Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand Looks at Internet Censorship
David writes "The New Zealand Government 'Select Committee', upon reviewing censorship law, has issued a report which among other things, recommends that ISPs face compulsory licensing "in order to control their behaviour", the forcing of a code of conduct upon ISPs, and recommends the implementation of an internet filtration programme not dissimilar from that of Australia's (although it is hazy on the details of what this would mean). They're starting to become really worried about the dangers of the internet."
In the document it mentions ratings such as M and R16... can some tell me what this rating system is? I'm curious.
The amount of Intrustion that governments want in our surfing is starting to irriate me greatly. This is all the more reason to get off-shore hosting and off-shore isp's going on
/ 223521 5&mode=thread
as I refear you to past slashdot link
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/09
I was just curisous, as the intrustion on liberty is really starting to bug me, What if anyone thinks of the possiblty of an off-shore isp, using satillites or other types of communication.
I might not like people looking at some of the things they look at, But I certainly don't want the government cenorsing things.
Old Zeeland is in the Low Countries, now known as the Netherlands.
KFG
About 2 years ago the NZ government was taking submissions with regard to changes to copyright law, particularly with regard to digital copyright. A small campaign was mounted here to try and get enough submissions against DMCA style laws here, and I must admit that we were listened to and considered. At this stage any mooted changes haven't made it as far as a bill to be passed, so we don't know exactly what they'll do, but it has looked promising.
In general our government has shown some willingness to be somewhat open minded in considering technology issues, and to actually listen to what real tech people have to say, so hopefully this bill being considered will actually end up being fairly moderate and well considered.
There is still hope.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
They want to steal our internet filtering laws? Don't they realise that they just don't work. Our system is complaints based and is restricted to Australia only, so what did the Aussie porn sites do? They went over seas.
Not only that but in the couple of years it has been running, the system has recieved less than a hundred complaints in total. ISPs are required by law not to host naughty material, and provide filtering software if and when the user requests it. And we all know how well shit like Net Nanny works don't we.
I know I've taken some cheap shots at the Kiwis but from what I've read of the articles they are looking for a sensible way to balance the rights of their citizens to look at porn with the oh so real fact that shit like child porn, beastiality and snuff movies do exist on the web.
If they can come up with a way that manages to both protect their citizens rights and make inroads into the production of the sick shit then all the better for them. God knows we need some one to re-think the Internet cencorship laws here, thankyou Chief Luddite Alston.
I just wanted to bring out two paragraphs in the secondary link (dangers of the internet) about the transitive property of 'objectionability', in case some people missed it:
The status of an encrypted file under the censorship law (Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act) is very broadly defined. If a file can "by the use of a computer program" be converted into an objectionable file, then the original file is judged to be objectionable.
However, for any two arbitrary bit strings a program can be written to convert one into the other, so strictly according to the legal definition every file is objectionable.
That is a great example of TERRIBLE law-writing. I mean it sounds all la-de-da at first glance, but don't people re-read these things? How can you sign something into law when it clearly implies that every file on every computer is 'objectionable', and thus illegal. Dammit! Laws are important and writing them like that is negligent!
Laws like that only go to convince me that the government is too incompetent to make any important judgments for me. If they'd only stop trying, they might not come off like such buffoons and we'd all be winners!
There is a group trying to do this that claims to have formed their own nation on an old oil rig off of the UK. It is the "country" of Sealand, population of ~12, and it actually issues passports. I don't have the website, but Google does. The UK deems them a target for possible takeover since they were running questionable financial transaction through their servers, and they'll allow anything but child porn on their servers. I dunno about taking them over, but the idea is at least sound in theory: buy your own oil rig, with investor help, and do nothing but run huge anounts of servers on it for profit.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
There's no need to require ISPs to be licensed and abide by a strict code of conduct for governments to fight things like child porn and snuff films. Those things are illegal and it's a simple matter of tracing the pictures to the source and obtaining a search warrant. The licensing requirement would facilitate censorship regardless of the policy's stated purpose. Today it might be used to stamp out child pornography, tomorrow it might be used to stamp out all sorts of controversial content. Fight child pornography by arresting those who produce it, but leave ISPs the fuck alone.
Theoretically the Australian Consitution was written so that New Zealand could become a member state of Australia at any time, on equal footing with the other 6 (plus a few territories).
IMHO, this is utterly arse-backwards. Given New Zealand's continual and consistant common-sense, thoughtfulness and ethics, and contrasted with Little Johnny 'Arse-licker' Howard, not to mention NZ's relationship between native, colonial and immigrant populations, and its generally progressive and humane social policies, I would like to make a suggestion:
Please, please, please, could Australia become the West Island of New Zealand?
We'll provide the army, if you show us how to maintain a universal public health system! We'll help get rid of your possum problem if you can heal the rift between the Aboriginals and the government!
Waiting in hope.
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
Sealand is actually based on an old anti-aircraft platform a few miles off the south-east coast of the UK. It's story is fascinating, and you can learn more at Sealandgov.com. They don't issue passports as far as I know, though there is the entirely virtual Republic of Lomar that does. A company called HavenCo is currently investing in Sealand, hoping to tap into a market for government jurisdiction-free hosting, co-location, etc.
Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis
I saw a BBC report on Sealand in respect to data protection - apparently they have had a lot of enquiries from financial companies for off-site data backup. I think that everyone in this business has reviewed their backup strategies following 9/11, and given that this is not a major cost item for an investement bank, there is no harm in having your data in a different jurisdiction, as well as in a different location. Of course this may be a response to the New York Attorney General's investigations as well.