Slashdot Mirror
Operation Titstorm Hits the Streets
schliz writes "Hacker group 'Anonymous' is organising international, real-life protests of the Australian mandatory internet filter this coming Saturday. Protests will take place in major Australian cities as well as at Australian embassies around the world. The protests are said to be the second stage of 'Operation Titstorm,' which unleashed a prolonged DDoS attack on Australian government websites last week. Organisers of the so-called Project Freeweb said: 'If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level. The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.'"
Sorry, didnt read TFA, it would spoil my imagination
God's gift to chicks
What is universal that should be banned (e.g., child porn) as opposed to filtered out by parents? I don't agree with how they're going about it Down Under, but I am wondering about this question.
one must fight against foolishness of governments, every now and then things get out of hand and then its off to barricades!
"Many of our number (Anonymous) are productive, intelligent members of society," said Infinite, who is a Web designer.
But most of them are college-age basement dwellers who type out their screeds in between trips to the minifridge to get more Cheetos.
Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization. There are far better ways to undermine censorship. You have to attack the authority of the censors. Make them appear weak, useless, and strip their credibility. Expose them at every corner as being partial, biased, and at the same time abjectly failing to do their jobs. They are government so this shouldn't be any real kind of challenge now should it?
I look forward to seeing pictures of these censorship advocates having sex with their mistresses, getting wasted in public, allegations of bribery, and all other unseemly manner of behavior. Because if there's one thing the public can't stand for, it's being prohibited from doing the very things these authority types reserve for themselves. They already believe themselves to be morally superior to you so I ask again -- what real challenge is there here?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
They thought breasts would be here and were mislead by the topic! Shame on you slashdot
As you can see, the problem with headless organizations such as Anonymous, or the Tea-Baggers is that, without some sort of filter at the top to weed out the stupid ideas, pretty much anything can be espoused as being a 'core ideal' of the group.
While censorship is bad.. Operation Titstorm? Whatever 15 year old came up with that is likely not the coalesced summation of ideals that Anonymous was created for.
will take whatever they are selling
God's gift to chicks
Has the concept of "the people" being fed up with something, spontaneously organizing, and taking action been so forgotten that the only way the press can deal with it is to attribute it to a fictional group named Anonymous?
This operation has set sail for fail. Not nearly enough time to get enough people involved.
I think it's at least worth a shot, but Feb. 20 is way too soon if you go by the various forums reached by following the links.
Oh, I wish "tit storm" meant what my dirty masculine mind wants to think it means, and that the storm would wind its way through my town in the USA....
"Hacker group"
Nope.
So many people are completely insulated in what they want to believe (i.e. the sites they choose to go to) that the real enemy isn't what is right or wrong in what is happening. The real enemy is getting attention to your cause at the correct time. Anonymous is a major threat to all governments, they have the potential through their own "brand recognition" to bring enough eyeballs to a topic at the exact correct time that enough of them will stick and actually make some, no matter how minor, difference. This is a threat, it must be stopped or corporatism will fail. ;)
Shh.
If censorship is what our government overlords have decided is best for us, clearly we are in need of a new democracy. Too bad our new democracy is run by Anonymous.
Their ad brings even more negative attention to poor ol' IRC...
I read your story, and that is to good. thanks for shearing a nice info.. Celebrity White Teeth
So, I became curious when I read about this DDOS on the Australian websites. I wondered: how hard would it be to write a simple, DDOS tool? Something that didn't require anything fancy, that anybody could do without installing anything special?
So, I wrote something, and tested it on my own local webserver. Surprisingly, it took me less than 10 minutes to write a simple javascript webpage with iframes that generated in excess of a million hits an hour in about 20 lines of HTML + javascript, armed with nothing more than a browser and notepad. I didn't even have to host it; the file was saved locally on my HDD!
The method was simple: a webpage with a bunch of iframes that sourced the target, and a javascript onload that refreshed the page. How could it get any simpler? My conclusion? A DDOS attack is the digital equivalent of peasants throwing rocks. Anybody can do it. It requires nothing. It's still a rather effective form of attack!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Why do I keep seeing this word "member". Anonymous has no "members", it's not some organization you join. The fact that I'm posting AC means I'm a "member" of anonymous.
Being an Australian I can tell you most Australians are apathetic to this issue and there likely won't be a huge turn-out. There probably won't be anything but fleeting mass media coverage, and that means politicians will ignore it and side with the "think of the children" majority who have no idea of the underlying implications.
If there was an upcoming election the issue *might* hit the media if the opposition declared a policy of no filtering and hightlighted all the negative aspects. But given the previous liberal government floated around similar ideas I wouldn't hold my breath on that, I think the position of both the major political parties is unfortunately much the same.
I wonder how they plan to stay anonymous in those protests...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Finally! The Australians are on their way to a "happy harmonious society".
Let us know in a few years how that works out for ya.
Can you stop acting as a naive mainstream news provider and referring to "anonymous" as a legitimately cohesive hacking group when it's really, literally, an anonymous group of people that post randomly to various forums?
