for you: The other is that a guy who knows the government is looking for a reason to bring him down. Any reason. And this guy's obviously intelligent and literate; He built one of the largest websites on the internet. So we're left to ponder... just why would someone who's intelligent, and well-known, and the government is watching his every move, do something so heineously stupid? Ah well, we can always fall back on Well he must have been doing something!(tm) Because you know, the police would never stoop so low as to come up with bogus charges just to shut someone up they find irritating. So, wanna come with me to the protest later this afternoon?

Note that even his friend/partner in crime Sunde isn't willing to actually state in public he thinks the guy is innocent - rather telling.

Right. Not talking to the police is a sure sign of guilt. Because the interrogator doesn't have 25 years of experience in getting confessions out of people, and turning even the most innocent and and exculpatory statement into something that can be used to crucify the guy. He's just a totally nice guy who I'm sure really just wants to help out the accomplice here. And I'm George Washington.

Your argument is a house of cards. It's stacked with bullshit emotive reasoning and not a lick of actual evidence. Which is not unlike the government's case! But hey, when there's a society full of people like you willing to crucify someone based only on mere appearances of impropriety, who needs evidence?

Which is actually rather my point here -- not to blast you out of the water (though, incidentally, I did), but to point out that such errors in reasoning are so common that they contribute massively to our prison overpopulation and the convictions of innocent people. Because people are mostly emotional, not logical -- and they're swayed easily by appearances, not facts. See also: The Innocence Project. Such problems are so commonplace that there's an entire organization dedicated simply to picking out people they can prove beyond any doubt are totally and completely innocent, and then fighting (hard, I might add!) to get the justice system to, I don't know... be just? Releasing the wrongly convicted, even in the case of overwhelming evidence of innocence, is actually really, really hard. And all of this, this entire issue -- is because of logic just like yours. Emotional reasoning.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466745)

Let's apply Occam's Razor. We have two competing explanations.

One is that the Swedish prosecution is hopelessly corrupt and has decided to level very, very specific yet trumped up charges against him, despite having successfully prosecuted him before for running the Pirate Bay (so there isn't much more to be had by doing it again).

This version have already been proven to be true.

The other is that a guy who made profits out of massive piracy of other peoples work doesn't have any moral qualms about stealing things from other peoples computers. Note that even his friend/partner in crime Sunde isn't willing to actually state in public he thinks the guy is innocent - rather telling.

This one has yet to be proven.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470319)

Let's apply Occam's Razor. We have two competing explanations.

One is that the Swedish prosecution is hopelessly corrupt and has decided to level very, very specific yet trumped up charges against him, despite having successfully prosecuted him before for running the Pirate Bay (so there isn't much more to be had by doing it again).

This version have already been proven to be true.

I haven't yet heard anyone accuse the defense of being corrupt or incompetent, and yet they were unable to turn this "obvious" corruption to their advantage?

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466965)

That is not Occam's Razor. That is simply two straw-man arguments.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467285)

Quite frankly, I think the fact that bilge like this has been modded up so quickly is the biggest sign that /. is dying.

I'm really hearing the "the government is not wrong this time" argument here, REALLY?

Come on /.! This is worse than reddit.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467349)

Note that even his friend/partner in crime Sunde isn't willing to actually state in public he thinks the guy is innocent - rather telling.

From TFA:

Not surprisingly, fellow Pirate Bay co-founder Peter "brokep" Sunde called the charges against his friend "bullshit" on Twitter. However, he later clarified: "I'm not saying that Gottfrid is innocent (or guilty). But I'm seriously questioning the charges."

No, not that telling.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467879)

So you're saying that it's unlikely the government could be acting vindictively at the behest of their corporate cronies? They're kind of known for doing that. [slashdot.org]

Re:Did he really do it? (3, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468443)

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the right answer is probably two. But let's wait and see what comes out at the trial.

Either you take a wild guess, or you wait. You took the guess and told everyone else to wait, almost like you thought you were imparting some digging sarcasm.

I don't know anything about the Swedish prosecution. Oh wait, actually I do remember accusations of Sweden acting like a lapdog for either the USA or its Copyright Cartel.

