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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • "tit storm" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:50AM (#31141346)

    Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization. There are far better ways to undermine censorship. You have to attack the authority of the censors. Make them appear weak, useless, and strip their credibility. Expose them at every corner as being partial, biased, and at the same time abjectly failing to do their jobs. They are government so this shouldn't be any real kind of challenge now should it?

    I look forward to seeing pictures of these censorship advocates having sex with their mistresses, getting wasted in public, allegations of bribery, and all other unseemly manner of behavior. Because if there's one thing the public can't stand for, it's being prohibited from doing the very things these authority types reserve for themselves. They already believe themselves to be morally superior to you so I ask again -- what real challenge is there here?

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toastar (573882) on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:51AM (#31141352)

    What is universal that should be banned (e.g., child porn) as opposed to filtered out by parents? I don't agree with how they're going about it Down Under, but I am wondering about this question.

    How can you say that somethings are so taboo that they can't ever be viewed?

    Down Under even Hentai counts as child porn.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:51AM (#31141356)

    As you can see, the problem with headless organizations such as Anonymous, or the Tea-Baggers is that, without some sort of filter at the top to weed out the stupid ideas, pretty much anything can be espoused as being a 'core ideal' of the group.

    While censorship is bad.. Operation Titstorm? Whatever 15 year old came up with that is likely not the coalesced summation of ideals that Anonymous was created for.

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:51AM (#31141358)

    I assume you are American.

    When protesters in the Middle East rant and rave outside the gates of the US Embassy in their country, do you think our government's policy is changed as a result?

    By protesting outside Australian consulates (!) what do you hope to gain? Is this an effective form of redress?

  • Nice Try (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Monday February 15, 2010 @01:58AM (#31141422) Homepage

    "Hacker group"

    Nope.

  • by Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:09AM (#31141498) Homepage

    Many people drown because they thought they should "do something" rather than lie still and float.

    What? Like... swim??

  • Well Then... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HamSammy (1716116) <a.mushroom11@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:13AM (#31141514)
    If censorship is what our government overlords have decided is best for us, clearly we are in need of a new democracy. Too bad our new democracy is run by Anonymous.
  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linhares (1241614) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:14AM (#31141524)
    One particular wording that I'd love to see is something that inverts the framing from morality to porn approval, something along the lines:

    "This hardcore porn has the seal of approval of the Australian Government."

    "The Australian Government: demanding MORE for your porn needs."

    "How can you trust Hardcore Porn that's not approved by the Australian Government?"

    "Don't worry: This movie with the horse sucking this girl's giant tits has the oficial seal of approval by the Australian Government."

  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:24AM (#31141564) Journal

    Being college-aged is a negative quality, now? Historically, students have been some of the most vocal in protecting our rights. If your point is that people of this age have less influence on society than older people, well I'd say that young people today are the adults of tomorrow and I'd sooner see college-age people protesting and hopefully retaining those attitudes and sympathies as they get older, than not see them protesting.

    As regards basement-dwelling and eating cheetos, well you have no idea where they're living or what they're eating. Neither, by the way, did I realise affects your political activism.
  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yosho-sama (800703) <[Yosho.NIN] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:33AM (#31141604)

    Really guys, naming your protest after female anatomy does nothing to help the cause. It is immature and reeks of disorganization. There are far better ways to undermine censorship. You have to attack the authority of the censors. Make them appear weak, useless, and strip their credibility. Expose them at every corner as being partial, biased, and at the same time abjectly failing to do their jobs.

    You have no idea how politics works. People opposed to the Republican Party in the U.S. have been doing that for 10 years, however that only works if your opponents have shame, which people in politics typically lack.

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

    by deniable (76198) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:33AM (#31141606)
    Almost as good as "Banned in Queensland." Bad Taste, Peter Jackson's first film proudly proclaims this on the case.
  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linhares (1241614) on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:35AM (#31141622)

    "Big-tit porn; priority no 1 of your Federal Government."

    "Be safe: Please refer to the Australian secure masturbation laws."

    If I had some shop skills, I'd be making an "official seal of approval", with the flag and the leading politicians behind this and some nice big government-approved tits on it.

  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by astar (203020) <max.stalnaker@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:36AM (#31141628) Homepage

    I am convinced that humor is a powerful weapon. Exposing the MPs as objects of humor sound fine to me, and probably to you. By one comment, the title is already in that vein. the shitstorm comment

    Also, you have to be a little careful about cultural assumptions. If you are USA, you might have second thoughts about the title. In australia, maybe not. I have the vague idea they are a little looser then the USA about sex. Most everyone is. but this is slashdot, so who would know anything about the subject.

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @02:37AM (#31141636)

    Why do you assume that 1) Most on here are American and 2) Every Australian feels as you do? How is there going to be "real-life protests" if everyone who cares is just American? Now I'm no genius or anything, but it seems to be that you'd have to live in Australia, or at least be IN Australia, in order to participate in a "real-life protest" in Australia.

