Hackers Attack AU Websites To Protest Censorship 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."
That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if it's a good idea to protest censorship by limiting others' speech.
We don't have to tolerate the intolerant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called civil disobedience. (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is to remind the powers that be that they rule only because they are *allowed* to rule. The message sent by Anonymous is a simple message:
Remember your place while you still have one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Civil disobedience" isn't a catch-all for 'I'm breaking the law and I think I'm doing it for a good cause'. It means you are publicly breaking an unjust law and expect to be arrested for it. Blacks sitting at a white lunch counter in the face of Jim Crow laws was civil disobedience. Ghandi defying the British Army and making his own salt was civil disobedience.
A bunch of chantards doing DDOS attacks is not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is like violence. If it doesn’t solve the problem, use more.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I.e., censorship isn’t going to solve the problem. That was my original point.
If we allow the powers-that-be to decide that censorship is the tool to use, when it doesn’t solve the problem they’ll just use more censorship.
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not to say we shoudln't pro-actively target those who want to rape children and post pictures of it.
No matter how heinous and vile any particular crime may be, pro-actively targeting someone for merely wanting to do something is far, far more evil.
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet, he’s a senator...
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, informative but wrong. Joe Hockey is shadow treasurer. Joyce is shadow finance minister.
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
You know I've been an independent my whole life but I think I've finally found a party I could really get behind
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
I think I've finally found a party I could really get behind
So many possibilities...
under... on top of... into... in bed with...
Re: (Score:3)
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].
Yeah, that's the part that's got me pissed off. Trying to block bestiality is one thing (which i still don't really agree with blocking), but small-breasted *adult* women? That's fucking insane. I love small breasts, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go touching some underage child. If anything, its because I like *skinny* girls, and they often have small breasts.
If am labeled a pedophile because I am attracted to skinny women, then a *huge* percentage of men would be labeled pedophiles. I know not everyone l
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Now Conroy wants Google to filter YouTube in Australia"
He was in talks with google to give Australia a China, Thailand deal.
"he is hoping Google will voluntarily do the job for him"
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:4, Insightful)
Barnaby Joyce is a member of the opposition, not the ruling government. Joyce is the second largest reason the coalition will not be elected this year, they are a party of extreme religious nutcases (right and left, our parties arent divided along those lines for the yanks playing along at home). The moderate liberals (I use the term "moderate" lightly) like Hockey have already threatened to cross the floor over one populist issue or another.
This is for the people who think voting liberal will fix the issue of censorship, Joyce is proof that it wont. If you want to help against censorship you need to vote against individauls like Conroy, Atkinson and Lundy in state electoins and vote for moderate independents or minor parties like the Greens and Xenofon in federal elections. With fewer extremists Rudd will simply make desisions based on what is popular, could we say the same about Abbot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not all asians are A-cups, you insensitive clod!
Some of them are Bs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently, people in the market for materials like child porn go to sites which carry it. It's not really that hard to find (so they say, to justify the blacklist.) Police get warrants to monitor sites as they're found (judicial oversight!), then pounce and lock up both the producers and the people who create the market.
Now, create a fence around the web, making sure people can't get to these places at all. Nary an immoral thought to be found on the web! (Who decides? No oversight.) What's a child-pornograp
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
> that's not the kind of world I want to live in
He's dead, so his problem seems to be solved.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes indeed, very true. Just like how Dr. King's assassination solved racial inequities and Ted Kennedy's death harbored in a comprehensive new health care system.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"Cyber-Attackers" !!! Oooh, Scary! (Score:2)
"The Man" better look out!
Where is the so called democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
A better definition (Score:2)
Not quite right... the true definition of freedom would be that people can do what they want as long as their actions don't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. If you do something that infringes upon the rights of some rich powerful person, does that make it ok just because you didn't hurt a "little one"? Obviously not.
