Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Piracy The Internet Politics Your Rights Online

Piratbyran Co-Founder Says Stop DDoSing Polish Sites 140

Posted by timothy
from the keeping-sysadmins-in-suspense dept.
bs0d3 writes "Since the news was released that Poland will sign ACTA later this month, activists have taken to the streets in protest. Also, Anonymous has aimed their DDoS cannons at Polish websites. A government minister admitted the government had failed to fully consult the public on the issue. Piratbyran Co-Founder Marcin de Kaminski has been following the issue on ACTA in Poland, and agrees with activists that Anonymous' DDoS is hurting the situation. Now the Polish government is trying to speed up the signatory process, making a statement of not giving in to 'cyber terrorists.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Piratbyran Co-Founder Says Stop DDoSing Polish Sites

Comments Filter:
  • this means (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Speeding it up only means they had ever intention of passing it anyways,

    • Re:this means (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Baloroth (2370816) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @09:23AM (#38817801)

      And now they have every justification for doing so in the eyes of most of their citizens.

      Great job, anonymous! /sarcasm

      • by Pi1grim (1956208)

        Well, then most of the citizens deserve the government they get.

        • by Baloroth (2370816)

          And that sort of attitude is why we (by *we* I collectively mean everyone who has a government that is trying to pass ACTA, which is a lot of people) have the government we do. See, Anonymous doesn't think "how can I inform the people" or "how can I get about changing the government." All they do, all they ever do, is lash out at whoever pisses them off. And being a mostly uneducated (and, frankly, not particularly intelligent) mob on the Internet, it doesn't take much to do that.

          Keep in mind, productive m

      • Re:this means (Score:5, Informative)

        by iamhassi (659463) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:38AM (#38818509) Journal

        And now they have every justification for doing so in the eyes of most of their citizens.

        Great job, anonymous! /sarcasm

        Actually, as of yesterday the Polish government is reconsidering signing the treaty. [activepolitic.com]

        Great job, anonymous! /nosarcasm

        • by Baloroth (2370816)

          And yet after that meeting to "reconsider" things (original source here [washingtonpost.com] after you wade through 3 links), the Polish government decided to go ahead anyways (source: here [globalvoicesonline.org]. Note the date: today, and after the meeting referenced in the first link). To be fair, he does say they are going to attach a clause about how to interpret the law (right after saying it doesn't change anything at all) and that they will consult the public "broadly". Somehow, I just can't bring myself to believe either of those will have an

          • by iamhassi (659463)

            So, nope, Anonymous didn't really do anything.

            Anonymous *may* have caused them to pause and take a second look. Just because they decided to ignore Anonymous and their citizens and do whatever they want anyway doesn't mean Anonymous's actions had zero impact.

            Just the fact that they admitted they were reconsidering signing makes the DDoSing a huge success.

  • Great logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hawguy (1600213) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:46AM (#38816145)

    The government says "Hey, we really didn't consult the public before we agreed to this, but you know, since some anonymous organization from outside our country is attacking our internet sites, we have no choice but to screw the public as we originally intended and the blame rests soley on Anonymous."

    Sounds like a convenient excuse to do what they were going to do anyway, but now they have a scapegoat.

    • by thej1nx (763573) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:01AM (#38816215)
      1. Anonymous should simply change their demand then. "We will continue to DDOS the websites unless the all the ministers in present government continue to occupy their position and stay in politics".

      2. The Polish government will then announce that they refuse to give in to cyber terrorists and shall immediately resign en masse,and quit politics...

      3. Profit!
    • Re:Great logic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xest (935314) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @05:14AM (#38816625)

      "The government says "Hey, we really didn't consult the public before we agreed to this""

      I don't know why this is being billed as the government admitting any kind of fault, I thought the whole point in ACTA was to get it produced and signed off without the public even finding out, hence the secrecy of negotiations in the first place?

      I think when they say they admit they didn't consult the public they're not saying "Yeah, we kind of should have consulted the public", they're saying, "We didn't consult the public, because that was the whole fucking point of ACTA".

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Fri13 (963421)

      Uhm.... No.

      First people copy illegally copyrighted material and then officials makes laws. Then people starts protests about all kind things why "piracy is good thing". And then some people start DDoS attacks against officials...

      And everything what people only do is proof officials to do correctly.

      I would not trust anyone who gets others copyrighted material illegally as they would not respect any open source licenses either as they are protected by copyright.

      If I want others to respect my choice to use ope

      • by stanlyb (1839382)
        So, let me make it clear, if you are attacked by someone on the street, and if you try to defend, then you should not be surprised that he becomes ever more violent as you infringe on his right to robe you, and thus your actions are justifying his even more violent reactions. At the end of the day, you could just give up and give him your bank account, passwords, the secret ways to satisfy your wife............
        • by tehcyder (746570)
          So if I choose to infringe someone's copyright, this means that they are the bullies if they try to get redress for it?
  • Any news? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:47AM (#38816151) Homepage

    Anonymous has been randomly attacking sites for the fun of it for most of it's existence.
    They're not interrested in political issues, just attacking sites using any random excuse they can think of to justify their vandalism.
    If they ever had ideological goals in the past, those have long since gone.

    • Re:Any news? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mick R (932337) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:59AM (#38816209)
      Very "black and white" view you have there. Anonymous would say they had a reason for every action they've taken, but since you've decided it was all just for fun I guess none of that matters. I don't necessarily agree with every action they've taken, but I can understand why people would want to do some of the things they've done.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Totally agree here. To add to the point:
        1) perhaps it is fun? Perhaps some things we do in our life are fun? Perhaps things that we do that will change our lives to better - are fun.
        2)Life is changing. Reality is changing. People are changing. Anonymous are not excepton. What they fought before may been won or lost, but it doesnt mean they cant change their goals?

      • Re:Any news? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hentes (2461350) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @06:18AM (#38816879)

        If you want to fight the law by breaking it than you need to be "very black and white". You have to be perfectly clear what your goals are and how will you try to achieve them. You have to take your actions consistently with your communication. Otherwise, you are just a vandal.

        It's like saying that "Hey, this cop might have shot two innocent people but it's very black and white thinkign to call him a murderer. I mean, he also shot three criminals that sure balances it out isn't it?" .

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Marc Madness (2205586)

          It's like saying that "Hey, this cop might have shot two innocent people but it's very black and white thinkign to call him a murderer. I mean, he also shot three criminals that sure balances it out isn't it?" .

          Whether the victims are criminals or not is irrelevant in ascribing the label of murderer to the police officer. If the officer took a bank robber into a back alley, had him kneel down, then shot him in the back of the head, he would still be considered a murderer. There are your shades of grey, they are hiding in the details.

          Similarly, when you're talking about fighting an unjust law by breaking it, that's implicitly a grey area: you have to distinguish between something that is criminal and something that

        • by stanlyb (1839382)
          Man, boy, grandpa, whatever, let me enlighten you: The only constant/undeniable "laws" are the 11 axioms. Everything else is just a recommendation. And btw, there is a doubt about the 11th axiom, and even for the remaining 10......but anyway, man, boy, grandpa, grow up. THE HUMAN LAWS ARE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS. If you are stupid enough to insist that they are MANDATORY........i feel really sorry for your state of mind.
        • Consider this (Score:4, Insightful)

          by openfrog (897716) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @09:52AM (#38818009)

          Even if all current members of Anonymous stopped all action upon realizing that what they do is a public relation dream for governments intent on passing censoring legislation, you can rest assured that would continue to see actions done in the name of Anonymous. It is that much of good PR stunt.

          So, in the media, instead of reading that 5 millions people signed a petition against SOPA-PIPA, you read that punk hackers have defaced a site or two, and are threatening to wreak havoc. So, the conflict is no longer represented as between a corrupted government and the people, but between authorities in need of maintaining order in front of an assault by teenage vandals wanting to steal things without consequences.

