Hacktivists Force Pause in Australian Net Censorship
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The part about the filter I have trouble with is the undefined materials they can expand it to block. Telstra/Foxtel already block Australia's access to sites like Hulu because it's a threat to their pay TV monopoly. With a filter in place, they will be free to block whatever they want.
Totally...fucking...called it.
There was no way that Anon wouldn't be a factor in deciding to fire this shit filter up.
There was no way that Anon wouldn't be a factor in deciding to fire this shit filter up.
last time they tried it the list of banned sites was leaked by wikileaks, only a small part was offensive most were ramdom sites and some poltical + anthing anon is affiliated with like 4chan and also sites of smll buisnesses.Donnyp said:
The childporn thing is just a publicity stunt to achieve..well reactions like yours. The exact same thing happened in germany but it was fended off due to a goverment change.
The filter would do far more than just block child porn, as I understand it. That, and as was said earlier, it had very little accountability and was quite vague, meaning they might be able to block other things that aren't child porn because they feel it might be too closely related, or something like that.Donnyp said:
I think stopping child pornography needs to go deeper than just blocking it online. Fine the bastards that are making it in real life and either throw them away to rot forever or hang 'em.
Well I have to say....we've all called that that'll happen. I honestly think they should back down and actually be afraid.
but obviously it won't just be childporn. Australian is easily the worst "western" (obviously not literally western) nation in terms of censorship and has been for years now. I can easily see one hell of a lot of websites being banned if this goes ahead, and I can also see the government later FORCING ISPs to censor these things when the companies that originally do it lose loads of money because nobody wants to be with their internet any more, and hey-presto, you have totally government controlled and censored internet.Donnyp said:
That's the very most extreme it could go, but don't even for a second believe that it couldn't happen.
Yeah I wonder how much we all - intentionally or unintentionally - emulate the superhero mould when we go on the internet.Jabberwock xeno said:Indeed.Treblaine said: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"
Back when lulzsec was purely a chaotic and dissruptive entity, people compared it to the joker, and anonomoyous to Batman.
We don't just take up a counterfeit identity, like pretending to be John Smith and use a real picture of a different person, we come up with imaginative names like Fronzel, Ashadow, and Jabberwock and an avatar pic of an adopted persona.
if anonymous is any superhero it isn't Batman, it's V, from V for Vendetta:
Talking in riddles, that mask, anti-establishment, vaguely anti-religion (fictional V fought against a theocratic state) and with dream of inspiring mass revolution and encouraging copycats.
Lolzsec, that "persona" isn't the joker, neither Nickolson, Ledger nor Hamill's take on the character. There was no funny side to Joker, he would laugh at chaos and diaster without any real attempts at jokes.
Lolzsec is a poser, a big distraction but mostly harmless who plays a bit too much fun and games, they hack websites to make a joke about how good their web security is with a fake advert for the companies that secured the site. That's more like the Riddler, but without the riddles.
Who is the Batman of the internet?
-doesn't personally use guns or lethal weapons
-penchant for many non lethal weapons (tazers)
-depends on fear/reputation
-works closely with police
-succeeds through detective skills and trickery
Sounds like Chris Hansen. Chris Hansen is Batman.
This is somehow worse then TRULY ignoring it by... ignoring it?JacobShaftoe said:
You act like they have options. THEY DON'T. Their options are "block it" or "don't block it". If they're extremely lucky, they can backtrace one of them or fool one into a trap, but most pedophiles are way smarter then that.
iiNet have gotten more and more anti-regulation of the net ever since those seppo movie companies tried to sue fuck out of them.JacobShaftoe said:
Not until they scare Telstra into providing decent customer service.
Honestly, while I hate the thought of Australia going the way of china, what probably isn't apparent is that the UK already does this, and nobody really notices.
Seriously, if you try and find child porn sites (like the kind the list they're talking about here probably contains) from the UK, it's as if they don't exist, because they're being filtered out.
So... When I look at this issue I don't know what to make of it.
Because of what China has done, and the obvious lack of accountability in what is being proposed, there's certainly valid concerns about Austalia's attempts to filter the internet.
On the other hand, I've heard no mention of anyone being too concerned about the sites being filtered out in the UK, and it's not like you notice it anyway...
I've come across so much extreme content even with this supposed filtering that it's pretty obvious that what is being filtered must be very limited (and pretty messed up indeed considering what isn't being blocked.)
Seriously, if you try and find child porn sites (like the kind the list they're talking about here probably contains) from the UK, it's as if they don't exist, because they're being filtered out.
