Anonymous Knocks Out Ministry of Sound Website 240
An anonymous reader writes "The latest DDoS attack from Anonymous has knocked offline UK solicitor Gallant Macmillian's website, the Ministry of Sound Website and their payment website. Macmillian is currently looking for several hundred identities of suspected file-sharers, accused of uploading artists under the Ministry of Sound label."
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
Goofus killed Gallant.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Talk about your obscure references. Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
For a moment I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
That UK actually has an official Ministry of Sound (as in, Govt. agency) ! :)
Paul B.
Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Funny)
It worked out pretty well for the Federal Reserve
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Informative)
We've a scam company here in the UK called London Mint Office. It's not affiliated with the real mint at all, but somehow they get away with it. It's just on the right side of legal - the standard 'didn't read the small print,' where the customer is offered what looks like a good deal on a product (A commorative coin) but isn't clearly told that in accepting the agreement they are also agreeing to be direct-debited for a case full of overpriced junk coins every month... and the only way to get out of the deal is via a phone line that is always unavailable.
If its a direct debit then it is clearly not the only way. Cancel your direct debit - most banks let you do it online.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which would be a breach of contract if they play their cards right, leaving you even more fucked up than in the previous situation.
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Informative)
Which would be a breach of contract if they play their cards right, leaving you even more fucked up than in the previous situation.
Not if key details of the contract were only in the fine print, and the cancellation number unavailable. You would have two defences: 1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and 2) You made reasonable attempts to notify the company about the cancellation.
I would be very surprised if they even took you as far as the court for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you wind up in court for breach of contract. Of course, don't expect to win, as they have armies of lawyers paid to ensure that their method of making a living remains.
The only way to deal with these types. First, if you did a bank debit, call yourself fucked. If you had them on a credit card, have the card flagged as stolen. Eventually they will demand one last sum through a bill collection agency, but at least they are out of your wallet.
You obviously have never had court dealings with a company. They will threaten all the way up to appearing in court, but back down. Actually I would easily expect to win a case like this it would be open and shut, but as soon as you make your case clear and make it clear that you will report the outcome to the media I can almost guarantee that they will back down.
Court and publicity would be a lose-lose situation for them - even if they win everyone will know about their scam. BTW I have had court threats
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing they want is the publicity of a court case. I'm not in the UK, but I would expect them to threaten and make noise but stop before they actually got to court.
Money from one customer isn't worth potentially educated thousands of others...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we have one here in the US! They call themselves the "New York Mint" and claim they are constantly "unearthing" rare/valuable coins from hidden treasure troves, old swiss bank vaults, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
There's one here in the US called the Franklin Mint that does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Banksters read slashdot...
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Informative)
and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago (I guess around the time of Star Wars Episode I) my friends owned Microsith.com
Awww, that used to be my homepage. I found it unbelievably entertaining. Oh nostalgia.
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the country.
15+ years ago the current Bulgarian prime minister business was called "First Private Police". That was in the first years after the fall of the berlin wall and funnily enough they were more efficient and less corrupt than the police proper. IIRC the ministry of the interior tried to sue them for trademarke infringment and failed. So they started stopping their cars for 2h checks every time they had to attend to an incident in progress, arrest their staff for nealry anything and so on until they forced a name change.
So it depends. The government has "its ways". Now are they going to apply them is a different matter
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:4, Informative)
Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization? Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?
Years ago in France a guy did name his company "Trésor Publicité". A perfectly good name. Except that he used it to cash intercepted checks intended for the "Trésor Public" [the french revenue service], just adding the 3 letters at the end. Guess how that worked out for him... Hint: never steal money from thieves, they don't take kindly to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, quite a few. In the UK, terms like Royal aren't allowed (except by royal appointment, I suppose). Probably in all countries, the official prefixes/suffixes for Limited companies (Ltd, PLC, Inc, etc.) aren't allowed if your company doesn't fit that description.
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:4, Informative)
In Britain there are naming rules [companieshouse.gov.uk] that require names be unique, none infringing, don't imply a connection to government or royalty, are not offensive, or confusing (e.g. Limited ltd). There are certain additional rules when you include words like Vet, Doctor, Solicitor etc. in your company name.
Even with the rules it doesn't stop some scummy ambulance chasing companies trying to pass themselves off as official sounding accident boards and such like.
Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious (Score:5, Interesting)
When Railtrack Plc - the company that ran the British railway system - was sold to Network Rail, the name Railtrack became available at Companies House. Some enterprising bloke registered Railtrack Ltd and proceeded to mess people about by answering their letters [fitlads.net] (PDF). Worth a read.
Re: (Score:2)
Example:
"Ballard was its own incorporated town for 17 years, annexed as its own ward. West Seattle incorporated in 1902, then annexed Spring Hill, Riverside, Alki Point, and Youngstown districts. It was the largest of the incorporated towns to be annexed. Southeast Seattle merged with the towns of Hillman City and York, then incorporated for the only reason of being annexed. Georgetown was the last of the small incorporated cities (towns, actually) to be annexed to Seattle before 1950."
Excerpted from this s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."
Article I, Section VIII. "The congress shall have power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may...become the Seat of the Government of the United States" et cetera, et cetera.
but why read the Constitution when you're yelling about something bein
Re: (Score:2)
Parent post is lifted pretty much verbatim from here: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm [serendipity.li]
God forbid people post their own thoughts on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sillier name than the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Sorry, but I had to get Python in there somewhere...
Re:For a moment I thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has nothing on the REAL ministry of silly walks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0ue-XGl9c [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
i'd almost prefer if he was right just so i could see what a Defense Ministers church service would be like.
Wrong target? (Score:3, Funny)
Hope this was what the attack US has warned about (Score:3, Funny)
Hope this was what the terrorist attack US warned about yesterday. It seemed pretty restricted then.
Should have stayed relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They should have pressed up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A instead.
Re:Should have stayed relevant (Score:5, Informative)
Ministry of Sound is still one of the better clubs in London, especially with the closure of Matter, so they are still providing a venue for shows, clubs, raves, etc. The better promoters prefer Fabric as it's not as "corporate" as the others.
The brand itself has been diluted to worthlessness. You can get MoS branded alarm clocks and iPod docks FFS.
The label, while being the biggest indie label in the world, just churns out compilations - The Annual, Best of Happy Hardcore volume 40 etc.
The company does still release credible records, but they are all on imprints like Hed Kandi and particularly Data Records. Eric Prydz is at the top of his game, and Example is riding high in the charts.
Palumbo is a businessman, and that he would jump on the opportunity to screw a few more pennies out of file-sharers doesn't surprise me in the least.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your average MoS compilation is bus compressed so hard that I don't dare subject my amps to it, go anywhere near the clip light with that stuff and you know your spending a significant fraction of your time putting out DC.
Captcha was compress, creepy
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Your average MoS compilation is bus compressed so hard that I don't dare subject my amps to it, go anywhere near the clip light with that stuff and you know your spending a significant fraction of your time putting out DC.
Wow! I don't know what half that meant, but it sounded damn insightful!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Hope I actually got it close to correct.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly correct. Describing "compression" as "amplification" is arguably correct, but doesn't tell the full story, even tho you correctly point out the soft sounds.
Compression basically makes the soft sounds louder, and/or the loud sounds softer so there is less dynamic range in the music - that is, the difference between the soft and loud noises is made smaller, or even much smaller.
The result is that the music sounds "louder", but you can lose a lot of the "feel" of a track.
It also uses more energy, and drives your amp and then your speakers much harder, and hotter.
But hey, that is a ton more words than you used, and someone will pick holes in this version too.
Yours is pretty darn good, for a paraphrase to non sound geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We went there a few times around '98, '99, 2000. Travelled 150 miles to get there, names on the door and all that stuff. The place was about dressing up, not the music or the scene.
One time we were upstairs, in a tiny room, and the local DJ was banging. But becuase MoS was not full, it wasn't creating the desired atmosphere so the heavies kicked us out onto a shoulder to shoulder main dancefloor. Bang out of order. We never went back.
The Cross near Kings
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are among the very few labels that decided to legally go after small-time "pirates", and certainly the most famous one.
I know one person IRL who was targeted by Gallant-Macmillian on behalf of MoS. He denied and refused to pay, and they seem to have given up, but this friend is obviously quite wary of p2p now. The chilling effect is, undeniably, working.
