Hacktivists Force Pause in Australian Net Censorship

[Keava]

I'm all for freedom of speech and being able to gain information from any means but i see no problem with them blocking child porn sites. Sure if they start saying other sites are evil and need to be blocked then there is a problem. But if they are blocking sites connected to terrorism and child pornography and human mutilation...I'm okay with it.

How far is far enough however? What do you consider justified and what not? And what about others? A single groups or individuals views on what is "eew" should never be excuse for censorship.

It's like with freedom of speech. Either we allow people to say what they want, including ideas that we consider wrong, stupid or "disturbing" in one way or another or we don't have freedom of speech at all.

You want to block child porn/mutilation on your own PC - feel free to do so, there is loads of software, even free, that let's you do it, but the moment you force it on entire group of people it's censorship, and there is no such thing as good censorship in public space, no matter how disturbing the content might be.

 

[rickynumber24]

Wow, if this is true then that means that Anonymous has actually achieved it's goals, at least slightly. I agree with most of the ideals Anonymous stands for, but I really doubted that they could have any positive effect through their methods. Apparently I was wrong, which is definitely a good thing.

It's also pretty worrying though... what if groups with more questionable ideals start doing the same thing?

Anonymous are a bunch of internet terrorists, and occasionally I worry about the implications of that.
That said, I've always been pleased that they have their heart in the right place, when they decide to actually select a target for the purpose of making a statement.

 

[Marudas]

Here's the problem. Yes, Child Pornography is bad, wrong, and a litany of other words, and in itself is illegal and yes, is probably a very valid candidate for censorship. However, here's the problem. If you start letting the government Censor the internet, you set a very, very ugly precedent. You compromise freedom, even if its the freedom to do something incredibly wrong. The line then becomes ambiguous. People will kick it around a bit and see how far they can stretch their ability to censor things they don't like.

Its kinda like the Flagburning thing in the states for me. People keep trying to have it outlawed, because "ITS SO PATRIOTIC AND STUFF". Listen, I'm not saying anyone should burn flags, that's a given, but like this above case, the second you compromise the first amendment, you've screwed us all over.

Its just one of those All or Nothing scenarios for me. If you want to do something about child pornography, attack the sick people making it.

 

[Wintermoot]

So wait....Stopping people from looking up child porn is bad? Now i may not be a genius but last i checked child porn is a horrible thing and if that is what they are blocking i am all for it.

I think it,s more the principle and fear they might censor more sites in the future (torrent sites or 4chan for example).
if they can do this what,s their next step going to be? blocking Wikileaks or 4chan?
I,m going to use a quote here:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

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

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

I,m not saying the AU government are Nazi,s just that if they start censoring CP sites there is nothing stopping them from censoring piracy sites or 4chan.

 

[DEAD34345]

Wow, if this is true then that means that Anonymous has actually achieved it's goals, at least slightly. I agree with most of the ideals Anonymous stands for, but I really doubted that they could have any positive effect through their methods. Apparently I was wrong, which is definitely a good thing.

It's also pretty worrying though... what if groups with more questionable ideals start doing the same thing?

Anonymous are a bunch of internet terrorists, and occasionally I worry about the implications of that.
That said, I've always been pleased that they have their heart in the right place, when they decide to actually select a target for the purpose of making a statement.

Exactly.

It's all well and good while Anonymous is using its "hacktivism" for good causes, but what happens when other groups (or maybe even Anonymous itself) start doing the same for other causes?

I just hope they don't catch on.

 

[sir.rutthed]

No shit, Sherlock. See, this is why groups like Anon are good. No reasonable/healthy person is going to argue that child porn is a good thing, but this crosses a line when the ISP's voluntarily censor information. Whose to say what they consider off limits? Maybe they block competitor's websites so customers can't change providers. It's all too likely when private companies attempt to censor information. And that's why Anon is there. In spite of themselves, they actually do get their point across sometimes.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

I think that these illegal websites should just be brought down.
Or is it more complicated than that?
Because i do agree that if this was to go through, levels of censorship would only escalate.

 

[Treblaine]

Hmm, These "hacktivists". Vigilantes. Secret identities. Scourge of governments and criminals alike. Driven by their own mysterious code of ideals. Act as individuals in loose association.

Superheroes and super-villains are not longer comic book fantasies.

Really how different is "Intentet Anonymity" from Peter Parker's "Secret Identity"

 

[Creator002]

Wow. I never imagined Anonymous having this kind of impact. This is good. If Tesltra is too scared of them to put the filter into action, I guess I'll be switching to them later this year.
I hope no other hacking group (like LulzSec, God forbid) catch wind of this.

 

[Blaster395]

Anonymous, now you must live up to your potential threat by taking down the companies that are activating the filter.

 

[Tdc2182]

I'm rather conflicted in this.

For one, I absolutely hate the crazy amount of censorship being done by Australians.

But on another hand, this company seemed to only be out to block sites containing child pornography, something that is harmful to children.

Fucking grow a pair already.

