Christian Engström, Pirat

17 augusti 2010

Swedish Pirate Party to Host New WikiLeaks Servers

Filed under: English,informationspolitik,Wikileaks — Christian Engström @ 18:34

Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Rick Falkvinge, Piratpartiet, have agreed to cooperate to keep Wikileaks from being shut down

The Swedish Pirate Party has published the following press release together with whistleblower site Wikileaks:

The Pirate Party will host several new WikiLeaks servers. This was agreed during Julian Assange’s visit to Stockholm last weekend, and the Pirate Party is happy to announce that everything has been finalized.

– The contribution of WikiLeaks is tremendously important to the entire world, says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Pirate Party. We desire to contribute to any effort that increases transparency and accountability of power in the world.

Last week, the Pirate Party challenged the other Swedish parties to assist WikiLeaks in its democratic effort. The Pirate Party has been the first to step up uo the plate, and keeps calling on others to defend freedom of the press in Sweden. As a result, WikiLeaks have commissioned a number of new servers that will be hosted and taken care of by the Pirate Party.

The Pirate Party will provide bandwidth and hosting to WikiLeaks free of charge as part of its political mission.

– This is one of our signatures, says Falkvinge. We don’t just talk. We act. Using our own resources and time, we help change the world rather than pass the buck, commission reports, and avoid responsibility like other politicians.

Wikileaks have been under constant threat of being sabotaged by corrupt or abusive organisations trying to conceal the truth from the public. The Pirate Party’s offer was welcomed by Wikileaks’ spokesman Julian Assange.

– We welcome the help provided by the Pirate Party, says Julian Assange, spokesperson for WikiLeaks. Our organisations share many values and I am looking forward to future ways we can help each other improve the world.

– We hope that the new Parliament will give serious consideration to further strengthening Sweden’s press protection legislation, says Assange. Western democracies are not always as free as one might think, and freedom of the press needs constant vigilance. In particular, we would welcome Sweden copying Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, something that the Pirate Party also desires.

– We see more opportunities down the road in cooperating with the Pirate Party, says Assange, and look forward to exploring those options.

For more information, contact:

Rick Falkvinge, party leader for the Swedish Pirate Party, +46-10-3333-401
Anna Troberg, deputy party leader for the Swedish Pirate Party, +46-10-3333-402
Anna Ardin, press secretary for Julian Assange, +46-733-907017

…………

Photo by Rickard Olsson, free for publication CC0. More photos free for publication.

Andra som skriver: SVT Rapport, Göteborgsposten, Australian IT News

Tags: , , ,

108 kommentarer

  1. [...] står upp för sanningen. Det här inlägget postades i Internet, Piratpartiet, val2010, yttrandefrihet och har märkts [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet skyddar Wikileaks | Anders S Lindbäck @ Kunskapssamhället — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:02

  2. [...] även Anna T, Ung pirat, Rick, CE. Pingat på [...]

    Pingback av Wikileaks tar skydd « Full Mental Straightjacket — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:05

  3. [...] som skriver: Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Ung Pirat, [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet fortsätter leverera — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:07

  4. [...] det. Jag följde upp erbjudandet med en debattartikel i DN och Newsmill. Wikileaks är ett viktigt demokrativerktyg och det är av yttersta vikt att Sverige ger dem den trygghet de behöver för att kunna [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet hostar Wikileaks nya servrar | Anna Troberg — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:09

  5. BRA! Tack för bra arbete och lyhördhet.

    Kommentar av Jakob — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:16

  6. Swedish Pirate Party to Host New WikiLeaks Servers…

    Holy Cow! The Pirate Party will host several new WikiLeaks servers. This was agreed during Julian Assange’s visit to Stockholm last weekend, and the Pirate Party is happy to announce that everything has been finalized. More photos: http://christianengs

    Trackback av Flaskpost.com — 17 augusti 2010 @ 19:18

  7. [...] – fullmentalstraightjacket – kunskapssamhallet – stefanflod – christianengstrom – annatroberg – rickfalkvinge – [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet driver och skyddar Wikileaks servrar « Henry Rouhivuori (PP) — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:11

  8. [...] som skriver om samma sak: Piratpartiet Presscenter, DN.se, SvT, GP Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Fredrik Holmbom, Caspian [...]

    Pingback av En seger för demokrati och yttrandefrihet! « TantraBlog — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:21

  9. [...] El Partido Pirata sueco alojará gratuitamente los nuevos servidores de WikiLeaks. (eng) christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/swedish-pirate-pa…  por Enulal hace 2 segundos [...]

    Pingback av El Partido Pirata sueco alojará gratuitamente los nuevos servidores de WikiLeaks. (eng) — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:21

  10. [...] Rickard Falkvinge (PP) – Piratpartiet sköter WikiLeaks’ nya servrar, Christian Engström (Pirate MEP) – Swedish Pirate Party to Host WikiLeaks servers, Full Mental Straightjacket, Anna Troberg, This entry was posted in EU, Iskalla kriget, [...]

    Pingback av WikiLeaks blir beroende av ett politiskt parti | Nemokrati — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:32

  11. What credibility does this give wikileaks? – now hosted by a political party that also hosts one of the largest piracy sites, the commercially driven site The Pirate Bay, already convicted for this crime in Sweden.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:38

  12. Nejtillpirater: Den domen du hänvisar till gäller inte längre eftersom den är överklagad till hovrätten. Dessutom var tingsrättens domare uppenbart jävig, vilket även hovrättsdomaren som prövade jävet var. /Frekar06

    Kommentar av frekar06 — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:44

  13. @nejtillpirater

    Are you by any chance referring to the sentence which was passed for actions committed during 2004 which is still under appeal?

    As well, the sentence was carried out for TPB’s ”combined solution” – which has since changed. A new trial will most likely have to be held given that the new site is a search engine and nothing more.

    As for how much credibility it gives Wikileaks? I would think that should be completely and utterly irrelevant as long as Wikileaks maintains a high standard of fact verification. Which you would know if you’d bothered to look up their mission statement.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:51

  14. [...] Zeitung (Österrike), IMDb (USA) Piratpartiet Presscenter, Ung Pirat, Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Fredrik Holmbom, Anders S Lindbäck, Caspian Rehbinder, Caspian Rehbinder (igen), Full Mental [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet och Wikileaks « Jan "PiratJanne" Lindgren — 17 augusti 2010 @ 21:20

  15. @nejtillpirater — 17 augusti 2010 @ 20:38:

    Are you capable of writing anything, *anything*, without resorting to transparent use of guilt-by-association?

    Others have already explained why you are factually wrong with regards to the court case in question, but I thought I’d also point out that you are using invalid rhetoric as well as faulty logic.

    (I will stop now, since having to see your drivel almost everywhere is making me literally (yes, literally, I know the meaning of the word) sick. I feel dirty even responding to you…)

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 17 augusti 2010 @ 21:29

  16. [...] om Wikileaks: Ung Pirat, Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Fredrik Holmbom, Anders S Lindbäck, jag, jag (igen), Full Mental Straightjacket, Fredriks blogg, [...]

    Pingback av Politik kontra aktivism « Caspian Rehbinder — 17 augusti 2010 @ 22:13

  17. [...] har massor av bloggare redan hunnit kommentera det hela: Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge, Magnihasa, Full Mental Straightjacket, Anders S Lindbäck, Fredrik Holmbom, [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet och Wikileaks gör avtryck | Anna Troberg — 17 augusti 2010 @ 22:21

  18. [...] The Swedish Pirate Party offers up server space to WikiLeaks! Rest more here! [...]

    Pingback av Claims of the Normal – Episode Five — 17 augusti 2010 @ 22:21

  19. Så ska en slipsten dras!

    Kommentar av farmorgun — 17 augusti 2010 @ 22:24

  20. Lovely PP, whos integrity are you protecting when WL publish the names of civilians giving information to one side in the Afghanistan war? And WLs lame excuse that they haven’t got the capacity to remove the names themselves only echos false and is no excuse. You all nedd to get things right accordingly to you own ”tear it up, redo and get it right”

    ”On the other hand, you’ve got Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who’s now blackmailing Amnesty International and other human rights groups for $700,000 to remove names of Afghan civilians who might get killed by the Taliban if their names get released on Wikileaks.”

    http://m.zdnet.com/blog/government/nutball-wikileaks-founder-tries-to-blackmail-amnesty-international/9280

    http://www.ditii.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-human-rights-groups-ask-wikileaks-julian-assange-to-censor-civilians-names/

    http://www.techeye.net/security/five-human-rights-groups-slam-wikileaks-for-endangering-lives

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html

    Kommentar av Sten — 18 augusti 2010 @ 3:12

  21. Sten:

    Apparently Amnesty and those other human rights groups should read through the material and see for themselves which parts of this conflict seem to be the most dangerous to civilians lives and liberties. I think no one would be surprised to find loads of civilians are being killed weekly by talibans as well as american soldiers, either side seeing them as ”maybe supporting the enemy”.

    This is a war, you just don’t ask questions or bother about finding some ”truth” before shooting – so I really doubt that this information in any practical sense could harm these civilians.

    Just by being in that conflict they are in the risk of harm by a much higher extent than what wiki leaks will ever be able to put them into.

    Kommentar av gastlind — 18 augusti 2010 @ 6:59

  22. @Sten, #20

    It’s not a surprise that the Swedish Pirate Party supports publishing of sensitive information when it suits their purposes, integrity and anonomity is only required when it can be used to protect criminals such as pirates.

    The Swedish Pirate Party has already published the identities of 103 citizens subject to FRA surveillance, http://rickfalkvinge.se/2008/07/18/103-avlyssnade-helt-vanliga-svenskar/

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 7:01

  23. nejtillpirater:

    This clearly puts things in perspective. The only political party really trying to preserve internet freedoms hosts whistleblowers that expose war crimes – and you think it is a bad thing?

    Because file sharing of copyrighted material is really worse than having the right to expose war crimes?? Oh for fucks sake come on! You are ridiculing yourself… at best.

    Kommentar av gastlind — 18 augusti 2010 @ 7:05

  24. @Sten #20

    The Assange blackmailing can be interpreted as that wikileaks is transforming to a commercial site, earning money on ”harm minimization” = blackmailing. The Pirate Bay have also made a similar transition. According to the court sentence, they had at least an 1,2 MSEK income from advertising on their site, from 2005 to 2006, generated by piracy.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 7:11

  25. @nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 7:11:

    Your constant attempts at portraying things incorrectly can be interpreted as borderline (or actual) libel, which has potential legal ramifications.

    Your statement ”The Assange blackmailing” is very explicit, false, and made by you with the express purpose of causing harm, thus qualifying as a clear example of libel.

    You have thus opened the door for legal action against yourself, and yet again demonstrated very clearly that any alleged respect for the legal system and personal integrity on your behalf is very selective at best, and possibly simply a sham.

    You appear to be a hypocrite, with a clearly anti-democratic agenda.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 18 augusti 2010 @ 8:46

  26. @Undrande

    Ad hominem

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 8:51

  27. @nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 8:51:

    Duly noted that you fail to clarify your statements.

    I am not surprised, but I must admit that I am disappointed. In some other posts by you you have been able to discuss things rationally, but in this case you apparently fail to do so.

    That you mistake my post for an ad hominem attack speaks clearly about your inability to handle criticism against yourself. I can thus only conclude that you not only *appear* to be a hypocrite, but you actually *are* one.

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 18 augusti 2010 @ 8:55

  28. @nejtillpirater

    There is nothing ”Ad Hominem” about you accusing Assange of blackmail, which is a serious criminal offense. That is what is called ”libel” which even in Sweden is a clear-cut crime.

    And that is crossing the line. Present evidence to back up your claims before a court of law or start backpedalling fast.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 18 augusti 2010 @ 9:22

  29. [...] bloggare som jag anser assoccierar Piratpartiet med bra saker: Christian Engström, Magnihasa, Full Mental Straightjacket, Anders S Lindbäck, Fredrik Holmbom, Fredriks blogg, [...]

    Pingback av Good News = Anna Troberg, Piratpartiet + Wikileaks = Love « Aktiv Demokrati's blogg — 18 augusti 2010 @ 9:29

  30. [...] om Wikileaks: Ung Pirat, Anna Troberg, Rick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Fredrik Holmbom, Anders S Lindbäck, jag, jag (igen), Full Mental Straightjacket, Fredriks [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet – visioner och handling « Caspian Rehbinder — 18 augusti 2010 @ 11:50

  31. @Scary

    I’m sure that you understand that I haven’t accused Assange of blackmail in a legal sense but I do question the ethics of demanding money for removing sensitive information with a threat to still publish them if the money is not paid. But ethics is not something that can be discussed with pirates in a meaningful way.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 11:53

  32. @nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 11:53:

    ”But ethics is not something that can be discussed with pirates in a meaningful way.”

    It’s correct that you personally apparently can’t.

    Almost everyone else fortunately can, however.

    The main problem is, of course, that you are by definition against anything and everything which stems from Piratpartiet in general (and Rick Falkvinge in particular, for some reason) no matter what the issue may be. With such a mindset on your behalf it follows that any intelligent and worthwhile discourse with you, for them, is infeasible and will lead nowhere but you being ignored.

    And that’s unfortunate, since an *intelligent* and *honest* discourse with critics is a good and healthy thing!

    Perhaps if you adjusted your approach just a little bit, you could accomplish some actual results, that would be beneficial for both yourself and the ones you criticize?

    Wouldn’t that be something to strive for?

    As a non-pirate myself, but nevertheless very interested in any constructive dialogue regarding these issues, I would sure see that as a step in the right direction. Wouldn’t you?

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 18 augusti 2010 @ 12:28

  33. [...] om detta: Piratpartiet Presscenter, Ung Pirat, Anna Troberg, Anna Troberg igenRick Falkvinge, Christian Engström, Fredrik Holmbom, Anders S Lindbäck, Caspian Rehbinder, Caspian Rehbinder (igen), Caspian [...]

    Pingback av Wikileaks flyttar in hos Piratpartiet | Sanningen som jag ser den — 18 augusti 2010 @ 13:09

  34. @Undrande

    ”The main problem is, of course, that you are by definition against anything and everything which stems from Piratpartiet in general (and Rick Falkvinge in particular, for some reason) no matter what the issue may be.”

    By your definition, not by mine. I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 13:52

  35. @nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 13:52:

    ”By your definition, not by mine.”

    I see. Fair enough. You don’t explicitly state anywhere that you criticize everything, but from reading what you write, that’s the general impression that emerges. Change ”by definition” into ”by observation” and the statement holds.

    ”I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.”

    Nota bene: That’s according to *your* personal view of things, and not an objective observation. Others obviously disagree, and view things quite differently.

    Yours is also quite an inflammatory stance, which will probably not foster any will from the pirate side to discuss things with you, since I suspect that almost nobody on the pirate side actually *wants* to favor ”criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens” in reality.

    It’s quite comparable with someone accusing you of favoring a totalitarian and fascist society (where everyone is *forced* to be honest, whether such force is needed or not in each case) which I’m sure you’re actually not favoring at all.

    You would probably do well in moderating your tone somewhat.

    I’ve observed that you tend to portray most (if not all) pirate party supporters in a very general, and extremely negative light. Most likely undeservedly so, and definitely not conductive towards any kind of constructive discourse.

    You are obviously free to take this as you wish, but just to be clear: My express purpose and intent is simply to hint at what you can do to better get your message across, if that is what you actually wish.

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 18 augusti 2010 @ 14:29

  36. @Undrande

    ”Nota bene: That’s according to *your* personal view of things, and not an objective observation. ”

    Why so much focus on me as a person? Try to focus on the issues being discussed instead. You’re really trying hard to disguise the fact that you’re only reverting to Ad homimen. You can really do better than this.

    You are obviously free to take this as you wish, but just to be clear: My express purpose and intent is simply to hint at what you can do to better get your message across, if that is what you actually wish.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 15:38

  37. @nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 15:38:

    The focus on you is of course due to your persistent and prevalent use of guilt-by-association, generalization, and other rhetoric mistakes in your criticism of Piratpartiet and its supporters.

    There is no ad hominem in my criticisms of what and how you write.

    The decision to take it personally, and thus missing the points regarding why you fail (and will continue to do so) to get any pirates to listen to you, is yours and yours alone.

    I thought you could do better.

    Kommentar av Undrande... — 18 augusti 2010 @ 15:57

  38. @nejtillpirater

    ”’m sure that you understand that I haven’t accused Assange of blackmail in a legal sense but I do question the ethics of demanding money for removing sensitive information with a threat to still publish them if the money is not paid…”

    You are stating that he demands money in exchange for removing sensitive information – that is an accusation of blackmail. Which is libel by any national standard. Provide the evidence for this ”fact” you seem so aware of, please, because if you are correct in your statement, Mr. Assange is guilty of extortion. If you are not correct in this you are guilty of libel. There is no middle ground there.

    Which is interesting given that you seem to be quite sensitive to ad hominems yourself, even though you can’t seem to write a single sentence without launching one. The definition for that is called a ”double standard” – or ”hypocrisy” if you like.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 18 augusti 2010 @ 16:24

  39. ”Fri kommunikation är en grundbult i ett demokratiskt samhälle. Du ska kunna lita på att din privata information är just privat, oavsett om du surfar på internet, mejlar, skickar brev, sms:ar eller pratar i telefon.”
    Kopierat från PP’s valmanifest.

    Men det gäller uppenbarligen inte när PP tycker att det är rätt att lägga ut just sådan information på nätet….

    Kommentar av Thomas — 18 augusti 2010 @ 17:55

  40. @Thomas #40

    Enligt piratpartiet är det OK med massiva integritetskränkningar om det passar deras syften. Det kan knappast finnas någon som tvekar över detta längre. Både när det gäller wikileaks masspubliceringar och piratpartiets publicering av lista på personer som övervakats av FRA. Man lever verkligen inte som man lär!

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 18:14

  41. ”Reporter: Would you publish, for example, Tony Blairs medical journal? Since your mission is to reveal information of great political value, would it not be of interest for the public to know how the world leaders health condition are?

    Julian Assange: Yes.”

    http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/it/chatt-med-wikileaks-frontman-julian-assange_5140955.svd

    Integrity for whom?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 18:31

  42. @nejtillpirater #41

    ”Enligt piratpartiet är det OK med massiva integritetskränkningar om det passar deras syften.”

    Ovan metod går att återanvända:

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det OK att hemlighålla information som tydliggör vad som egentligen sker i ett krig där tusentals människor (civila såväl som militära) dödas och detta faktum undanhålls från de som ytterst betalar för att kriget bedrivs, under förevändningen att någon eller några – utöver tidigare nämnda tusentals, som tydligen inte betyder så mycket för nejtillpirater – eventuellt kan råka illa ut. Något som inte skett.

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det viktigare att undanhålla medborgarna information om krig de finansierar, än att med hjälp av samma information möjliggöra en öppen diskussion kring förloppet, så att kriget kan bedrivas på ett annat sätt, med mindre risk för onödigt lidande, eller ännu hellre kanske inte bedrivas alls, utan ersättas med andra, mer humanitära åtgärder.

    Enligt nejtillpirater finns det ingen skillnad mellan information om människors privatliv – människor som inte är misstänkta för något brott eller andra oegentligheter – och information om vad krigförande makt hemlighåller för sina egna medborgare av opinionsmässiga skäl.

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det viktigare att statens information undanhålls medborgarna, än att medborgarna får information om statens förehavanden.

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det rätt att låtsas att alla sorters information om människor i fundamentalt olika sammanhang är likvärdig.

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det viktigare att till varje pris utmåla piratpartiet, med alla dess medlemmar och supportrar, som illvilliga vettvillingar utan respekt för lag och medmänniskor, än att föra en sansad diskussion kring vilka sorters information – med eller utan personuppgifter – som bör och inte bör vara allmängods, i olika fall.

    Enligt nejtillpirater är det ok att beskylla andra för vad som helst – direkt, eller indirekt – så länge det tjänar nejtillpiraters syften.

    Det kan knappast finnas någon som tvekar över detta längre.

    nejtillpirater lever exakt som nejtillpirater lär enligt ovan.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 18:45

  43. @ nejtillnejtillpirater

    Är det inte mer intressant att diskutera varför PP kränker den personliga integriteten, istället för att diskutera nejtillpirater?

    Kommentar av Thomas — 18 augusti 2010 @ 20:54

  44. @Thomas #44:

    ”Är det inte mer intressant att diskutera varför PP kränker den personliga integriteten, istället för att diskutera nejtillpirater?”

    Du lär nog först få diskutera varför du anser att så är fallet.

    Du framställer ju din fråga som om det vore ett faktum, vilket inte nödvändigtvis är korrekt. En diskussion kring *om* så är fallet skulle kanske vara av visst intresse, eller kanske ännu hellre varför du så tvärsäkert anser, eller vill påskina, att det är så. Det är dock inte en diskussion som jag personligen har något intresse av i nuläget.

    Någon annan kanske vill ta den med dig.

    Mitt personliga intresse för att belysa och diskutera tonläge och förhållningssätt hos just nejtillpirater grundas helt enkelt i vad jag observerat i form av inlägg och kommentarer under ett bra tag. Det föreligger ett ganska anmärkningsvärt trovärdighetsproblem hos nejtillpirater, som vederbörande konsekvent misslyckas med att bemöta på ett vettigt sätt.

    Nåja, jag ska inte ta upp mer utrymme för den frågan i den här kommentarstråden. Det lär (med säkerhet) dyka upp fler tillfällen att belysa problematiken på nytt.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 21:32

  45. @nejtillnejtillpirater

    Bra att du slutar tjata om mig som person som någon form av smutskastningskampanj. När det gäller min trovärdighet så tycker jag att intresset för min blogg talar sitt eget tydliga språk. Det är ofta betydligt mer aktivitet där än hos hela partiledartrojkan för Piratpartiet tillsammans om man jämför med aktiviteten i deras bloggar. Och jag är bara en privatperson utan någon som helst koppling till politiskt parti, företag eller organisation.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 22:20

  46. @nejtillpirater #46:

    ”Bra att du slutar tjata om mig som person som någon form av smutskastningskampanj.”

    Din tolkning, inte min.

    Några korta observationer: Intresset för din blogg har ingen logisk koppling till huruvida du är trovärdig eller ej. Inte heller aktiviteten. Om du har, eller inte har, någon koppling till något parti, företag eller organisation är okänt. Vad du säger går inte att verifiera, baserat på ditt ord allena.

    Jag förstår att du tycker att det kan vara lite jobbigt att själv utsättas för kritisk granskning. Du har så här långt inte lyckats särskilt bra med att bemöta de frågetecken som finns, så du har gott om utrymme att jobba på den biten, om du så önskar. :-)

    Som jag sade, så ska jag inte ta upp mer utrymme för just den här frågan i den *här* tråden, då det är en smula utanför ämnet för vad ursprungsinlägget handlar om.

    Därmed inte sagt att jag inte kommer att fortsätta granskningen av dina inlägg och kommentarer både här, på din egen och på andras bloggar.

    Det kan du rimligen inte ha något att invända emot, då kritisk granskning ju enligt dig själv är bra. Något vi är helt ense om, för övrigt!

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 18 augusti 2010 @ 22:35

  47. I’ve just one thing to say about the Pirate Party, and one thing only.

    AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

    Kommentar av Feather Boas — 19 augusti 2010 @ 0:07

  48. @ nejtillpirater

    ” It’s not a surprise that the Swedish Pirate Party supports publishing of sensitive information when it suits their purposes, integrity and anonomity is only required when it can be used to protect criminals such as pirates.”

    If you are going to criticize The Pirate Party you should at least read through the information on their website first. The party wants to change the copyright laws so that “criminals such as pirates” no longer would be criminals. This in turn can in no way mean that the party tries to protect “criminals such as pirates” for the simple reason that it would not be illegal anymore. This is pretty simple logic, isn’t it?

    Kommentar av kras — 19 augusti 2010 @ 0:20

  49. @ nejtillpirater

    “The Pirate Bay have also made a similar transition. According to the court sentence, they had at least an 1,2 MSEK income from advertising on their site, from 2005 to 2006, generated by piracy.”

    Lies and lies. First of all The Pirate Bay wasn’t involved in piracy like you suggest and can for that reason alone not have earned 1.2 MSEK “by piracy” Secondly you seem to have a hard time choosing if The Pirate Bay generated this stated income “by piracy” OR from “advertising on their site”. Writing faster than you think today?

    “By your definition, not by mine. I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.”

    And yet you constantly and blindly defend laws that strike “honest citizens” badly.

    ” Enligt piratpartiet är det OK med massiva integritetskränkningar om det passar deras syften.”

    Piratpartiet har så vitt jag vet aldrig haft ståndpunkten att det aldrig kan finns tillfällen där integriteten får stå tillbaka. Avslöjande av grova företeelser av staten är ett tänkbart exempel. Det rör sig då inte om partiets egna syften, utan istället om vad som gagnar samhället i stort.

    Kommentar av kras — 19 augusti 2010 @ 0:22

  50. @ Thomas

    “Men det gäller uppenbarligen inte när PP tycker att det är rätt att lägga ut just sådan information på nätet….”

    Vad syftar du på här?

    Kommentar av kras — 19 augusti 2010 @ 0:23

  51. OT. Lästips om patent och Kina på Centre of European Reform. Nu kommer det, det som David Martin varnade för 2004 om vi inte fixar en bättre ekonomisk ”accountability” inom patent-etablissemanget.

    Kommentar av steelneck — 19 augusti 2010 @ 1:54

  52. @ Kras .

    Jag syftar på det faktum att PP nu bidrar till att kränka den personliga integriteten och lägga ut privat information på nätet.
    Att PP nu tillhandahåller teknik för att kränka brevhemligheten.

    Att PP som den del av staten och etablissemanget begår just såna övergrepp mot individers anonymitet som man säger sig kämpa emot.

    Kommentar av Thomas — 19 augusti 2010 @ 5:29

  53. @Thomas

    Du menar som när ett vittne kränker en mördare genom att lägga ut hans förehavanden på nätet?

    1) Wikileaks ”vettade” materialet de publicerade tillsammans med tre världstidningar. Även om de tidningarna valde att lyfta olika aspekter av ”The Afghan War Diary” så kvarstår att det du egentligen attackerar är de standardregler som internationell media har att följa och inget annat. Men visst, vi kan lägga ned allmänmedia, no problem.

    2) Hade Assange begått kränkningar så kan man ju bekvämt arrestera honom för den saken. På exakt samma sätt som jag kommer sitta fyra år i fängelse om jag bryter brevhemligheten så snart jag sätter foten på svensk mark. Lustigt nog verkar det inte som om han begår sådana brott – och insinuationen att han gör det missar grovt i sak.

    3) Wikileaks har erbjudit USA att bidra med de namn som bör undantas från rapporterna i fråga. Detta har USA vägrat göra, och då sitter vi med ett val av två onda alternativ. Publicera och riskera vissa Afghaners integritet, eller inte publicera och genom detta officiellt sanktionera att ISAF-trupper begår mord, våldtäkter, och stöld gentemot långt fler afghaner. Precis som i resonemanget att det är ok med kameror i tunnelbanan, men inte i folks hem.

    Skall jag vända på ditt resonemang, Tomas, och säga att det är en bättre lösning att vi fortsätter betala för ett krig där våra egna anställda ljuger för oss och man begår stöld, vapensmuggling till terrorister och mord för våra pengar?

    Eller skall du ta och lägga ned halmgubben nu?

    Vad gäller PP har vi aldrig varit emot att en åklagare exempelvis skall kunna fatta beslut om husundersökning om brottet är grovt nog och misstanken tillräckligt stark. Ej heller att man öppnar posten för enskild person enligt samma kriterier. Det finns viss skillnad mellan detta och det du antyder.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 19 augusti 2010 @ 9:13

  54. [...] Troberg, Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge, Magnihasa, Full Mental Straightjacket, Anders S Lindbäck, Fredrik Holmbom, [...]

