Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

Authority, Fear and Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect

These two short TED videos are best considered together.  The first one shows how ordinary people fall prey to unscrupulous politicians who manipulate them in order to gain power, legitimacy and authority:



View full on TED-Ed: How did Hitler rise to power?

Divide et impera. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The second video shows how ordinary people change after they have given authority to a wrong person or group:


See full on TED: Philip Zimbardo - The psychology of evil

To quote Zimbardo, there are only 7 social processes that grease "the slippery slope of evil":
  1. Mindlessly taking the first small step
  2. Dehumanization of others
  3. De-individuation of self (anonymity)
  4. Diffusion of personal responsibility
  5. Blind obedience to authority
  6. Uncritical conformity to group norms
  7. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference
The above makes it easy to understand the recent rise of populist nationalism, both in Europe (e.g. Brexit) and globally (e.g. Trump), just a few years after the ruling elites caused the Great Recession in 2008, and shows how it is possible that millions of ordinarily rational people could swallow even the most preposterous lies, and transform into mindless masses of fearful, prejudiced and deluded followers of their new fascist leaders (who, unsurprisingly, preach anti-intellectualism (who needs experts, right?), as rational thinking is their worst enemy and could allow their followers to wake up and see through all the lies).

Sunday, 27 November 2016

Today's comments on Brexit


FWLaing wrote:
Brexit isn't a battle against elites rather it can be correctly understood as a battle between elites, a battle for power. More specifically it's a battle between a more controlled and moderate version of capitalism as represented by the EU and an unfettered US style of radical free market capitalism as proposed by Hayek and his supporters on the outer fringes of the conservative party and radical and extreme right movements.
The Brexit movement has a very clear structure. It is financed by very rich extreme right wing businessmen who also have very large media interests and who share an extreme Thatcherite-Hayekian vision for the UK which involves the abolishing of much of UK employment law, most taxation and the privitisation of the entire state except the military. Much as a client would engage a barrister, they have, through their media interest procured the services of various professional journalists and commentators, notably Johnson and Gove, (there are numerous others,) who are paid to make the case for the UK leaving the EU. These people are top notch thinkers and speakers and have used a variety of means to sway the public in this matter, notably sovereignty, the plight of the working man (a typical fascistic strophe) and, most corrosively, immigration. But most of this is just very clever advertising and PR. The real goal of the top-dog Brexiteers is to unleash unfettered, no holds barred capitalism in the UK.

Sendoake responded to FWLaing:
Very good analysis, thank you. I might add to that: it might be good for the EU once the UK gets out. After all, the UK was the biggest advocate of unrestricted, uncontrolled capitalism in the EU. We might move towards something more moderate after Brexit.

Sunday, 30 October 2016

What Brexit means for EU citizens

How do EU citizens exercising their treaty rights to live anywhere in the European Union feel about the prospect of being offered work permits and visas by the UK government and thus becoming immigrants after everything that has happened?  While reading the Financial Times, I stumbled upon the following comment which, I believe, hit the nail on the head:

"All my friends who are EU citizens are considering leaving the UK. Most of them are actively considering jobs elsewhere. Not so much because they feel particularly exposed - most of them have been here for more than 10 years and have good jobs here, several of them have created successful corporate finance businesses here attracting foreign investors from the EU and UK investors in the EU, companies which are relatively easy to relocate and often already have offices elsehere in the EU - but because they do not like the UK anymore and do not want it to continue to profit from their industry.

It is mainly affective: they believed the UK to be the most tolerant, meritocratic and open society in the EU. They feel Europeans and this was their place in British society and their common identity with the British. The "new UK " post referendum is seen as xenophobic and inward looking. They complain about the EU but the referendum made them realise that they had a deep attachment to its founding principles. They do not want the UK to prosper at the expense of the EU. And they don't want to help.

There is a deep sense that if the UK believes itself to be better than any other nations and wants to stand alone, then it should be alone and not drain from the EU the best talents.

In a sense the EU referendum has awoken their own nationalism but as Europeans citizens. Their is a new desire to protect Europe and work to change it for the better."

Will Brexit turn out to be a boon for the EU, then?  Possibly.  Most of us, if not all, were infatuated with Britain and that made how we had been treated during the referendum affair hurt even more, that can be clearly sensed in our attitudes described in the comment cited above.

Friday, 27 March 2015

Poland Historically Least Antisemitic Country in Europe

I do not understand what is the source of the myth, which seems to be so widespread in the West, that Poland and Poles were or are particularly antisemitic.  Not only is it a complete falsehood but a terrible injustice.  I will not even mention the utter nonsense of the "Polish" concentration camps.  They were Nazi concentration camps built and operated by Nazi Germany (who occupied Poland) and used (together with other means of terror and extermination) by Nazis to murder around 6 million Polish citizens (including 3 million Polish Jews).

The history and facts are quite clear (more information and sources in the next two sections).  Poles and Polish culture were the most tolerant and least antisemitic in Europe.  Poland has become the safe haven for Jewish communities persecuted throughout Europe.  The majority of Jews escaped persecution raging in the other European countries and settled in Poland - and that was one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why Nazi Germany built their concentration camps in that country.  Some facts and sources showing that in the next sections.

All that does not imply that there was no antisemitism in Poland.  This and other similar evils are present everywhere and no country is free from them.  It is just that Poland is historically the least antisemitic (and the most prosemitic) country in Europe and all the large cases of antisemitism in that region occurred when sovereign Poland ceased to exist (and thus could no longer protect its Jewish citizens) and were caused by Russian Empire, Austro-Hungary, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire, Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - i.e. the countries which banded together to invade Poland and then not only did they persecute Polish Jews (because of antisemitism) but also non-Jewish Poles and worked hard to destroy Polish culture (because of political reasons and antipolonism).

Below are some interesting facts found on the English Wikipedia (seems fairly objective).

The Reception of the Jews in Poland in the Year 1096. Painting by Jan Matejko



Hundreds of thousands of unknown heroes of the Holocaust

Polish citizens have the world's highest count of individuals who have been recognised as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem as non-Jews who saved Jews from extermination during the Holocaust.

It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Poles concealed and aided hundreds of thousands of their Polish-Jewish neighbours.  Many of these initiatives were carried out by individuals, but there also existed organised networks of Polish resistance which were dedicated to aiding Jews – most notably, the Żegota organisation.

In German-occupied Poland the task of rescuing Jews was especially difficult and dangerous. All household members were punished by death if a Jew was found concealed in their home or on their property. One study estimates that the number of Poles who were killed by the Nazis for aiding Jews was as high as tens of thousands, 704 of whom were posthumously honoured with medals. 




Poland sheltering Jews from European antisemitism for almost 1000 years

The history of the Jews in Poland dates back over 800 years. For centuries, Poland was home to the largest and most significant Jewish community in the world. Poland was the centre of Jewish culture thanks to a long period of statutory religious tolerance and social autonomy.

This ended with the Partitions of Poland which began in 1772, in particular, with the discrimination and persecution of Jews in the Russian Empire.

During World War II there was a nearly complete genocidal destruction of the Polish Jewish community by Nazi Germany, during the 1939–1945 German occupation of Poland and the ensuing Holocaust.

Since the fall of Communism there has been a Jewish revival in Poland, characterised by the annual Jewish Culture Festival, new study programmes at Polish high schools and universities, the work of synagogues such as the Nozyk, and the Museum of the History of Polish Jews.


From the founding of the Kingdom of Poland in 1025 through to the early years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth created in 1569, Poland was the most tolerant country in Europe.[5] Known as paradisus Iudaeorum (Latin for "Paradise for the Jews"), it became a shelter for persecuted and expelled European Jewish communities and the home to the world's largest Jewish community of the time.

According to some sources, about three-quarters of all Jews lived in Poland by the middle of the 16th century.[6][7][8]


After the partitions of Poland in 1795 and the destruction of Poland as a sovereign state, Polish Jews were subject to the laws of the partitioning powers, the increasingly antisemitic Russian Empire,[11] as well as Austro-Hungary and Kingdom of Prussia (later a part of the German Empire). Still, as Poland regained independence in the aftermath of World War I, it was the centre of the European Jewish world with one of world's largest Jewish communities of over 3 million. Antisemitism, however, from both the political establishment and from the general population, common throughout Europe, was a growing problem.[12]


At the start of World War II, Poland was partitioned between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact). The war resulted in the death of one-fifth of the Polish population, with 90% or about 3 million of Polish Jewry killed along with approximately 3 million Polish non-Jews.[13]
Although the Holocaust occurred largely in German-occupied Poland, there was little collaboration with the Nazis by its citizens.

Collaboration by individual Poles has been described as smaller than in other occupied countries.[14][15]

Statistics of the Israeli War Crimes Commission indicate that less than 0.1% of Polish gentiles collaborated with the Nazis.[16]

Examples of Polish gentile attitudes to German atrocities varied widely, from actively risking death in order to save Jewish lives,[17] and passive refusal to inform on them; to indifference, blackmail,[18] and in extreme cases, participation in pogroms such as the Jedwabne pogrom. Grouped by nationality, Poles represent the largest number of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.[19][20]


In the postwar period, many of the approximately 200,000 Jewish survivors registered at Central Committee of Polish Jews or CKŻP (of whom 136,000 arrived from the Soviet Union)[20][21][22] left the Communist People's Republic of Poland for the nascent State of Israel and North or South America. Their departure was hastened by the destruction of Jewish institutions, post-war violence and the hostility of the Communist Party to both religion and private enterprise, but also because in 1946–1947 Poland was the only Eastern Bloc country to allow free Jewish aliyah to Israel,[23] without visas or exit permits.[24][25]

Britain demanded Poland to halt the exodus, but their pressure was largely unsuccessful.[26] Most of the remaining Jews left Poland in late 1968 as the result of the Soviet-sponsored "anti-Zionist" campaign.
  • In 1967, following the Six-Day War between Israel and the Arab states, Poland's Communist government, following the Soviet lead, broke off diplomatic relations with Israel and launched an antisemitic campaign under the guise of "anti-Zionism". However, the campaign did not resonate well with the Polish public, as most Poles saw similarities between Israel's fight for survival and Poland's past struggles for independence
  • Many Poles also felt pride in the success of the Israeli military, which was dominated by Polish Jews. The slogan "our Jews beat the Soviet Arabs" (Nasi Żydzi pobili sowieckich Arabów) became popular in Poland.[202][203]

After the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, the situation of Polish Jews became normalised and those who were Polish citizens before World War II were allowed to renew Polish citizenship.

Religious institutions were revived, largely through the activities of Jewish foundations from the United States. The contemporary Polish Jewish community is estimated to have approximately 20,000 members,[27] though the actual number of Jews, including those who are not actively connected to Judaism or Jewish culture, may be several times larger.

Monday, 14 January 2013

The system that crucifies altruists and freedom fighters

A sufferring from depression Internet activist and freedom fighter Aaron Swartz was relentlessly persecuted by the US legal system (controlled by oligarchs and psychopatic corporations) and, if convicted, would face 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines.  The Intellectual Property hounds (I wrote a short article about the IP / DRM crowd here: How to achieve anything you want legally?) chased him to his death.
He was a perfect target to make an example of as he was a particularly vocal activist fighting for our freedoms and strongly opposing socially harmful actions of corporations and the infamous SOPA.

