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!

Telstra Fears LulzSec Attacks, Hesitates On Internet Filter

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-wouldn't-you dept.

Australia 188

After the earlier report that some of Australia's largest telcos (and ISPs) were to start censoring internet traffic based on a blacklist, rdnetto writes with the news that "Telstra is now hesitating to deploy the internet filter it had previously promised to implement, fearing reprisals from online vigilantes." The linked article specifically names LulzSec as the source of such reprisals.

cancel ×

188 comments

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

Nice? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565046)

I don't know if we should be thankful. These sort of things never end well.

Re:Nice? (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565470)

And censorship never ends well either.

Too much "protection" and you have a totalitarian regime.

If you want to take out crime - do it at the source or check the cause for the crime first. Strangling the internet is like shooting the messenger.

Re:Nice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565778)

Too much "protection" and you have a totalitarian regime.

Too much hyperbole and you end up with Chicken Little.

Re:Nice? (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566426)

Sure, but that doesn't look like an overly hyperbolic statement. In a sense, it's the very definition of totalitarianism.

Conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565048)

I feel sorry for the companies they've attacked, but their dabbling with attacks on government might just be working.

Re:Conflicted (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565352)

Some of the attacks on companies appear to have been purely random; but some have been hit because(as here), there really isn't a sharp corporate/state divide...

Re:Conflicted (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565480)

Never understood this particular point of view. Government is there to function as your guardian and benefactor, with your elected representatives at helm. Corporation functions as a closed entity with no other goal then profit, even if that profit comes at expense of everything else (see: Bhopal).

Granted many modern governments in large countries became almost corporate in nature, almost as closet, corrupt and nepotistic as their megacorp counterparts. But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course. It can be argued that government in Western countries does represent its average constituent - in all his/her greed, selfishness and ignorance and stupidity.

Not so with corporations, who in addition to all above vices tend to also be destructively greedy.

Re:Conflicted (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565674)

But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course.

"However small"? The same could be said about corporations (to a certain extent). The problem is that voters don't all agree with one another (which just divides that power). Some people who do want change will likely often be vastly outnumbered by those who don't (or don't care). I don't believe that giving up is the answer, though.

Re:Conflicted (1, Troll)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565774)

The top modern corporations control so much wealth and property that they simultaneously have in most areas a near monopoly on goods and services and a monopsony on labor such that the vast majority of people are essentially slaves to the corporate elite in one way or another. We who don't own property can't own property, even though it is significantly less expensive and more stable than renting at hugely artificial rates, we have to work our asses off for absolutely nothing and there are no jobs and no opportunities to escape this system. It is the most oppressive life I can imagine short of having internet filters, and these corporations have powers that the government couldn't possibly take as long as it is still accountable to the people. But the power of capital wealth is infinite, without checks, without balances, and without mercy.

Re:Conflicted (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565848)

That's true, but if everyone stopped supplying them with money, they would eventually run out. Now, I know the chances of that happening are likely very unlikely, but my point is that he mentioned people having at least some degree of power over the government. The same can be said of corporations to a certain extent.

Re:Conflicted (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566536)

Not nearly all corporation rely on general populace for funding. In fact, many rely on government itself, while remaining almost totally independent of it (i.e. military-industrial complex).

Re:Conflicted (2)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565950)

Actually, I'd say you have more control over most corporations than people do over most governments.
At least with corporations you can vote against them if you don't like what they are doing (not give them cash).
Try that with a government and if you're "lucky" and live in the "free" countries they'll lock you up, unlucky and they'll shoot you.

Re:Conflicted (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566554)

How do you vote against corporations "with cash" if you don't mind me asking? Many if not most of them don't accept any cash from general populace - their business is with smaller corporations or governments, such as major oil companies, construction companies, chemical companies, energy companies, defense companies and so on.

Re:Conflicted (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566376)

What are you, 5 years old? Haven't seen such naivete since I went to primary school.

Re:Conflicted (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566558)

Must have been some interesting primary school to fully purge all ability of critical thinking.

Re:Conflicted (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565594)

Well we can add EA / Bioware to the list according to my latest email from them. Setting up an anonymous email account to register my games with seems to be working out for the better.

I'm sure there will be a Slashdot story about this soon enough.

Re:Conflicted (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565608)

And if I look at the stories that got filtered out from me there it is. Oh well lolz.

oh (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565050)

neato

Article is false. (4, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565056)

Never trust News Corp. Here's some real journalism: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/25/telstra-proposes-to-filter-interpol-blacklist/ [delimiter.com.au]

Not that the real answer is any better than what the Australian said, but the truth is what matters.

Re:Article is false. (1)

RL78 (1968236) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565798)

what is false in the article ?

FUD (5, Insightful)

Ja'Achan (827610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565062)

Step 1: Create a scary and unspecific enemy
Step 2: Give it some publicity
Step 3: Demand funding and protection based on speculation ('Maybe someone might attack us! Think of the children!')
Step 4: Profit! And power, too.

Looks like it still works.

Oh Evil Telstra... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565072)

You're making it really hard not to like the current phase of cyber-terrorism when said terrorism forces you to try to make the right decision.

Re:Oh Evil Telstra... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36566022)

I would argue that any decision made based in immediate fear is not really the right decision; even if the decision has a positive outcome, it was made it for the wrong reasons and is therefore not representative of any particular notion of "right." No lesson was learned, and any future decisions are unaffected. This is only effective if fear can be maintained indefinitely, which is nearly impossible. It's indistinguishable, in the long run, to a step backward.

Congratulations Lulzsec (5, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565076)

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565208)

Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick. You're adding fuel to a flame that doesn't care what it burns.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565258)

Honestly, that doesn't bother me. I think it's quite humorous.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565272)

Well, then it's just a matter of picking your poison; isn't it ?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565342)

Don't encourage these people.

Don't tell someone what ideals they can and can't support... Lest you want to be labeled a Fascist. There's a lot of dolts on the Internet, and they're paying the price now for using the same password at 100 websites.
I'm enjoying the show, to be honest. LulzSec haven't harmed anyone yet, and they've obviously got quite the audience. While only 270Kish twitter followers, I'm sure there's many more lurking it who don't use twitter that are following the story.

Now, because of LulzSec, for the first time a western government is fearing a backlash on their stance on Internet censorship.
That's a good thing in my book. /popcorn

I for one welcome our new haxxor overlords (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565344)

Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick. You're adding fuel to a flame that doesn't care what it burns.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. Seriously though, if what it takes to keep the Internet free is that big companies can't be too lax on security, so be it.
I could feel sorry for some of their targets, but they screwed Sony so it evens out. Telstra leaves them with positive karma.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565358)

Y'know, in terms of 'collateral damage per unit freedom', Lulzsec is still doing pretty well...

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (5, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565504)

Don't tell me what I should encourage.

Lulzsec is just another part of a bigger cultural shift (wikileaks and "anonymous" as well) away from servitude into actual civil awareness. Yes, they quite often catch people in the cross-fire. Yes, they often act without any real goals, just to humiliate. However, they serve a role that has long since been shrugged off by people around the world, that of an actual opposition to the status quo.

I'm not an anarchist, but there is something poetic about a group of sarcastic hackers achieving what people want better than their government.

If I were you, I'd get used to it, because people are tired of the corruption. If it takes people like Lulzsec to actually get something done, so be it. There is a time for everything and the time for quiet obedience is past.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565518)

there is no such thing as a legitimate organization

PBS channels funds, nintendo sells you the same shit year after year, the FBI is reading this message

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566574)

Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick.

I can't tell, are you talking about LulzSec or the government?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (5, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565372)

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system. By the standards of perfection, everywhere is awful; by contrast with justice in many places 40 (Spain, if you're gay?), 50 (Southern US, if you're black?) or 200 (Britain or France, if you're poor and steal a loaf of bread?) years ago, governments are in some areas doing really well. And if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia, suddenly that horrible rights-denying US doesn't seem so bad.

It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West. It's clear that we could demand and do a lot better. It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect, although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?). But, when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, even if the baby is sick.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565512)

I hate to tell you this, but the southern US *is* black - at least the majority are, especially in urban centers.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565550)

I hate Hazel with a passion... but you utterly fail at reading comprehension.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565638)

<3

-----

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

Love is not enough :-(.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

xnpu (963139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565738)

Exactly. Not to mention that (albeit not very scientific) programs like "What would you do" clearly show southern whites stand up for their black neighbors more than those in the north.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565538)

your comments are derogatory

all southerners hate blacks therefore its the rule of law?

hogwash, there is just as many questionably motivated arrests in Detroit as there is in Atlanta, LA or DC

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (2)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565662)

>It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West.

Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got? What about the 70s oil and energy crisis? Watergate? The Vietnam war? Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup? Not to mention Margaret Thatcher.

The West has had ups and downs. You can certainly cherry pick things we've screwed up, but there are a lot progress being made behind the scenes. Sure, there's moral panics over terrorism, Islam, piracy and child porn. But gay marriage is finally on the agenda in a big way, and universal health is getting some approval in the US. The biggest enemies the US has aren't China and Russia, but Iran, North Korea, and a couple of lunatics hijacking 767s.

The government can spy on everybody, and shouldn't, but does; but they aren't acting on it very much.

Things haven't really gone backwards that much.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565822)

Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got?

In Western civil rights terms, yes.

What about the 70s oil and energy crisis?

This wasn't a civil rights issue.

Watergate?

The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?

The Vietnam war?

This was a stain on the US, yes, but it ended in the middle of the decade. It also admitted a huge amount of popular and well-publicised protest. You even almost got rid of conscription - elimination of the Selective Slavery System, unfortunately, hasn't happened.

Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup?

I guess you could argue that to ignore rights abroad is to ignore the rights of everyone. But I wasn't going that far.

Not to mention Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher was 1979 = 2011-30.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565830)

Thatcher was 1979 = 2011-30.

Lol, embarrassing. = should have read [unsupported symbol to indicate approximately equal to]. Thatcher didn't really start fucking things up until a year or two into power, though.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565872)

That symbol you're looking for is '~'.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565940)

Yeah... it was more a braino than a typo: in my head I said \approx, which I could write =~, but that should be written =\sim, but I'll omit the LaTeX markup lest I sound even more pompous than usual. For some reason I've done that sort of thing often when de-TeXing for a general audience, although usually the formula is slightly more complex! The upshot is that I end up looking an idiot, which everyone surely agrees I deserve ;-).

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566160)

thatcher didn't fuck anything up any years into power, she brought britain back from the brink of years of socialist idiocy. I agree with the other guy who said you seriously suck at reading comprehension but I'd go further to say that probably you just "suck" and reading was collateral damage.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566226)

Sir,

The other guy said he hates me with a passion (I wonder if it keeps him up at night?) but that Professr3 fails at reading comprehension. Given the context of your post, I'm going to chalk this one up to tragic irony.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565894)

The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?

Nixon was not impeached. Clinton was. So you were wrong on both accounts (that there was an impeachment in the '70s and that there wouldn't be one again).

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566066)

Nixon [washingtonpost.com] .

Clinton's technical impeachment was trivial, partisan and he was acquitted. It was one of IIRC three attempts, the other two of which never reached trial. It was essentially an abuse of the impeachment process and didn't work. It was technically an impeachment but in spirit a waste of time.

Proceedings towards Nixon's impeachment received bipartisan support [washingtonpost.com] from the House Judiciary Committee, appropriately targeting an abuse of power with the Articles of Impeachment [watergate.info] . Everyone knew what the outcome would be and the proceedings resulted in Nixon's removal - forcing a corrupt president's removal being one of the aims of such proceedings. He resigned before the impeachment proceedings reached the stage which is technically labelled "impeachment", but that is irrelevant.

Nixon's was the last impeachment proceeding which worked, and Clinton's was simply partisan abuse. The efforts to impeach Bush [feralhouse.com] , who had behaved in a manner far worse than poor Nixon dreamt of, fell on deaf ears within the Judiciary Committee.

But I apologise for not demonstrating the necessary level of pedantry. I should have said, "the President not only could be affected by impeachment proceedings, but was affected by impeachment proceedings, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?"

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566242)

His commuting of Libby's sentence alone should have been grounds for some sort of investigation. That was just blatent cronyism. Libby is found guilty in a court of law on found counts of impeding a federal investigation... but the investigation would possibly have turned up evidence of political games even more embarassing, so Bush thanks him by commuting his sentence. The message is clear: "Laws are for the little people to follow, not us."

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566282)

I understand your point, but it is factually wrong. Nixon was not impeached. There was a vote to begin impeachment proceedings, but the proceedings were never completed. The proceedings against Clinton were completed. Clinton was impeached.

Just because the average person thinks "impeached" means "removed from office" doesn't allow you to use the words wrongly. Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. The case has to be brought before the grand jury. They started the process to get Nixon's case there, but he quit before that happened. Clinton was impeached, the equivalent of an indictment. But the final verdict was the equivalent of a not guilty finding.

The real difference is that Nixon committed a felony, and Clinton answered what was in effect a technical question correctly but in doing so used words in a manner contrary to the vernacular, which opened him up to ridicule.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566306)

Even though I believe the impeachment process worked in Nixon's case but were abused against Clinton, you're right that it doesn't mean I should misuse the technical term "impeachment". I should have talked in terms of the effectiveness of "impeachment proceedings" or something. Sorry.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565758)

The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system.

Yea, right. The "rule of law" only applies to those that cannot afford to be exempt. Impartial my ass.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565912)

I didn't see the GP even come close to advocating the dissolution of western governments. I also disagree with the GP regarding "the amount of influence a shadowy group of people on the internet has". This particular group, anyway.

That being said, notice the parallels. Be it from the outright revolt of colonial americans, or civil disobedience of portions of the public in the 50s and 60s - that is what it takes to get government to move to protect the rights of citizens.

You certainly can't just ask, and government certainly won't just up and decide to do it on its own, because it is the morally correct and/or rational thing to do. One way or another, governments must be forced to do these things. Whether this is through the ballot box, protest, civil disobedience or outright revolt, it always takes PRESSURE.

I also think that if we compare our current to our past, or ours to the worst, we will never make any more progress. We will stagnate in a pool of "At least it is better than it was 200 years ago!" and/or "At least it isn't as bad as Saudi Arabia!".

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36566590)

Just because the rest of the world is so much 'worse'. Is no reason not to try being 'better'.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565406)

we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

Or the resurgence is an old world. Hacking is nothing new, neither is the hacker culture. Wikileaks was the spark that rekindled the soldering embers that once were in the 80s and 90s with their unwavering pursuit toward exposing organizations and governments (regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not). I expect we will see much more of these types of groups and actions until the US adopts serious net neutrality laws or in (one might wish) that they add net neutrality or freedom of information to the constitution as a basic human right.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565546)

yes human nature starts with Reagan

that right there is part of the problem

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (1)

seandiggity (992657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565528)

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years. This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

A world that is increasingly-connected by computer networks is a new world, and this is one fascinating aspect of it. Powerful governments and institutions have embraced technologies that are barely understood by businessman/bureaucrats/elites and are difficult for them to protect and control; despite this, they've used their power to place this tech at the foundation of practically everything in the industrialized world. Typical short-term thinking, done in the pursuit of greed, hegemony, and increased population control. Anyone who's been paying attention should recognize the irony.

In the past year or so, it's been proven that an amorphous "organization" of individuals (including "script kiddies") can crowd-source these security breaches using methods that are simple and generally well-known. DDoS, website vandalism, and other attacks through the network have always been threats...for some pretty huge and powerful organizations, the blowback from such attacks has escalated from embarrassment to crisis. The infiltrations and leaks have been the most damaging, as it's literally child's play to broadly distribute files (via bittorrent especially) and mirror data so many times that it becomes a permanent feature of the network. Book burnings have become impossible and raids are ineffective.

The powerful are feeling vulnerable, afraid they've disrupted the "natural order" by allowing in (more than one) "Trojan horse". Some are starting to make their fears public; a few are probably hoping to pursue individuals using the old tactics of intimidation, chasing "cyber-terrorists" and so on. Everyone knows that's not going to work.

I'm glad those who would curtail freedom of speech are now scared to do so, and it's gonna be entertaining to see how things play out with Anonymous, LulzSec, and the inevitable next group that arises. I hope that historians will someday compare this to the digitization of media in general: as media companies attempted to drive down their own production and distribution costs, they made it easy for individuals to distribute their "intellectual property", until it became trivial and a real threat. There are parallels here, and we're now in the "Napster days", so to speak.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36566572)

I'm beginning to see a big change on how the internet works. I'd say in the next years we'll see:

- A "commercial" internet, based on IPv6, i which EVERYONE will have a personal, unique IP address (or a personal, unique suffix) which, combined with generalized packet-signing will supress the anonymity in the net. The commercial services will use that net, and will block any unsigned, unsecured packet.

- A "free" net, which will be basically the remains of the old IPv4. This "net" will be progressively abandoned and assigned less bandwith. Lulzsec, Anonymous and the rest of the online vandals will have good time DDOSing each other while the business moves to the secured net.

At the end of that process, the dream of a completely free and open net will fade into oblivion.

And some years after that, people will ask themselves why did we screwed the old net to the point it was unusable...

There's now... (4, Interesting)

taktoa (1995544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565082)

... a chilling effect on censorship

Re:There's now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565582)

... a chilling effect on censorship

I see what you did there.

Victory for Civil Disodience (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565084)

I know there are going to be lot of nay sayers calling this anarchy but they think we don't know are we forgot that defying the "law" was the only way so many countries got their freedom from the Brits (Didn't Aussies have a freedom fight?)

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565120)

Many people are just sheep, as has always been the case. Those with no morals or values will surrender anything when told to, while those who stand for what they believe will keep being called terrorists. Eventually, though, the "terrorists" win - and not in the bad way. Then they are called heroes.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565462)

Ah, no - Australia is still part of the British empire.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566258)

More accuratly, it's part of the Commonwealth. They are politically independant, but they parted from Britain on good terms (Unlike the US), and so maintain close historical and political ties. Same as Canada.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566180)

The cyber rights movement has begun. No to cyber segregation. Australian ISP's are a lot like the bus companies in the deep south.
All that expensive infrastructure needs a lot of users paying in every month.
Just as empty buses rolled, users can find other isp's.

Surprise surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565102)

Does this really come as a surprise to Telstra? Start imposing 1984-like information control on a free society, and members of society stand up and say, "fuck no", then do something about it. Big shocker there.

interesting (1)

optymizer (1944916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565104)

This (minor?) victory puts the notion of Intelligent Disobedience in a new light.

well what do you know. (1)

TheRealQuestor (1750940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565106)

there are actual silver linings.

Think for a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565108)

If you realize what you're doing is going to have a massive backlash from vigilantes, maybe you should reconsider whether or not what you're doing is the best idea. Especially when it's so one sided; I haven't really seen many netizens praise and welcome the filter.

It looks like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565132)

Lulzsec is useful for something after all! After seeing the stories about how they hacked all these random servers, it's nice to see for once that they managed to do something good like keep an ISP (even if only temporary) from censoring the people.

You're failing to get the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565246)

LulzSec chooses it's targets based on it's audiences input. The organization is a circus.

Security costs money.

Re:You're failing to get the point. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566316)

The MS rep from the US used 3 napkins over a very expensive lunch - the line art on napkin 2 shows they are safe.

Just what we need... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565274)

LulzSec getting praised for accomplishing good.

Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter (2)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565302)

A note on Telstra's new filter. - and I suspect this has been done on purpose to make people think that the actual filter that labour is planning isnt all that bad in some kind of last ditch smooch attempt on Conroy - possibly due to Telstra and co getting left out of the NBN. If you look at what labour has proposed, it goes far beyond just the worst of the worst child abuse material and hence the public backlash. So I can't see any groups like Lulzsec getting all uperty about this filter since it is only blocking the very nasty stuff. Anyway nobody likes kiddy porn except the broken. So I can only imagine this is part of a FUD campaign by Telstra and Conroy to ease Ausies into his planned censorship regime and seed the idea that the whole filtering concept is infact just about blocking child abuse material - which is just not true.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter (2)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565724)

Yeah they aren't (ab)using the filter to block anything but the "worst of the worst" now, but the whole uproar over the original filter was unaccountable bureaucrats deciding what would go on the SECRET filter list. I don't see how Telstra deciding what goes on the secret filter list is really any better.