So... When I look at this issue I don't know what to make of it.
Because of what China has done, and the obvious lack of accountability in what is being proposed, there's certainly valid concerns about Austalia's attempts to filter the internet.
On the other hand, I've heard no mention of anyone being too concerned about the sites being filtered out in the UK, and it's not like you notice it anyway...
I've come across so much extreme content even with this supposed filtering that it's pretty obvious that what is being filtered must be very limited (and pretty messed up indeed considering what isn't being blocked.)
It won't only blacklist child porn sites. It has a whole list of things that by normal standards are just NSFW (including small breasted porn... because of its proximity to child pornography...) and even then, if a legitimately safe site gets filtered, such as a dentistry (that happened in England with their web filtering trials) the appeal process is little to none.
They are trying to filter something that is feasibly and logistically impossible, and child porn sites aren't even public, so blocking those ones is also impossible unless you know more than you should (as in, you ARE a user of said sites)
I did a legal studies presentation on internet censorship. I could go on.
They are trying to filter something that is feasibly and logistically impossible, and child porn sites aren't even public, so blocking those ones is also impossible unless you know more than you should (as in, you ARE a user of said sites)
I did a legal studies presentation on internet censorship. I could go on.
You know what's funny?Instead of tracking people who visit these sites and checking on their activities and I mean really checking on their activities not arresting them on the spot(there are people who visit by accident/curiosity and there are sexual deviants like that who wouldn't touch a child and keep their thing in check) the government censures sites because it's easier.I also think that they won't stop at just that.I have a whole lot of videos on Youtube blocked off especially ones uploaded by corporations because apparently I belong to a country of pirates and I'm not entitled to watching what the rest of the world does.
well you have to be on one side or the other a free internet or everything filtered.I still prefer the free internet and freedom of choice but disagree with child porn.
But its one of the other so i will stand for a free internet and still support most of Anonymous ideals
But its one of the other so i will stand for a free internet and still support most of Anonymous ideals
I'm not saying that countries shouldn't have the power to block websites, but just that that power should be extremely limited and with many checks and balances.
For example each site blocked on a site-by-site basis by a court, with a full appeals processes and NO POLITICAL INFLUENCE! A lot of people poo-poo America's bill-of-rights (usually the liberal gun-hating types who dislike the 2nd amendment) but this is enshrined in the 5th Amendment that guarantees Due Process. In other words the leaders cannot be a tyrant ruling by whim, but rule by law.
At the moment this "blacklist" clearly has a LOT of political meddling and even if it doesn't at the moment it will in the future. It doesn't matter if this blacklist is enforced by law or if the government abuses it's position of controlling taxations/licensing to force ISPs to enforce the blacklist.
If there is child abuse online, then the police and the courts deal with that. NOT legislators with special interests, NOT executives (Premier/President) on a vendetta. The courts should go through all the motions of valuing pros and cons of the censorship, and keep front and foremost their aim is to PROTECT CHILDREN, not act as morality police. A good measure would be if they aren't going to prosecute people for owning the content on the site, what justification is there for blocking the site?
What we are seeing in Australia is terribly bad governance, the way they slap-dash these measures together, they do nothing to satisfy the concerns of their critics.
For example each site blocked on a site-by-site basis by a court, with a full appeals processes and NO POLITICAL INFLUENCE! A lot of people poo-poo America's bill-of-rights (usually the liberal gun-hating types who dislike the 2nd amendment) but this is enshrined in the 5th Amendment that guarantees Due Process. In other words the leaders cannot be a tyrant ruling by whim, but rule by law.
At the moment this "blacklist" clearly has a LOT of political meddling and even if it doesn't at the moment it will in the future. It doesn't matter if this blacklist is enforced by law or if the government abuses it's position of controlling taxations/licensing to force ISPs to enforce the blacklist.
If there is child abuse online, then the police and the courts deal with that. NOT legislators with special interests, NOT executives (Premier/President) on a vendetta. The courts should go through all the motions of valuing pros and cons of the censorship, and keep front and foremost their aim is to PROTECT CHILDREN, not act as morality police. A good measure would be if they aren't going to prosecute people for owning the content on the site, what justification is there for blocking the site?
What we are seeing in Australia is terribly bad governance, the way they slap-dash these measures together, they do nothing to satisfy the concerns of their critics.
So the one time Anonymous got real change done is the one time they didn't actually do anything?
I... wow.
I... wow.