I'd rather they didn't make the decision either.
We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
I did what I could to immediately shutdown their even more draconian censorship law before. Wish I was anywhere near an Australian embassy. If anyone knows of a way to help please post it here
Look at all the members of Anonymous posting replies here!
But really, there does seem to be a bias to cover stories about "Anonymous" here on Slashdot. I mean, the mainstream tech news takes far less heed to the activities of this loosely knit group of hacktivists.
/b/ is feeling ignored and/or irrelevant again then.
How does this make front page, really?
I man, to re-summarize "4Chan's unwashed horde of script kiddies and shy exhibitionists claim to be planning idiotic behavior in Australia".
How does this make it to the level of either "News for nerds", "Stuff that matters", or even to the level of "stuff worth commenting on beyond noting the worthlessness and sub-human qualities of the pathetic freaks involved"?
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
So by giving the Australian government more ammunition to pass this piece of legislation, how does this help?
How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA...? Was that a "left-right" issue.
Yeah. No duh?
I can't speak to your other examples, but I'm guessing you can't either.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Quick, which movie is this line from?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Members of Anonymous are infringing on my right to freedom of speech. I'm afraid to speak on my own domain without fear that it will piss one of them off enough to DOS my server.
*YOU* should have the right to deem what is appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
The practice of "Outing," that is, publicly revealing the true sexual preference of prominent public officials, is with very good reason very controversial.
But one reason that the practice persists is that some of the politicians who work the hardest to prevent homosexuals from enjoying the same rights that any straight person would have, are themselves closet homosexuals. Often very vigorously so.
This might not make sense to you, but the reason is very basic to the way people work: We hate the most in others that which we hate the most in ourselves.
That suggests an avenue for attack against the Australian censorship laws: track the "media" preferences of those who worked the hardest to bring the censorship about, and then publish it for all to see. Not just the public officials, but members of the public who lobbied for the laws.
I probably shouldn't be too specific as to how one would discover what those media preferences actually are, but I have no doubt that my fine friends at Slashdot could figure that out on their own.
Damn that George Bush! I didn't know he'd moved to Australia now in addition to still being President of the US and Guantanamo Bay still open and having another surge in Afghanistan!
I was infected by a Trojan "av.exe" while visiting a link from the article. I think it was the project freeweb site, but the link seems to be removed from the article now.
Look, Conroy et al are a bunch of hopeless wallies and their censorship plan is nuts, but suggesting we should shoot them is completely and totally over the top. I can almost understand the giggling schoolboys behind the DDOS, but murder as a response to censorship? WTF?
If I had to choose between Conroy and this religious wacko mates vs you and your gun toting maniac friends, I'd take the Minister for Censorship and strap on my cilice with relish.
As an Australian AC too lazy to register, perhaps I can ask you why you support this filter? I know I don't "like and expect some censorship". Personally, I like the movie rating system (for example) but don't think anything at all should be banned. Just rated.
Why do you think Conroy's censorship proposal will a) do anything useful, b) be cost effective, and c) not be abused? I reckon it is pretty obvious it won't stop anything nasty, will cost a lot, and will be abused to censor political discussion (especially since euthanasia and abortion sites are already on ACMA's block list).
What is there to like about this proposal? I'm keen to know since as far as I can see it's pure shit and stinks to heaven.
Companies often prepare for M&A by complying with the buyer's rules prior the purchase event. Considering the amount of mining investment that China has in Australia, maybe this censorship is just a prerequisite before the merger?
DDoS attacks against a government are bound to get into the local media, and hearing "titstorm" is bound to get the common man's attention... because who doesn't like a good pair of ... storms...
"Conroy seems ideologically committed to this"
The operative word there is "seems". On just about every slashdot story concerning this issue I have asked for someone to point to a quote from Conroy where he says he is in favor of implementing a mandatory filter on private computers. There are tons of quotes about how comminted he is to the inquiry and the trial but none that I have seen that says he's committed to implementation.
The fact is most people in Australia who follow politics are smart enough to see this "yes minister" episode for what it is, ie: a snow job on two independent senators who (under certain circumstances) hold the balance of power in the senate but this is NOT one of those circumstances.
Now before anyone accuses me of being Conroy's #1 fan, the previous Howard government did exactly the same thing but Labor blocked their mandatory filter legislation in the senate, in other words the two major parties are taking turns at being the good cop (senate) or the bad cop (house of reps).
Anyone with half a brain and a bit of knowlege on Aussie politics (eg: Conroy) knows this bill will NEVER pass the senate, this is why Conroy has stated that he plans to reintroduce the legislation just before the next election, neither major party wants it to become a double dissolution trigger and would prefer it to be quitely voted down when it can be drowned out by the noise of a federal election.
Anyone who has bothered to read what the policies of both major parties actually say will find that neither are in favour of mandatory filters on private computers but both are in favour of the current mandatory filters on GOVERNMENT computers (ie: schools) and both are in favour of the current law that says ISP's must offer the mandatory government filter as an opt-in choice for those who want it. That translates to ~5% of users who have opted-in and with those sort of numbers it's obviously not seen as a vote winner by either major party.