When some idiots claim that the works of Bill Henson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson) are child pornography (and thus a significant portion of classical and renaissance paintings and sculpture) then I don't trust the whole system at all.

The previous government already paid for filtering software for anyone who wanted it, so "accidental" exposure isn't an issue. And filtering HTTP does no good in actually stopping pedophiles from obtaining child pornography as they have mostly shifted to other protocols years ago. There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the filter.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565866)

First they came for the terrorists,
and i didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist

Then they came for the pedophiles,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedophile.

Then they came for the flag-burners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a flag burner.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36566004)

I remember last time this happened. The whole UK was forced through 3 proxies when they went to Wikipedia because some twat reported the Virgin Killer album to the censorship authority and they banned it without question.
Then they backed out after Wikipedia was threatening to sue, because like all censorship systems, they go after the weak.

Don't think for a second the same won't happen there.
IT WILL HAPPEN.
No public knowledge of the list == abuse.
Why is it NOT public? If the site is blocked, most people wouldn't even think of going to it if they knew about it.
Those who do either: get caught due to using simple proxies, or get away with it and probably deservingly for being able to evade them. (as much as it pains me to say it)
But at least then people will be able to see if some completely innocent site is blocked, like that hairdressers site that was in one of the Australian censor list leaks a couple years or so ago.

Who gets to say what's on the list? (5, Informative)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565340)

Our local resource center for our less affluent residents provides free internet access. It is supposed to have a filter for porn, only porn. Someone asked me to help them find information on medical marijuana and it was blocked by the filter. It wasn't porn but it was blocked. I asked the manager what else is being blocked? They didn't know. They didn't know how to change it either. I just hope no one dies because of that filter. Filter's always filter out more than they are supposed to, including legitimate political dissent. How free is your country if the government can control what you see, hear and read?

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (1)

crusty_architect (642208) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565468)

Interpol

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565588)

Federal police would get lists from around the world.
Write ins for medical, faith and political issues will then start to flow.
If you can print and post a nice letter, put together a reason why a site should be banned, it might be added :)

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565640)

I imagine that once the infrastructure for censorship is in place, it'll be used for other content deemed illegal. Copyright infringment is first to come to mind, but there is the possibility of future courts issuing blocking orders for material found to be libelous, extreme pornography, hate speech (With all the vagueness that term implies), or an invasion of the privacy of some celebrity who wants their latest scandal kept out of the news.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (1)

crusty_architect (642208) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566110)

The list comes from Interpol, there is no possibility of any Australian court or any Australian government adding anything to the list.....

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566142)

Regardless of where the list comes from, adding extra lines is trivial.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565560)

when the government owns the access terminal what the hell do you expect? and if you don't like that then help get these people private access!

besides I doubt anyone is going to die cause their pot superscription ran out

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566286)

Duh!

The pot was just an example on how any secretive filter list can end will be abused.

Where can I donate to Lulzsec? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565430)

No hesitation paypalling these e-terrorists to hassle the shit out of Telstra and stop this retarded, pro-christian internet filter. No hesitation at all. Hack them please, destroy them - and the ministers who are pushing for it also.

Whats the Problem ? (1)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565506)

THE voluntary internet filter for CHILD ABUSE ......She said Telstra remained committed to working with the federal government to reduce the availability of CHILD ABUSE material on the net ......"We continue to work with the Australian Federal Police to disrupt the availability of CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE content in Australia," the spokeswoman said ......"One option being considered is the blocking of a list of illegal CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE sites identified as being the worst globally by international policing body Interpol." ......The filter focuses exclusively on internet CHILD ABUSE material from a list maintained by the AFP in co-operation with international law-enforcement agencies ...... A spokesman for Senator Conroy said: "We are still working through the details of the voluntary arrangements with the ISPs and details have not yet been finalised." ......It is understood Telstra was last night still grappling with the decision as to whether to commit to the voluntary filter because of fears of reprisals ...... because of Canberra's support for an internet filter on CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

So its only child abuse sites and no others and has no relationship to the set of banned websites that they were talking about before when they tried to ram it through parliament as legislation, nup, no connection at all, honestly, really, I mean, we all believe what Rupert Murdoch tells us in his loyal newspaper don't we, I mean he is an honest man and would never try to colour any facts would he, see he's told us many times in the same article , its only to do with child abuse pornography and we're all in favour of stopping that aren't we, I mean think of the children, and it would never ever be expanded to cover anything else that this or any future government doesn't like would it ........

Re:Whats the Problem ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565680)

Do you know how the Internet works? You are on a technology site, think for a minute. Have you heard of Tor?
Take some reading material back under your rock and study up.

Re:Whats the Problem ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565868)

Excellent idea, too bad that:

1. It doesnt work.

2. They will not keep it at "child abuse"

3. It will be made mandatory the second they think they can get away with it.

Re:Whats the Problem ? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565888)

Heh. Voluntary. I wonder what happens to the people who opt out?

Paedophiles win yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565600)

It kind of makes you wonder where LulzSec loyalties really are. Are they on the side of right and just, or are they supporting paedophiles.

Re:Paedophiles win yet again (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565646)

Lulzsec are on the side of Lulz. Their first objective is entertainment. But, if they can advance the cause of freedom in the process, they'll adopt that as a secondary objective.

Sorry Telstra (1)

gavron (1300111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565626)

I don't care if they "blame" lulz... or if lulz really made a difference. Telstra sucks for agreeing to "filter" the Internet. Perhaps it's "great" they want to be like China and filter the Internet. The Internet does not want those filters.

"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore, 1993. That meaning existed llong before Telstra existed, and long after they will.

Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.

E

Re:Sorry Telstra (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566358)

Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.

I actually wondered if they used this as an excuse to back out of putting the filter in because they don't really want to. Of course if they really did have a backbone they'd tell the government "no. this won't work, and even if it did work it would be wrong", but at least this way they won't turn on the filter but aren't directly disobeying the government.

As an Australian, I hope lulzsec follow through (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36565718)

As an Australian, I hope lulzsec follow through on this - But they should watch out for the legion of script kiddies ASIO has hired recently to backtrack for the gubberment.

This just in (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565754)

Australia is about half the size of California. Nothing that happens here is newsworthy. Move along and get on with your lives.

Re:This just in (2)

iosq (1084989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566238)

Totally correct, one of the few English speaking, western democracies institutes one of the most restrictive, broad and opaque internet filtering schemes in the world. Who cares about a measly 22 Million people? After all, countries under 50 Mil. Pop. shouldn't even be recognized. Now give us more stories on bitcoins, dammit!

Re:This just in (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36566272)

With all the telco consolidation in the US, how many telcos will you have left to enjoy that ipad3 or android or Windows Phone ect on?
Soon you may face your largest/only two mobile telecoms offering a clean feed unless you opt out to enjoy the full web as an adult who showed photo ID and pay extra?
Whats tested in loser zones like the UK, Australia, Canada often gets a roll out later in the US.
Just as facebook/google is searched during a job application, do you think your request for an "opt out" will be really really private?

the conclusion we draw from this is.. (0)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36565836)

the terrorists won

yes, terrorists, i've said it.

What are you going to do about it?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36566342)

Yes, our freedoms are going away. The government is using the same logic it uses with its Military. If one person abuses it, no one can have it. The better question to all of you; what the hell are you going to do about it?

Are you going to continue to sit on your butts and post on websites, or get interested in YOUR government?

Think to yourself, what can you do to better the system, and educate your friends and family from using the fatalistic excuse of: That's just the way it is. Because, it's not just the way it is... It's the way YOU'VE allowed it to become.

Honestly, our government isn't small enough or smart enough to create a smoke screen to take our freedoms. Nor would it ever have too, it simply has to start recognizing the threats that have been in existence for years. That coupled with the manipulation of social media (which i do believe they control, and everything else you pay to sit on your butt and watch all day.)

Lets be real for a moment, this is not a free country anymore. However, was it ever a free country? The current status of our government sickness me, almost as much as the people it governs. So enjoy your amenities; your McDonalds, your TV, your FaceBook, your conveniences, your white picket fucking fences. While it all lasts... Hopefully you decide to get involved before it's far too late...

-- The Anonymous solder currently in Iraq

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?