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.
It would be like punching mist. Hell, if someone gets in jail for being part of anonymous (or, more accurately, for participating in a DDoS advocated by people under the banner of anonymous, or even more likely for having their wifi used by someone to participate in such a DDoS), it will just make all the others more angry. Fighting them would be like fighting tor, or bittorrent; highly distributed, highly decentralized, with no real command structure, and no allegiance to any single website (if one goes down or is monitored, they can always move elsewhere). It's not even an organization, in the old sense; you might as well say that slashdot or HN are organizations[1]. On the upside? Most of them, most of the time, don't care - except when someone makes them angry, they seem fairly passive, more interested in their own amusement than anything else (yes, I occasionally lurk on 4chan) - and even then, there are probably only a few thousand who actually participate in things like this [not that I have actual numbers to support this, but still - someone who's more interested could start lurking on IRC channels mentioned in image macros (such as the one in the article) and keep track of how many unique individuals show up].
Or you could always kill them off by destroying anonymity in the internet - force everyone to use their real names everywhere, to provide concrete linkages to real personalities. That's the only way to stop people from taking advantage of anonymity.
I'm sorry that this turned into a rant; it was originally going to be a lot shorter. I just kept on thinking of things to add, you see ... and I haven't ranted for a while.
[1] Lots of like-minded people, who read content on sites, post content, and occasionally take action/respond to that content, when it means something to them, or is so easy that there's no reason not to.
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.
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.
I disagree. The list you mention is part of the definition of "terrorist act". The definition of "terrorist act" starts by saying:
terrorist act" means an action or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (2A)...
The list of things you cite is from subsection (2). However, subsection (2A) reads:
(2A)
Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and
(b) is not intended:
(i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or
(ii) to cause a person's death; or
(iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or
(iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
It's pretty clear to me that this sort of action falls within both subsection (2) (as you pointed out) and subsection (2A). The latter means it wouldn't be within the definition of "terrorist act".
To me anon is like the guys from fight club. If someone starts fighting them seriously, it's only a matter of time before they get cornered in a bathroom and given the whole "we are everyone..don't fuck with us" speech
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
[+] [-] esonica|16 years ago|reply
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/slaa200245...
[+] [-] sorbus|16 years ago|reply
Or you could always kill them off by destroying anonymity in the internet - force everyone to use their real names everywhere, to provide concrete linkages to real personalities. That's the only way to stop people from taking advantage of anonymity.
I'm sorry that this turned into a rant; it was originally going to be a lot shorter. I just kept on thinking of things to add, you see ... and I haven't ranted for a while.
[1] Lots of like-minded people, who read content on sites, post content, and occasionally take action/respond to that content, when it means something to them, or is so easy that there's no reason not to.
[+] [-] dirtbox|16 years ago|reply
Labelling Anonymous as terrorists is essentially labelling the general public as terrorists.
[+] [-] astrec|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pmccool|16 years ago|reply
terrorist act" means an action or threat of action where: (a) the action falls within subsection (2) and does not fall within subsection (2A)...
The list of things you cite is from subsection (2). However, subsection (2A) reads: (2A) Action falls within this subsection if it: (a) is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action; and (b) is not intended: (i) to cause serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or (ii) to cause a person's death; or (iii) to endanger the life of a person, other than the person taking the action; or (iv) to create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
It's pretty clear to me that this sort of action falls within both subsection (2) (as you pointed out) and subsection (2A). The latter means it wouldn't be within the definition of "terrorist act".
[+] [-] vaksel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monkeygrinder|16 years ago|reply
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/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.
[+] [-] njharman|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeyo|16 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] celoyd|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chaosmachine|16 years ago|reply
The Parliament of Australia site is down.
[+] [-] teej|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdm911|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cabalamat|16 years ago|reply
Voting for these people would seem a good protest -- http://www.pirateparty.org.au/
[+] [-] electromagnetic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nzmsv|16 years ago|reply
When no one will listen to the people who will actually be affected by this, what other options are left?
[+] [-] itistoday|16 years ago|reply