[pp.int.general] The editorial in question

[Mattie]

On 09/01/2008, Valentin Villenave <v.villenave at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/9, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) <rick at piratpartiet.se>:
> >
> >  Those who understand Swedish well enough (Norwegians, Danes, Finns,
> > Germans, Austrians) may take the time to read the editorial in question:
> >
> > http://www.expressen.se/ledare/1.996668/080109-piratlivet-och-privatlivet
> >
> >  This follows a five-piece series of opinion pieces in mainstream press that
> > have received much attention - one by seven Moderate MPs (the first I
> > mentioned) "File sharing is a basic right", one by a musician "They have
> > understood file sharing", one by a guy named Horace and the record industry
> > "Have the Moderates become the new Pirate Party?", one by me "Horace
> > attempts 300-year-old lies", and finally another one by seven MPs which are
> > now 13 "The file sharing revolution grows".
> >
> >  The opinion pieces (full-page in the printed paper) are at
> > http://www.expressen.se/debatt -- today's opinion piece was about the New
> > Hampshire primaries, these five are right below it.
>
> This looks just great! Anyone for a small English translation (or
> detailed sum up?)
>

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/1.996668/080109-piratlivet-och-privatlivet

080109: Piracy and privacy

Yesterday there should have been a verdict in the largest file-sharing
case yet in Sweden. There was nothing. The entire case will rewind and
replay. The proof was inconsistent. The prosecutor himself claims to
have used so large resources that if it were made norm, criminal cases
like murder, rape and abuse would have to be closed entirely. Usually,
such a loss would lead to acquittal. The prosecutor has also dropped
two out of three original charges. Experts say very little pointed to
the last charge leading to a verdict.

However, IFPI, the interest organisation of record lables, has decided
to continue the case on their own. The question is whether this trial
has ever been a case at all.

André Richardsson, earlier IT-expert at the Foreign Department and
Security Police, has gone through the technical proofs on behalf of
the defense. He says there is little in the material strengthening the
prosecutor's allegations.

Among other things, the IP-number from the police investigation cannot
be tied to the computer at hand, and the file-sharing software
allegedly used at the time of the crime had not been active on this
computer for several months at the time of the alleged criminal
activity. The police seem to have considered the police report, from
the APB, as proof, rather than just a report.

The court failed in controlling this afterwards.

The prosecutor instead handed the entire harddrive to the plaintiff,
the Anti-Piracy Bureau, for further investigation. The entire
computer, including mailbox, private files, possibly private pictures,
were handed out to an organisation battling file-sharers.

The prosecutor thus must have thought it was okay for a private
interest organisation to go through private things. The prosecutor did
not consider herself having the right knowledge to carry out the
investigation. The prosecutor sold the privacy of a defendant with the
purpose of privatizing our courts. It's difficult to tell whether the
goals or the means are most despicable.

Though her action does illuminate the big problem. Opinions on
file-sharing can part. But the only way of striking it down is through
serious breeches of privacy. The only way to control our file-sharing
of copyrighted material at networks, MSN, by e-mail, is by opening our
computers, our mail-boxes and read what you can find. There is no way
of knowing what an e-mail reads unless you read it.

We get to choose between postal secret and file-sharing laws, between
protection of our personal spheres and the copyright industry charging
the same as before. It's not a difficult choice. Business models come
and go. But if we give up our privacy, we give up the right to
ourselves.

Av Ledarredaktionen
ledare at expressen.se


note: they've misread her goals. She did not wish to privatize the
court system. She just suffers from poor judgement.

/amelia



> Valentin
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>