Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hackers Attack AU Websites To Protest Censorship

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the and-it-has-a-funny-name-too dept.

Australia 334

An anonymous reader writes "A band of cyber-attackers has taken down the Australian Parliament House website and hacked Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's website in coordinated protests against government plans to filter the Internet. The group responsible, called Anonymous, is known for coordinated Internet attacks against Scientology and other groups in the past. It recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That'll teach 'em. (4, Funny)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086428)

I'm sure parliament is trembling in their shoes about now. They cannot hope to stand against anonymous. Who can possibly save them? Maybe... batman...

Re:That'll teach 'em. (4, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086558)

Not sure if it's a good idea to protest censorship by limiting others' speech. Apart from that I think it will more likely create the impression of the "scary evil hackers who need to be controlled by law". I'd like to feel happy about this event since I agree with the anti-censorship sentiment, but I'm afraid it will actually do more harm than good.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1, Interesting)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086834)

Yeah, there's nothing quite like a citizens right to child porn and bestiality. The government - they are oppressing our civil rights!

Re:That'll teach 'em. (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086864)

Censorship is like violence. If it doesn’t solve the problem, use more.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (2, Interesting)

ccarson (562931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087142)

First off, good luck censoring the Internet. Unless you're willing to modify fundamental network protocols, Australia can join the ranks of failed governments/corporations/ISPs who have tried and failed to censor content on the Internets. Although the proposed censorship crimes mentioned are heinous (seriously child crimes are so wrong on many levels), we need to be wary of people who have ulterior motives to stifle the free flow of information. That's not to say we shoudln't pro-actively target those who want to rape children and post pictures of it. In the end though, the arrogance to say that your legislation bill will stop Internet garbage is re-donkey-lips. Politicians are the dumbest group of low lifes that walk this planet (besides child rapers).

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086918)

I have to agree with you there. I am not one for censorship but limiting child porn, rape, bestiality from being easily accessible is a good move. Someone out there will pipe up that it does not stop the behavior, and I agree. But at least it will prevent it from becoming an "industry" like the porn industry than just fringe criminals.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086982)

Every day another idiot falls for the "fro teh chrildren" propaganda politicians throw at us.

Of course it's all only to protect the children and who could argue with that? ONLY rapists, murderers and molesters, that's who!!!!!1eleven

Re:That'll teach 'em. (5, Informative)

justinjstark (1645867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087118)

This isn't just about child pornography and beastiality. The Australian government is also trying to censor pornography including women with small boobs and female ejaculation [theregister.co.uk] .

Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (3, Informative)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087206)

lol... Senator Joyce is an idiot who was even refuted by his own party on economic policy, and he's the shadow treasurer. He's in opposition and is not part of the government of the day, just so you know.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087242)

Yet, he’s a senator...

Re:That'll teach 'em. (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087304)

remember: this system will still be there when his party next gets into power.
Then he'll add everything he wants to the blacklist.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087406)

Not sure if it's a good idea to protest censorship by limiting others' speech.

We don't have to tolerate the intolerant.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (5, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086740)

Batman's a shady character with a troubled past, lots of toys, and teenage boy partner who he dresses in tights. The cry for help would never make it past the filter.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086926)

"By that rational, every billionaire with a funfair in his background would be a suspect!
And that's not the kind of world I want to live in!" -- Michael Jackson.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087244)

> that's not the kind of world I want to live in

He's dead, so his problem seems to be solved.

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086796)

Batman? NOT. Batman would be chewed up and eaten by Anonymous. They are made up of Predators and aliens. together they would chew up Batman and eat him, using his bones as toothpicks.....

P.S. Dont kill one of the Anonymous predators. they will explode wiping out a 10 city block area...

Re:That'll teach 'em. (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087382)

Not if Batman had prep time...

batman is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086896)

this hacker saw too it and its why they should be scared
lil birdy say we got superman working on the peoples side now
and wonder woman shes a pron star now

Do you agree? (1)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086436)

I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...

