How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Lethaface]

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No fair!  You speak French

But without reading it I think I know what this is saying.  And that is they can not prove that Durov was PERSONALLY aware of the SPECIFICs related to the child trafficking case.  I'm sure that's true, as it would be shocking if he knew such a low level detailed account issue.  However, I am just as sure he is very aware that Telegram's policy is to not cooperate with authorities concerning their platform being used for explicit illegal activities.  Put another way, I'm sure the heads of the cartels in Mexico aren't aware of every single person that is murdered or tortured by their organization, but they sure as Hell know that happens and don't take any actions to prevent it from happening.

I don't think it is "over the top" to hold corporate officers responsible for deliberately breaking the law.  In fact, many of the world's problems would magically go away if this were the case.  Tobacco company executives being People's Exhibit A, petroleum executives being People's Exhibit B, Volkswagen executives being Exhibit C, etc.

As a capitalist myself, and until recently the head of a corporation, I have absolutely no problem with the threat of incarceration as a punishment for conducting illegal activities in the guise of "free enterprise". 

Steve

AFAIK he's arrested because of his position / role in the company. Whether and how much he did actually know isn't necessarily relevant for him to be found responsible (and thus guilty), although it can aggravate his responsibility for the 'negligence' to act against the criminal activity on the companies platform.

Imo this is not at all over the top and exactly how the rule of law should function. 

Telegram is a service provider and is afaik by law required to have facilities in place to be able to cooperate with the authorities. There have been many legal battles about how much companies have to invest to be able to cooperate (although many in the 90-2010 era, that has passed), even then terrorism and child pornography weren't really part of the discussion. In fact many service providers who were usually against cooperation as much as possible would pro actively find, shut down and share info about such activities being performed using their services.

Telegram is not some small startup which could be excused not having things in place yet. 

Anyway, as always legal stuff can be complex and he will surely have access to the most expensive lawyers so if there's any regulation / precedent to be used which will help his position i'm sure they'll find and use it. 
It is in the hand of the courts now. Let's hope lady Justice will serve him his fair share of justice.

Edited August 31 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

20 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But would you have been so sanguine had a foreign court or 'human rights tribunal' indicted you for glorifying Nazism, promoting Nazi-related emblems and symbolism, and other forms of extreme militarism, and also  enabling those who might be doing so, via your Combat Mission games?

....'Waffelgrenadiers' notwithstanding.

Because that's entirely conceivable in the climate we live in today.

If a member of this forum would be suspected of using the PMs to actively perform child pornography related activities I imagine Steve being happy to personally share any info available to BFC with the requesting authority, should such a request come from a competent authority.

Edited August 31 by Lethaface

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

AFAIK he's arrested because of his position / role in the company. Whether and how much he did actually know isn't necessarily relevant for him to be found responsible (and thus guilty), although it can aggravate his responsibility for the 'negligence' to act against the criminal activity on the companies platform.

Imo this is not at all over the top and exactly how the rule of law should function. 

Telegram is a service provider and is afaik by law required to have facilities in place to be able to cooperate with the authorities. There have been many legal battles about how much companies have to invest to be able to cooperate (although many in the 90-2010 era, that has passed), even then terrorism and child pornography weren't really part of the discussion. In fact many service providers who were usually against cooperation as much as possible would pro actively find, shut down and share info about such activities being performed using their services.

Telegram is not some small startup which could be excused not having things in place yet. 

Anyway, as always legal stuff can be complex and he will surely have access to the most expensive lawyers so if there's any regulation / precedent to be used which will help his position i'm sure they'll find and use it. 
It is in the hand of the courts now. Let's hope lady Justice will serve him his fair share of justice.

It's fairly telling that Telegram has something like 30 employees in total. 

[Sgt Joch]

40 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

AFAIK he's arrested because of his position / role in the company. Whether and how much he did actually know isn't necessarily relevant for him to be found responsible (and thus guilty), although it can aggravate his responsibility for the 'negligence' to act against the criminal activity on the companies platform.

Imo this is not at all over the top and exactly how the rule of law should function.

That is actually not how the law works, at least in USA/Canada. A corporation is considered to be a separate person from its officers/shareholders. If a corporation does not comply with a legal subpoena, legal action would be taken against the corporation, including fines.

Officers/shareholders are not legally responsible for whatever is happening in the corporation, especially if they have no personal knowledge or personal involvement in whatever “wrongdoing” the corporation is up to.

