Slashdot Mirror

Here is a post by the CEO of LightBox, one of the companies pushing for "clarification" around the legality of "Global Mode" which sets out her position.

Perhaps inevitably, her position gets a hiding in the comments thread.

http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/kim-dotcom-questions-and-answers/

Government Communications Security Bureau ensured Dotcom was a "foreign national" before beginning surveillance, but that's not he definition they should have been working with. Dotcom is not a "foreign person" by New Zealand law, as he is a permanent resident.

Here's a YouTube mashup of the speech given in parliament by one of the committee members who considered this amendment to the bill, saying that file-sharing is illegal.

Any file-sharing, as she reads it. The mashup is of National list MP Katrina Shanks ("I think I'm fairly savvy about computers...my son's got an iPad") and Miss North Carolina ("I think American education should help the eye-rack and the Asian countries").

Laughable.

Hat Tip: Public Address: Russell Brown's Hard News

I'm a New Zealander, my country is "nuclear free". We still have smoke detectors with "Americium", Nuclear Medicine etc, but not Nuclear Power, or weapons of mass destruction. On that last point, our police do not have guns (unless for an emergency call out etc, nutjob running wild with a gun endangering civil civilians), in general, we are a peaceful nation, the rest of the world likes us, things seem to be working out fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand's_nuclear-free_zone

Our national stance AGAINST Nuclear weapons, power have gotten past American presidents pissy. During the 80's we got the "waaa, domino effect, if you dont support our totally awesome war machines playing around in your harbours, if you're not 100% WITH US,then you're AGAINST us, and others will back away too if your totally influential country of (at the time) less than four million stands up to The Good Superpower!"

You can read the transcript of a speech by our Prime Minister David Lange (long-e) as he stood up "to America", who are widely regarded as being beaten by this one man, from a small country on the issue.

Transcript http://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear-weapons-are-morally-indefensible/

Audio http://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear-weapons-are-morally-indefensible-1/

Its one of my nations defining moments, sort of like our "man on the moon", when we stood up for ourselves, when we declared we wanted nothing to do with this shit, when a major nation whined that we couldnt be friends unless we smoked behind the bikesheds with them, and we came out victorious.

During that "debate", we got similar arguments to now, stereotypes, personal attacks, Microsoft levels of FUD. There I go myself, dragging Microsoft into this ;-)

So far, what I've seen here, and elsewhere, is a general "waaa, whiny bitch Greenies dont understand, why dont they understand? Coz they're DUMB DUMB DUMB, this is SAFE dammit, but if its not, then the NIMBY Greenies are ALSO to blame, they're as bad as those who oppose drilling for oil in National Parks, its THEIR fault, what happened on the Deepwater Horizon, because they didnt let us do what we wanted, Drill Baby Drill!, by going ahead with this kinda unsafe - but that could totally be made awesome and stuff, if only they let us pump billions more into it! - technology! And then this technology ended up with Spill Baby Spill! waaaaaaa!!!111!!!"

Whether Nuclear as currently deployed a) is or b) is not safe is perhaps the wrong question. The issue might instead be, c) why use Nuclear at all? Given massive costs in building ("waaa, thats because of the greenies and red tape!") and maintaining Nuclear plants, in their terrible PR, in the genuine scares for negative effects.

New Zealand makes over 70% of our power through efficient, *renewable* sources, like hydropower. The shit works, it has for decades, it would otherwise be an untapped resource, its effectively "free", once you've built the station.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand

One such local hydropower station is at Manapouri (or perhaps more accurately Deep Cove), I've been through the machine hall many times, its a tourist attraction, and has given me a real respect for both nature, and scientific achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manapouri_Hydroelect

I'm a New Zealander, my country is "nuclear free". We still have smoke detectors with "Americium", Nuclear Medicine etc, but not Nuclear Power, or weapons of mass destruction. On that last point, our police do not have guns (unless for an emergency call out etc, nutjob running wild with a gun endangering civil civilians), in general, we are a peaceful nation, the rest of the world likes us, things seem to be working out fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand's_nuclear-free_zone

Our national stance AGAINST Nuclear weapons, power have gotten past American presidents pissy. During the 80's we got the "waaa, domino effect, if you dont support our totally awesome war machines playing around in your harbours, if you're not 100% WITH US,then you're AGAINST us, and others will back away too if your totally influential country of (at the time) less than four million stands up to The Good Superpower!"

You can read the transcript of a speech by our Prime Minister David Lange (long-e) as he stood up "to America", who are widely regarded as being beaten by this one man, from a small country on the issue.