.. right here, apparently :-( (Score:2)
Unfortunately this isn't so much a failure of democracy as a failure of education. A failure of the media, and those of us who understand why it's such a dangerous waste of money, to get the message out to everyone.
Seeing that article knocked my confidence a bit, I just hope that the 1000 calls made were an unrepresentative sample..
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just swat ineffectually at anonymous, like a man being swarmed by bees. /b/tards will laugh.
They might even arrest one or 2 people.
And the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think this article deserves some more 4chan sub culture memes. After all
Anon Delivers!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean HungryHobo delivers? He wasn't AC
I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Funny)
This was my favourite part:
Really?!
Re:I believe the concept of Anonymous escapes you (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Anonymous also responsible for Reichstag fire (Score:2)
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.
Sure, that sends the right message (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right though. And to call Anonymous hackers is hilarious. .js and executing it (something which thousands of users dit themselves expecting something else). /b/tard
We're talking about boards that had its own users infect eachother by saving pictures, renaming them to
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they were rather effective at humiliating the government by making them appear completely ineffectual.
It’s not just an appearance.
Wow this group is pretty active on /. (Score:2)
> The group responsible, called Anonymous
Wow, this group is pretty active on /., I see comments signed "anonymous" all the time on this site ;-))
Re: (Score:2)
Are you behind 7 proxies, because any more or any less I can track you.
Dumb... Dumb Dumb Dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
[...] who are in favor of drug use, rape, zoo sex and child abuse [...]
Anyone who ever read 4chan /b/ can attest to that. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
And as you can attest to that...
Re: (Score:2)
Which proves that normal people are incredibly stupid.
And we allow these retards to make laws...
Re: (Score:2)
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? Beca
we are legion (Score:5, Funny)
We are anonymous, we are legion! we do not forg...
Crap! I forgot to log out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rule #1, #5, #9, #34, #72, and #93!
There's porn of not logging out?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It exists. There is, or will be shortly.
Re:we are legion (Score:5, Funny)
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"...
Boomerang (Score:5, Informative)
I can't think of anything more likely to validate the government's actions in the eyes of its socially conservative constituents.
Re:Boomerang (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, legal adult sites were able to be blacklisted for the reason above, and there were cases of this happening.
That sort of BS is what sparked off the Anon vs Australia issue.
they'llfix when script kiddies go to school (Score:2)
Singapore proxies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm envisioning a half-dozen new datacenters for VPS hosting being built in Singapore the day that this law actually passes...
Because Singapore is a much more open society than Australia?
Re: (Score:2)
I would support such blocking if ... (Score:2)
... they could achieve that with absolutely zero collateral damage. However, I highly doubt any government agency, especially the Australian government, could come anywhere close to achieving that. And that is THE reason it should not even be considered, much less attempted.
Re: (Score:2)
So you should see why it’s a bad idea...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 us
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Asuuming you have contact info for the site owners and that they have time,care or can afford to give up anonymity to appeal.
This is a big deal for political speach, with a focus on the kind where people feel the need to remain anonymous to avoid becoming part of amnesty internationals statistics.
2: Assuming that people who type in an address and see a
"The site you are trying to access has been blacklisted for containing child pornography, your IP has been logged, remain where you are until officers coll
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
never mind certain commands to soldiers to kill all the adults and males and keep the young girls for themselves.
That is kind of creepy book really.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
A violation of someone’s privacy, in of itself, is not harm.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a red herring. If people do not have a reasonable assurance of privacy, they don't live in a free society.
So it isn't about protecting the ideals, it is about balancing the inevitable compromises of those ideals. Certainly there will be a vigorous discussion about where that balance lies, but it is very much a discussion of the compromises that must be accepted, not a discussion about the evil of compromise itself.
Re: (Score:2)
If people do not have a reasonable assurance of privacy, they don't live in a free society.
So in order to prevent this invasion of privacy we're going to inspect the information that everyone sends and recieves to make sure that privacy isn't violated.
In other news to prevent theft the government is going to confiscate everyones property so that it can be kept somewhere safe and to prevent evesdropping the government is going to listen in on everyones phone conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what the blacklist is.
Re:Do you agree? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole issue is a red herring. Looking at a picture isn’t a violation of someone’s privacy because taking the picture was the violation of their privacy. Lost privacy can’t be regained, and privacy you no longer have can’t be violated.
The whole issue is a red herring thrown up to avoid the fact that what happened happened and there’s fuck-all we can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That being the case - lets take Google maps off the net. While we're at it, you can no longer take photos at Disneyland or the Grand Canyon, should you accidentally capture someone in the photo.
I think this is one case where giving up a little liberty to gain a little security ACTUALLY means you gain neither and lose both.
Re: (Score:2)
All I'm saying is that censoring the media involved in violating the freedom of the child does nothing to stop the violation.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be incapable of getting this fairly easy to understand piece of information:
no it doesn't.
Those things remain out there on darknets, in basements and getting passed around by creepy wierdos.
Filtering everyones internet does nothing, absolutley nothing to stop those guys.
All it does is violate everybody elses privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I simply have a different view of what privacy is than you do.
Clearly.
Someone sees a picture of me that shouldn’t have been taken, that I can’t ever un-take, and that people will continue to look at and distribute even if this particular someone hadn’t been able to find it: A violation of my privacy.
Someone monitors all of my internet use, making sure that I don’t visit any sites that I shouldn’t: Not a violation of my privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply supporting the idea that some censorship is o.k.
You can’t censor some things without examining all of them.
if the government finds a computer being used to distribute the material, they can seize it and destroy it (both are acts of censorship).
I don’t think very many people would call those acts of censorship. Sort of like not many people are complaining about inmates’ and felons’ civil rights – to life, liberty, the persuit of happiness; to vote, to own guns, etc. – being trampled.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's not inevitable.
No absolutes after all.
There's a slim chance.... really really slim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No-one is trying to ban depictions of a crime taking place, and the aim is not to "prevent crime".
Youre trying to re-write the entire history of the logic and motive behind anti-CP legislation. I’m not falling for it.
The principle here is that a human should by default own the copy right on his likeness. The same would apply if your mother was just walking around naked in her house and you published pictures with a telephoto lens.
That’s bullshit. The principle here has nothing to do with that, and that principle is flawed anyway: we only have this supposed “copy right” on our likeness when we expect to be in private. In public, people can take as many pictures as they want, without any permission whatsoever. Displaying a copyrighted painting in public doesn’t give people the right to ph
Re:Do you agree? (Score:5, Insightful)
child abuse violates the freedom of the child.
absolutley.
But censorship in no way un-violates the freedom of that child.
it gains nothing.
it achieves nothing.
it help nobody.
The pictures are out there and they don't stop being out there.
Thinking of the children? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'd think that, with as low a UID as you have, that you'd be used to the slashdot editors finding the most misleading and inaccurate summary of all the submissions to select for posting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18
It wasn't even that, it was that small breasted women LOOKED like they were under 18. [slashdot.org] The logic is along the lines of banning cartoons displaying children (even the Simpsons [slashdot.org]) participating in sex acts. Because they look like they are underage, then it is Kiddy Porn because they are targeting people who want to see young people naked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It not about agreeing, censorship is bad no matter what.
Using ISP's to check traffic is kind of like stopping people on the road and checking their identification papers, to ensure they're citizens or have the legal right to be on the roads. It may be effective compliance technique, but it's egregiously inappropriate behaviour on the part of any government. People do not like to be searched, however innocent they be.
So stay out of my briefcase. There's nothing illegal in there. I have nothing to hide, but those papers are mine and mind your own business!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling Anonymous "a group"? WTF? This is almost as bad as that FOX news report.
YES, editors, I just compared the quality of your journalism to FOX.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)