          Particularly, observe the way Anonymous played in the media in the last round about SOPA-PIPA. There is no other word to describe them, but as tools. Conscious of what they do or not, they were well on their way to derail the whole public effort with their stunts.

          They will not stop by themselves, as I wrote. Collectively, those who wish to see the passing of sane Internet and copyright legislation, or at least stop the legislative push (putsch?) of corporations to take control of it, need to think about the way to stop this. Journalists need to educate themselves about the nonsense of accepting at face value claims that an action has been committed by a group called "Anonymous". Can you verify it? If you can't, then it is done anonymously, perhaps, but simply by vandals, punks, or by whoever's agents for that matter.

          • by Zeromous (668365)

            >Anonymous stopped all action upon realizing that what they do is a public relation dream

            Why does it never occur to anyone that Anonymous are what are known as 'useful idiots'.

            • by Larryish (1215510)

              If the .gov hasn't taken control or at least acted in the name of "Anonymous" yet, they are fools.

              If anybody can be "the scary web vandal", just by posting headless suit pictures on pastebin, what agency or corporation WOULDN'T want to get in on that?

              They can spook the herd in whatever direction they want.

        • by Anonymous Coward
          I don't excuse Anonymous, but to me... I'll will only get harder not to break the law when you're fighting the ones making the laws.

          See, for what I know there are two main groups of crimes, the malum per se and the malum prohibitum. The moment the conflict escalates enough that the citizens are committing the first instead of the latter, you know everything went south.

          What I see as an issue is that now penalties and jail time seems larger for the latter than the first.
      • Re:Any news? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kiwimate (458274) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @09:31AM (#38817871) Journal

        It may be black and white, but it's also correct. The concept of Anonymous is so vague as to allow anyone to engage in some random vandalism just for the fun of it and claim "it got done by Anonymous".

        There's no working goal. There's no aim, not even a loose and incoherent one. There are just people who make attacks and say "I am Anonymous". Most of the time the provided rationale is nothing more than "these people are bad so we're gonna do something bad to them".

        I'm gald you understand "why people would want to do some of the things they've done". It's pretty obvious that most of the actions ascribed to Anonymous are carried out by people who not only can't construct a coherent explanation of why they're doing something but apparently don't even understand themselves what they're trying to do.

        Given that, I think the GP poster's position is about the only logical conclusion you can draw.

        Mind you, I apparently have an old-fashioned view about these things. I believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

        • by Sarten-X (1102295)

          Mind you, I apparently have an old-fashioned view about these things. I believe that two wrongs don't make a right.

          That is an old-fashioned view. With modern global economics, you can take one of those wrongs and invest it in a company in a third-world country for a few weeks while bribing a few warlords with the other wrong to let that company succeed. Tell the warlords that each other stole the smaller wrong. Trade the inflated wrong investment to a small bank for a share in a mortgage debt, showing its rapid growth, then immediately sell the mortgage debt as a promise of future money in exchange for money now to anot

    • by rhook (943951)

      You act like anonymous is an organized group, they're not. In fact they have no leader and no members list.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by N1AK (864906)

        You act like anonymous is an organized group, they're not. In fact they have no leader and no members list.

        It is a self-selected group of individuals; many of whom are part of formal or informal groups. Just because they don't have an official rank of 'Grand Imperial Poobah' it doesn't mean that there aren't de facto 'leaders'.

        • Since the group is fairly anonymous though, anybody could pretend to be them. It's not the best position to be in in terms of public image.

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            It is impossible to 'pretend' to be 'Anonymous', there is no such thing as a false flag 'Anonymous' attack. Any one and any time can conduct and any kind of activist activity in the name of 'Anonymous' and that factually is an activist activity by 'Anonymous'.

            'Anonymous' would be quite content for any government department or corporation to attack itself, a lot of those organisations behave in a psychopathic insane manor, so, 'Anonymous' would consider it normal behaviour for those organisations to attac

            • I wasn't thinking of government departments attacking themselves, so much as criminal organisations doing something purely for money, but pretending it was a politically driven Anonymous attack. Certain government departments could try to damage Anonymous' image by perpetrating fake attacks against public companies too of course.

