Piratbyran Co-Founder Says Stop DDoSing Polish Sites 140
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 means (Score:2, Insightful)
Speeding it up only means they had ever intention of passing it anyways,
Re:this means (Score:5, Insightful)
And now they have every justification for doing so in the eyes of most of their citizens.
Great job, anonymous! /sarcasm
Re: (Score:1)
Well, then most of the citizens deserve the government they get.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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]
/nosarcasm
Great job, anonymous!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I was there, on the streets, in Bydgoszcz, Poland. I had no mask. I wanted them to know that it was ME who was saying NO.
And yet you are posting as an Anonymous Coward here?
Great logic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Easy solution (Score:5, Funny)
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)
"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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the balance in our Justice system: Looking at a picture of at naked 16 year old I go to jail and on a list for life, but if I rape an 18 year old I only get a few years in jail....
You'd also go on the sex offenders list for life for raping an 18 year old, and you'd certainly get more than "a few years" for raping a 16 year old. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude - Poland is at least as religious as the USA and the probably an even worse US-brown-noser than the UK. Forget it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're projecting the American Republican religious ties onto Poland, which I don't know is all too accurate. But if you want to castigate all of religion, it's your right.
As far as brown nosing, you try being a border neighbor to Russia and see if you can make a go of it with no allies.
Any news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
>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'.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You sir, are brilliant. Shame you are posting it anonymously, calling anonymous terrorists.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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'.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Any news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming Anonymous is behind this. (Score:1)
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
So... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
See how many of the population pay taxes when they're bankrupt or in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Real cyber terrorists are Hollywood and the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Punishing the wrong government. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone goes to the other side in the middle of the war, possibly throwing a crucial battle, "after all we've been through together"? TRAITOR!
That's the basic reaction at play here.
Re:Punishing the wrong government. (Score:5, Informative)
Is it possible to punish the wrong Governemnt? (Score:2)
Hardly unique. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hardly unique. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
>the rest all progressed along peacefully.
You mean all that violence by the British in India never happened?
--
BMO
haha dude (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You should fight the abuse, not the excuse for the abuse that govermnent and copyright abusers give you.
Or we will end up with telling "you brought it on yourself" to all rape victims. Pirating is a copyright violation, not a justification for imporsing corporate censorship on the internet. There, you argument works both ways.
Follow the money (Score:1)
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. .gov site ever.
All those types of sites just have the usual press releases, about us, and so on. Ditto for every
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.
Polish Police Raid Blogger Over Presidential Sland (Score:1)
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
can anyone explain why the parent was modded troll (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Any decrease in free speech in Turkey is nothing to do with them selling out to America.
Re: (Score:2)
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
How soon some forget (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How it looks in Poland (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget they weren't in the Warsaw Pact? (Score:1)
If you're in the Polish Government please remember you're in the European Union and not the Warsaw Pact.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And then who is polish presidency to sign an (Score:2)
eu-encompassing treaty ? doesnt anything have to get ratified by european parliament ?
Okay.... (Score:2)
"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.
ZA NASZA I WASZA WOLNOSC?! (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Instead of DDos (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop ? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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
Oh I get it... (Score:2)
Instead of consulting the people, lets just claim they are terrorist and ignore them.
Typical spin on Anonymous, here? I expect better.. (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
even if the majority die in some freak accident,
You mean like a big plane crash?
Yikes dude.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually most of those who died were responsible for stalling the process of adoption of software patents in the EU. They had a different approach to freedom than the current government, which treats it as a commodity for sale
So let us create another conspiracy theory:
Their airplane is deliberately sabotaged so that people who will sign ACTA come to power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we start a non-conspiracy theory that not all events in the world are connected with copyright? I know, crazy huh?
Nah... boring...
Re:Stopping is not the solution (Score:4, Informative)
What!?
Dude, we're not THAT conservative. Actually, given that we're part of the Old World, you'd probably hard pressed to find anyone but the most closed-minded people, who would care about who is sleeping with whom.
We have a party leader who's brought a dildo to press conference, we have another who is apparently married to a cat in everything but official capacity, and we've had a share of convicted criminals, low-level swindlers and so on. At the least we've avoided a Berlusconi-level con guy, though.
Regards,
Ruemere
Re: (Score:2)
We have a party leader who's brought a dildo to press conference, we have another who is apparently married to a cat in everything but official capacity
You must be a paid shill for the Polish Tourist Board. Never before has your country sounded so interesting to an outsider. Please provide more details of the cat thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, with ACTA signed I may be sued for slander. And these particular guys love to litigate. :)
Regards,
Ruemere