Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swedish Anti-Piracy Lawyer Gets New Name 'Pirate'

Posted by samzenpus on from the the-power-of-the-prank dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (in Swedish) reports that Henrik Pontén, a lawyer of Antipiratbyrån, a Swedish organization against file sharing, has received a notification from officials that an application for change of his name has been approved and a new first name 'Pirate' has been added to his name. Authorities do not check the identity of persons applying for name changes. Pirate Pontén now has to apply for another change in order to revert the change."

178 comments

  1. it will only hurt the cause... by VMaN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Horribly childish, and just gives the opposition more ammo, and reinforces the childish stereotype.

    But goddamn that's a brilliant prank.

    1. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by steeljaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, but even though it will be viewed as a cheap prank it is still quite clever. Not to mention the fact that it had me LMFAO!!

      --
      Procrastinators, Unite Tomorrow!!
    2. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is also the possibility that he did this too himself, nobody knows since who ever changed his name is anonymous.

      And know this, the news article was published on the day before the Swedish election. Very suspicious timing by the anti-piracy agency here...

    3. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is indeed a good prank. He should be more interested in securing the name change process instead of trying to pin it on the Pirate Party or one of their supporters. They may never know who actually submitted the change.

    4. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My, aren't we tin-foily today..

    5. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      > childish stereotype
      maybe not the worst outcome: if we* can change the meaning of "think of the children" a lot of the opposition's ammo is ruined...

      *) a generic "I as part of an interest group", not "we as united and one /. crowd" :)

    6. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...who ever changed his name is anonymous.

      I don't think that Anonymous is responsible for this, but while we're speaking of them, I predict that a great number of prominent Swedish Scientologists will soon find themselves with creative names as soon as word gets out that you don't have to give your real name. Although Scientologists have had as much scandal in Sweden as they have in most of the world, I think they still have a population there at least proportional to many other places and are about as well-received.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by openfrog · · Score: 1

      I would say that this reinforces more the uncontrolled "outlaw" stereotype than the "childish" one, right in line with the Rand Corporation propaganda, which links file sharing to organized crime and terrorism. This precisely and effectively serves that purpose, whoever it is who did this. And I don't find anything redeeming in the fact that it is a brilliant prank or not.

    8. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Or someone on his team.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not so fast ... understand the full implication of "published on the day before the Swedish election". Could be members of The Pirate Party, the folks that run The Pirate Bay. These guys have real candidates running for real public offices.

      --
      My blog
    10. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the guy can't both demand people have less personal information protection _AND_ demand people have more personal information protection.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    11. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or we could admit that speculation either way is pointless. People do fake crimes, and Occam's Razor != knowing.

    12. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think speculation is pointless. We have one extremely unlikely possibility, and one extremely likely possibility. Saying speculation is pointless implies they are equally likely.

    13. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by sdpuppy · · Score: 1

      Would be even funnier if they change the law such that you can only apply for a name change once. Now that would be cool!

    14. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with your suspicion. This could be just opposition generating more ammo for themselves.

    15. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Horribly childish, and just gives the opposition more ammo, and reinforces the childish stereotype.

      But hey... They got a seat on the EU parliament.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    16. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you know a sense of humor is on your side in an argument, faking a crime to make the other side look childish is a compelling tactic. Do you really think the anti-piracy groups are too stupid to realize the potential?

      People can and do frame others for crimes. Scientologists have a long running history of it, I don't doubt that copy-right leachers (the people who make money off of other's copyrights without actually contributing anything) would try this same kind of thing.

    17. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Given the track record and the scientology connections of the swedish anti-pirate side, the likely possibility is that it's a false flag thing.

    18. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But goddamn that's a brilliant prank.

      In my mind, this is actually a little beyond childish prank territory.

      To all you folks who are going to write in with "ZOMG LMAO! Grow a sense of humor!" and so on, ask yourselves: would a straight-up act of identity theft be as funny if it were aimed at an anti-copyright lobbyist? This isn't a prank--the man's signature was forged on an official document, and then (apparently) submitted to the Swedish tax authorities. I don't know about Sweden, but in the U.S. that's pretty heavily criminal conduct.

    19. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that "anonymous" was just a regular adjective, long before the whole Operation Chanology thing, right?

    20. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by legirons · · Score: 1

      I would say that this reinforces more the uncontrolled "outlaw" stereotype than the "childish" one, right in line with the Rand Corporation propaganda, which links file sharing to organized crime and terrorism.

      think about that for a moment... terrorists exploiting a security flaw in government bureaucracy to change someone's name without their permission?!?

      hardly sounds like an organised crime/terrorism MO does it now?
       

    21. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

      ZOMG LMAO! Grow a sense of humor!

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    22. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They weren't fraudulent wire transfers, idiot. They were perfectly legitimate, small value transfers. It just so happened that there was a processing fee greater than the value of the intended transfer amount. Furthermore, Occam razor doesn't mean jack shit. "The simplest solution is USUALLY correct". It doesn't mean that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct.

      It's perfectly legitimate to suspect that this guy did this himself to make the pirate party look more childish and discredit them. We've seen the anti-piracy fucks do weirder, stupider and more far fetched things in the past.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    23. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize it was used as a term to describe the group long before the Project Chanology thing, right?

    24. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Would a straight-up act of identity theft be as funny if it were aimed at an anti-copyright lobbyist?

      No...But it was.
      Which(actually, factually and objectively) was funny enough to outweigh the not very horrible-murder-level crime being committed.

      So, ZOMG LMAO! Grow a sense of humor!

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    25. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would a straight-up act of identity theft be as funny if it were aimed at an anti-copyright lobbyist?

      Yep, especially if their first name was changed to RIAA or MPAA.

    26. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > People can and do frame others for crimes. Scientologists have a
      > long running history of it, I don't doubt that copy-right leachers

      Scientology's fingerprints are all over the anti-pirate side. Makes sense that an evil cult would support an evil law. Look into
      "Monique Wadsted"

      http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-prosecution-law-firm-under-attack-090426/

    27. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      It may be childish, but it's also funny. These anti-piracy assholes tie up the courts in semantics and are bought and paid for by the movie and recording industry and have no interest in fair use etc... They are whores to the RIAA and MPAA... So to see them get taken down a peg or two is lovely.

