Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Bloggers Versus Billionaire 207

Posted by kdawson from the nailing-jello-to-a-tree dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bloggers Versus Billionaire More

Bloggers Versus Billionaire

Comments Filter:

  • Assholes Uzbekistan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:45PM (#20751831)
    Looks like Borat was right about Uzbekistan
  • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:51PM (#20751877)
      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: (Score:2)

        by h4rm0ny ( 722443 )

        It's backfiring on his host as well. Up until this morning, I had a lot of respect for Fasthosts which has always given me a good service. Now that respect has gone right down the pan if they're willing to help shut up people who criticise despots.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        It's called the Streisand effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org] Bet he's got a smaller nose though :-)

        It's rather older than that Frankie Goes to Hollywoods "Relax" and "Spycatcher" predate this by 2 decades. An older term is the "Banned in Boston effect"...
    • This is known colloquially as the "Streisand Effect".
    • This is the kind of thing perpetrate by evil nitwits Uzbekistan, who as everybody know, is very nosey people with a bone in middle of their brain.

    • Re:Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davetd02 ( 212006 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:55AM (#20752377)
      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.

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ajehals ( 947354 )
          HA, I hadn't noticed that, I assumed that they were claiming defamation, since the UK laws regarding defamation appear to be fairly rigid, not to mention that you are unlikely to get any legal assistance if you are sued for it and the penalties are huge. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UK is the court of choice when it comes to defamation litigation.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        That's the hard case. Think it over.

        Give us an example of this hard case. The thing is, this litigious and tortuous behavior is mostly characteristic for people who want to take down information they don't want anyone to HEAR or SEE about, mostly because knowledge would bring on other worse predictions and conclusions.

        They're rarely interested in rebuttal since they have none.

        Also if you were the main star in a recent lie spread throughout the Internet like a wildfire, you can imagine your answer/rebuttal w
    • 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.

      There are just too many fools who fail to realise that trying to ban something tends to make it very much more popular. In this case turning what would otherwise be a fairly obscure history book in to a "best seller" is a likely result.

  • The internet is booby-trapped (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:48PM (#20751859)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by alshithead ( 981606 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:51AM (#20752361)
      "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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:49PM (#20751863)
    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".
  • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:55PM (#20751899)
    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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:55AM (#20752379) Homepage
      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.
    • Yes, and he does it with political, financial, and military backing from George Bush --who is only opposed to tyranny and torture when it looks good on TV. If Fox and CNN actually covered the news, more people would know that.

  • Censorship as Damage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LaminatorX ( 410794 ) <sabotage@pr a e c a n t a t or.com> on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @10:57PM (#20751907) Homepage
    "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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      Which reminds me does anyone have at torrent of the blog posts this guy was foaming at the mouth to get removed?

    • [...] to remind you that the Net's underlying protocols were designed to survive WWIII.

      This is an old canard; stop putting the cart before the horse. The internet was designed to enable effective and economical sharing of computational resources. This necessarily included the capability to share ASCII-Art renderings of Playboy pinups. In order to preserve the capabilities against censors, it had to develop the ability to withstand a potential WWIII nuclear exchange as an inevitable byproduct of the initi

  • 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! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alshithead ( 981606 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @11:00PM (#20751931)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

      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.).

      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.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#Burden_of_proof_on_the_defendant [wikipedia.org]

      I don't know why this Uzbek isn't suing for libel/defamation in England.

      • Re:Ooh! Ooh! Fight! Fight! (Score:4, Informative)

        by alshithead ( 981606 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:39AM (#20752331)
        "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). :)
        • Alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography.

          So you're saying that in England you would win a lawsuit against me (unless you did and I proved it of course ;)) whereas in America you'd lose (after all, my comment is vague enough that its impossible to disprove)? Sounds like England might have the slightly better system in this regard.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by alshithead ( 981606 )
            "Alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography.

            So you're saying that in England you would win a lawsuit against me (unless you did and I proved it of course ;)) whereas in America you'd lose (after all, my comment is vague enough that its impossible to disprove)? Sounds like England might have the slightly better system in this regard."

            Great example and you expose a part of my point that I neglected. In the US as long as you say, "IN MY OPINION alshithead regularly engages in producing child

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jimicus ( 737525 )
              Well, with wordplay you can get away with similar things in England.

              The satirical news quiz "Have I got news for you" get away with saying things which may or may not be provable on a regular basis by means of the word "allegedly". As in: "Mr. X spent all night having sex with his secretary. Allegedly."
              • While amusing, putting "alledgedly" on the end of something really doesn't protect you. Anything that was actualy libellous would still be prosecuted.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by misleb ( 129952 )

                The satirical news quiz "Have I got news for you" get away with saying things which may or may not be provable on a regular basis by means of the word "allegedly". As in: "Mr. X spent all night having sex with his secretary. Allegedly."

                Are you sure it is the use of the word "allegedly" or that the source is well known for satire? I don't know about the UK, but in the US satire is protected speech even if you don't use words like "allegedly" or "in my opinion." Of course, the satiracal nature of the source

            • In the US as long as you say, "IN MY OPINION alshithead regularly engages in producing child pornography", you would most likely be okay.

              That wouldn't work on a judge that's actually paying attention. Adding the phrase "in my opinion" does not magically turn a statement of fact into a statement of opinion. Producing child pornography is an action that either occurred or did not occur, making it a fact that can, in theory, be proven to be true. You might be able to get away with something like "He likes child pornography" or "He wishes he could make child pornography", since those statements are based on the person's beliefs/feelings, and th

            • Actually, Public figures have less protection against libel and slander. There are certain types of statements that, if I make them about an individual who has never sought publicity, are actionable, but if I make them about a politician, or actor, or other person who has sought the public limelight are not.
            • Public people have better protection against moronic work around like you tried.

              But they tend to have LESS protection against real things they did/say.

              I.E. If I say something like "That man is homosexual." and it turns out to be false, then chances are he could sue me. If I say the same thing about a public figure, I can get away with it.

          • Sounds like England might have the slightly better system in this regard.

            I disagree, but it depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.

            In this case, yes, if you're simply lying about somebody I would like to see you lose a lawsuit. That's in a vacuum though. On a large scale, I think it is a much more chilling restriction on free speech to tell people they have to be able to prove anything they say, even if it is ultimately true, or risk being sued into the dirt than it is to say that somet

      • '"London is the libel capital of the World. American journalists dub it 'a town named sue' since its claimant-friendly environment attracts litigants unable or unwilling to take their chances under American or European defamation laws which afford better protection for media defendants". (Robertson and Nicol, Media Law).

        'The English courts have been known to hear cases involving a foreign claimant and a foreign defendant, where the "publication" in England is marginal to the damage alleged'.

        Quoted from http [website-law.co.uk]

  • I'm an American, so forgive my ignorance... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @11:19PM (#20751999)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Unfortunately the billion, as with everything else in Britain, has been slowly but surely Americanised.

      So while you're strictly true, in every-day practice, a billion nowadays is the same anywhere.

      1e9
      • I think you mean more like "Made consistent with SI," which is European in origin. For 10^1, 10^2 and 10^3 you've got prefixes, deca, hecto and kilo as well as non-compound designations for the numbers. After that, it goes to a prefix every three 10^6 = mega/million, 10^9 = giga/billion, 10^12 = tera/trillion, 10^15 = peta/quadrillion and so on. Well if a billion is 10^12 then you have a case where there's one with a prefix and no name. That's a little strange. Also with the current system, it is consistent
      • I think the American usage is preferable just this once:

        1) more consistent, as another comment pointed out.
        2) More useful: how often do you need to refer to a million million of anything?

        Of course there are plenty cases where British usages are preferable: separate words for theatre and cinema, for example. Just this once, they are right.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bentcd ( 690786 )

          more consistent, as another comment pointed out.

          It's only consistent to you because you're used to it. To me, it's incredibly inconsistent that someone should be referring to 10^9 as a billion when everyone knows it's actually called a milliard.

          More useful: how often do you need to refer to a million million of anything?

          I find it somewhat interesting that Norway, a country of 4.5 million, has words that cover bigger numbers than what they have over in the US. Indeed, the true billion (i.e. 10^12) would be most useful for covering the bigger numbers of the US national economy. Trillion should be reserved for things that are /tru

          • "Is this how things got so big in the US in the first place? They just redefined the scale? :-)"

            Actually, about 10 years or so ago, we did redefine the scale, moving the definitions for "overweight" and "obese" down 5 points on the BMI scale. A couple years later we were talking about the obesity epidemic and record high numbers of overweight people.

            Now it's likely that researchers correct for this or just use the raw data for doing historical studies, but it still seemed a bit coincidental that we had so

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RuBLed ( 995686 )
      I suggest Calc...
    • British pounds are roughly double the value of an American dollar. That would mean he's a billionaire.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by srpatterson ( 515721 )
      Yes, and we're going to buy our colony back, the Queen doesn't like what you've done with it.

