Bloggers Versus Billionaire

Roger Whittaker writes "An interesting case in England is pitting the combined power of multiple bloggers against an Uzbek billionaire. The bloggers are supporting the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has written a book about what happened there after the fall of Communism. The book is apparently unflattering in the extreme to oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who has engaged the law firm Schillings (which seems to specialize in getting unfavorable Web content removed for rich clients). Their threats have led to the removal of Murray's blog site by his hosting company Fasthosts. But a large number of bloggers have taken up Murray's cause, and the content that caused the original complaint, and links to it, have now sprung up in a very large number of places. The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."

Assholes Uzbekistan

Looks like Borat was right about Uzbekistan

Re:Assholes Uzbekistan

Looks like Borat was right about Uzbekistan

They produce inferior potassium?

Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfires

If this jerk had simply kept his trap shut and his legal team leashed, I would never have heard of him. But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.

Re:Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfi

It's called the Streisand effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org] Bet he's got a smaller nose though :-)

Re:Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfi

What if in some other case the information were completely false? If somebody posted your name and said that you were involved in perpetrating the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? And they made sure that the information was spread far enough over the Internet that a Google search on your name would bring it up?

Would you still be an "aggressive prick" (your words) for trying to correct the record? It's undoubtedly slander to knowingly falsely accuse somebody of that sort of heinous crime. But it's the sort of thing that a flat "I didn't do it" wouldn't work on. Most people aren't going to read far enough to find your denial, and even if they did why would they believe it?

That's the hard case. Think it over.

But by being an aggressive prick -- he gets worldwide exposure and confirmation that he is an aggressive prick.

Re:Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfi

That's what a defamation suit is for, but if you look around, they specifically aren't claiming defamation -- they're just dealing out take down notices under the draconian anti-speech rules in Britain. Secondly, given the author's position, he is quite likely a highly knowledgeable source. Last, even if totally false, he has by his own aggressive actions made the problem worse, which was my point.

"tortuous"

this litigious and tortuous behavior

I am in a 12-step recovery program for /. Grammar Nazis, so I will just ask: do you mean "tortious", not "tortuous"?

The internet is booby-trapped

It looks harmless enough, but if you try to take information away from it, it explodes in your face.

Re:The internet is booby-trapped

"It looks harmless enough, but if you try to take information away from it, it explodes in your face."

It's a shame you posted this as Anonymous Coward. You deserve the good karma. However, I would rate your post as Insightful, not Funny. Time and time again we see idiots trying to force removal of information/data from the net and shooting themselves in the foot. There might be a profit type scheme buried there...

1) Buy stock.
2) Post information (maybe stock tip or supposed insider information).
3) Declare information as escaped/illegitimate.
4) Promise to sue (and maybe file a couple) everyone repeating said information.
5) Profit!!!

Or, maybe not, as I posted earlier, I'm not an oligarch. :)

The Money Quote

We asked Murray if he intends to stay on Usmanov's back. He replied: "There is room on Usmanov's back for an awful lot of people. You could get even more on his stomach, and possibly lose some under the overlap of his chins."

We think that's a "yes".

I'm thinking...

UK ambassador to asshole Uzbekistan? Wo wi wow wow [wikipedia.org]. I think someone has already done a comprehensive documentary on the subject [youtube.com]

Boiling dissidents alive

Is this perhaps the same guy who's famous for boiling people alive: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm [informatio...house.info]

Re:Boiling dissidents alive

No, but he is one of his best friends. As the proverb says "Tell me who are your friends and I will tell you who you are". That's valid about Bush as well by the way.

Censorship as Damage

"Routing around" censorship doesn't even do justice to the reality any more.

Attempting to suppress a piece of information nowadays practically guarantees that it will be more widely disseminated than ever before, and with enough redundant links to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII.

gotta love that dry British humor

From TFA:

We asked Murray if he intends to stay on Usmanov's back. He replied: "There is room on Usmanov's back for an awful lot of people. You could get even more on his stomach, and possibly lose some under the overlap of his chins."

We think that's a "yes".

Ooh! Ooh! Fight! Fight!

This will without a doubt be entertaining and possibly educational. There are plenty of people with power/money who would like to censor others' public opinions of them. It is easier in some countries (China) than others (EU, US?, etc.). There may certainly be lessons to learn for both sides. I know who I'm rooting for but of course I'm not an oligarch.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! Fight! Fight!

"England has no freedom of speech as it is understood in the USA.
It is very easy in England to go after someone for slander/libel/defamation and win."

I'm here in the USA so I know our legal system a little better as far as slander and libel laws than that of the UK. However, I do have a very good friend from London who is well educated and we talk a lot about the differences between the UK and the USA. Libel and slander laws have been the topic more than once. It's my understanding that you can pretty much say whatever you want about anything in the UK as long as you cite fact that YOU can prove in court. The burden is on you. As long as you can convince a UK court that what you said/wrote is true, you're okay. In the USA it tends to presume that I can state my opinion freely until the party criticized can prove ME wrong. So, here in the USA, prove me wrong. In the UK, I have to prove I'm right. I might be generalizing a little too freely but then again...IANAL and IANAS (solicitor). :)

I'm an American, so forgive my ignorance...

but isn't a Billionaire in Britian someone with 1e12 (a million millions) pounds. That is, over 2 trillion US dollars?

Arsenal FC

Of course all this is all because Usmanov has recently bought up a load of shares and his vast, blubbery shadow is being cast over North London as he circles Arsenal Football Club - even the club chairman has today spoken out today over concerns about how he amassed his fortune. Usmanov has said publicly that he intends to gain a "blocking stake" in the club. Football fans can be ALMOST as devout as Apple fanboys ;)

If Alisher Usmanov is like Paris Hilton at all

He'll soon rebound from this scandal with a book deal, music contract, perfume and fashion line, and will drive around with Britney while getting "accidentally" photographed without his panties.

Sir, I challenge you

Sir, Mr Usmanov, I challenge you on a duel. Counterstrike 1.6. You may choose your mouse.

And if you win, please visit DreamHack Winter 07 as can't use my ticket then (http://web.dreamhack.se/index.php?page=what_is_dreamhack)

Potential for abuse

While I agree that this guy does seem like an arse, I have a thought experiment: What if someone were to make up a story like "I found out that John Howard was taking bribes from George Bush to influence Australian lawmaking -- but when I blogged about it, the AFP had my webhost pull my blog!"? They could manipulate this phenomenon to spread misinformation and people would end up believing it.

It's not the Internet network itself...

...but the people who are on it. But still, I applaud them for standing up to the bully that he is.

Background?

The article barely mentions it, and the summary not at all, but the background to this is the battle over the ownership of Arsenal, one of the big four English football (soccer) clubs. The Arsenal fans (and apparently Craig Murray) are generally opposed to Usmanov's takeover of the club and some of them have blogs, hence the attacks on him and the unleashing of lawyers in response.

Some more details here: ahref=http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/rel=url2html-32009 [slashdot.org]http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/>

Otherwise why would a bunch of British bloggers care about the business practices of an Uzbekistani businessman, and why would he care what they think.

Re:Background?

Murray was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. After having the regular low-key meetings with dissidents, there were several incidents where they and their relatives faced problems up to and including being tortured to death. MI6 sanctioned this because they thought that the information coming from torture may be useful. Murray disagreed with treatment of his visitors by the Uzbek government and also by the implicit support of the FCO on the basis of information received. Craig Murray was well thought of by my friends there - courageous and principled, which is why he lost his job. Murray has a bit of a bone to pick with some of the Uzbek mafia (who are the government) hence his comments about Usmanov.

What does this suggest

You know a frequently exploited theme in science fiction, which actually comes fromt he real world: all together we're worth more than just the sum of us.

Just like none of the nerve cells in our brain knows exactly what effect it has on the big picture, they all together create complicated intelligence machine.

Then I read this:

"The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."

I know it's not the context they used it in, but ponder this: Internet has enabled million of people worldwide to communicate instantly.

In this case people came together to show some rich loser he can't mess with their blogger buddy. The result is an information network that quickly provides redundant copies of information under attack and makes the information virtually impossible to erase ever.

The resulting intelligence, behavior and outcome probably escapes the mind of each one of the participators that form it.

Does the Internet have a mind on its own already?

Dyslectic?

Am I the only one who first misread "Fasthosts" as "Fashosts" (Please note the closeness to "Fashists").

Is Usmanov Clean?

In Uzbekistan during communist times, a leader emerged, Sharaf Rashidov, who defrauded the Soviet system by falsifying the production statistics that were used to calculate payments. Communisms central planning would move products directly from producer to user but pay from a central fund so it was ripe for fraud by falsification of statistics. Eventually, the Soviet government found out and many of the government were imprisoned or dismissed. [wikipedia.org]

When communism died, so did all semblance of control over the government there who reverted to a kleptocracy. The power to export (Uzbekistan is a major cotton producer) or to convert currency was given to a select few. When the blackmarket rate was something like four times the official currency rate you can imagine what happened - yes, a massive black-market in currency. Privatisation became a rip-off. Although shares were passed out to all, those in remote places became vulnerable to raiders who swept them up in return for nothing.