    Pingback av Maud gillar kattungar. « Sysadminbloggen — 19 augusti 2010 @ 15:37

  55. @ 56
    Du missar hela frågeställningen. Det handlar överhuvudtaget inte om Wikileak!
    Det handlar att PP, genom att tillhandahålla teknik, bidrar till att publicera privat information på ett sätt som kränker den personliga integriteten.

    Olof Bjarnarsson försökte förklara, det gick rätt dåligt…
    Hans slutsats är följande:
    ”Sist ut är den syn som jag själv har på transparens vs makt. Här har medborgarna lagstadgad rätt till privatliv, och ju större makt en individ/organisation/entitet har i samhällskroppen, desto större är insynen i beslutsgångarna”

    PP och Wikileak är just sådana organisationer som har stor makt. PP har det dessutom i egenskap av politiskt parti med en statligt stöd och skydd i ryggen.
    Nu väljer PP att tillhandahålla teknik som bland annat används till att lägga ut information om enskilda individer som kränker deras rätt till privatliv.
    De lägger ut den informationen, helt utan transparens i de besluten. vi har inte en aning om varför Wikileak/PP lägger ut information om vissa medborgare. De är inte åtalade, det finns inte nån brottsmisstanke och det sker helt utan insyn.
    Just på ett sånt sätt som PP vill förhindra.

    Kommentar av Thomas — 19 augusti 2010 @ 18:13

  56. Is it just me or is anyone else tired of reading nejtillpirater and his other nicks responses??
    Last time he had 5 nicks and more or less trolled the entire forum at Rick Falkvinge. I guess he should use at least more IP-adresses this time around…….

    It is the same thing all the freeking time. He hates The Pirateparty and says anything to discredit it even when faced with facts.

    Kommentar av DanielS — 20 augusti 2010 @ 2:27

  57. @ DanielS
    Is that the ususal respect for the integrity that pirates are showing participants in open discussion forums? Checking the IP adresses?

    Kommentar av Thomas — 20 augusti 2010 @ 4:10

  58. @Thomas #60:

    Depends, I think, since I’m not a pirate.

    Are you actually nejtillpirater posting under a different alias, pretending to be someone else, for some reason? If so, that’s interesting. If not, then so be it.

    There’s nothing odd, or contrary, about checking whether several different aliases are coming from the same ip address. It’s public information, and I doubt anyone is going to dig deeper, if checking at all.

    Also, it’s your choice (and nejtillpirater’s, whether you’re the same poster or not) to come here and post. Nobody is forcing or requiring you to do so.

    There are plenty of tools that can help you become strictly anonymous, if you wish. Tools that Piratpartiet, among others, support and endorse. Yes, even for you. I bet that fact might be a little hard for you to swallow, since it contradicts what you’re trying to say about them.

    Oh, well…

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 20 augusti 2010 @ 5:45

  59. @ 61
    Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.

    And by the way, since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates (at least according to the latest polls) its hardly surprising that there are several individuals who are discussing against the pirate party.
    It would have been more surprising if it had only been ”nejtillpirater”….

    Kommentar av Thomas — 20 augusti 2010 @ 6:40

  60. @Thomas #62:

    ”Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.”

    There is no need for you to be protected, unless you yourself find it necessary. There is the possibility for you to do so, in various ways, if you wish, for some reason. A possibility Piratpartiet, among others, is fighting for you to have, now and in the future.

    Nobody has, as far as I know, disrespected your integrity.

    You are inventing an issue where there is none. Calm down.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 20 augusti 2010 @ 6:46

  61. kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 18 augusti 2010 @ 9:22

    ”Present evidence to back up your claims before a court of law or start backpedalling fast.”

    SDM, you must be joking, YOU are the master of accusations towards numerous individuals without ever presenting any claims before a court and now you insist that NTP should have to do the very thing YOU yourself never done.

    Kommentar av Sten — 20 augusti 2010 @ 10:17

  62. @Thomas, #58

    ”Det handlar att PP, genom att tillhandahålla teknik, bidrar till att publicera privat information på ett sätt som kränker den personliga integriteten.”

    Du menar, precis som Posten tillhandahåller teknik? Om någon publicerar information om tredje part och distribuerar det materialet via ett nyhetsbrev så kommer du inte i något land sedan DDR och Sovjet där infrastrukturen vägrar bära meddelandet.

    Hela begreppet ”integritet” går ut på att enskilda medborgare tillåts skydda sina egna privatliv från obefogad övervakning. Det betyder, som nejtillnejtillpirater så vist uttryckte det, att enkla verktyg som vem som helst kan använda bör finnas tillgängliga för var man att använda på exakt samma sätt som varje man idag har ett lås på sin dörr. Vad angår mer specifikt det att din ip-adress är synlig så är det inte vårt fel om du själv väljer att – för att exemplifiera – gå omkring på gatan naken med din hemadress och personliga detaljer tatuerade i pannan. I ett sådant läge har du själv frånsagt dig ditt krav på att den informationen skall undanhållas.
    Att du sedan hackar på oss för att vi väljer att inte blunda när du går förbi är inte resonligt ur någon synvinkel.

    Skulle du vidta åtgärder för att dölja din identitet så väljer du vad du vill visa upp (ekvivalenten av att inte ha en tatuering i pannan med namn och adress när man rör sig på offentlig plats) – och då sker integritetskränkningen om eller när någon aktivt försöker förbigå det skydd du anammat.
    Vilket PP är till 100% emot eftersom privata aktörer inte skall tillåtas företa sig personundersökningar.

    Detta är också en nyanseringsfråga. Kameror på T-bana och på vissa utsatta platser är helt ok, trots att de innebär en de fakto kränkning av samtliga som rör sig där. Detta på grund av att man trots allt kan peka på en bevisad nytta av att ha dem där som överväger farorna. Kameror som täcker större delen av det offentliga rummet, som exempelvis Storbrittanniens CCTV är inte Ok enligt samma resonemang.

    Vad gäller ”The Afghan War Diaries” som Wikileaks har publicerat så gäller saken ett krigsområde, inte ett fungerande samhälle. Tillika rör det ett krig som vi skattebetalare finansierar och har godkänt via våra folkvalda representanter. Då kriget är ett statligt företagande finns krav på transparens.
    Vad gäller den/de personer som har läckt informationen så kan man förvisso anse det klandervärt att den personen brutit mot de utpekades integritet. Men återigen kommer frågan om nyansering. Är det befogat att avslöja mutade överlöpare i samma veva som man avslöjar hundratals mord/dråp, eller att ett krig kommer kosta oskyldigas liv om informationen inte kommer ut? Vi har, från statligt och offentligt håll, redan godkänt att civila och oskyldiga kommer att dö i en krigszon. Det priset betalar andra för oss varje dag som kriget går. Den saken har vi på vårt samvete oavsett.

    Man måste tänka nyanserat, men att tvärsäkert presentera ena sidan av medaljongen och tolka det som att PP har tappat sina värderingar när man väljer det minst onda av två obehagliga alternativ är inget annat än att ställa halmgubbeargumentet i en militärparad.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 20 augusti 2010 @ 10:53

  63. @ 65
    Det handlar inte om teknik. PP och Wikieak har initierat ett samarbete där själva syftet är att distribuera Wikileak.

    Du skriver:
    ”Hela begreppet ”integritet” går ut på att enskilda medborgare tillåts skydda sina egna privatliv från obefogad övervakning.”
    Och det exakt den rätten till privatliv för ett stort antal enskilda medborgare som nu PP/Wikileak kränker. Bland alla dessa dokument PP/Wikileak publicerar finns det namn och personuppgifter och annan information om enskilda medborgare.
    Dessa stackare har kanske, eller kanske inte, samarbetat med Afghanistans lagliga regering är nu måltavlor för Talibaner och andra krigsherrar. Deras familjer och barn är tyvärr också måltavlor.
    Flera oberoende, lokala humanitära organisationer har påpekat detta, både för Wikileak och för massmedia. Så det är inte någon nyhet, PP borde känna till det.

    Man kan också fråga sig, som SDM gör, om det är befogat att lämna ut personuppgifter på ”mutade överlöpare”?
    Men är det verkligen PP’s mandat att göra det? Med vilken rätt gör PP det?
    Och med vilken transparens, hur kan vi veta varför PP/Wikileak väljer att lämna ut vissa namn? Eftersom varken PP eller Wikileak granskar alla dokument är det ju helt godtyckligt!

    Man kan också diskutera i de termer som SDM gör. Är det bättre att avslöja några överlöpare för att rädda livet på hundratals andra.
    Det är exakt samma argument man använder för att implementera FRA lagen. Det är värt 103 personers integritet, för att skydda resten av Sveriges befolkning mot terrordåd.
    Skillnaden är att det är en folkvald riksdag som fattar beslut om FRA, men när nu PP/Wikileak beslutar att sprida information om alla dessa Afghanska medborgare, då fattas det beslutet bakom stängda dörrar, helt utan insyn. Och av personer som inte har något som helst ansvar för besluten.

    Kommentar av Thomas — 20 augusti 2010 @ 13:42

  64. @Thomas #66:

    Jag tror du har fått det hela lite om bakfoten, faktiskt.

    Samarbetet mellan PP och Wikileaks sträcker sig inte längre än att PP tillhandahåller serverkapacitet för delar av Wikileaks infrastruktur.

    Wikileaks har haft, har, och kommer att ha, serverkapacitet på ett antal vitt skilda platser i världen, varav den kapacitet PP kommer att bidra med bara är en del. Exakt hur stor/liten del känner jag inte till. Du får gärna upplysa mig/oss, om du har mer information kring detta.

    Vidare verkar du ha fått intrycket av att PP på något sätt kommer att vara delaktiga i publiceringsarbetet som Wikileaks bedriver, d.v.s de redaktionella momenten och ansvaret som hör därtill. Givet vad som tillkännagivits verkar detta vara felaktigt, d.v.s det stämmer inte att så skulle vara fallet. Har du fakta som pekar på motsatsen så får du gärna bidra med denna, även i detta fall, då det vore intressant att läsa mer om.

    Du borde kanske också följa upp vad de nämnda människorättsorganisationerna nyanserat sina uttalanden och farhågor med, under tiden efter den första dramatiken i samband med den initiala publiceringen. Flera av dem stödjer uppenbarligen Wikileaks arbete, trots vissa frågetecken kring delar av den nu aktuella informationen om krigföringen i Afghanistan. Har du studerat detta närmare?

    Vidare saknar jag i din kritik helt någon form av vidare analys kring gränsdragningen mellan värdet av att information om krigföringen görs känd för de människor som i slutändan finansierar det hela med såväl pengar som människoliv och lidande (med de risker för några få det för, eller inte för med sig i praktiken), kontra att den väsentligt fördröjs eller ännu värre även fortsättningsvis hemlighålls.

    Jag tänker då dels på medborgare i USA och övriga länder vars militär deltar i operationerna, de soldater som tjänstgör på plats, samt de civila människor som utsätts för krigets alla fasor i Afghanistan – samtliga grupper som i storlek vida överstiger de som eventuellt skulle utsättas för förhöjd risk p.g.a publiceringen.

    Var är din omtanke om de människor som *varje* *dag* dödas och drabbas av ofattbart lidande p.g.a ett krig som resten av världen undanhålls information om, och som därmed också i mycket mindre utsträckning kan bildas faktabaserad opinion kring? Hur har du kommit fram till att de få som eventuellt kan riskera repressalier p.g.a publiceringen är så oerhört mycket viktigare än de som dödas och lider *varje* *dag* så länge kriget fortskrider med resten av världens passiva och oinformerade godkännande?

    Det vore intressant att ta del av dina tankar även kring detta.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 20 augusti 2010 @ 19:37

  65. @ 67
    Det handlar inte om teknik eller detaljer.
    Syftet med samarbetet är ju att göra Wikileak tillgängligt för allmänheten och att låta Wikileak få tillgång till det statliga skydd som PP har i egenskap av politiskt parti.

    Kriget i Afghanistan…. lite mer komplext än din förenkling. Vad är det långsiktiga målet? Är det fred till varje pris? Eller fred ”utan talibaner”?
    Och på vilket sätt bidrar Wikileaks till att nå endera av de målen?
    De kan säkert bidra till att skapa opinion för att nå målet om Fred till varje pris. Dvs att få Väst att lämna Afghanistan, men är det rätt mål?
    Och ska Wikileak och PP bedöma det?
    Den lagliga regeringen in Afghanistan borde ju få ha en synpunkt. Eller??
    Deras ståndpunkt är ju klar – de vill ha militärt stöd från omvärlden!

    Men en viktigare fråga är varför inte PP överhuvudtaget har diskuterar problemet med samarbetet med Wikileak. Just därför att det visar på ett så tydligt exempel på där det finns en motsättning mellan informationsfrihet och personlig integritet. Den enda som från det officiella PP som har fört nån slags diskussion är Olof Bjarnasson, en av deras riksdagskandidater.
    Tyvärr stoppade han huvudet i sanden och förnekade att det överhuvudtaget finns ett problem. Att ett antal oberoende humanitära organisationer hade påtalat att det faktiskt är ett problem avfärdade han raskt med att det var propaganda från USA!

    Kommentar av Thomas — 21 augusti 2010 @ 8:50

  66. Does The Swedish Pirate Party still support wikieaks now when Julian Assange is wanted for rape of two persons in Stockholm?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 9:04

  67. @ Nejtillpirater

    Hey, give these poor people a break now. No need to rub it in their face, they are having a hard time. Poor pirates…

    First one of their candidates to the parliament bails aout after driving a campaign to support having sex with children. By the way, a view he shares with another of the Pirats candidates to the parliament, Carl Johan Rehbinder.
    This puts the pirates fight for child pornography in a new context.

    And now this rape accusation…
    Poor pirates, I feel sorry for you…

    Kommentar av Thomas — 21 augusti 2010 @ 11:22

  68. @Thomas #68:

    Först hävdar du att det inte handlar om teknik eller detaljer och sedan hävdar du att jag förenklar frågan om krigföringen i Afghanistan, vilket är mer än lovligt okonsekvent från din sida. Du får nog bestämma dig för om detaljer och nyansering är viktiga för dig eller ej och sedan stå för det.

    Vad gäller Wikileaks och kriget så tar inte Wikileaks själva ställning till kriget som sådant, vilket du rimligen borde vara medveten om. Var du läste in det i mitt inlägg kan bara du själv svara på, då det inte var något sådant jag vare sig avsåg eller skrev. Läs noga och tänk lite mer innan du skriver.

    Vad det är frågan om är att göra information tillgänglig till de som i slutändan finansierar och ansvarar för att kriget bedrivs, vare sig det i sig självt är motiverat eller ej. Poängen är att medborgarna i de länder som deltar bör ha tillräcklig information för att *själva* kunna bilda sig en uppfattning och genom den demokratiska processen påverka opinion i *endera* riktningen baserat därpå.

    Utan omfattande information om vad som faktiskt pågår kan den demokratiska processen inte fungera som det är tänkt. Detta borde till och med du kunna förstå.

    Resten av ditt inlägg är baserat på denna miss från din sida och är i princip självklarheter. Givetvis ska regeringen i Afghanistan säga sitt. Men viktigare är att människorna som bor (och inte sitter i regeringen) i både Afghanistan, USA och övriga involverade länder *också* får säga sitt, på välinformerade grunder. Det är där det brister och det är där Wikileks har en funktion att fylla.

    Frågan är inte enkel, men ditt och en del andras kategoriska fördömande av vad Wikileaks gör rimmar illa med att t.ex du i nästa andetag påpekar att situationen är komplex. Den är komplex, det är exakt det som är poängen, vilket återigen påpekar hur viktigt det är att omfattande information om vad som egentligen sker är nödvändig att offentliggöra.

    Notera att jag själv t.ex inte har någon tydlig åsikt kring huruvida kriget bör eller inte bör bedrivas, men jag har fått känslan av att det nog bör bedrivas *annorlunda* om inte annat, och att det saknas en rationell och informerad debatt kring detta. Att i det läget kategoriskt fördöma en aktör som försöker komplettera informationsunderlaget för en sådan informerad debatt är vad jag vänder mig emot.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 11:25

  69. @Thomas #70 & @nejtillpirater #69:

    *sigh*

    Again with the guilt-by-association arguments. Do you never learn?

    If Julian Assange is indeed found guilty of rape, then of course he should be convicted for it, since it’s a very serious crime. If he is *not* found guilty, then he should *not* be convicted for it.

    You are both apparently very eagerly assuming that he is guilty right from the start, which speaks clearly about your views of the justice process more than anything else.

    Now, to the guilt-by-assocation attempt of you two:

    This has nothing to do with the purpose, intent and work of Wikileaks.

    Just as the fact that there exists criminals (convicted and otherwise) in every political party does not spill over and make the entire parties criminals, even if it was a high-ranking member, now does it?

    Finally, Thomas, really … re-read what you wrote and think carefully about it. That kind of ”argument” makes even me, not even *being* a pirate, physically sick. You should be ashamed of yourself. Really.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 11:36

  70. @Thomas

    That’s what your arguments boil down to, isn’t it? Baseless slander and a case for abolishing the pillars of a democratic society? Badly hidden behind a word wall meant to convince the common reader that everyone who is a pirate or associated with the pirate party is a sex offender of some sort?

    That’s just pathetic. By your argumentation a simple accusation should be enough to invalidate any and every political movement that ever arose. Want to know how many crimes Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of? Including (surprise surprise) sexual offenses of every stripe. Gandhi? Whenever a person makes waves in politics there’s always one or more ordinary citizens who disagree with what that person is doing to such an extent that they willingly use whatever slander or legal instrument available to attack him with.

    Unlike you I still have some faith in the basic practice of law which states that a man should and must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Were it not so, no one who ever made a political statement guaranteed to piss at least one person off would go free. An accusation does not confer guilt. Even less guilt-by-association.

    What is more, unless we credit the man who started and administers wikileaks with frigtheningly low IQ, anyone with the capacity to knock two brain cells of their own together should by rights ask themselves why a man who knows he is followed closely by two or three governments, several private interests, and who literally has media hanging outside his hotel windows 24 hours a day would be dumb enough to land in Sweden and within a few days start looking for rape material. There is ample reason for doubt when it comes to criminal accusations suddenly appearing under those circumstances. As there should be.

    If on the other hand Assange was dumb enough to actually do such a thing (twice!) then Wikileaks will no doubt be better off – as will the Pirate Party – by his absence. Which will in time strengthen both organizations.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 21 augusti 2010 @ 12:01

  71. @ Thomas

    ” @ 56
    Du missar hela frågeställningen. Det handlar överhuvudtaget inte om Wikileak!
    Det handlar att PP, genom att tillhandahålla teknik, bidrar till att publicera privat information på ett sätt som kränker den personliga integriteten.”

    Med din logik så måste Telia kränka väldigt många personer…

    ” @ DanielS
    Is that the ususal respect for the integrity that pirates are showing participants in open discussion forums? Checking the IP adresses?”