Oh shit, there's a cable [falkvinge.net] , Stockholm 09-141, which explicitly says to prosecute TPB owners, and implicitly has a quid pro quo on the special 301 list, which is to say, do what we ask and you wont be on it.

Sweden has been accused of external influence in Assange's trials. It has been accused of meddling in RIAA affairs, despite the Swedish Prosecution Authority explicitly being separate from both courts and police, and implicitly from other governments.

Given your conditions, I'm going with option 1. Just a wild guess - but you're right, let's wait for the results.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468489)

The other [explanation] is that a guy who made profits out of massive piracy of other peoples work doesn't have any moral qualms about stealing things from other peoples computers.

I find your explanation analogous to claiming that a librarian would likely have no moral qualms about burglarizing a bookstore — it does not follow. TPB's revenue comes from donations, advertising, and merchandizing; no mechanism is provided for exchanging money for unlicensed, copyrighted works. Commercial copyright infringement outfits tend to have lifespans that are small fractions of TPB's nine years of operation, due to governments' aggressive pursuits against them.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43468759)

That's a lot of strawmen there. Are you opening a scarecrow business?

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43469311)

Let's apply Occam's Razor to your post. One is that you actually believe the crap that you spewed.

The other is that you are either a troll, or are paid by the establishment to make these outrageous posts upholding the corrupt system that rewards 'intelectual property rites' over creativity and actual hard work.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the right answer is probably two.

All the people I consider moral and just are classified as criminals. Whereas all the people who I consider rotten to the core are all cops, elected officials, or part of the media complex.

Time to drop out. There is no future in being part of a system that is soo frigging insane that most people can not grasp the shear fuckedness of the whole thing.

 

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43469831)

Wow. There really is one person in the universe who thinks that a DA is not corrupt...

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470521)

Holy shit dude, that is a terrible example.
You basically lumped every petty crime in with serious crime.
NO, just no.

Both parties involved are equally guilty until proven otherwise.
And to be honest, the accusers are likely more guilty in question since they side with those who can easily produce fake data while the other person has to prove their innocence of not doing it by having literally nothing. (oh he just used truecrypt, it is obvious, arrest him, he is likely some pedo too)
It is basically the same of accusing someone of murder because they don't have a dead body around, on or near them, AND holding them for it!

Like that judge who fined himself for interruption of court proceedings, more people in law need to be held to the exact same standards as everyone else.
There are obvious exceptions, such as red light passing and speed limits (in some countries), but you get the idea.

It is rape charges against that wikileaks dude all over again. It isn't hard to fake data and nobody will pay to have the magnetic platter checked in-depth to make sure the data was actually written on the dates the data is related to to prove it was probably fake.
And in the case of that one, every single person in existence knows it is bullshit but nobody will admit to it or face being called some rapist sympathizer or some other nonsense. Same goes for Pedo accusations as well.
Being labelled a rapist or pedophile is basically worse than being labelled a murderer these days. That is pathetic at best. Fuck society and the media for making these 2 things the new-age witch-hunts with the same blindness of the mobs behind them.
Pedophiles don't even harm people for christ sake! It is like saying a gay guy is going to rape people, pretty much every person related to mental health is beginning to understand it is something out of the control of the persons involved, such as sexual preference. (some even agreeing that it SHOULD be a sexual preference)
The worst part is in recent decades where the media has warped THE LAW and labelled any sex offender in relation to people underage as a pedophile. That is so seriously damaging and should be illegal. Chronophilia laws exist in most of those countries too.
Nope, everyone is raping everyone, who cares, we get more money, we get notice, we are helping people, jail everyone, screw the law, long live the law, etc.

When you have a society that treats such discussions as a taboo topic and arrest anyone related to said topics without question, you know things are broken.
Rape accusations are even harder to prove as well. Especially when the lying pricks who accuse refuse to go under even the most basic lie detectors.
Rape accusations should flat-out be thrown out without lie detector tests. Most people can't break them, and there are advanced lie detector tests that nobody (known) can break at all because it can see lies being created in the brain in realtime, even if a person was sure of it. It is like that cool device in Stargate series that could pick out hypnotized sleeper agents who don't even know anything about it, but real and even messier and science-y looking!

