Skip to comments.Pro-porn protesters target government websites
Posted on 02/10/2010 5:21:27 AM PST by myknowledge
An internet protest group has launched an attack on Government websites in a protest against the proposed internet filter and censorship of some pornography.
The attack, dubbed Operation Titstorm by the group known as Anonymous, brought down a number of Government websites this morning, with the Parliament House site remaining offline well into the afternoon.
Anonymous claimed the attack was to highlight moves by the Government to ban the import of films featuring female ejaculation (which was classified as urination) as well as films featuring small-breasted women, over fears such films were simulating child pornography.
"More importantly, Anonymous does not approve of the steps already undertaken by the Australian Government to control what their populous [sic] sees," the statement said
"Claiming to be cracking down on 'simulated child pornography,' many depictions of women with small breasts in pornography have been banned," the group said in a statement.
"Officials cannot claim that they believe the models in these movies are in fact underage, as the production the titles that have been affected are heavily regulated to ensure the age of the models.
"Instead they are relying on earlier ambiguous wording that allows pornography featuring models that 'appear to be' under 18 years of age to be treated in the same manner as actual child pornography."
But lobby groups campaigning against internet censorship in Australia have condemned the attacks as "harmful".
Stop Internet Censorship co-founder Nicholas Perkins says any illegal action to protest censorship must be condemned.
"By attempting to bring down or deface government websites, a minority of internet users have brought negative attention to what is a very important issue for Australians," he said in a statement.
In a emailed reply to ABC News Online, an anonymous spokesperson for the group said the protest succeeded in raising awareness about internet censorship.
'Not afraid to act'
"The goal of today's attacks was to show the Australian Government that we are not afraid to act, and to raise awareness of the issue of internet censorship and our group's dedication to fighting it," the email said.
"Myself and the other protesters are quite satisfied with the results of our initial attacks.
The spokesperson also said while they understood concerns the group was doing more harm than good, they would continue to step up attacks on the Government.
"In terms of our response to claims that our attacks did more harm than good... this is a legitimate concern," the spokesperson said.
"These people should know that our recent attacks were simply the first of many planned protests.
"We plan to employ a variety of protesting methods in the future, including many quite different from those used today. Anonymous has quite a number of tricks up its collective sleeve."
Mr Perkins said Anonymous should instead focus on educating the public about the ineffectiveness of the proposed internet filter.
"Educating families, friends and the local community about that the filter will not work, does not target child pornographers or paedophiles, and could result in parents believing that their children are safe when they are not, is more important," he said.
"Parents need to be aware that any attempt to filter the internet by internet service providers will never work as well as filtering technologies that can be used within the home."'
A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General's Department said the Government was aware of the attacks and had briefed agencies identified as targets.
She said the Australian Parliament House website was down "due to a distributed denial of service attack by individuals belonging to the 'Anonymous' group".
"Australian Government agencies identified as potential targets by 'Anonymous' were briefed in advance and were provided with suggested mitigation strategies," the release said.
"The Department of Defence Cyber Security Operations Centre continues to monitor the situation."
Can't believe pro-porn hackers of Anonymous knocked out Australian government websites, even the PM's website.
WAY TO GO, ANONYMOUS!!!
“Titstorm”, eh....hmmmm....now there’s a forecast I’d love to watch......
But, as you know, there are no actual /b/tards on FR....right?
Did they penetrate that site with a backdoor virus?
Way to go? Very sad commentary on your values.
A titstorm would definitely be nippy.
Anonymous has no problem with attacking other people’s speech rights when it suits them. Anonymous can KMA.
It’s amazing that they could coordinate and implement such an attack using only one hand...
I don’t know, but it was a series of classic DDoS attacks.
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.
What a load that group is.
You could say the same about the DDoS attack that took down Sanford Wallace's spam operation.
Well, at least they’ve taken action against PM Kevin Rudd’s unpopular Internet censorship proposal.
fighting for kiddie porn.
The Australian Government need only regulate minimum cup size to resolve this concern. Who gets the job of inspecting compliance with this important government oversight?
fighting for kiddie porn.
That is the stated purpose of the “wall”, isn’t it?
***Did they penetrate that site with a backdoor virus?***
My thoughts exactly! Going to a porn site is liable to get your PC infected with a virtual STD! Even a virtual condom won’t stop some of them!
Oh well, it keeps the virtual VD cliics in business, and business is good!;-D
What in the article gave you that impression? Maybe you should post a quote?
Wasn’t the stated reason for the internet firewall child pornography? That’s the only reason it would make any sense whatsoever.
The filter is obstensibly intended to block sites that would be 'refused classification' under Australian law (that is would be above the standard permitted under Australia's X-rating). This certainly includes child pornography, but it also includes a wide range of other material - including, for example, any material advocating euthanasia. While I disagree, personally, with euthanasia, I regard it as a legitimate political debate - it is legal in some European nations, it was for a time in the recent past legal in the Northern Territory of Australia. There are also anti-abortion sites that could fall foul of RC classifications.
Even when it comes to child pornography, though, Austalia's existing laws on what is and isn't child pornography are very unclear. Under some interpretations (interpretations favoured by the current government) Walt Disney's 1960 film version of Pollyanna starring Hayley Mills could be considered child pornography.
The biggest problem though is that the 'black list' of sites blocked by the filter will be secret. Nobody will be allowed to know what sites are on it.
If the government decides, for example, that FreeRepublic is a 'race hate' site - and it could potentially make that determination based on a single poster here posting a racist comment - then FreeRepublic could be blocked to all internet users in Australia, without any requirement for the government to reveal it had done so.
This is not an attempt to block child pornography. It is an attempt by a socialist government to block the internet using child pornography as an excuse most people find hard to argue against.
It's unconstitutional, and the High Court of Australia would eventually rule it so, if a case reached it - but that will take, at the very least, months. And with limits on even mentioning what sites are on the blacklist (if FR was blocked, I'd be committing an offence to even say so - again, a law that is supposedly to prevent child pornography sites addresses being given out - blacklisted sites cannot be publicised), it could take even longer.
well child porn is about the only thing worth blocking, or rather trying to block.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.