[pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/20/2010 3:59 PM, Rodrigo dA wrote:
> I personally don't agree, civil disobedience is perfectly reasonable when
> those in powers have their own agenda and don't pay attention.

Right, and it may be acceptable in many countries. In the US, however,
it just gets our party status stripped. That's why it's a no-go.

> We should focus on changing those laws and let anon alone, it's not like
> they are going to say Ok and stop the attacks anyway xD

Actually, many did. It seems to be a hard-core 'few' that won't put down
their 'LOIC' script and do something productive, rather than
counterproductive.

See, here's what I've been hearing. I have some contacts who have
contacts in Senators offices. One of the reasons for COICA passing the
Judiciary Committee so easily, is because of O:P. I *THEN* heard from
some other sources, that O:P was so 'upset' about it, that they were
thinking about targeting either the whole senate site (www.senate.gov)
or just the committee site (judiciary.senate.gov). Apparantly, that
didn't happen, but it isn't exactly out of character for them - they
have attacked government websites as part of their campaign.

They are not harmless kids, protesting. They're doing a stupid thing
which is hurting all of us, giving the ideas behind our movement a
negative connotation. Does anyone HONESTLY think this 'civil
disobedience' is viewed as something other than a temper-tantrum by
'those in power' and then used as an excuse to push through laws?
Hell, does anyone actually think O:P did anything positive at all? The
best you can say is that they pushed the timetable up a little on the
SRA investigations of ACS:law and Davenport Lyons, and got the
(completely toothless) UK information Commissioner's office involved.

The ONLY long lasting result from Operation:payback, and indeed any
other such action, is an increased crackdown, and a negative public
opinion. The question is, if they really are so passionate for the goals
they claim, why they're doing everything they can to work against it?

Andrew

> 
> -rodrigo
>> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:38:35 -0500
>> From: ktetch at gmail.com
>> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
>>
> On 11/20/2010 3:13 PM, Partidul Piratilor wrote:
>> First: We protest against the subject line: it was PP US and PP UK who
>> wrote the letter.
> 
> Choms is quite clearly an O:P member. As the rest of his email's have
> shown, he's not really one for facts.
> 
> 
>> Second: Romanian PP does not endorse the way things were said in the
>> letter. The Operation was already fading and the new dispute only serves
>> the interests of MPAA and the likes.
> 
> Well, yes. We did write the letter fairly and without mass accusation.
> The way certain members of it have responded does give the sense of an
> agent provocateur involved with O:P. While the new 'dispute' may play to
> the MPAA and their ilk, it currently has not done so to anything like
> the degree the original O:P did.
> 
>> It's interesting to see if any link exists between the FBI investigation
>> and the fact that some pirates got suddenly on the side of the law?
> 
> We in the US have always been on the side of the law. Now, wanting some
> laws changed, that's different from breaking those laws. That way
> anarchy lies, and anarchy serves no-one.
> 
>>It's
>> interesting to see how there are laws you respect (computer crime) and
>> laws you don't (copyright). Any criteria on choosing them?
> 
> Actually, we respect *ALL* laws (it's a requirement for a political
> party in the US, if it isn't in Romania, great, you're operating in a
> much nicer, easier system than we are. The likes of Sanziana Buruiana
> wouldn't even get started here, except in maybe one or two states that
> have sane ballot access laws). There are some laws we want changed
> though. However, the computer crimes one isn't one of them, as it's
> written pretty fairly, and does deal with a problem.
> 
> 
>> PS: Please do not bother to respond. Although it contains question marks
>> it's only a statement.
> 
>> Cristian
>> Romanian PP spokesperson
> 
> 
> 
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> 
> 
____________________________________________________
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general


- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.blogspot.com
Tel: (352)6-KTETCH [352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6DmiAAoJECjjuYTW3X5Hc/4H/0J67947+YPAoTmQJhw+kfb7
eZzPGWwTu10pnc2NJN/aebRIxVNmmJALMJKbNB5TrUZPUn2YveRai4HfUtCdoT2+
jp+WTLWvJhwL+UGCyaBO5SUA7DfeQEZSDrVGzUrcBUWB5gEGK0N+O1Hf1RfJ3yd8
XJPMCK1Ot1aetip69udwfoMhVFHgwcSxuSdpfupTufO0F/+1FZAxyy0oQf/lptTq
UAUocMF8I4aqcsc+wWRBGiVz6wTxiEFHQaCgMxMOzLZeN10T8gJgT2Vvna2rfAkf
jjCZd+NbgjbZzBcTmu38N+jWFv5QQmB6Lh5LYa1qKBBb9EQzPmzjXvS8JAT+K1k=
=GcCx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----