Slashdot Mirror


Piratbyran Co-Founder Says Stop DDoSing Polish Sites

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.'"

34 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:this means by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Great job, anonymous! /sarcasm

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:this means by iamhassi · · Score: 4, 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.

      Great job, anonymous! /nosarcasm

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:this means by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      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 measures do exist. Redditors managed to pull it off with their SOPA protests. The thing is, that takes work, coordination, and information, and it is very difficult. Anonymous isn't good at that. They are good at running scripts, and that is about it. A few of the leaders they pro port not to have are a bit more capable, but by and large they are no better than a mob with pitchforks, and mobs never help. Well, unless a full-on revolution starts. Until then, they just make their own side look like..., well, like a mob. In this case a mob of basement dwelling law-breaking nerds with major rage issues.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  2. Great logic by hawguy · · 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.

    1. Re:Great logic by Xest · · Score: 4, 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".

    2. Re:Great logic by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      So, let me make it clear, if you are attacked by someone on the street, and if you try to defend, then you should not be surprised that he becomes ever more violent as you infringe on his right to robe you, and thus your actions are justifying his even more violent reactions. At the end of the day, you could just give up and give him your bank account, passwords, the secret ways to satisfy your wife............

  3. Any news? by mwvdlee · · 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.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Any news? by Mick+R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very "black and white" view you have there. Anonymous would say they had a reason for every action they've taken, but since you've decided it was all just for fun I guess none of that matters. I don't necessarily agree with every action they've taken, but I can understand why people would want to do some of the things they've done.

    2. Re:Any news? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Funny

      They do have a member list, but every entry is the same.

    3. Re:Any news? by Hentes · · 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?" .

    4. Re:Any news? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      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 attack themselves, each other and us.

      'Anonymous" celebrates false flag as mission accomplished ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Any news? by Marc+Madness · · Score: 2, 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 is illegal. To say that you need to be "very black and white" in these situations is, in my opinion, an over simplification of the issues at stake. In the context of ACTA, we can go so far as to ask whether it is criminal for the law to be imposed on the people of Poland the way it is (even though it's not illegal for them to do so AFAIK). Can you then say that a DDoS attack, although illegal, is criminal if it is intended to bring awareness to these shenanigans? (although this is not to say that I agree with the method, it's just to illustrate the shades of grey)

    6. Re:Any news? by billcopc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Any news? by kiwimate · · Score: 3, 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.

    8. Re:Any news? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      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 another bank. Take your money, and fund a charity, then use the resulting good PR as a right.

      And you still have a wrong left.

      Alternatively, simply declare that attacking others is a basic human right. Then your wrongs are automatically right!

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. So... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:So... by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:So... by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  5. Real cyber terrorists are Hollywood and the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Easy solution by thej1nx · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Anonymous should simply change their demand then. "We will continue to DDOS the websites unless the all the ministers in present government continue to occupy their position and stay in politics".

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

    3. Profit!

  7. Re:what a surprise... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    even if the majority die in some freak accident,

    You mean like a big plane crash?

    Yikes dude.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Punishing the wrong government. by Hozza · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Punishing the wrong government. by Serpents · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Polish PM boasted in December that pushing the adoption of ACTA was one of the greatest successes of Polish presidency of the EU. They have recently removed this info from his website

  9. Hardly unique. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure there are plenty of historical precidents in which an action is regarded as a form of legitimate protest by the perpetuators, but a form of illegal violence by the state. Eventually the judgement of history will decide, but that can take decades - and really just depends on who wins, and thus who writes the history books. If the US had lost the war of independance, we'd be teaching that the rebels were a bunch of selfish thugs who just wanted to get out of paying taxes.

    1. Re:Hardly unique. by walshy007 · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Hardly unique. by mbone · · Score: 3, 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.

  10. Re:what a surprise... by Serpents · · 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

  11. How it looks in Poland by lukaszg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Currently ACTA is present here (Poland) in every news since a couple of days. People are furious, I think because: 1) Something such important was done behind their back 2) It certainly may limit freedom and may be cause of many abuses. Top government sites were hacked (as far as I know by different groups, some were quite funny). Despite large number of protests politicians seem to pretend that everything's alright and that they can continue with signing the act (yesterday polish ambassador in Japan was given permission to do that). What's funny is that Prime Minister says it won't change anything - so why to sign up? Many protests are being organised, similarly as with SOPA there are lists of politicians who support the act, some start to have doubts knowing that it may influence their appearance and perhaps future elections (in three years). I think that decisions are already made and nothing can be done. Some more info: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/01/22/poland-netizens-protest-governments-plan-to-sign-acta-next-week/ .

    1. Re:How it looks in Poland by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  12. Re:Stopping is not the solution by ruemere · · Score: 3, 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

  13. haha dude by unity100 · · Score: 2

    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 bombing mission.

    dude. ...

    you're funny.

  14. Consider this by openfrog · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:Consider this by Zeromous · · Score: 2

      >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'.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START