Telstra Having Second Thoughts Over Censorship Plan; Fears Reprisals From Hactivists
from the having-an-impact dept
Well, this is getting interesting. While I still don't approve of the tactics of vigilante hacker groups, it's hard to deny that they're having some impact. After reports came out that Autralian telco giant Telstra was going to start censoring the internet by blocking a bunch of sites the government says are evil, the company has now indicated that it's wavering on its support of the plan, in large part due to fear of hacker reprisal attacks. In the stilted English of The Australian:It is understood Telstra was last night still grappling with the decision as to whether to commit to the voluntary filter because of fears of reprisals from the internet vigilantes behind a spate of recent cyber attacks.While I don't think the filters are a good idea, and am surprised and impressed by the "effectiveness" of LulzSec's efforts in getting Telstra to be aware that people don't like these filters and that there could be consequences, I do still wonder if this is really the best way to go about these things. Lots of folks will cheer this on because they agree with the end result (no censorship), but what if LulzSec (or a similar group, now that LulzSec says it's going away) makes a unilateral decision on something you disagree with? One of the problems of the censorship plan in Australia is that there's no oversight, and no way to appeal. But isn't that the same thing with those targeted by hactivists? Even if we agree with their general outlook, there's still a very real risk of collateral damage in a different way.
It is understood the unstructured collective of hackers that identifies itself as Lulz Security, which has an agenda to wreak havoc on corporate and government cyber assets, claiming this is to expose security flaws, is one of Telstra main concerns.
Of course, it's not just Telstra rethinking its position on censoring the internet. Apparently some of the other ISPs who had agreed to take part in this "voluntary" censorship are suddenly saying that it's not definite yet as to whether they'll take part. It sounds like many of these ISPs hoped they could just start censoring the internet without anyone noticing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters, hactivists, lulzsec, politics
Companies: telstra
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They were afraid of reprisal or more afraid their systems are not as secure as they would like everyone to believe?
While there could have been collateral damage from Lulzsec doing something about this, Lulzsec would have said sorry if they were in the wrong, rather than hide behind the "its for the children" or other silly claims used to encourage people to accept censorship with no oversight. Nothing Lulzsec could have done would have been as permanent as this filter going live.
And with all of the renewed coverage of this government censorship, the issue will need to be discussed further and they will, hopefully, consider that maybe the Government is not the right thing to pick what should be filtered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No the problem is that there is a censorship plan...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it makes sense to censor those censured in the past for such grave crimes as Sedition, Selling without License and Piracy.
So yeah. (Sorry, Gerry T!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American West and the guys with guns and ropes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an Aussie, I wouldn't mind them offering (i.e. opt-in, really voluntary) a plan like the UK's BT Clean-feed system.. As long as it's 110% got nothing whatsoever to do with those idiots in power..
But then again.. even that plan's now up in the air with the Mafiaa trying to usurp it;
http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-force-isp-to-use-child-abuse-filter-against-file-sharing-si te-110627/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collusion only works if everyone agrees...
The only way voluntary filtering like this would work in the market is if all the major players got together and agreed to it. If one decides not to filter, then there is a lot less incentive for the rest to go along with the plan because consumers will gravitate towards the uncensored provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With fear acting as an incentive, it keeps these companies from having embarrassing corporate secrets from being exposed.
That's a good thing since fear of government isn't working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"and a company starts making choices out of fear." No difference, between "terrorists" fear, and fear of repercussions from one's own government? How are they different? Rhetorical no need to answer. So terror from a government is accepted, but when it is a group of citizens they are terrorists?
Psssst! Boooo! Terrorists!!!! Gimme a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before you begin singing Kum Ba Yah make sure you have you public performance liscence up to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My morals are fine. It's the governments morals I'm worried about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free trumps morality every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Free trumps legality every time.
Free IS moral. Legal may or may not be moral.
We must criminalize teenagers who lip sync to popular songs in their bedroom and then upload a YouTube video of the "performance". Coming soon to a jail near you: It's Legal! It's the law of the land!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Priorities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Australian Minister for Communications and the (LOL) Digital Economy is Senator Stephen Conroy. If you're Australian, tell him what you think of the filter. Not that he's listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhTnj14LTvI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> prove to the government that it does not work.
They may say that. I do not trust them.
The government will simply say: your filter is broke, fix it!
It does not matter that it is impossible(*).
* see: great firewall of China
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm, maybe I just haven't been following this story closely enough, but I thought the goal of Lulsec was retribution for company's that do stupid shit like install rootkits and that poor security was just the means by which this "higher" goal was achieved. But regardless of what their stated goals may be, based on their targets, I'd say it's obvious that their real goal is retribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like if Telstra decided to censor the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hackers rule! -- OR NOT.
This, along with many similar /stunts, may be sheer propaganda to think that ordinary people have power and /can/ effect change -- they DO, but not by on-line stunts; in practice corporate officers like all of The Ruling Class throughout history would have to be dragged out into the street and hung from the nearest tree before they change.
THEATER can be used against you too. Just because you root for the valiant "hackers" here, don't be blind that it may be sheerly THEATER for the purpose of lulling people to sleep. My bet is that the "voluntary" censorship goes in right on schedule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hackers rule! -- OR NOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It comes down to money
So while their backpedalling may seem like they are scared of hackers, it's as close as they are going to get to saving face in the light of the possibility that a decision based on PR could affect them in the pocketbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It comes down to money
The sony hacks and dates
sony stock price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if?
Then they'll take a single step down a long path of becoming like my government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
Remember, Australia's government is by the people, 99% voter turnout, open elections.
lulsec? Oh yeah, they are accountable. not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This provides additional incentives for companies to do the right thing for the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom
I want both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to a friend of mine who happens to live in Australia, that "99%" voter turnout is required. You have to either vote or pay for not having voted. A kind of a super poll tax.
Sure-vote all you want-doesn't make a bit of difference because the private companies aren't elected officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For all you know, 50% of those votes could have been chosen at random and therefore not represent anyone's will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to a friend of mine who happens to live in Australia, that "99%" voter turnout is required. You have to either vote or pay for not having voted. A kind of a super poll tax.
Sure-vote all you want-doesn't make a bit of difference because the private companies aren't elected officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike?
You want to get in the grit of it Mike? A great man once said you cannot have freedom without civil disobedience. Next time the hypothetical comes to mind such as if = dislike of something first ask the end result. Was it intended? Is this what this group set out to do?
If you so dam worried about when the results are finished what happens to this group of skills. How about government (or those sponsoring it) fearing the people as any freedom based culture requires.
Lulzsec, in my opinion, is needed in this day and age. Need an example? Ever realize you've writ cognitive dissonance more this past month then I care to recall in 8 odd years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Alternative????
LulzSec represent 'the people' and in general are on the side of 'common sense' and 'common good'. They aren't out with heavy arms shooting people in the streets and just taking peoples freedoms by force, they are fight AGAINST such dictatorships and thank goodness are proving to be effective.
2011 will go down in political history as the year the internet facilitated global people power. The clock can't be turned back by authoritarian governments who want to sensor political opposition (amongst them, the Australian government!)
LulzSec are the cutting edge of on-line activism, and the thin end of the wedge. This version of people power can only grow from here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations Need To Be Taken Down A Peg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a little concerned that Telstra might decide to start filtering the internet for their wholesale customers as well, thus ISPs who actually don't wish to enforce this filter on their customers will end up doing so simply because they use Telstras hardware. Although I'm not entirely sure that's how it can work, so feel free to point out my error any techs out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]