Given the nature of the controls on the Uzbek economy, I cannot understand how Usmanov made his money legally. He cannot be permitted to become the beneficial owner of a western company as the anti-money laundering rules would force the company to become increased-risk or worse which would cause problems for western banks to do business with him. Lawyers are now also constrained by anti-money laundering rules, so they too could have problems working with him.

The Eastern Connection

What is it with the UK and people with a lot of money from behind the former Iron Curtain ? Is it that there's a lot of British outreach in there, or is it that they all flock to Britland for the football or something ?

Re:The Eastern Connection

A very favourable tax regime for those with non-domiciled status. They pay tax only on assets brought in to the country and keep the rest in off-shore tax havens.

Schillings sounds familiar to me 2

That firm threatened me/my site also. Bastards.

Collateral damage

The kow-towing hosting provider in this case is Fasthosts [fasthosts.co.uk] of Gloucester, no doubt some customers will be reconsidering their patronage, especially in the absence of any explanation. I certainly will be.

As a side effect of removing Craig Murray's site, celeb MP Boris Johnson also disappeared from the web for a time. On reappearing [boris-johnson.com], Boris has very commendably wasted no time in making a statement:

This is London, not Uzbekistan. It is unbelievable that a website can be wiped out on the say-so of some tycoon. We live in a world where internet communication is increasingly vital, and this is a serious erosion of free speech.

Good show! Things are indeed looking less than peachy for Usmanov and his legal hit team. Next up, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz?

A few notes on UK libel law

Under UK libel law, not only is Murray potentially liable, but so is his webhost and anyone else who can be said to publish his book, including the bookshop that sells it.

Also, it's up to Murray to prove that the allegations are probably true (UK law doesn't allow people to make unsubstantiated allegations that may ruin peoples reputation). Once this is proved, the plaintiff will still have to prove damages. The websites that are mirroring the content are actually possibly not helping in this case. Further dissemination is going to cause more damage.

Of course, his publishers are likely to be well aware of libel law and will have made pretty certain that he can back up any allegations he's made. The webhost may be less likely to trust their judgement.

Dissident

Craig Murray was effectively fired from the UK government for blowing the gaff on Uzbekistan because they were the US and UK's friends in the GWOT. He describes himself as a dissident - still at least he hasn't been boiled alive yet.

and route around it."

Route around [the bastards]

One little phrase and all of a sudden I'm struck by a wave of nostalgia for Fidonet :-P

Error trying to block Fasthosts IP addresses

I tracked down Fasthosts IP addresses (213.171.192.0/19) to enter them into my blocking system. But when I tried to enter that, there was an error. It could not add them. It seems they are already in there under the spamming category (hosting a spammer, hosting open relays, or something that lets spam go through, without even responding to issues). It seems to be like that is a mismanaged company that should be avoided. So I just had to tag it with a new category.

I gotta love the editors

The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it.

Still? Like censorship has been embraced by the rest of the world and the backwards hicks on the internet haven't caught up yet.

Allegations repeated in European Parliament

The allegations against Alisher Usmanov have been repeated [wordpress.com] by Tom Wise MEP in the European Parliament, so anyone can quote his words without fear of prosecution. Here's what Wise said:

Allegedly a gangster and racketeer, [Usmanov] served a six year jail sentence in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, his eventual pardon coming at the behest of Usbek mafia chief and heroin overlord Gafur Rachimov, described as Usmanov's mentor. Usmanov bought the newspaper Kommersant; 3 months later the journalist Ivan Safranov, a critic of the Putin regime who just weeks earlier had been vigorously interrogated by the FSB -- as the KGB is now called -- mysteriously fell to his death from his apartment window, still clutching a recently purchased [unclear]. According to Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, it was Usmanov who ordered the cutting-off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year.

No censorship

The day the Internet is forcibly censored will be a VERY VERY VERY sad day for the entire world.

The Blog Text

September 2, 2007

Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist

I thought I should make my views on Alisher Usmanov quite plain to you. You are unlikely to see much plain talking on Usmanov elsewhere in the media becuase he has already used his billions and his lawyers in a pre-emptive strike. They have written to all major UK newspapers, including the latter:

"Mr Usmanov was imprisoned for various offences under the old Soviet regime. We wish to make it clear our client did not commit any of the offences with which he was charged. He was fully pardoned after President Mikhail Gorbachev took office. All references to these matters have now been expunged from police records . . . Mr Usmanov does not have any criminal record."

