The Swedish leak where classified data and networks were outsourced outside the European Union was not an isolated incident, but a pervasive pattern where things are kept safe mostly by good luck and the occasional person who knows their stuff fixing things properly out of pure subordination.
Ecuador has written to the Swedish government complaining of a “serious lack of progress” in the investigation involving a rape allegation against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
It is now the last day in April, five months since Assange was questioned about the rape allegations in Britain. However there is no word from Sweden either of the case against him being dropped or of the rape charges against him being pressed.
Meanwhile the European arrest warrant been not been cancelled, and the extradition request to Britain has not been dropped, even though their purported purpose – to have Assange questioned about the rape allegations – has been fulfilled in Britain.
Meanwhile the British authorities have taken no steps to review their grant of the Swedish extradition request notwithstanding that the purported purpose of that request – to return Assange to Sweden so that he could be questioned about the rape allegations there – has been fulfilled in Britain.
In the Assange case, Swedish prosecutors seem to be running out of excuses for dragging their feet.
The hearing at the Ecuadorian embassy in London is completed, after many years of delays. The transcript has been translated into Swedish. At least almost. On its web page, the Prosecutors’ Office writes (my translation)…
The prosecutors still awaits the translation of minor sections of the report. These are expected to be completed shortly.
Now, the Prosecutors’ Office will analyze the report and subsequently decide what other investigative meassures could be taken to move the investigation forward.
I suspect that the phrase »other investigative measures« will be of importance.
This case has dragged out for years, partly because of Assange – but mainly because of Swedish prosecutors unwillingness to move the case forward.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect that there are interested parties who are quite happy having Julian Assange tucked away and guarded in a small embassy behind Harrods in London. This will hamper the work of Wikileaks and take a mental toll on Assange himself. Even a U.N. panel has objected to this form of treatment.
Once again, all attention will be directed at the Swedish Prosecutors’ Office. Will it finally decide to move the case forward or maybe close it? The latter would make most sense – if you look at the facts in this case, already well known to the world.
Or will they invent some new »investigative measures« as an excuse to keep Assange in limbo? I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.
This is no longer about justice. It’s about Sweden handling this case in a biased and unjust way – because of who Julian Assange is. And this goes all the way back to the Prosecutors Special Unit for »Advancement« of Sex Crimes re-opening this case after it had been closed by the regular branch of the Prosecutors’ Office.
I guess we’ll know what’s going to happen within the next few weeks. Or maybe not.
A hold-up translating a key document is delaying a decision by Swedish prosecutors over whether to continue their investigation of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange on allegations of sexual assault.
The Swedish prosecutors said they would make a decision when they receive a full translation of the interview conducted with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in November.
The prosecutors received the report from Ecuadorian authorities on January 5, and said that it is “almost completed.”
From almost a standing start, Sweden has a copyright troll crisis on its hands. Following a ruling by the Patent and Market Court, ISP Telia must hand over the personal details of individuals behind 5,300 IP addresses to companies known to make a business out of settlement fees. In all, around 20,000 persons could be sucked into the controversy.
At the end of 2014 Swedish police confiscated dozens of servers which many believed to belong to The Pirate Bay. The authorities later confirmed that an investigation involving copyright crimes was ongoing, but not much progress has been reported since. According to the prosecutor, the case isn’t getting any stronger, as the statute of limitations for several key crimes is expiring.
Last week’s landmark ruling compelling a Swedish ISP to block The Pirate Bay won’t spread quickly, despite copyright holders’ wishes. Telecoms giant Telia says that the ruling does not apply to them, so connectivity to the site will continue unless a court orders otherwise. Copyright holders are assessing their options.
Torrentfreak » “We Won’t Block Pirate Bay,” Swedish Telecoms Giant Says »
A new study from Sweden has found that just over half of all young people admit to obtaining movies and TV shows from the Internet without paying, a figure that rockets to 70% among young men. With The Pirate Bay about to be blocked by one ISP with more to follow, can piracy rates be controlled?
TorrentFreak » Study: 70% of Young Swedish Men Are Video Pirates »
A central principle in EU Internet-related legislation is the so-called mere conduit rule.
Under the mere conduit principle of the EU E-Commerce Regulations of 2002, network operators have no legal liability for the consequences of traffic delivered via their networks.
Who an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider: (a) does not initiate the transmission; (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission. The acts of transmission and of provision of access include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
The grounds for this seems to be the EU InfoSoc directive. The argument is that mere conduit does not apply when it concerns traffic to sites that do not adhere to notifications to remove content that is deemed illegal, e.g. when it comes to copyright infringements and intellectual property.
But this doesn’t make sense.
You cannot have a rule stating that ISP:s have no legal liability for the consequences of traffic relayed via their networks – unless illegal. That is the same as saying that ISP:s do have legal liability for the consequences of traffic relayed via their networks. And this is the opposite of what is stated in the eCommerce directive.
And even though the ISP in question have not been charged with any criminal offense – it is to be considered liable, as the verdict states that it will have to pay a hefty fine unless blocking The Pirate Bay. (The ISP also had to pay the copyright owners legal fees.)
I would say that we have a clear case of conflicting laws. And as the blocking verdict is only an interpretation of the InfoSoc directive, while the eCommerce directive states a very clear principle – the latter shall apply.
But I´m no lawyer. Reactions, opinions, and feedback are welcome in the comments below.