Re:Do you agree? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086568)

It not about agreeing, censorship is bad no matter what.
Or would you rather argue with the other maralfag over there that agree on censoring drug related sites?

Re:Do you agree? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086572)

So you should see why it’s a bad idea...

Re:Do you agree? (2, Interesting)

3.5 stripes (578410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086598)

Depends in what context, especially when it comes down to who defines the context (are photos of naked children in the bath CP?), bestiality was legal in the netherlands until recently.. I won't even get into the cartoons or fictional stories questions.

Re:Do you agree? (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086644)

Oh it's easy to pick out a few things and say "these, these are ok to put on the blacklist"

The problem being of course that once there *is* a blacklist, esspecially one which nobody is allowed to see or even talk about then pretty soon other things start getting added to the backlist and after a while you might as well just move to china.

Lets look at it from the fundamentalist crazy point of view....
"Abortion = murder and well murder is worse than rape and murdering children is worse than raping them"... them so pro abortion sites quickly end up on the list.

and so on and so on.

Given the real world examples of exactly this kind of situation is anyone here going to try to argue that this isn't a *real* slipppery slope?

Re:Do you agree? (2, Interesting)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086940)

As long as the list is publicy managed, this shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, no way it can happen in the real world.

Re:Do you agree? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087042)

As long as the list is publicy managed, this shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, then if anything gets on the list that shouldn’t be censored, people will find out... oh wait, no they won’t. That would require visiting the site and seeing whether or not it had illegal stuff on it, and I can’t do that if the site is censored.

Re:Do you agree? (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087134)

Which they never do because (this is the argument) if you let everyone see what's on the list then it's just a guide to pedophiles for where they can get child porn.

So tell me.
With a publicly managed system in a country where downloading *list of bad things* or attempting to access any site on the blacklist is a serious crime how exactly does any particular member of the public check the contents of any site on the list without risking jail time?
(bonus points: work this out without also demonstrating how useless the blacklist really is for it's intended purpose.)

Re:Do you agree? (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087326)

Shades of the 50's when organizations got books banned from libraries. Same group different era. Oh and yes we need to ban any reference to the Bible because of the references in the book to incest (Lot and his daughters), Ban it!

Re:Do you agree? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086846)

I don't agree censoring any of them. Someone viewing these videos does no harm to any individuals (except for perhaps themselves) - and the less you try and force those kinds of industries out of the public eye the less they will try to hide their activities, making them easier to stop, if its illegal in your country.

Sweeping it under the rug does nothing to help anybody.

Re:Do you agree? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087126)

In the case were the individuals depicted are not willing participants, viewing the material violates their privacy.

Re:Do you agree? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087204)

A violation of someone’s privacy, in of itself, is not harm.

Re:Do you agree? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087224)

Fuck that.

Re:Do you agree? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087348)

even if it is a violation of privacy how many of the basic elements of a free society are you willing to throw in the shitter for the sake of reassuring the victims that while the creepy wierdos are still looking at their pictures just as much despite the laws and the censorship, at least everyone elses privacy is being invaded just as much now....

Re:Do you agree? NOOOOO (1)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087032)

I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...

Sure, whatever you pick there will be some material that is offensive to downright sick and completely illegal. Censoring the Internet is:
A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and
B) A powerful tool for political control.

Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries [wikipedia.org] - called "Source Country" exploitation. Truly unbiased research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically they keep poor countries poor. Do you see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn? No of course not: they don't really care it is just a bogyman to push through controls on the internet - your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closly related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation, death, and...).

References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:

The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.

http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil_Twyford_-_CID_Trade_Forum.pdf [cid.org.nz]

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."

http://www.biotech-info.net/independent_commission.html [biotech-info.net]

Thinking of the children? (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087122)

Don't be fooled. They say they're doing it to protect the children. Once the mechanism is in place to do this they'll keep a low profile and only censor blatant violations. Then...they tighten the noose little bits at a time until eventually it is used to limit politically undesirable speech.

