Saturday, April 18, 2009

Breaking the law

Today I sent an email to a friend of mine and it contained a picture with copyright protection. Immediately afterwards I felt a bit ashamed using a criminal function provided by Google and now I’m contemplating pressing charges against Google for letting people use their email in order to do crimes. Then I went to a well visited Swedish football-site and I did see a racist remark from one other visitor, so now I’m thinking this site and the owners should be trialed for racism and consequently I’m going to turn them in too. I have also visited other unlawful sites like Yahoo, YouTube, Facebook, and Lunarstorm. All own and run by horrifying criminals not yet prosecuted. But maybe the biggest criminals and the ones who really should be locked up are those darned internet providers. I mean pretty much every site, person and institution using Internet is committing crimes according to the Swedish justice system, but in reality, who provides the means to do so? The Internet provider does. The fact is that pedophiles, terrorists and snuff-movie makers are using the Internet in order to plan and commit crimes. Why aren’t this handled in an appropriate manor? And aren’t the lawmakers committing a crime themselves for letting this go on unchecked? Why haven’t they closed down the Internet?


  1. Well, isn't there a pretty obvious difference between your infrastructure provider examples (Google, debate site, ISPs) and the current Pirate Bay trial in Sweden? I mean, Google - like most technologies - can be misused to commit/help commit a crime. In Pirate Bay's case, the whole point of their existence, their very business idea, was to profit from criminality. It has felt so obvious for so long. And now it has been decided in court. It feels good. Our system of justice works.

    I think the only exception among your examples is the football-site. In that case: yes, you should probably talk to the police about that, so perhaps they can be trialed. They should have a person responsible for what is published there.

  2. It must be nice for a group of companies to have their own police and a straight way to the legislators....

    "Hi Freddie R, You know...sales has dropped a bit must be this darn downloadingthingie that everybody seems to do...could you be a dear and create some legislation to make sure that everyone has to consume whatever I produce, however I deliver it and all that at my terms. Would you?...That's Excellent!! Could you have it done by monday?...That's great!!"

    The Pirate Bay verdict is one nail in the coffin containing your personal integrity and freedom.

  3. I fail to so see the juridical difference between one technology used for committing crimes thru and one other technology being used in the same way. Whether or not the PB people are knowingly about criminal activity or not have not and shouldn’t have an impact on the juridical principle being applied.

    But let say your argument is valid, what about high-ways? The ones travelling on them, the ones building them and the ones deciding where they should be (politicians) and everyone else know these roads are being used for traveling to fast, as escape route for robbers or even hijackers. Also thousands of people get injured or killed each year on the same roads. With your argument our politicians should be trialed and those building the roads, just following orders, might be looked at the same way as camp guards in the Gulags. Or what about alcohol? How many crimes, lives ruined and illnesses are not contributed to alcohol? Again with your argument, since we all know this, those making alcohol who also know this should be trialed and sentenced.

    What we are talking about is the law and the interpretation of it, what you might feel about PB or these guys aren’t a valid argument and have nothing to do with the law. So you are wrong saying the system works, if it did, they would either be acquitted or we have a lot of companies, people and politicians that should be trialed with the same – yours – argument. That’s the only way this can be looked at, any other way is a subjective opinion and that should never have anything to do with the law.