Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Attack AU Websites To Protest Censorship
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."
I'm sure parliament is trembling in their shoes about now. They cannot hope to stand against anonymous. Who can possibly save them? Maybe... batman...
I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...
"The Man" better look out!
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.
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
You can't just write 'Australian'? Really? Because for a moment I thought you were talking about American University.
"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?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So in order to protest a government that is so paranoid about the internet that it filters out content, hackers attack the websites of that government? [sarcasm] I'm sure they are so much less paranoid now and thinking less about the children.[/sarcasm]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
[QUOTE]
"It recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse."
[/QUOTE]
I believe this interpretation unfairly portrays Anonymous as a bunch of sadistical, criminalalistic bottom-feeders. While Anonymous is a giant group that contains many criminals it also consists of regular people that do not want what they believe are fundamental freedoms restricted.
What the OP does not realize is that internet censorship is a slippery slope phenomenon that includes the blockage of many other types of unnecessarily censored content blocked by this filter.
I hope this clears something up.
> The group responsible, called Anonymous
Wow, this group is pretty active on /., I see comments signed "anonymous" all the time on this site ;-))
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Well, if I were a normal person and just read this summary, I would conclude that the group are "cyber-terrorists" who are in favor of drug use, rape, zoo sex and child abuse. In addition, by calling themselves Anonymous they're spoiling the concept of anonymity. I really don't think that this action was the best press possible either for the group or for those who are against censorship in general.
We are anonymous, we are legion! we do not forg...
Crap! I forgot to log out.
I can't think of anything more likely to validate the government's actions in the eyes of its socially conservative constituents.
Rule #1, #5, #9, #34, #72, and #93!
There's porn of not logging out?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
It exists. There is, or will be shortly.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Sounds like a school-kid level activity.
I'm envisioning a half-dozen new datacenters for VPS hosting being built in Singapore the day that this law actually passes...
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...
Sure, whatever you pick there will be some material that is offensive to downright sick and completely illegal. Censoring the Internet is:
A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and
B) A powerful tool for political control.
Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Truly unbiased research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically they keep poor countries poor. Do you see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn? No of course not: they don't really care it is just a bogyman to push through controls on the internet - your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closly related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation, death, and...).
References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:
The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.
http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil_Twyford_-_CID_Trade_Forum.pdf
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developin
It totally saw this coming. Or weirdly remembered this post.
Don't be fooled. They say they're doing it to protect the children. Once the mechanism is in place to do this they'll keep a low profile and only censor blatant violations. Then...they tighten the noose little bits at a time until eventually it is used to limit politically undesirable speech.
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"...
^^^
Scientologist.
I agree, ridiculous ... and not just the article, even the summary is patronizing. Editors, it may not be what it once was, but this is still /.
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.
I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
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.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
80pc back web filter: poll
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..
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
"Anonymous" is doing this for fun. Nothing more, there's no ulterior motive. They got bored. They don't really care.
Not even Fox News deserves to be insulted like that.
... 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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
access to bestiality and child porn probably should be blocked. but the australian government also wants to ban sites that show small-breasted women, because they might be confused for kids. ummm, i'm not buying it. sounds like people in the AU government are a bunch of sickos.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
In Soviet Australia, Internet censors you!
A salute to any hacker who fights to maintain freedom on the net. Thank you guys. I hope you annoy the censorship nuts until they jump of a bridge.
Heh. only took me 30 seconds and one page refresh to get a statement from anon....
Open letter concerning Australian Internet Censorship.
To whom it may concern, and for the unaware public.
Do not be confused about the intentions behind our attacks on various Australian government websites. Various media have falsely reported that our efforts are in defence of pornography. This is not about pornography. This is about freedom. The fact remains that under this proposed Internet censorship scheme over time the freedoms of Australians will continue to be eroded, all in the name of saving us from a threat that exists only in the minds of a vocal and very uninformed minority who wish to impose their morals and values on the public at large. We are in no way encouraging child pornography; however other courses of action should be encouraged, for Australia's "Cyber Safety Plan" creates problems in itself.
The fact is that "banned" content can be posted on ANY website, at any time; introducing these tools is only a way to silence the selected few. Once the tools are put into place, they can and will be abused, as it has happened throughout history. Costs to taxpayers are estimated to be $44.2 million. This money could be put to far better use. Furthermore, the creation of such an announced filter is in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter of 1948, Article 19; which states: "Everyone has the right of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
If they're using force to bring about change, Doesn't that make them terrorists under the patriot act?
I think we should round up all the /b/tards and send them off to gitmo.
I'm not sure those statements are related, But if we can use the first to pull off the second i'm all for it.
