Slashdot Mirror
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.
I don't know if we should be thankful. These sort of things never end well.
neato
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.
Disagree != mod troll.
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.
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.
Great Intellect...
... a chilling effect on censorship
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?)
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.
This (minor?) victory puts the notion of Intelligent Disobedience in a new light.
there are actual silver linings.
LulzSec getting praised for accomplishing good.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
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.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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 ........
da da da dum indeed.
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.
And if I look at the stories that got filtered out from me there it is. Oh well lolz.
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
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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Australia is about half the size of California. Nothing that happens here is newsworthy. Move along and get on with your lives.
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.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
The MS rep from the US used 3 napkins over a very expensive lunch - the line art on napkin 2 shows they are safe.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What are you, 5 years old? Haven't seen such naivete since I went to primary school.
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
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).
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.
Must have been some interesting primary school to fully purge all ability of critical thinking.
Working as intended.
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
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.
Requiem for the American Dream
Uhh, according to Wikipedia
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
Requiem for the American Dream
Tell that to whoever coordinates worldwide news.
Requiem for the American Dream
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
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
On an interesting note, many of US schools are in fact private...
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Merely one of those things that makes public indistinguishable from private, when both function to advance common interests of the powerful
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
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.
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.
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".
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.
I shudder when thinking of whom this "we" might encompass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Korma: Good
This is textbook terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism It might be worth reading it before posting such nonsense.
Korma: Good
a company realises their decision was stupid, unpopular across the world, and likely to damage their brand they start changing their mind.
Korma: Good
They currently own around 70% of the wealth in the nation. We would all starve to death long before they run out of money.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
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.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
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.
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.
Korma: Good