Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Botnet Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

Operation Titstorm Hits the Streets 458

Posted by timothy
from the koala-masks dept.
schliz writes "Hacker group 'Anonymous' is organising international, real-life protests of the Australian mandatory internet filter this coming Saturday. Protests will take place in major Australian cities as well as at Australian embassies around the world. The protests are said to be the second stage of 'Operation Titstorm,' which unleashed a prolonged DDoS attack on Australian government websites last week. Organisers of the so-called Project Freeweb said: 'If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level. The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Operation Titstorm Hits the Streets

Comments Filter:
  • Re:viva revolutsion! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:47AM (#31141338) Homepage Journal
    Fuck 'em. Here's where to hit them, from some scumsucking possibly bunk website:

    Australian General Consulate Atlanta, GA -
    Suite 970, One Buckhead Plaza 3060 Peachtree Road, NW Atlanta 30305 United States of America Tel:(+1 404) 760 3400 Fax: (+1 404) 760 3401

    Australian General Consulate in Chicago, IL -
    123 North Wacker Drive Suite 1330 Chicago IL 60606 United States of America Tel: 1 312 419 1480 Fax: 1 312 419 1499

    Australian Consulate in Detroit, MI -
    860 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Bloomfield Hills Detroit MI 48302-2086 United States of America Tel: +1 248 593 9000 Fax: +1 248 593 9001

    Australian Consulate in Denver, CO -
    9200 West Cross Drive, Suite #110 Littleton Denver CO 80209 United States of America Tel: 1 303 321 2234 Fax: 1 303 973 9938

    Australian General Consulate in Honolulu, HI
    - Penthouse, 1000 Bishop Street Honolulu 96813 United States of America Tel: 1 808 524 5050 Fax: 1 808 531 5142

    Australian Consulate in Houston, TX -
    5757 Woodway Drive #175 Houston TX 77057 United States of America Tel:1 713 782 6009 Fax: 1 713 782 7509

    Australian Consulate in Miami, FL -
    Suite 208 2525 SW Third Avenue Miami FL 33129 United States of America Tel:1 305 858 7633 Fax:1 305 857 0044

    Australian General Consulate New York , NY -
    150 East 42nd Street, 34th fl, New York NY 10017, USA Tel; (212) 351-6500 Fax: (212)351-6501


    Australian Mission to The United Nations in New York, NY -
    150 East 42 Street, Level 33 New York NY 10017 United States of America Tel: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6600 Fax: (1-212 or 1-646) 351 6610

    Australian General Consulate San Francisco, CA -
    625 Market Street, Suite 200 (Cnr Market and New Montgomery Streets) San Francisco CA 94105-3304 United States of America Tel: 1 415 536 1970 Fax: 1 415 536 1982

    Australian Embassy in Washington, DC -
    11601 Massachusetts Ave Washington DC NW 20036-2273 United States of America Tel:1 202 797 3000 Fax:1 202 797 3331 E-mai:General enquiries: library.washington@dfat.gov.au
  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:56AM (#31141388)

    Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization.

    Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian [theaustralian.com.au], or more via google [google.com.au]

  • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:15AM (#31141528) Homepage

    Well I think it's the protestors who are taking on the mantle of "Anonymous", not the press who are attributing it to them. The press largely doesn't understand what the deal is with "Anonymous", but then a lot of the press is never really digs into these things.

    Also, it's true that "the people" don't do anything as a whole. You get some subset working on something, and even if they're very poorly organized, it helps you have a term for them so you can reference them easily.

    I thought part of the reason people liked claiming to be part of "Anonymous" was that the press didn't understand what the hell was going on. Basically anyone can validly claim to be "Anonymous" so long as they're... you know... anonymous... and the press will suddenly act like that person is the head of a powerful hacker terrorist crime syndicate.

  • Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:17AM (#31141538)

    In the US as well [wired.com]

    You gotta love the weasley quote from "Frenchy" Lunning, "Handley is not a pedophile. He had no photographs of child pornography."

    I suppose it would be a waste of time to photograph child porn. Scanning seems like a much better way to retain all the juicy details.

  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:38AM (#31141644)

    It was named in part to bring to light the stupid rules used by ACMA to classify content, the week 'Operation titstorm' was announced by Anonymous a story [smh.com.au] came to light about ACMA banning some porn as 'Child Porn' because the legal-age woman had small tits. The initial idea was to fax/email massive amounts of small breasted pornography to all parts of the Australian government, but most of the focus has been on the DDoS.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:47AM (#31141694)

    It is named Operation Titstorm due to the Government adding liking small breasted women = pedophile like activity and therefore illegal to the filter plans. They also added nylon fetishes because of it being a fetish and female ejaculation "because it is a myth". These are the type people in control of the filter.

  • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

    by Miseph (979059) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:09AM (#31141786) Journal

    "Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American'

    Because it is demonstrably true. And no, I will not give sources, this is common knowledge. I know that Taco periodically gives a bunch of random statistics on site usage, and at least once he broke it down by country: it was something like 75% American, 10% Canadian and 15% everyone else when I last saw it. Granted, a lot of /.ers are likely to be using proxies/TOR/other connections that will obfuscate their true location, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority probably don't.

  • Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)

    by jonwil (467024) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:39AM (#31141934)

    My belief is that NO content is so bad that it justifies censorship of this kind.
    Even if it is Osama Bin Laden brutally raping and murdering little kids (to think of the most extreme example its possible to think of), those who host, share, create, post, publish and spread the content should be targeted. Censorship of the kind the government wants to introduce is NOT the answer.

    As for those who say "I support the filtering system because it keeps my kids from getting at this kind of content" (or similar such statements), an opt-in filtering system will do exactly the same thing without subjecting everyone to censorship.

  • Re:Question (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:47AM (#31141976)
    "As a nation we generally like and expect some censorship."

    Yes, you did...
  • by Sasayaki (1096761) on Monday February 15, 2010 @04:35AM (#31142168)

    Regretfully, I agree.

    Tony Abbot (The head of the Liberal party- that's the guys NOT in power, for you Americans) visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him, in his public question and answer time, the following question (roughly remembered):

    "The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians, as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of (the Prime Minister- Americans would say 'president') Kevin Rudd's plan to censor the Internet?"

    His answer began:

    "Well, I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint you..." and yes, unfortunately, he did.

    Paraphrased his answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only it. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."

    Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically. The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling; that the filter didn't go far *enough* for his tastes, and that he'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist. Therefore, speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away, you are sadly mistaken.

    On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal, since it seems that too many politicians tend to "trust God about these things" when it's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work.

  • Re:Well Then... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nathrael (1251426) <nathraelthe42nd AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @06:07AM (#31142552)
    Just remember, in Iran, the majority supports having a death penalty for homosexuals as well...
  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Informative)

    by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Monday February 15, 2010 @06:20AM (#31142606)

    Its actually a reference to our PM's "Shitstorm" comment on national TV a while back - The Australian, or more via google

    And also a reference to Australia's government censoring adult publications and films featuring women with "small breasts" on the grounds that such images encourage pedophilia.

    It's actually quite a clever and catchy name.

  • Re:Question (Score:2, Informative)

    by tehcyder (746570) on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:37AM (#31144478) Journal

    It is frighteningly close, but you both are a-miss on one point. I have yet to see a study that shows which part of the "pedo process" is actually the damaging part. We can all agree that children are capable of achieving orgasm. If the acts are consensual, and neither party are doing physical damage to the other, and both parties enjoy the process. I should take this moment to state clearly, Rape is Rape, the victim is almost always left psychologically harmed. In the case of consensual sexual interludes, I postulate that victimizing one party does more damage than the act itself.

    I've seen some stupid shit on slashdot, but that takes the fucking biscuit.

    If you really think that a child can give informed consent to sex with an adult, you need urgent help.

  • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

    by Golddess (1361003) on Monday February 15, 2010 @11:06AM (#31144932)
    Remember, even a 17 yearold is still considered a "child".

    Not all children suddenly become capable of giving informed consent at the same age. I will concede that there may be an age that is too young across the board, but yes, children are capable of giving informed consent.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...