Were you hacked or something? Because I've seen a few of your posts before, and they were at least semi-intelligent.

Right now you are completely for Australians losing their last bastion of freedom that is being uncontrolled by their rather dystopian like Government. Just realize that before you keep commenting on this shit.

You by yourself are making me think that there can be wrong opinions.

 

[Treblaine]

That's different. Maybe if they only went with child porn and videos of the like sure. But all that other stuff shouldn't be censored. Well the Dentist should be censored too. They are evil.

And I think kids are about as afraid of dentists as they are of kidnappers. It's just one is offering them sweets and the other is saying they can't have any.

But this is the problem with politicians and why so many countries actually have Freedom of Speech protected in their constitution, the government CANNOT be trusted with censorship. You give them an inch and they will take out a city block, they legislate and rule on points they know next to nothing about, they don't care if they harm minority interests.

You give them the power to deny access wholesale to information, they won't stop at child porn, they'll put all sorts of shit on that blacklist because - well - they're bloody politicians, they got into the business to change the world!

ISPs have the right to block sites they think are abusing children but USE THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT! Don't just follow a list the politicians hand you. What kind of back-room threats did the government make to these companies? Did they threaten harsher taxation, slash of subsidies or deny authorisation to lay new cable?

Because the government will do shit like:

"Fucking kids on 4chan, it's a den of hackers I tell ya"
"Maybe we can nab them for child porn, there has to be one 'lolikon' picture on there somewhere."
"YEAH! that'll teach em for making 'memes' AHH HA HA HA!"

 

[Hugga_Bear]

This...is pretty fantastic. I gave up on Anonymous around the time Enturbulation went down. Seeing them have a positive effect (as others have said it's not about blocking child porn, it has very little to do with that) has rekindled some of my hope for the group.

Of course, no doubt others will see it as a means for them to cause more annoyance/fear but at least they've begun to make progress. This is genuinely really good to hear.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because attempting to enforce longstanding law is such a terrible slippery slope.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Hmm, These "hacktivists". Vigilantes. Secret identities. Scourge of governments and criminals alike. Driven by their own mysterious code of ideals. Act as individuals in loose association.

Superheroes and super-villains are not longer comic book fantasies.

Really how different is "Intentet Anonymity" from Peter Parker's "Secret Identity"

Indeed.

Back when lulzsec was purely a chaotic and dissruptive entity, people compared it to the joker, and anonomoyous to Batman.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

Okay hip hip hoooray for Anonymous
Its kind of cool that those guys can have such an impact on the big corporations nowadays. But considering the large amount of attack lately im not surprised they became that popular. Hopefully Optus will wise up and stop doing crazy shit.

Dont get me wrong im all up for banning child pornsites and stuff BUT! Cant they just be shut down instead of putting a forced filter on people. And i was given to understand that our speeds actually will be lowered. And Aussies already suffer shitty internet X_X

 

[Asehujiko]

So wait....Stopping people from looking up child porn is bad? Now i may not be a genius but last i checked child porn is a horrible thing and if that is what they are blocking i am all for it.

I don't know about you but I'd rather put up with the 0.1% of child porn that isn't on darknets or p2p then oversightless and unappealable censorship by a privately owned corporation with a direct interest in silencing dissenting news outlets and shutting out competitors.

 

[9Darksoul6]

"At least one Australian ISP is wavering on plans to begin blocking illegal websites next month because of fear of reprisals from 'internet vigilantes.'"
Seriously, Chalk, what kind of work is that?
Could you please re-write that sentence and focus a little more on your opinion? It's not emphatic enough.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

It's also pretty worrying though... what if groups with more questionable ideals start doing the same thing?

They already have. It was because of 201 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim] have not been broadcast since their original release, and 201 appeared censored. In fact, 201 will continue to be censored by Comedy Central standards and practices for the DVD release.

So wait....Stopping people from looking up child porn is bad? Now i may not be a genius but last i checked child porn is a horrible thing and if that is what they are blocking i am all for it.

Regarding censorship of the internet, most lists come from the same sources, which are strongly supported (and influenced) by extremist Christian evangelist groups here in the US, which creates some interesting disparities in what is censored and what is not. While hate sites, for example, are generally tracked and censored, anti-gay hate sites, especially when hosted by known groups such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the official Dr. Laura web page and Concerned Women for America, are left available. This is the case even if the language chosen by these organizations would have been banned if it were used anywhere else (or simply quoted from those sites).

Our censor lists also have a tendency to block any fringe group that is in any way odd or otherwise have a dubious reputation, whether valid or not, such as Goth sites, Furry sites or Neopagan sites. They also will censor out discussion of specific topics just because it contains keywords (such as a historical account of Satanic Ritual Abuse just because it contains the word Satanic, or fairy tales and children's fiction that feature witches).

As there is no public accountability for internet censorship wherever it appears, its control is left in dubious hands.

And whether or not you like Anonymous in general, this is a fight in which we want someone throwing in for the rest of us.

238U.