    28. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think it's blazingly hilarious, but if the system's letting anyone change anyone else's name because they're not bothering to check identities, then the system is broken. Simple as that. Better it's abused in such a fashion now, rather than something more serious, so that it can be fixed.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    29. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      We have one extremely unlikely possibility, and one extremely likely possibility.

      Says you, "Mike", if that is your real name...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    30. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you living here in sweden? You don't seem quite in tune with the atmosphere...

      It IS childish, and that's exactly why things like these benefit the cause, because it goes in tune with the pirate image. Pirates are viewed as young people doing something relatively harmless and being opposed with great force by corporations and authorities. That image is THE thing that helps move the cause, it's like the hippie image of the 70s.

      Hopefully, Pontén will catch the bait and try to sue the person who did this or whatever. That will only go to show how he tries to hurt children who are doing innocent pranks.

    31. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by avilliers · · Score: 1

      Could be. On the other hand, a name is just "imaginary property", so we have no reason to assume the pro-piracy opponents would even consider this a crime, would we? ;)

    32. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think, if the Pirate Party were in charge, their strong views of privacy would never let some random person walk into a government office and change the name of someone else without having to prove that it's their identity to change!

    33. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      there is no group. it's an ILLUSION

    34. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Oh give me a break, your signature is used many places when sending in forms without any further identity checks. What would you like, a photocopy of the id? It's practicly worthless since there's no telling who really signed it. The next step up is really witnesses like your will or getting married and it's absolutely overkill. He can change it back and no real harm is done. The only thing that happened here was that an asshat abused a system that works just fine. There should probably be an abuse flag to make sure you can't pull the same prank over and over, but they're no need to mend what's not broken.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I hadn't read the article, and thought it was about an anti-piracy activist... in which case the name 'Pirate' would make sense.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    36. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're starting with a conclusion (anti-piracy is teh fascism, pirates are saints) and moving backwards from there, and any facts that doesn't fit that model are a conspiracy to discredit those wonderful pirates. I wish I could say this thought surprised me.

    37. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an attempt to defraud the firm, the intent wasn't legitimate, and the idea that anybody, let alone a court, would be fooled by that crap is preposterous. Sorry, but believe it or not, judges aren't idiots. Even in Sweden.

    38. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I understand that tin foil hats amplify the mind-control waves :D

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    39. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by gilbert64 · · Score: 0

      Yes they were fraudulent wire transfer, intent matters. And this kind of childish behavior is just par for the course for the Swedish pro-piracy lobby. Furthermore, slashdot discussions are often about making guesstimates and assumption based on history and Occam's razor is indeed relevant, it would be hypocritical to start dismissing it now just because slashdot group psyche wants Swedish pirates to be more mature than they really are. (Again an assumption based on your +5 moderation).

    40. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor != knowing

      Actually, Occam did indeed show that occam's razor was in fact knowing, by using occam's razor, calling "dibs." He successfully defended this in debates by putting his fingers in his ears and yelling "nananananan! I'm Occam I cant hear you! NANANAN!"

    41. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Childish, maybe. Childish by whom is the question.

      If I read that correctly, it was not even his own doing. Someone managed to change this guy's name. If he can actually prove this, it's a golden opportunity served on a silver platter. First, he can show that the pro-IP faction is not above namecalling (hey, quite literally so!). Second, he could keep the name and use it whenever someone claims he's "a pirate" ("no, good sir, I am the pirate. Here, my business card. But hey, I thought you already knew...").

      Finally, it may just serve the dilution and inflation of the term "pirate", as much as "terrorist" already has been diluted into ridicule. When everyone and everything gets a "bad" label, the label itself becomes meaningless.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The RIAA has done stupider things in courts, I wouldn't rule it out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any system that can be abused so easily is broken and should be fixed.

      As I've said before, I'm in IT security. And I've seen time and again that there are systems that contain very sensitive data with shoddy, if any, security in place. When pointed out, the responsible people usually point me at legal instead of IT.

      Legal isn't where security should be done. You don't protect your data with laws, you protect them by protecting them. Handing the security of a system (IT, bureaucratic, whatever) to legal is asking for trouble, as much as saying that you don't need fire extinguishers, you got a good insurance covering you when you burn down to the ground.

      The same applies here. If it is possible to change someone's name at will, the system needs an overhaul. Sure, it is against the law, but this should be the last line of defense, to keep people who are really GOOD at breaking it from breaking it because they got other, more profitable, ways to achive something within the boundaries of the law. More and more often, laws and regulations are regarded as the first, and often only, line of defense you have against an attack.

      That's not only enough, that's simply and plainly asking for trouble. Especially when dealing with people who act out of zeal and not out of personal profit and gain.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      From what I recall of this story, the stuff about asking for the money back certainly at least bordered on fraudulent, but I'm not entirely convinced that the micropayments in and of themselves were fraudulent, or that they even could be. Perhaps on a sufficiently large scale they could be called harassment.

      The payments were, at least in theory, legitimate payments, an individual sent money to repay a legal debt. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no law requiring a minimum for an electronic payment, and the problem with these payments relates to banks(and is actually a very major obstacle to the various media industries in question as effective micro-billing will be potentially profitable for them.

      Should sending someone money in small enough chunks that they lose money instead of gaining it be illegal. Almost certainly. Is it actually against any existing law, I'm not entirely sure. Probably one of he many digital loopholes that will eventually get filled by the law. There have been many of them, and the somewhat reactionary ways in which they were filled have been half of what caused this battle in the first place.

    45. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so fast ... understand the full implication of "published on the day before the Swedish election". Could be members of The Pirate Party, the folks that run The Pirate Bay. These guys have real candidates running for real public offices.

      WAIT sense when have the pirate party and pirate bay ever been tied together. I Could be totally wrong but the Pirate party support pirate bay in spirit but there are no or few actually connections.

    46. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Only because said tax authorities and officials have a stick up their tailpipe. This is a fairly harmless prank incited by the mans own public actions.

      Most things are pretty heavily criminal conduct in the U.S. The problem is that people often confuse criminal/illegal with wrong/immoral/bad/evil/nefarious.

      This may have been highly illegal but it wasn't particularly bad and certainly not evil. No harm was intended except ridicule and in the U.S. at least, someone who has made themselves such a public figure loses their right to protection against ridicule, they are expected to endure it as the price for living a public life. Lets not forget the free speech rights of those who made this statement.

    47. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it not a prank? it can be undone and is little more than annoyance. yes laws were broken to do. But no more than say, dismantling a Dean's car, and rebuilding it inside a gymnasium is. yes, one could argue that they are guilty of theft, vandalism, trespassing and a whole slough of other things as well for all I know, but in any Reasonable Society, even getting caught, the instigators of the car prank would face the penalty of a public apology, and maybe community service.

      On the other side is the government, and they should take a serious look at themselves, if a signature is all that's required for proof of identity for them, they need to do a serious overhaul. Even if its just for the one specific service.
      Don't punish the citizen who shows your governments blatant weaknesses, pay him and ask him to find more, so they can be fixed.

    48. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Here in the states almost all official action like this requires you showing up in person at the official office to submit the document where they will check id or at least to have the document certified by a state registered and bonded notary republic who will verify your ID.

    49. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Occam's Razor is that the simplest solution is the easiest one to disprove. It's not an answer all to itself.

    50. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I changed his name.

    51. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MO

      Missouri has organized crime now? Help us all...

    52. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Definitely a broken system.
      At least they didn't change his name to "Kinderfucker" or whatever the Swedish equivalent would be.

    53. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Well it is the pretty much the same as comparing a child who copies a song, to a person who steals the family car, pirates come on now really. To be clear here, if I could press the button and make a copy of any car I liked, well bugger the copyrightists and show me the button.

      So yeah, moves are afoot to get copyright back under control, to eliminate the excessive influence of publicists and mass media over politics, ensure that copyright is valued well below the real essential of life, that only content that is of value to society is protected and duration is pulled back to the original period.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    54. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      The Pirate Bay style guys made thmeselves look childish already...

      http://thepiratebay.org/legal

      Enjoy those mature replies!

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    55. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by TheP4st · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least they didn't change his name to "Kinderfucker" or whatever the Swedish equivalent would be.

      That would not have gone through as there are guidelines for what name you can have in Sweden and that would definitely not pass, I am actually quite doubtful this one normally would either, and am leaning towards the possibility that whoever that approved the change don't have much sympathy for Pirate Ponten and therefore could not resist approving the change.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    56. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Any system that can be abused so easily is broken and should be fixed

      The Swedish system is very broken. Steps to steal someones identy and clean out their bank account and/or get loans in their name:
      1. Find a good victim in the tax records which are publicly available.
      2. Go to tax authority and ask for his birth certificate. in Sweden this is a A4 printout.
      3. Find out when the victim will be away from home for 3-4 weeks, a bit tricky but far from impossible. Could for example be accomplished by pretending to do market research for a travel agency.
      4. Have pictures taken
      5. Convince someone to do you company to an authority that issues ID cards, Bank, Post Office, Police. This someone could be a wino bribed with a boottle of booze and tidied up, or just a random gullible person from the street. People are often very gullible/naive/overly helpful.
      6. Apply for a new ID card and have the person accompanying you identify himself and sign the application verifying that you are who you claim.
      7. Wait 3-4 weeks, scavage victims mailbox for letter saying that your new ID card is ready to pickup and bank statements.
      8. Pick up your new shiny ID card at the issuer, once again with a wino or gullible person to verify that you are who you claim to be.
      9. Go to victims bank.
      10. Profit!

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    57. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      For 2. I should have mentioned that in Sweden you can request the birth certificate for any random person and it will be given to you in person. And there is no requirement to provide your identity when doing so.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    58. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      The Pirate Party does not run Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay was started by members of the Piracy Bureau, not the Pirate Party. The two are not affiliated.

    59. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by noundi · · Score: 1

      Wrong, saying that speculation is pointless also implies that you're only interested in the truth. Actually it implies many things so here you go.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    60. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Of course not. But the Pirate Bay are Pirate Party members, obviously. So in a sense the Pirate Party is partly made up by the Pirate Bay.

    61. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      "Fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them â" usually, to obtain property or services unjustly."

      Fraud is actually a broad crime, the act performed to defraud doesn't need to specifically be illegal.

      Sending large amounts of irregular wire transfers purely for the purpose of causing monetary damage would most certainly be a criminal act.

    62. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Upphew · · Score: 1

      Sending large amounts of irregular wire transfers purely for the purpose of causing monetary damage would most certainly be a criminal act.

      I just hope that sending parts of media files for the purpose of nailing someone of copyright infringement is criminal act too...

    63. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor is a bit more specific and logically rigorous than the airy-fairy rule of thumb that you're making it out to be. It states that the explanation containing the least number of assumptions is most likely to be correct. Statistically speaking this is rigorous, since each extra assumption has a non zero chance of being wrong - so every new assumption increases the chances that the explanation is wrong. The most rational choice of explanations is the one that, given all the information you have to hand, is the most statistically likely to be true.

      Of course, the fact that it isn't a certainty still doesn't change the fact that it is a more likely explanation than all the other less likely explanations. The fact that you prefer to believe one of the less likely explanations doesn't justify writing off occams razor as "not meaning jack shit"

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    64. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Poor choice of wording. Should have been "The folks that run Pirate Bay could be members of the Pirate Party; they could have done it."

      --
      My blog
    65. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Rowas · · Score: 1

      >I am actually quite doubtful this one normally would either, and am leaning towards the possibility that whoever that approved the change don't have much sympathy for Pirate Ponten
      >and therefore could not resist approving the change.

      Actually, considering other names that have been approved, such as Fantomen(swedish version of The Phantom), then it is very likely that it is Ok for this to go through without a hitch.
      Kalle Anka(swedish version of Donald Duck) also have been approved.