Let me make it quite clear that Alisher Usmanov is a criminal. He was in no sense a political prisoner, but a gangster and racketeer who rightly did six years in jail. The lawyers cunningly evoke "Gorbachev", a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue.

Usmanov's pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socilist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the "Pardon" because of his alliance with Usmanov's mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov. Far from being on Gorbachev's side, Karimov was one of the Politburo hardliners who had Gorbachev arrested in the attempted coup that was thwarted by Yeltsin standing on the tanks outside the White House.

Usmanov is just a criminal whose gangster connections with one of the World's most corrupt regimes got him out of jail. He then plunged into the "privatisation" process at a time when gangster muscle was used to secure physical control of assets, and the alliance between the Russian Mafia and Russian security services was being formed.

Usmanov has two key alliances. he is very close indeed to President Karimov, and especially to his daughter Gulnara. It was Usmanov who engineered the 2005 diplomatic reversal in which the United States was kicked out of its airbase in Uzbekistan and Gazprom took over the country's natural gas assets. Usmanov, as chairman of Gazprom Investholdings paid a bribe of $88 million to Gulnara Karimova to secure this. This is set out on page 366 of Murder in Samarkand.

Alisher Usmanov had risen to chair of Gazprom Investholdings because of his close personal friendship with Putin, He had accessed Putin through Putin's long time secretary and now chef de cabinet, Piotr Jastrzebski. Usmanov and Jastrzebski were roommates at college. Gazprominvestholdings is the group that handles Gazproms interests outside Russia, Usmanov's role is, in effect, to handle Gazprom's bribery and sleaze on the international arena, and the use of gas supply cuts as a threat to uncooperative satellite states.

Gazprom has also been the tool which Putin has used to attack internal democracy and close down the independent media in Russia. Gazprom has bought out - with the owners having no choice - the only independent national TV station and numerous rgional TV stations, several radio stations and two formerly independent national newspapers. These have been changed into slavish adulation of Putin. Usmanov helped accomplish this through Gazprom. The major financial newspaper, Kommersant, he bought personally. He immediately replaced the editor-in-chief with a pro-Putin hack, and three months later the long-serving campaigning defence correspondent, Ivan Safronov, mysteriously fell to his death from a window.

All this, both on Gazprom and the journalist's death, is set out in great detail here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html [craigmurray.co.uk]

Usmanov is also dogged by the wides

Re:Censorship is Damage

Not sure if any kind of pornography or other forms of free speech should be censored; once you start the process, there's no stopping.

On the other hand, producing or sponsoring sick materials involving children, rape, etc. might very well deserve an execution, or life imprisonment at least...

Re:Censorship is Damage

Tell that to the millions of people who have their private information stolen from financial companies and then placed online including usernames and passwords. After all, removing that would be censorship. I doubt many would call that the same moral level as lying by omission.

Re:Censorship is Damage

But what if it were a complete lie? Like the "Meg White sex tape"? Now we all know that there is no Meg White sex tape, because we're smart savvy Internet people who browse /. on a regular basis.

How do you know there is no "Meg White sex tape"? Because Meg White doesn't have sex? Or she is incapable of using video camera? Or are you Meg White, so you can state with out a doubt that you just haven't made one? If one isn't at large on teh Net, it still doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Re:Censorship is Damage

Like the "Meg White sex tape"? Now we all know that there is no Meg White sex tape...

Oh, thank god! For a moment there I thought you said "Meg Griffin sex tape"... =(

Morality and Sex Tapes

I'd hope that Meg White would try to remove references to her name in association with the sex tape or demand clarifications. But you'd call that "censorship" and call it morally wrong. How can it possibly be morally wrong to remove your name from sex tape that you didn't make?

This really is a knee-jerk response; how can it be morally right? Indeed, morality may not be involved at all. These are both good questions to ask, but there is an obvious essential truth; Meg White is a raging hottie. Nine out of ten guys would bang her, given the opportunity - and we'd all like to think a fair number of left-leaning girls, too. The intertubes have a hard on for her, and she isn't going to be able to deny that by trying to pull any or even all references to a possible sex tape.

Admit it, the whole idea of a sex tape fascinates you. You, and everybody else.

Meg trying to deny that this rumor existed is not only foolhardy, but disingenuous. If there is a sex tape, then you can't morally say there is not. If there is not a sex tape, it says nothing about you that there is a rumor that there is - only muddle headed thinking would suggest so. It only says something about the social zeitgeist. Which, I think we can all agree, really digs Meg White.

"And the message coming from my eyes says, 'Leave it alone.'"