  • Arsenal FC (Score:3, Funny)

    by slick_shoes ( 881437 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @11:25PM (#20752027)
    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 (Score:3, Funny)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @11:34PM (#20752071)
    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, 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zobier ( 585066 ) <zobier@NOspam.zobier.net> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:43AM (#20752347)
    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.

    • I found out that John Howard was taking bribes from George Bush to influence Australian lawmaking

      That would be completely ridiculous. George would never bribe Johnny.

      Unless of course by "bribe" you mean "threaten to withold sexual favours".

    • Well, it's certainly true that if you repeat the same lie often enough, a lot of people will eventually believe it. Take the high percentage that believe Saddam had an active WMD program prior to Gulf War 2, and we already found them. Or that whole swift boat thing that took down John Kerry. Or that Gordon Brown, despite being in charge of vast swathes of the british government for 10 years, had nothing to do with Tony Blair's unpopular decisions now that he's the prime minister instead.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      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.

      You're underestimating "mob intelligence". Even if 99.99% of the bloggers were muppets, someone would try to find pr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 )
      Would they pull your blog? If they do, they deserve to have it blow up in their face - no matter what the hell you're saying about preznit and his apparatchicks. Why do people think they have the right not to be offended? Why is that bullies are the first to cry to momma when call them out?

  • It's not the Internet network itself... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mind21_98 ( 18647 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:52AM (#20752367) Homepage Journal
    ...but the people who are on it. But still, I applaud them for standing up to the bully that he is.

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

      Your are technically right, in a limited way, but poetically your logic is abysmal.

      We are online, the internet is part of our lives and our lives are reflected on the internet. It reroutes through us.
      In complex systems, this is called emergence [wikipedia.org], and if you didn't realize by now that humans are part of the complex system that is the internet, then I wonder who you thought laid down all cable and fiber to begin with.

  • Background? (Score:5, Informative)

    by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:56AM (#20752385)
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hughk ( 248126 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @12:30PM (#20757455) Journal
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @01:26AM (#20752513)
    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?
    • 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.

      In a few high-profile cases that the mob has seized upon, yes it does.

      I'll be more cheerful when (and if) it becomes a normal fact of existnce that the media can no longer be owned and menipulated this way. We're still very far from this. But there

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        We're still very far from this. But there is hope - as we speak, in Burma, despite the miliary junta's insistence that "the revolution will not be televised", large quantities images and video are getting out because of the new tools that ordinary people have.

        These are also showing up on "traditional media". Even if you have reports prefixed by "The BBC is banned from Burma/Zimbabwe/etc."
    • Did you really just call the Internet intelligent? Have you actually looked at the Internet lately?

      • Somewhere in the mind of the internet that message was read and a continent wide chuckle went up.

        Humans think they're intelligent. Have they looked at themselves lately?

        More seriously, the possibility that the internet is already intelligent is quite a fun one and your question is interesting. Even if we did look carefully, how would we know if the internet is intelligent? Turing test? Why on earth should we think that would even be meaningful to such a completely different brand of intelligen

    • "Does the Internet have a mind on its own already?"

      Preliminary reports suggest that the emergent mind of the internet has an insatiable appetite for porn.

      Other background information: The world wide web was proposed by Tim Berners Lee in 1989, the first web software created in 1990. That would make the mind of the web... approximately 17 years old.

      I wonder...

  • Is Usmanov Clean? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slashamatic ( 553801 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:07AM (#20752677)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Beyond_GoodandEvil ( 769135 )
      Ah yes, the good ol' "Noveau Riche" are a bunch of crooks, just like most of the old rich who have had the advantage of time to dim the memories of how families/aristocrats gained their wealth. As someone once said behind every great wealth there is a crime(like bootlegging, or child labor).
  • 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 ?
  • 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

    • 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?

      I'm not sure how significant Boris Johnson's comments will be. Clearly enough people take him seriously to keep him in office, but a lot of people consider him a buffoon, at least in part because of his frequent gaffes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6901161.stm [bbc.co.uk],http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410160&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk], http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/releases/20061004.htm [richardcorbett.org.uk])

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by alext ( 29323 )
        In case anyone else misunderstands my post, the response I refer to is that of bloggers, the media and politicians generally - what Boris Johnson thinks on his own is hardly likely to be decisive.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tyrannosaurs ( 1148605 )
      To be clear he was removed from post, not fired. He remained an employee of the UK government. The government claimed that it was for operational reasons and nothing to do with him claiming that the British security services had used information obtained by the Uzbek's through torture.

      While there was talk of disciplinary action he eventually agreed to resign having negociated a very sizable settlement.

      His blog did have a fairly detailed decription of it before it was taken down.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close