After having skimmed though the High Court decision regarding a UK Pirate Bay blockade I was intrigued by the claimants’ tactics. They appear to know who runs the site, but somehow decided not to include these persons in the suit.
They put up a list of reasons, mostly rants, about how hard it is to find the people behind the site. But is it really?
They still claim that two old friends and I remain as operators, along with the old owner of the ISP that TPB had back in 2005. However, they decided not to include us. (None of us are actually operators, which they probably know. Indeed, one of the people listed might not even be alive, we haven’t been able to reach him for ages.)
The claimants also say they know which company owns TPB, but decided to not include it in the suit. Those who ever started a company know that you must put up an address, so it’s not hard to find a company rep. Addresses and such are always public information.
So why are they not included? Is there a deeper underlying reason for that? Of course there is. Their main interest is not stopping TPB. They’re interested in making the telco industry liable instead.
On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.
1. Iran has threatened to fight back if attacked, and that’s a war crime. War crimes must be punished.
2. My television says Iran has nukes. I’m sure it’s true this time. Just like with North Korea. I’m sure they’re next. We only bomb places that really truly have nukes and are in the Axis of Evil. Except Iraq, which was different.
3. Iraq didn’t go so badly. Considering how lousy its government is, the place is better off with so many people having left or died. Really, that one couldn’t have worked out better if we’d planned it.
4. When we threaten to cut off Iran’s oil, Iran threatens to cut off Iran’s oil, which is absolutely intolerable. What would we do without that oil? And what good is buying it if they want to sell it?
5. Iran was secretly behind 9-11. I read it online. And if it wasn’t, that’s worse. Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries, which means its next attack is guaranteed to be coming very soon.
6. Iranians are religious nuts, unlike Israelis and Americans. Most Israelis don’t want to attack Iran, but the Holy Israeli government does. To oppose that decision would be to sin against God.
7. Iranians are so stupid that when we murder their scientists they try to hire a car dealer in Texas to hire a drug gang in Mexico to murder a Saudi ambassador in Washington, and then they don’t do it — just to make us look bad for catching them.
7. b. Oh, and stupid people should be bombed. They’re not civilized.
8. War is good for the U.S. economy, and the Iranian economy too. Troops stationed in Iran would buy stuff. And women who survived the war would have more rights. Like in Virginia. We owe Iranians this after that little mishap in 1953.
9. This is the only way to unite the region. Either we bomb Iran and it swears its eternal love to us. Or, if necessary, we occupy Iran to liberate it like its neighbors. Which shouldn’t take long. Look how well Afghanistan is going already.
10. They won’t give our drone back. Enough said.
The European Union’s highest court has been asked to rule on the legality of a controversial anti-piracy agreement.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) has been criticised by rights campaigners who argue it could stifle free expression on the internet.
EU trade head Karel De Gucht said the court will be asked to clarify whether the treaty complied with “the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms”.
Gary Webster is the general manager for the Toronto Transit Commission. Last year, Mayor Rob Ford (previously), after cancelling the Transit City light rail expansion in favour of a subway into Toronto’s east end (also previously), asked Webster to prepare a report on the viability of such a subway line. Webster did so, and gave his honest opinion, which was that the Sheppard subway was not economically viable. Ford buried the report, and after the Toronto Star discovered its existence, Ford then requested that Webster speak to City Council about the pros and cons of subways and light rail. Webster advised against subways as City Council overruled Ford and reinstated a light rail-based transit plan. Ford’s allies on the Toronto Transit Commission then petitioned for a special meeting to fire Webster (despite severance clauses that could cost the city more than a million dollars).
Five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, have donated nearly $1 of every $4 flowing to the super PACs raising unlimited money in this year’s presidential race, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups swamp Democratic-friendly super PACs in fundraising — money that is used largely for attack ads. The large sums also have rejuvenated the underfunded campaigns of principal challengers to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the race for the Repulican nomination.
“Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine. “Super PACs have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda.”
This has to be one of the best special effects displays I’ve seen in a long time: amusement park rides on invisible tracks barreling through the gorgeous architectural backdrop of Buenos Aires.
The agreement reached last month with the licensing agency includes provisions defining e-mailing hyperlinks as equivalent to photocopying a document, an annual $27.50 fee for every full-time equivalent student and surveillance of academic staff email.
Words fail me for once.