7 ms·

Anonymous hacks Australian Government in response to Internet censorship

58 points by go37pi 17y ago

tdm911 17y ago
whilst i agree with their protesting of our governments unnecessary proposals on censoring australia, their methods are not helping. a ddos attack on the government only gives the government more ammunition to paint the average protester as a criminal or someone who is trying to harm the government. a peaceful protest is far more effective.
- itistoday 17y ago
  The notion that peaceful protest is always better than violent protest is simply historically bankrupt. There's a time and a place for both. To be honest, what they're doing, at least by revolutionary terms, might as well be considered "peaceful protest."
  - tdm911 17y ago
    the issue i have is that the government will tell the uniformed voting public that 'we', (those who protest these moves), are trying to harm the government through these hacking attempts. to mrs and mrs family voter, this makes those who protest look bad and can sway their opinions on the censorship.
    - itistoday 17y ago
      I understand, but I question the effectiveness of the prior peaceful protests in fighting the legislation in the first place. They obviously didn't go over too well. It's possible that Anonymous' muckery could stir up discussion about this topic that otherwise would not have existed as the average Australian lapsed back into complacency. It's also possible their attacks will end up being counter-productive. Either way, I have to admire their reckless vigilantism against censorship, and can only imagine the LuLz being generated in the formal setting of Australia's bureaucracy.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  If they DDOS'd the server by massive amounts of complaints I'd consider it different. However, a straight out attack isn't going to do anything.
- nzmsv 17y ago
  Is there anyone on the net who thinks this filter is a good idea? Pretty much the only people who do are the ones who don't even use the Web, and just keep shouting that it's inherently evil. Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter. When no one will listen to the people who will actually be affected by this, what other options are left?
  - jstevens85 17y ago
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?site=news http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?si... This is probably the only article I've read that is pro-filter. "Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter." The government body ACMA will maintain a list of blacklisted websites (which already occurs, although pointless at this stage). I understand it will be the responsibility of the individual ISPs to choose how to block those websites.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  > a peaceful protest is far more effective Voting for these people would seem a good protest -- http://www.pirateparty.org.au/ http://www.pirateparty.org.au/
esonica 17y ago
I thinks its only a matter of time before Anonymous gets labelled a terrorist organisation to increase the counter measures / invasive laws that can be used against them. Disrupting Goverment sites and services would be considered as an attack as per the Australian Terrorism definition: (e) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa2002451/sch1.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa200245...
- astrec 17y ago
  No doubt, but the government has thus far proven itself inept with respect to technology let alone counter measures and risk mitigation. A political assault is far more likely: "Anonymous are terrorists, therefore all who protest against government censorship are terrorists or supporters of terrorism." Given we've already been declared pedophiles or supporters of pedophilia this is a bow barely drawn.
- dirtbox 17y ago
  It wouldn't make any difference. Anonymous isn't a set group of hackers, it's quite literally anyone and everyone that wants to get involved at any moment for any cause whether for fun, such as sabotaging Time's most influential people list, to objecting en-mass to outlandish proposals such as these censorship laws. Labelling Anonymous as terrorists is essentially labelling the general public as terrorists.
  - esonica 17y ago
    I feel it would. Imagine a script kiddie in Australia decides to join the DDOS attack on the government site. He is easily traced by IP, and the Australian Federal Police come to visit. His new 'rights', now that he is part of a terror group include: Being held for up to nine days in detention without being formally charged. Warrantless searches The seizure of any objects associated with the terrorist act (this is quite a wide open definition, basically anything you own is up for grabs) Also the AFP have some quite invasive computer techniques that are used to go wandering through your system before they knock on the door.
chaosmachine 17y ago
http://www.aph.gov.au/ http://www.aph.gov.au/ The Parliament of Australia site is down.
njharman 17y ago
This is so awesome. It's like I'm living in near future cyberpunk novel. With vigilante hacker groups fighting the evil and oppressive corpora^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.
- celoyd 17y ago
  I was just thinking about Google v. China and PayPal v. India. This kind of stuff is not necessarily new: think of the banana republics, the royal charter companies, Hearst and the Spanish-American War, and so on. Heck, the Boston Tea Party is comparable: a trollish, grandstanding intervention in government business. What seems new is just how open it is: that Google, for example, appeals directly to the public when it argues with China. A hundred years ago, similar things might have happened, but I think only a few thousand people would have had such a clear view as everyone who reads a general-interest news site does now. It’s a lot harder to idealize power plays with our post-Watergate (if that’s the line) popular love of reliable muckraking.
- joeyo 17y ago
  William Gibson's prescience continues to frighten me. Unless the causality goes the other way, then it frightens me even more. "Chaos, Mr. Who," Lupus Yonderboy said. "That is our mode and modus. That is our central kick." Or, in the parlance of our times, they do it for the lulz.
teej 17y ago
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore
monkeygrinder 17y ago
As an expat Aussie, the direction the government has taken has saddened, but not shocked me. This is a country famous for having what the Register used to call 'The world's biggest Luddite' Richard Alston appointed as Minister of the Digital Economy. There has been a change of government since those times, but not much seems to have changed. While the idea of censoring certain content types like child porn may be seen as a good things, the issue is that the Net could become a tool of the government. The laws could extend to discrimination of minority groups - and Australia would become like China. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008026_169365.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008... This article points out that questions remain: there is a lack of detail on what will constitute illegal content, how decisions will be made, and how the filtering technology itself will work. It also said Australia is not the only Western democratic country to look at web filtering - Scandinavia and UK have web filtering. The Oz govt just failed to stem the tide of outrage and bad press. I'm also against getting rid of anonymity on the net, ie forcing everyone to use their full name, for the simple reason that some rogue governments in some countries are persecuting groups and the internet can be a powerful tool for them. Imagine if Mandela and the ANC had the net in the 50s. It's a hugely sticky issue though.

58 points by go37pi 17y ago

whilst i agree with their protesting of our governments unnecessary proposals on censoring australia, their methods are not helping. a ddos attack on the government only gives the government more ammunition to paint the average protester as a criminal or someone who is trying to harm the government. a peaceful protest is far more effective.

itistoday 17y ago
The notion that peaceful protest is always better than violent protest is simply historically bankrupt. There's a time and a place for both. To be honest, what they're doing, at least by revolutionary terms, might as well be considered "peaceful protest."
- tdm911 17y ago
  the issue i have is that the government will tell the uniformed voting public that 'we', (those who protest these moves), are trying to harm the government through these hacking attempts. to mrs and mrs family voter, this makes those who protest look bad and can sway their opinions on the censorship.
  - itistoday 17y ago
    I understand, but I question the effectiveness of the prior peaceful protests in fighting the legislation in the first place. They obviously didn't go over too well. It's possible that Anonymous' muckery could stir up discussion about this topic that otherwise would not have existed as the average Australian lapsed back into complacency. It's also possible their attacks will end up being counter-productive. Either way, I have to admire their reckless vigilantism against censorship, and can only imagine the LuLz being generated in the formal setting of Australia's bureaucracy.
electromagnetic 17y ago
If they DDOS'd the server by massive amounts of complaints I'd consider it different. However, a straight out attack isn't going to do anything.
nzmsv 17y ago
Is there anyone on the net who thinks this filter is a good idea? Pretty much the only people who do are the ones who don't even use the Web, and just keep shouting that it's inherently evil. Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter. When no one will listen to the people who will actually be affected by this, what other options are left?
- jstevens85 17y ago
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?site=news http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?si... This is probably the only article I've read that is pro-filter. "Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter." The government body ACMA will maintain a list of blacklisted websites (which already occurs, although pointless at this stage). I understand it will be the responsibility of the individual ISPs to choose how to block those websites.
cabalamat 17y ago
> a peaceful protest is far more effective Voting for these people would seem a good protest -- http://www.pirateparty.org.au/ http://www.pirateparty.org.au/

esonica 17y ago

I thinks its only a matter of time before Anonymous gets labelled a terrorist organisation to increase the counter measures / invasive laws that can be used against them. Disrupting Goverment sites and services would be considered as an attack as per the Australian Terrorism definition: (e) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa2002451/sch1.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa200245...

