Australian Gov't Censors Censored 163
According to this
Wired article,
the
Australian Broadcasting Authority,
which has been working to censor its citizens
since 1995,
got its site defaced by a cracker on Friday. The site was taken down for half a day for repairs. Among the messages left: "People only now can get connectivity the USA has enjoyed for years. And now one of the greatest resources we have for free speech and free learning will be stifled by a vocal minority with no understanding of the underlying technology." For info on the situation, visit
Electronic Frontiers Australia.
Aussies (Score:2)
Hmmmmmm.... (Score:2)
You sure about that... uh... Ned?
Re: (Score:1)
Oz: Orwell Down Under (Score:1)
Worsens things (Score:4)
I wonder how this censorship thing will turn out ? I believe that they have a similar system in Singapore. Does anybody know how well it works down there ?
As has been said multiple times, it is impossible to censor the internet and block someone who knows what he's doing. I'd expect the ISPs to comply, but anybody with basic technical expertise would probably get an offshore shell account and run a proxy there. It might actually be an incentive for the young to learn about tunneling technologies that would allow them to bypass censorship. What do you think ? Will people even bother to learn, or will we see Australian-Censorship-Bypass-HOWTO along with a full range of new software to help in the process ?
However, if means to bypass censorship became too widespread, the governement could take action by limiting access to the ressources using to bypass censorship. Imagine if they placed Australia behind a filtering proxy that only let HTTP connections through, and required a permit to open any other port ?
But most likely the governement will just realise that censorship is not enforceable, and either just let the law in place, without a major effect (anyone who wants access to censored things will get access, one way or another) or they will simply notice that and repell the law..
It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Attrition Mirror (Score:5)
Attrition mirror of the site [attrition.org].
Also, an article on this incident from Australia ZDNet [zdnet.com.au].
Bad thing, but... (Score:4)
Ironically, this is (IMO) just what's needed. Imagine a world where informed parents used filtering software that they controlled. The EFA call this "another example of the paternalism exhibited by the current government", but if implemented correctly -- with the emphasis on education -- then this could very well be a Good Thing.
You can't [^%$#($^] censor me (Score:3)
How very Orwellian(?) (Score:1)
Mirror of defaced site (Score:1)
Just a way to stay alive? (Score:3)
You have to wonder if the only reason the Australian Broadcasting Authority is trying to promote censorship is just to stay around and "be usefull" All goverment organizations need to have a reason to be around, even if the reason is flimsy. Maybe censorship will be the "next big thing" for the ABA.
This is kind of like how businesses look for new markets to expand into don't you think?
a good form of protest? (Score:2)
what the cracker changed on the page (Score:3)
Re:Oz: Orwell Down Under (Score:1)
Worse? Not necessarily! (Score:2)
-----------
We should take notice (Score:2)
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
the irony of this (Score:5)
What will the outcomes be? (Score:1)
I agree with some earlier posts: educate the childred and monitor what they view. Don't treat the Internet (computers, TV, etc) as a "babysitter".
Re:Hmmmmmm.... (Score:1)
Censorship Bypassing Information (Score:3)
As has been said multiple times, it is impossible to censor the internet and block someone who knows what
he's doing. I'd expect the ISPs to comply, but anybody with basic technical expertise would probably get an
offshore shell account and run a proxy there. It might actually be an incentive for the young to learn about
tunneling technologies that would allow them to bypass censorship. What do you think ? Will people even
bother to learn, or will we see Australian-Censorship-Bypass-HOWTO along with a full range of new
software to help in the process ?
Censorship bypassing information is available at 2600 Australia [2600.org.au]
Re:the irony of this (Score:1)
Jamie McCarthy
Re:the irony of this (Score:1)
This comment sounded to me like a use of irony itself... I mean, crack??
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:1)
That's the way it should be done, but do you honestly think that will happen anytime soon? Besides, parents can't just slap a program on there and expect it to do all the work for them - they should be there when the kid is on the net.
Besides, a smart kid will eventually figure out how to bypass the program and look at whatever he wants to. It's a lot harder to do that if Dad or Mom are sitting there watching.
Re:We should take notice (Score:1)
Well... (Score:4)
On the other hand, REGARDLESS of whether the Australian Government has any right to do this (rights are culturally-based and what may be a truism in the US may be a pathetic joke elsewhere), I'm not sure I'd trust a censor to be competent if they can't even manage a website.
