Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Gov't Censors Censored

Posted by jamie on from the two-wrongs-make-a-right-Lisa dept.

According to this Wired article, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which has been working to censor its citizens since 1995, got its site defaced by a cracker on Friday. The site was taken down for half a day for repairs. Among the messages left: "People only now can get connectivity the USA has enjoyed for years. And now one of the greatest resources we have for free speech and free learning will be stifled by a vocal minority with no understanding of the underlying technology." For info on the situation, visit Electronic Frontiers Australia.

7 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Worsens things by hernick · · Score: 4

    If a cracker, who admitted also being a heavy drug user, is portrayed as the type of person that does not want censorship, I believe that it can only hurt the case of the others that are opposed to censorship.

    I wonder how this censorship thing will turn out ? I believe that they have a similar system in Singapore. Does anybody know how well it works down there ?

    As has been said multiple times, it is impossible to censor the internet and block someone who knows what he's doing. I'd expect the ISPs to comply, but anybody with basic technical expertise would probably get an offshore shell account and run a proxy there. It might actually be an incentive for the young to learn about tunneling technologies that would allow them to bypass censorship. What do you think ? Will people even bother to learn, or will we see Australian-Censorship-Bypass-HOWTO along with a full range of new software to help in the process ?

    However, if means to bypass censorship became too widespread, the governement could take action by limiting access to the ressources using to bypass censorship. Imagine if they placed Australia behind a filtering proxy that only let HTTP connections through, and required a permit to open any other port ?

    But most likely the governement will just realise that censorship is not enforceable, and either just let the law in place, without a major effect (anyone who wants access to censored things will get access, one way or another) or they will simply notice that and repell the law..

    It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

  2. Attrition Mirror by Mr.+White · · Score: 5


    Attrition mirror of the site.

    Also, an article on this incident from Australia ZDNet.

    --
    witold.org
  3. Bad thing, but... by rde · · Score: 4

    The Australian government has announced the composition of the board of NetAlert, a "community advisory" body responsible for researching filtering tools and educating parents about Internet access.

    Ironically, this is (IMO) just what's needed. Imagine a world where informed parents used filtering software that they controlled. The EFA call this "another example of the paternalism exhibited by the current government", but if implemented correctly -- with the emphasis on education -- then this could very well be a Good Thing.

  4. the irony of this by Raleel · · Score: 5

    I saw this yesterday, and the first thing I thought was "How in the hell did he manage to spell methyldioxymethamphetamines while on them?"

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
  5. Well... by jd · · Score: 4
    At least the Australians are willing to call a spade a spade (or, at least, a digging implement of ancient origin).

    On the other hand, REGARDLESS of whether the Australian Government has any right to do this (rights are culturally-based and what may be a truism in the US may be a pathetic joke elsewhere), I'm not sure I'd trust a censor to be competent if they can't even manage a website.

    In fact, it sounds like they farmed out most of the work. A bit like the British Government, with Group 4. That turned into a bit of a fiasco, too. If you can't do the work, you shouldn't be taking it on.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  6. Irony @ Wired by nconway · · Score: 4
    Anyone notice this in the Wired article:

    "You can't [Censored] censor me" the cracker wrote

  7. Well-spoken cracker? by Denor · · Score: 5

    It seems to me that every time I see a cracker take down a webpage and put up in its place a political statement of his/her own, it's littered with swearing, and poor grammar. More likely than not, an attack like this isn't going to affect anyone. People straddling the fence on this issue before will take one look at the website and say "This kind of thing should be censored!" -- which is exactly what we don't want.

    What's the point in cracking something if you're going to do more harm than good?

    --
    -Denor