Telstra Fears LulzSec Attacks, Hesitates On Internet Filter

After the earlier report that some of Australia's largest telcos (and ISPs) were to start censoring internet traffic based on a blacklist, rdnetto writes with the news that "Telstra is now hesitating to deploy the internet filter it had previously promised to implement, fearing reprisals from online vigilantes." The linked article specifically names LulzSec as the source of such reprisals.

Comments

Nice?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if we should be thankful. These sort of things never end well.

Re:Nice?

[Z00L00K]

And censorship never ends well either.

Too much "protection" and you have a totalitarian regime.

If you want to take out crime - do it at the source or check the cause for the crime first. Strangling the internet is like shooting the messenger.

Re:Nice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much "protection" and you have a totalitarian regime.

Too much hyperbole and you end up with Chicken Little.

Re:Nice?

[airfoobar]

Sure, but that doesn't look like an overly hyperbolic statement. In a sense, it's the very definition of totalitarianism.

Re:Nice?

[djdavetrouble]

If you want to take out crime - do it at the source or check the cause for the crime first./i?

Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....

Re:Nice?

[xero314]

Shouldn't be too difficult to rearrange the worlds wealth equally, distribute the workload evenly to the populace, remove humans innate competitiveness, get rid of all people that are insane / have no self control, control the crazy teenagers and rewrite the rules of most societies. Lets get to work on that....

The people in the advanced countries now face a choice: we can express justified horror, or we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes. If we refuse to do the latter, we will be contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. - Noam Chomsky

The issues you raise are solvable, and each one has been addressed at some point in some culture (except competitiveness but that would be foolish to remove), we just need to be willing to look at the cause.

Re:Nice?

[DaveV1.0]

Hmm. You are posting as an A.C. because why? Could it be that you are afraid your karma will be trashed by those "protecting" the slashdot groupthink?

Re:Nice?

[DaveV1.0]

Quoting a hypocrite like Chomsky doesn't advance your cause.

Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel sorry for the companies they've attacked, but their dabbling with attacks on government might just be working.

Re:Conflicted

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Some of the attacks on companies appear to have been purely random; but some have been hit because(as here), there really isn't a sharp corporate/state divide...

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

Never understood this particular point of view. Government is there to function as your guardian and benefactor, with your elected representatives at helm. Corporation functions as a closed entity with no other goal then profit, even if that profit comes at expense of everything else (see: Bhopal).

Granted many modern governments in large countries became almost corporate in nature, almost as closet, corrupt and nepotistic as their megacorp counterparts. But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course. It can be argued that government in Western countries does represent its average constituent - in all his/her greed, selfishness and ignorance and stupidity.

Not so with corporations, who in addition to all above vices tend to also be destructively greedy.

Re:Conflicted

[halowolf]

Well we can add EA / Bioware to the list according to my latest email from them. Setting up an anonymous email account to register my games with seems to be working out for the better.

I'm sure there will be a Slashdot story about this soon enough.

Re:Conflicted

[halowolf]

And if I look at the stories that got filtered out from me there it is. Oh well lolz.

Re:Conflicted

[cheekyjohnson]

But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course.

"However small"? The same could be said about corporations (to a certain extent). The problem is that voters don't all agree with one another (which just divides that power). Some people who do want change will likely often be vastly outnumbered by those who don't (or don't care). I don't believe that giving up is the answer, though.

Re:Conflicted

[The Hatchet]

The top modern corporations control so much wealth and property that they simultaneously have in most areas a near monopoly on goods and services and a monopsony on labor such that the vast majority of people are essentially slaves to the corporate elite in one way or another. We who don't own property can't own property, even though it is significantly less expensive and more stable than renting at hugely artificial rates, we have to work our asses off for absolutely nothing and there are no jobs and no opportunities to escape this system. It is the most oppressive life I can imagine short of having internet filters, and these corporations have powers that the government couldn't possibly take as long as it is still accountable to the people. But the power of capital wealth is infinite, without checks, without balances, and without mercy.

Re:Conflicted

[cheekyjohnson]

That's true, but if everyone stopped supplying them with money, they would eventually run out. Now, I know the chances of that happening are likely very unlikely, but my point is that he mentioned people having at least some degree of power over the government. The same can be said of corporations to a certain extent.

Re:Conflicted

[mSparks43]

Actually, I'd say you have more control over most corporations than people do over most governments.
At least with corporations you can vote against them if you don't like what they are doing (not give them cash).
Try that with a government and if you're "lucky" and live in the "free" countries they'll lock you up, unlucky and they'll shoot you.

Re:Conflicted

[alexhard]

What are you, 5 years old? Haven't seen such naivete since I went to primary school.

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

Not nearly all corporation rely on general populace for funding. In fact, many rely on government itself, while remaining almost totally independent of it (i.e. military-industrial complex).

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

How do you vote against corporations "with cash" if you don't mind me asking? Many if not most of them don't accept any cash from general populace - their business is with smaller corporations or governments, such as major oil companies, construction companies, chemical companies, energy companies, defense companies and so on.

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

Must have been some interesting primary school to fully purge all ability of critical thinking.

Re:Conflicted

[easyTree]

Corporation functions as a closed entity with no other goal then profit, even if that profit comes at expense of everything else ( see: Bhopal ).

Wth? According to , 11, 000 people died, over half a million were injured then twenty-six years later, seven ex-employees of the company were punished by being fined $2000 fine and spending two years in jail each. Lots of disincentive there to being a corporate ghoul. Not.

Re:Conflicted

[easyTree]

Uhh, according to Wikipedia

Re:Conflicted

[easyTree]

The top modern corporations control so much wealth and property that they simultaneously have in most areas a near monopoly on goods and services and a monopsony on labor such that the vast majority of people are essentially slaves to the corporate elite in one way or another. We who don't own property can't own property, even though it is significantly less expensive and more stable than renting at hugely artificial rates, we have to work our asses off for absolutely nothing and there are no jobs and no opportunities to escape this system. It is the most oppressive life I can imagine...

Welcome to 'democracy'. It's all in the way they spin it. Any level of dehumanizing institutionalized unfairness can be spun into something warm and fluffy in the right hands.

Re:Conflicted

[countertrolling]

Conformity is the objective in most places.. Critical thinking is an anathema.. The fact is that government is a creation of those with the most capital, so naturally they will set the agenda to suit their needs

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

On an interesting note, many of US schools are in fact private...

Re:Conflicted

[countertrolling]

Merely one of those things that makes public indistinguishable from private, when both function to advance common interests of the powerful

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

We have a name for that political system, it starts with "f". Too much historical ballast for people to believe they're living in it though.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

Geographically and historically, the type of government you describe has barely ever existed, even in intent.

Government as guardian and benefactor??? Let me guess your turning 11 this year? 12 maybe?

To believe there is any sort of benefit to government over corporation is to be naive and childish. There are simply the trade offs between public and private sector. To recognize the method by which each is plowing your asshole through until you are ready to be buried is a small step toward enlightenment.

But it won't get you very far.

The type of government you are thinking of, the one that is better then corporations, the one that actual gives a dick about the people it taxes. It hasn't been invented yet.

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

You know what's really sad? When you talk about how much of government in USA and much of West functioned in 60s and 70s, you get called "young" by modern young adults like you with no grasp on history whatsoever.

Strongly opinionated, certain of one's own correctness and completely clueless. To quote Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is a 15-minute talk with an average voter".

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

Total penalty per death was less than $1.37 and just under half a day in jail? I must agree with your assessment.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

When they hit Sony, over and over and over again... I thought, "Good, serves em right. Sony should stop being assholes."

When they knocked over public facing websites at cia.gov and senate.gov I thought, "Well, those sites should've been secured, and it's not like they got at anything important. Whatevs."

When they started taking phone call requests and DDoS'ing random game companies I thought, "Well that's stupid, but at least it's just ddos... it's only temporary and nothing should be broken."

When they started posting regular peoples credentials online in the clear, so that every talentless tween in the world could just look it over and start fucking with peoples stuff, I thought, "Ok, this is bullshit. That's not vigilantism, lulzy, impressive or temporary. Us regular working poor have enough real-world problems, we don't need to be thinking about the fallout from that, too."