            • by billcopc (196330)

              I'm not sure I agree, because the usual reaction to non-canon ops is to discredit Anonymous and label them not as activists but terrorists.

              I'd say any Anon op that doesn't have a clear anti-oppressive goal to be a potential false-flag op.

      • by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:24AM (#38816303)
        They do have a member list, but every entry is the same.
      • by Hentes (2461350)

        He never said that they were organised. All he said is that they don't have a consistent ideology and attack sites mostly at random making up an excuse for each of them. None of these requires them to be an organised group.

    • by billcopc (196330)

      It seems you still don't quite "get" Anonymous (pardon the pun).

      It's not one giant coordinated group of people, but an umbrella name for any individual or group choosing to use the label, along with the massive numbers of lurkers who join in as willing DDoS participants. Many of them follow a loosely aligned hacktivist ethos, others are unrelated troublemakers coopting the name because it's trendy or convenient.

      I would dare suggest that the random vandalism may be the result of small fringe groups hiding b

    • by stanlyb (1839382)
      You make it sound bad, but since when the politics become a good thing????? Or to make it more clear, they are not politicians, which is bad, but if they were politicians, it could be even worse.......anyway, whatever they do, is be definition bad. Cheers.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Look into the term "false flag" to see what is really going on here in an attempt to use the reputation of one group to conduct activities by which you can justify an over-strong response that you wanted to perform in the first place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

  • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:52AM (#38816169) Homepage

    If the government failed to properly inform the public, yet they're still raming it though. Is that even legal in poland? I seem to remember something in their laws about that being pretty illegal after they got back to that whole democracy thing.

    • by tbird81 (946205)

      It's legal everywhere else it seems.

      In NZ our useless Copyright Bill s92a was passed "under urgency" using the Christchurch earthquake as an excuse. Every political party (except the Greens) voted for it. Very few NZ citizens agree with it.

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Totenglocke (1291680) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @05:06AM (#38816601)

        Every political party (except the Greens) voted for it. Very few NZ citizens agree with it.

        Hence why I laugh at the notion that the people actually control the government in a democracy. The politicians do whatever they please because the people have no recourse but to vote for a different politician with the same goals.

        • by billcopc (196330)

          They would control the government if they posed a credible threat. Sadly, most first world nations don't even remember how to do that, because the last civil wars were centuries ago.

        • by Pi1grim (1956208)

          You can also laugh at the thought, that government, passing laws nobody is taking seriously is controlling anything. Try to enforce it — and get a crapstorm, plus the next official that will promise to get rid of this law will get your chair in no time.

        • by tehcyder (746570)

          Every political party (except the Greens) voted for it. Very few NZ citizens agree with it.

          Hence why I laugh at the notion that the people actually control the government in a democracy. The politicians do whatever they please because the people have no recourse but to vote for a different politician with the same goals.

          If you want different politics and different politicians, go and fucking do something about it instead of whining (anonymously or not) on the internet.

    • It's only law if the people agree to follow it.

      See how many of the population pay taxes when they're bankrupt or in jail.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @02:52AM (#38816171)

    Now the Polish government is trying to speed up the signatory process, making a statement of not giving in to 'cyber terrorists'.

    The "cyber terrorists" are actually the American government and the corporations that control the American government.

    The people who collude with the terrorists are the governments who take orders from the United States and enact legislation that was written by U.S. corporations. While the propaganda machine would like to deflect this problem unto protestors, everybody knows that Anonymous is merely making public what would otherwise be a back page news story.

    Too bad that Piratbyran has fallen victim to the propaganda. And no, I do not support DDoS (and I do not condemn it either), I merely recognize it as a reaction to an oppressive and irrational trend towards ever more authoritarian governance.

    Only stupid people will believe that Anonymous is expediting governments to be authoritarian. Too bad that there are a lot of stupid people in the world.

    • by tehcyder (746570)

      And no, I do not support DDoS (and I do not condemn it either), I merely recognize it as a reaction to an oppressive and irrational trend towards ever more authoritarian governance.

