Operation Titstorm hits the streets

 

Protest planned in major Australian cities.

Operation Titstorm will hit the streets of Australian cities in a "peaceful protest" against mandatory internet censorship this Saturday.

Dubbed 'Project Freeweb', the protest is organised by members of hacker group Anonymous, which took credit for last week's prolonged DDoS attack on Australian Government websites.

Events are planned in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Newcastle and Canberra at various times on 20 February. More than ten members of Anonymous are expected to attend each event.

However, organisers expect that a majority of the protest will take place overseas. Anonymous members have been urged to lead protests at Australian embassies around the world.

"We wish to oppose this filter because we're not only representing Australia, but the world," a Project Freeweb organiser who goes by the alias 'Infinite' told iTnews.

"If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level.

"The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to."

'Infinite' hoped that Project Freeweb would have more of a 'long term' effect on public perception of the filter than Operation Titstorm, which was criticised for harming more moderate efforts to campaign against internet censorship.

"Many of our number are productive, intelligent members of society," said Infinite, who is a Web designer.

"Some of the members of Anonymous, while feeling that the motivations behind Operation Titstorm were understandable and to a certain extent warranted, also felt that it cast a bad light upon the group as a whole."

Protesters have been instructed to study background information on Senator Conroy's filter plans and ACMA, and have been told not to wear masks.

While Anonymous members may be risking their post-Titstorm anonymity by appearing at the protests, 'Infinite' said that being involved in one event did not necessarily mean the individual was involved in the other.

Those involved in the DDoS attacks had taken precautions to ensure their anonymity, and many were not residents of Australia, he said.

To critics of Operation Titstorm, he said: "Anonymous understands their frustration, yet they fail to comprehend that one of the most important creations in the history of mankind is about to fall into the control of the government. And that must not happen.

"The internet must be protected at all costs. This is more than an opposition to the censorship of porn, this is the protection of our rights as human beings ... to have control over what we should be allowed to view and not have to fear a draconian censor."


Operation Titstorm hits the streets
"Get a load of this. This is a YouTube video that captures the ring leader of Anonymous when it was announced that Conroy was looking into Mandatory Filtering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y..."
By gonny
 
 
 
Comments: 17
deonast
Feb 15, 2010 4:31 PM
Hmm, I'd go and protest with them but I think the whole DDoS thing gives then a bit of negative PR here. While I like the term Titstorm I'm not sure it conveys the whole message and will instil in the public the perception that the issue is just about porn.
Ace
Feb 15, 2010 4:48 PM
"...one of the most important creations in the history of mankind" and "The internet must be protected at all costs."? Talk about over-dramatising it. I doubt that the 30% of the world's population who do not have a phone, let alone an internet connection would agree with this person. Why can he/she not reveal his name? Is he/she credible?

However, a proper protest sounds good. I might even turn up!
netizen
Feb 15, 2010 9:14 PM
Ace wrote:
"...one of the most important creations in the history of mankind" and "The internet must be protected at all costs."? Talk about over-dramatising it. I doubt that the 30% of the world's population who do not have a phone, let alone an internet connection would agree with this person. Why can he/she not reveal his name? Is he/she credible?

However, a proper protest sounds good. I might even turn up!


Since your so active why not reveal your name? I wonder if you are credible?
DJ
Feb 15, 2010 9:48 PM
Whilst it's funny to watch Conroy under attack from internet groups who don't want filters, using DDoS methods to attract attention is slack and irresponsible.

Fighting a supposedly wrong cause with something just as wrong is not the answer.

Eventually DDoS attackers slip up and leave clues, then when they are found out there will be a real crapstorm as organisations file suits for service disruption and costs associated with the DDoS attacks, which really didn't do anything except bring down a few parliamentary websites - big deal, the average Australian doesn't care about government crap anyway.
Ace
Feb 15, 2010 11:18 PM
@netz - Ah, but I'm not making press releases to reporters of reputable online news publications. Do I need to be credible? Is someone quoting me?
PatteDeLapin
Feb 16, 2010 4:33 AM
@Ace - That's exactly the problem. Australia Gvt have recently added a law to force ppl to force ppl to give their real name if they have a political discussion on blog or forum like this one.

This is just another way to control ppl. To force ppl not to question gvt or even discuss of his plan/doing.

Wikileaks is a totally secure way to denounce gvt wrong doing. And it's totally anonymous. There's a reason I wouldn't want to give my name if let's say I knew who killed John F Kennedy ...
Creationist
Feb 16, 2010 8:34 AM
So, let me get this straight - Australian government (legitimately elected by Australian people) is acting on one of its election promises, which apparently had support of substantial part of Australia's public at the time of election. Now, other group, that thinks that it represents "the public" of no lesser than of "all world" is going to tell us what we should like about "freedom of speech" and how exactly we should like it? Did I read it right?
That group, that consists of various "Anonymous" could not properly represent themselves let alone "the world"! And how about the fact that many of them are not even Australians? Did they vote for this government, do they even have the right to decide on this matter?

