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."
Yes, but can their mighty filters prevent me from searching for pr0n in l33tsp3@k?
barzelay.net
In the document it mentions ratings such as M and R16... can some tell me what this rating system is? I'm curious.
Note to self: Cancel vacation to New Zealand, head to an Island more tolerant of my Internet porn addiction...
It would help if people actually read the report. First, its not a 'Government' Select Committee, its simply a Parliamentary Committee. Its a report to the Parliament, which includes some recommendations to the Government (which they are not bound to implement). Second, it recommends a voluntary code of practice for ISPs, as a first step. This isn't cause of 'hue & cry' about internet censorship - which if some of the earlier commenters are correct is irrelevant anyway...
Come on NZ. Didn't you pay any attention to what happened with the "censorship" in Australia? It was a complete failure.
Any attempt to censor the internet, short of taking over every router on the border, is destined to fail.
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
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.
Firstly, I just want to say that if it is anything like Australian Internet censorship, it won't make any difference to the majority of users. It is just about having ISP's give the option for filtering to their customers. Secondly, am I the only one who waved their mouse over the damgers of the internet link and expected to see goatse.cx as the address?
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
"Our concern is not really to stop people looking at pictures; it's to stop the abuse of children involved in the making of this [hardcore] material," and where there is a clear case of child sexual abuse, no jurisdiction will defend it, he says.
Whoa, did I read that right? A government official saying something reasoned and intelligent when it comes to child porn? A clear understanding of the underlying problem? No blanket statements? No fear of the new medium? No desire to put everyone in jail and pull out the innocents later? No "gateway to other crimes" theories? No fallacious logic ("95% of child abusers have some form of pornography on their computers. Therefore, there's a 95% chance that anyone with any porn on their computer is a child abuser.")?? This guy has an actual concern for children, and doesn't just use "save the children" to advance an agenda??
Damn! All we have here is John "Under God" Ashcroft. If everybody is as clued in as this NZ guy, I'll take the censorship, thanks!
'where is Old Zealand?' in Holland.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
A government that tries to "protect" through censorship scares me.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
Old Zeeland is in the Low Countries, now known as the Netherlands.
KFG
Personally I believe that ISP's should be given the same common carrier status as phone companies: they are not liable for any content traveling through their system.
This would not prevent them from being able to act against persons violating the law. Ie: kiddy porn is illegal in most countries. If you try to host kiddy porn, you are breaking existing laws and can be nailed with traditional laws and warrants.
Not hosting the content on the ISP? Then why should the ISP be responsible for someone elses actions? Help them find the source, sure, but again under already established laws.
If you arrange to have someone killed via the phone that does not make Ma Bell an accessory to murder.
If when planning terrorist activities any carrier could be held liable then I'd save to say it's time to lock up every phone & cellular company - they're aiding and abetting terrorism!
So why should it be different for the net and ISP's?
Protect the children?? When are we going to protect ourselves from this ridiculousness?!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game similar to Tetris.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
I have no problem with that filthy shit being removed from they internet, but will it stop there? Can it stop there?
Will they block pages that link to it? There goes this slashdot article. Would the article be blocked to protect people from hearing about those sites or to prevent them from heard that their government sucks shit!
First they try to control what we hear, then they try to control what say. First they try to control what we read, then they try to control what we write. They don't want censorship just to stop porn, and they don't want to leave it at just censoring where you go on the web.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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
If you are in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts or that promote killing people, you are the one with the problem, not me.
No, it's people like you who are the problem!
The danger with cencorship is who decides what is right and what is wrong? Your idea of acceptable may be very different from mine. Who's right?
American's love their guns on TV. Europeans tend to prefer skin. Personally I think the Europeans have that one right.
Your argument about Kiddie Porn and Child Endangerment, software piracy, and violence, are already covered by existing laws . They don't need extra regulations to make them illegal... they already are!
I am in favor of being able to conduct myself as I see fit, as long as I do not break any existing laws, whether you like what I have to say or not. It's called free speech and it's a fundamental freedom. Nobody says you have to listen to me. But don't you dare to shut me up because it upsets you!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game similar to Tetris.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
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.
"We're pretty hopeful that the outcome from all this might be more people making a real commitment to self regulation rather than seeing some draconian regulation introduced."