      The DDoS attacls are conscious act performed by human beings, not acts of nature, so why can't you either condemn or agree with them? You need a good reason to support vandalism/terrorism (call it what you like) but there are perfectly legitimate reasons to support even violence provided the cause is justified.

      I wouldn't support (say) Al Qaeda's terrorist methods because I don't agree with their objectives, but I would certainly defend the right of the French Resistance in the Second World War or the Bo

  • by Hozza (1073224) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:12AM (#38816253)

    This does seem like a bizarre reaction from the hacktivists. The Polish government is in the news because they're one the longest holdouts in signing up to ACTA. Surely one of the governments that signed up quickly and quietly, with the minimum of public discussion, is more worthy of our scorn.

  • Hardly unique. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:13AM (#38816259)
    I'm sure there are plenty of historical precidents in which an action is regarded as a form of legitimate protest by the perpetuators, but a form of illegal violence by the state. Eventually the judgement of history will decide, but that can take decades - and really just depends on who wins, and thus who writes the history books. If the US had lost the war of independance, we'd be teaching that the rebels were a bunch of selfish thugs who just wanted to get out of paying taxes.
    • Re:Hardly unique. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by walshy007 (906710) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:31AM (#38816333)

      If the US had lost the war of independance, we'd be teaching that the rebels were a bunch of selfish thugs who just wanted to get out of paying taxes.

      You mean to say they weren't? of all the colonies britain put around the world the US seems to be the only one where it resulted in a large war, the rest all progressed along peacefully. Lets not forget that the people of the US were the ones that started violence and hostilities. They wouldn't have even won without the french's support (since the english and the french were always at each others throats of the time, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc)

      The 'taxation without representation' Business could be construed as an after the fact justification. Initially very few americans even wanted to fight the english, they were fairly content. Only after the violent acts were done and britain came down hard on them was support gained. This could be likened to present day fighting in the middle east - a limited number of people cause a ruckus for another country, they overreact and create far more support for the initial cause by the reaction.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        If the US had lost the war of independance, we'd be teaching that the rebels were a bunch of selfish thugs who just wanted to get out of paying taxes.

        You mean to say they weren't? of all the colonies britain put around the world the US seems to be the only one where it resulted in a large war, the rest all progressed along peacefully.

        South Africa [wikipedia.org]

      • by bmo (77928)

        >the rest all progressed along peacefully.

        You mean all that violence by the British in India never happened?

        --
        BMO

      • you're funny. so in your alternate reality, boer war and world's first genocide never happened, in india people were not shot and batoned down (and that happened in mid 20th century ha !), endless smaller repressions around southeast asia et al were hallucinations. and just at the turn of the century, british air force (then new) commanders were reassuring british government that palestinians had had learned the value of carpet bombing first hand, since their cities have been bombed by world's first carpet

      • Re:Hardly unique. (Score:4, Informative)

        by mbone (558574) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @07:45AM (#38817189)

        I guess they don't teach much about the Easter Rising and the Irish Civil War in British schools, nor probably touch on the invention of concentration camps (a British coinage, you know) in South Africa, or the Mau Mau in Kenya, or, well, you get the picture (or, presumably, didn't beforehand). And, while India basically invented non-violent civil disobedience to get its independence more or less peacefully, that certainly wasn't true a century before, in the "Mutiny" of 1857, which was a large-scale war with a considerable number of civilian casualties.

        By the way, "no taxation without representation" dates from the 1750's, so it seems odd to call it an after the fact justification.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          No, he's actually right. In all your examples, it was the indigenous people (or previously established non-British colonists, in the case of the Boer Wars) who rebelled against British colonial rule.

          The US are the only colony (I am aware of) where the British colonists themselves rebelled against the Crown.