Re:Thinking of the children? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087380)

eventually?
Wasn't there a story a while back about abortion related sites making it on to the list long ago?

Re:Do you agree? (4, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087292)

I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...

The submitter of this article is a cock for including that summary, as is the editor who greenlit it.

Anonymous is not protesting this because the AU government is proposing censorship of "rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse." They are doing it because they are proposing censoring "small breasted women" (because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18), among other things.

They are lashing out at the “ambiguity” of the often-used term “unwanted content”, the Australian Government is trying to crack down on pornography featuring female ejaculation and women with small breasts... yes, those things that are a threat to modern society. I mean, if females start ejaculating, we are all doomed!

So the entire article is a load of shit. I expect better from Slashdot editors than greenlighting a load of sensationalist horseshit about a technical issue.

lulz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086442)

This is yet another warning shot, the shit will really hit the fan once the mandatory internet censorship actually begins.

"Cyber-Attackers" !!! Oooh, Scary! (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086496)

"The Man" better look out!

Re:"Cyber-Attackers" !!! Oooh, Scary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086630)

You've been chosen as the next target of Anonymous. Start running, robot.

Re:"Cyber-Attackers" !!! Oooh, Scary! (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087168)

Anonymous is not Cowards! You don't represent them!

Re:"Cyber-Attackers" !!! Oooh, Scary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087260)

Anonymous is not your personal army. He's not relevant or funny enough to attract enough attention.

Where is the so called democracy? (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086520)

In my opinion, the result of democracy should be that everyone can do as they please as long as their actions do not hurt "little ones".

That's why the west's implementation of democracy leaves a lot to be desired. Why? Because governments only practice "democracy" when the practice suits their [selfish] ends.

I know there is a way round all this nonsense so let's inform our colleagues down there about ways of circumventing this rubbish.

Re:Where is the so called democracy? (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086720)

In my opinion, the result of democracy should be that everyone can do as they please as long as their actions do not hurt "little ones".

As soon as you attempt to implement such a thing, you'll find a bunch of people presenting themselves as fragile "little ones" who must be protected from those big bad others. What you've posted is necessary but not sufficient for freedom; you also have to be able to say to those who would use their putative weakness as a tool of oppression to toughen up or suffer; those pictures won't REALLY hurt you, no matter what you say.

Re:Where is the so called democracy? (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087102)

"you also have to be able to say to those who would use their putative weakness as a tool of oppression to toughen up or suffer; those pictures won't REALLY hurt you, no matter what you say."

You are my new internet hero. Well put.

Re:Where is the so called democracy? (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086792)

In my opinion, the result of democracy should be that everyone can do as they please as long as their actions do not hurt "little ones".

Many would agree with you. But they would quibble over the definition of "hurt". A government could ban almost anything on the grounds that it might "hurt the children".

Re:Where is the so called democracy? (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086986)

But they would quibble over the definition of "hurt".

Too many people equate "hurt" with "cause offense to".

To which I say, please show me where in the Australian constitution, it says that one has the right NOT to be offended, ever.

Of course (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086522)

They'll just swat ineffectually at anonymous, like a man being swarmed by bees.
They might even arrest one or 2 people.
And the /b/tards will laugh.

Re:Of course (2, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086884)

I think this article deserves some more 4chan sub culture memes. After all

Anon Delivers!

Re:Of course (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087052)

Don't you mean HungryHobo delivers? He wasn't AC

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087072)

Anon does not always deliver.

Rule 34 + Rosie O'Donnell = no delivery.

Obviously we need filtering. Look what they did.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086532)

Stupid ass anonymous. Way to make sure these plans get completed.

Thats like having the KKK back your cause.. Guaranteed to make it fail.

Ambiguous headline (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086548)

You can't just write 'Australian'? Really? Because for a moment I thought you were talking about American University.

s/[er|re]\/r/g (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086552)

From TFA:

The government's recently-commissioned Cyber Security Operations Centr discovered Wednesday's attack was coming on February 5 but still couldn't stop it entirely.