    66. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by loutr · · Score: 1

      I doubt he will keep the name and use it against the pro-IP faction, as he is an anti-piracy lawyer... Assumedly this was done by a supporter of the piratebay or of the pirate party.

    67. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well. Then again, I've been a victim of Identity Theft. Someone got a hold of my name, address, SSN, and DOB and opened a credit card in my name. (Despite not having the correct Mother's Maiden Name - thank you Capital One for requiring this "Security Question" and then not checking the answer!!!) Luckily, I caught it quickly so no real damage was done, but it's still horrifying to know that your information is out there for any criminal to use.

      I'd hate to think what havoc could be wrecked if a name change could be affected merely by forging one signature. One roommate could change the other roommate's official name. Then, this roommate could use this name change to worm his way into the other's Identity all the while pretending that those letters with the strange name on them must be junk mail. By time the victim knows what's happening, the roommate could skip town with the victim's entire life savings and leaving the victim's credit in shambles for years to come.

      So while some might get a bit of a thrill that this was directed at an anti-piracy/pro-copyright individual, the fact that their system is that broken is too scary to me to get any joy out of this guy's suffering. The only good part in all of this is that there will likely be a push now to tighten up the loophole.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    68. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      No, not really, only one of them voted for the Pirate Party, the others did not. If he is also a member of the Pirate Party I have no idea.

    69. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      "Fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them â" usually, to obtain property or services unjustly."

      Sending large amounts of irregular wire transfers purely for the purpose of causing monetary damage would most certainly be a criminal act.

      If there's a law against, it, sure. But it doesn't fit your definition of fraud. They're not deceiving anyone by sending them money, and they're also not obtaining property or services unjustly. Could be it's a legal form of harrassment. Similar (thought much, much smaller) to suing someone and dropping the case after they're racked up a good amount of legal fees.

      What's morally wrong isn't always illegal, and what's morally right isn't always legal.

    70. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      would a straight-up act of identity theft be as funny if it were aimed at an anti-copyright lobbyist?

      No, but this wasn't identity theft. It's more like an identity gift.

      In any case, it's most likely fraud, but still funny.

    71. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Husgaard · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legitimate to suspect that this guy did this himself to make the pirate party look more childish and discredit them. We've seen the anti-piracy fucks do weirder, stupider and more far fetched things in the past.

      We cannot know if he did it himself to discredit the pirates.

      But he did break this story just days before the election where the Pirate Party according to the polls at that time was going to win two seats (they ended up with only one seat). And he used the media time he got because of this to blame the Pirate Party for a lot of alledged harrasment, including death threats. Some of the harrasment he blamed the Pirate Party for dates back to long before the Pirate Party was even founded.

      He is currently head of the swedish anti-piracy outfit Antipiratbyrån, who has a history of doing wrong and attempting to blame others for it. One example is the Bahnhof case. This was a big raid against an ISP, initiated by Antipiratbyrån. Servers were confiscated, as a lot of illegal copies were found on them. Later it was revealed that Antipiratbyrån had hired a person to get an employment at this ISP, and that all the illegal copies found on the servers were placed there by this person.

    72. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      You appear to be arguing the position that this system should not regarded as broken, because other systems are just as broken.

      I therefore certify your argument free of any fallacy, due to the existence of many other equally fallacious arguments.

      Yours Sincerely,

      A. Friend

    73. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, Occam razor doesn't mean jack shit. "The simplest solution is USUALLY correct". It doesn't mean that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct.

      You are misstating what Occam's Razor is. The principle is that if you have 2 alternate theories that both make identical predictions and the only difference is that 1 theory includes additional complications with no additional explanatory power, then the simpler one should be kept and the complex one discarded.

      Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about how to compare 2 alternate theories that don't both make the same predictions. In order to choose between theories with different predictions the correct procedure is to pick the theory that better matches the evidence.

      Without occam's razor you could take any theory "N" and make a competing version called "N+transcendental pixies". The pixies don't add any explanatory power but they make the theory more complex and have absolutely no method for selecting one over the other except flipping a coin.

      By your re-statement of occam's razor the ultimate explanation for everything would simply be "because".

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    74. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just submit to government and be grateful for whatever they decide you deserve. Your obedience is your only worthy offering to society. Opposing government can only get you in trouble because big government is obviously part of God's plan, and who are you to disrupt their divine right with your silly pranks.

      If you would like a redress of grievances you need to apply for a permit and wait in line like everyone else and when it is your turn you will be given a date, time, place, appropriate method and approved material for protest, as well as the limit on the number of protesters you may have at your rally; this all assumes that there are enough officers available to ensure that your operation is peaceful and not subversive, distracting, offensive, or inconvenient to the public. This ensures that everyone gets a fair and equal turn to have their voice heard.

      Hm,.. I was trying to come up with something sarcastic, but then I realised that really is the way it works in the US, and I really couldn't come up with anything more weird. *sigh*

      Personally, firm non-violent and fully inconvenient pranks to address an issue is anything but childish. Geeks control the Internet and all these electronic systems. Bureaucrats are very effective at manipulating people with their versions of the truth. Governments can burn books and confiscate property and there is little to be done at gun point. But in a free information world, with the method and control so tightly integrated, a natural separation of power has been created that is very difficult to subvert with force. People, particularly governments, are using more and more technology where an understanding of the technology both unnecessary and difficult for end users.

      Attack the Internet, and the Internet will fight back. What is going to happen here is that it will be far more expensive for the government to hunt down this individual than visa versa. Further, I expect that the "public outcry", people trying to wrap their heads around the issue, will expose the unnatural force of extreme corruption involved in the protection of the content distribution monopoly at the public's expense. Maybe not much, but I expect that the government is going to come out looking like a bit of a bully, and at least incompetent.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    75. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      so you are saying that non-violence is not just ineffective, but also confusing?

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    76. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by thtrgremlin · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I still think the fact that it was as easy as it was to do this, in addition to how stupid the victim looks trumps the "childish nature" of the prankster. The prank was both serious, and non-violent. I think the ambition of the people behind the cause is made more real is over all net affect. Actions like this change the rules of the game; you don't think that this will haunt that lawyer for the rest of his life and possibly damage his ability to get clients, or be taken seriously by judges?

      Playground rules always apply.

      --
      Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
    77. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible that this could have been done intentionally to the advantage of copyright lobbyists. In their view Sweden lacks "proper laws" or has too lenient ones ( to protect their copyright of course.). it is possible that this was done to highlight the shortcomings in swedish law and the administration system. They could then go ahead presenting the need for tighter laws.

    78. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by gebbeth · · Score: 1

      Should sending someone money in small enough chunks that they lose money instead of gaining it be illegal. Almost certainly. Is it actually against any existing law, I'm not entirely sure. Probably one of he many digital loopholes that will eventually get filled by the law. There have been many of them, and the somewhat reactionary ways in which they were filled have been half of what caused this battle in the first place.

      I am sorry, buy why should this be illegal? Why should any respectable government waste everyone's time writing yet another pointless ineffectual over-engineered law that will eventually be abused as it evolves into some sort of tyranical restriction. Why don't banks and other organizations that allow micro-payments simply set a minimum transfer amount such that the amount transferred to the recipient must be positive after any fees are subtracted? Or they could make the sender pay the transfer amount (since in any sort of commerce this cost would be built into the product anyway) OR let the recipient specify (via an account setting) the minimum amount that they will accept as a payment. There are countless ways to avoid negative transfers without getting governments and laws involved. If this happened to me, I would complain to the bank, not the government! If the bank were to be unwilling to provide relief, they must not want me as a customer.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    79. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diamonds

      Any system that can be abused so easily is broken and should be fixed.

      Any system that involves humans can be easily abused. Any system that is designed by the humans and does not involve the extensive and long review can be exploited as well. And as someone who works in IT security, you sure know that typically the exploits are not within the main codepath, but rather one of the unexpected corner cases that noone thought of due to the complexity of the system or the human mistake. And that the system that fails outside its specs is not necessarily a bug.

      So I would assert that because some asocial idiots decided to prove something does not mean the world should be rewritten from scratch (the power of legacy code is all those bugs that are already found).

      But rather that the newly christened Pirate should find those responsible and hang them on the mast like by their balls, like real pirates would do! Now he has the right :)

      As I've said before, I'm in IT security. And I've seen time and again that there are systems that contain very sensitive data with shoddy, if any, security in place. When pointed out, the responsible people usually point me at legal instead of IT.

      For this, I'll confront you with a bit cruel, but simple question.

      You've a choice to select one and only one of the to groups, the other one will have to suffer pain and misery:

      a) yourself and your family
      b) N individuals you never knew and never will

      assuming there exists some value of N for which you consider those two groups of equal importance, what is the value of N for you ?

      Try asking it next time to the responsible people after your "security question" and see if they point you to legal for the answer on it as well.

    80. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It should be illegal because someone with a great deal of money could use the technique to basically bankrupt anyone they so choose. If you sent enough money in small enough increments you could wipe out their entire savings and possibly their balance down to a significantly negative number depending on the bank.

      Yes, banks are capable of stopping it, but since all those excess fees go to them, why should they? There's a thousand things which could be done to make micro-payments work, but the banks aren't particularly interested in them since they profit quite a bit out of the current system.

      The digital age has created a large number of situations which previous laws were not designed to cover, and with the way most legal systems work(based on the letter of the law not the intent), this basically leaves giant loopholes violating the intent of the law.

      Sometimes these loopholes benefit consumers, sometimes they don't. It's quite common when the shape of the world changes dramatically in a very short period of time. There's really no difference between this sort of thing and stuff like carnivore. The law probably doesn't protect against this, and it didn't protect against carnivore, in both cases the law need(s)(ed) to be changed to protect against something which fundamentally violates the intent of the law, but not its letter.

      Over-engineering is necessary for laws because that's how laws work, if they don't explicitly make something legal, or explicitly make it illegal then often times they don't work, or at least not in the way they were intended. There's always judicial review, but while the interpretation of the law is sometimes necessary, that's no excuse for sloppy law.

    81. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by gebbeth · · Score: 1

      Yes, banks are capable of stopping it, but since all those excess fees go to them, why should they? There's a thousand things which could be done to make micro-payments work, but the banks aren't particularly interested in them since they profit quite a bit out of the current system.

      Why would they?

      I contend that a bank that rakes its customers over the coals in the manner in which you described would quickly have no customers. Word would spread incredibly quickly in today's information age that bank x royally screwed person y and customers would remove their money in droves.

      Since the amount of money that a bank can loan is tied to the amount of "reserves" they have on hand, a bank that had any significant number of withdrawals (say 5-10%) would very quickly have its balance sheets become negative rendering the bank insolvent as currently outstanding loans exceed the bank's capital requirements which justify those loans.

      Banks compete fiercly for customers with the cost to attract a new customer being quite high. While on the surface it might seem that having more revenue from service charges and fees would be in the best interest of bank x, it clearly would not be worth the tarnished reputation of allowing its customers to be wiped out by some nefarious prankster sending micro-payments.

      My point is that sure, banks like to charge fees and penalties, but I think I given compelling reasons why they would be interested in limiting/eliminating the ability of the above mentioned nefarious prankster from wiping someone out.

      Every time a law is passed people lose freedom. While each individual law may seem to be reasonable and well-intentioned, the cumulative effect of law upon law upon law is quite restrictive. Additionally, laws are frequently perverted to mean things and to enforce things that they were never intentioned to. Look at abuses of the DMCA, the Patriot act and I am sure countless others that don't come to mind just this moment.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    82. Re:it will only hurt the cause... by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      The only reason a bank would change this model is if they thought they could gain an advantage out of it, or their one of their competitors did it first.

      Banks don't compete nearly as hard as you think they do for customers. Yes they're willing to spend quite a bit of money to get people in the door, but that's because in today's modern age where everything you do is tied to your bank account, changing banks is a lot of work and a customer will probably stay with them until life circumstances force them to change. That doesn't mean they work particularly hard to maintain customers, the hassle of leaving does most of that for them already.

      Free market ideology claims that the result of the free market is that prices will be driven to their lowest sustainable level. This however, isn't remotely true unless the barriers to entry are close to zero, which is almost never the case. Most companies, even without collusion are well aware that the end result of a price war is that they're pretty much exactly where they were before only with tighter margins. Only a company who is large enough to believe they can wipe their competitors out with a price war(Microsoft) or small enough that they have nothing to lose by shaking up the status quo has any interest in starting a price war. There are very few small banks.

      It is true that every time a law is passed people lose freedom. It is also true that a large number of recent digital laws have been badly written(under-engineered not over-engineered) and that the DMCA and the Patriot act are good examples of these(though you could argue that the people who framed those laws framed them for exactly the purpose to which they are being put and that they aren't in fact being abused from that perspective). That doesn't mean that certain activities shouldn't be illegal.

      Using a legitimate process to maliciously bankrupt someone isn't necessarily fraud, but it is certainly behavior which needs to be discouraged, and expecting the systems to be perfect so it can't happen isn't a valid solution.

      Your suggestion that banks should merely stop this from being possible is a bit like saying that every house should be impossible to break into by design and that therefor you shouldn't need a law against murdering someone in their bed. Certainly you need to prove the malicious intent, just as you need to prove that the murderer committed murder, but that doesn't mean you don't need a law.

  2. 'Bout damn time... by geekmux · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a lawyer was honest enough to carry this title.

    (ducks for cover)

    1. Re:'Bout damn time... by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      Don't duck! You spoke the truth.

    2. Re:'Bout damn time... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My grandmother used to say "you may be right, you can be dead right."

      She said it in reference to a specific ancestor who got shot for taking back a saw that was his from a neighbour who borrowed and would not return it. Being right isn't everything in other words, sometimes being alive is good too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:'Bout damn time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're obviously confused. Lawyers are vampires not pirates.

    4. Re:'Bout damn time... by AioKits · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does this mean NYCL gets to change his first name to Badass?

      Badass Beckerman does have a nice ring to it...

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    5. Re:'Bout damn time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll give him a middle name too:

      McSteelnuts

    6. Re:'Bout damn time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She said it in reference to a specific ancestor who got shot for taking back a saw that was his from a neighbour who borrowed and would not return it.

      Can I borrow that saw if you still have it?

    7. Re:'Bout damn time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as you don't mind being called Bad Assbeckerman. http://www.xkcd.com/37/

    8. Re:'Bout damn time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can try.

    9. Re:'Bout damn time... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      IIRC its in a museum as his death caused the first "white man" graveyard to be built on Manitoulin Island.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  3. Childish and Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they going to steal his ball at recess next?

    I'm sure a million teenagers are

    1. Re:Childish and Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they going to steal his ball at recess next?

      Which one? Leftie or rightie?

    2. Re:Childish and Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you!

      - Lance

    3. Re:Childish and Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was a little below the belt!

  4. Who is he really now? by HorzaSe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wonder if he has to sign the request to revert his name, with "Pirate Ponten" for it to be considered?

    1. Re:Who is he really now? by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 4, Funny

      he can just make an X

    2. Re:Who is he really now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like on a pirate map?

    3. Re:Who is he really now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Mr. Pirate Ponten,

      In light of recent fraudulent name-change submissions, we now request that you provide a proof of identity in order to verify that you are indeed Pirate Ponten.

      Sincerely,

      Registration

    4. Re:Who is he really now? by hduff · · Score: 1

      he can just make an X

      Or an "R" . . .

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    5. Re:Who is he really now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a skull overtop?

    6. Re:Who is he really now? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      It would have to be with two crossed bones.

    7. Re:Who is he really now? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't that be a forgery of the signature I made when I ordered a Swedish VPN exit point? ;-)

  5. And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Sweden if you're trans and want to change to a name of the different gender you need approval from social servcies, which among other things requires you are sterile. Yet a lawyer can add "Pirate" to his first name without the agencies even checking the identity of the applicant. Hurra fÃr myndigheter!

  6. Re:Someone should by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's funnier is that Sweden already has a guy named Butt: Billy Butt.

    He was a record producer who was convicted on multiple counts of rape.

  7. Should have copyrighted his old name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And then sued him personally if he tried to get it back or use it without permission....

    Poorly executed IMO but a step in the right direction all the same.

    1. Re:Should have copyrighted his old name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't "copyright" a name. I believe a trademark is what you are thinking of but you can't get those for proper names.

  8. The Poem of the Day by Celeste+R · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please excuse this poem, which some could argue is cornier than a corn cob...

    The Lawyer who turned Pirate:
          There once was a lawyer from Switzerland
          Who was paid to take things hand over hand
          When someone called the kettle black
          And at this lawyer took a whack
          He's now known as part of a pirate band.

    --
    There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:The Poem of the Day by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Funny poem for sure, but the guy in the story is from Sweden. Nice job though.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:The Poem of the Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There was once a scum lawyer from Sweden
      who wrote tales less true than Joss Whedon
      Since in the high court
      these he did exhort
      with a loophole he was made a grand teton.

    3. Re:The Poem of the Day by e9th · · Score: 1

      There once was a lawyer from Sverige
      Who lived off IP theft hysteria...

    4. Re:The Poem of the Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny poem for sure, but the guy in the story is from Sweden. Nice job though.

      Eh, same difference.

    5. Re:The Poem of the Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden, Switzerland. Meh. They're in the same hemisphere. Close enough for purposes of orbital bombardment.

  9. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's okay, just change your name to the Swedish equivalent of Pat.

  10. The last line of TFA... by vigmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

    mentions an official stating his name will be reverted "in due time"

    What are they waiting for? Oh! That's right... an anonymous application!

    On the note of applications, this article will probably precipitate a flood of similar immature requests. Maybe the department should suspend applications for a short while until appropriate changes in the procedure are put in place. Hopefully, it doesn't require any legislation and is simply a directive from some official to change the policies.

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:The last line of TFA... by Barny · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this is a government bureaucracy, so they would stop accepting changes just before processing his to have his name fixed...

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:The last line of TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the age of 18 you are only entitled to change your name ones, after that you have to make a request which can be approved or denied :)

  11. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny

    So enter a filing to change his name to "Transgender-Refused" instead of "Pirate". It might make your point public, and annoy the lawyer yet again.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  12. Re:Someone should by Theoboley · · Score: 1

    coincidentally, he was found guilty of raping his last name.

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  13. Dear Mr. Ponten by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Funny

    We regret our mistake not verifying your identity when accepting name change to "Pirate". Your original name "HotLolitazWarez Ponten" is restored. Sincerely, Mr. Foo Bar Sweden department of anonymous name change

    --
    839*929
  14. A bit childish, but... by Bunji+X · · Score: 1

    I do enjoy the sight of Henrik's... sorry... Pirate's nice anti-piracy Gestapo leather coat.

    --
    ---
    The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
    1. Re:A bit childish, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "Heinrich Luitpold PontÃn"?

  15. obligatory xkcd reference by kaini · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/327/

    --
    please restate bitrate in libraries of congress per hour.
  16. Re:Someone should by Bunji+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    Even more funny (or tragic) is the reason they found him guilty. Losely translated from my memory:

    "The defendant has such peculiar looks that the court finds it unlikely that any young woman would willingly have sex with him."

    I agree with the stand up comedian that later stated, "It must be hard having a court judgement declaring that you *are* ugly". No question about it. No doubts. You are legally declared ugly.

    --
    ---
    The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
  17. Inquiring minds want to know: by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Was the name Douchebag Ponten already taken?

    And can the Pirate Party sue him for trademark infringement?

    I tried but couldn't get the é to look right in preview...

    1. Re:Inquiring minds want to know: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try "©"
      Worked for me: ©

  18. Patches.. by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    Maybe he could change his last name to "Patches" so his name will be Patches Pirate.

    1. Re:Patches.. by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      If he changed his last name to Patches that would be Pirate Patches.

    2. Re:Patches.. by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Dude, GP is a Neanderthal, be easy on him... He can't even sign up properly for Geico

  19. Re:Someone should by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Losely translated

    There have been many people who use "loose" where they've meant "lose", but I think this is the first time someone has made this stupid mistake in the reverse.

  20. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hurra fÃr myndigheter!

    Is that Swedish for, "You magnificent bastard! I salute you!"

  21. Change it Back? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it'll be...
    .
    .
    .
    (Wait for it...)
    Haaaaarrd!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  22. "identity theft" - get the fuck out by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    noone STOLE their identity.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:"identity theft" - get the fuck out by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Yep, but even without physically stealing his identity, one can still do damage.

    2. Re:"identity theft" - get the fuck out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noone stole their identity?

    3. Re:"identity theft" - get the fuck out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attributing your actions to someone else is the definition of identity theft. Can I send in name change papers for someone other than myself in your country?

    4. Re:"identity theft" - get the fuck out by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      noone STOLE their identity.

      In fact, they GAVE him a new one.

  23. It Fits by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a deserving moniker for someone who is hell-bent on stealing the public domain and "finding infringement" where none exists under Swedish law.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  24. Re:Not childish by Fizzl · · Score: 1

    wat

    --
    Bot Assisted Blogging
  25. Identity Theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that the anti-piracy bureau wants ISPs and everyone else to store all kinds of private information about people in order to fight piracy, this does illustrate just how much of a problem identity theft is in a humorous and harmless way.

    Maybe they should reconsider their stance on gathering people's private data for no good reason?

  26. Pirate? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't it make more sense to change it to "Ninja"?

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Pirate? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Ninja Lawyer!

      You turn your back, and when you look again at your desk you you see a stack of papers. You've been served, Ninja Lawyer style.

      Ninja Lawyer does not argue cases with words. Ninja Lawyer is never seen in the courtroom. Ninja Lawyer dismantles the defense's case with poison darts to the necks of the attorneys thrown from a hidden vantage point. On the dart in the lead attorney's neck is a note which says, in beautiful calligraphy, "the defense rests... in peace".

      Ninja lawyer is not technically licensed to practice law. Ninja Lawyer has many outstanding arrest warrants. Do not hire Ninja Lawyer.

      Ninja Lawyer!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  27. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anal?

  28. Entirely consistent behavior. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    People who don't respect intellectual property would naturally have no regard for another person's interest in the integrity of his or her own name.

    1. Re:Entirely consistent behavior. by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any pro IP lawyer who has made public statements has already made it clear he has no interest in integrity either his own or that associated with his name.

    2. Re:Entirely consistent behavior. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who think he is an ass would naturally have no regard for his interest in the integrity of his own name.

  29. His Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rep to whoever names his boss Captain

  30. Who do you think you're kidding? by westlake · · Score: 1

    The simplest solution is USUALLY correct. It doesn't mean that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct.

    The race isn't always to the swiftest and the strongest.

    But that is the way to bet.

    The stunt is transparent - adolescent - pure geek.

    No other mind could contrive it.

  31. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allow me to give an example: The GP is a looser.

  32. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by glowworm · · Score: 1

    No, that would be "Bork Bork Bork"

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  33. Re:Someone should by lordholm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And several of the girls admitted that they had sex with him voluntarily and that they had been pressured by the newspaper (Aftonbladet or Expressen, can't remember which one) to file charges.

    The guy has tried to appeal the sentence (he is already out of prison, but he want his name cleared). He basically said that (from my memory): "I know I pressured the girls by false promises and so, and I was a real bastard and an awful person, but I did not commit rape."

    The guy was owning a record company, and it was very naive by the court to say what they did, some girls (and guys) would be happy to sleep with someone like that if it can fast forward their career. It is certainly not "PC" to say so, but it is still the fact of things.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  34. But does that make them...? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    So are they vampire ghosts or ghost pirate or vampire pirate ghosts?

    Bah, screw it... I don't think the warezwolves care anyways.

  35. He didn't mean that. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    How do you know he didn't mean "lossily" ;-)

  36. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Slashdot's fucked up non-ASCII.

    "Hurra för myndigheter!" means "Cheers for governmental agencies!"

  37. If I were him... by malkavian · · Score: 1

    I'd worry about heading to any hospital.. They've already got the 'Pirate' bit put in the name, the next step is the Anti.. As in "There got Aunty Pirate"..
    Snip snip.

  38. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, you guys have a word for everything.

  39. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to excuse us silly Swedes; our English skills don't quite match up to those of our revered brothers in the great country to the west.

  40. Freedom impeded? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    From TFA, Ponten claims that because they resist his efforts to shut down TPB, pirates are "impeding his freedom of speech". Anyone here interested in sending this guy a philosophy book about rights and responsabilities to explain to him that his rights stop where he begins to step on other people's toes, millions of them at once as this case shows? Bonus points if you send it as a pirated PDF file.

  41. kind of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weeeeell, a skull and crossbones kiiind of looks like an X...

  42. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a stupid mistake, it's a stupid defect in the English language. An it's not like the vowel shift made anything better.

  43. Re:Someone should by Bunji+X · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but no mistake.

    Here in Sweden it is illegal using twin vowels and now that everything we write or read on the internet is monitored 24/7, I am very careful.

    Chances are that I am in big trouble already, for reading your double "o".

    --
    ---
    The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
  44. So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Lets look at possible explanations of why there are dinosaur fossils:

    Hypothesis 1

    • God exists and is omnipotent.
    • God created the world 5 minutes ago with the fossils inside the rocks.

    Hypothesis 2

    • Dinosaurs were real animals which lived a long time in the past and were the ancestors of some animals currently living.
    • Some dinosaurs died and their dead bodies were buried.
    • Geological processes caused their bones to change to different types of rock than the surrounding rock matrix.

    The second hypothesis has more assumptions, so it must be less likely than the first, by your reasoning.

    Unfortunately, your reasoning assumes there is some kind of "quantum" of assumption, but there isn't. Practically every assumption can be decomposed into several other assumptions, in arbitrary ways.

    1. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The second hypothesis has more assumptions, so it must be less likely than the first, by your reasoning.

      No, because Occam's Razor only applies when there is no difference between the theories in terms of predictions made by those theories. It's about deciding which explanation to use when the explanations are essentially interchangable. Not how to decide between two arbitrary theories with completely different implications based not on data but based solely on which is the more complex.

      The classic case was ellipsoid orbits vs perfectly circular orbits with epicycles. You can explain the movement of every body in the solar system with the epicycle theory exactly as well as the ellipse theory. They're mathematically indistinguishable. Elliptic orbits are simpler, therefore preferred. Once Newton's Theory of Gravity was developed and gave an explanation for why orbits were elliptical, while no theory existed to explain why heavenly bodies would travel in epicycles, Occam was no longer necessary and simple scientific evidence pointed the correct way.

      Your two hypothesis make very different predictions about the world. Occam doesn't apply.

      Unfortunately, your reasoning assumes there is some kind of "quantum" of assumption, but there isn't. Practically every assumption can be decomposed into several other assumptions, in arbitrary ways.

      Only if you assume Occam's Razor was meant to be a quantitative measure in the first place, which it obviously was not. It's a mental guideline. And qualitatively, you can reason about the relative amount of assumptions behind two theories without falling into an "assumptions are infinitely decomposable" trap.

      BTW, decompose the reflexive axiom if you would please.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > Only if you assume Occam's Razor was meant to be a quantitative
      > measure in the first place

      If you look at the reasoning in the post I replied to, you see that Ginger Unicorn is trying to justify Occam's Razor as being quantitative:

      >> since each extra assumption has a non zero chance of being wrong

      I understand that it does apply in mathematical/logical situations like the example you give. But the post I replied to was just justifying it incorrectly. And it's obvious that in this particular situation where we are trying to decide the likelihood of human actions and not celestial motion or mathematical proof, Occam's Razor doesn't apply in the way Ginger Unicorn claims it does.

    3. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If you look at the reasoning in the post I replied to, you see that Ginger Unicorn is trying to justify Occam's Razor as being quantitative:

      >> since each extra assumption has a non zero chance of being wrong

      And you don't believe that statement can be understood in a qualitative way, such as "Extra assumptions increase the chance one of them is wrong"? "Non-zero" indicating that some chance exists is hardly a quantitative measure of probability.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the post I replied to proposed the following justification of Occam's Razor:

      Each assumption has a non-zero probability of being incorrect. Therefore, the total probability of N such assumptions being incorrect is less than that of M such assumptions, if N is less than M.

      You can't compare two non-zero qualitative probabilities in that way; therefore, he's either incorrect in doing so, or was assuming some kind of arbitrary quantitative (and identical, it seems) probability for each assumption (which is also silly). (Not to even start to try to address the problem of the independence of the probabilities in question).

    5. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Therefore, the total probability of N such assumptions being incorrect is less than that of M such assumptions, if N is less than M.

      You can't compare two non-zero qualitative probabilities in that way;

      Sure you can, as long as you consider "less" to be a fuzzy measurement as well. You raise your thumb, eyeball the probabilities, and make an educated guess as to which truly involves more assumption than the other.

      Though going back to the original post we're talking about, the words "statistically rigorous" strongly suggests a non-qualitative thrust. Perhaps unintended, perhaps not, but it's a basis for what you're saying.

      Either way, fact remains, your usage of Occam's Razor was wrong-er. ;)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:So Occam's razor supports creationism? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > Sure you can, as long as you consider "less" to be a fuzzy measurement

      I guess I'll just consider "wrong-er" a fuzzy measurement as well and call it a tie. Once everything becomes all warm and fuzzy, there's not all that much left for a mathematician like me to talk about.

  45. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a line of Grocery stores in Texas, USA that are owned by H.E. Butt. http://www.heb.com/welcome/index.jsp

    The owners name is Harry Butt.

    I couldn't imagine being him in middle school or high school.

    Nathan

  46. Re:Someone should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you truly nothing better to do with your time?

  47. Re:Someone should by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

    This coming from the person who replied to my post 19 hours later?

  48. Re:And yet transsexuals cannot change gender freel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's his next name gonna be? Amber?