    • by flirno (945854)
      The rebels WERE a bunch of selfish thugs who just wanted to get out of paying taxes. What do you think the Boston Tea Party was? It was a bunch of colonists angry at the Tax rate on Tea. That is nothing new and no one tries to hide it or revise this aspect of history it even here in the US outside of toning down the presentation. The facts are there for anyone actually looking into it.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In the last article about these attacks, the list was all information sites. I've never visited riaa.com and I have no reason to ever visit it.
    All those types of sites just have the usual press releases, about us, and so on. Ditto for every .gov site ever.

    Why isn't anon focusing attacks on e-commerce sites? Sites of entities that support these laws, but will actually lose $$$ per hour if they go down.

  • Current Polish governmetn headed by Tusk is scared to death by free speech. They arrest bloggers (search "antykomor arrested"), record journaliest phone conversations (search "Helsinki Foundation WrÃblewski"), deny space on the future digital multiplex for not pro-government TV station (search "Trwam denied"). Since Tusk become prime minister, there were several uneplained air crasses that killed: Polish president, the chief of the Polish General Staff and other senior Polish military officers, the pre

    • i mean, what the fuck ? really ?

      polish president and HALF of polish government decides to visit russia to warm up relations much to the chagrin of u.s., and their plane just crashes on landing.

      and it just so happens that there are various missile shield/military alliance issues going on, and even more coincidentally, poland is to get eu presidency.

      fast forward to today and not even a year or so after, polish government is arresting bloggers and passing acta like a little bitch to american private interests.

      • by qbast (1265706)
        Because like you he is a nutcase? Polish government arresting bloggers, yeah right. You almost got it, only it was one blogger who was never arrested or charged with any crime. But do continue - maybe you could write something about artificial fog or helium too?
        • by unity100 (970058)

          You almost got it, only it was one blogger who was never arrested or charged with any crime

          idiot. it starts like that. its another form of suppression. they did same thing in turkey. like your sold-out government, turkish government is also america's bitch. back when they won their first election, press was free. now prime minister makes weekly meetings and tells all press leaders to what to print in their newspapers and broadcast on their tvs.

          • by tehcyder (746570)
            Yeah, sure, Turkey's ruling Islamist party is really going to be pro-American. I suppose that's why they're fstanding up against Israel, after having been in a fairly cosy relationship with them.

            Any decrease in free speech in Turkey is nothing to do with them selling out to America.
            • by unity100 (970058)

              Yeah, sure, Turkey's ruling Islamist party is really going to be pro-American. I suppose that's why they're fstanding up against Israel, after having been in a fairly cosy relationship with them.

              congrats for falling for the farce. 'they are islamist, so they cant be pro american'. thats what they want the populace here to think, and thats why exactly people here think, vote for them, and keep them in power.

              the reality is, laws that are even PROPOSED in usa by private interests, pass here in turkish parliament even before u.s. congress/senate starts debating a law draft for their version. see, all kinds of stuff that are pushed on you, from domain name censorship to filtering systems, have been pass

  • I bet some of those same people who turned into these politicians were here http://www.lubin82.pl/fotografie1.html [lubin82.pl] fighting the communists and dodging ZOMO bullets and tear gas grenades.

    • by Alex Belits (437) *

      People who were "fighting Communists" in Poland in 80's were left opposition to Communists.

      Then US-backed organizations rolled in rolled in, and subverted everything exploiting "enemy of my enemy" stupidity.

  • by lukaszg (1326959) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:53AM (#38816567)
    Currently ACTA is present here (Poland) in every news since a couple of days. People are furious, I think because: 1) Something such important was done behind their back 2) It certainly may limit freedom and may be cause of many abuses. Top government sites were hacked (as far as I know by different groups, some were quite funny). Despite large number of protests politicians seem to pretend that everything's alright and that they can continue with signing the act (yesterday polish ambassador in Japan was given permission to do that). What's funny is that Prime Minister says it won't change anything - so why to sign up? Many protests are being organised, similarly as with SOPA there are lists of politicians who support the act, some start to have doubts knowing that it may influence their appearance and perhaps future elections (in three years). I think that decisions are already made and nothing can be done. Some more info: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/01/22/poland-netizens-protest-governments-plan-to-sign-acta-next-week/ [globalvoicesonline.org] .
    • This is how it looks everywhere that the USA has reach, I'm just glad that the Polish people are standing up and making noise about it, and that your news organizations are independent enough to keep it in the news. We should all learn from your example.

      • by qbast (1265706)
        It did not work. News stopped reporting it already and government reiterated that they are going to sign anyway.
  • If you're in the Polish Government please remember you're in the European Union and not the Warsaw Pact.

    • by Alex Belits (437) *

      Countries of Warsaw Pact, of all things, were least concerned with foreign "IP law". Considering that actual Warsaw Pact was a military treaty, and there was no way to exchange military technology with "The West" legally, it would be strange if it was otherwise.

  • eu-encompassing treaty ? doesnt anything have to get ratified by european parliament ?

  • "Now the Polish government is trying to speed up the signatory process, making a statement of not giving in to 'cyber terrorists.'"

    Seems to me that's like smashing yourself in the face with a brick more just to spite those who were slapping you for being an idiot and doing such a thing in the first place.

  • In Poland we have a motto "Za nasza i wasza wolnosc" which roughly translates to "For our freedom and yours."

    These politicians have forgotten from where they came.

    • by Alex Belits (437) *

      These politicians have forgotten from where they came.

      From US "friends" that completely subverted former "Solidarnost" leaders by creating an US-dependent government, and turning Poland into the greatest US sycophant in Europe, not surpassed even by Kosovo Albanians more than a decade later?

  • The problem has a simple fix: http://signon.org/sign/fixing-copyright [signon.org]
  • They should work on planting "illegal" files on top government officials' home computers then blow the whistle on them.
    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      They should work on planting "illegal" files on top government officials' home computers then blow the whistle on them.

      What do you propose be put on those files? I mean, if the previous Polish presidents can't get removed for calling his opponents a bitch on national, or have well known money laundering, having bank accounts where 'bribes' cannot be monitored etc. What /is/ going to do any damage?

      This is also ignoring the fact that Poland is still very much a paper oriented bureaucracy. Poland has never rea

  • Let me get this straight:

    The DDoS is supposedly a response to the speedy implementation of ACTA, so now that the Polish officials have threatened to sign it anyway, the Pirat guy wants the DDoS to stop ?

    Let me translate that into slash-speak:

    "I was thinking of stealing your car next Saturday, but since you've been hitting me in the face with a Louisville slugger, I'm gonna steal your car this Thursday"

    The only people I know who think that way are thugs and gangsters. I think the attacks need to double in strength and breadth, and for the Polish people to take their protests to the streets. Swarm those government offices and scare the bejeezus out of those smug bast

    • by Kijori (897770)

      Why stop?

      Because attacks like this make the opponents of ACTA look like something in between children having a tantrum and bullies trying to force their will on everyone. Yes, there are people who think these hackers are heroes of virtue - just like there are those who will cheer on the freedom-fighters who loot shops during protest marches. Most people, though, expect opposition to political decisions to be shown by words not by vandalism. If you want to show how sensible your position is it helps if your

  • And if I knew that the Polish government would always speed up passing something into law whenever some group of "cyber-terrorists" started randomly attacking Polish websites, I'd craft a bill of my own, then pay some people to attack some websites when it came up for a vote.

    The thought process here -> 1.) I pay to introduce a bill to their legislature, 2.) I stage some random attacks in protest of my introduced bill, 3.) the Polish government screams "Oh no, zee terrorists want us not to pass the 'All P

  • Instead of consulting the people, lets just claim they are terrorist and ignore them.

  • I'm seeing a disappointing amount of "Anonymous is giving them reasons to support SOPA/PIPA/ACTA!"; that's the exact sort of spin that typical corporate-controlled media puts on these situations while trying to appear as if they're not horribly biased to begin with. Its the same sort of despicable falsehood that is spewed in attempting to denigrate the Occupy protests The majority of Anonymous most publicized actions involve either 1) Leaks of confidential information regarding government corruption,

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...