Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Australia Censorship Security Your Rights Online

Hackers Attack AU Websites To Protest Censorship 334

An anonymous reader writes "A band of cyber-attackers has taken down the Australian Parliament House website and hacked Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's website in coordinated protests against government plans to filter the Internet. The group responsible, called Anonymous, is known for coordinated Internet attacks against Scientology and other groups in the past. It recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers Attack AU Websites To Protest Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Do you agree? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @12:03PM (#31086598)

    Depends in what context, especially when it comes down to who defines the context (are photos of naked children in the bath CP?), bestiality was legal in the netherlands until recently.. I won't even get into the cartoons or fictional stories questions.

  • by ta bu shi da yu ( 687699 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @12:21PM (#31086834) Homepage

    Yeah, there's nothing quite like a citizens right to child porn and bestiality. The government - they are oppressing our civil rights!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @12:28PM (#31086918)

    I have to agree with you there. I am not one for censorship but limiting child porn, rape, bestiality from being easily accessible is a good move. Someone out there will pipe up that it does not stop the behavior, and I agree. But at least it will prevent it from becoming an "industry" like the porn industry than just fringe criminals.

  • Re:Do you agree? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LordAzuzu ( 1701760 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @12:29PM (#31086940)
    As long as the list is publicy managed, this shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, no way it can happen in the real world.
  • by ccarson ( 562931 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @12:43PM (#31087142)
    First off, good luck censoring the Internet. Unless you're willing to modify fundamental network protocols, Australia can join the ranks of failed governments/corporations/ISPs who have tried and failed to censor content on the Internets. Although the proposed censorship crimes mentioned are heinous (seriously child crimes are so wrong on many levels), we need to be wary of people who have ulterior motives to stifle the free flow of information. That's not to say we shoudln't pro-actively target those who want to rape children and post pictures of it. In the end though, the arrogance to say that your legislation bill will stop Internet garbage is re-donkey-lips. Politicians are the dumbest group of low lifes that walk this planet (besides child rapers).
  • Re:Do you agree? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jayme0227 ( 1558821 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @01:24PM (#31087690) Journal

    because, you know, small breasted women MIGHT be under 18

    It wasn't even that, it was that small breasted women LOOKED like they were under 18. [] The logic is along the lines of banning cartoons displaying children (even the Simpsons []) participating in sex acts. Because they look like they are underage, then it is Kiddy Porn because they are targeting people who want to see young people naked.

  • by Lilith's Heart-shape ( 1224784 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @03:55PM (#31089918) Homepage
    Well, there was this guy named Henry David Thoreau who write an essay called Civil Disobedience.
  • by Rophuine ( 946411 ) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @07:38PM (#31092660) Homepage

    Currently, people in the market for materials like child porn go to sites which carry it. It's not really that hard to find (so they say, to justify the blacklist.) Police get warrants to monitor sites as they're found (judicial oversight!), then pounce and lock up both the producers and the people who create the market.

    Now, create a fence around the web, making sure people can't get to these places at all. Nary an immoral thought to be found on the web! (Who decides? No oversight.) What's a child-pornographer to do? They won't just stop: they'll look for alternate means to distribute. So, it goes further underground (already, some of these bad industries are using VPNs to keep traffic better-hidden and encrypted.) No more warrants (because it's harder to intercept, and harder to prove it SHOULD be intercepted), and it's not just the technically-capable and paranoid who avoid getting caught: suddenly, you're creating a strong drive for ALL of these bad guys to use anti-detection technologies like this. No more low-hanging fruit, and more kids who never get rescued. Sure, it's harder to find: but it's still out there.

    It's kind of like the gun debate: you only keep the guns out of the hands of the honest ones. In the gun debate, that's a fallacy: honest people still decide to carry guns, and they still sometimes end up shooting people. Honest people don't decide to casual-carry child porn: the only market is the baddies anyway. And they'll get it anyway. And now, we won't catch them.

This screen intentionally left blank.