So now I hear about these maybe-beneficial things, and it's hard to feel any better about it all.

And I have to imagine others feel the same way.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point of view is deceptive, we all just thought you were a child. /shrug

Re:Conflicted

[Luckyo]

I shudder when thinking of whom this "we" might encompass.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

When they started posting regular peoples credentials online in the clear, so that every talentless tween in the world could just look it over and start fucking with peoples stuff, I thought, "Ok, this is bullshit. That's not vigilantism, lulzy, impressive or temporary. Us regular working poor have enough real-world problems, we don't need to be thinking about the fallout from that, too."

Or you can look at it like LulzSec gave all those people a fast education in password etiquette. Like they said on the twitter feed, if they can steal this information, so can others who would SELL the information to 100% criminal minded people. They're trying to bring awareness. It's the modern equivalent of PETA staging a protest and throwing red paint on people who walk by wearing animal fur. Sure it's damaging monetarily (not physically), but it's drives the point home. How else will these people wake up? The stupidity of the average person on the Internet makes them a danger to themselves. Now some know better.

Don't get this all twisted now... you're talking about 30+ BILLION dollar a year company that couldn't be bothered to spend thousands in order to secure our personal data that they hoarded in their databases. Our security obviously wasn't worth so much as pocket change to them. That was also exposed in all this, as is the fact that this is fairly common practice...

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not vigilantism, lulzy, impressive or temporary

Lulz doesn't require a social conscience.

Re:Conflicted

[cavreader]

The only awareness they are generating is in the law enforcement and security services. Judging by the notably simple skill set needed to pull off their attacks these guys somehow assume they are invulnerable themselves and this belief comes from them thinking they are the smartest people to ever turn on a computer. Chances are they will regret this attitude in the near future. Internet security does not truly exist 100% in the real world. If you plug in to the Internet you are taking on a substantial risk. No matter how diligent and pro-active you are in securing your systems if someone wants in there is always a way. Declaring the organizations that have been breached a negligent is probably very true in some instances however if you accuse everyone that has had a breach in their system as negligent or incompetent is neither accurate or fair.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the normal people that had their credentials posted in the clear are thinking to themselves, "Oh gee, I screwed up somehow." They're pissed at lulzsec and at the company that didn't keep their information secure.

And what's worse, they could have easily post this information with hashed passwords, or no passwords at all if they were being altruistic or just bragging. Here's a tip though, since many of us have already worked this out... they weren't.

They did a shitty thing that hurts people. Regular people. And they did it because they thought it's funny. It's not. They fucked up... and now everybody is screaming for blood. Random people are dox'ing these kids, and the feds are picking them up. But don't be surprised when the legislation hits... no matter how many times those people say, "We did you a favor! Really!"

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point was that even the ones that do (the walmarts, sonys, etc) still don't ever seem to get enough people up-in-arms all at once to do much of anything about it. People got pissed at walmart for about a week... then they remembered they need toilet paper. And most of us neither have or want a higher priced, ultra-mega-organic store around the corner to buy all our crap from in the 30 minutes we have to buy it in.

We're tired, broke and scrambling to keep ourselves fed, housed and healthy enough to do it all over again next week. We don't have time to stay on top of who's screwing us this week and demonstrate our dissatisfaction with it. All we get is a rare occasion to vote... which I think we can all agree is largely a waste of time anyway.

tldr; - We feel the pain, but we can't be bothered to deal with it. Not because of apathy, but because we've already been beaten into the ground.

Re:Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

countertrolling are you cheating on mod points? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 It looks like you cheat the moderation system here to downmod others.

Re:Conflicted

[The Hatchet]

They currently own around 70% of the wealth in the nation. We would all starve to death long before they run out of money.

Re:Conflicted

[The Hatchet]

In fact, many times in history have companies become so powerful that the populace they rule over actually starves to the point where they can no longer produce anything for the upper class, and die out. Mind you, most of these companies have been religions, which can be very convincing. It happened to the Mayans, the Romans, and to the Vinland Nord colony, the easter island civilization, among many others. Corporations and other fiscal entities can continue on until they bleed the people to death. The only thing stopping them is regulations that we, by sheer force of mass, force corporations to live by using the government.

No number of boycotts, no amount of effort in the modern era can possibly overpower the disgusting power heap that is the corporate world.

oh

[Ryanrule]

neato

Article is false.

[bbqsrc]

Never trust News Corp. Here's some real journalism: http://delimiter.com.au/2011/06/25/telstra-proposes-to-filter-interpol-blacklist/

Not that the real answer is any better than what the Australian said, but the truth is what matters.

Re:Article is false.

[RL78]

what is false in the article ?

Re:Article is false.

[countertrolling]

Dig it:

In addition, the age of children depicted through content on the sites must be younger than 13 years of age, or perceived to be less than 13.

Nice little catchall there

Re:Article is false.

[IICV]

Actually, didn't you hear about Australia banning tiny titties in porn? After all, women with small breasts who are of legal age may play the role of underage girls in pornography, and that's like a single step removed from child pornography, which we all know causes nuclear devastation and must be stopped at all costs.

Re:Article is false.

[Anonymous Coward]

countertrolling are you cheating on mod points? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 It looks like you cheat the moderation system here to downmod others.

FUD

[Ja'Achan]

Step 1: Create a scary and unspecific enemy
Step 2: Give it some publicity
Step 3: Demand funding and protection based on speculation ('Maybe someone might attack us! Think of the children!')
Step 4: Profit! And power, too.

Looks like it still works.

Oh Evil Telstra...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making it really hard not to like the current phase of cyber-terrorism when said terrorism forces you to try to make the right decision.

Re:Oh Evil Telstra...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that any decision made based in immediate fear is not really the right decision; even if the decision has a positive outcome, it was made it for the wrong reasons and is therefore not representative of any particular notion of "right." No lesson was learned, and any future decisions are unaffected. This is only effective if fear can be maintained indefinitely, which is nearly impossible. It's indistinguishable, in the long run, to a step backward.

Re:Oh Evil Telstra...

[easyTree]

This is only effective if fear can be maintained indefinitely

Tell that to whoever coordinates worldwide news.

Congratulations Lulzsec

[bky1701]

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, that doesn't bother me. I think it's quite humorous.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then it's just a matter of picking your poison; isn't it ?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't encourage these people.

Don't tell someone what ideals they can and can't support... Lest you want to be labeled a Fascist. There's a lot of dolts on the Internet, and they're paying the price now for using the same password at 100 websites.
I'm enjoying the show, to be honest. LulzSec haven't harmed anyone yet, and they've obviously got quite the audience. While only 270Kish twitter followers, I'm sure there's many more lurking it who don't use twitter that are following the story.

Now, because of LulzSec, for the first time a western government is fearing a backlash on their stance on Internet censorship.
That's a good thing in my book. /popcorn

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Y'know, in terms of 'collateral damage per unit freedom', Lulzsec is still doing pretty well...

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system. By the standards of perfection, everywhere is awful; by contrast with justice in many places 40 (Spain, if you're gay?), 50 (Southern US, if you're black?) or 200 (Britain or France, if you're poor and steal a loaf of bread?) years ago, governments are in some areas doing really well. And if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia, suddenly that horrible rights-denying US doesn't seem so bad.

It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West. It's clear that we could demand and do a lot better. It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect, although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?). But, when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, even if the baby is sick.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Palmsie]

we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

Or the resurgence is an old world. Hacking is nothing new, neither is the hacker culture. Wikileaks was the spark that rekindled the soldering embers that once were in the 80s and 90s with their unwavering pursuit toward exposing organizations and governments (regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not). I expect we will see much more of these types of groups and actions until the US adopts serious net neutrality laws or in (one might wish) that they add net neutrality or freedom of information to the constitution as a basic human right.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[bky1701]

Don't tell me what I should encourage.

Lulzsec is just another part of a bigger cultural shift (wikileaks and "anonymous" as well) away from servitude into actual civil awareness. Yes, they quite often catch people in the cross-fire. Yes, they often act without any real goals, just to humiliate. However, they serve a role that has long since been shrugged off by people around the world, that of an actual opposition to the status quo.

I'm not an anarchist, but there is something poetic about a group of sarcastic hackers achieving what people want better than their government.

If I were you, I'd get used to it, because people are tired of the corruption. If it takes people like Lulzsec to actually get something done, so be it. There is a time for everything and the time for quiet obedience is past.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Professr3]

I hate to tell you this, but the southern US *is* black - at least the majority are, especially in urban centers.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no such thing as a legitimate organization

PBS channels funds, nintendo sells you the same shit year after year, the FBI is reading this message

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[seandiggity]

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years. This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

A world that is increasingly-connected by computer networks is a new world, and this is one fascinating aspect of it. Powerful governments and institutions have embraced technologies that are barely understood by businessman/bureaucrats/elites and are difficult for them to protect and control; despite this, they've used their power to place this tech at the foundation of practically everything in the industrialized world. Typical short-term thinking, done in the pursuit of greed, hegemony, and increased population control. Anyone who's been paying attention should recognize the irony.

In the past year or so, it's been proven that an amorphous "organization" of individuals (including "script kiddies") can crowd-source these security breaches using methods that are simple and generally well-known. DDoS, website vandalism, and other attacks through the network have always been threats...for some pretty huge and powerful organizations, the blowback from such attacks has escalated from embarrassment to crisis. The infiltrations and leaks have been the most damaging, as it's literally child's play to broadly distribute files (via bittorrent especially) and mirror data so many times that it becomes a permanent feature of the network. Book burnings have become impossible and raids are ineffective.

The powerful are feeling vulnerable, afraid they've disrupted the "natural order" by allowing in (more than one) "Trojan horse". Some are starting to make their fears public; a few are probably hoping to pursue individuals using the old tactics of intimidation, chasing "cyber-terrorists" and so on. Everyone knows that's not going to work.

I'm glad those who would curtail freedom of speech are now scared to do so, and it's gonna be entertaining to see how things play out with Anonymous, LulzSec, and the inevitable next group that arises. I hope that historians will someday compare this to the digitization of media in general: as media companies attempted to drive down their own production and distribution costs, they made it easy for individuals to distribute their "intellectual property", until it became trivial and a real threat. There are parallels here, and we're now in the "Napster days", so to speak.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Osgeld]

your comments are derogatory

all southerners hate blacks therefore its the rule of law?

hogwash, there is just as many questionably motivated arrests in Detroit as there is in Atlanta, LA or DC

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Osgeld]

yes human nature starts with Reagan

that right there is part of the problem

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Hazel with a passion... but you utterly fail at reading comprehension.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

<3

-----

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

Love is not enough :-(.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[wisty]

>It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West.

Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got? What about the 70s oil and energy crisis? Watergate? The Vietnam war? Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup? Not to mention Margaret Thatcher.

The West has had ups and downs. You can certainly cherry pick things we've screwed up, but there are a lot progress being made behind the scenes. Sure, there's moral panics over terrorism, Islam, piracy and child porn. But gay marriage is finally on the agenda in a big way, and universal health is getting some approval in the US. The biggest enemies the US has aren't China and Russia, but Iran, North Korea, and a couple of lunatics hijacking 767s.

The government can spy on everybody, and shouldn't, but does; but they aren't acting on it very much.

Things haven't really gone backwards that much.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[xnpu]

Exactly. Not to mention that (albeit not very scientific) programs like "What would you do" clearly show southern whites stand up for their black neighbors more than those in the north.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system.

Yea, right. The "rule of law" only applies to those that cannot afford to be exempt. Impartial my ass.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Really? Since 1981? So the 1970s was as good as we got?

In Western civil rights terms, yes.

What about the 70s oil and energy crisis?

This wasn't a civil rights issue.

Watergate?

The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?

The Vietnam war?

This was a stain on the US, yes, but it ended in the middle of the decade. It also admitted a huge amount of popular and well-publicised protest. You even almost got rid of conscription - elimination of the Selective Slavery System, unfortunately, hasn't happened.

Pol Pot, and the West's apathy towards him? Pinochet leading a CIA-backed coup?

I guess you could argue that to ignore rights abroad is to ignore the rights of everyone. But I wasn't going that far.

Not to mention Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher was 1979 = 2011-30.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Thatcher was 1979 = 2011-30.

Lol, embarrassing. = should have read [unsupported symbol to indicate approximately equal to]. Thatcher didn't really start fucking things up until a year or two into power, though.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[johanatan]

That symbol you're looking for is '~'.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[AK Marc]

The fact that the President not only could be impeached, but was impeached, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?

Nixon was not impeached. Clinton was. So you were wrong on both accounts (that there was an impeachment in the '70s and that there wouldn't be one again).

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see the GP even come close to advocating the dissolution of western governments. I also disagree with the GP regarding "the amount of influence a shadowy group of people on the internet has". This particular group, anyway.

That being said, notice the parallels. Be it from the outright revolt of colonial americans, or civil disobedience of portions of the public in the 50s and 60s - that is what it takes to get government to move to protect the rights of citizens.

You certainly can't just ask, and government certainly won't just up and decide to do it on its own, because it is the morally correct and/or rational thing to do. One way or another, governments must be forced to do these things. Whether this is through the ballot box, protest, civil disobedience or outright revolt, it always takes PRESSURE.

I also think that if we compare our current to our past, or ours to the worst, we will never make any more progress. We will stagnate in a pool of "At least it is better than it was 200 years ago!" and/or "At least it isn't as bad as Saudi Arabia!".

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Yeah... it was more a braino than a typo: in my head I said \approx, which I could write =~, but that should be written =\sim, but I'll omit the LaTeX markup lest I sound even more pompous than usual. For some reason I've done that sort of thing often when de-TeXing for a general audience, although usually the formula is slightly more complex! The upshot is that I end up looking an idiot, which everyone surely agrees I deserve ;-).

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Nixon.

Clinton's technical impeachment was trivial, partisan and he was acquitted. It was one of IIRC three attempts, the other two of which never reached trial. It was essentially an abuse of the impeachment process and didn't work. It was technically an impeachment but in spirit a waste of time.

Proceedings towards Nixon's impeachment received bipartisan support from the House Judiciary Committee, appropriately targeting an abuse of power with the Articles of Impeachment. Everyone knew what the outcome would be and the proceedings resulted in Nixon's removal - forcing a corrupt president's removal being one of the aims of such proceedings. He resigned before the impeachment proceedings reached the stage which is technically labelled "impeachment", but that is irrelevant.

Nixon's was the last impeachment proceeding which worked, and Clinton's was simply partisan abuse. The efforts to impeach Bush, who had behaved in a manner far worse than poor Nixon dreamt of, fell on deaf ears within the Judiciary Committee.

But I apologise for not demonstrating the necessary level of pedantry. I should have said, "the President not only could be affected by impeachment proceedings, but was affected by impeachment proceedings, shows how great things were. You think that's going to happen again?"

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[chris.alex.thomas]

thatcher didn't fuck anything up any years into power, she brought britain back from the brink of years of socialist idiocy. I agree with the other guy who said you seriously suck at reading comprehension but I'd go further to say that probably you just "suck" and reading was collateral damage.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Sir,

The other guy said he hates me with a passion (I wonder if it keeps him up at night?) but that Professr3 fails at reading comprehension. Given the context of your post, I'm going to chalk this one up to tragic irony.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[SuricouRaven]

His commuting of Libby's sentence alone should have been grounds for some sort of investigation. That was just blatent cronyism. Libby is found guilty in a court of law on found counts of impeding a federal investigation... but the investigation would possibly have turned up evidence of political games even more embarassing, so Bush thanks him by commuting his sentence. The message is clear: "Laws are for the little people to follow, not us."

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[AK Marc]

I understand your point, but it is factually wrong. Nixon was not impeached. There was a vote to begin impeachment proceedings, but the proceedings were never completed. The proceedings against Clinton were completed. Clinton was impeached.