Transcript http://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear-weapons-are-morally-indefensible/

Audio http://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear-weapons-are-morally-indefensible-1/

Its one of my nations defining moments, sort of like our "man on the moon", when we stood up for ourselves, when we declared we wanted nothing to do with this shit, when a major nation whined that we couldnt be friends unless we smoked behind the bikesheds with them, and we came out victorious.

During that "debate", we got similar arguments to now, stereotypes, personal attacks, Microsoft levels of FUD. There I go myself, dragging Microsoft into this ;-)

So far, what I've seen here, and elsewhere, is a general "waaa, whiny bitch Greenies dont understand, why dont they understand? Coz they're DUMB DUMB DUMB, this is SAFE dammit, but if its not, then the NIMBY Greenies are ALSO to blame, they're as bad as those who oppose drilling for oil in National Parks, its THEIR fault, what happened on the Deepwater Horizon, because they didnt let us do what we wanted, Drill Baby Drill!, by going ahead with this kinda unsafe - but that could totally be made awesome and stuff, if only they let us pump billions more into it! - technology! And then this technology ended up with Spill Baby Spill! waaaaaaa!!!111!!!"

Whether Nuclear as currently deployed a) is or b) is not safe is perhaps the wrong question. The issue might instead be, c) why use Nuclear at all? Given massive costs in building ("waaa, thats because of the greenies and red tape!") and maintaining Nuclear plants, in their terrible PR, in the genuine scares for negative effects.

New Zealand makes over 70% of our power through efficient, *renewable* sources, like hydropower. The shit works, it has for decades, it would otherwise be an untapped resource, its effectively "free", once you've built the station.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand

One such local hydropower station is at Manapouri (or perhaps more accurately Deep Cove), I've been through the machine hall many times, its a tourist attraction, and has given me a real respect for both nature, and scientific achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manapouri_Hydroelect

The link in the article, even on the day it was posted on slashdot, talked about conflicting reports.

Current status @ 07:20 NZT, 02:20 Beijing time, 14-01-10: Still conflicting reports coming out. It could be that Google has already lifted its own censorship measures. Or it could be that the censorship measures are still up, but because of the intense interest generated (and click-thrus) on sensitive subjects, small holes in the wall are being publicised and magnified.

That was probably some over-enthusiastic blog. Google would have officially annouced it if it had lifted censorship. Last official status from Google is that they're talking to the Chinese.

I know people don't read articles here, but let's just hold our horses for an official announcement on Google's status. =)

Check this image from the article: http://publicaddress.net/assets/img/OnPoint/100113-1720-Google-NZ.jpg with what it is now... http://images.google.cn/images?q=Tiananmen%20Square&langpair=en%7Czh&hl=zh-CN&sa=N&tab=Di (I couldnt find the exact symbols the guy used, so I'm not sure if it counts... although I know the last search was very different hours ago.)

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.

It has nothing to do with child porn. These list are NOT used to block child porn. They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list finds objectionable.

If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material. They are committing crimes and hurting people. Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn. Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent. It's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent. If it's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that, by all rights, will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press. One of the articles included in the summary states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes:

All 'objectionable' material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable', or should instead be given an 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

â acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty

â degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

â promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

â represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them. It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters. It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten. And don't say that won't happen. Finland's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.

I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here (where ever here is: US, Australia, Europe, Canada). It's about child porn my ass.

Yes I have to admit the fact in the summary that ~94% of ISPs are willing to implement this struck me as being really bizarre.

...snip...

I wonder why NZ ISPs are so different in their opinion (at least as reported by this article)

It appears to be 2 ISPs that represent 94% of the NZ market. FTFA:

Here, the ISPs that took part in the trial, and the ones that have indicated interest in picking up the filtering scheme (Telecom and Vodaphone) represent 94% of the New Zealand market.

We have been told that because others in the West - and their advocates are here tonight - carry the fearful burden of a defence which terrorises as much as the threat it counters, we too must carry that burden. We are actually told that New Zealanders cannot decide for themselves how to defend New Zealand, but are obliged to adopt the methods which others use to defend themselves.

Lord Carrington [the Secretary-General of NATO] made a case in Copenhagen recently against the creation of nuclear weapon free zones. He argued that if the people of the United States - as advocated by my friend over there - found themselves bearing the burden alone, they would tire of bearing it. Now that is exactly the point. Genuine agreement[s] about the control of nuclear weapons do not cede the advantage to one side or the other: they enhance security, they do not diminish it. And if such arrangements can be made, and such agreements reached, then those who remain outside those arrangements might well and truly tire of their insecurity. They will reject the logic of the weapon and they will assert their essential humanity. They will look for arms control agreements which are real and verifiable.

DAVID LANGE, Oxford Union debate, 1985

The Russians and Chinese are keeping their nukes up to date....why should we not do the same?

Because nuclear weapons are morally indefensible.

Bets that this judge is some OAP who was shown by his grandson how you could "google" someone...

Actually what's particularly interesting about this case is that the judge also teaches Information Technology and has written a text-book on cyber law in New Zealand, and he's made a submission to the NZ government about spam legislation which I haven't read, but you could probably look at if you want some guideline idea of his IT competence.

One of New Zealand's media commentators with a lot of IT experience (Russell Brown, for whom I have a lot of respect) threw in a few comments over here, and wasn't immediately condemning of the actions of the judge. Brown commented that he thinks this judge probably has more technical knowledge of the Internet than any other judge in the country, and coming from him it's either quite compelling or very detrimental to every other judge.

New Zealand's had problems in the past with courts trying to suppress names, particularly in cases when there's been international interest in the case, because the suppression orders only apply in New Zealand. I don't understand what he expects to achieve except possibly hoping that jurors won't be able to hide at home and google the names as easily during critical points in the trial, especially since the details of this trial are unlikely to gather much interest outside NZ. I think Brown's theory that this is an experimental act from the judge to see what happens sounds fairly feasible.

David Lange is the porson that made the. David, now deceased, is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and a brilliant speaker. If interested have a listen or read the Transcript to the Oxford Debate on the topic "Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible" where he spoke in the affirmative against Jerry Falwell.

My favourite quote of his was to a reporter. The reporter asked "Prime Minister, can I have a short word?" and David Lange kept walking and responded "Wombat". Love him or hate him he had a certain brilliance about him.

David Lange is the porson that made the. David, now deceased, is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and a brilliant speaker. If interested have a listen or read the Transcript to the Oxford Debate on the topic "Nuclear Weapons are Morally Indefensible" where he spoke in the affirmative against Jerry Falwell.

My favourite quote of his was to a reporter. The reporter asked "Prime Minister, can I have a short word?" and David Lange kept walking and responded "Wombat". Love him or hate him he had a certain brilliance about him.

http://www.publicaddress.net/default,2424.sm#post

===
Thank god I'm in NZ, where the copyright laws are less crappy
===

Not for long... http://publicaddress.net/default,3778.sm#post3778

L

All of the replies claiming that this law is reasonable, I think have overlooked a few key things:

All good points. And the interesting thing is that while the format-shifting exception has been there since the first discussion document in in 2001, the anti-circumventiontion stuff came in relatively late and has not been well justified. The impression is that the change is a result of lobbying from (a) music industry interests, who strongly opposed format-shifting, (b) US trade interests (there is a desire for a FTA with the US). This is a shame, because NZ's policy development in these areas is generally pretty good, and certainly much better than Australia's. I compiled a timeline here:

http://publicaddress.net/default,3778.sm

Also, our Rastafarian Green MP made a pretty savvy speech:

http://publicaddress.net/default,3802.sm

As others have noted, the bill now goes to select committee, where it will undoubtedly be amended. The question is how and how much.

All of the replies claiming that this law is reasonable, I think have overlooked a few key things:

All good points. And the interesting thing is that while the format-shifting exception has been there since the first discussion document in in 2001, the anti-circumventiontion stuff came in relatively late and has not been well justified. The impression is that the change is a result of lobbying from (a) music industry interests, who strongly opposed format-shifting, (b) US trade interests (there is a desire for a FTA with the US). This is a shame, because NZ's policy development in these areas is generally pretty good, and certainly much better than Australia's. I compiled a timeline here:

http://publicaddress.net/default,3778.sm

Also, our Rastafarian Green MP made a pretty savvy speech:

http://publicaddress.net/default,3802.sm

As others have noted, the bill now goes to select committee, where it will undoubtedly be amended. The question is how and how much.

There's no point even trying to reason with Greens, because they fundamentally don't get science.

In 1985 the New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange , at the Oxford Union Debate has already won the debate regarding nuclear weapons:

http://publicaddress.net/default,1578.sm#post

Everything that needed to be said about nukes was said then, and nothing further need be added today.

The debate was won, and all arguments for nuclear weapons rendered useless.

Russell Brown often comments on America.

He is a New Zealander who goes for highly balanced commentary. I highly recommend Americans reading at least one blog that looks on from the outside. Check him out: Hardnews

None of you can even stand to look at what the rest of the world considers normal media anymore because it jars so much with your totally distorted world view.

buh bye