His crime?  He connected his laptop to the MIT network and started downloading academic papers published in JSTOR to share them with the world for free (a lot of people working in science will tell you that all papers should be freely accessible - anything else (while increasing profit of companies involved in their publication and dissemination) hampers the advance of science and thus will cost many lives of people who are currently waiting for new cures for their diseases).  Curiously enough JSTOR did not side with the prosecutors (who continued their persecution nevertheless) and gave the public open access to the papers the same week as Aaron's death.  Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia if you are interested in some more details:
On July 19, 2011, federal authorities charged Internet activist Aaron Swartz with several data theft-related crimes, including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer, all in relation to bulk-downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR.[9][10] According to the indictment against him, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which allowed him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR".[11] Prosecutors in the case say Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on P2P file-sharing sites.[12]Notably, JSTOR did not side with the prosecutors in the case.[13] Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleaded not guilty to all counts and was released on $100,000 bail. Two days later, on July 21, Greg Maxwell published a torrent file of a 32-GB archive of 18,592 academic papers from JSTOR's Royal Society collection, via The Pirate Bay, in protest against Swartz' prosecution.[14][15] These articles were acquired independently of those downloaded by Swartz.
The case was still pending when Swartz committed suicide on January 11, 2013.[16]
From September 6, 2011, JSTOR has made some public domain content freely available to anyone.[17] JSTOR stated that they had been working on making it free for some time, and the Swartz controversy made them "press ahead" with the initiative.[18] JSTOR announced the same week as Swartz's death it would make "more than 4.5 million articles" available to the public for free.[19]
So why was a talented young altruist and activist - who co-authored the RSS specification when he was fourteen, created one of the widely used and known web frameworks web.py and shared it with the world for free by making it open source, spent a lot of effort and time (among the top 1500 Wikipedia contributors) democratizing access to human knowledge,  co-founded a progressive advocacy group Demand Progress and devoted large part of his life to make the world a better place for everyone and fight for everyone's freedom - why was such a rare and valuable member of our society branded a felon?  Why did Obama's administration refuse to stop that persecution? Why did Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland pursued the criminal case against Swartz under U.S. attorney Carmen M. Ortiz spending a lot of taxpayers' money and resources and using a legal loophole which, according to the federal appeals court would put millions of unsuspecting individuals in jail for engaging in criminal conduct (more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR)?  Why was Aaron Swartz pushed to suicide by representatives of the very people he tried to help?  It is a rhetorical question.  Let me finish by just quoting Aaron's family and partner whose words perfectly describe the current system so terribly distorted by money and corporations:
"Aaron's death is not simply a personal tragedy, it is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."
Aaron Swartz
Requiescat In Pace

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Outsourcing responsibility for your own survival

I read about the tragedy in Connecticut yesterday.  It happened the day before yesterday and was yet another case of an unarmed crowd falling prey to a shooter.  Fewer might have died if everyone was well prepared.  And what is an overwhelming response from the public petitioning the White House?  Disarm the victims (criminals and murderers will always get a gun irrespective of whether its possession is legal or not so making guns illegal means just that - disarming the victims).  Among all the petitions demanding stripping citizens of their right to possess and carry weapons (with over a hundred thousand signatures) the only voice of reason was the one here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/gun-every-classroom-arm-every-teacher-and-principal-defend-themselves-and-their-students-during/BR1Wj8cc - this one signed by just three thousand people.

That's a difference of two orders of magnitude in favour of irrational fears and wishful thinking.  What world are we creating?
Carrying weapons was commonplace for our ancestors and no one seemed to have problems with that.  It was normal.  It was healthy.  We survived.  I also do not remember reading about children being attacked and slaughtered by their armed parents or teachers... in fact some of those armed adults needed their weapons to teach those children how to fight and defend themselves.

The only sustainable solution for this (vide Connecticut) and related problems is for the system to stop turning people into helpless victims and start producing self-realized healthy human beings.  And part of being a self-realized human being is to be able to take responsibility for your own life and safety (and lives and safety of those around you).  Being able to fight for survival is part of our biological legacy.  It is part of being complete and this part of human development is as important as developing one's mind, body and spirit.
How can we have a healthy and thriving society without that?  How can one help and care for others if one cannot even help and care for themselves (and it is not only about weapons and fighting but also other skills like first aid)?  How much better the world could be if everyone around you would be a self-realized, fully-developed and independent human being not only capable of caring for themselves but also for those around who are in need of help?  Instead, we now live in a society, where we are not those magnificent beings we could be.  We are sheep.  We are consumers.  We have outsourced most parts of our lives including our safety, survival and independent thinking.  Someone is being attacked?  Stay away and let the police come and save them (no, really, stay away and do not try to fight off the aggressor or you may get arrested and go to prison... the system is jealous about its power and control).  Someone has been injured and is bleeding heavily?  You don't know how to help them so move along and let the health care system save the victim.  It is not a healthy situation.  It is not a sustainable society.