Just because the average person thinks "impeached" means "removed from office" doesn't allow you to use the words wrongly. Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. The case has to be brought before the grand jury. They started the process to get Nixon's case there, but he quit before that happened. Clinton was impeached, the equivalent of an indictment. But the final verdict was the equivalent of a not guilty finding.

The real difference is that Nixon committed a felony, and Clinton answered what was in effect a technical question correctly but in doing so used words in a manner contrary to the vernacular, which opened him up to ridicule.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

Even though I believe the impeachment process worked in Nixon's case but were abused against Clinton, you're right that it doesn't mean I should misuse the technical term "impeachment". I should have talked in terms of the effectiveness of "impeachment proceedings" or something. Sorry.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to see a big change on how the internet works. I'd say in the next years we'll see:

- A "commercial" internet, based on IPv6, i which EVERYONE will have a personal, unique IP address (or a personal, unique suffix) which, combined with generalized packet-signing will supress the anonymity in the net. The commercial services will use that net, and will block any unsigned, unsecured packet.

- A "free" net, which will be basically the remains of the old IPv4. This "net" will be progressively abandoned and assigned less bandwith. Lulzsec, Anonymous and the rest of the online vandals will have good time DDOSing each other while the business moves to the secured net.

At the end of that process, the dream of a completely free and open net will fade into oblivion.

And some years after that, people will ask themselves why did we screwed the old net to the point it was unusable...

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[TheRaven64]

Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick.

I can't tell, are you talking about LulzSec or the government?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the rest of the world is so much 'worse'. Is no reason not to try being 'better'.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[easyTree]

If I were you, I'd get used to it, because people are tired of the corruption.

Yes. The dam is about to break. I suspect that governments have seen this coming for quite some time - hence the recent ramping-up of fear-mongering over the last decade. Cocksuckers.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[easyTree]

lol

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[ultranova]

The average Western government each allows tens of millions of people to enjoy basic freedoms under the rule of law with a reasonably impartial justice system.

No, the average Western government doesn't "allow" this, it's just along for the ride. The social structure and memes generated in the last couple hundred years allow it. And they are slowly but surely being eroded, in part by said governments.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Kjella]

The government can spy on everybody, and shouldn't, but does; but they aren't acting on it very much.

Yes well, amassing power and abusing power at the same time doesn't tend to work so well. Dictatorship 101 says that by the time the public starts protesting, it should already be too late. The barriers, the self-imposed compartmentalization and restrictions the government puts on itself are nothing but curtains the government could pull aside or pierce at will. Handing them more and more power is like sticking your hand deeper and deeper in a bear trap on the logic that it hasn't snapped shut yet.

Besides, does the public really know what's going on? Give AT&T a national security lettter, hook up the NSA to their core server and boom, instant mass surveillance with 99.9% of AT&T not even knowing that it happens. What if the same happened to VISA, cell phone tower records, all tax records and so on, except you never heard about it? We do know they collected international transfers through the SWIFT system for years, and we only know that because other governments demand answers.

The government wants to give the impression that they're not acting on it very much. But they have over a million people on their terrorist watch list. The government has fiddled with total information awareness programs before and probably still do in secret. Don't expect them to be so blunt as to throw you in a jail cell without trial, you'll just subtly find that you kept away from any critical positions and every government agency is going over you with a fine tooth comb.

The only points you list are those where the government as a power entity doesn't care. They care about threats to their own power, who you sleep with they honestly don't care except as a potential weapon to make you resign. They only care if you want to reduce their power or increase oversight, transparency and accountability. As long as people quibble over social issues or tax rates while the power grab continues, they're happy. Why ruin people's illusion of choice? Make people believe they want it and chose it.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[TheGratefulNet]

mafia tactics.

over the centuries, they have always worked. fear is the main motivator in mankind.

the diff is that the governments usually used the fear card to keep citizens in line.

now, we have a 'citizens internet mafia' (in effect) scaring those in power (corrupt in power; important distinction) and getting a good result from it.

you know, its hard to tell one mafia from the other. entertainment mafiaas, government mafiaas and now the hacker mafiaas.

at the end of the day, you evaluate who helped your life or helped know down those you consider bad or evil.

WAY TO GO LULSEC. you are one of the better 'bad guy' orgs out there. so far, so good!

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[TheGratefulNet]

typo_correct: who helped *knockdown* those you consider bad or evil.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[TheGratefulNet]

oh, so many others are worse.

be glad its only the US broken-ness that we have to endure.

(your logic failed...)

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[TheGratefulNet]

btw, what kind of flux do you use when you solder embers? /sorry

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until they start extorting money from random people.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[poity]

Agreed until you used "civil disobedience" to describe what they did.

Civil disobedience is not abiding, and thus breaking, a law in order to protest its injustice -- protesters use civil disobedience so that the crime and the unjust punishment can be starkly juxtaposed in the public eye. Lulzsec have broken only laws regarding computer fraud, yet they were not protesting computer fraud laws they thought unjust, they were protesting laws of censorship, i.e. they committed a different crime in retaliation for what they saw as injustice -- that is a HUGE difference.

This is NOT civil disobedience, they are not the downtrodden heroes, they are a vigilante group with their own agenda using tactics we despise for causes we cherish. Think on that for a moment. Isn't this exactly what most Slashdotters hate about governments, behaving as if the ends justify the means? And yet here we are supporting just that, because for the moment it looked like a good thing.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

The people who label themselves lulzsec have done more than one thing. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey a law considered unjust.

So, random acts of vandalism aren't really civil disobedience. But releasing information demonstrating corruption is likely civil disobedience - it's implicitly or explicitly argued that you believe such information should be public and that laws to the contrary are unacceptable and worth breaking. Looking somewhere in between, a DDoS might be civil disobedience - if some organisation has an authority to act in some way which you consider unacceptable, then perhaps it is civil disobedience to impede their operation. It's the electronic equivalent of making a wall in front of policemen who want to pass you in order to execute acts you consider unacceptable: "We shall not be moved!"

You can't handwave this as a flimsy excuse, though. Your acts need to be well argued if they're going to reach the collective consciousness of the concerned masses rather than making you look like a bored haxor. The hard work is in the organisation, not in the technical methods (which seem to be based on a combination of botnets, spotting obvious security holes and coincidental timings around the time people leave certain workplaces, isn't that right, Sony?).

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[dagamer34]

It's all fun and games until someone hacks your bank, releases your identity, then you have lots of credit cards opened up in your name. "But your bank was secure and they were just doing it for the lulz!!!" People only care about this stuff when it happens to them. Even if you think what lulzsec is doing is a good thing, it encourages hackers with worse motives to try the same tactics with far more disastrous results. But of course, you think it's a great idea, so sure, let's let them continue!

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading it again. The southerners part was meant to be a example of how things have gotten better in just 50 years time.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a terrible way to look at things. I don't compare myself to the worst in the world. A country or society should never pride myself on NOT being in last place. "Well at least we're not being held at gunpoint!!!11! ^____^ hurr hurr durr!"

No... one should at all times look towards progress and use the best examples of society as role models to strive towards. While perfection is impossible, we're far far far from perfection to even contemplate the notation that we're "good enough"

So no, the US has lots of problems, sitting complacent basking in the glory of us being mediocre is a stupid and shitty idea.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

Just wait until the laws to protect "us" from this new threat roll around.

They've not ruined the careers of any congressmen, or found damning evidence of corruption in the ruling class.
In fact, their handling of people's information which they've gleaned from their cracks seems to show an equal disdain for the plebs as the people you seem to think they're "rebelling" against.
Which means that both the common Joe and the government will be seeking an end to Lulzsec - discussions with non-geeks largely confirms this... people are less angry at Sony for shit security and more angry at Lulz for releasing personal info they're also asking for "more laws" to combat stuff like this.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[discord5]

if we spend a moment imagining ourselves as a chattel-wife in Saudi Arabia for a moment or held at gunpoint for everything around us in Somalia

It's clear that things have been getting worse over the past 30 years in the West.

So you're saying that one excuses the other here? "Our women are still allowed to drive and criminals aren't pointing guns at us, so it's okay for us to give up a little of our freedoms. It's all still good..."

Yeah, it's all still good, but like you said, definitely on the decline. There's always some sort of boogeyman (commies, pedophiles, terrorists, ...) to cause a scare. It's been only a few months since there was talk of the White House trying to implement a "shutdown" for the internet in a state of emergency, and as much as the thought of having a big red button to disable the internet amuses me, the line of thinking does not. We need only to look at China to see what direction the West is headed with regards to the Internet. Oh, we're still far from that, but give it enough time and boogeymen.

It's also clear that lulzsec's civil disobedience is having some sort of effect

I have very ambiguous opinions about lulzsec. One the one hand their actions should be an eye opener to most people to take better care of network security, coding, and password policy. I've seen a few pastebins full of instructions on how to do basic SQL Injections together with lists of URLs to search for in google, apparently intended for AnonOps. I'm not surprised that it works so often, which is telling of how lax security concerns are on website development.

Their motivations however, are not quite clear to me other than "for the lulz". I think that some people have a much nobler vision of what "for the lulz" means, seeing them as some sort of digital e-justice warriors while in fact they're just doing it for "shits and giggles". It has that "bad kind of cool" that as a teenager was so alluring, but as you grow older you're glad you only flirted with in the past. The thing is, their motivations aside, we actually need people like lulzsec every now and then to cause a bit of a shitstorm and point out the blatantly obvious: a lot of stuff of the internet is terribly insecure, and a lot of people have terrible ideas for using passwords.

although it's not quite clear how it'll play out (maybe it'll just be used as an excuse to impose more stringent anti-terror[tm] laws on the Internet?)

Considering that NATO is getting their panties in a bunch over Anonymous I'm expecting that they're not going to suggest an open Internet as we know it today. If we look at international politics it's slowly but steadily moving in that direction. On the one hand you have the RIAA/MPAA and their local equivalents making a strong push towards enforcing the protection of their IP, with strong political backers like Sarkozy (and recently Obama, although with less harsh measures than expected). On the other you have governments seeing hackers (either government sponsored or not) and internet-aided revolutions left and right... Despite all the claims of how great a thing it is to see the will of the people manifest itself, I doubt most governments involved in the Libya conflict are so solely because of the will the of the people.

Sometimes I think that the reason Internet became such a big game changer for businesses and governments because when it started to grow phenomenally there was a lack of understanding of it, both technologically and what its potential was. And while the people who form the body of government are mostly still on the level of the average Internet user when it comes to understanding how it works, they do understand the potential.

when compared with history and the world in general, protecting the rights of common people is something your government almost certainly does more of every day than lulzsec

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

You have already done more to protect the rights of common people than most governments in the world have in years.

This really makes you wonder how a shadowy group of people on the internet have more influence than elected officials and regulatory boards. Of course, I guess that's because they have completely different goals... we are possibly seeing the dawn of a new world here.

Ny is about to legalize gay marriage.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[arth1]

Civil disobedience is not abiding, and thus breaking, a law in order to protest its injustice -- protesters use civil disobedience so that the crime and the unjust punishment can be starkly juxtaposed in the public eye. Lulzsec have broken only laws regarding computer fraud, yet they were not protesting computer fraud laws they thought unjust, they were protesting laws of censorship, i.e. they committed a different crime in retaliation for what they saw as injustice -- that is a HUGE difference.

Is it, now?
Indigenous people pitching tents on the lawn of the parliament is considered civil disobedience, even when they aren't protesting tent pitching laws.
Demonstrators sitting down in the road to stop a cortege of cars are demonstrating civil disobedience, even when they're not protesting pedestrian laws.

In short, you got this totally wrong. Civil disobedience is when you refuse to follow a civil order. That kind of follows from the name, really. Whether the order has anything to do with your cause doesn't change that.

What Lulzsec does isn't civil disobedience simply because they're not refusing to follow an order; no one has ordered them to cease what they're doing.
Sure, it's against the law, but so is sitting down in the street. It's when the police tells you to get up and you refuse that it becomes civil disobedience. They're not there yet; for now, they're just criminals doing it for the lulz.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[arth1]

Don't tell me what I should encourage.

...

If I were you, I'd get used to it

Don't tell me what I should get used to.

This is an open discussion forum, and yes, people can tell you things, including what you should encourage and what you should get used to. And the readers make up their own minds based on information, rhetoric and their own reasoning.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Hazel Bergeron]

So you're saying that one excuses the other here? "Our women are still allowed to drive and criminals aren't pointing guns at us, so it's okay for us to give up a little of our freedoms. It's all still good..."

Since several respondents seem to have jumped to this conclusion, no, I'm definitely not saying that. I'm only saying what I said: we should acknowledge the good in what we have established (as well as the bad). There neither cancelling out of the good by the bad nor of the bad by the good.

Considering that NATO is getting their panties in a bunch over Anonymous I'm expecting that they're not going to suggest an open Internet as we know it today.

You know what irritates me perhaps more than is healthy? Thanks to the Internet we've seen a decline in amateur radio and shortwave listening, ham radio being the only true decentralised communications medium relying on no third party service to survive.

Thanks to this decline, regulatory bodies have been able to allow markets to be flooded with RFI-producing equipment which makes it harder to transmit and receive effectively to/from amateur and broadcast stations. What took the Soviets hundreds of millions of dollars (seriously) of jamming equipment is achieved today with distributed cheap modern electronic junk. If/when the Internet becomes over-regulated and dissent leads to disconnection, that haven of free communication won't be there as a fallback any more - at least not for those in more built-up areas.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the part where he, was, you know, talking about what happened in the past that shouldn't have? As you say, the relatively fair level of justice today is quite good compared to what it was in the past.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - you're working with an overly specific definition of civil disobedience.

Breaking the law can be an example of civil disobedience. There's no requirement that protestors must languish in dull criminality until The Man comes along, puts on his Hat of Officialdom, and utters the official phrase "Stop that", to which the protestors reply "no" as they rejoice for finally meeting the arth1 standard for classification of civil disobedience.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[hairyfeet]

As much as I hate to defend Dubya (I personally think he'll rank in the top 5 of shitty presidents) the Libby pardon was all Cheney who basically rode Dubya 24/7 until he got what he wanted. If you look at Bush's history he was always against pardons and did surprisingly few as governor and as president, less than one quarter of Clinton for comparison.

As for TFA the problem is we in the west have left behind actually protecting children a dozen exits ago and now are firmly in the total batshit red scare territory when it comes to these things. We have people doing prison time for looking at a manga, a collection of frankly primitive pen and ink drawings which has about as much to do with an actual abused child as a crude drawing of a missile has to a WMD, and we even have a guy in prison for writing his own fantasies in a journal which if that doesn't count as thoughtcrime I frankly don't know what does. That also doesn't count the removal of free speech such as throwing that guy in jail for the supposedly 'pro pedo' book which was again his thoughts written in book form. Hell according to a friend at the state crime lab the laws are such a convoluted mess you could draw a stick figure and scrawl beside it 'raeped kidz lul!" and could be looking at the same time as an actual raped child. Gentlemen that is SERIOUSLY fucked up. Of course one can't forget that small breasted women apparently aren't allowed to show their boobs in Oz, lest they make someone think they are underage.

So as much as I don't support the general asshattery of the Anon/Lulzsec crowd (personally i thought they should have done their hacking in secret and then released the results anonymously, so as to crank up the paranoia of the criminal elements of our governments and corporations) in this case I say go get 'em guys. This witch hunt has long left behind its original goal of protecting kids from rapists and become just another witch hunt where everyone that isn't for the loss of freedoms are considered a dirty pedo lover.

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

And I take it that you are mostly enjoying your civil rights, no?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[L-four]

But you cant just say because it's better here we should be fine with it. The reason we are where we are is because we keep wanting something better. is it not?

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[johanatan]

No worries. I figured it was merely a brain fart. The transitions between full-featured TeX and ASCII must be painful. :-) [I've only peripheral acquaintance with TeX myself].

Re:Congratulations Lulzsec

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Lulzsec attacks are used by governments to impose more legislation and less action to correct the government's lack of understanding over an online system which it clearly FAILS to understand then frankly the west deserves what is likely coming its way...I truly like the west but I see them as being completely misguided. Correcting security holes by tightening sentences and increasing penalties is just insane. In fact the best analogy I can think of is the west is attempting to play the role of the ruler over the three little pigs and rather than making sure builders don't use straw or twigs and stick to brick they are trying to stop the wolf through intimidation while still leaving the other pigs vulnerable. At some point the wolves will get angry and the pigs WILL be exposed in their homes.

I think it is critical that as an average citizen you demand that your government implement legislation that targets those who your entrusting with you data. They should be legislated to follow a higher standard for the protection of the general populations interest not only from a personal stand=point but for a more stable economic outcome as well. When fines and jail time outweigh the profits then the mind-set will change and we will see far less of this.

There's now...

[taktoa]

... a chilling effect on censorship

Re:There's now...

[Anonymous Coward]

... a chilling effect on censorship

I see what you did there.

Victory for Civil Disodience

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there are going to be lot of nay sayers calling this anarchy but they think we don't know are we forgot that defying the "law" was the only way so many countries got their freedom from the Brits (Didn't Aussies have a freedom fight?)

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience

[bky1701]

Many people are just sheep, as has always been the case. Those with no morals or values will surrender anything when told to, while those who stand for what they believe will keep being called terrorists. Eventually, though, the "terrorists" win - and not in the bad way. Then they are called heroes.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, no - Australia is still part of the British empire.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience

[AHuxley]

The cyber rights movement has begun. No to cyber segregation. Australian ISP's are a lot like the bus companies in the deep south.
All that expensive infrastructure needs a lot of users paying in every month.
Just as empty buses rolled, users can find other isp's.

Re:Victory for Civil Disodience

[SuricouRaven]

More accuratly, it's part of the Commonwealth. They are politically independant, but they parted from Britain on good terms (Unlike the US), and so maintain close historical and political ties. Same as Canada.

Surprise surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this really come as a surprise to Telstra? Start imposing 1984-like information control on a free society, and members of society stand up and say, "fuck no", then do something about it. Big shocker there.

interesting

[optymizer]

This (minor?) victory puts the notion of Intelligent Disobedience in a new light.

Re:interesting

[ScrewMaster]

Of course, you're assuming the people who run lulzsec are actually intelligent. That has yet to be proven.

well what do you know.

[TheRealQuestor]

there are actual silver linings.

Think for a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

If you realize what you're doing is going to have a massive backlash from vigilantes, maybe you should reconsider whether or not what you're doing is the best idea. Especially when it's so one sided; I haven't really seen many netizens praise and welcome the filter.

It looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

Lulzsec is useful for something after all! After seeing the stories about how they hacked all these random servers, it's nice to see for once that they managed to do something good like keep an ISP (even if only temporary) from censoring the people.

You're failing to get the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

LulzSec chooses it's targets based on it's audiences input. The organization is a circus.

Security costs money.

Re:You're failing to get the point.

[AHuxley]

The MS rep from the US used 3 napkins over a very expensive lunch - the line art on napkin 2 shows they are safe.

Just what we need...

[Nethemas the Great]

LulzSec getting praised for accomplishing good.

Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[kaptink]

A note on Telstra's new filter. - and I suspect this has been done on purpose to make people think that the actual filter that labour is planning isnt all that bad in some kind of last ditch smooch attempt on Conroy - possibly due to Telstra and co getting left out of the NBN. If you look at what labour has proposed, it goes far beyond just the worst of the worst child abuse material and hence the public backlash. So I can't see any groups like Lulzsec getting all uperty about this filter since it is only blocking the very nasty stuff. Anyway nobody likes kiddy porn except the broken. So I can only imagine this is part of a FUD campaign by Telstra and Conroy to ease Ausies into his planned censorship regime and seed the idea that the whole filtering concept is infact just about blocking child abuse material - which is just not true.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[the_raptor]

Yeah they aren't (ab)using the filter to block anything but the "worst of the worst" now, but the whole uproar over the original filter was unaccountable bureaucrats deciding what would go on the SECRET filter list. I don't see how Telstra deciding what goes on the secret filter list is really any better.

When some idiots claim that the works of Bill Henson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson) are child pornography (and thus a significant portion of classical and renaissance paintings and sculpture) then I don't trust the whole system at all.

The previous government already paid for filtering software for anyone who wanted it, so "accidental" exposure isn't an issue. And filtering HTTP does no good in actually stopping pedophiles from obtaining child pornography as they have mostly shifted to other protocols years ago. There is absolutely zero sensible reason for the filter.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Vegemeister]

First they came for the terrorists,
and i didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist

Then they came for the pedophiles,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pedophile.

Then they came for the flag-burners,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a flag burner.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember last time this happened. The whole UK was forced through 3 proxies when they went to Wikipedia because some twat reported the Virgin Killer album to the censorship authority and they banned it without question.
Then they backed out after Wikipedia was threatening to sue, because like all censorship systems, they go after the weak.

Don't think for a second the same won't happen there.
IT WILL HAPPEN.
No public knowledge of the list == abuse.
Why is it NOT public? If the site is blocked, most people wouldn't even think of going to it if they knew about it.
Those who do either: get caught due to using simple proxies, or get away with it and probably deservingly for being able to evade them. (as much as it pains me to say it)
But at least then people will be able to see if some completely innocent site is blocked, like that hairdressers site that was in one of the Australian censor list leaks a couple years or so ago.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dude! Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? Cut that shit out!" -- Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that's clever, did you make that up?

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Anonymous Coward]

First point... The political party is "Labor" not "Labour".
Second Point: "Uperty" should be "Uppity" and is not an Australian term.
Third point: We're "Aussies", not "Ausies".

Not to mention the logical fallacies in your argument, never mind the grammatical.

Re:Telstras filter |= Conroys proposed filter

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the murderers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a murderer

Then they came for the people that sexually abused children,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't sexually abuse children.

Then they came for the bank robbers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a bank robber.

Then they came for me
and I got a free defence lawyer and all of the protections of the individual in a civilised society, as did all the others previously mentioned in this story.

Quoting that poem doesn't instantly make you insightful.

Who gets to say what's on the list?

[kawabago]

Our local resource center for our less affluent residents provides free internet access. It is supposed to have a filter for porn, only porn. Someone asked me to help them find information on medical marijuana and it was blocked by the filter. It wasn't porn but it was blocked. I asked the manager what else is being blocked? They didn't know. They didn't know how to change it either. I just hope no one dies because of that filter. Filter's always filter out more than they are supposed to, including legitimate political dissent. How free is your country if the government can control what you see, hear and read?

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[crusty_architect]

Interpol

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[Osgeld]

when the government owns the access terminal what the hell do you expect? and if you don't like that then help get these people private access!

besides I doubt anyone is going to die cause their pot superscription ran out

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[AHuxley]

Federal police would get lists from around the world.
Write ins for medical, faith and political issues will then start to flow.
If you can print and post a nice letter, put together a reason why a site should be banned, it might be added :)

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[SuricouRaven]

I imagine that once the infrastructure for censorship is in place, it'll be used for other content deemed illegal. Copyright infringment is first to come to mind, but there is the possibility of future courts issuing blocking orders for material found to be libelous, extreme pornography, hate speech (With all the vagueness that term implies), or an invasion of the privacy of some celebrity who wants their latest scandal kept out of the news.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[crusty_architect]

The list comes from Interpol, there is no possibility of any Australian court or any Australian government adding anything to the list.....

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[SuricouRaven]

Regardless of where the list comes from, adding extra lines is trivial.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[Teun]

Duh!

The pot was just an example on how any secretive filter list can end will be abused.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the ACMA report on the Australian internet filter you will find that the different options they investigated had what they referred to as a OverBlocking rate of 1 - 8%. That is a very high false positive rate if you ask me. It is openly discussed in their report that Australians will be knowingly blocked from accessing legitimate content.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[shoehornjob]

I think the Nanny state needs to back the F off and let the people decide what they want to block. I don't need the gubbermint to tell me what I can or can't see. Those who control the flow of information believe themselves to be your master. Information is power.