astrec 17y ago
No doubt, but the government has thus far proven itself inept with respect to technology let alone counter measures and risk mitigation. A political assault is far more likely: "Anonymous are terrorists, therefore all who protest against government censorship are terrorists or supporters of terrorism." Given we've already been declared pedophiles or supporters of pedophilia this is a bow barely drawn.
dirtbox 17y ago
It wouldn't make any difference. Anonymous isn't a set group of hackers, it's quite literally anyone and everyone that wants to get involved at any moment for any cause whether for fun, such as sabotaging Time's most influential people list, to objecting en-mass to outlandish proposals such as these censorship laws. Labelling Anonymous as terrorists is essentially labelling the general public as terrorists.
- esonica 17y ago
  I feel it would. Imagine a script kiddie in Australia decides to join the DDOS attack on the government site. He is easily traced by IP, and the Australian Federal Police come to visit. His new 'rights', now that he is part of a terror group include: Being held for up to nine days in detention without being formally charged. Warrantless searches The seizure of any objects associated with the terrorist act (this is quite a wide open definition, basically anything you own is up for grabs) Also the AFP have some quite invasive computer techniques that are used to go wandering through your system before they knock on the door.

chaosmachine 17y ago

http://www.aph.gov.au/ http://www.aph.gov.au/ The Parliament of Australia site is down.

njharman 17y ago

This is so awesome. It's like I'm living in near future cyberpunk novel. With vigilante hacker groups fighting the evil and oppressive corpora^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.

celoyd 17y ago
I was just thinking about Google v. China and PayPal v. India. This kind of stuff is not necessarily new: think of the banana republics, the royal charter companies, Hearst and the Spanish-American War, and so on. Heck, the Boston Tea Party is comparable: a trollish, grandstanding intervention in government business. What seems new is just how open it is: that Google, for example, appeals directly to the public when it argues with China. A hundred years ago, similar things might have happened, but I think only a few thousand people would have had such a clear view as everyone who reads a general-interest news site does now. It’s a lot harder to idealize power plays with our post-Watergate (if that’s the line) popular love of reliable muckraking.
joeyo 17y ago
William Gibson's prescience continues to frighten me. Unless the causality goes the other way, then it frightens me even more. "Chaos, Mr. Who," Lupus Yonderboy said. "That is our mode and modus. That is our central kick." Or, in the parlance of our times, they do it for the lulz.

teej 17y ago

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore

monkeygrinder 17y ago

As an expat Aussie, the direction the government has taken has saddened, but not shocked me. This is a country famous for having what the Register used to call 'The world's biggest Luddite' Richard Alston appointed as Minister of the Digital Economy. There has been a change of government since those times, but not much seems to have changed. While the idea of censoring certain content types like child porn may be seen as a good things, the issue is that the Net could become a tool of the government. The laws could extend to discrimination of minority groups - and Australia would become like China. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008026_169365.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008... This article points out that questions remain: there is a lack of detail on what will constitute illegal content, how decisions will be made, and how the filtering technology itself will work. It also said Australia is not the only Western democratic country to look at web filtering - Scandinavia and UK have web filtering. The Oz govt just failed to stem the tide of outrage and bad press. I'm also against getting rid of anonymity on the net, ie forcing everyone to use their full name, for the simple reason that some rogue governments in some countries are persecuting groups and the internet can be a powerful tool for them. Imagine if Mandela and the ANC had the net in the 50s. It's a hugely sticky issue though.