Everything is awful and broken. So much of it needs to be reworked. And those who try to ruin the lives of those cleared of charges should be punished harshly to the same extent that they would want to ruin the life of the proven innocent.

Re:Did he really do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470583)

Check out Arthur C. Clarke. A huge number of people still firmly believe - and will not be told otherwise - that Clarke was a "filthy paedo," as I was told at work the other day.

Re:Did he really do it? (1)

vswee (2040690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43469075)

Hackers are supposed to be protected by god! My deduction skills say, he didn't do it! (although maybe he did.)

Things that should not be crimes (1, Troll)

jcrb (187104) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466121)

Using someone else's login to access a computer...... so I am a felon each time I buy something with my wife's amazon account.

There needs to be a serious effort made to roll these laws back, or complaints about Google+ requiring real names on account will soon be the least of the concerns of anyone who ever tries to go on line for any reason.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466177)

Use your own account. You can link a single Prime to multiple accounts...

Re:Things that should not be crimes (1)

radiumsoup (741987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466181)

if you're in a community property jurisdiction, then you have a reasonable expectation of being able to use her account to buy something without breaching wiretap/hacking laws. If you know her password, and she knows you know her password, you are a de facto authorized user - all she has to do in order to deauthorize you is to change the password.

Don't overreact just because it's emotionally stimulating to do so.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466619)

if you're in a community property jurisdiction, then you have a reasonable expectation of being
able to use her account to buy something without breaching wiretap/hacking laws<sic>

You, kind sir, are confusing a defensive posture after you've already been charged. True, a jury may decide in you
favor, but the operative word is may. You're still charged, which remains on your record, and still have
to hire an expensive attorney to argue you case.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467065)

I would argue that in a community property state, the account is mutually owned and does have more than one authorized user, especially if it can be used to incur debts and/or transfer money to other property.

Further, I would argue that this should be the norm for any marriage regardless of jurisdiction. Seriously, the whole point of being married is to become one, in all ways imaginable.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468055)

Seriously, the whole point of being married is to become one, in all ways imaginable.

That can be argued both ways, but it is certainly the case that it is often simpler and easier to have joint finances. My wife and I have done so for 28 years, pretty much since we first met (4 years before we actually got around to getting married).

Whether or not a bank or credit card account is under one or both of our names is immaterial if it's the same pool of money. And many sites, like Amazon, are not particularly amenable to dealing with multiple identities on the one account.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43470097)

Around here it's pretty common to have joint finances, and then each party has their own finances on top of that. Then it's up to the parties to decide which expenses are common, and which things each pays for themselves. (Usually works by having a common account that each party deposits money to from every paycheck. The amount may be the same, or not, depending how they decide) That way you can't waste the common money on yourself, and also there isn't a need to justify purchases that are solely for your own needs.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466189)

Using someone else's login to access a computer...... so I am a felon each time I buy something with my wife's amazon account.

You might want to look at the law. Intent is important. If you are buying stuff with your wife's amazon account in an attempt to defraud her or Amazon, then yes, you will face that additional charge.

Re:Things that should not be crimes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466219)

Pretty sure the law makes this illegal if you're doing this without consent of the owner of the login. AKA Hacking...

Re:Things that should not be crimes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466327)

Technically, the law (and Amazon's TOS) makes it illegal even with consent of the owner, but that's the sort of thing they'll only charge you with if they feel irritated and grumpy that morning.

What about the other bay? (1, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466149)

Heck with this, when are they going to go after the criminals that run the bay that begins with an E?

Not the only fraud he's been involved in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466205)

Re:Not the only fraud he's been involved in (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466297)

What's fraudulent about this?

Re:Not the only fraud he's been involved in (2)

HappyHead (11389) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466449)

Do a web search on the site name and "extortion".

moD Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466209)

ofone single puny collect any spilled faster, cheaper, the hard drive to FrreBSD at 4bout 80 a fact: FreeBSD dim. Due to the said. 'Screaming

Surprise! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466235)

People running an illegal site turn out to be criminals? Who would have guessed?

Re:Surprise! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466371)

What illegal site were they running? Certainly not TPB, since it's still around, and hasn't _actually_ broken any laws. Or are you referring to potentialprostitutes.com? (See earlier comment titled "Not the only fraud he's been involved in") - if so, could you fill the rest of us in on what was illegal about it? There's no IP address for the name, and nothing turns up in general searches.

And Lasers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466271)

Don't forget the lasers! Gottfrid had two of them, and he's been hacking them on to sharks. Sharks he stole with an un-authorized accounts. To cut the world in half with! Somebody stop him already! Or at least take down that pesky TPB, which ever is easier.

Personal identity numbers and names (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466395)

It should be noted that the problem is not that personal identity numbers or names have been published in Sweden, as they are public and easy to get hold of anyway.
The problem is that this information which was accessed is for those with "protected identity", meaning people with need of extra safety. Normally this would involve people who are exposed to severe risks if their identity is easy to access, like women threatened by their men or others, ex-criminals who are trying to flee from their past or people working in very exposed positions where their work might cause threats or risk if people they work with get hold of it. Worst case scenario is that people are killed if this is leaked in to the wrong people and the expenses to give them new identities (and relocating them in many cases) would be quite high and very tough for the people involved.

A reflection on Sweden (2, Insightful)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466425)

Remember when the only famous Swedes were sex symbols like Anita Ekberg and Ann Margret, instead of alleged criminals like the current bunch? I miss the good old days.

Re:A reflection on Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466575)

Sex symbol? Have you seen the guy? Augh, I just ate you know.

Re:A reflection on Sweden (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466725)

Remember when...

No, not really, the only Swede I can think of at the moment (besides the members of ABBA) is Alfred Nobel.

Re:A reflection on Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467501)

The guy that successfully weaponized a mining tool? Good intentions and all, but fuck that guy.

Re:A reflection on Sweden (1)

tool462 (677306) | about a year and a half ago | (#43466931)

*I* remember when the only famous Swedes were guys like Ragnar Lodbrok, Sigurd, Ingvar and the rest of the Ynglingr.
I REALLY miss those good old days.
I mean, yeah, sure, they were a bunch of criminals too, but there's no way in hell they're going to let themselves get arrested!

Re:A reflection on Sweden (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43467629)

ABBA, Roxette, Ace of Base.

Where have I seen this before ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43466937)

They got Capone on tax evasion. Seems a standard MO

Hacking Nordea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467599)

He is so screwed. They are going to ask for four MILLION euros (not the kangaroos) for compensation of the fees of the intrepid crack team of experts who are called to clean up their systems.

Indicted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43467845)

This guy deserves a medal!

I suspect a frame up ? (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43468577)

They forgot the kiddie porn charge and I guess they figured sticking him in solitary [torrentfreak.com] would enthuse him to cop a plea.

Re:I suspect a frame up ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43486103)

I guess you shit tin foil.

They will stop at nothing to take The Pirate Bay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43469727)

down... This is just more BS... It is things like this that has convinced me to always vote Not-Guilty no matter what someone is charged with, unless there are dis-interested witnesses. If there is some business, or government with an interest - it's NOT GUILTY all the way...

What fact do you have? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43471001)

I find it very interesting that so many people speak out about something they know nothing about. Yes he was part and started piratebay and thats bad, but that is already done and the sentence has fallen. What this is about is a hack or several hacks to be precise in which there are substantiated evidence. Sure the law system here in Sweden is not perfect but its not corrupt but its faulty and it can be used for things it where not intended for, but if we will talk about that then how many people have been executed and then found out that they where innocent? or being sent to jail and then released since they where found innocent in the US for instance.

He is a very intelligent person with the knowledge to do this and they have found evidence that support it, enough to get him extradited from Cambodia I think it was. So rather then saying that he is innocent just because you want him to be then read over the charges and see why he is charged with it, its out on the web the document so its not that hard to find. // Non-registered user that goes by The Riddler.

Check for New 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>