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[Osgeld]

it was the most piss poor example possible

ge willikers the government has pot blocked on a public terminal

Re:Who gets to say what's on the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

For this public display of disloyalty to your country, your ID will revealed by data mining, and you will be put on a watch list.

I for one welcome our new haxxor overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't encourage these people. They might be attacking some organizations that we all hate. But at the same time, they attack legitimate organizations just for the kick. You're adding fuel to a flame that doesn't care what it burns.

Some men just want to watch the world burn. Seriously though, if what it takes to keep the Internet free is that big companies can't be too lax on security, so be it.
I could feel sorry for some of their targets, but they screwed Sony so it evens out. Telstra leaves them with positive karma.

Whats the Problem ?

[rust627]

THE voluntary internet filter for CHILD ABUSE ......She said Telstra remained committed to working with the federal government to reduce the availability of CHILD ABUSE material on the net ......"We continue to work with the Australian Federal Police to disrupt the availability of CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE content in Australia," the spokeswoman said ......"One option being considered is the blocking of a list of illegal CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE sites identified as being the worst globally by international policing body Interpol." ......The filter focuses exclusively on internet CHILD ABUSE material from a list maintained by the AFP in co-operation with international law-enforcement agencies ...... A spokesman for Senator Conroy said: "We are still working through the details of the voluntary arrangements with the ISPs and details have not yet been finalised." ......It is understood Telstra was last night still grappling with the decision as to whether to commit to the voluntary filter because of fears of reprisals ...... because of Canberra's support for an internet filter on CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

So its only child abuse sites and no others and has no relationship to the set of banned websites that they were talking about before when they tried to ram it through parliament as legislation, nup, no connection at all, honestly, really, I mean, we all believe what Rupert Murdoch tells us in his loyal newspaper don't we, I mean he is an honest man and would never try to colour any facts would he, see he's told us many times in the same article , its only to do with child abuse pornography and we're all in favour of stopping that aren't we, I mean think of the children, and it would never ever be expanded to cover anything else that this or any future government doesn't like would it ........

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how the Internet works? You are on a technology site, think for a minute. Have you heard of Tor?
Take some reading material back under your rock and study up.

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent idea, too bad that:

1. It doesnt work.

2. They will not keep it at "child abuse"

3. It will be made mandatory the second they think they can get away with it.

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[Vegemeister]

Heh. Voluntary. I wonder what happens to the people who opt out?

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[thePuck77]

Why should people have to use Tor? The internet should be free and this is exactly what hacktivists groups should be doing...putting the fear of the computing gods into those who would attempt to control and censor the internet.

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[lordandmaker]

It's been reported elsewhere (though I have no link to hand) that the actual change isn't that Telstra are deciding to not implement it at all, but that they're considering only implementing the anti-naked-children bit of it, and not the other list, given that not many people are likely to stand up and say "Don't cut off my nekkid children!"

Of course, it'd still be a step in that direction (and, yes, once the tech's there I imagine quietly adding URLs wont be hard at all), but it sort-of goes some way to explaining why the other list isn't being mentioned.

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[thePuck77]

They get put on a list. And that list gets watched. Of course, nothing will happen to the people on that list, just like this filter for "child abuse" won't get expanded to include political and social issues. /sarcasm...just in case you didn't realize.

Re:Whats the Problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

People shouldn't have to use Tor. But it will neatly sidestep any such filter such as this garbage. Which is of course what the pedo's are going to do.

Paedophiles win yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

It kind of makes you wonder where LulzSec loyalties really are. Are they on the side of right and just, or are they supporting paedophiles.

Re:Paedophiles win yet again

[SuricouRaven]

Lulzsec are on the side of Lulz. Their first objective is entertainment. But, if they can advance the cause of freedom in the process, they'll adopt that as a secondary objective.

Sorry Telstra

[gavron]

I don't care if they "blame" lulz... or if lulz really made a difference. Telstra sucks for agreeing to "filter" the Internet. Perhaps it's "great" they want to be like China and filter the Internet. The Internet does not want those filters.

"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore, 1993. That meaning existed llong before Telstra existed, and long after they will.

Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.

E

Re:Sorry Telstra

[jamesh]

Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.

I actually wondered if they used this as an excuse to back out of putting the filter in because they don't really want to. Of course if they really did have a backbone they'd tell the government "no. this won't work, and even if it did work it would be wrong", but at least this way they won't turn on the filter but aren't directly disobeying the government.

As an Australian, I hope lulzsec follow through

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Australian, I hope lulzsec follow through on this - But they should watch out for the legion of script kiddies ASIO has hired recently to backtrack for the gubberment.

This just in

[WinstonWolfIT]

Australia is about half the size of California. Nothing that happens here is newsworthy. Move along and get on with your lives.

Re:This just in

[iosq]

Totally correct, one of the few English speaking, western democracies institutes one of the most restrictive, broad and opaque internet filtering schemes in the world. Who cares about a measly 22 Million people? After all, countries under 50 Mil. Pop. shouldn't even be recognized. Now give us more stories on bitcoins, dammit!

Re:This just in

[AHuxley]

With all the telco consolidation in the US, how many telcos will you have left to enjoy that ipad3 or android or Windows Phone ect on?
Soon you may face your largest/only two mobile telecoms offering a clean feed unless you opt out to enjoy the full web as an adult who showed photo ID and pay extra?
Whats tested in loser zones like the UK, Australia, Canada often gets a roll out later in the US.
Just as facebook/google is searched during a job application, do you think your request for an "opt out" will be really really private?

Re:This just in

[WinstonWolfIT]

It's because we speak English? More Chinese *LEARN* English in any given year than there are Australian residents in total.

the conclusion we draw from this is..

[Errtu76]

the terrorists won

yes, terrorists, i've said it.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[TheGratefulNet]

this is commonly held amount thinkers, today.

so, while its a disturbing thought, at least realize you are in good (virtual) company. many of us SEE this. we are not blind as the administrations think we are. we will remember this dark time in our history. I just hope we get beyond this and move forward as a culture.

right now, I only see backward movement in our cultural evolution, as a species.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[shoehornjob]

I'll assume you are joking because Lulzsec is not a terrorist group. Branding them (or anyone for that matter) a terrorist group seems to be in vogue these days. Terrorists kill people (innocent or not) for their cause. Lulzsec has broken a few laws and maybe put a few companies in their place (Sony for example) but that's a far cry from terrorism.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[Mad Leper]

Exactly, this is textbook terrorism. Very sad to see so many Slashdotters supporting an un-democratic, hateful and downright fascist group.

Anon/Lulsec want to destroy the open Internet and set themselves up as a dictatorship. Coverage of anon/Lulsec has had a chilling effect on many blogs & forums as well. Ars is terrified of drawing their ire and I'm sure Slashdot is being very careful not to criticize or put anon/Lulsec in a bad light for fear of reprisals.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[arth1]

Exactly, this is textbook terrorism. Very sad to see so many Slashdotters supporting an un-democratic, hateful and downright fascist group.

Anon/Lulsec want to destroy the open Internet and set themselves up as a dictatorship.

You are attributing way too many ulterior motives to a bunch of bored and technologically capable teenagers.

Fear can cause this - you paint the enemy black, and assign all sorts of negatives to them. It's a flaw in logic, but helps justify a person's feelings and actions towards who they perceive as a threat.

They're in it for the lulz, and being human, they tend to kick those they don't like more than those they like. Just like you do in your characterization of them. Except that you presumably don't get a laugh and thrill out of it.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[biodata]

I think you might need to throw a bucket of cold water over your head and then get some perspective. Terrorists are people with guns, knives, explosives, or other life-threatening weapons, who cause actual bodily harm or death to civilians in pursuit of political or financial objectives. People in basements who click websites for a laugh are about a million miles away from instilling any kind of terror. For a business to make a sensible u-turn because they realise they will piss off large portions of their customer base and wider society at large, thus damaging their brand, has nothing to do with terrorism and more to do with good business.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[biodata]

This is textbook terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism It might be worth reading it before posting such nonsense.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[Errtu76]

I'll reply to you, but this is for all the folks saying this is not terrorism. Terrorists are not always the people you describe. Same goes for pirates (those Somalians don't all walk around with a wooden leg and a parrot yelling "Arr matey!"). What a terrorist's primary goal is, is to create fear. So much fear that actions performed by that body (in this case, Telstra) will rethink, alter or even abandon their intentions or actions. LulzSec has done exactly that. Forget about what CNN & Co. are teaching you about terrorists and look at the basic definition.

Re:the conclusion we draw from this is..

[biodata]

Basic definition includes violence or threat of violence as far as I can see. Clicking websites doesn't count in my definition, nor most people's I suspect. In Testra's case I think there is probably fear, but nothing much to do with any 'reprisals'. I suspect their fear is that they would damage their brand through a stupid decision to do something that most of their customers and many other people internationally would view very negatively. It's convenient for them to blame an external third party rather than admit their obvious mistake of listening to political lobbyists rather than their customers.

What are you going to do about it??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, our freedoms are going away. The government is using the same logic it uses with its Military. If one person abuses it, no one can have it. The better question to all of you; what the hell are you going to do about it?

Are you going to continue to sit on your butts and post on websites, or get interested in YOUR government?

Think to yourself, what can you do to better the system, and educate your friends and family from using the fatalistic excuse of: That's just the way it is. Because, it's not just the way it is... It's the way YOU'VE allowed it to become.

Honestly, our government isn't small enough or smart enough to create a smoke screen to take our freedoms. Nor would it ever have too, it simply has to start recognizing the threats that have been in existence for years. That coupled with the manipulation of social media (which i do believe they control, and everything else you pay to sit on your butt and watch all day.)

Lets be real for a moment, this is not a free country anymore. However, was it ever a free country? The current status of our government sickness me, almost as much as the people it governs. So enjoy your amenities; your McDonalds, your TV, your FaceBook, your conveniences, your white picket fucking fences. While it all lasts... Hopefully you decide to get involved before it's far too late...

-- The Anonymous solder currently in Iraq

Just three words...

[thePuck77]

Working as intended.

As soon as...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you start giving in to the terrorists, they start winning. This is no different.

Why not filtering vs. botnets/malware also?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the ISP/BSP level. Yes, this is entirely doable (and will stop most folks from "blundering into" those places) via DNSBL (for starters).

  * I don't understand why that's never been undertaken "en masse"...

I know that it IS doable, & yes, being done!

E.G. -> Norton DNS does it in fact (see link below next):

http://nortondns.com/

(In fact, because it does filtering vs. known threats online, I would suggest using it IF you don't like being infested by botnets &/or malware. I use it, it helps, & by ALL means + right at the DNS level in fact!)

I combine it with:

---

1.) System security-hardening:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=HOW+TO+Secure+Windows+2000%2FXP&btnG=Google+Search

2.) Firewall rules tables (for blocking IP address based attackers)

3.) A custom HOSTS file that currently blocks 1,457,748++ KNOWN bad sites/servers/hosts-domains currently as of 15 minutes ago from 15 reputable sources online ( & growing all the time via an automated system here I co-designed with my nephew, hence the incrementor C/C++ operator)

4.) Std. stuff too, or it should be @ least nowadays, in AntiVirus/AntiMalware resident programs!

(Microsoft Security Essentials is what I use in this capacity, because it does BOTH virus/spyware protection, AND, it's FREE (bonus), & works + is VERY regularly updated (like 4-5x a day or more)).

All that, & for implementing "layered security" (the best thing we have going currently vs. online threats afaik!)

---

(So - Yes: The data for that IS out there, you just have to use it - not usually "automated" though: Still, the "geek community online" seems to take care of its own, IF you look for it, that is...)

Hey - I found it & IF I can? So can others, especially those working in security efforts for populating DNSBL block lists @ the ISP/BSP level...

(Again, I do so, via a PyThon system my nephew & I co-wrote (write once, run anywhere is why, moved from a Delphi model I wrote myself & used 2004-2010)) so it's as "automagic" & transparent/hands-off touchfree operations pretty much).

Hey - that type of code, it's not "rocket-science"!

(Like any code, it just takes a bit of time to think it out, & build an automator for that type of work is all reallyl, & efforts in doing file access + wget type work (*NIX scripting, & yes, I've seen scripts that could be adapted to do it as I do via PyThon currently as I do)).

DNSBL filters? Again, stressing it - They & data FOR they IS out there too ( & converting data I use for a HOSTS file isn't tough either for that purpose... or, vice-a-versa really!)

So, IF I CAN DO IT, just a single person?? Why can't these ISP/BSP's do it via DNSBL as I noted, & for the "common man/Joe Public" also???

(I mean, face it - MOST of the time? Filtering online's done to STOMP the little guy, & done in the name of big industries or gov't.'s trying to suppress "dissidents" instead... @ least that's what I've been seeing - how about you?)

Thoughts?

APK

P.S.=> The "downside"? It'd probably affect a LOT of IT jobs in say, removal of malware/virus/spyware/botnet infestations... but, so what!

There's always other things we geeks do during the day (though while working those jobs, a good 85% of your day was battling those)... not doing it? It's like saying:

"Yes, we CAN cure cancer - but, it would put a lot of doctors out of work"

Take your pick there - & on which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Hey - Putting doctors out of work imo, but again, they TOO have other maladies to deal with (so they would STILL HAVE WORK, period - same with PC techies too!)

... apk

You know there's something wrong with society when

[Techguy666]

all that stands between us and censorship, corruption, secrecy or other Big Brother-esque ideology are people the public label "vigilantes". Would that not suggest that government, democracy, and even capitalism has failed?

Yeah, okay.

[kjzk]

Australia has become a hotbed in internet censorship projects and ideas lately. Looks like they are now using Lulzsec as an excuse to further strip away free speech.

Cost of operation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the cost of operating a business. Just like lobbying, lawsuits, and patents.

Curious: What about filtering of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Known sites/servers/hosts-domains that house or serve up malware-in-general(e.g. -> spyware/viruses), botnets C&C server locations, or maliciously scripted pages?

(You know, bogus junk that ruins folks' computers or steals their ca$h, etc./et al)

* Just curious!

APK

P.S.=> Personally, I think that'd be a significant advance for security vs. them (like doing as Norton DNS does currently, albeit having it instituted all over the place (all DNS servers from ISP/BSP etc.))... Thanks for your thoughts in response reply!

... apk

As soon as...

[biodata]

a company realises their decision was stupid, unpopular across the world, and likely to damage their brand they start changing their mind.

1 addendum, to "the powers that be" (politicians)

[Anonymous Coward]

From The Legendary Bob Dylan, & what he sang (lyrics-wise) in "The Times they are a Changin'"

You people know me: I like making analogies via artforms like film!

Mostly, better than quoting:

---

1.) Scripture, chapter & verse (as I did here in this exchange in fact, lol)

2.) Classical literature

---

As, imo @ least, more folks are wont to have a backdrop in this using contemporary pieces/examples of film (or music) (though I am often wont to quote scripture now & again too, biblical passages)

Albeit - This time?

It's

#3 Music

( & imo a FINE piece, just for a change & to get a message across (I hope, lol)):

---

"Oh congressmen, senators, please heed the call -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2265388&cid=36553756 Don't stand in the doorway, don't blockup the hall: He that GETS HURT, will be he who has stalled... BIG BATTLE OUTSIDE, RAGIN' (hacker/cracker stuff, spam/phishing, & virus/spyware/malware-in-general, etc./et al), will soon shake your MICROSOFT WINDOWS, & RATTLE YOUR FIREWALLS, for the times? They ARE 'a-changin'"...

---

BIGTIME, & not for the better...

(Though many are trying from our arena in the computer sciences to make it so, it's NOT enough... change, REAL CHANGE, always starts @ home & @ the top!)

* Nuff said...

APK

P.S.=> Hope you all "caught my drift"...

... apk