Give this people eyre!

Duh. Just use Fatline transmitter or step through a farcaster, in case the endpoint is inside the Web.

War and military industry just tend to do that: invent things to help you win the battles easier. It's always been like that.

War (even the one now in Iraq) is a quite good accelerator for military industry research and the industry creates a variety of products during a war. The bigger the war the bigger the influence on technology.

Even though it's bad that the things are developed for the military, the research eventually helps normal people: when the war ends, the military companies start selling licenses for the products or continue researching to create a product for consumer markets.

War so far has been a huge boost in techonology, if you think inventions like nuclear power, radar, V2 missiles, which later on lead to the Saturn V, medical breakthroughs (especially in first aid) etc.

Impact of the war on technology is just something you just can't deny.

Either way, the double standard is not a good one. What comes to the banning sex from minors, there really is point in that.

The sex in games would probably not be anything like sweet sugar coated romances but mostly hard porn, which in no way is suitable for minors.

However, this should not affect banning the violence, it should be treated equally bad everywhere.

Turre Legal has another post about the subject, this time in English.

This post focuses on differences between Finnish and Swedish trials.

Really careful as in leaving everything not certain outside the case and focusing on the parts where they have the best coverage. They don't want, as the linked (bad) translation of the blog post states, to risk losing even partially.

Yes, I agree that the year worth of investigation should bring up what the BitTorrent is and what it is not, but that's an issue with the personnel, ie. the prosecutor and the investigation concluded by Swedish police, not really an issue in this case.

It might even be that some of the alleged copying charges were originally pressed by the stakeholders, not the prosecutor

Main points were covered in my post, as the Google translation is quite inaccurate.

Other points worth of mentioning:

- Writer compares the case with the Finnish Finnreactor case, where all evidence was collected by National Bureau of Investigation (referred as KRP in article), a Finnish police unit and where the evidence was not that clear and the whole case was about making illegal copies, even though the same BitTorrent was used. IIRC, the writer was defending attorney in that case.
- NBI in Finland didn't download a single torrent opposite to this case where all torrents used in the case were downloaded, IPs recorded and the data behind the torrent verified to be what it was said to be.
- Prosecutor avoids stating that the accused participated in the actual file sharing. Prosecution is only interested in the assisting in making available.
- All the stakeholders have agreed with the prosecutor that the case is not about making copies, only about assisting in making available.

Just a reminder to myself not to post when I can't think straight. Imagine a better topic for the previous post, other than my nick. :)

The prosecutor dropped half of the charges because he had misunderstood the behaviour of the BitTorrent. The half of the charges were about making pirated copies.

This however still leaves, as the TFA states, the charges about 'assisting in making available'. This also does not affect the claims of the stakeholders, they are still "valid". Also the maximum possible sentence is still the same.

Swedish prosecutor has been really careful with this case and propably doesn't want to risk the case with false charges. All the tracker files provided by stakeholders as the files downloaded are carefully selected. They even have listed every IP met using those .torrent files and made sure that every one of those has a Swedish IP among them. The prosecutor is also careful in using any previous cases against torrent tracker (for example Finnreactor case in Finland).

A Finnish lawyer Mikko Välimäki has made a blog post about the case (Google translation, original is here)

How about a turstworthy third party provider to work as a 'proxy' between the customer and the companies?

Here in Finland Post Office offers a service called NetPosti. It is free for all people in Finland aged 15 or over and has a free archiving for 6 years, which should be more than enough. The service it self is generally an electronic service to partly replace traditional snail mail (yeah, it's e-mail. Ha ha.).

Vast majority of the large companies, like electric companies, mobile operators etc. offer their billing through NetPosti, if the customer wants. All the customer needs to do is to allow the company to send their mails and bills through NetPosti. The company then automatically starts to send electronic bills instead of the traditional paper ones and the customer doesn't have to worry about what happens if the contract with that company ends.

In addition, a load of official forms (more than 1000 says the site) can be sent through NetPosti.

Saving the environment is an arguable issue. Sure, not producing paper, shipping it, printing and mailing creates carbon emissions, but so does the computer usage. A Finnish science magazine (Tiede) compared reading the paper online or ordering to home and the conclusion was that at least with the glossy magazine paper the saving is notable. However, if multiple persons in the same household read the paper, the paper actually is more ecologial than using a modern computer to read it online.