Another thing which comes to mind is the fact that probably the first thing every totalitarian regime does is to take weapons away from the people.  The next thing is usually putting heavy sanctions on the very right to fight / defend yourself and others which makes people defenceless and unwilling to help each other (and thus breaks bonds between human beings which further protects the system as it is no longer "the people versus the system" - instead it is "a lonely and thus helpless individual versus the system").  The same seems to apply to fortified bureaucracies and police/corporate-controlled states for which we are just inventory which needs to be policed. The system does not want self-realized citizens - they do not live in fear and are capable of survival on their own which makes them difficult to control.  What the system wants is a herd of humble serfs living in fear and co-dependence.  Depending on the system not only for your well-being but for your very survival.  Of course protection the system gives you in exchange for your compliance is largely an illusion.  The system cannot protect you and we just saw it again (for a thousand time) in Connecticut - only you can protect yourself and, ultimately, it is only you who is responsible for your own safety and survival.  If only you haven't outsourced that responsibility long time ago and thus became incapable of surviving when the need comes.  Well, at least you will have some part of the system (e.g. the police) take care of the scene and your earthly remains after you have failed the survival test and, as in Connecticut, produce some explanation of what happened so that the rest of the herd can feel that illusion of being safe again.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

How to achieve anything you want legally?

How to do anything you want without breaking the law? One of the top media industry lobbyists inadvertently shares his secret with us in this (hilarious but only for those with at least average IQ - all the others will just swallow his rhetoric and become brainwashed so be advised in case you suspect you may belong to that less fortunate group) three-minute interview of which the most interesting parts can be read below.

When asked by PCWorld how it all started, Valenti says it was when the VCR appeared.  Then he describes his and his colleagues' heroic efforts to fight off all the actual or potential thieves and reminisces that the best solution was, I quote, "to have the courts declare that VCR machines were copyright infringing." and then go to the Congress.  Unfortunately, they were not well prepared back then and the whole scheme failed even before reaching the Congress.  Have you already got the answer to the question posed in the title of this post?  I am sure you have but just for the entertainment value, here is another clue on how to legally make everyone do what you say:

"PCW: Why can't people who legally purchase DVDs make one backup copy? How come the same fair use rights that let you make a backup copy of other media do not extend to DVDs?
Valenti: That question has nothing to do with fair use because a DVD is encrypted and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act says to circumvent an encryption violates that law."

So now you see.  As Valenti explains, the whole thing has nothing to do with fair.  Fair is not what the media corporations are interested in.  Another thing worth noting in the above excerpt is that in order to make something illegal, you have to cook up a bill (something like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act mentioned before), go to the Congress (in case of the US of A at least), pay up and have it become the Law.  To make it easier (i.e. cheaper) though, especially if you try to make illegal something which is legal, it is advisable to attack the problem from a different angle.  You should approach the problem like this: "So what if making backup copies is fair and legal?  We are not trying to make it illegal.  You can make copies to your heart's content as long as you do not try to circumvent an encryption.". Of course the act does not mention one important detail: "... and from now on we, the media corporations, are going to encrypt everything with our toy encryption methods which can be easily decrypted by a 12 year old but we do not care because encryption is just a trick to turn something legal into a crime".  And they did just that.  Our friendly lobbyist even shares some of the details with us here:

"Valenti: Keep in mind how the DVD came into effect. The DVD was a result of voluntary agreements by the hardware people and by the copyright people. And everybody decided they were going to make machines that only took encrypted DVDs and then they would be decrypted in the machine--all done."

Then he proudly adds:

"Valenti: And guess what? It's proven to be a bonanza for the DVD machine manufacturers and for the copyright owners. That was done the right way."

A bonanza for everyone involved in that intrigue?  But what about culture? society?  What about justice and fairness towards the consumer?  Apparently, all those things do not matter.  Are we sure that it is the people who "illegally" share content with others and not the media industry who should be called pirates?

To crush any possible opposition to his vision, Valenti continues by comparing DVDs to lawnmowers and stating that any failure of the former is the customer's fault and thus the customer should buy a new one at a full price, like Valenti's wife has to do with a lawnmower each time she runs over it in the driveway.  What about the fact that, as the media industry has been trying to persuade us for years, it is all about buying a licence to use the content and not about the physical medium?  Apparently their view on this changes when there is more money to be made.  What about the fact that, sooner or later, all DVDs fail and their longevity is estimated to be somewhere between 2 to 15 years (depending on the manufacturing process)?  Since it depends on the manufacturer and the manufacturers were, as we saw Valenti saying earlier, part of the club (i.e. the conspiracy orchestrated by, to quote Valenti, "the hardware and the copyright people"), how is it the consumer's fault?  I am beginning to think that, contrary to what Valenti suggests, his wife may not be guilty of all those malfunctioned lawnmowers. 

