Hacktivists Force Pause in Australian Net Censorship

[Ashadow700]

We were talking about the global politics and power in class one day, when we got into how the internet affects free speech and democracy. My teacher said that he was convinced that in the future the internet would not be as open as it is today, as the 'high guys' have allways found new ways to control the flow of information. It was quite depressing to hear, as I realized that he was probably right.

But now Anon and the other hackers out there actually is starting to prove him wrong, which is just amazing to hear. It gives me quite a bit of hope that we will not see a new dictatorship grow up any time soon. Perhaps not ever. So, big thumbs up to you guys! Even if it means shutting off my online gamming every now and then.

 

[health-bar]

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.

you beat me to it.

 

[the1ultimate]

Awesome!

Maybe this will mean things can stay how they are...

I suppose in the long run that's not a full solution though.

Plus I'm worried that once the other ones go ahead, Telstra will do it anyway.

 

[DaHero]

Isn't this whole business to stop child porn sites? If so, what the flying fuck are people complaining about?

They are trying to block businesses and websites that aren't child porn sites.

 

[Atheist.]

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.

In itself no. But it's a form of censorship forced onto you by a company/government, and is not only limited to child pornography. As time progresses they might put filters on other stuff as well and you, as end user, will have no say in that. It never should be in ISPs or governmetns power to filter what you can and cannot access through internet.

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.

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.

It's not bad because they're blocking child porn, it's bad because they are blocking anything. I'm a strong believer in internet freedoms, so I'm against internet censorship regardless of what it is that's being censored.

So you have no problem with child porn roaming free? In my head that painted a silly image. But read my above post you'll see what i mean.

That's not what this is about, at all.

It's about setting legal precedent to allow said censorship. Once they set a legal precedent they can reference the case to allow more censorship. One by one every website deemed "bad" will be taken off the internet. I am in no way saying child pornography is good. It's the fact that other things I enjoy, I don't want to be taken off the internet.

Same deal with the Geohotz case. Sony would have set a legal precedent, which is currently in violation of the DCMA, saying you're essentially renting your hardware rather than buying it.

Fucking grow a pair already.

Are you actually going to contribute to the conversation, or just insult everyone straight up?

 

[Dogstile]

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.

Its not that, everyones for blocking child porn, but nobody is for censorship. Pretty much people are scared of the government using their power like china does and blocking out "undesirable" sites, which is understandable.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

There's no properly defined checks and balance system in place for it, and once you get your foot in its easier to start contesting what other stuff people should be allowed to look at.

Isn't this whole business to stop child porn sites? If so, what the flying fuck are people complaining about?

They are trying to block businesses and websites that aren't child porn sites.

Wait, really?

"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.

Eh?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Totally...fucking...called it.

There was no way that Anon wouldn't be a factor in deciding to fire this shit filter up.

 

[GiantRedButton]

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.

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.
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.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

Hey, take away anyones 4Chan and they'll be pissed

 

[ph0b0s123]

So are hacktivists going to go after UK ISP's then? ISP's that have had this system in place for a few years with the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) filtering done voluntarily.

 

[Alar]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Alar]

EDIT: Bloody hell, double post. I could've swore it didn't work the first time...

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

Well I have to say....we've all called that that'll happen. I honestly think they should back down and actually be afraid.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

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.

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.

That's the very most extreme it could go, but don't even for a second believe that it couldn't happen.

 

[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"

Indeed.

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

Yeah I wonder how much we all - intentionally or unintentionally - emulate the superhero mould when we go on the internet.

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.