None of this is new, it's a political game. The puritan minority will not go away so the major parties will continue this game because it has effectively kept the puritans busy chasing their own tails for at least a decade.
As for the independent senators, one of them backed down quite early on, making the football of this game Mr 2%, who has become strangely silent about censorship since his own anti-abortion sponsers "somehow" made it onto the proposed blacklist. It's also worth noting how Mr 2% got his nickname, both major parties have a score to settle with him and he will be gone at the next election, probably to be replaced by some other nutjob senator in a marginal seat who will keep the game alive during their fleeting term in office.
The game is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers money but OTOH a democracy must provide an avenue for minorites to voice their political opinion even if that opinon is ironically advocating censorship of the opinons of porn lovers they disagree with. Since opertaion titstorm is in effect illegally censoring the government with their DDOS they also fail the same irony test.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
for the umbrella industry that is.
I know I'm not getting one for this storm.
your rights online: none
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
A titstorm?
I want to see this!
As far as I can see, plans for Internet filtering in Australia focus on a miniscule number of sites. There are a couple that maybe shouldn't be filtered, but for the most part, the targetted sites host pretty sick stuff. I'm Australian and I have no problem with filtering as proposed thus far, and I have enough faith in our democratic institutions that I'm not too worried that filtering would be abused.
To be followed by Operation Hooter Hurricane, Operation Mammary Monsoon, Operation Boobie Blizzard, Operation Tata Tornado and Operation Sirocco Of Sweater Puppies.
I could keep this up all day. :-D
Yeah, I know. Pathetic.
So 4CHAN, er I mean anonymous is doing something constructive for a change? Or are they simply trolling Australia for the Lulz? If the government backs down on the filters will they turn around and fight to have them? I'm confused and scared, what about the children? Won't someone think of the Children... I don't want goatsx in the STREETS, around EVERY corner! O god the horror...
( o )( o )
too small?
( O ) ( O )
just right?
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
say: the billboards in times square
you could choose not to go to times square, but assuming you are like every other tourist, that is, you don't plan your media exposure, you just walk into times square and look up at the billboards: those billboards, in an attempt to catch eyes, try to be risque, they constantly push the envelope. what is too risque? PUBLIC policy determines that, and you and your family are exposed to exactly what PUBLIC policy has determined, not wehat you determine
for better or for worse, the de facto truth, even if you are shut in (television), is that public policy determines what you are exposed too. europe for example, has no problem showing female breasts on tv. americans however FEAR TEH BOOBIE, and will only show wholesome corpses and acts violent murder on television (smirk)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
goodness gracious, it appears that I have broken the internet
in Austrailaila
Wait, so who's this guy I've been sending my membership dues to?!!!!
I have seen that posted over 9000 times in this discussion, but I suspect that this is more nuanced than the btards are leading us to believe.
Can anyone confirm whether or not this is actually true?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel represented by hackers cracking into websites. I also don't think that to be the best approach for protesting against net censoring laws. At best, it increases the general population's feeling that WWW is actually World Wild Web and that something has to be done to tame it. It just happens that the Aussie Government may be doing the wrong something.
How would it be like if the Al Qaida began a terrorism campaign to protest against the latest anti-freedom measures adopted in the US?
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
The article made it clear that the government believes small-breasted women are second-class citizens, and are not deserving of the same rights as large-breasted women.
Any man who is presently dating or married to a small-breasted woman is obviously a pedophile, and should be procesecuted as such to the full extent of the law.
Also, any man who claims that he doesn't buy into the bigger-is-better notion, and preferrs small-breasted women, falls into the same category.
Also, all small-breasted women should be legally required to have their breasts surgically enlarged, otherwise the women will be breaking obscenity laws whenever they walk around in public.
This is an example of a political protest done very badly. A distributed denial of service attack is unethical, to begin with, and thus would alienate many potential allies. Adopting an egregiously sexist title for it makes it worse, alienating more. All in all, this reads like a protest calculated to win support for the government's position.
The method was simple: a webpage with a bunch of iframes that sourced the target, and a javascript onload that refreshed the page. How could it get any simpler?
I used to work for a certain major advertising network. I am aware of several incidents where staff members placed hidden IFRAME tags (pointing at sites they didn't like) in ad creatives that were distributed across absolutely massive web properties. The increase in traffic must have crushed many of the victim servers.
If you surfed the web in the last ten years with an IFRAME capable browser, you've probably been an unknowing participant in a DDOS. You've all seen ads from said network.
You so bad! Blackhat hackah!
College age is the maximum of two trendlines, taken together. As we grow older, we acquire responsibilities, take on power to decide our own actions. But this means that we become caught up in the details; our gaze falls from the horizon; we end up looking at our own feet and just trying to get by without rocking our precarious little boats.
The moment when we're most free to change the world, when the desire burns brightest in us, is that age. No wonder college kids do so much protesting and working--their sharp edges haven't been worn down yet.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca