Scientology seeks to squash anonymity
Anonymous attacks could backfire with tighter Aussie laws
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
A little local controversy involving the Church of Scientology and its critics could lead to curbs on the right to anonymity of anyone using the web.
The argument is currently raging in Australia, following the launch last November by the Australian Human Rights Commission (HREOC) of a report entitled Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century. The theory behind this report was that it would provide a good base from which Australia could take stock of its progress in these areas over the last decade, as well as coming up with proposals to move forward.
While the impetus behind this project would appear to be mostly positive, it was always likely that calls for individual religious groups to submit proposals around protection of faiths and their own view of religious freedom could have unintended consequences.
One such consequence arrived in the shape of submission no 1931, from the Church of Scientology, protesting strongly at attacks on their faith by protest group Anonymous, and running an online campaign from a site called Whyweprotest.
According to the Church of Scientology, these attacks have reached the point where some members have been physically threatened, and slanderous attacks have been made online: however, the police have found it difficult to intervene, simply because of the anonymous nature of the attacks.
The organisation claims that since January 2008, they have been subjected to a continuing campaign of violence and abuse from a hate group calling themselves ‘Anonymous’. It adds: "In the last 13 months they have also (ie as well as their internet based assaults) committed acts of harassment and criminal offences 'in real life' against the Church, its members and Church property."
As evidence, it cites "bomb threats, arson threats and committed acts of vandalism against Scientology churches".
In response, the protest group claim that it needs anonymity to protect members' lives and livelihood. It states: "Due to Scientology's Fair Game policy, we put ourselves at risk socially, politically, and financially when we speak out against this dangerous cult.
"This is a cult that has a well earned reputation for harassing critics and openly critical ex-scientologists at their homes and workplaces. Taking measures to protect your privacy and anonymity when confronted by an aggressively litigious cult is a matter of common sense."
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actions taken, it is the Church’s response to the HREOC that could end up having the most far-reaching consequences. They are looking for the law to be tightened to make it illegal to incite hatred against religious groups: and they are also looking for government to strip away anonymity from anyone behind such activity online.
While this argument is focused on the high emotions aroused by supporters and detractors of the CoS, it comes at a time when the law is increasingly suspicious of online anonymity. Back in June, the Times overturned a court order designed to protect the anonymity of a police blogger.
More recently, Google found itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit requiring it to cough up the identity of an anonymous blogger who had made adverse comments about model Liskula Cohen.
The tide does seem to be moving inexorably against online anonymity – and this submission from the CoS may well be a sign of further things to come in Australia. ®
COMMENTS
LOL scientology
"bomb threats" "harrassment" you know what this sounds like? Sounds like the same bull that they tried to pull on Paulette Cooper, author of a book critical of Scientology, during Operation Freakout which was committed by the then Guardian's Office ( now known as Office of Special Affairs) in which they tried to use her stationary to forge bomb threats against the "church" all with the intended purpose of either having her incarcerated or put into a mental facility. This was discovered around the same time as Operation Snow White was discovered ( the operation intended to infiltrate departments of the US government in order to seek and destroy documents critical of Scientology) by the FBI. Many high ranking scientologists were arrested and imprisoned including L Ron Hubbard's then wife Mary.
So I ask you, who is the REAL threat? An internet protest group who have been actually proven NOT to have even sent bomb threats and the like or a malignant and greedy cult who has been proven in the past to do anything and everything to subdue any critical thought against the cult?
Bomb threats? Arson threats? Might as well be anthrax threats.. oh wait.
Scientology claimed they got anthrax in the mail as well from anonymous... Most of these threats they "received" were conjured up by Scientology themselves, the FBI cleared this up even.
Now, the only REAL thing backing up the attacks is one person who DDoS'd a scientology website back in early 2008. But guess who created DDoSing? Scientology!
Yep, Scientology created DDoSing back in the early 90s to destroy newsgroups and other early forms of information gathering because people were discussing Scientology and their "copyrighted" works.
What church copyrights ANY works? Huh? None.
Only businesses do.
What Scientology is trying to do is to track down these members who post against them and harass them with the same threats they "claimed" to receive themselves. Maybe not send bombs or burn a house, but pets have ended up poisoned as well as a few actual people having been killed under "mysterious circumstances".
Scientology still follows their "fair game policy", which they've used against a U.S. reporter in the 70s, probably the most famous case. Just google "operation freakout".
You'll probably see more cases like "Operation Freakout" if anonymity goes away.
Don't Single Out Scientology - Abrahamic Faiths
All of the Abrahamic faiths have great similarities with Scientology. Based upon a story that an individual came up with, containing quite unbelievable tales, all require money from their devotees (in CofE parlance its called a 'tithe'). None of them like being criticised, and all - really - believe other 'religions' are false. Note that you don't have to believe in an ultimate deity to be a religion (e.g. Buddhism).
Amongst all of their variances however, they do all have one big thing in common - they are all a load of made-up make-believe cobblers.

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider