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!

MPAA Executive Tampers With Evidence In Piracy Case

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the fitting-the-narrative dept.

Piracy 156

An anonymous reader writes "TorrentFreak reports on an internet piracy case from Finland, which saw four men found guilty and fined €45,000. During the trial, the defense attorney took note of inconsistencies in log files used as evidence against the men. An investigator for international recording industry organization IFPI revealed after questioning that the files had been tampered with. He said an MPAA executive was present when the evidence gathering took place, and altered the files to hide the identity of 'one of their spies.' 'No one from the MPAA informed the defense that the edits had been made and the tampering was revealed at the worst possible time – during the trial. This resulted in the prosecutor ordering a police investigation into the changes that had been made. "Police then proceeded by comparing the 'work copy' that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that police and the defending counsels had received. Police found out that the material had differences in over 10 files," Hietanen reveals.'"

cancel ×

156 comments

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

And... (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year ago | (#43571005)

... this surprises anyone how, exactly?

Re:And... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571087)

Unsurprising things make the news all the time. It doesn't have to "surprise anyone" in order to write an article about it.

Once a MAFIAA ... (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43571715)

... always a MAFIAA

I'm surprised (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571121)

that it hasn't been swept under the rug

Re:I'm surprised (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571763)

Exactly. I'm not surprised it happened, I'm surprised it got reported!

Re:I'm surprised (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43571909)

Not to worry. A DMCA complaint against all news agencies and websites reporting this is being filed as we speak.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571135)

As I read the headline, I thought the exact same thing.

It would be news if the MPAA dog told the truth, quite frankly.

Re:And... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#43571293)

... this surprises anyone how, exactly?

What surprised me is that the prosecutor appeared to take the tampering seriously.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43571389)

I'm not. Prosecutors generally take a dim view of someone else tampering with evidence. It is one thing for them to twist things and entirely different when someone else does it.

Re:And... (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43572589)

Right, I mean, would you be happy if someone started poaching in your turf?

Re:And... (5, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | about a year ago | (#43571547)

But apparently the judge didn't, otherwise there would have been a mistrial declared and either perjury or contempt of court charges.

Re:And... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#43571623)

Yeah.... I don't know how the courts work over there, but that sounds like grounds for appeal.

Re:And... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571731)

The test for misconduct causing a mistrial is that due process was harmed. The judge probably corrected this with a jury instruction to ignore some of the evidence which is fine. You're right it is grounds for appeal if the judge is wrong, but most court proceeding result in some grounds for appeal technically. It sounds like they charged with evidence tampering which is probably just as bad a perjury. Contempt is usually inappropriate behavior towards the court during procedure. This is not what happened.

Re:And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572087)

The test for misconduct causing a mistrial is that due process was harmed. The judge probably corrected this with a jury instruction to ignore some of the evidence which is fine. You're right it is grounds for appeal if the judge is wrong, but most court proceeding result in some grounds for appeal technically. It sounds like they charged with evidence tampering which is probably just as bad a perjury. Contempt is usually inappropriate behavior towards the court during procedure. This is not what happened.

Lying under oath (about the files) can be considered contempt as well as perjury in some jurisdictions. No idea how Finland handles it. Also, this was crazy:
>The IFPI investigator was then asked to reveal the name of the MPAA executive.
>He declined, but did offer an explanation for the inconsistencies in the evidence.

You get to choose not to answer questions in court? Wow.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43572599)

That's not the thing that really amazes me. What amazes me is that he gets to explain why he tampered with the evidence. Why is that in any way relevant? Evidence that has been tampered with by either party is worthless. Yes, I will even believe him that he only tried to erase his tracks and how he was entrapping the defendant, but in what way does this make it better?

Re:And... (5, Informative)

BeTeK (2035870) | about a year ago | (#43572125)

In Finland we don't have jury trials. There is judge and 2 or more lay judges who decide the matter in hand.

Re:And... (1, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43572287)

On a very minor technicality. The alteration wouldn't have altered the outcome of the trial. The IFPI weren't falsifying evidence. They just wanted to hide a piece of information that might compromise other ongoing investigations. The only thing they did wrong was not properly document the redaction.

Re:And... (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43572359)

Why assuming IFPI is telling the truth now, when they've already been caught lying?

Re:And... (3, Informative)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | about a year ago | (#43571645)

What surprised me is that the prosecutor appeared to take the tampering seriously.

Well, read the summary again

which saw four men found guilty and fined €45,000

By my tally, I have: Government:45000, Lawyers:Untold thousands, MPAA:0, Joe Sixpack:0

In summary: Two parties come to court to squabble. The lawyers and the government walk away with all the winnings. Case is then closed.

This was a win for the people comrade! I find your lack of faith [in the courts] disturbing! </sarcasm>

dog bites man (2)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year ago | (#43571009)

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest

Handcuffs (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571025)

Usually I don't support "send a message" type of prosecutions (Aaron Swartz, as just one example) but these guys need to be smacked down, hard. Fines are insufficient; anything short of significant jail time won't do a damn thing to the MAFIAA sociopathic execs who honestly believe they are above the law.

A message needs to be sent, and this looks to be an open and shut case. I sure hope to see handcuffs.

Re:Handcuffs (4, Interesting)

melikamp (631205) | about a year ago | (#43571143)

Even though I would love to see every racketeer prosecuted to the full extent of the law, a more useful approach would be to end the war on sharing. Only legalizing non-commercial file-sharing will protect the public from these sharks.

Re:Handcuffs (4, Insightful)

Marksolo (970704) | about a year ago | (#43571283)

Too bad all legal streaming services are having a hard time paying the protection fees required to operate.

Re:Handcuffs (2)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43571349)

Even though I would love to see every racketeer prosecuted to the full extent of the law, a more useful approach would be to end the war on sharing. Only legalizing non-commercial file-sharing will protect the public from these sharks.

That is something that a local prosecutor cannot do. They can, however, prosecute malfeasance in their trials, and so should be encouraged to do so.

Re:Handcuffs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571145)

Usually I don't support "send a message" type of prosecutions (Aaron Swartz, as just one example) but these guys need to be smacked down, hard. Fines are insufficient; anything short of significant jail time won't do a damn thing to the MAFIAA sociopathic execs who honestly believe they are above the law.

A message needs to be sent, and this looks to be an open and shut case. I sure hope to see handcuffs.

Hope all you want. Fuck-all will be done. MAFIAA earned their synonymous name, and are just as powerful.

Watch and see.

Re:Handcuffs (5, Interesting)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43571197)

Evidence tampering is a serious crime, with penalties up to 20 years the US. Not sure about Finland's laws, but significant jail time would be an appropriate and proportional response for these actions. "Sending a message" is when the response is disproportionate and inappropriate..

Fisticuffs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571253)

Is "evidence tampering" OK when it's the US government hiding the identity of one of their own spies?

Re:Fisticuffs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571377)

Irrelevant. A simple pointing to national security statute, some black bars and done. It is entirely legal, reasonable, and transparent - even if the information is not.

Re:Fisticuffs. (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43571659)

No, but unless you have an army there is not much you can do about it.

Re:Fisticuffs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571881)

This is what happens when you grow the government so large, and raise taxes that they depend on for their armies. I'd rather see the corporations than the government grow larger (lesser of two evils)... at least the corps don't have armies.

Government wins when you keep electing the people in power now. Figure it out yet?

Re:Fisticuffs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572005)

at least the corps don't have armies.

Corporations ARE the armies now. Private contractors like the company that changes its name every month trying to hide its insidious past (Acedemi/Xe/Blackwater)

Re:Handcuffs (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year ago | (#43571381)

As a U.S born trailer park raised American I can honestly conjecture the Vikings will burn him at the stake. If only conjecture was truth.

Aaron thought he was above the law, too. (-1, Flamebait)

SuperBanana (662181) | about a year ago | (#43571403)

Usually I don't support "send a message" type of prosecutions (Aaron Swartz, as just one example) but these guys need to be smacked down, hard.

Interesting moral flexibility.

Fines are insufficient; anything short of significant jail time won't do a damn thing to the MAFIAA sociopathic execs who honestly believe they are above the law.

Aaron Swartz thought he was above the law as well. Repeatedly.

Re:Aaron thought he was above the law, too. (5, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year ago | (#43571705)

Aaron Swartz thought he was above the law as well.

There is a large difference between the malum prohibitum [wikipedia.org] of copyright, and the malum in se of evidence tampering.

Re:Handcuffs (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43571471)

Once again, prison is to isolate dangerous people from the rest of society, not for harmless fraudsters. I mean, it's not like they can act unilaterally or anything. We have RICO and asset forfeiture laws already on the books, and they would be a very effective deterrence against this. But, since the 'entertainment' industry serves a very important function for the state, it really can't be touched... kinda like the banks.

Eh, business is business... waddya gonna do?

Re:Handcuffs (5, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#43571819)

I say we treat this RIAA/MPAA goons like all the other criminals in this country.

pre-dawn raid, shoot their pets, haul everyone found near their compounds out for questioning, trash their house, charge them with RICO.

and most importantly, freeze their bank accounts so they can't pay for lawyers.

Lets also call all their freinds, family, and furture employers to let them all know what scumbags they are, and lets run a special on them in gangland.

Re:Handcuffs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571511)

So you disagree with "sending a message" except when you agree with the message.

Re:Handcuffs (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year ago | (#43571617)

Set an example, my ass. In most places tampering with evidence is a setups crime. It's not about going after somebody harder than normal, but rather treating them the same as you our I would be.

Re:Handcuffs (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43571647)

One does not even need to resort to 'send a message' or excessive prosecution. While I have no idea what laws are active in Finland, generally tampering with evidence is a pretty serious offense.... and even though they try to act like a government, the MPAA can not claim 'state secrets' in order to hide on of their informants.

Some how I doubt it will matter (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571033)

I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.

Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.
 

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (5, Informative)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43571051)

There is a difference between redaction, which hides material to which you will still know exists but not the actual information and removing information entirely and not notifying the defense and the court.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (5, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about a year ago | (#43571081)

I predict that unless it is proven that they fabricated evidence, the person on trial will still get convicted, and the MPAA will get nothing more than a verbal slap on the wrist.

Deletion of exculpatory evidence is one thing, but deletion to hide a source is simply redaction, which governments do daily. They will laugh it off as a minor oversight.

... and you're suppose to just take their word that those were the only changes? If they had access to make changes then the chain of evidence is tainted... who knows that happened.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571097)

Read the Story. The police had other copies and were able to compare the files verify that the only changes made were to hide the identity of their informant.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year ago | (#43571139)

even being a spy the defense should have the right to question said spy.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about a year ago | (#43571379)

The story says that, but it could just be something inserted by the MPAA executives who briefed the author of the story to put some nice PR spin on their actions. And if they really wanted to protect the informants identity, why did they not inform the defense that they "altered the evidence". No the shit hit the fan and the MPAA is running to do some CYA work.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571839)

Since when private entities like MPAA have the right to retain spies, especially in foreign countries? If that's the case, can I hire a spy and steal corporate secrets and if get caught, can I tamper with the evidence to cover my involvement? Please, can I do that?

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571883)

Spies in this context means someone who hangs out in a chat room watching for people posting links to their illegally uploaded content. So, yes you can feel free to do that. Knock yourself out.

But try not to obsess over a casual word choice by a journalist who's mother tongue is not English.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (4, Interesting)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#43572105)

Since when private entities like MPAA have the right to retain spies, especially in foreign countries?

Since, well, forever. Perhaps you don't know what a spy is, but they are quite legal, even for a private citizen to hire. Perhaps the word spy makes you think of undercover secret service agents doing illegal things, and yes, they probably are a spy, a government spy doing illegal things, but they are far from the only ones. You have corporate spies, financial spies, even a "private investigator" is a spy. You have spies in sports, trying to find secret plays, or weaknesses in a team. You have spies all over, you just associate the word incorrectly to the james bond type spies.

For your edification:
spy /sp/
Noun
A person who secretly collects and reports information about an enemy or competitor.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571091)

MPAA != Government - therefor the entire evidence chain is tainted - who knows what was *added* via cut n paste before handing it over as the "working copy"......

Mistrial, defendants not guilty by means of manufactured evidence, never to be tried for these infractions again.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571137)

Read the story.

4 Defendants previously found guilty are still guilty.
2 Defendants previously acquitted are still acquitted.

Nothing has changed.

Police had untouched copies and that is how the differences were found. No evidence was manufactured, only some non-related material was deleted to protect their source. This is a procedural error at worst (failure to notify). Lawyers get a tongue lashing and nothing more.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43571157)

Unless the police copies can be guaranteed to be 100% non-tampered, they've successfully introduced reasonable doubt over both sets of evidence(the copy and the claimed original). And unless the laws are vastly different in finland, reasonable doubt at this level, is enough to cause a retrial or have the evidence completely thrown out.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571165)

I assure you the laws are different in Finland.

How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43571169)

How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?

Chain of evidence rule.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571183)

How does a lawyer tampering with his copy also cast doubt on the Police copy that was obtained before the lawyer even had a copy?

Chain of evidence rule.

Please quote that rule, from Finland law.

Police had the logs.
They gave lawyers a copy.
Lawyers changed their copy for court presentation.
Police compare logs and find the differences.
At no time were the police logs out of police custody.

So just what part of the chain of evidence was broken? The Police copy is still pristine.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (2)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about a year ago | (#43571229)

From the article: “The IFPI investigator handed over the evidence material to the MPAA senior executive who then changed the text file before the anti-piracy organization handed over the evidence to the Finnish police,” Hietanen says.

Not quite the clear chain of evidence unless the MPAA is a member of the justice system in Finland. It doesn't say that the executive had someone present from IFPI when making changes or not.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571309)

Keep reading:

This resulted in the prosecutor ordering a police investigation into the changes that had been made.

“Police then proceeded by comparing the ‘work copy’ that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that police and the defending counsels had received. Police found out that the material had differences in over 10 files,” Hietanen reveals.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43571603)

Your logic circuits have failed.

Work copy vs copy POLICE AND COUNSEL received.

As in, what we gave the police was modified.

Reading comprehension is important.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (4, Interesting)

Exitar (809068) | about a year ago | (#43571307)

I'm not so sure that "The Police copy is still pristine" since the articla stated that "there was also an MPAA executive in the room while the evidence gathering took place".

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43571319)

Police then proceeded by comparing the ‘work copy’ that the IFPI investigator produced with the material that POLICE and the defending counsels had received

The article seems to state the evidence was gather by the IFPI, the Finnish anti-piracy people, and the MPAA executive. So, the IFPI appears to have had the evidence before the cops did, and your alleged chain is incorrect.

Re: Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

joshki (152061) | about a year ago | (#43571325)

The evidence presented to the jury (or judge or whatever Finland does) was tampered with, ergo the conviction is invalid. What the police may or may not have had is irrelevant.

How Finnish law deals with the appeal, who knows. But the conviction on tampered evidence is still wrong.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571609)

Please quote that rule, from Finland law.

Do you know what you're asking?
It will look something like this:
Osa Yksi: ataaià ÃuÃÃuÃtÃyÃwÃkÃkà uÃjjÃpÃlÃiÃmà ÃeÃaÃynÃjÃÃrÃeÃsÃtÃÃ-ÃlaÃÃoÃiÃÃlà ...

The end of the chain (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572215)

The police didn't present the evidence in court the MPAA lawyer did. So the end point of the chain is broken. In effect MPAA are an extra link added on the end between the police and the court.

It happens that the defense spotted the MPAA game, but that was luck.

Also the *CLAIM* that they did it to hide their spy is just a CLAIM. It could have been he was the seed of a torrent!

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43571285)

Actually, the only thing that the story says is that 10 files had their contents changed. The only known change is that of a username.

Also, the 'work copy' for comparison came from the IFPI, hardly an unbiased source, so we have no guarantee of its authenticity either. There was also no reason to 'protect the source.' First of all, it would trivial to get that info redacted. Secondly, even if they couldn't, usernames are probably not of significant value anyway.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571583)

Nothing has changed.

Except that the MPAA execs have now admitted to evidence tampering, so now the number of convicted people who are tied to this case should rise, even if they're not all convicted of the same crime or in the same court.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43571713)

Can you prove that no evidence was manufactured? Once they go down the road of modifying evidence, everything should be questioned.

And for another thing, text files are the least reliable forms of evidence I can imagine. If they want us to believe a text file, there should be a better way of verifiable logs... you know, something which involves crypto keys connecting the machine to various other things and all that?

And then there's the notion of the right to face one's accuser. Their spy amounts to "secret evidence." I know, this isn't the U.S. But because it's not the U.S. I rather expect a higher standard.

OJ got off when the cops messed with the evidence (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43571123)

OJ got off when the cops messed with the evidence

Re:OJ got off when the cops messed with the eviden (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43571481)

Pretty much. Whether or not he was guilty, the blood soaked socks that were soaked through from one side rather than from both probably did a huge favor to the defense in establishing a reasonable doubt.

Who knows what would have happened without the doctored evidence. He might still have been found not guilty, but we could have had a less ambiguous result.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#43571503)

How does it even make scene to consider this evidence in the first place. These are files that the plaintiffs submitted from their own computers. They are testimony.

A gun with fingerprints is full blown evidence. A written statement from a witness is testimony.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43571619)

Reread the story.
These logs were captured with Finland officials present.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#43572089)

However they did this redaction without telling the government. Part of the reason I think that MPAA employees are allowed along in the investigation is because prosecutors view them as impartial experts. However if word gets out widely about this I bet a lot more of them are kept far away from the investigation in the future.

Re:Some how I doubt it will matter (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43572373)

After having altered evidence without notifying the court, the onus should be on the MPAA to prove they haven't altered any more evidence.
The evidence should be treated with prejudice.

Companies lobby groups ....lie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571041)

No! It can't be so!

Or as it's otherwise known... (1)

ktetch-pirate (1850548) | about a year ago | (#43571073)

"MPAA evidence" because it's all made up and fact/reality light

MPAA is legalized form of organized crime (1, Insightful)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about a year ago | (#43571099)

The MPAA executive involved in this should be prosecuted and receive the exact sentence of the accused individuals. Anything short of this warrants some vigilante justice against the organized crime syndicate that the MPAA has become.

Vigilante Justice (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about a year ago | (#43571189)

This is something I am troubled by on a regular basis. It is increasingly clear that our government and legal system are stacked against common citizens.

At some point, it will occur to those being prosecuted for sharing some songs on the internet and being fined for more than they'll ever make in their lifetime, that the U.S. is a dictionary definition of a fascist state where government is intertwined with corporations and industry. The real problems are the corporate executives that can do this crap with no repercussions. There needs to be repercussions. If the legal system doesn't provide a way to bring the fight to the door of the powerful, then I fear that the our society will break down to the point where citizens must be vigilantes to get any sort of justice over the prosecutors, politicians, and the people who run the corporations.

Re:Vigilante Justice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571235)

We assassinate political and ideological opponents right out in the open and we either ignore it or dance in the street, depending on whether we've heard of the guy. They put Boston under martial law and everyone sings, "America, Fuck Yeah." It's too late; there will be no revolution because the people are in favor of fascism. Maybe in a couple of generations, but this one is numb and dumb.

Re:Vigilante Justice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571331)

No shit. The idiotic radio personality in Fayetteville AR, John Williams was fucking PRAISING the fact that the police were at his kid's school when he rushed to pick him up after the bombings. Why the fuck did he even feel compelled to rush to the school to pick his kid up? Why was he so happy that fucking cops were there?

I hate that guy. I hope he finds this post some day when he's googling his name. Fucktard.

One day, some guy calls up and says "cops are taser happy" and he flies off the fucking handle because his long lost brother is a cop in St. Louis, MO.

John Williams is a fucking tool. Loyal and Royal Army. What a fag.

Re:Vigilante Justice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571437)

No one is doing that. We're all fed up. The media is pretty good at making it look that way though.

Re:Vigilante Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571555)

No one is doing that. We're all fed up.

You're too optimistic. Most people are imbeciles who are in favor of surveillance and seemingly unlimited government power as long as they feel it will make them feel safe, and that is a fact.

Re:Vigilante Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571965)

Anyone I have had a face to face discussion with on the topic of "police state tyranny" has always been in favor of moderation, conservative points of view, and decreasing gov intrusion, their all libertarian more or less, but obviously their not in control and don't want to impose their control on anyone to maintain their liberty, these are all 40+ folks.

Lots of dumbasses under the age of 25, some grey between 25-35.

And theres actually 1 ignorant crazy shit who cant even manage to take care of themselves who believes absolutely everything they here and see on TV, facebook, and pintrest. Well, it appears that way but who knows what they tell the mirror when their alone.

So my monkysphere is pretty libertarian or very conservative.

Re:Vigilante Justice (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year ago | (#43572123)

Anyone I have had a face to face discussion with on the topic of "police state tyranny" has always been in favor of moderation

It is not relevant, unless you can show that your acquaintances are a representative sample of the entire US population. (This is just a math point - it is all but impossible for a single person to have the same number of friends among politicians and lumpens, citizens and illegals, men and women and uncertain, rich and poor, smart and stupid, young and old, city slickers and farmers.)

The nearest approximation to such a nation-wide poll would be actually Presidential elections. How did *that* work out?

Re:Vigilante Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572183)

How did *that* work out?
Like shit

I agree, but my monkysphere while meaningless on a global scale shows that there are people out there who do 'get it' and while they all have their own individual opinions and perspectives on the issues of freedom, their just not quite ready to raise pitchforks and throw torches through windows. Your not as surrounded by mindless zombies as you might think.

There is a huge disconnect between philosophy and motivation. Or ideology and action. That I do see in my monkeysphere.

Re:Vigilante Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571759)

It used to be that the mafia controlled numbers, and alcohal racket. Today it is the govment. They are the ones delibrately making money of the feeblness and stupidity of the USian public. Government officials WANT you to spend money you don't have buying 'lottery tickets to freedom' so that they can take away 30% of the money they 'gave those 1 in million winners' only after taking dollars from a lot more loosers. The government serves the highest bidder (whether that be a coporation,a foreign nation, a record label, or a a drug dealer) . The idea of free market capitalism has been divorced from the idea of moralls, so that there really is no diference between a guy CEOing a major coporation and a guy selling drugs on the street. They are both trying to make those dollars off the stupid mothers who need to be parted from their money. There governnment ignores both problems because they are making sooo much money off them.

Why should I support a government that hates me, and is activly promoting paths for my failure?

Re:Vigilante Justice (2)

TedHornsby (1791978) | about a year ago | (#43571791)

If the legal system doesn't provide a way to bring the fight to the door of the powerful....

We have one. It's called the Second Amendment. Sadly most people fail to realize that the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights mainly as an insurance against tyranny. The writers of the American Constitution knew that an armed populace is one that is capable of rebellion.

Re:Vigilante Justice (1, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about a year ago | (#43571873)

This is exactly the issue I'm concerned about. "Second amendment solutions" are not a solution in a working society. It means that something is seriously wrong.

Re: Vigilante Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571983)

Something is seriously wrong.

Re: Vigilante Justice (1)

Elaugaufein (1758724) | about a year ago | (#43572491)

Second amendment solutions aren't a solution in your current society either. Your second amendment solutions are so outmatched by LEO/Military that you may as well be unarmed. You're relying on resistance from military/LEOs anyway, and heck they are probably more likely to be sympathetic to you if they don't think you may shoot them.

The only way a second amendment solution is vaguely viable is if a person/people starts assassinating lynchpins and lets be fair here, that would be just as easily done illegally as via second amendment. Probably more so really since hiring professionals is likely to work better.

they've been playing fast and loose with the law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571141)

for some time now. It's about time they got caught.

Easy solution (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571153)

There is a very easy solution to this kind of nonsense. I know that European courts operate quite differently from US ones, but in US terms here is what should happen.

Order a mistrial. Declare all tainted evidence inadmissible (even if the "original" is presented). Fine the IFPA a significant sum for deliberately attempting to mislead the court. Investigate if criminal charges against individuals in the IFPA are warranted. Order an arrest/extradition warrant against the MPAA agent responsible so he could explain to the court why he should not be imprisoned for evidence tampering. Begin an investigation on whether or not to permanently disbar the plaintiffs attorney (depending on if he had prior knowledge on the evidence being tainted or not).

Re:Easy solution (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43571997)

Even easier solution: Repeal Copyright.

Computers lie if they are told to lie (1, Offtopic)

Catbeller (118204) | about a year ago | (#43571215)

Point I've made in the computerized voting systems ongoing fiasco: if you are "in" the system, you control the output. This is counter intuitive for geeks and ATM users everywhere. Automated systems aren't automated if the owners of the system output have control at any point. You, as the accused or someone looking at a computerized vote counting system, cannot tell if some man in the middle changed the output.

Sometimes, tho, that isn't true, as in this case. Altering text logs. But after this, be assured that in the future the owners of systems will make sure the carpet matches the drapes.

How many times has this happened? That's the point: if the logs lie, *you can't ever know*. The truth is whatever the system owner, of a logfile or the source code itself, tells you is true.

Altering logs and calculations used to be part of my job. I was that man in the middle.

Re:Computers lie if they are told to lie (2)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43571499)

Indeed, even if, for the sake of argument, the only alteration was the username. The system in place authenticated the altered version just fine, until they did some digging. Apparently there's an acknowledgement that there was a username changed to protect an identity.

The problem then becomes exactly what you're describing, how do we know that was the only change that was made to those files. And given that it apparently wasn't disclosed, how do we know that all of the changes were and what the original evidence would have looked like.

I used to work security, and I remember in the fire control center they had a log that would always print out to an old dotmatrix printer and just about every bit of information would be spit out on there throughout the day to one long sheet of paper, which made it easy to show what had and hadn't been omitted. The only real trick was when we had to change paper, but everything else there was incredibly difficult to change compared with other methods of record keeping.

WE ARE ABOVE THE LAW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571459)

Obligatory South Park reference accomplished.

Too bad it's in Finland (4, Interesting)

Torodung (31985) | about a year ago | (#43571473)

If this were in the U.S., I'd say dust off the RICO act, because someone's transgressed. Anything similar in Finland? It would be fun to see organized copyright lobbyists put on the same page of the law books as Al Capone.

Re:Too bad it's in Finland (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571591)

I thought congress approved a bill to suspend the RICO act when it applies to corporations?

Re:Too bad it's in Finland (1)

negge (1392513) | about a year ago | (#43572535)

I don't think we have such a law over here.

All I can say is (0)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | about a year ago | (#43571707)

oops.

chain of evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43572433)

Funny that judge didint throw the case out, considering the "evidence" was tampered before handing it over to police. So how can judge be sure evidence is not totally fabricated?

Jurisdiction (2)

funkboy (71672) | about a year ago | (#43572553)

Was the trial held in Tampere [wikipedia.org] ?

ba-dum-cha

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Load More 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>