In fact, it sounds like they farmed out most of the work. A bit like the British Government, with Group 4. That turned into a bit of a fiasco, too. If you can't do the work, you shouldn't be taking it on.
censorship in Singapore (Score:1)
a boatload of bootleg sites have yet to be filtered.
Drug use (Score:1)
Re:Worsens things (Score:2)
Well, depends what you mean by 'how well it works.' Mainstream Singaporean users cannot legally access many things that users in the US and many other places can. I think it's been discussed on Slashdot before, but I really don' know anything about the means used to implement the censorship, or if it's simply a matter of law, unlike what the ABA would like, which is prior review / approval of all materials. Someone from Singapore can probably enlighten us.
But you said how well it works
Or then again, maybe you just meant "How effectively are people actually blocked from the info. the government would like to block?" in which case I apologize.
timothy
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:1)
That's not practical. In order to be sure that little johnny isn't downloading naughtiness, s/he would have to be sitting beside the sprog for every second of its time online. Monitoring software has its problems, but if used responsibly is still the best solution.
Will it happen? Probably not, but it has the advantages of being a solution that's effective and implementable. So it's likely to happen if politicians decide to do what's best for everyone. Improbable, but it does happen occasionally.
Irony @ Wired (Score:4)
"You can't [Censored] censor me" the cracker wrote
How helpful is that?! (Score:1)
By attacking someone, you don't change their mind, unless you fight and win. I tend to think it's hard to do that with their website. They'll fix it, prosecute the attackers, and get pretty pissed off. Will that make them reconsider? No way!
It would be more useful if the Australian public politely but firmly demanded what they want to achieve. Add in support by the net at large, just like when the Communications Decency Act was fought with black backgrounds, then awareness would be raised. Once the general public is informed and against the net censorship, the government has to give in, or it shows that it's not a government by the people but over the people.
Nature of the Beast (Score:1)
SilverFate
[Y]our wisemen don't know what its like to be thick as a brick - Ian Anderson, "Thick as a Brick"
Static? No... dynamic. (Score:2)
I see a couple of things that are distinguishing the internet from other frontiers we (as the human race) have settled... the first and foremost being the very nature of the internet. It is still very much in the process of defining itself. Kinda hard to regulate what doesn't yet exist. It is also an intangible territory. You can't physically go to a place on the internet to arrest someone.
I think that at best, this ordeal with Australia is a horrible botch job by the government. But at the same time, I do not hold any illusions about any government's ability (or lack thereof) to regulate and/or censor the internet.
The frontier is as of yet untamed. The thing that is making this situation so attention getting is the amount of access the general populace has to an untamed frontier. Please don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any type of regulation that I have seen or heard of yet. Not even close. But the reality is that it is coming, whether we want it or not.
We will always have outlaws, vigilantes, g-men, consumers, tourists, celebrities, etc... in any environment. And as the majority of the population moves in, they are going to want to feel secure as they are fascinated by this new media.
The fun has only just begun.
Ethical Side of it (Score:2)
1. (scholarly) The Australian government is violating their side of the social contract. They are taking away the liberties of citizens. Only citizens have the ability to surrender their individual liberties, that is the basis of the American Constitution and most modern democracies.
2. (personal) The internet is about exchanging infromation and ideas. The Australian government is denying people outside their country the ability to access information. This is because by denying people the freedom to display information, you also prevent people from reading that information because it is not displayed for them to access. In the end information is stored and processed the same way. There is no practicle diffrence between porn in Australia or online human rights protests in China.
SilverFate
Who are the Brain Police? - Frank Zappa
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
We could be next (Score:1)
SilverFate
Mother should I trust the governmnet? - Roger Waters, "Mother"
Well-spoken cracker? (Score:5)
What's the point in cracking something if you're going to do more harm than good?
how they censor in singapore (Score:1)
sad to see... (Score:1)
The roots of which gave freedom-loving people everywhere the Magna Carta, leading to the USA's Bill of Rights and Constitution, although freedom in the USA has been rather trampled, in recent times, by special interest groups/lobbies.
Is Australia's problem some kind of vestige of being a "Prison Colony?" Did they never guarantee a basic offer of free speech?
Sad to see Australia, so long known for its freedom-loving ways and liberalism, sink so low.
The "TV Generation" just doesn't seem capable of standing up and demanding their rights like previous generations.