I think the actions of the group (I guess, of that "unintelligent and counter-productive" part of it) speak for themselves - they are bunch of hypocrites only concerned with their own interests, which consists mostly (as it seems) of "freedom of tits", and that is all there it is, folks.
nsbgerard
Feb 16, 2010 9:07 AM
I don't think the internet filtering was widely advertised pre-election to be honest, in fact, I don't recall hearing about it before K.Rudd came to power..

Anonymous do not represent the public at large, but they are representing a cause that many people (those who still have brains and aren't ultra conservative retards) agree with too.

Freedom to watch porn with small tits is only a tiny factor of the implications this type of policy has on Australians.
deonast
Feb 16, 2010 9:35 AM
When I heard about the filtering before the election it was being sold as optional, the government has seemed to have changed this after the election, this was not what I or may others voted for. There are far more important election promises they have not met.
Ace
Feb 16, 2010 11:01 AM
@PatteDeLapin, I think you might be referring to the SA Govts (not Aust. Govt)attempt to introduce a law that could never work, is supposed to be repealed at some point (though who knows if it ever will).
Stormina Dcup
Feb 16, 2010 3:43 PM
@PatteDeLapin, I'm sure you would be the first to accuse "gvt", the media and news of misrepresenting facts, getting facts wrong and taking facts out of context, all of which you've just done. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh and you have a keyboard and big white box which can handle long words like "people". SMS-speak makes you sound like an illiterate teenager.

[mumbles] unfortunately, we need all the help we can get here.
Stormina Dcup
Feb 16, 2010 4:47 PM
Actually, I don't see the problem here.. just don't LET kids use the Internet. It's not for kids. It's not a toy. Period. Then there's no need for a filter and everyone's happy.

Seriously, kids SHOULD NOT BE USING the Internet. Computers of course, as long as they exercise too, but Internet no. Children should be socialising IRL not chatting to each other online. Children should be learning things about the real world, having difficult ideas explained, not being fed schoolyard opinions at home as well as at school. Children's peers should not be as important as their (hopefully positive) adult role models (hopefully their parents). Children should find joy and imagination in nature, books, art and music, not the Internet. Sure those things can be found on the net - if you're looking for it. But mainly no.

Take a walk down a busy street with your kid - by the time you get home, s/he will probably have questions that you're glad you can explain in person. The Internet is NOT FOR KIDS, period. Just the chat on most game servers is not for kids.

That position will sound extreme, but as long as I can do an image search on google for "breasts" and get all this ...

uh.. what was I saying? Oh yeah, extreme positions..
Stormina Dcup
Feb 16, 2010 4:56 PM
And while I'm at it, do a google for "peepee". Something a kid might do.

Check the image results. Go on, I dare you.

Note particularly the web site advertising a "pee pee bottle" for toddlers. Totally legit site. But check the picture. blog.runpee.com/604_the-pee-pee-bottle

omg.. let's put that one on the blacklist too, shall we? Sorry, posting that link was irresponsible of me, it may turn one of you into a paedophile.

Question is, who exactly is the Internet for? Perverts? Hey, they'll get their kicks from most late-night TV shows, so maybe we should ban them too.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Keep kids off the net. Nasty adults will be nasty adults no matter what medium they have or don't have.
Stormina Dcup
Feb 16, 2010 5:11 PM
Ok, final word (sorry but this issue riles me).

All this money being spent on knee-jerk and ultimately *useless* measures, for what? Controlling a medium will NOT stop crime and will NOT protect anyone.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, child/social/welfare & women's services need more money, our education system needs more money, footballers are still raping girls, violence in schools in increasing, and our government *lets down kids* who try to explain they're being abused by their *parents*.

The people of this country should be setting the agenda, yet we continually fall for these one-issue wonders at election time. WE pay the politicians, they are accountable to US, and they continually let us down.

When will citizens wake up and CHANGE THE AGENDA to things that MATTER, instead of following the agenda set by our politicians?

In the end, that's the real challenge for us, and the ONLY way things will improve for our kids.
SvenV
Feb 16, 2010 8:31 PM
Since the pre-election promise was for an *optional* filter, this is actually an example of *breaking* an election promise.
Ace
Feb 17, 2010 10:15 AM
@SvenV: It may well be optional. Option 1: Use the filter. Option 2: Go to jail. Option 3: Don't use the internets.
gonny
Feb 17, 2010 10:37 AM
Get a load of this. This is a YouTube video that captures the ring leader of Anonymous when it was announced that Conroy was looking into Mandatory Filtering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
NBN Co braces for secrecy probe
Opinion: Is commercial sensitivity a catch-all?
 
Exclusive: NBN Co withholds fibre upgrade price
Fears trial details could breach contractor confidentiality.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Was your 2012 IT budget...




   |   View results
Cut by less than ten percent?
  17%
 
Cut by more than ten percent?
  34%
 
Flat
  26%
 
Increased by less than ten percent?
  7%
 
Increased by more than ten percent?
  15%
TOTAL VOTES: 350

Vote
Will you still use DropBox and other cloud storage in the wake of the Megauploads saga?

   |   View results
Yes
  63%
 
No
  37%
TOTAL VOTES: 230

Vote