The surreal vision painted by Valenti continues.  He argues that paying customers cannot be trusted and if "allowed" to make one copy, they turn into thieves and make two and give one of them to other potential thieves and soon there will be millions of thieves spreading billions of copies all over the net.  I am rather surprised that he does not even once mention the good old big scary COMMUNISM while painting that gloomy and terrifying picture of the world not fully controlled by his club (i.e. the corporations and billionaires who own them).  Valenti goes on mentioning that they (i.e. "the copyright people") are trying to buy the best brains to make it even more difficult for the customer and so on.  Then, in a truly arrogant fashion we saw in everything he said, he reveals what is in the working:

"Valenti: Right now we are holding meetings to try to see if the [information technology] and [consumer electronics] industries and the MPAA can work together so everybody is playing by the same rules of the game."

As you can see, like in case of DVDs and the Millennium Act described by Valenti earlier, there is no place for customers or consumer organisations in setting the rules for the world.  Valenti and his pals are the ones who set the rules and we are just here to follow them.  And what rules might those be?  Maybe the industry will decide it is time to be even more aggressive like in the scenario referred to below:

"PCW: Does the MPAA plan to follow the RIAA's lead in financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music?
Valenti: We're not involved in anything that sabotages anybody. We're working with some of the best brains in the high-tech industry to do everything that we can legally to protect ourselves.
We're not going to do anything that's illegal, that's for damn sure."

The last sentence should be clear to us now.  They are not going to do anything illegal.  When you are rich and powerful and want to achieve something illegal legally go to the Congress and make it legal (possibly supplementing the law with the abuse of technology making changes to the legal system easier, faster and cheaper).  And, as the title of this post suggests, you can achieve anything you want that way.





Thursday, 26 January 2012

Megavideo/Megaupload Killed by New Global Police: Masters Happy, Slaves to Pay

The oligarchs (some (not me, I am too nice for that ;) ) would say: capitalist/corporate pigs) ruling the US of A do very well even without any SOPA. Without a trial, a US judge just killed a Hong Kong-based company last week and "deported" (some would say: kidnapped) non-American citizens living outside his country from (supposedly) sovereign countries to the US so that they can stand trial there and pay for their terrible crimes against American media corporations (apparently some of their customers/users (i.e. not the arrested people) were sharing content without authorization from the copyright holders (youtube anyone?)). Are you feeling like you are a character in a dystopian novel right now? I know I am. Now let us wait for SOPA to be enacted (I am sure it will... under this or different name... in a few months or after a decade... they will not give up).

Follow this link in case you are curious and want to see for yourself the results of work of the new Global Police (formerly known as FBI): http://www.megaupload.com

Below some interesting excerpts. The last one shows that many legitimate (even according to the US law) users and companies were hit by this action. I would argue, that the combined loses of those (unimportant, powerless and poor - at least when compared to the oligarchs) people are much higher than the alleged loses of the American media industry whose interest was represented by the US judicial system and the US politicians. Who is going to fight for justice for those slaves? Certainly not the system built to police them.

This proves that offshore operations can still be reached by the long arm of the U.S. law. Also, none of these folks were Americans as far as I can tell. Dotcom is German and Finnish. The lot of them will be extradited to the U.S. to be tried for what are essentially crimes against the state. Citizens of the world, beware!This, to me, is the most interesting situation since the days when the leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega, was dragged out of his bed and thrown in a Florida prison for trafficking drugs.
---

Web organisations have raised concerns about possible effects of the Megaupload case on the future of file sharing, cloud storage, and Internet commerce.[60][61][62] Various commentators including John C. Dvorak, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Sanchez have written on the topic as well, particularly as it relates US government powers to take down a web site without a trial, even without new laws like SOPA.[63][64][65][66] In fact, the U.S. Dept of Justice was able to rely on PRO-IP, a law passed back in 2008, in order to shut down Megaupload.[67]
---

---
People who used Megaupload for personal and business storage, such as large audio and video files for family and work, have also voiced their complaints about the fact that they no longer had access to their files on the service.[68][69] Examples cited in the media included staff at public interest group Public Knowledge who used it for large files, and Android cellphone software writers who described it as "one of the best ways to distribute [software] ... There are a number of similar sites for this use, but Megaupload was always the fastest".[68]
---

Popular Posts