Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Teen Hacks $84 Million Porn Filter in 30 Minutes

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the worth-every-penny dept.

Censorship 479

An anonymous reader writes "Tom Wood, a Year 10 Australian student has cracked the federal government's $84-million Internet porn filter in just 30 minutes. He can deactivate the filter in several clicks in such a way that the software's icon is not deleted which will make his parents believe the filter is still working. Tom says it is a matter of time before some computer-savvy kid puts the bypass on the Internet for others to use."

cancel ×

479 comments

b-b-b-but (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353801)

They said it'd take at least 10 years because they used the same cryptography in Blu-Ray!!!

Not called "Devil's Coffin" for nothing. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353835)



Not called "Devil's Coffin" for nothing. Way too many panhandlers to boot.

well its about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353807)

well its about time...

on topic! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353809)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

        As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

        I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

        Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

        I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

        I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

        I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

        Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

        I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

        I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

What an awesome photo on the news page (5, Funny)

Lt.Hawkins (17467) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353813)

"We got Skynet by the balls now" sums it up quite nicely.

Re:What an awesome photo on the news page (2, Funny)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354153)

I think you just increased the chance of that page getting slash-dotted by a bit ; )

Motivated Youth (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353819)

Keeping a teen from porn is like trying to keep Vervet monkeys out of the fields.
Unless you are willing to shoot them, it is a lost cause.

Re:Motivated Youth (3, Funny)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353851)

I'd be prepared to shoot teens for the sake of morality.

Re:Motivated Youth (4, Funny)

FatSean (18753) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353919)

I'm prepared to shoot moralizers for the sake of teens!

Re:Motivated Youth (2, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353957)

I'm in. When do we attack?

-jcr

Re:Motivated Youth (0, Troll)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354059)

As soon as you move out of your parents' basement.

Re:Motivated Youth (2, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354339)

How are you planning to attack twenty-five years ago? Have you invented a time machine?

-jcr

Re:Motivated Youth (4, Funny)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354077)

"I'd be prepared to shoot teens for the sake of morality."

Yes! I mean, Who will think of the children?!

Wait a minu...

Re:Motivated Youth (5, Funny)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354003)

I strongly disagree. There are very effective ways to keep teens away from porn. They involve teaching a kid to respect themselves and others. It involves talking to your kids about these things. It involves teaching your kids correct principles when they are young and being a good parent. Is it possible to have your child never see porn? Probably not as there are many conspiring men who have their hearts set on addicting as many as they can but you can teach your kid never to go looking for it and what to do if he accidentally finds it.

Re:Motivated Youth (5, Insightful)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354031)

I do believe your confusing porn with something emotional and meaningfull, like say a relationship. Its a quick physical release, nothing more.

Re:Motivated Youth (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354085)

You're starting all of your thoughts at the idea that teens shouldn't be seeing porn. And to the core of that idea is that teens seeing porn is bad for them. I don't believe there's harm with kids old enough to want to see porn, seeing porn. Don't take my words to mean we should be encouraging it, or that we should make it easy for them to do so, but 84 million to STOP it? That's a little off the deep end of the morality pool for me, that money could have been used in much better ways.

Your teenage children are going to see porn. They're going to look for it. The "Not MY kids!" mentality isn't helping either. Yes, even your perfect Christian soldier children are going to actively seek out and consume pornography at least once in their lives. Whether, and to the extent that they're able to repress that is determined by how much of your morality actually stuck when you were brainwashing them to feel guilty about perfectly natural and healthy things.

But hey, keep on rocking in the free world, I'm not a parent and it's not my job to tell anyone else how to be one. I think I do have a bit more common sense than a lot of the people who do end up raising kids though. Sometimes I think it's a shame I wont have any of my own.

I'm sensing a karma burn here, but what good is having it if you don't use it :P

Re:Motivated Youth (0, Troll)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354371)

But hey, keep on rocking in the free world, I'm not a parent and it's not my job to tell anyone else how to be one.