Why is it that the media can't mentally grasp the concept that Anonymous isn't actually a "group" and really just a bunch of individuals who have decided to take similar actions?
You mean... for the lulz?
THL phish sticks
Ahh. Rule 35.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
I'm sure Parliment is going to call in every single "Microsoft Certified" security company to deal with this...oh wowsers...and then they're going to justify using "Microsoft Certified" consultants and companies to protect them in the future...ya...right...
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
I'm excited to see how this goes, because in my eyes it's the first time something "real"* is protested without any leader. Also, as could be seen in Project Chanology, the mob turned out to be more intelligent than some of it's component individuals. To throw some buzzwords / catchphrases at it, if this works out, we'll have seen enough quantitative change in how the internet is used (and what all that communication is doing to us) for it to have become a qualitative change; it will have become /real/, so to speak.
*Not to trivialize the damages done to people by Scientology, but, well, it's not something most people had opinions on. Government censorship /is/.
I am not one for censorship but limiting child porn, rape, bestiality from being easily accessible is a good move.
Child porn, sure, bestiality, maybe[*], but you can bet that so-called "rape" includes fictional depictions. I.e., consenting adult actors doing anything from rape roleplay, to any rough sex, or sex with bondage, that the censors think looks like "rape". And I do oppose banning that. I don't believe that porn featuring actual rape has ever been found, let alone any kind of significant trade - much like snuff films, they seem to be a myth, nothing more than a moral panic invented to pass laws such as this (why would anyone risk making such a film, when it's much easier and legal to act?)
Even for "child" porn, it's not clear - remember, Australia is one of those (sadly increasing number of) places that thinks that a joke simpsons cartoon counts as "child" porn. Similarly, here in the UK our very own censorship system blocked that 30 year old legal album cover on Wikipedia.
[*] I think it's best handled as an animal cruelty issue, rather than a "But this looks disgusting! issue. And even images of actual animal cruelty are legal, and uncensored, so it's not clear to me why the difference.
You've been chosen as the next target of Anonymous. Start running, robot.
Yeah, they'll reply to comments. Oooh, Scary!
The problem is not "You don't know how old this small-breasted woman is, so you can't look".
That’s not even the rationale behind it. The rationale is, “You like small-breasted women. You’re probably a closet pedophile. No small-breasted women for you!”
I’m not making this up.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Even if the blacklist is not a secret, the notion that you can tell what they are blocking if you can see the list assumes that you can tell if a website is illegal by its URL.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The problem that Australians have with the extremely unpopular internet filtering proposed is that it doesn't block access to "sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse." It blocks access to "unwanted content." The definition of that is completely left up to the government. There is no judicial oversight. There is no process for appealing a listing. The blacklist is completely secret and leaked copies have shown that its content is in no way limited to the above. It might be that the content initially may be deplorable, but the way the whole system has been put forward will easily allow them to escalate what is 'unacceptable'.
A secretive, government-mandated, government-run censorship system is a very, very bad thing.
However Anonymous has essentially shot those protesting the proposal in the kneecaps with this move. Now, in addition to claiming that anyone who protests the filtering system must be a pervert and a kiddy fiddler, the proponents can accuse us of being 'internet terrorists' or something as well.
This is the opinion of oposition senator Barnaby Joyce, not the AU government as a whole. Joyce is an extremist nutbar, leader of the national (as in nationalism) party. Remember that despite popular (incorrect) yank sentiment, the filtering in Australia has not been implemented despite Conroy's insistance, it has been voted down once in parliment and Conroy is trying to put it through again before the next federal election. I fully expect this to be voted down a second time.
Last nights episode of Hungy Beast covered this subject, worth watching if you can get iview.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I know I was a C cup at age 14... The practical non-existence on commercial internet in the'80s didn't stop guys who were significantly old than me hitting on me then. Censoring pictures of small busted women won't stop people from being perverts now.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Hungry Beast last night covered this DDoS (Operation Titstorm) and the question of the Great Internet Wall of Australia. They commissioned an independent survey on the thoughts of the Australian public on the internet filter. On the site is also an interview with Stephen Conroy, the closet case that wants to ban anything that might inappropriately stimulate him.
The website and another linked to the Department of Broadband and Communications were shut down for long periods yesterday after their servers were overloaded. Both websites were offline again this morning. A group of hackers calling itself Anonymous has claimed responsibility for the interruptions, which it has called Operation Titstorm. Anonymous claims the attacks are also to highlight moves by the Government to ban the import of pornograhy featuring female ejaculation as well small-breasted women, over fears such films were simulating child pornography. Critics say the Government's internet filter amounts to censorship and will slow down internet speeds. The Government says the filter is necessary to block websites containing child pornography and other criminal activity.
This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.