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...
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
"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.
Oh it's easy to pick out a few things and say "these, these are ok to put on the blacklist"
The problem being of course that once there *is* a blacklist, esspecially one which nobody is allowed to see or even talk about then pretty soon other things start getting added to the backlist and after a while you might as well just move to china.
Lets look at it from the fundamentalist crazy point of view....
"Abortion = murder and well murder is worse than rape and murdering children is worse than raping them"... them so pro abortion sites quickly end up on the list.
and so on and so on.
Given the real world examples of exactly this kind of situation is anyone here going to try to argue that this isn't a *real* slipppery slope?
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.
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"...
I don't agree about censoring drug-related sites, but about the other contents...
The submitter of this article is a cock for including that summary, as is the editor who greenlit it.
Anonymous is not protesting this because the AU government is proposing censorship of "rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse." They are doing it because they are proposing censoring "small breasted women" (because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18), among other things.
They are lashing out at the “ambiguity” of the often-used term “unwanted content”, the Australian Government is trying to crack down on pornography featuring female ejaculation and women with small breasts... yes, those things that are a threat to modern society. I mean, if females start ejaculating, we are all doomed!
So the entire article is a load of shit. I expect better from Slashdot editors than greenlighting a load of sensationalist horseshit about a technical issue.
The whole issue is a red herring. Looking at a picture isn’t a violation of someone’s privacy because taking the picture was the violation of their privacy. Lost privacy can’t be regained, and privacy you no longer have can’t be violated.
The whole issue is a red herring thrown up to avoid the fact that what happened happened and there’s fuck-all we can do about it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
child abuse violates the freedom of the child.
absolutley.
But censorship in no way un-violates the freedom of that child.
it gains nothing.
it achieves nothing.
it help nobody.
The pictures are out there and they don't stop being out there.