Hopefully, the Internet Generation will do better at shutting down censorship (and other freedom-stifling) laws.
Is defacing webpages a shadow of things to come?
Re:We could be next (Score:2)
The First Amendment is very strongly worded.
Censorship before publication is called prior restraint, and it is VERY difficult to get a US court to issue such an order. You have to prove that irreperable harm will occur on publication.
There have been innumerable attempts to get newspaper stories surpressed. Very few have been successful.
sanctions? (Score:1)
Re:Censorship? (Score:1)
they cant do crap (Score:1)
Re:This is NOT Flamebait (Score:2)
Re:Worsens things (Score:1)
a. ) Because computers will be less fun to use, unless you happen to be Ned Flanders ("500 channels, locked out!")
b. ) Useful computer information will end up being on pages that get banned if the filters are shockingly primative and block out large numbers of sites. People will have less pages to look at, and since I don't trust filters (would I be able to get to freedomforum.org, which occaisionally has stories about First Amendment cases involving lewd and lascivious content? How about any other sites with storis like that, what triggers the filters?) I'm assuming useful pages will be chucked out with porn.
I feel sorry for the people in Australia, I hope they vote for a less authoritarian government next chance they get... while they still have the right to vote, that is.
Re:sanctions? (Score:1)
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:2)
Imagine a world where informed parents used filtering software that they controlled.
It COULD be a good thing if it was applied to children only, and had a way for their parents to override it if they chose to do so. Unfortunatly, they (the govt.) have chosen to apply it to everybody.
Let us not forget... (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmmmm.... (Score:1)
Re:Ethical Side of it (Score:3)
The internet is about exchanging infromation and ideas.
The problem is that for too many people, this is not what the internet is about at all.
I once posted a ZDNN Talkback that said:
"Screw e-commerce. Let the moneygrubbers build their OWN e-commerce network. The Internet is an information resource and a "low barrier to entry" publishing medium that almost anybody can make use of. Let them turn something else into a vast wasteland of advertising and product hawking like television has become."
I received a half dozen emails calling me a communist.
The masses of braindead consumerbots in this country (USA) perceive everything in terms of its potential to be commercialized. The vision of shared human knowledge available to all via the internet is steadily being strangled by another vision: of hype and unlimited marketing opportunity.
Want to see the future of internet? Turn on your television.
'Scuse me, I have to puke now...
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
awww hell (Score:1)
anywho, i think he's definitely hurting the cause. Although I have no idea what would actually help it, but i'm sure that isn't the way. I like another person's post about allowing tunneling to bypass censorship, not exactly winning the "cause", but a temporary work around until all "hopefully" gets better.
Nature vs. Nurture (Score:2)
This is not meant as flame bait but instead is my personal observation. Please respond intelligently.
PS: Wasn't it sad the way the cracker started his rant with such inspirational material only to end it with by the way I'm high on some crack. **sigh** He probably has reinvigorated the censorship board/committe??? and now they have a mental image of the kind of foul mouthed, drug addicts they want to "protect" the people of Australia from. They'll probably be handing his little rant out in leaflets with bold letters saying...This is the enemy... Save our children from him...
Bad Command Or File Name
Re:This is NOT Flamebait (Score:1)
I find it most ironic that Sig 11's intelligent postings (very rare they are) are moderated down, but his standard karma-whore bullshit gets a five.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:2)
Information should *never* be filtered, especially information that children are getting. Allowing people to decide what other people get to know produces a closed minded society, and that is a Bad Thing(tm).
well, well (Score:2)
The first time a TFC clan called Hate, Inc. pulled the site (which was a Team Fortress Classic news site) because they got upset about stuff posted about them. So they threw a tantrum and pulled it.
First (non-hack): http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1999/12
Second (hack): http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1999/12
Re:Censorship? (Score:1)
George Washington was pink? Methinks you need to learn a little history. Technically all branches of Marxism are sopposed to advocate a violent overthrow of capitalism - and they aren't the only ones.In Zaire a pro-democracy revolutuion happened (although their leader seems to have changed his mind). Various Religous and ethnic groups kill each other incessently in attempts to replace the current government of whatever with their boys. Lenin is by no means the only who has advocated killing the government.
>-- Buy Hitler Brand RAM At Your Local Computer Land! Turn All Your
>Memory Into Random Ass Memory
If its as big as his ego was I'll take eight.
Nick, who is very sorry his mouse button slipped thusly creating a sucky post
How did this happen? (Score:2)
Isn't politics fun?
What many in the US forget!!! (Score:1)
Re:sanctions? (Score:1)
Plus the US has supported many a totalitarian regime, and behaved as a generally aggressive lout. Atleast our government stupidity is mostly about inflicting problems on the people who elected the gov't rather than other people who get no say in the issue.
Welcome to the Nanny State (Score:3)
Control freaks are everywhere. Right now, they are just looking for an excuse. In Australia, the excuse in porn. Now how they figure that pictures of nekid people having sex is "harmful" is beyond me. Maybe if you believe that it will cause you to burn in Hell from the threats of an Angry God. (Personaly I believe that that God is more of an overactive imagination and neurotic pychosis than any actual being.) But those who confuse their religion with reality will take it at face value and go along with it, no matter how absurd the rule set.
What it comes down to it that the "problem" of porn gives them an excuse to control the views of others. Directly by requiring preapproval of what they can and cannot say, or indirectly by hiding other viewpoints from them. (Note that this excuse could be "bomb making materials", "drug information", or "crush videos". It does not matter. It just has to be a threat that people react emotionally to. (Because when emotion is involved, people stop thinking rationally.))
It is too bad that the average person in Australia does not see through this smoke screen. Just goes to show how passive people have become.
Missing the Real Issue (Score:1)
Ferenheit 451 was about the marjorty, not minority (Score:1)
My only complaint about Bradbury is that he frequently made the popular mistake of blaming technology for social idiocy. There's nothing wrong with TV technology - the ability to transmit pictures and sound is immensely useful. The fact that it is usually used for inane dreck is not the 'fault' of the technology.
Re:Missing the Real Issue (Score:3)
1) He did not kill the main page entirely, just appended his message. No business lost, no *REAL* damages. Like protestsers in front of a store. They'll distract you, slow you down, maybe stop you, but they haven't physically damaged anything. And they can't be sued for *damages* from lost sales.
2) It isn't tresspassing because it's THEIR fault he got in. Their site was insecure, and he found a way in. Like having a fence, but having a HUGE hole in it, and trying to sue for tresspass after finding someone inside. They really have no case. Now if said fence was solid, and had concertina wire on top, that's another story.
He's not a problem, 'cept for the fact he admitted he was high as hell while doing it...
Re:the irony of this (Score:1)
He cut and paste from the purchase order that he sent to his drug dealer.
I once broke the Z key on my keyboard, and added a couple of lines to my startup-sequence so my computer would always boot up with "z" on my clipboard. So I could easily type it whenever I wanted to, even though I couldn't really type it, if you know what I mean.
---
Re:Ethical Side of it (Score:2)
Or, more succinctly: the evil green paper won't contaminate you though the wires.
Re:How did this happen? (Score:1)
Re:Censorship? (Score:1)
You don't need guns to get rid of the government. All you need is another election. It is the people who decide who will be the government.
Re:Missing the Real Issue (Score:2)
Ideally, the government would have listened to the people, but they didn't, so the people's next step has to be civil disobediance. The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are usually the ones who do
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:2)
The Secret Plan Is.... (Score:1)
USA isn't far behind -- they're just better at hiding it. (Oh yes, those pesky guns the citizens own...we'd better do something about that...)
From the horses mouth (Score:2)
I DID however get it into the public eye again, it has been on radio/tv/papers... even slashdot!@! heh. If i could do anything better/bigger/nicer I would. This _so_ isn't a fame hack, I am well known in the int underground, and for good reason did not use my handle or associate myself with anyone that knows me.. The name was made up on the fly.. For all i care 'Randalf splitzer' hacked the damn thing.
Noone would give me a voice, so I made one for myself.
And to the people who reply to this post flaming/napalming me, dont write me off in a sentence, be constructive... im constantly trying to improve myself, heh.
amd ficksing my spelling wood be goud
Adios,
Ned Rubenschlachen
So I'm a convict at heart? (Score:2)
First load of crap: the convicts sent to Australia were not "deemed too unsatisfactory to reside in English jails". The reason they were transported was because there simply wasn't enough space in those English jails. The selection process was probably almost random.