    If you are going to ban someone from your own blog you better make sure you check which IP-addresses this person have used. In fact, to ban a person you must check the IP-addresses. Are you for real?

    “Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.”

    Read above.

    ” And by the way, since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates (at least according to the latest polls) its hardly surprising that there are several individuals who are discussing against the pirate party.
    It would have been more surprising if it had only been ”nejtillpirater”….”

    Stop the lie factory. The polls don’t show what people don’t want to vote on. Your credibility has now got higher density then water. How would it be to at least try and debate in an honest way?

    Kommentar av kras — 21 augusti 2010 @ 13:21

  72. Oh – a bit touchy today? Are we?

    Slander, you say.
    Facts, I would claim.
    Or is it not correct that Dick Wase just bailed out from the Pirates? And that the reason was that his ”very liberal” view on children and sex was a bit too liberal, even for the pirates?
    And is it not a fact that another of your candidates to the parliament, Carl Johan Rehbinder also has a very liberal attitude towards children and sex?
    Is it not also the case that one of your members, running for a local goverment in Western Sweden was convicted last week for child abuse?

    Does this in any way imply that every Pirate is a child abuser. Of course not!
    And I have not claimed that in any way! I have not even claimed that there would be more common with child abusers in the Pirate Party, than anywhere else. That would be a very stupid and a very ignorant accusation!

    However, given the facts that there are at least three individuals, that have been appointed for places in the government, that all share a very liberal view on having sex with children, I would say that it puts the Pirate Party’s fight for less restrictions on child pornography in another context.

    The fact that Julian Assange is accused for rape – is also no more than a fact. And neither I, nor Nejtillpirater, has in any way claimed that he is guilty or even discussed any potential consequences for the Pirate party or Wikileaks.

    I can understand that you are touchy today, its been a tough day for you pirates. Lots of bad news….
    But please dont make any accusations, where there aren’t any to make.
    OK?

    @ Kras – No 74
    Perhaps you could try to use some logic.
    When I decide to vote for a party, I also make a decision to not vote for other parties. OK? The logic behind that is fairly simple….

    Kommentar av Thomas — 21 augusti 2010 @ 14:38

  73. @Thomas #75:

    ”And neither I, nor Nejtillpirater, has in any way claimed that he is guilty or even discussed any potential consequences for the Pirate party or Wikileaks.”

    The wordings in the posts of both of you obviously disagree.

    ”I can understand that you are touchy today, its been a tough day for you pirates. Lots of bad news….”

    So a ”tough day” with ”lots of bad news” is not even a potential consequence? Your logic is flawed. If there weren’t any potential consequences for PP, then why would these news be ”bad news” and lead to a ”tough day”? Of *course* it’s problematic, and of *course* you know that, and of *course* it’s part of why you’re posting about it. You could at least be honest about it, since it’s so utterly transparent.

    Oh, well. We’ll just have to see how this plays out, won’t we? The timing of it all, and some (most?) of the circumstances are quite peculiar.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 15:24

  74. @ 76

    Can you in any way claim that these two news has been good news for the Pirates??

    Kommentar av Thomas — 21 augusti 2010 @ 15:28

  75. Thomas

    You missed the other news, the one about the PP guy now convicted of childrape.

    http://frianyheter.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/29-arig-piratpartist-domd-for-valdtakt-mot-barn/

    Kommentar av Sten — 21 augusti 2010 @ 16:13

  76. @ Thomas

    “@ Kras – No 74
    Perhaps you could try to use some logic. When I decide to vote for a party, I also make a decision to not vote for other parties. OK? The logic behind that is fairly simple….”

    You missed the point. When you vote you make an active decision to vote for the party that best suits your views. The same applies when you answer the polls about which party you want to vote for. You don’t vote on or choose the party that you don’t want elected or that you don’t sympathize with, or like DanielS put it, “(…)since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates(…)”. The active decision lies in prioritizing and choosing one party over the rest, not to vote for the exclusion of a specific party. The exclusion of other parties is an indirect effect of the choice and can’t justify reversing the meaning of polls in order to create a misleading statement to support ones arguments. Surely this can be debated, but the main point is that the way DanielS tries to use the polls don’t add weight to his arguments. It’s misleading at the best.

    Kommentar av kras — 21 augusti 2010 @ 16:30

  77. @Thomas #77:

    ”Can you in any way claim that these two news has been good news for the Pirates??”

    No, of course not. That was part of my point. You apparently missed it.

    Another interesting point, of course, is the fact that the chief prosecutor Eva Finné has decided (and overruled her subordinate) that Julian Assange is, in fact, *not* a suspect.

    (See e.g: http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2105554/anhallan-mot-assange-havd for details.)

    What are your comments regarding this?

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 17:59

  78. The comments regarding that is

    ”De konspirationsteorier som översvämmar nätet just nu avfärdar kvinnan i 30-årsålden bestämt.
    – Anklagelserna mot Assange är förstås inte iscensatta av varken Pentagon eller någon annan. Ansvaret för det som hänt mig och den andra tjejen ligger hos en man med skev kvinnosyn och problem att ta ett nej.”

    Kommentar av Sten — 21 augusti 2010 @ 20:23

  79. @Sten #81:

    Expected, coming from you.

    Anyone else have anything actually worthwhile to contribute? As in not from either of the involved parties? As in from someone who is actually looking into what’s going on?

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 21 augusti 2010 @ 21:54

  80. @ nejtillnejtillpirater

    Great :-) It seems that we are getting somewhere now!
    Since you apperantly agree that the news yesterday was not in the interest of the Pirates (before the latest news from Eva Finne), we should agree on that my statement was accurate? About a tough day for the pirates?

    Glad that we sorted that out :-)

    Perhaps we can get back to the original issue, with the same laser sharp and focused reasoning?

    When Wikileak is publishing their 90000 documents, they are also disclosing private information about a large number of individuals. These individuals are both military personell from all over the world, on a UN mission. And also Afghan individuals, that may or may not be working together with the legal government in Afghanistan.

    To disclose this private information is a major breach to the integrity of these individuals! And a major blow on their right to be anonymous.

    The decision to publish this information on the net, is done by Wikileaks. Without any transparency or any reasoning. Without an political or legal responsibility.

    The purpose of the cooperation between PP and Wikileak is to enable Wikileak to publish this kind of information. And to provide Wikileak with the political support from a Swedish political party, thus using the support of the Swedish government.

    By enabling Wikileaks publishing of private information about a large number of individuals, the Pirate Party is participating in breaching the right of their integrity.
    A direct contradicition to what PP claims to be the core values in theit politics and also the core values of a democracy.

    So this is not about Wikileaks, its not about the war in Afghanistan and its not about the social skills of Julian Assange. Its only about the fact that the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals!
    In direct contradiction to their core values!

    Kommentar av Thomas — 22 augusti 2010 @ 8:00

  81. In an interview by Aftobladet, Assange says:

    ”Men är det inte lika bra att du i den här situationen är så öppen som möjligt?
    – Jo, men jag vill inte dra människors privatliv i smutsen utan att först ha hela situationen klar för mig. Varför vänder de sig till polisen? Vad ligger bakom?
    – Det jag kan säga är att jag aldrig, vare sig i Sverige eller i något annat land, haft sex med någon på ett sätt som inte byggt på total frivillighet från båda sidor.”

    http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7654862.ab

    Google Translate:

    ”But it is not as good to you in this situation is as transparent as possible?
    – Yes, but I do not want to drag people’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation is clear for me. Why do they turn to the police? What lies behind?
    – What I can say is that I never, either in Sweden or in any other country, had sex with someone in a way that is not built on total voluntary from both sides.”

    Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 22 augusti 2010 @ 10:48

  82. @Thomas #83:

    You’re repeating yourself. Let me help you move forward.

    First:

    ”Great :-) It seems that we are getting somewhere now!”

    We are (well, you, really) are actually not getting anywhere. Yet.

    ”Since you apperantly agree that the news yesterday was not in the interest of the Pirates (before the latest news from Eva Finne), we should agree on that my statement was accurate? About a tough day for the pirates?”

    Due to the continuous attempts at guilt-by-association by you and others like you (nejtillpirater, primarily) it at least was an *annoying* day for the pirates, yes. (Remember that *I* am not a pirate. I’m just observing the fanatic anti-pirate rhetoric.)

    ”Glad that we sorted that out :-)”

    We didn’t. Well, *you* didn’t.

    ”Perhaps we can get back to the original issue, with the same laser sharp and focused reasoning?”

    Thank you.

    And yes, why don’t we. Thus, I refer you to my comment #71, directed at you, where everything you now pretend to have come up with yourself has been initiated already.

    You apparently never read, or at least didn’t comprehend it, so please try again, and a bit harder this time. And really, try not to make the mistake this time in assuming that I’m categorically against any military operations in Afghanistan. If you think/propose that, then you haven’t yet understood.

    Good luck!

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 22 augusti 2010 @ 10:52

  83. @nejtillpirater

    ”Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.”

    As has been stated by many before, there is a world of difference about reporting criminal activities intentionally covered up in a war, and exposing single people in an ordinary society outside of a war.

    According to the same categorization of ”It’s ok to place cameras in a subway, but not to monitor people all the time without a good and valid reason”.
    There are nuances here, and once again all you really care about is to marginalize any person or organization approved of by the Pirate Party and nothing else.

    I recall with perfect clarity your supreme disinterest in Wikileaks publications up until the very moment when the pirate party voiced approval – at which time you became a sworn adversary of the entire wikileaks phenomenon. As you have done in the past a number of times.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 22 augusti 2010 @ 18:16

  84. @ 85

    Apperantly I have failed to make my point clear and simple enough. Please let me try again.

    Once again, this has nothing to do with Wikileaks mission or the war in Afghanistan!

    The problem is that the information that Wikileak is publishing, regardless of the democratic value, is full of personal and private information on a large number of individuals. Not only war criminals as SDM is claiming, but ordinary people. Like you, me and the rest of us. Not charged with any crimes, not even suspected.
    Individuals that may or may not have cooperated with the legal government.
    When Wikileak is publishing this information, it is a part of an overall crusade for democracy. So the collateral damage to breach these individuals right to be anonymous on the net, is an ok price to pay. A fair argument for Wikileak.

    But when the Pirates now are enabling the publishing of this information its in a different context. One of the core values of the Pirate party is to protect the private integrity and the right to be anonymous on the net.
    The first sentence in the presentation states:
    ”The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.”

    So the ”citizens right to privacy” is a key value for the pirates. One of the fundamental drivers for the party.
    And still, by enabling the publishing of information from Wikileak, the party is breaching the right for ”citizens right to privacy”.
    That is the fundamental problem for the Pirate Party! You have eroded the core value of the party! Eroded the fundamental right for the Pirate Party itself.

    Was this clear enough?

    Kommentar av Thomas — 22 augusti 2010 @ 18:58

  85. @Thomas #87:

    Three words for you to remember: Black. White. Context.

    But let’s start easy with:

    ”The problem is that the information that Wikileak is publishing, regardless of the democratic value, is full of personal and private information on a large number of individuals.”

    Personal and private information on a large number of individuals, you say. Name at least one such individual, and cite sources where a large number is referenced and can be verified. It would be nice to have that information at hand, going forward.

    Then, to the core of your argument:

    You apparently want to focus strictly on some personal information being made public, while at the same time completely ignoring the context in which this is taking place.

    And that’s where you go wrong.

    Since this happens early in your argument – it even forms the entire basis for it – the rest of your tirade is derailed from the start. You can’t base your conclusion upon a faulty premise and make it sound. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    Continuing with: Nobody is denying that the publication might become a problem for those individuals who are explicitly named and identifiable. Exactly who they are, how many they are, and in what position they might currently be, is of course relevant when assessing the seriousness for them, on a person-by-person basis.

    Do you have any such information? At all?

    Then, to the three words:

    The world is not black and white, and neither is this discussion. Things, decisions, actions and considerations must always be considered in light of the context(s) in which they take place.

    There are things that are more right than they are wrong, rather than completely right or wrong, and the opposite. There are things, that when taken solely on their own, appear to be completely wrong, but when viewed in their actual context, are not at all as clear-cut any longer.

    The publication of the Afghan War Diary is an excellent example of this.

    Yes, the publication can potentially cause problems for individuals. Yes, the non-publication can also potentially cause problems for individuals. How do you make the choice? How do you take responsibility for the choice, regardless of which it is?

    The personal information in the Afghan War Diary does not constitute wide-spread eavesdropping on the whole populace in a functioning democratic country, as you should be well aware. The country is at war. The personal information covers a select number of individuals, the exact count I dare you, or anyone, to produce a reliable figure for. I sure as hell haven’t seen one yet. Have you? Anyone? Where?

    The situations, circumstances and context are vastly different, and those differences by definition affects what constitutes acceptable publication and what does not.

    To summarize:

    – There is a huge difference between wide-spread surveillance and eavesdropping on regular people in a regular country, going about their regular lives, and the reporting of information that war-waging countries are withholding from their own citizens, even *if* that information happens to include personal information about a limited number of people.

    – You cannot, while remaining intellectually honest, ignore the context in which events are taking place.

    – Most decisions in the world are not completely black or white. Sometimes you have to make a decision you might not like, simply because the alternative is just so much worse. Pretending otherwise is, again, intellectually dishonest.

    And, to finish off an already too long post:

    ”Was this clear enough?”

    I have understood your point from the first time you made it. The problem we have is that *you* apparently haven’t understood *my* point yet. Until you do, we will probably not make very little progress in this discussion.

    Oh, and cut out the nonsense with disregarding the context, will you…

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 22 augusti 2010 @ 20:02

  86. @ 88

    I think I can see where you are struggling…..
    First, according to several independent, local humanitarian organisations there is indeed a large number of individuals that has had personal and private information disclosed. And would you not agree that it is reasonable to believe that there is this kind of information in the massive amount of documents? After all, Wikileak claims to have a total of 1.2 million documents….
    And even Wikileak admits this risk, in an interview Daniel Schmitt from Wikileak says its an obvious risk. He continues:
    ”Every piece of information you publish has the possibility that someone might be harmed. I’m not saying this is an easy thing or that we don’t care about this. I don’t want to give the wrong impression there, but on the other hand, that is something we have to be honest about.”

    http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100730-28855.html

    Wikileak is aware of this obvious risk, perhaps you should aknowledge the risk as well?

    Black, white or grey?
    For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”. But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.
    The right to privacy is their first portal paragraph, its the foundation for their politics. PP wants to fight crime, which is what Wikileak is doing, with respect for private integrity and in a way that does not violate the privacy of innocent people. Its a very strong statement about the protection of the individuals.
    At the end their portal page about integrity the write: (my translation)
    ”When a politician or others, tries to remove the right for you to be anonymous, you know whats going on” And this is just what this is about – removing the right to be anonymous. This right is currently being removed by the Pirate politician.

    For the Pirates, there are no shades of grey! ”citizens right to privacy” is more important than anything else! You can read it all over their website in different contexts. ”citizens right to privacy” is about respect for the constitution and democracy. No shades of grey!

    Kommentar av Thomas — 22 augusti 2010 @ 21:29

  87. @Thomas #89:

    ”I think I can see where you are struggling…..”?

    Struggling? Please. That kind of rhetoric doesn’t work on me. :-)

    ”And would you not agree that it is reasonable to believe that there is this kind of information in the massive amount of documents?”

    Belief and fact are different things. In matters as complicated as these, it’s (much) better to have at least *some* facts to base a constructive discussion upon, wouldn’t *you* agree?

    ”And even Wikileak admits this risk, in an interview Daniel Schmitt from Wikileak says its an obvious risk.”

    Where have I (or anyone, really) *ever* denied that there is a risk? Exactly. Nowhere, as far as I’ve seen. Discussed various *degrees* of risk, definitely, but denied its existence? No.

    ”For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”.”

    Very true.

    (It’s ”Wikileaks”, or even ”WikiLeaks”, with an ‘s’. I know it’s a small detail, but details like that bug me, when discussing serious things such as this. Don’t take it the wrong way, please.)

    ”But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.”

    This is where I think the core of the issue is, for you.

    You see, I believe that you are *wrong* in your assumption/interpretation of what the Pirate Party actually stands for. May I suggest that you ask this very specific question to the Pirate Party themselves, instead of assuming what I personally think is not actually the case?

    The final paragraph hinges solely on this assumption of yours being true, so I won’t comment on it any further, except for reiterating that I think you might just be wrong on this one, and that the view of the Pirate Party regarding these issues is, in fact, more nuanced than you currently think.

    You should never presume that your fellow man is evil.

    Give them the benefit of doubt, ask the question, listen to (or read) the answer, and ponder it. You might be pleasantly surprised. We’ll see, I guess.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 22 augusti 2010 @ 22:16

  88. @ 90

    Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.

    ”May I suggest that you ask this very specific question to the Pirate Party themselves, instead of assuming what I personally think is not actually the case?”
    Well – it was kind of the reason that I posted the question at this blog.
    I was expecting/hoping to get an answer from Mr Engström, the blogowner.
    Same thing, I posted the same question at the Pirate Party’s blog.
    Without any specific or clear answers….

    Kommentar av Thomas — 23 augusti 2010 @ 8:23

  89. [...] Swedish Pirate Party to Host New WikiLeaks Servers « Christian … [...]

    Pingback av Pintura da artista Elizabeth Evans Grátis | Tudo de Borla.net — 23 augusti 2010 @ 10:20

  90. @Thomas #91:

    ”Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.”

    As far as I know, exactly zero people have so far been reported as having encountered any actual problems due to the publication of the Afghan War Diary. Where can I find information outlining that it ”has proven to be lethal”? If I’ve missed it, I’d sure like to know about it, as well as update my list of sources. Any verifiable pointers?

    I think you stand a (much) better chance of getting a proper response if you send your question(s) directly (preferably via email) to a select few individuals, rather than posting it/them in the comment sections. As you are no doubt well aware, those tend to be trolled and flamed to pieces…

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 23 augusti 2010 @ 12:05

  91. @ 92

    Sure, if I sent a mail I would perhaps receive a reply.
    On the other hand, now we can all share the discussions and all share the information. Unfortunately we cannot share any replies, since there has not been any…

    About facts.
    As I said once or twice, a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that the publicity is a lethal threat to a large number of individuals and their families. This is enough for me, I have no reason to have any doubts of the knowledge and integrity of these groups. Perhaps you have better sources, claiming the opposite or better local knowledge?
    But for me, I trust these organsations!

    Kommentar av Thomas — 23 augusti 2010 @ 18:34

  92. @Thomas #93:

    Well, if you *want* a thoughtful response, I’d still suggest that you send the question directly. You could always share the response wherever you wish, after you’ve received it. Your call, obviously. :-)

    Yeah, about facts. I know what you’re referring to, and I understand where you stand. Those references are a bit too much of second/third-hand opinion to *me*, rather than verifiable facts. I am a sucker for hard facts that I can verify myself, directly or indirectly, and *especially* so in such hotly debated issues as these. I am sure you can respect that, just as I can respect your position, which I do.

    The only real hard fact I can rely on at this time, is the fact that no *actual* incidents have been reported so far, involving any people allegedly named in the documents. To my knowledge. Counter examples are welcome, obviously.

    As a matter of fact, I haven’t seen any reliable source so far having even confirmed that there *are* any people named in the documents, who are not already deceased, out of the area, or otherwise not potential targets for retributions.

    As you probably know by now, I am really quite easily convinced. The ”only” condition is that I am presented with facts that I can verify as true. I get seriously annoyed with people presenting opinion as fact. Very different things, indeed. :-) (I am primarily thinking of certain other people, as examples of this behavior.) Presenting opinion as just that, is of course no problem.

    If you find any good sources, feel free to toss them this way!

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 23 augusti 2010 @ 20:27

  93. @ 94

    The constant quest for facts can sometimes cloud the sight of the truth. Facts can be so illusive.
    Like Quijote, always probing deeper and deeper – and still not finding the truth.
    Perhaps more philosophical than I wanted. And perhaps a deep discussion of ”facts” is outside the scope of this discussion?

    Wall Street Journal is supposed to be trustworthy. Perhaps this link can be of interest. Especially two quotes:
    ”We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces”
    ”Taliban representatives have said publicly that they are searching the documents and plan to punish people who have helped U.S. forces.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?KEYWORDS=wikileaks+amnesty#articleTabs%3Darticle

    Is this a ”fact” meaning that we have dead body and a Taliban claiming the kill, confessing that the information was solely from a Wikileaks leak? Nope… and if that is the level of ”fact” you need, sorry?

    Kommentar av Thomas — 23 augusti 2010 @ 21:18

  94. I agree that a deeper discussion regarding the more esoteric aspects of ”fact” and ”truth” is probably just a tad too off-topic. :-)

    I’ve seen the article before, and while interesting, and certainly terrifying on its own, it doesn’t contain much of actual facts, no. That doesn’t mean I’m disregarding it. Far from it.

    I’ll keep my eyes open for more sources. More sources are good to have.

    Kommentar av nejtillnejtillpirater — 23 augusti 2010 @ 21:54

  95. @ Thomas

    ” To disclose this private information is a major breach to the integrity of these individuals! And a major blow on their right to be anonymous.”

    Do you believe in a total and unbreachable integrity?

    “By enabling Wikileaks publishing of private information about a large number of individuals, the Pirate Party is participating in breaching the right of their integrity.
    A direct contradicition to what PP claims to be the core values in theit politics and also the core values of a democracy.”

    The fact that we still allow and protect whistleblowers in our societies is because of the tremendous value they bring to democracies. PP is on contrary to what you try to depict very open with the support of whistleblowers and have never stated or believed there would be any sort of total or unbreachable integrity for everyone.

    “So this is not about Wikileaks, its not about the war in Afghanistan and its not about the social skills of Julian Assange. Its only about the fact that the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals!
    In direct contradiction to their core values!”

    It’s not about Wikileaks? How could that be when your problem seems to be PP supporting this organization? And stop using phrases like “the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals” If you want to make a point be specific and please use terms that reflects it. But perhaps that was the loosest and most emotion filled term you could find? Anyway. The Pirate Party is now “breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals” just like Telia?

    @ nejtillpirater

    “Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.”

    Are you always scanning through any news article you can get your hands on in order to try and find the slightest thing that can be reversed and remarked on in order to fabricate some strange kind of mixture between emotion-based and subjective arguments that won’t hold for scrutiny? But you are more than welcome to explain why these two completely different, in just about every aspect, events can or should be treated as equals?

    Kommentar av kras — 24 augusti 2010 @ 4:46

  96. @ Thomas

    “But when the Pirates now are enabling the publishing of this information its in a different context. One of the core values of the Pirate party is to protect the private integrity and the right to be anonymous on the net.
    The first sentence in the presentation states:
    ”The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.””

    The citizens’ right to privacy includes protection from the state for an example. But it doesn’t automatically cover everything. When whistleblowers leaks information that reveals the truth about something important it can be more than justified that some persons’ integrity is breached. You stated yourself that it “is an ok price to pay” regarding Wikileaks breach of the integrity. But when PP shows their support for the democracy-aiding organization there is suddenly something wrong.

    “So the ”citizens right to privacy” is a key value for the pirates. One of the fundamental drivers for the party. And still, by enabling the publishing of information from Wikileak, the party is breaching the right for ”citizens right to privacy”.
    That is the fundamental problem for the Pirate Party! You have eroded the core value of the party! Eroded the fundamental right for the Pirate Party itself.”

    No they are not. Citizens don’t have any rights to a total and unbreachable privacy in all ways. It doesn’t help your cause by taking a loosely formulated phrase, putting your own definition on it, and with that try and declare the party’s fundamental right to exist as eroded.

    “Was this clear enough?”

    It’s clear what you are trying to do, but not why you think it would work.

    Kommentar av kras — 24 augusti 2010 @ 4:47

  97. @ Thomas

    “Wikileak is aware of this obvious risk, perhaps you should aknowledge the risk as well?”

    He just did in the very comment that you responded to. Do I have to quote it for you or should I let you read through his post again? I lean to the latter.

    “For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”. But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.
    The right to privacy is their first portal paragraph, its the foundation for their politics. PP wants to fight crime, which is what Wikileak is doing, with respect for private integrity and in a way that does not violate the privacy of innocent people. Its a very strong statement about the protection of the individuals.”

    Only black or white? Have you ever seen the party wrote or in any other way stated that they believe in a total and unquestionable right to privacy? If you answer yes and can back it up with something concrete then you might have a case for your statement. If not then you will sooner or later have to admit that even The Pirate Party’s world is not black and white. If you want to know what the party wants to accomplish you have to read more in to it than one loosely formulated phrase.

    “At the end their portal page about integrity the write: (my translation)
    ”When a politician or others, tries to remove the right for you to be anonymous, you know whats going on” And this is just what this is about – removing the right to be anonymous. This right is currently being removed by the Pirate politician.”

    Then you will have to give the text in Swedish too, since I can’t find that on the page that you stated. And that by reading on all places where the words politician and anonymous shows up.

    “For the Pirates, there are no shades of grey! ”citizens right to privacy” is more important than anything else! You can read it all over their website in different contexts. ”citizens right to privacy” is about respect for the constitution and democracy. No shades of grey!”

    In different contexts? Didn’t you say that it was just black or white? Suddenly there are contexts and colors… Oh my.

    “Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.”

    They raised their concerns about the private information while still giving Wikileaks as an organization their support. These organizations, people on this blog, and The Pirate Party is all aware of that this information has the potential to be harmful in some cases. But it’s enough for you that some humanitarian organizations have the same concerns like so many others?

    Kommentar av kras — 24 augusti 2010 @ 4:47

  98. Also send free sms via http://www.atsms4u.com

    Kommentar av New Projects Mumbai — 30 augusti 2010 @ 14:59

  99. [...] bloggare som jag anser assoccierar Piratpartiet med bra saker: Christian Engström, Magnihasa, Full Mental Straightjacket, Anders S Lindbäck, Fredrik Holmbom, Fredriks blogg, [...]

    Pingback av Good News = Anna Troberg, Piratpartiet + Wikileaks = Love | Direkta Reflektioner — 29 oktober 2010 @ 2:24

  100. [...] in Sweden, and to make things even more complex, Wikileaks are possibly even hosted under the protection of a political party with representation in the European [...]

    Pingback av j|turn » Next Up: The “War on Journalism”? — 18 november 2010 @ 12:33

  101. [...] Sekretärin der Schwedischen Christdemokraten und war tatsächlich auch, zumindest bis zum 17. August 2010, Julian Assanges offizielle Presse- Sekretärin, in Schweden. Die Schwedische Piratenpartei hat sie ihm zugeteilt. Das macht sie natürlich nicht per se [...]

    Pingback av WIKILEAKS VS WIKILEAKILEAKS « THE INFORMATION SPACE — 5 december 2010 @ 20:46

  102. [...] om detta: Rick Falkvinge, Anna Troberg, Christian Engström, Caspian Rehbinder, Carl Johan Rehbinder, DN, Humblebee, Henry Rouhivuori, Radikalen, Ulf Vargek, [...]

    Pingback av Piratpartiet hostar WikiLeaks! » gothbarbie's blog — 4 juni 2011 @ 12:00

  103. [...] Piratpartisten Christian Engströms personliga hemsida finns lite information om detta möte. Där kan man också utläsa att Anna Ardin är Julian [...]

    Pingback av Fallet Assange: Informations-Jesus på korset eller bara korsade fingrar? | Samtycke Nu — 13 mars 2012 @ 21:57

  104. [...] Pirate Party representative to the European Parliament, Christian Engström, has on his blog commented on this meeting. It is clearly evident that Anna Ardin is Julian Assange’s personal press [...]

    Pingback av The Assange case: Information Jesus on the cross or just fingers crossed | Samtycke.nu in English — 13 mars 2012 @ 22:01


RSS-flöde för kommentarer till det här inlägget.

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Följ

Få meddelanden om nya inlägg via e-post.

Gör sällskap med 1 971 andra följare

%d bloggare gillar detta: