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."
Re:Do you agree? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, there's nothing quite like a citizens right to child porn and bestiality. The government - they are oppressing our civil rights!
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:1, Interesting)
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)
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Do you agree? (Score:3, Interesting)
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. [slashdot.org] The logic is along the lines of banning cartoons displaying children (even the Simpsons [slashdot.org]) 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.
Re:It's called civil disobedience. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That'll teach 'em. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.