There have been cases where officers/shareholders have been held criminally liable for activities of their corporation, but there is always a personal involvement where you can show the individual personally acted illegally.

just holding a CEO/shareholder criminally responsible for his corporation’s actions when he has no personal involvement would be unprecedented.

[Astrophel]

34 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

That is actually not how the law works, at least in USA/Canada. A corporation is considered to be a separate person from its officers/shareholders. If a corporation does not comply with a legal subpoena, legal action would be taken against the corporation, including fines.

Officers/shareholders are not legally responsible for whatever is happening in the corporation, especially if they have no personal knowledge or personal involvement in whatever “wrongdoing” the corporation is up to.

There have been cases where officers/shareholders have been held criminally liable for activities of their corporation, but there is always a personal involvement where you can show the individual personally acted illegally.

just holding a CEO/shareholder criminally responsible for his corporation’s actions when he has no personal involvement would be unprecedented.

With respect I think you are wrong on this.  When I went to USA as an exec. I was warned by our American lawyers that  I could be held personally liable for what our company did, and the same went for my VP in the San Jose office with his green card.  It is very rarely acted upon but every exec in that company got the same briefing and we were urged to keep out noses cleaner than clean and NOT put the company or ourselves in any jeopardy.  We even carried insurance for any eventuality. US is a legal minefield.

Ignorance is also not an excuse.  As a CEO you ought to know what is going on in such a case as Telegram.  With so few employees it is impossible D. does not know everything.  And he has been warned often enough.

Edited August 31 by Astrophel

[The_Capt]

41 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

That is actually not how the law works, at least in USA/Canada. A corporation is considered to be a separate person from its officers/shareholders. If a corporation does not comply with a legal subpoena, legal action would be taken against the corporation, including fines.

Officers/shareholders are not legally responsible for whatever is happening in the corporation, especially if they have no personal knowledge or personal involvement in whatever “wrongdoing” the corporation is up to.

There have been cases where officers/shareholders have been held criminally liable for activities of their corporation, but there is always a personal involvement where you can show the individual personally acted illegally.

just holding a CEO/shareholder criminally responsible for his corporation’s actions when he has no personal involvement would be unprecedented.

I know the theory here, but I am not sure it holds up past a certain threshold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling#:~:text=Skilling was indicted on 35,prison and fined %2445 million.

[sburke]

32 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I know the theory here, but I am not sure it holds up past a certain threshold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling#:~:text=Skilling was indicted on 35,prison and fined %2445 million.

oh sure bring up McKinsey again.. yeah the company that shelled out $600 million to try and divorce itself from the Pharma Opiod epidemic that it helped foster. (which nobody from McK has gone to jail for, though they should have).

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, sburke said:

oh sure bring up McKinsey again.. yeah the company that shelled out $600 million to try and divorce itself from the Pharma Opiod epidemic that it helped foster. (which nobody from McK has gone to jail for, though they should have).

There are far more Sinners than Saints in this world, young @sburke. Justice is a whisper in a hurricane even within the best of those broken edifices of humanity we call "civilization."

Edited August 31 by The_Capt

[sburke]

Major American defense contractor sold confidential technologies to China, Russia, and Iran (msn.com)

[LongLeftFlank]

OK, as I now have to flick through whole pages of Durovmania, you can listen to me doomer again about this....

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/chinas-industrial-strategy-on-collision-course-with-german-top-exporting-industries/

The number of loss-making industrial firms in China reached a peak of almost 180,000 in March 2024, much higher than at any point in the last 25 years.... in particular “the higher end of the [industrial] value chain” – such as cars, machines, chemicals, and computer chips....

“China produces as many machines as the next four countries combined,” Ackermann said, noting that despite domestic demand weakening over the last few years, “production continues as usual.... creating huge over-capacities that are now increasingly pushing onto the export markets.”

****

https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-futuristic-industries-investment-prospects-in-the-emerging-low-altitude-economy/

By the end of August 2023, China had over 1.11 million registered civilian unmanned aerial vehicles, a 16 percent increase from the end of 2022, according to the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). With 182,000 drone pilot licenses issued and over 17,000 registered drone operating enterprises, the development of low-altitude infrastructure is primed to attract substantial investments, fostering economic growth. Civilian drones collectively logged over 16.8 million flight hours from January to August in 2023.

Specifically, companies that secure Type Certificates (TC) and Production Licenses (PC) from the CAAC for large manned or unmanned aerial vehicles will receive a one-time subsidy of RMB 15 million (US$2.06 million).