Second load of crap: The _vast_ majority of the current population of this country does not have ancestry that goes back to the convicts. For a start, something like one in seven were actually born overseas, and a vastly larger number would be second or third generation Australians. There was a massive push for immigration after the second world war, driven by the slogan "Populate or Perish" - we had a population of only about seven million at the time, and we were considered vulnerable to invasion because of that.
In any case, trying to argue that because Australia started out as a penal colony it's obviously still made up of people who think like convicts is completely stupid. Hell, there were free settlers on the First Fleet! (if my memory serves me)
And yes, I _can_ trace my ancestry back to a convict on the first fleet - I'm rather proud of it. It makes for a more interesting history in many respects than "My parents came out from England after the war".
Third load of crap: "it is very interesting to note that the current population accepts
Australia is not the US. We do not have the same set of values as you people in the US have. One of the differences is that we are not as paranoid about our privacy as you are (though we don't accept absolutely anything). As an example of this, in Australia there were, at one point, more police wiretaps in one of our states in one year than there were in the whole of the US - in Australia we are prepared to accept things like wiretaps when they're used to protect more important freedoms, that we do care about. Freedoms like the right to not get shot.
The idea that the police can listen in on our phone conversations does not frighten us. We think it's a reasonable price to pay for the much more effective policing that it enables. The case is similar with other forms of `privacy invasion'.
Censorship is similar - we'll accept it if we think it's justified. As a case in point, one of those nuts who go around making a big thing out of saying that the holocaust didn't happen was refused a visa not that long ago. The vast majority of people thought this was perfectly reasonable.
On the other hand, films very rarely get banned outright here, despite frequent protests by some people. For example, last year's version of Lolita wasn't banned, despite rather large outcry - it was a flop, because it wasn't a particularly good film, but it wasn't banned.
It's the same with books and radio and television and so forth. Things have to be really bad, by the majority's standard, before it'll be censored.
This internet censorship bill is an anomaly, one that's been allowed to continue so far largely because it doesn't affect many people yet. When it does, then people will complain, and the law will either be repealed or simply ignored (most likely the latter). The thing about this bill is that it reflects the wishes of only a small part of the population, and goes actively against the wishes of a considerably larger part (the largest group, those who don't have Internet access at the moment, probably couldn't give a damn either way). This bill's position is not tenable in this country - it lacks the majority/large minority support that is needed for something of it's nature to survive.
To recap: your post is a load of crap. The moderator who moderated it up is a moron. You are possibly even worse. You know almost nothing about Australian history, the Australian people, Australian culture, and Australian politics - please, don't inflict your idiotic ideas on us any more.
And finally, please refrain from assuming that because something wouldn't be accepted in the US, it is obviously fundamentally wrong, immoral, what have you. That's the kind of thinking that makes the rest of the world utterly loath the US and it's people.
himi
Grow up. (Score:2)
Please, just because you lot in the US needed to fight a war against the British to gain your freedom doesn't mean that that's the only way to go about it. Australia didn't need a war - we just had to ask them nicely.
Further, just about everyone in this country supported the new gun laws. Hmmm, majority support of a proposal . . . doesn't that sound like `Democracy' to you? And yet you find it easy to condemn it . . .
Persoanally, I'll just vote aginst the idiots who came up with this legislation at the next election.
Oh, and I hope I never meet you, because you're obviously some completely sick bastard. Anyone who laughs when they're killing someone goes down in my book as a dangerous maniac.
himi
Clarification about Australian History (Score:1)
Re:To the clueless moderators: RTFA (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmmmm.... (Score:1)
One could also ask, "What's wrong with bringing up the subject of the size of one's penis at a dinner party?" It's the same sort of thing.
Metamoderation. (Score:2)
Ok, this one fellow showed us the text the cracker had on the site, then some strange agenda pushing moderators (there are a few out there) mark it all over the board. So another person explains that it was from the original page, and another agenda pushing moderator takes him down.
If you don't MetaModerate, please do and STOP these agenda pushing moderators.
This is offtopic, but it is important.
---
Re:Worsens things (Score:1)
I really don't understand the need to 'censor' porn on the net, though. The real key to eliminating porn on the net is at the cash register. Laws could be passed which make it illegal to bill people for services rendered. After a few credit-card-payment driven porn sites discovered that they can't enforce collecting a dime from anybody within certain localities, they themselves will block access to their sites from those localities.
The average porn customer isn't going to fight a law which says he can't be forced to pay for the "goods."