How is forced self-regulation any different than a law that does the same thing? It's like saying "give me your lunch money or I'll kick your ass and take it!" Admittedly, less ass-kicking is involved, but otherwise you feel just as bad.
I disagree; goatse sent shivers up my spine when I saw it a year or so ago, but ALT-F4 remedied the damage (mostly). I don't think it should be illegal or censored; I didn't follow the other link because I assume it's similar. Who should decide which sites are like the ones above? I'd prefer to decide for myself.
If you are in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts
Define child. It's a bit different (legally) depending where you reside. Are non erotic sex acts ok? Is softporn ok? Who pidgeonholes sites? Maybe Ashcroft?
child endangerment
What about McDonalds.com? They propose feeding kids fatty foods; that's child endangerment.
Software piracy
I 'pirate' software even though I've already bought it; I hate cataloging windows id#'s and putting in a game cd when I want to play so I 'pirate' them though I've paid. Try and use an appropriate term; either copyright infringement, license infringement or DMCA infringement.
If you are in favor of promoting sites that expose children in erotic sex acts or that promote killing people, you are the one with the problem, not me.
What about cnn.com? They extensivily covered the Clinton scandal; you might consider Melinsky a child. They promote war in Iraq (killing people).
Could you clarify your points?
Whereas NZ has a population of 43.1 million .
Glad to hear someone is finally thinking of the sheep!
Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game similar to Tetris.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
[sarcasm]Of course this is all about stopping pr0n, and NOTHING to do with stopping people from being able to download movies and music.[/sarcasm]
Funny how groups in both Australia and New Zealand starting kicking up a stink about "Filtering", so soon after visits by american "entertainment" industry lobbyists.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
This is a company that also limits the bandwidth available to customers through specific ports (think P2P). It doesn't matter that the customer has paid for the connection - they still tell (force?) you to use it as they want.
Prices for data? 128kb/s ADSL with 5GB monthly cap - NZ$65
up to 8Mb/s (usually around 2MB/s) ADSL (home) 500MB per month $49 1GB per month $69
up to 8MB/s (usually around 2MB/s) ADSL (home or business)
600MB - $62
1200MB - $120
1800MB - $176
3000MB - $292
5000MB - $458
10000MB - $888
20000MB - $1800
These are NZ$ (multiply by .6 to get $US equivalent) plus 12.5 % sales tax, and ISP fees, as this is just for the data flowing over Telecom's network.
And you thought sensorship was our biggest problem - I don't see why are they would sensor us anyway - it's not like we have the means, financially or technically to access much anyway.
And /.ers thought there wasn't a need for ASCII porn... ..k
The Mothership
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!
The protection of minors is the job of those minor's parents. If those parents cannot or will not take the time to protect their children, the government should NOT step in.
It takes a village to raise a child but only one idiot to run it.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Here in the US we have lots of 9-5 parents who do not have the time or desire to intervene in their kid's lives as needed. A free Internet allows for graphic porn and worse, especially thru bulkmail at any major public e-mail domain. My own accounts are flooded with junkmail ranging from things illegal in some US states to things better left at the server they came from. Freedom has its prices, and many parents need to intervene more in what their kids are doing. Grnted, that is tough when both parents are working, but latchkey kids can just as easily unlock internet sites unintentionally. Governments are opportunistic creations that tend to centralize power at every opportunity, and here in the US you will find no better example. Post 9-11 there are groups here that have been advocating for deprivation of freedom of communication in order to prevent terrorism, prompting many of our mirror governments (similar to us but not necessarily our puppets; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) to advocate the same. I concur with you that to such freedom for security is too high a price to pay, but unfortunately the freedom to speak of such things is protected by the very freedoms they seek to revoke. Hopefully we can balance freedom with responsibility, but who knows.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
First you come up with something no one can argue about. "Child Pornography is evil","Communism is the greatest threat to liberty in the 20th century","Al quaidah has forever changed the way we view the world", "Germany was stabbed in the back", They are all the same. Things everyone knows to be true and no one will ever take a stand against.
:
Second, you come up with a solution, and assert if your solution isnt followed, the terrible menace will destroy everything held dear in the world. EX. "if we don't monitor terrorists use of the internet they will attack again","Its perfectly allright to entrap child pornographers because they are scum beyond belief and if we didnt we couldnt catch them","we must purge anyone having communist ties from positions of influence in hollywood","The enemies of the fatherland must be eliminated".
Third, well by the time it gets to three its to late. Something precious and irretrievable has been lost by this point. Its not retrievable but has to be fought for all over again and takes more than a bit of luck to build anew.
To borrow from Ben Franklin
Those that would trade their liberty for temporary safety diserve neither.
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.
...off the list of places to go when the US completes its transition to a full blown police state.
.. our sheep porn!
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
What I just can't comprehend is why anyone would WANT to censor the internet. It is a sad and silly lie that anything anyone might see, hear, or read is somehow going to alter their personality or corrupt their character. Yet on a daily basis I see people acting on this idiocy as if it were fact. I've seen mothers fearful that their daughters are going to listen to Britney Spears for fear of them somehow turning into harlots. I've seen this kind of behavior and this kind of attitude all my life and I STILL can't figure it out, at least not by using logic or common sense. The only conclusion that fits the facts is ignorance, foolishness, and maybe even a little mental illness. The thing that suprises me most is how people forget what it is like to be young. Their memory is selective at best. They may remember some things, but they completely forget that young people know how to think. They lack experience of course, but that doesn't make them into human tape recorders. It doesn't make them any more "impressionable" than anyone else.
Censorship is a tribute to the destructive power of stupid people in large groups.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Just remember, any time you want to censor someone on the internet, you have the catch-all "Child Porn" to enable you to do so!
Never mind that it might also "accidentally" stop music/movie trading, and the government "might" expand it later to include prohibiting other sites that, say, are critical of your government, policies, companies, etc...
Thin edge of the wedge...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
This really shouldn't have been modded off-topic, it IS on topic. Internet filtering is EXACTLY what China uses on their own citizens to stop them from viewing objectionable material online.
Currently NZ says they're only going after porn. Maybe someday they'll decide that they should block any websites which are critical of THEIR government.
Censors don't fix problems, they hide them and pretend they don't exist...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
After counting all those sheep, they must have been very, very sleepy.
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.
The listed aims are:
- To ensure the fairness and accuracy of disclosure of business terms and conditions to the user public and community in general;
- To improve the standard of conduct within the industry;
- To provide public access to complaint handling and cost-effective redress mechanisms;
- To impose and regulate industry standards;
- To improve customer relations;
- To protect rights of access and free speech;
- To ensure that information and procedures are in place for the protection of minors from accessing objectionable material over the Internet;
- To ensure that the information and procedures are in place so Internet users know how to limit access to protect a user from accessing inappropriate or objectionable material
Note the positive phrasing - to protect the rights of access and free speech. I like that. In fact I like all of it. It seems very customer friendly. Which is why I expect Telecom's Xtra doesn't like it - it talks about the right of services being forwarded if you change providers - Xtra wouldn't like that.The onus is on the users, not the ISP to know how to protect themselves from objectionable content.
It suggests ratings systems like PICS. I have to say - it all looks good to me.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
I don't like New Zealand Telecom any more than a lot of people here, but it's not fair to slag them just because of those prices. The Internet in New Zealand has always been expensive.
Firstly, your currency conversion rate was slightly on the high side. It's not 0.6, it's about 0.56. Secondly, if you don't like the Telecom port blocking then you have plenty of alternative ISP's to choose from that offer competitive rates and services.
Apart from that, New Zealand is an Island nation, so what do you expect? National traffic has always been dirt cheap, but most people can't live on national traffic because there's almost no useful content here.
Compare this with the US, which has a massive localised infrastructure where the majority of content that people want is nearby. International traffic isn't in as much demand, and it doesn't cost any extra because it's not a huge overhead for the ISP's on top of the national infrastructure already available. If 100 million Americans all suddenly wanted to access Australian content on a medium term basis, international charges in the states would go through the roof.
Irrespective of how much money they have, it cost Telecom a lot of money to get the Southern Cross cable laid, and in an age where many applications are beginning to demand a lot of bandwidth, there's still a limited amount of bandwidth that can flow through it.
The combination of everyone wanting international traffic and only having a limited infrastructure to provide it with leads to the international traffic cost that we have.