Too late.

I'm sensing a karma burn here, but what good is having it if you don't use it :P

Ah, yes, by going with th 95% majority you will lose your precious karma.

Re:Motivated Youth (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354455)

Oh, well... I guess I was raised by freaks.

Even when I was a kid, I knew where my parents kept their porn. (Living in a one-room apartment doesn't leave many places for hiding stuff anyway.)
My parents, as far as I can tell, knew I was looking at it when I was home alone.

They never raised the issue, and neither did I.

Funnily enough, I can't say it's had a severely detrimental effect on my IQ, grades, social life or anything else. But it did help me relax at times of trouble ;)

Re:Motivated Youth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354349)

That is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life (well probably not but close). What you are saying is "there are effective ways to enforce my own sense of super-conservative morals on kids". A teenager should be able to make that decission itself, there is nothing wrong with porno, not moraly, not ethicaly. Only thing wrong is parents trying to enforce kids into some kind of super conservative religious sanctity where a normal humans urges and curiousity is blinded and made into a bad thing.

I also find it fun you said "there are many conspiring MEN who have their hearts.." seeing as females are the highest earners in the porn-industry and those treated the best I think you should maybe reconsider your ignorance a tad.

God people like you make me want to take out my own fallos and slap it in your face to show you that nudity and the body is harmless.

Re:Motivated Youth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354425)

fallos

If you are trying to sound super-intelligent by using scientific terminology, at least spell it right: phallus.

Thanks.

Re:Motivated Youth (5, Funny)

feepness (543479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354479)

Probably not as there are many conspiring men who have their hearts set on addicting as many as they can but you can teach your kid never to go looking for it and what to do if he accidentally finds it.
And if you can't teach your child not to go looking for it, at least teach them to be smart enough to never have to pay for it. I mean, sheesh, this is 2007 people.

Why we will never see Those Robotic Overlords (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354051)

Information (panties) wants to be free, those clever teen velvet monkeys are everywhere. Mostly though I keep thinking of a line from the Movie Akira (the English version) "If humans think something is possible, eventually they find a way to do it, like it's instinctual." (I am not going to Google the exact wording but the upshot is the same. A motivated kid is impossible to stop.

And it would have works except for those damn kids.

Cheapest Solution... (5, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354187)

The simplest and cheapest way to stop / reduce a kids ability / opportunity to access porn, an other such nefarious sites, on the Internet is to put the computer in a well traveled place in the home, say beside the kitchen and not up in there room where they cannot be supervised directly.



Its called 'parenting' and it really works.



Rebuttals featuring 'special cases' will be ignored.

Re:Cheapest Solution... (2, Insightful)

Copid (137416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354325)

That's a very good solution. Alternately, if people insist on a technical solution, perhaps create one that makes people accountable for what they do rather than an easily defeated barrier. Maybe a password-protected cable modem that logs activity? Can't remove it or you lose access, can't just boot from a live CD. Clearing the password would be noticed when the parent logs into the web interface to check the log. Parents say, "Use your good judgment. I reserve the right to audit your history." Any technical solution can be broken, but filters are perhaps the dumbest of the dumb.

Re:Cheapest Solution... (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354491)

That's probably the best idea. Don't try to filter stuff, because you're either not filter everything, or filter too much. Just either put your computer in a room where you would be likely to walk by at any time, or put in some kind of proxy machine so that you can monitor what's going on. Even if they use HTTPs, you can see what IPs they are connecting to. This can help determine what they are looking at. Also, once they start looking for it, don't assume the internet is the only place they will find it. We all got a hold of it somehow when we were kids without the internet, and we all turned out pretty normal (by we, I mean just about everybody in society). For the most part, I'd just put the computer in a well travelled room. All this proxy/filter/nanny stuff is too much, and just shows a lot of distrust in your children, and probably won't stop them from seeing porn anyway.

Re:Motivated Youth (1)

Vulva R. Thompson, P (1060828) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354255)

Surprisingly, www.teenvervetmonkeyporn.com is still available.

Re:Motivated Youth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354295)

just think for a second. maybe the reason that is it so easy to crack is because they do want to shoot them, so to speak. maybe the reason it's so hackable is to make sure that they look powerless to stop it by filtering and are forced to go the next step. the same with a lot of drm.
 
i know slashdotters like to pat themselves on the back over this but they're wrong. first, the average slashdotter doesn't do shit to be acting like they're part of the solution in the first place and secondly, they're so fast to scream defective by design and so fast to put on their tin foil caps but oddly enough never seem to do them at the same time. too bad, as they'll find out, that the jokes on them.

And the only reason it took 30 minutes... (5, Funny)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353821)

...was because all the other people were typing one-handed?

Actually... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354501)

I'm surprised they've never tried to make a porn filter that blocks access based on whether you're typing one-handed.

I mean, they can detect cat-like typing, after all...

84 million dollars? (3, Interesting)

gozar (39392) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353827)

Give me half that and I'll re-do their filter so some 15 year old can't get around it....

Seriously, if you're going to spend that amount of money, you'd be farther ahead putting in a router that the government controls that can be continually updated. You also get cross-platform compatibility as a bonus!

Re:84 million dollars? (4, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353839)

Isn't that what the chinese do?

Re:84 million dollars? (4, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353899)

I agree.

I don't know why this kid is even allowed on the Internet. I mean, in my day if we did something against our parents wishes, we got our asses beat with a switch. This kid goes against their wishes to the point they have to install extremely expensive software and then watch him brag about rendering it useless. If there was ever a situation that warranted an ass beating this would be it. If I was his dad, not only would the Internet be pulled from his access, he would get his ass beat and grounded for a couple months. And if he wanted to defy our wishes again, he would get more of the same with some forced labor around the house.

Re:84 million dollars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354037)

If they spent $84M on a filter that's not worth $84.00, either they should pay people who know what they're doing or pay people like him. Heck, I think he should get half that money just for out smarting a POS $84M filter... What a waste and what a joke, $84M, LOL! $84.00 is even too much for such crap.

Re:84 million dollars? (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354385)

Well, why I agree with your sentiment, I don't see why this case of a kid not listening and bragging about getting around things is being diverted from he facts that the kid doesn't listen.

And of course the parents are just as much to blame as the kid is. I guess my outrage started before finding out that someone spent 84 mil on crap. It started when someone though spending 84 mil to work around the kid not listening was the solution. This should never happen. Like it or not, this entire post is unnecessary if the parents would have raise the kid properly. And proper discipline is part of raising a kid.

Re:84 million dollars? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353911)

your approach sounds like censorship.

Re:84 million dollars? (3, Funny)

ketamine-bp (586203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353995)

hmm, that smells like the great (fire)wall.

Re:84 million dollars? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354137)

"Give me half that and I'll re-do their filter so some 15 year old can't get around it...."

Or at least, 15 year olds that can't figure out how to clear a CMOS (if required) then boot a live CD.

Tom Wood (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353833)

Tom Wood sounds more like a porn star's screen name.

When did Pinocchio know ... (0, Offtopic)

tiananmen tank man (979067) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354487)

When did Pinocchio know he was made of wood?

When his right hand caught on fire.

More Money, More Problems (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353837)

Could it be that throwing tax dollars at moral problems when not everyone agrees on whether or not said act is immoral is not the best idea?

Re:More Money, More Problems (-1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353959)

Doesn't matter. Americans are stupid idiots anyway they will still think its a wonderful use of tax payer money. I wonder just how much taxpayer monies were pissed down the drain and other resources waisted over Prohibition. That was another bright idea some moralist idiots had and was able to convince government officials it was a fine endeavor. Of course all it really succeeded in doing was given the Mafia and other criminal organizations an unprecedented amount of power and millions of dollars they otherwise would not have had. Of course Prohibition didn't last long and the very same people who pushed for it latter admitted it was a failure.

Re:More Money, More Problems (1)

darken9999 (460645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354039)

It's Australia, not the US, you fucking retard.

Re:More Money, More Problems (-1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354053)

Doesn't matter butt monkey.

Re:More Money, More Problems (1)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354045)

trouble is, this story is about Australians. Rendering your comment offtopic.

Re:More Money, More Problems (1)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354073)

What does your comment have to do with anything? This story takes place in Australia. Not the US. I suspect this is more of an attempt of politicians trying to be seen as moral and family oriented during an election year than it is about actually banning porn in any way. Also don't compare prohibition to trying to stop teenagers from looking at porn. To my understanding (which I admit could be wrong), the software is installed by the parents and it is not obligatory. The filter is not stopping adults from looking at porn and I doubt the mafia is going to gain a lot of power by giving teenagers porn in a speakeasy.

Re:More Money, More Problems (1)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354101)

The question is, was money being thrown at a moral issue to solve it or was it being thrown at it to appear moral and family-oriented for the upcoming elections?

Re:More Money, More Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354165)

Could it be that throwing tax dollars at moral problems when not everyone agrees on whether or not said act is immoral is not the best idea?

You, obviously, have never been to the United States.

Perception (2, Interesting)

biocute (936687) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353857)

icon is not deleted which will make his parents believe the filter is still working

Isn't this what's important to parents? They only need to feel good, other technical details are useless.

Re:Perception (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354089)

Still, 84 million dollars. I think they should launch an investigation into the way the money was spent.

Re:Perception (4, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354119)

Isn't this what's important to parents? They only need to feel good, other technical details are useless.

Spoken like someone who is not a parent.

Re:Perception (2, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354431)

Perhaps it took Tom Wood the 30 minutes to discover that the filter did in fact *consist* of the system tray icon, nothing more.

HAHA MR WOOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353881)

Heh, mister WOOD hacked a porn filter :-DDD

The article (0, Redundant)

click2005 (921437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353887)

Tom Wood, a Year 10 student, probably 15 - 16 years old has cracked the federal government's $84-million internet porn filter in just 30 minutes. He can deactivate the filter in several clicks in such a way that the software's icon is not deleted which will make his parents believe the filter is still working. Tom says it is a matter of time before some computer-savvy kid puts the bypass on the Internet for others to use. "It's a horrible waste of money," he said. "They could get a much better filter for a few million dollars made here rather than paying overseas companies for an ineffective one."

Australian communications Minister Helen Coonan said the government had anticipated kids would find their ways around the NetFilter. Yes Minister but 30 minutes for a teenager to crack a 84 million dollar filter is simply ridiculous.

I would like a porn filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20353893)

...that rejects any underage image.

Something that's customizeable, to reject images based upon content from ever reaching my computer screen.

Automatic notification to the proper authorities would be a nice bonus.

Something has to be done to stop the spread of abused children.

I guess if porn producers would simply stop using trick links...yea, right.

Re:I would like a porn filter... (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354023)

And how do you propose to determine an image is underage?

Re:I would like a porn filter... (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354075)

A national database of naked children, duh!

Re:I would like a porn filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354301)

Stunningly funny. Thanks.

Re:I would like a porn filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354159)

Won't someone think of the images!

Re:I would like a porn filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354213)

If the accompanying text contains words like "young" or "teen", of course.

Re:I would like a porn filter... (1)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354499)

If the accompanying text contains words like "young" or "teen", of course.
Umm, last time I checked, the allowed age was 18 [cornell.edu] , which "teen" and "young" would both apply to.

Re:I would like a porn filter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354497)

I guess if porn producers would simply stop using trick links...yea, right.

Why would porn producers need to use trick links? Porn producers make plenty of money without using trick links. It is the adfarm running linkers that will using certain random algorithms to send you to a different site or picture than the one you clicked on. They use a random set so that the majority of times you get sent to the picture you wanted, while a small percentage of the time you get a different picture. If you clicked on the same picture over and over again you may see this.

However, other times you will get a different picture each time you click, these are the lazy adfarm runners who do not expect you to come back. And the majority of the time these people do not know of any underage links as they just run the front, it is the guys running the servers that these adfarm linkers get their pictures from

Some advice: Find a site that is run by security conscious people. There are many porn providers, not producers, that want your visit to be safe and secure. They want you to return so they can get further ad revenue. Some just want to share with you the enormous amount of porn they have collected while going to horrible sites. They don't like going to horrible sites, so they make theirs decent.

Also, any type of underage filter will have to make sure they do not filter out those that are well above the legal age, but still look under. That would be discrimination against these people who should not have to make themselves look older just so you feel better. I am sure there are many lawyers out there that could have a wonderful time with a lawsuit like that.

Two pornstars I can think of off the top of my head. One was on Rodney Moores site years ago. She was approx 4 foot 8 inches tall. Little thing, had a few curves, but was over 20. Then there is the pornstar Kitty. She has been around for a few years and yet has no curves whatsoever. She is over 20 also. I know quite a few girls in my area who are in their late 20's and they get mistaken for being under 18 quite a lot.

So tell me, how can you tell the difference between someone like Kitty and let's say, Traci Lords, when she was in porn? She had all the curves and looks of someone old enough. You cannot tell the difference without a lot of scrutiny, and even then you are not 100%

One thing I will throw in also:
Something has to be done to stop the spread of abused children.

What do you propose? The death penalty for those proven to abuse? Or just locking them up, letting serve their time, then making them live in an open prison where they are abused and treated unfairly due to having been convicted of abuse? Are you going to try to rehabilitate them? Do they actually need rehabilitation or just a proper confirmation that what they were doing was wrong?

What about those who photograph themselves while they are underage? Do we send them to prison for child abuse? Do we punish the parents for not giving their child enough love and attention? What about the school they go to? Do we punish the students who rip away their self-esteem? How about the parents of the other students?

Please, provide some way of dealing with this. Some sort of deterrent. Look at all the angles, debate it with others. Find something decent. Make sure you are not infringing on the rights of those who are innocent.

This looks like a rant, and it felt like one too. However, I am truly looking for your reply with solutions that could work.

those poor teens (4, Funny)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353895)

So now we find out the government has been secretly using teen workers as hackers. Not only is "teen workers" an irony but this could be constituted slave labor. They are faced with the proposed fear of work and so crack the filter as fast as they can. Oh wait ... it's a porn filter ... okay added incentive I admit.

Fucking morons. (5, Interesting)

scenestar (828656) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353903)

When are people going to accept that teenagers are sexual beings too.

According to wikipedia he should be around the age of 15/16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Australi a#Secondary [wikipedia.org]

When I was 15 I remember becoming sexually active with girls and having "needs"

No filter can stop teens from getting off, no matter how many millions of dollars you throw at it.

Re:Fucking morons. (0, Troll)

badasscat (563442) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353929)

When are people going to accept that teenagers are sexual beings too.

How about when teens start having the financial means to support the resulting children?

Re:Fucking morons. (2, Insightful)

badasscat (563442) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353945)

Ugh, I wrote that in haste - obviously I'm not talking about children resulting from looking at porn on the internet. But if you accept that teens are "sexual beings", then you're not just accepting that they're looking at porn. Teens with "needs" are going to fulfill those needs for each other, not just individually. And that's where you get teen pregnancy, which is usually not a good thing for anyone (your tax dollars end up supporting some dumb kid who got knocked up and then can't support her kid, so it's not good for you either).

Re:Fucking morons. (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353987)

That's what sexual education is for. There is a direct relationship between the quality of sexual education in school and the number of teens who make it through puberty without causing pregnancy or getting pregnant.