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:1)
Gonna roll out government tanks to "force" them to expose their children to what you feel is they should see? How noble of you!
Re:Attrition Mirror (Score:1)
Re:Irony @ Wired (Score:1)
Re:democrats and socialists (Score:1)
Re:sanctions? (Score:1)
I imagine that 150 years ago when the British were sending gunboats into China, to force the Chinese to allow them to sell opium to the Chinese people, that some of the same reasoning was in force.
Its not that bad (Score:2)
A law such as this should never have been made.
However.
In practice, the law has been made, and if you read it you will find it is totally unenforcable.
I don't expect my internet usage to be changed at all by it. In practice it means your ISP has to offer a program like NetNanny to you, and any site that gives kiddie porn without authentication that is found by an ABA member when he's trying to get to his farm animal porn can be forcibly taken down if it is in australia.
I'm thinking we should just let the AU government do what they want in their little pseudo world they make for themselves because as John Howard (our current prime minister who was voted in even though over 50% of the country didn't like him [due to our fucked up method of voting it does matter where you live]) demonstrated the other day when he rushed authorisation for ASIO to look at and alter any information they see fit on my computer so they can forge enough evidance to make me guilty of any crime they like; THERE ISN"T A GOD DAMNED THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
old issue--well, maybe not that old (Score:1)
Re:Worsens things (Score:1)
Call me crazy ("You're crazy!") but this sounds to me very much reminicient of Prohibition here in the US in the 1920s (For those who somehow don't know, it was a constitutional amendment banning alcohol), which manged to do the following:
- Piss off a lot of people,
- Create an undergrould crime network the likes of which America had never seen before, and
- generally cause more alcohol abuse problems than it solved.
If I was in a very amused mood I'd draw a lot of paralells between the two, such as noncompliant ISPs that can't take the hassle as opposed to speakeasies, offshore shell accounts as opposed to bathtub gin, and the like, but it's almost 0130 and I haven't had any coffee.Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:2)
Let's face it, censhorship is a Bad Thing(tm), but exposing children to snuff movies is also a Bad Thing(tm). I think parents have a right to restrict kids from seeing certain things until the kids reach a certain age. Children don't automatically have a right to all information that's out there, for the same reason they don't have a right to vote, run for office, drive a car, own a gun, etc. Until they reach a certain level of maturity, they just aren't responsible enough to handle these things.
---
Re:Mirror of defaced site (Score:1)
I have never heard anyone here ever use the phrase 'buy a clue', or anything to that effect....
not that the nationality of the cracker really means much anyway....but still.....
Re:.. It's amazing how little you unerstand... (Score:2)
This being true it should also be pointed out that the how was by vandalising someones website and the where is a target audence who would only use it to ferther the agenda the speaker seens to be against.
In communicating an idea you need to carely pick your message method and audence. Only one or two of thies items will not do the job you need all three. A bad message falls on deff ears no matter what, a good message communication to deff ears dose nothing, a receptive audence lissening to a good message delivered badly will also get negitive results.
In this example however the message, medium and audence were all a patheticly poor choice and as pointed out it took a great deal of effort to get the message in place. That effort could have been better spent picking a better message a better audence and a better platform.
Instead he chouse this tactic and thats pathetic.
If he had run for office (for example) he could have communicated his message to a very receptive audence on a podium. Even by losing he has made his feelings known and those that support the message may scare opponents into changing there toon.
But this person opted for cracking into a server and puking... bad choice...
Re:Nature vs. Nurture (Score:1)
Saying it's not meant as flame bait doesnt forgive it either.
Even if it were true that the continent was one big penal colony, what relevance does that have on the current population?, That was 200 years ago.
Australia has an extremely broad range of cultures and peoples ('white' or otherwise), most of which had nothing whatsoever to do with convicts of any sort.
I am not an Australian myself, but I am a New Zealander who has lived in Australia for 7 years now, and I can tell you that it is definitely too big and diverse a country to make insulting generalisations like that about.
Re:Irony @ Wired (Score:1)
Off topic, but not being able to put "fucking" in a story is just another sign of what has been happening to wired since it became part of Lycos.
Anyone who values free speach should say fuck at least twenty times a day
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Well... okay then! (Score:2)
I wonder what we will see in the US in 20 years time? I mean 70% of all black males have been in prison - or something like that anyway.
Here.. some people have ancestors who were deported from England 200 years ago. I think we're over it by now - we just go and whip the Pom at cricket every couple of years and call it even.