  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny (722443) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:11AM (#31141800) Journal

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

    Why? Seriously, why should it be immature? If there was ever a cause where it was appropriate to use the word tits in your movement, it's this one. One of the best ways to undermine censorship is with humour. This sort of full-frontal, in your face attitude is a good thing. Whereas I think your advocation of invading people's privacy and smearing them for doing legal things is nasty. This law is wrong and I argue against it on those grounds, not by adopting the same tactics as those who oppose me and making the legislative process a battle of who can make the other party look worst. Aside from that, when you use these tactics, you state that you believe these things are indeed bad. If you start leaping up and down pointing at your opponents saying "look - they got wasted, look they browsed porn", then you really undermine your efforts to stop people being judged / condemned for getting wasted or browsing porn, do you not?
    And what would you do if you found proponents of these laws really didn't commit adultery, get wasted in public

  • Re:Curiosity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Homburg (213427) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:25AM (#31141864) Homepage

    I remember a group of internet anarchists [fraw.org.uk] set up something very much along these lines to coincide with the WTO protests in Seattle back in 1999. They made a good point which I think goes along with your idea that this is "digital equivalent of peasants throwing rocks." Like peasants throwing rocks this kind of simple DDOS can only work if it has the participation of a fairly large number of people. It's very much the internet equivalent of classic protest tactics like picket lines or sit-ins.

  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:30AM (#31141888) Journal

    Yeah, those darn leftist professors. Like how the students in Iran that protest their government are doing so because they're incited by "leftist professors". Or students protesting against the communists in Soviet Russia or during Ukraine's "Orange Revolution". How about all those students protesting against the Iraq war in the USA and the UK? Was that a "left-right" issue. What about the university-based protests in Greece last year against police who beat a young man to death. Did they have a leftist agenda? Or could it be that you just see the world in your own terms, ignoring that students have historically protested against tyranny, regardless of how it dresses itself up.

    Don't be so quick to dismiss or condemn or suggest that students are simple cattle that do something "impressively stupid" without right information. What exactly is "impressively stupid" about protesting any of the examples I gave? Or indeed protesting censorship laws that have been mis-represented to the public which is what the GP was talking about?
  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Liambp (1565081) on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:38AM (#31141928)

    Ok I know I may just be feeding the troll but I am going to have a go at this.

    I live in a small pro-western European nation that is pretty middle of the road in terms of politics and liberal/conservative agendas. While I entirely respect the Australian peoples right to choose their own laws it never the less worries me when I see the Australian government do something that I don't want my own government to do.

    The problem is that Australia is seen as "one of us" an English speaking westernised liberal democracy. If a policy is successfully implemented in Australia it gains a certain credibility that the same policy implemented in North Korea or Iran or even China would lack. Those of a certain frame of mind in my own country could point to Australia and push for similar legislation here.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:42AM (#31141942)

    Not only that, but revolutions have a tendency to result in a society that falls apart in 10 - 15 years.
    It took the french well over 100 years to actually get rid of their monarchy in the end - and what they got nearly immediately after the revolution was arguably worse than what they were revolting against.

    It's probably worth asking your average soviet era Russian how happy they were with the whole revolution idea too...

    The trouble with revolutions is the winner is the side best at killing their own people.

  • Re:Curiosity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @03:42AM (#31141948)

    yea except you're a n00b
    considering your HTML + javascript attack comes from 1 ip address
    the result being you're a quick and simple ip ban
    meanwhile you've got no idea your script is no longer working

    sure you could get a bunch of friend to also run the script
    but unless you've got 1,000+ friends it's not going to help
    plus you need a sparse range of ip addresses to run it on

    there's a reason for the extra 'D' at the front of DDoS

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday February 15, 2010 @04:48AM (#31142234) Journal

    The question that I want to ask, is why so many Americans etc want to get involved in what is our own choice here in Australia.

    Well, you don't seem to mind choosing for at least some of your fellow Australians...

    Seriously, though, just because some action or policy is backed by a democratic vote, or popular support in general, doesn't make it right. Slavery in U.S. was backed by the majority early on, for example. Today, most people in China and Russia support their regimes, including oppression of dissenters. Iranian death penalty for homosexuals law has widespread popular support. And so on, and so forth.

    There are some rights and freedoms which cannot morally be subject to a vote. Freedom of speech is one of them.
     

  • WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by consonant (896763) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {n.tnakirhs}> on Monday February 15, 2010 @05:26AM (#31142392) Homepage

    The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.

    *YOU* should have the right to deem what is appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to.

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bbqsrc (1441981) on Monday February 15, 2010 @05:34AM (#31142424) Homepage

    Personally, I'm in favour of censorship on the Internet, as we have it on TV and radio etc. I see no difference. I am not quite as happy with the current proposed implementation. As I run a PC repair business, I have received a lot of requests for home internet filtering etc. I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.

    Consider this analogy:

    Many Australians consider the water supply to be clean. Some people wish the water to be filtered, a minority. The government could implement a giant filter for the water supply at great cost, or, the minority could purchase personal filters to filter their own water, even with a government subsidy!