Preaching "True love waits" has a proven effect of NIL.

Re:Fucking morons. (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354001)

... and a governmental order of "no porn for you tonight" has a proven effect 30 mins, as we know now.

Re:Fucking morons. (2, Funny)

v01d (122215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353999)

Teens with "needs" are going to fulfill those needs for each other, not just individually.

Yeah, but every sperm that hits the keyboard is one that doesn't make a baby. So, isn't a porn filter likely to increase teen pregnancy? Assuming of course that the aforementioned sperm will go somewhere. Any other ideas where the sperm might go?

Re:Fucking morons. (1)

keko_metal (1010011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354033)

Teen Sexuality != Resulting Children

In the other hand, if all the real adults are constantly trying to forbid sexuality on teenagers, teens have no means but learn by their own way. No rule will work when trying to forbid instincts. But of course, education is a harder task and take many years, the buggy filter gives you peace of mind, instantly! Well, at least for 30 minutes :P

Re:Fucking morons. (1)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354391)

obviously I'm not talking about children resulting from looking at porn on the internet

I hope not - they're the worst kind.

Re:Fucking morons. (1)

kailoran (887304) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354007)

If watching porn resulted in children, slashdotters would multiply exponentially.

Re:Fucking morons. (1)

scribblej (195445) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354429)

INSIGHTFUL?

We're talking about surfing porn on the internet. I've been doing that (or the equivalent on BBSes) for 20 years now, since I was maybe 12 or a bit older.

It's never resulted in kids... and if it is possible to result in kids then there's something I must have missed in school.

None of my sexual contact with women has resulted in kids either, because I'm not some sheltered little ignoramus who is told by the Church that condoms make baby Jesus cry.

And if you think the condom shit is old news, it's not. The government here in the US still only supports programs that teach /ABSTINENCE/, not condom use. It's ignorance, stupidity, and fear of the big Sky Daddy. GET OVER IT.

Re:Fucking morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354095)

I don't think "success" was the objective. Hint: 84 million dollars in tax money.

You're not in the administration business, are you? ;)

Re:Fucking morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354149)

When I was 15 I remember becoming sexually active with girls and having "needs"

I feel your pain, same here. Then /. came along... but I can still remember.

Re:Fucking morons. (4, Funny)

c (8461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354199)

> When are people going to accept that teenagers are sexual beings too.

Seeing as how these same lunatics haven't accepted that adults are sexual beings, I'm thinking "never".

c.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354209)

It'th more about teaching young men to show re-th-pect for women, you th-ee, and al-tho about re-th-pecting your-th-elf....

another way to crack it (3, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353905)

Any filter with a password means you can sneak the "frklg" keylogger onto your own computer, go to any site that the filter filters that it shouldn't and have the owner of the filter disable it temporarily by putting in the password. Almost all filters have this weakness. Of course some keep a log of times it was disabled and stuff but who reads that lol. I'm thinking this one has a disable password on it too and most kids know about keyloggers

Re:another way to crack it (1)

Pretendstocare (816218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353921)

Did you even read the fucking... nevermind...

Wood? (0, Redundant)

echucker (570962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353949)

Is the name coincidence? I think not.

Well... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353951)

...if you're interested, skilled enough to find the crack and willing to risk it, chances are pretty slim you'd stop them anyway. Porn filters are only good for stopping those not really motivated.

Re:Well... (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354087)

Does unmotivated teens exist?

If teenagers can unsnap a bra in 5 seconds, why are we surprised that it took 30 minutes to bypass a filter?

If you have physical access (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353975)

Then it can be broken.

The only way that could even have a prayer to work is at the ISP level.

Re:If you have physical access (1)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354133)

But then how does the filter differentiate between a child and and adult?

I find your sig offensive.

Re:If you have physical access (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354157)

I find your sig offensive.
Too soon?

Re:If you have physical access (4, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354179)

What I plan to do: "Hi Son! I'm not going to filter your access. However, I have access to the router logs, so I suggest you don't go anywhere you don't want me to know about."

Re:If you have physical access (2, Insightful)

thebigmacd (545973) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354367)

So he will just install Tor and you will no idea where he's been.

Here is the actual story, not blogger's article (4, Informative)

Kaptain Kruton (854928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20353983)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22304224-421, 00.html [news.com.au]
The summary: A 16 year old student wanted porn. He got it in 30 minutes. The government tried to fix the filter. The 16 year old student wanted more porn. He got more in 40 minutes. 16 year old says the porn filter is waste of money.

Re:Here is the actual story, not blogger's article (4, Funny)

Xemu (50595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354035)

The summary: A 16 year old student wanted porn. He got it in 30 minutes. The government tried to fix the filter. The 16 year old student wanted more porn. He got more in 40 minutes. 16 year old says the porn filter is waste of money.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the government programmers are slashdot readers and are secretly supporting the teen's cause for free pr0n, so they aren't really making the filter hard to break. Just enough of a mental challenge for a horny 16 year old. (This may be why there are so few girl programmers. They don't have the right motivation.)

Teens need a sexual outlet (1, Troll)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354013)

Wood hacks a porn filter and the world hears about it. If he had raped his neighbor, it would have barely been local news. What type of sexual outlet would you prefer that he has?

So, John Conner did it? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354057)

According to the article's picture, John Conner hacked the filter? I wonder if his mother, Sarah, knows about this. [grin]

breaking the chains (1)

Zareste (761710) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354125)

Until Christians are brought to a bloody justice, it'll have to do,

Re:breaking the chains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20354203)

wtf please explain k thx

"$84.4 million for the National Filter Scheme" (2, Interesting)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354257)

I've never heard of a more appropriately-named government project. $84M for a continually-updated filter that a kid (sounds like a smart kid, but a kid nonetheless) can break in less than an hour.

Why can't America's politicians up and admit to their schemes, too? Imagine it: the PATRIOT Scheme, the Communications Decency Scheme, and so on.

Dr. Cox quote.... (4, Funny)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354297)

I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn.

Filter Schmilter. (5, Funny)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354309)

The problem of teen access to internet porn is self-limiting. The boy will eventually go blind and then what's he gonna do? Digitized braille porn?

No Surprise (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354369)

These filters do not work for several reasons. One is that porn is hard to recognize for software. There is no AI that can do it. A second reason is that internet filtering only works at a chocke-point, for example the giant chinese firewall, with its attached civil servants that issue the warrants. (We had a talk about this thing here by some chinese guy. Of course the warrant-writers were omitted, but it was obvious they were there.) You can tunnel through firewalls, for example with SSL or SSH.

For years security experts generally predict these efforts a time to be broken of at most a few weeks. The basic problem is that the approach is wrong and that it is both pushed by incompetent politicians (incompetence of the 2nd order: they do not know they are incompetent.) and companies that promies effective solutions, but in truth only want to earn a lot of money and know their solutions will not really work.

What is this? a blog? a news article? (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354393)

What is this? This looks like a random blog entry from some random, anonymous person with no references to any actual reporting, whatsoever. What a shitty Slashdot "article".

I'm of two minds on this..... (3, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#20354407)

(....although some would say that's 2 minds more than I actually possess. But I digress...)

I applaud any successful circumvention of anything that restricts information to those who want to see it. But at the same time I'm starting to think that we shouldn't be shouting from the housetops about it -- this kind of publicly announced hack is just fuel for the fire to the folks that would ban all even remotely sexually material from the Net. It just gives them the chance to say "well, see, filters don't work worth a damn -- therefore, we must make it illegal for any explicit material to be on the Internet." Can't you hackers just keep your little mouths shut, let the moralists THINK that the filters work (while you quietly and discreetly circulate the hack), and let their ignorance be our bliss?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...