However, to say we accept censorship is like saying the USA accepted the Vietnam war. We don't - unfortunatly it doesn't effect enough people (yet) for it to be protested in large numbers.
Believe me, this hack will be the first of many. If protests against the Vietnam war were on the street, then protests against Net censorship will be on the Net.
Some things are illegal... (Score:2)
But still, until it is illegal to talk about changing the law, it is better to shange the law than to break it.
Why? Because, now the censors have an ultimate argument -- "Just look at what they've done. Those are the evil 'hackers', and we must protect our children from them!".
Do never give politicians such arguments for free! You will allways regret it.
Hang on a sec... (Score:1)
Re:Bad thing, but... (Score:2)
Commercialization *IS* Everything (Long) (Score:2)
The Internet is about exchanging information and ideas
The thing you don't get is that the "information and ideas" that 90% of the people want are various forms of entertainment! That's why download.com gets a few more hits than, say, iww.org. That's why sex.com is just a leetle more popular than aynrand.org. Taking away the entertainment, and what do you have? ARPANET.
Screw e-commerce. Let the moneygrubbers build their OWN e-commerce network.
They are. It's called the Internet. Without those "money-grubbers", how much infrastructure do you think we'd have? Who'd know or even care what the Internet was?
The Internet is an information resource and a "low barrier to entry" publishing medium that almost anybody can make use of
Including anyone who wants to make a buck or two, but doesn't have the $$$ to put up a store front, or even advertise in the local paper. A "Money-Grubber".
"Let them turn something else into a vast wasteland of advertising and product hawking like television has become."
On my cable package, there are three "home shopping" channels, and three "artsy" channels (PBS, local access, and one from the local Univ.). I don't have to watch Home Shopping. Again, do you think that without commercialization, local access cable would exist? Hell, let's go back the the first broadcast medium, radio. One of the first radio programs was "The Westinghouse Radio Hour". You see, Westinghouse made radios, but there was no programming. So they gave people something to listen to on their new Westinghouse radios. Without "moneygrubbers", radio wouldn't taken off. Without radio (and the vast radio audience), no TV. So, where's your PBS now?
What value does something have if it doesn't have value?
Answer: None, obviously.
What good is something if you can't get something from it?
Answer: See above.
"Value" is essentially "what this thing will get me". Nothing more. The Internet is obviously valuable, because many people have gotten many things from it. Some people get their message out. Some people show pictures of their dog. Some people get...something [purple.com] from it, even if nobody else gets it!
Just because some people have gotten money from it, doesn't exclude you from getting what you want from it.
The Internet is an infinitely renewable resource. No one has to be exposed to advertising and commercialisim if they don't want to be. You can rant and rail against commercialisim and share some human knowledge on your own web site, and it won't bother me a bit.
Me, I'm gonna go to www.lickinlesbos.com.
-----------
(( Offtopic to the subject of Aussie censorship )) (Score:2)
As a mild correction... I'm taking an implication here that you think the American populace needs guns to get rid of our government. We don't. Every four years we have a revolution; we see if the current Chief Executive has been responsive to the needs of the people, and if not, we throw him out.
The American protection of firearms dates back to Revolutionary times, when it was felt that the best way to ensure that the government responded to the people's needs was to make sure the government would be too terrified of the people to not respond to their needs. Depending on what your political alignment is, this principle is either (a) an anachronism of a bygone time which permits barbarism in the present day, or (b) just as important today as it was in 1789.
If the American people ever firmly and steadfastly believe that the answer is (a), the American people have the ability to amend the Constitution and cut out the Second Amendment. This has not happened yet, which makes me think that many more Americans feel (b) than the Gallup Polls suggest.
Gun ownership in America is not a cut-and-dried legal issue. People who attempt to turn it into a black-and-white issue, without a proper appreciation of the historical, legal and political-philosophy principles involved, are dooming themselves to failure.
Disclosure: I own firearms myself, and I believe (b). I hope that you'll agree that it hasn't addled my brain too badly.
If anyone would like to talk further about this, my EMail address is up top and I encourage you to use it.
Re:democrats and socialists (Score:2)
Re:Worsens things (Score:2)
Governments shouldn't be in the business of trying to legislate sexual morality anyway.
Re:We could be next (Score:2)
There exist people willing to give their lives to such a cause, you know.