This article has almost Slashdot-worthy copy editing. Also see:

[...] said the email sent by Anonymous IBTimes.

Either there's a missing conjunction, or there's a 4chan cell working in the news outlet itself. Wouldn't they call themselves I/b/Times?

I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086560)

"The group responsible, called Anonymous, is known for coordinated Internet attacks against Scientology and other groups in the past."

      Right. Because anyone calling themselves anonymous are the "same group". Specifically because "Anonymous" means "of unknown name". Heck, we have a bunch of Anonymous Cowards here on slashdot too! Let's track down their IP's and throw them in jail like the terrorists they are! After all, they've been seen on TV to blow up yellow vans, so they must be evil, right?

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (5, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086624)

This was my favourite part:

Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment.

Really?!

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086690)

all they would have needed the do was post on /b/ something to the effect of "i c wut u did thar" and let the lulz ensue.

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086980)

When I asked them about it - I had to post a picture with my question - and all they said was "SAUCE" over and over again.

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087178)

Good work! We can determine from this that Anonymous is predominantly Italian.

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087108)

No comments

--
Anonymous Non-cowards

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086634)

cough 4chan

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086702)

Well according to the Church of Scientology, they are the greatest threat to mankind since Genghis Khan--an organized hate group aimed at overthrowing America and burning all our churches. Also, Tom Cruise is not gay.

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086866)

I think they messed up an acronym: Australians Now Obligated to Nuke Your Malignant Oligarchy of Undeserved Sactions

Anonymous also responsible for Reichstag fire (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086932)

Some 'anonymous terrorists' burned the Reichstag, justifying Hitler's seizure of power.
A group called Anonymous has hacked the Australian parliament website, with the purpose of... ?

Either Anonymous is a group of idiotic teenagers who have never opened a history book, either they are organized manipulators who think most people in modern society don't know anything about history.

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087238)

Seeing agencies and the media fail to grasp the concept of Anonymous and the Internet culture in general is part of the lulz ;)

Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087256)

"Right. Because anyone calling themselves anonymous are the "same group". Specifically because "Anonymous" means "of unknown name". Heck, we have a bunch of Anonymous Cowards here on slashdot too! Let's track down their IP's and throw them in jail like the terrorists they are! After all, they've been seen on TV to blow up yellow vans, so they must be evil, right?"

Well, the media seem to be pretty happy to consider al Qaeda to be a singular organisation, albeit an organisation made up of "autonomous cells". In reality, al-Qaeda is no more cohesive than Anonymous - just a bunch of people and groups with similar aims adopting a recognisable aim/identity.

we are legion (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086574)

we do not forget. we do not forgive.

Re:we are legion (0, Troll)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087250)

No you're not. You're a semi-organized collection of pussies who are too scared to put a face with a name.

Re:we are legion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087398)

^^^
Scientologist.

Sure, that sends the right message (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086584)

So in order to protest a government that is so paranoid about the internet that it filters out content, hackers attack the websites of that government? [sarcasm] I'm sure they are so much less paranoid now and thinking less about the children.[/sarcasm]

Re:Sure, that sends the right message (2, Informative)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086914)

You're right though. And to call Anonymous hackers is hilarious.
We're talking about boards that had its own users infect eachother by saving pictures, renaming them to .js and executing it (something which thousands of users dit themselves expecting something else).
Fox once called them "Hackers on steroids", the general public there is a total computer retard and knows how to fire up LOIC and get some sites down but that's it.
It's the numbers that make Anonymous effective, not the brains.
In b4 angry /b/tards

Re:Sure, that sends the right message (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087366)

Your analysis of Anonymous is correct; they're effective the same way Kobolds can be effective: if there are enough of them, they'll succeed. Anonymous is an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters; collectively they'll write the complete works of Shakespeare.

This seems unfairly biased (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086620)

[QUOTE]

  "It recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse."

[/QUOTE]

I believe this interpretation unfairly portrays Anonymous as a bunch of sadistical, criminalalistic bottom-feeders. While Anonymous is a giant group that contains many criminals it also consists of regular people that do not want what they believe are fundamental freedoms restricted.

What the OP does not realize is that internet censorship is a slippery slope phenomenon that includes the blockage of many other types of unnecessarily censored content blocked by this filter.

I hope this clears something up.

Wow this group is pretty active on /. (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086622)

> The group responsible, called Anonymous

Wow, this group is pretty active on /., I see comments signed "anonymous" all the time on this site ;-))

Re:Wow this group is pretty active on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086874)

Indeed, I'm so secret that I don't even have a link on my username. You know, so you can't track me.

I'm a terrorist.

Re:Wow this group is pretty active on /. (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087084)

Are you behind 7 proxies, because any more or any less I can track you.

Re:Wow this group is pretty active on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087136)

I’m behind 7 proxies, and so are my proxies!

Re:Wow this group is pretty active on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086936)

And besides -- I'm being oppressed! I start at zero mod points whereas the others start at one!
Waah!

This is Sparta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086632)

Keep up the good work, pals. It was fun last night.

Internet is for porn. Don't fuck with us.

Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086658)

Well, if I were a normal person and just read this summary, I would conclude that the group are "cyber-terrorists" who are in favor of drug use, rape, zoo sex and child abuse. In addition, by calling themselves Anonymous they're spoiling the concept of anonymity. I really don't think that this action was the best press possible either for the group or for those who are against censorship in general.

Re:Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086718)

Yes, unfortunatly the news sites write what they're told and trying to get the point across that they're protesting the existance of the blacklist rather than whats supposed to be on it is a little too much of a fine distinction for most journalism graduates to understand.

Re:Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086776)

[...] who are in favor of drug use, rape, zoo sex and child abuse [...]

Anyone who ever read 4chan /b/ can attest to that. ;-)

Re:Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086838)

Which proves that normal people are incredibly stupid.

And we allow these retards to make laws...

Re:Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086868)

by calling themselves Anonymous they're spoiling the concept of anonymity.

Why? It's not like there's any kind of formal organization or hierarchy. The fact is, anyone can call himself Anonymous. There's no leaders, no secret place, no kind of affiliation. They don't even know each other. Knowing that Anonymous did it gives you no particular information.

As said by Chris Landers and quoted in Wikipedia, "Anonymous is a group, in the sense that a flock of birds is a group. How do you know they're a group? Because they're travelling in the same direction. At any given moment, more birds could join, leave, peel off in another direction entirely."

we are legion (5, Funny)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086684)

We are anonymous, we are legion! we do not forg...

Crap! I forgot to log out.

Re:we are legion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086734)

We are anonymous, we are legion! we do not forg...

Crap! I forgot to log out.

Rule #1, #5, #9, #34, #72, and #93!

Re:we are legion (2, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086906)

Rule #1, #5, #9, #34, #72, and #93!

There's porn of not logging out?

Re:we are legion (2, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086978)

It exists. There is, or will be shortly.

Re:we are legion (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087210)

Sweat dripped down John's brow. He'd never done it like this before. It had always been anonymous and random. He'd pick out someone from the chat room and have his way with them. But this time it was different. He didn't realize it at first. There had been the usual flirting and the textual foreplay. And then she had called him by his name. He had forgotten to log out.

John sat staring at his screen for a full minute. There were the words she had written, as alluring as the naked body he could see in his minds eye. She wanted him. Not just his usual cyberself but him personally. He wasn't sure if this was something he wanted to do. But it felt good. Taking a deep breath he began to type. "I put on my rob and wizard hat"...

Please research what your writing about IBT (0, Redundant)

y4ku (1681156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086692)

How does a story like this even make it past editors? "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." Seriously?

Re:Please research what your writing about IBT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086784)

No comments!

-- Anonymous Noncowards

Boomerang (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086814)

Anonymous recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse.

I can't think of anything more likely to validate the government's actions in the eyes of its socially conservative constituents.

Re:Boomerang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087050)

In Australia, that's a kylie.

Re:Boomerang (5, Informative)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087378)

Anonymous recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse.

The summary omitted a few things. For one, the proposed blacklist would target otherwise legal adult sites featuring small-breasted women, with the apparent rationale that anyone who doesn't love giant plastic D-cups must be a pedophile.

Of course, it's a lot easier to vilify Anonymous by saying they're trying to defend CP and donkey porn...

... But the cloud stinks !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086832)

The personal computer revolution began as an attempt to move away from centralized control, allowing people to have a system that was powerful, yet individualized. Big companies who hogged computing were seen as evil. Soon everything became self-contained and desktop-centric. There was desktop publishing, desktop marketing, desktop mapping. Now everything is supposed to move to that mainframe in the sky--the cloud.

But the cloud stinks to high hell. Its applications have always been much slower than their desktop counterparts. Try to get to the end cell of a large cloud-based shreadsheet. You'll long for the desktop version. The whole process is exacerbated by the speed of the Internet. The Internet is also unreliable. A couple of weeks ago, I was down for two hours. A month ago, I lost my connection for 20-plus hours.

And where is Microsoft in all of this? The company seems to keep forgetting what business it's in. While Windows 7 and Office continue to be huge cash cows with no end in sight, the company is encouraging the idea of cloud computing by claiming that that is the direction it's headed in, as well. Huh?

Why isn't Microsoft trying to derail cloud computing? That's what I would be doing it its position. It should think about killing Hotmail on a whim and saying, "there's your cloud computing. Look what happened!" That, ultimately, is the real issue with the cloud. It's not like your shrink wrapped software or even a stand alone download software package, which you essentially own and control. What would happen if Microsoft killed Hotmail? What would users do?

Read the terms of service to find out. The company can essentially do whatever it wants. You have no recourse. More onerous is the fact that almost every license agreement says that the company can change the wording whenever it wants to whatever it wants. All cloud action is essentially ethereal. Now you see it, now you don't. Whatever happened to all of those old Geocities and AOL Websites, anyway?

Here's a proposed Microsoft advertisement:

A friend laments that his cloud-based software has stopped working. The company wants to charge him a fortune to return his data. His pal smiles and says, "you wouldn't have this problem with Microsoft packaged software. It runs on your machine! It's yours. You control it. Nobody can take it away from you. Nobody can discontinue your account. It just works!"

"Wow, Jim. Why didn't someone tell me about this earlier? You mean I don't have to keep going online to do my work?

"That's right! And there's no monthly fee!"

"No monthly fee? Where do I sign up?"

"It comes in a box. It installs itself."

"I'm sold! Thanks Microsoft!"

That sort of commercial will never happen, of course. Microsoft sees cloud computing as a better way to make more money.

And cloud computing does have its place as a substitute for large IT departments in large corporations. It's cheaper. That's what the cloud is really about. It's not about usurping freedom from the individual users and charging them more money. That's where the cloud fails.

From the beginning Microsoft was a company that enabled the individual PC user. Now it talks about the cloud like everyone else. Microsoft really needs to rethink its approach.

Bad! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086872)

Bad Slashdotter! Bad!

they'llfix when script kiddies go to school (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087024)

Sounds like a school-kid level activity.

Next thing you know, they are censoring my phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087028)

I say some nasty things on my phone.
People say some nasty things about me.
I take pictures and send them, when I should not.
I received pics from friends and family that just not right.
But I rather have the option, the freedom to view or erase them.
Than letting others choose my taste.

Singapore proxies (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087030)

I'm envisioning a half-dozen new datacenters for VPS hosting being built in Singapore the day that this law actually passes...

Since when.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31087056)

Since when was /. taken over by NANOG faggots?

Warning Posted on Slashdot? (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087106)

It totally saw this coming. [slashdot.org] Or weirdly remembered this post.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?