Hell, i was targeted by US copyright lawyers myself: I'm in the UK and I laughed it off, but my ISP didn't and cut the connection (only to re-estab
irregardless (Score:2)
Re:irregardless (Score:4, Funny)
They ain't not undisappearing irregardless of no lack of none of the file sharers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Did you know that inflammable and flammable mean the same thing? Boy, that was a painful lesson."
-- Woody, Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because you cant possible do without your own copy. I mean, its right in there with food shelter and basic services. Isn't it?
By implying that you have some sort of need to consume their work but just can't or won't pay for it you're legitimizing the bastards. If no one decided to want personal copies of media that has shitty pricing, then the bastards would die out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you cant possible do without your own copy.
As I understand it, you recommend that I create my own work instead of making an infringing copy of a major-label work. This runs into two difficulties. First, the major labels appear to already own so much of the space of possible works that I'd end up stepping on a copyright landmine if I tried to write and publish my own work. George Harrison got burned for this when it turned out that his song "My Sweet Lord" was too similar to a years-old song written by Ronald Mack. Second, the medium in which a work
When I was a kid we just played pool all day... (Score:5, Funny)
It's nice to see kids these days cooperating with each other to make the world a better place.
Not enough lulz, it is insufficient. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient. (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.
Explaining to a judge how their filesharing was totally innocent even though their IP addresses were flagged would be really fun to watch. Also, in 3-strikes jurisdictions, watching their ISPs kick them off the net would also be huge fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you need to? It's not like much evidence appears to be required to accuse a member of the public. Also the MPAA has already been caught "pirating" a movie and software (OSS which takes some serious effort to pirate).
Explaining to a judge
Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient. (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't helping (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a lot more respect for the Pirate Party than these Anonymous DDOS attacks. Though I guess I didn't mind too much when they turn-abouts-fair-played the one company awhile back. Ultimately though, resorting to the same tactics as RIAA or whatever other group doesn't help anybody and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
"and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult"
Then they'll just piss more people off. If they remove even more freedoms, they might even alert the average idiot. Then again, I doubt they would do anything, as most people don't even know how to fight for their rights anymore, or care to do so. Some of them even think that breaking the law is always 'bad', I'm willing to bet.
Re:This isn't helping (Score:5, Insightful)
'Some of them even think that breaking the law is always 'bad', I'm willing to bet."
SOME?
I went on a tour of Alcatraz a few years back, and the guide stopped to explain how the island had been taken over by students/protestors after it had closed as a prison, as a protest about the disenfranchisement of the Native American populations.
It was when she said "And sometimes when we look back from many years afterwards, we can see that (very rarely) breaking the law might be justified or at least we can try to understand their motivations".
That shocked me. That it needed to be spelled out that clearly to some people, that sometimes people break the law for the right reasons, not because they're just hippie scum. It was then that I realised how straight-and-narrow a lot of folks see life. I don't know if they just don't think for themselves or if the buy all the bullshit or what. A lot of people won't even disagree with the government.
Hell, in the UK I heard people say "well if the government tell us we need to go to war in Iraq, then we must need to, it's not like they'd do it for no reason". Now I don't care which side of the should we/shouldn't we debate on iraq you come down on, the government's duty is to prove to the population that invasion of a foreign country is necessary. And the people's duty is to look at and question that proof.
bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
"the government's duty is to prove to the population that invasion of a foreign country is necessary"
The government's duty is to obey the people. If the government can make drastic decisions such as this without the consent of a majority of the people, we will keep seeing the same corruption and stupidity that plagues us currently.
"but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people."
99%, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason elections are only every few years, as if the government had to obey every daily opinion poll nothing would get done.
If you really believe people are 'sheeple', then you would know that if every major decision required the consent of the people then Rupert Murdoch would effectively run the country.
It's tough finding a balance between continuity and accountability, but the current version we have is not perfect but not too bad either.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people
baaaaaaah, humbug.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
went on a tour of Alcatraz a few years back, and the guide stopped to explain how the island had been taken over by students/protestors after it had closed as a prison,
Ah, those were the days of REAL protesters when they put THEMSELVES in jail. These spineless wannabe protesters these days want the government to do that for them too.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a nasty feedback loop. I can see laws being passed in the UK out of knee-jerk reaction which will make life worse for every UK citizen. Perhaps nationwide NAC forcing people to type in their ID number before they get the ability to send packets out? Couple this with large prison sentences for tampering/removing the software.
There are universities which not just block traffic, but use NAC to force software to be installed on any computers connected. This software not just blocks creation of VPNs
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but it gets the issue in the news. Eventually people start asking why they keep doing this, and knowledgeable people should be able to reply with decent, neutral information about copyright problems, enforcement by barratry, settlement letters and why they put the little guy at risk. Add on things like these are the same companies responsible for DRM (can't copy your music where you want to) and levies on blank media used for non-infringing purposes (backup, pictures, your own legally purchased C
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't helping (Score:4, Insightful)
The copyright lobby is using every conceivable way of defending their position. Legal, doubtfully legal, illegal. Against the masses, against individuals. Changing laws, creating new laws, ignoring laws.
It's only fair to reply in kind, using several different ways. Lobby counter-work is important, as is legal support for the innocents caught in the net, as is legal support for the guilty so that they get a fair trial and a fair punishment and not these ridiculous witch-burnings. Technological counters to protect our privacy against the dragnets are important, and at times a counter-attack can reveal what legal activities would have never managed to uncover - as in this case.
I, too, support the Pirate Party more than a DDoS. Which is why I'm a member of my local PP chapter, but not of Anonymous. But that doesn't mean I don't like what they're doing.
And frankly, the press articles on this and the revelations about the dirty tricks played by those who label themselves the righteous are a lot more likely to change public opinion and then maybe politicians' minds than the most civilized and measured talking.
You can not win against a trained slimebag with words alone. You are going up against people who have been lying professionally for many years, and the truth is harder to convince people with, because it is more complex, less black-and-white, and usually incomplete. A clear, simple and well-rounded lie will always beat it. Everything else is the stuff of books and movies, but not the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
The thousands of lives question is, when does it get there?
Re:This isn't helping (Score:5, Insightful)
When I run out of gin.
Yeah well (Score:2, Informative)
Holy poorly written summary batman! (Score:2, Insightful)
a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)
b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.
c)You didn't repeat the word "website" 3 times in one sentence.
Re:Holy poorly written summary batman! (Score:5, Funny)
It would be nice if:
a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)
Its you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"c)You didn't repeat the word "website" 3 times in one sentence."
It's a word. Was it used correctly? If so, it's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It is poor writing to repeat terms in close succession. Grammatically correct, but stylistically weak. One can almost always find ways to convey the same information without redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:
a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anonymous [lmgtfy.com]
b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=ministry+of+sound [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you've been around Slashdot long enough, you'll have seen many stories about Anonymous. Those who don't know can Google for it and the first link does the trick. I suppose we could assume that everyone doesn't know every proper noun. Then we could have summaries like this:
"Google, a corporation based primarily in the city of Mountain View, California in the country knows as the United States of America and offering search, email, maps, and other services announced today a deal with Apple, a corporatio
Typo (Score:2)
It's Gallant Macmillan, not Gallant Macmillian.
Now get off my lawn.
Why bother with this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, it makes far more sense to run through their various servers and locate evidence of illegal actions taken on the part or in behalf of the publishing companies. The simple fact is, that crackers could do a real service by locating evidence of how many illegal actions these companies have taken (and yes, they ALL have ). Then get lawyers to sue these companies AND INDIVIDUALS. Once a few of them go to prison, I suspect that attitudes will change.
Re:Why bother with this? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it seems to have worked against ACS Law, the domain does not resolve anymore (since ca. 29. Oct). http://acs-law.org.uk/ [acs-law.org.uk]
It is very likely that ACS Law will go out of business for doing their shady "porn" extortion. After/During that attack, some 200MB of emails "leaked" which will put the last nail in their coffin: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5850493/ACS-Law_leaked_emails [thepiratebay.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, seeing more and more of the mainstream media in the UK dedicating full pages to stories about old-ladies accused by ACS:Law of sharing Porn is way beyond entertaining.
This is creating a really bad perception in people's mind's about copyright enforcement so much so that "media figures" have spoken agains the way ACS:Law does business - talk about damage control.
I can't wait for the first grandmothers getting disconnected from the Net thanks to the Digital Economy Act or even better, threatned by th
You know where this is going to lead... (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone honestly believes that this is going to result in the various record labels worldwide finally throwing their hands up and saying "Enough! We give up", they're living in cloud cuckoo land. Far more likely it'll lead to much tighter regulation of the Internet in many first-world countries.
After all, we already have "three-strikes and you're out" laws in many countries, and those strikes frequently don't require any sort of due process. Plenty of governments have hinted by their actions that they rather like the idea of a tightly-controlled Internet where everyone does as they are damn well told or faces the consequences, this kind of thing could be all the justification they need to tighten the screw a little further.
Of course, it won't be painted in that fashion. It'll be painted as "Cyber-attacks cost businesses millions of ${CURRENCY} a year in lost revenue, this law will force ISPs to automatically detect and shut-off the Internet connection of anyone launching such an attack".
There's a word for this sort of thing: terrorism (Score:2, Informative)
How is this not a terrorist act? Sure, one guy's terrorist is another guy's freedom fighter, but attacking sites one disagrees with is still terrorism, whether it's done with bombs or botnets.
Re: (Score:2)
They attacked the MOS's pay site, which "seems to be a portal to buy authorized copies of artists under the Ministry of Sound label. This is an interesting escalation in the ongoing conflict, as it directly attacks the MOS's ability to sell music". Terrorism is, by definition, when you hit something as a publicity stunt, like the attack on mpaa.org. This is intended primarily to harm their bottom line, thus making it plain old guerrilla warfare.
Re:There's a word for this sort of thing: terroris (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorism, by the contemporary meaning of the word at least, involves blowing shit up. Thankfully, other than a prank bomb threat, that is not the case here.
4chan's goal is not to terrorise, but to harass in order to be heard. In other words, it's no different than a real-world protest, where they stand outside the company's building and throw eggs and yogurt at everyone who dares come out, thus disrupting their business. It's a sad truth today that if consumers don't organise and hurt a company's wallet, they'll be totally ignored -- tell me that isn't true.
I would normally feel bad about the companies that are at the sharp end of all this, but I don't. At all. They totally deserve everything they get.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? This website being taken off-line for a little while actually caused you to feel a sense of terror for your life? Did you become afraid to purchase MoS albums because Anonymous might DDoS you?
This is protest. Big difference. If you agree with it or not, it is not something that is even anywhere close to being in the same league as terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Terror is an emotion that someone feels when they believe they are about to lose their life or the life of a loved one due to an external cause over which they have no control. The whole definition is important, not just the "have no control" part. Note that it doesn't exclude non-criminal acts, and does not require the external cause to be anonymous or even a person. You can feel terror hanging over a cliff.
Note that making a router's WAN light blink incessantly would not qualify on several levels.
If a T
Re:There's a word for this sort of thing: terroris (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. It was terrifying. The prospect of not being able to buy the latest remix of Unce-unce-unce-unce shook my soul to its very core. I will be having sleepless nights for months to come. I worried about my family and my friends getting caught in the denial of service or getting wounded in the crossfire. "Never again", I thought to myself, "will my people be free to listen this mindless horseshit without fear of a slight delay because they can't buy it online and will have to walk to the shop or get it from a different website." Pure terror. I wanted to stand up to these evil people but I was scared so I just sat there, quietly leaking bodily fluids.
Re: (Score:2)
attacking sites one disagrees with is still terrorism, whether it's done with bombs or botnets.
No, it's not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jaywalking is not an act of dissent due to it's scale. It's just not serious enough to qualify. A DDOS, to a music store, does not terrorism make. Even if they had thrown a brick into their window, it's still not terrorism.
Ease up on that trigger grandpa.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey... that's a nice case you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Like... your documentation of child pornagraphy being used against you. It would be a damn shame being labeled a child molester by your neighborhood, even if you're acquited.
Sincerely, an Anonymous Prosecutor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen this post dozens of times now. I'd be rather surprised if it were the same person every time, and highly suspect it's nothing more than a carefully engineered piece of fiction designed to get responses such as yours.
tl;dr: it's a troll dude.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heheh... "Body of Evidence". So that's what they're calling it these days?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm with you on all points, but why are you so angry at Canada Post?!
Because they sometime deliver Child Pornography and so should be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than your spelling. It's Britney, you moron.