    The Australian government already tried to give out filtering software for free, and there wasn't a large uptake. This leads be to believe, based on your comments, that it wasn't made well-known enough for computer repairpersons to recommend it to their customers, or that the repairpersons believed it to be inadequate, or an even greater chance, people just don't care about filtering their internet.

    My point is: if you want it filtered, filter it yourself. Don't force your ethics on the rest of us.

    Better still, educate your fucking kids to not do stupid shit on the internet. That works better than any filter.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15, 2010 @06:58AM (#31142822)

    As an Australian AC too lazy to register, perhaps I can ask you why you support this filter? I know I don't "like and expect some censorship". Personally, I like the movie rating system (for example) but don't think anything at all should be banned. Just rated.

    Why do you think Conroy's censorship proposal will a) do anything useful, b) be cost effective, and c) not be abused? I reckon it is pretty obvious it won't stop anything nasty, will cost a lot, and will be abused to censor political discussion (especially since euthanasia and abortion sites are already on ACMA's block list).

    What is there to like about this proposal? I'm keen to know since as far as I can see it's pure shit and stinks to heaven.

  • by Sabriel (134364) on Monday February 15, 2010 @07:03AM (#31142842)

    I could only wish that more so-called "Christian" politicians would actually "trust God about these things", instead of constantly using the name in vain as an excuse to meddle in our personal lives.

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by azenpunk (1080949) on Monday February 15, 2010 @07:27AM (#31142938)

    OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.

    Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.

    Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.

    As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.

    The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.

    It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."

    Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."

  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sumadartson (965043) on Monday February 15, 2010 @09:44AM (#31143870)
    I wonder if they've realized this is @#$%@# insulting. How the hell are women with smaller breasts supposed to take this? "Get a boob job, or you'll be stimulating pedophiles!"
  • Re:Curiosity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hitchhacker (122525) on Monday February 15, 2010 @09:56AM (#31144004) Homepage

    but unless you've got 1,000+ friends it's not going to help plus you need a sparse range of ip addresses to run it on

    This is where 4chan comes into the picture.

    -metric

  • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by biryokumaru (822262) * <biryokumaru@gmail.com> on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:32AM (#31144414)

    Censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion... In the long run it will create a generation incapable of appreciating the difference between independence of thought and subservience.

    - Henry Steele Commager

    Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.

    - Noam Chomsky

    Forms of expression always appear turgid to those who do not share the emotions they represent.

    - Gilbert Keith Chesterton

    The censor believes that he can hold back the mighty traffic of life with a tin whistle and a raised right hand. For after all, it is life with which he quarrels.

    - Heywood Broun

    I want a situation without censorship, because I do not want to be responsible for whatever they may say.

    - Napoleon Bonaparte

    Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.

    - George Bernard Shaw

    Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.

    - Potter Stewart

    Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only.

    - Plato

    Please, reconsider exactly what it is that you are supporting. Censorship of any kind is the first step toward totalitarianism.

  • Re:"tit storm" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Asic Eng (193332) on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:37AM (#31144486)
    I wonder if women with A-cups will lose their citizen rights in general, or will they just be banned from having sex? If you are not really an adult woman unless you are well-endowed, then I guess driving, buying alcohol and going to night clubs will be prohibited, too. Of course it wouldn't be a good idea for a man to leave a night club with a small-breasted woman anyway - it would show that he is likely a pedophile, so he'd better be arrested before he damages some child.

    Seriously this is link small-breasts = pedophilia is so insane I don't understand why the proponents' brains don't implode from the pure stupidity of it.

  • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjs132 (631745) on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:39AM (#31144512) Homepage Journal

    I think the problem is mental capacity... If sex is acceptable if consensual, at what age is the consensual sex approved with full knowledge of the act, consequences, ect. Is there a mental capacity at 11 to consent? No

    There are many legal precedents that set the age of consent for various legal items, contracts, military service, voting, drinking, driving, etc... These are the basis of some of our societial norms. Without them, we would break down (and I say we are already with the blurring of many lines, but I digress...)

    SEX is also unofficially there in the list, by punishing those that would take advantage of someone who does not quite have the assumed mental capacity you should have at a certain age. (Varies by state I believe) But I feel that the physical act can over come the emotional stops that society may place on the act. therefore it is easy to manipulate someone that cannot distinguish between something that is "wrong" verses it feels good, so it must be good.

    So, just because it is consensual doesn't mean the child had all the tools to make a decision based on anything other than it felt good and the person is nice to me. That is just plain wrong no matter how you may try to argue it.

  • Re:Curiosity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Domint (1111399) on Monday February 15, 2010 @10:55AM (#31144768) Homepage Journal
    Thing is DDoS uses multiple source hosts without their owners' consent

    (Don't mind me, just going to pick a few nits)
    In a lot of DDoS attacks, this is true - but not a requirement for it to be a DDoS attack. The only thing required for it to be a DDoS attack is that the traffic comes from multiple sources simultaneously. Who's to say whether or not each host is knowingly participating?

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...