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
Fuck 'em. Here's where to hit them, from some scumsucking possibly bunk website:
Australian General Consulate Atlanta, GA -
Suite 970, One Buckhead Plaza 3060 Peachtree Road, NW Atlanta 30305 United States of America Tel:(+1 404) 760 3400 Fax: (+1 404) 760 3401
Australian General Consulate in Chicago, IL -
123 North Wacker Drive Suite 1330 Chicago IL 60606 United States of America Tel: 1 312 419 1480 Fax: 1 312 419 1499
Australian Consulate in Detroit, MI -
860 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Bloomfield Hills Detroit MI 48302-2086 United States of America Tel: +1 248 593 9000 Fax: +1 248 593 9001
Australian Consulate in Denver, CO -
9200 West Cross Drive, Suite #110 Littleton Denver CO 80209 United States of America Tel: 1 303 321 2234 Fax: 1 303 973 9938
Australian General Consulate in Honolulu, HI
- Penthouse, 1000 Bishop Street Honolulu 96813 United States of America Tel: 1 808 524 5050 Fax: 1 808 531 5142
Australian Consulate in Houston, TX -
5757 Woodway Drive #175 Houston TX 77057 United States of America Tel:1 713 782 6009 Fax: 1 713 782 7509
Australian Consulate in Miami, FL -
Suite 208 2525 SW Third Avenue Miami FL 33129 United States of America Tel:1 305 858 7633 Fax:1 305 857 0044
Australian General Consulate New York , NY -
150 East 42nd Street, 34th fl, New York NY 10017, USA Tel; (212) 351-6500 Fax: (212)351-6501
Australian Mission to The United Nations in New York, NY -
150 East 42 Street, Level 33 New York NY 10017 United States of America Tel: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6600 Fax: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6610
Australian General Consulate San Francisco, CA -
625 Market Street, Suite 200 (Cnr Market and New Montgomery Streets) San Francisco CA 94105-3304 United States of America Tel: 1 415 536 1970 Fax: 1 415 536 1982
Australian Embassy in Washington, DC -
11601 Massachusetts Ave Washington DC NW 20036-2273 United States of America Tel:1 202 797 3000 Fax:1 202 797 3331 E-mai:General enquiries: library.washington@dfat.gov.au
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.
How can you say that somethings are so taboo that they can't ever be viewed?
Down Under even Hentai counts as child porn.
I assume you are American.
When protesters in the Middle East rant and rave outside the gates of the US Embassy in their country, do you think our government's policy is changed as a result?
By protesting outside Australian consulates (!) what do you hope to gain? Is this an effective form of redress?
Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization.
Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian, or more via google
It is immature and reeks of disorganization.
What a strange thing to say about a group that originated on 4chan.
Breakfast served all day!
"This hardcore porn has the seal of approval of the Australian Government."
"The Australian Government: demanding MORE for your porn needs."
"How can you trust Hardcore Porn that's not approved by the Australian Government?"
"Don't worry: This movie with the horse sucking this girl's giant tits has the oficial seal of approval by the Australian Government."
Well I think it's the protestors who are taking on the mantle of "Anonymous", not the press who are attributing it to them. The press largely doesn't understand what the deal is with "Anonymous", but then a lot of the press is never really digs into these things.
Also, it's true that "the people" don't do anything as a whole. You get some subset working on something, and even if they're very poorly organized, it helps you have a term for them so you can reference them easily.
I thought part of the reason people liked claiming to be part of "Anonymous" was that the press didn't understand what the hell was going on. Basically anyone can validly claim to be "Anonymous" so long as they're... you know... anonymous... and the press will suddenly act like that person is the head of a powerful hacker terrorist crime syndicate.
Their ad brings even more negative attention to poor ol' IRC...
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.
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.
You have no idea how politics works. People opposed to the Republican Party in the U.S. have been doing that for 10 years, however that only works if your opponents have shame, which people in politics typically lack.
My kingdom for a donkey!
"Big-tit porn; priority no 1 of your Federal Government."
"Be safe: Please refer to the Australian secure masturbation laws."
If I had some shop skills, I'd be making an "official seal of approval", with the flag and the leading politicians behind this and some nice big government-approved tits on it.
Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American and 2) Every Australian feels as you do? How is there going to be "real-life protests" if everyone who cares is just American? Now I'm no genius or anything, but it seems to be that you'd have to live in Australia, or at least be IN Australia, in order to participate in a "real-life protest" in Australia.
Well in South Carolina you would have to register before conducting your subversive activities. That takes care of THAT...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It is named Operation Titstorm due to the Government adding liking small breasted women = pedophile like activity and therefore illegal to the filter plans. They also added nylon fetishes because of it being a fetish and female ejaculation "because it is a myth". These are the type people in control of the filter.
Don't make us come over there and liberate the shit out of you.
Yeah, those darn leftist professors. Like how the students in Iran that protest their government are doing so because they're incited by "leftist professors". Or students protesting against the communists in Soviet Russia or during Ukraine's "Orange Revolution". How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA and the UK? Was that a "left-right" issue. What about the university-based protests in Greece last year against police who beat a young man to death. Did they have a leftist agenda? Or could it be that you just see the world in your own terms, ignoring that students have historically protested against tyranny, regardless of how it dresses itself up.
Don't be so quick to dismiss or condemn or suggest that students are simple cattle that do something "impressively stupid" without right information. What exactly is "impressively stupid" about protesting any of the examples I gave? Or indeed protesting censorship laws that have been mis-represented to the public which is what the GP was talking about?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Ok I know I may just be feeding the troll but I am going to have a go at this.
I live in a small pro-western European nation that is pretty middle of the road in terms of politics and liberal/conservative agendas. While I entirely respect the Australian peoples right to choose their own laws it never the less worries me when I see the Australian government do something that I don't want my own government to do.
The problem is that Australia is seen as "one of us" an English speaking westernised liberal democracy. If a policy is successfully implemented in Australia it gains a certain credibility that the same policy implemented in North Korea or Iran or even China would lack. Those of a certain frame of mind in my own country could point to Australia and push for similar legislation here.
No, more like getting pictures of their small-breasted wives or mistresses, and pointing out the pure hypocrisy of their proposed ban on small-breasted women pornography, while they enjoy their small-breasted women at home.
Yea, that's not going to go over well with any rational person.
... I'm sorry, what?
Putting up porn of politicians' small-titted wives is going to make them reconsider their policy on small-breasted porn?
More like, they'll ban the Internet altogether.
Every policy maker in the world is going to go into knee-jerk Ban Everything mode when they realise their own seedy private lives are in danger of being leaked by Internet vigilantes. If news stories out of the US are at all representative, it seems Senators touch more small children than just about any other demographic... do you really think they won't force through every free-speech-stifling law they can the moment they realise the threat?
Yes, indeed! Let's dry out any kind of outlet for those freaks! Once they wont be able to get off from something besides the real deal, they are bound to stop and suddenly turn into normal, heterosexual human beings.
Right? Right?!
Regretfully, I agree.
Tony Abbot (The head of the Liberal party- that's the guys NOT in power, for you Americans) visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him, in his public question and answer time, the following question (roughly remembered):
"The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians, as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of (the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president') Kevin Rudd's plan to censor the Internet?"
His answer began:
"Well, I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint you..." and yes, unfortunately, he did.
Paraphrased his answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."
Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically. The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling; that the filter didn't go far *enough* for his tastes, and that he'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist. Therefore, speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away, you are sadly mistaken.
On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal, since it seems that too many politicians tend to "trust God about these things" when it's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia.
Well, you don't seem to mind choosing for at least some of your fellow Australians...
Seriously, though, just because some action or policy is backed by a democratic vote, or popular support in general, doesn't make it right. Slavery in U.S. was backed by the majority early on, for example. Today, most people in China and Russia support their regimes, including oppression of dissenters. Iranian death penalty for homosexuals law has widespread popular support. And so on, and so forth.
There are some rights and freedoms which cannot morally be subject to a vote. Freedom of speech is one of them.
*YOU* should have the right to deem what is appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
Personally, I'm in favour of censorship on the Internet, as we have it on TV and radio etc. I see no difference. I am not quite as happy with the current proposed implementation. As I run a PC repair business, I have received a lot of requests for home internet filtering etc. I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
Consider this analogy:
Many Australians consider the water supply to be clean. Some people wish the water to be filtered, a minority. The government could implement a giant filter for the water supply at great cost, or, the minority could purchase personal filters to filter their own water, even with a government subsidy!
The Australian government already tried to give out filtering software for free, and there wasn't a large uptake. This leads be to believe, based on your comments, that it wasn't made well-known enough for computer repairpersons to recommend it to their customers, or that the repairpersons believed it to be inadequate, or an even greater chance, people just don't care about filtering their internet.
My point is: if you want it filtered, filter it yourself. Don't force your ethics on the rest of us.
Better still, educate your fucking kids to not do stupid shit on the internet. That works better than any filter.
Disagree != mod troll.
Don't make us come over there and liberate the shit out of you.
Funnily enough, I've seen a porno clip which had this attitude. The guy was really pounding this girls ass, doggy style, saying things like "I'm gonna liberate you soooo hard!" She's crying and getting slapped and what not.
Then when he's done, he collapsed on her back and sighed "Mission Accomplished!" even though there was a second naked chick waiting in the sack beside them.
So I gotta wonder, when did porn get all liberal satirical and shit? Keep politics outta porn. (But not porn outta politics, cause that shit's hilarious.)
Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian, or more via google
And also a reference to Australia's government censoring adult publications and films featuring women with "small breasts" on the grounds that such images encourage pedophilia.
It's actually quite a clever and catchy name.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.
Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.
Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.
As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.
The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.
It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."
Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."
I think the problem is mental capacity... If sex is acceptable if consensual, at what age is the consensual sex approved with full knowledge of the act, consequences, ect. Is there a mental capacity at 11 to consent? No
There are many legal precedents that set the age of consent for various legal items, contracts, military service, voting, drinking, driving, etc... These are the basis of some of our societial norms. Without them, we would break down (and I say we are already with the blurring of many lines, but I digress...)
SEX is also unofficially there in the list, by punishing those that would take advantage of someone who does not quite have the assumed mental capacity you should have at a certain age. (Varies by state I believe) But I feel that the physical act can over come the emotional stops that society may place on the act. therefore it is easy to manipulate someone that cannot distinguish between something that is "wrong" verses it feels good, so it must be good.
So, just because it is consensual doesn't mean the child had all the tools to make a decision based on anything other than it felt good and the person is nice to me. That is just plain wrong no matter how you may try to argue it.
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
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.