Drones have become entangled in US-China tensions, notably with Shenzhen-based DJI dominating the US market. DJI, the world’s leading drone manufacturer, facing scrutiny in the US, was put on the country’s investment blacklist in 2021. In July 2023, China announced export controls on drone and drone equipment to safeguard national security and interests. 

Yep, you read that right.... they don't want us stealing IC from them.

****

You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you?

Edited August 31 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Busted!!!!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-26/tanker-carrying-sanctioned-russian-lng-attempting-ship-transfer

"The recipient vessel is the New Energy, which isn’t subject to restrictions, according to TankerTrackers.com."

Me thinks the key word I bolded and underlined might change in the near future.

Anyway, this is a great anecdote to dispute the claim that sanctions aren't effective, Russia's economy is doing fine, etc.  A transfer like this is extremely small and inefficient.  If they are doing this that means they (likely) haven't found easier ways to smuggle their products.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

Officers/shareholders are not legally responsible for whatever is happening in the corporation, especially if they have no personal knowledge or personal involvement in whatever “wrongdoing” the corporation is up to.

Excellent!  So what you saying here that if a corporate officer is aware that their company is actively engaged/supporting criminal activities and, when faced with this knowledge, makes corporate decisions to deliberately allow that criminal activity to continue, then said corporate officer can be held responsible, both according to criminal and civil law.  Well, I fully agree!

Good, so now that we are all completely in agreement about why Durov was arrested and why it is absolutely in keeping with long established legal principles, can we drop it now?

Steve

 

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:

That is actually not how the law works, at least in USA/Canada. A corporation is considered to be a separate person from its officers/shareholders. If a corporation does not comply with a legal subpoena, legal action would be taken against the corporation, including fines.

Officers/shareholders are not legally responsible for whatever is happening in the corporation, especially if they have no personal knowledge or personal involvement in whatever “wrongdoing” the corporation is up to.

There have been cases where officers/shareholders have been held criminally liable for activities of their corporation, but there is always a personal involvement where you can show the individual personally acted illegally.

just holding a CEO/shareholder criminally responsible for his corporation’s actions when he has no personal involvement would be unprecedented.

It all depends on what exactly is the crime / wrongdoing and the structure of the company. If some people in the company are committing fraud against company policy, without knowledge of the 'higher ups' then the higher ups will probably not be held accountable. 

But in general those at the top are responsible for what the company, as a legal entity, does. So if a company, by policy, is doing stuff against rules and regulations then the responsible CEO/majority shareholder is responsible and may be held personally accountable in criminal court. 

I don't want to go in any legal argument because there's a maze of rules, but in general over here (and afaik France) the idea is that if you're the boss, your responsible. Minority silent shareholders without active participation in the company, another question but still not always a waiver. If you know, or could have known, you are investing in bad stuff then that's on you for not doing something about it.

Even under civil law here, shareholders can be held accountable for financial liabilities of limited companies in case of mismanagement.

[Sgt Joch]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Excellent!  So what you saying here that if a corporate officer is aware that their company is actively engaged/supporting criminal activities and, when faced with this knowledge, makes corporate decisions to deliberately allow that criminal activity to continue, then said corporate officer can be held responsible, both according to criminal and civil law.  Well, I fully agree!

Good, so now that we are all completely in agreement about why Durov was arrested and why it is absolutely in keeping with long established legal principles, can we drop it now?

Steve

 

Absolutely, but I am not the one who is keeping this subject alive.

[Sgt Joch]

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

It all depends on what exactly is the crime / wrongdoing and the structure of the company. If some people in the company are committing fraud against company policy, without knowledge of the 'higher ups' then the higher ups will probably not be held accountable. 

But in general those at the top are responsible for what the company, as a legal entity, does. So if a company, by policy, is doing stuff against rules and regulations then the responsible CEO/majority shareholder is responsible and may be held personally accountable in criminal court. 

I don't want to go in any legal argument because there's a maze of rules, but in general over here (and afaik France) the idea is that if you're the boss, your responsible. Minority silent shareholders without active participation in the company, another question but still not always a waiver. If you know, or could have known, you are investing in bad stuff then that's on you for not doing something about it.

Even under civil law here, shareholders can be held accountable for financial liabilities of limited companies in case of mismanagement.

Case in point.

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, Sgt Joch said:

Case in point.

Objection! 

His post wasn't even visible when I started mine, anyway happy to conclude this discussion

[billbindc]

13 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

Case in point.

Ummmm...I own a company and what you are claiming and what Lethaface is claiming are two different things. He is correct and you are not. As a company CEO/owner, I am legally bound to follow the law and if I personally direct the company to violate the law, refuse lawful governmental requests, knowingly allow criminal activity via company assets, etc then yes, my rear end is on the hotseat. In those cases the corporate veil is pierced and personal legal liability pertains under US law. 

[Sgt Joch]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Ummmm...I own a company and what you are claiming and what Lethaface is claiming are two different things. He is correct and you are not. As a company CEO/owner, I am legally bound to follow the law and if I personally direct the company to violate the law, refuse lawful governmental requests, knowingly allow criminal activity via company assets, etc then yes, my rear end is on the hotseat. In those cases the corporate veil is pierced and personal legal liability pertains under US law. 

No you are wrong. That is not what I said. I suggest you go back and read what my post actually says instead of making up what you think it says.

p.s. - Steve wants us to drop this topic.

[ArmouredTopHat]

Moving back on topic:

Further depletion of Russian bases and their equipment. There has been excellent work on this front by people reviewing sat photos. While its obvious they cant get a fully accurate assessment, the fact is that equipment is disappearing fast from these bases, which all leads to the very likely possibility that Russia is going to start hitting real equipment shortages next year at the current rate of expenditure. We already see constraints with BMPs and BTRs being supplemented with MTLBs in frontline roles.

I think more impact will be on future / training units that will simply not be getting the same quality of gear as their predecessors, which will only complicate the generation of new units for the Russian war effort. 

Edited August 31 by ArmouredTopHat

[Lethaface]

3 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Moving back on topic:

Further depletion of Russian bases and their equipment. There has been excellent work on this front by people reviewing sat photos. While its obvious they cant get a fully accurate assessment, the fact is that equipment is disappearing fast from these bases, which all leads to the very likely possibility that Russia is going to start hitting real equipment shortages next year at the current rate of expenditure. 

The FOW seems to be more apparent compared to earlier phases of the war. Could be explained in various ways, among which saturation off audience and reporting 'burnout' (literally and figuratively I guess  ). Or just simply that I don't have as much time to follow things. 

One observation which certainly can be made, imo, is that the war has slowed down compared to 22 and 23. Not necessarily in scale of casualties, but in scale of developments (yeah no **** sherlock). The question has become more an equilibrium of how long one can hold out vs keep attacking on the meat grinder scale. So beyond new footage there is less too discuss here, apart from rechewing the things worthy of rechewing.

Kursk is imo an effort of change which has so far produced 'freedom of action'/ options to Ukraine. It could have gone better, could have gone worse. Could have culminated Ukraine's offensive options for 2024, or not. 
Same we don't know (or at least I) whether Russia has further tricks prepared. 

It's good to see Russia's observation drones getting shot up. However equipment shortages? I've been thinking along that line for two years, I'll believe it when I see it. Equipment degradation is very real however and will hopefully bring more advantages for Ukraine in short/med/long term.

[acrashb]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

[...]Not necessarily in scale of casualties, but in scale of developments (yeah no **** sherlock).

Based on this: https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine , the scale of destruction is about constant and has been since about the start of 2023.

Regarding developments, the frequency of change can significantly influence our perception of time.
When there are more frequent changes or novel experiences, time often feels like it's passing more quickly. Conversely, when things are relatively stagnant or predictable, time can feel like it's dragging.

So we end up, on this thread, talking about free speech and/or the legal implications to CEOs (and other corporate officers) of their corporation's actions.

[acrashb]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Justice is a whisper in a hurricane even within the best of those broken edifices of humanity we call "civilization."

That's a big cup of bitter cynicism.  What's it like being you?

[Lethaface]

On 8/30/2024 at 4:53 PM, acrashb said:

Telegram uses MTProto 2.0, a custom cryptographic protocol.  As I told an entrepreneur at one point, "if we develop our own cryptography, we will be laughed out of every boardroom and not allowed back".

At the very least, Telegram using it's own crypto and not allowing audits violates the zero-trust model.  Users must trust Telegram.

 

You don't need to develop your own cryptography, PKI is well established and good enough for the moment (until quantum compute says different). It's all in the implementation of what / how encryption is used and perhaps more importantly, how information is exchanged and stored (or not). 

[acrashb]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

You don't need to develop your own cryptography, PKI is well established and good enough for the moment (until quantum compute says different). It's all in the implementation of what / how encryption is used and perhaps more importantly, how information is exchanged and stored (or not). 

Exactly what I was saying.  And standards bodies are in the process of certifying quantum-resistant algorithms.
So when an organization says they have proprietary algorithms, run away.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, acrashb said:

That's a big cup of bitter cynicism.  What's it like being you?

Meh. It’s a living.