New Zealand Introduces Internet Filtering

Thomas Beagle writes "The New Zealand government has been stealthily introducing a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system. Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users, ISPs representing over 94% of the market are already intending to join. Read the general FAQ and technical FAQ about the proposed Netclean Whitebox implementation."

Comments

Happy Bastille Day:

[Anonymous Coward]

and conveniently coincides with New Zealand's increasingly fascist practises.

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout

Governments love crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.

Re:Governments love crime

[Opportunist]

What would fearmongers all around the globe be without terrorism, child porn or government conspiracies (depending on the side they're on and their interests)?

Re:Governments love crime

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Why?

Re:Governments love crime

[redcaboodle]

I rather think our (German) minister of families and youth did invent child porn on the net.

She seems to be the only one who ever saw any, even the police say child porn in distributed mainly via other channels. Still we are getting the same kind of filters on August 1st; nevermind they are not constitutional and there was a massive backlash in parts of the press and people, as well a record-breaking petition with for than 100k signatures.

Funny thing, she got some extremely ugly images of child porn from the police and showed them to the press. Of course she was indicted for possession and distribution, but the (local equivalent) of the DA didn't take up the case citing she had official reasons to do so.

Say, les mecs. You've got Bastille Day over in France today, haven't you? Could we send her over for a little re-enactment? We'll gladly take your Sarkozy on our national holiday and bore him to death with depressive speeches.

Re:Governments love crime

[MightyMartian]

I'm not even going to bother quoting Benjamin Franklin or George Orwell. All I can say is democracy is being taken over by people who despise liberty and fundamentally are terrified of the average citizen. Why precisely any of us tolerate such people in any such position of power is quite beyond me, but somehow or legislatures and bureaucracies have been populated by a pack of Robespierres.

Re:Governments love crime

[feandil]

don't joke, we're going to get the same kind of law as soon as they managed to write it in such a way that it becomes constitutional. considering the constitutional council is mostly right wing conservatives it shouldn't take too long

Re:Governments love crime

[feandil]

people tolerate it because they're brainwashed. 60 years of television propaganda has its effect. and American propaganda is the most effective there has ever been, you were the first to introduce psychological analysis for product placement, and that very early.

Re:Governments love crime

[mcgrew]

There's always drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. YMMV, many countries are far less nanny states than mine (USA).

Re:Governments love crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would your government be without childporn?

Slightly less wealthy and slightly less powerful than without. Let's not kid ourselves here: child porn is only the latest in a long line of justifications for more revenue and more power over the people.

If you examine the history of any government that has ever existed, it's a slow but steady expansion of power and revenue. Governments only get bigger, never smaller, and this has been the goal of those in the business long before any government executive played the child porn card.

For christ's sake, the US government has expanded nearly exponentially over the past 10 years in power and revenue, and most of it happened before child porn was even a twinkle in the career politician's eye.

Re:Governments love crime

[HungryHobo]

Here's the thing.
The kind of people who push for this crap genuinely believe that child porn is a big issue, that it's worth losing all those nice freedoms we have to get rid of it (or at least try as you might as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do) and that anyone who objects is some kind of pervert who is afraid of losing their child porn.

There are people who genuinely believe that a police state is a good thing because "only criminals have anything to fear from a police state"

There are people who genuinely believe that censorship is a good thing because they certainly don't want to be seeing... well just about anything since these are the kinds of nutters who write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

Re:Governments love crime

[garry_g]

Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.
What do you mean, "would surely invent it"? They are inventing it, at least as far as numbers and facts are concerned ... in Germany, "Zensursula" von der Leyen has come up with statistics about the amount of commercial Childporn distributed via Internet, none of which she to date has been able to actually back with any facts. Additionally, the "large number of countries" without legislation against child porn supposedly was the reason filtering (useless, as it's based on faking DNS results) is based on a year-old study, which on top of the age is also containing information that is plain wrong (e.g., if a country does not have specific laws against child porns, it is counted, even if it has outlawed all porn!). Upon examination of said list, it was found that out of almost 100 countries listed, only like 9 indeed didn't have laws against child porn. Of those, nearly all are well down on the technological scale, making distribution of child porn d@mn near impossible from there ...

Of course, what politician can resist finally getting his wet dreams of actively taking charge of all of the country's citizens access to free information fulfilled?

Politics suck.

Re:Governments love crime

[Anonymous Coward]

For the exact same reason God created an apple tree in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from it.

When there are no criminals, obviously the laws have to change to create them.

Re:Governments love crime

[legirons]

Where would your government be without childporn?

hopefully not giving taxpayer-funded houses to 15 year-old mothers...

Re:Governments love crime

[hairyfeet]

You want to know the "funny if it wasn't so pathetic and sad" part? It will do absolutely squat to stop the real child molesters and child porn traffickers.

I have a buddy who works in the state crime lab and every once in a while they will come across one, and do you know how they know? Two Words- encrypted DVDs. Apparently the ones that have been molesting kids and trading new material have been using encrypted DVDs sent through the mail for awhile now. He said the only ones that are caught by those child porn "stings" are the fat losers in their basements that haven't been around anybody in 20 years, much less actually have come in contact with kids. The actual predators moved to encrypted CDs/DVDs ages ago and the only way they get caught is when some kid they are molesting calls the cops. Of course since they are looking at like a bazillion years good luck getting them to rat out their mailing lists (also encrypted) or give you the access codes.

So all this will do is give the NZ government a good way to make any website disappear like magic, since I doubt they will actually let anybody know which sites they have flagged. Meanwhile the actual child fiddlers meet in IRC or on some message board and swap everything through the good old postal service. Talk about a complete waste of time and effort.

Re:Governments love crime

[computational super]

The biggest mistake you can make as a libertarian is to assume you represent the people.

Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there. It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better. It's the same on both sides (and there really are only two sides, since we libertarians seem to represent a statistically insignificant sliver of the population) - the only reason we have any freedom at all is because both sides can't seem to agree on what the government should control. Fortunately (from the perspective of the anti-libertarians) they finally seem to have put aside their differences and agreed to just control everything.

Re:Governments love crime

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is democracy is being taken over by people who despise liberty and fundamentally are terrified of the average citizen.

So we can safely assume that you are in favor of the 2nd amendment, right?

Re:Governments love crime

[Shakrai]

There's always drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. YMMV, many countries are far less nanny states than mine (USA).

Yeah, but in most of those countries you can't legally own firearms and you don't have true free speech. Take a look at the firearms laws in the UK and the "hate speech" laws in France/Germany and on balance the US doesn't look so bad.

That isn't to say we can't do better mind you, but I'm hard pressed to think of someplace else I'd rather live.

Re:Governments love crime

[torkus]

New definition of irony:

Government-backed anti-pedo creates a censorship list of all known pedo sites so they can be blocked by participating ISPs.

Pedo gets a copy, signs up for non-filtered ISP, imports list --> bookmarks. Thanks gubermint!

Re:Governments love crime

[LKM]

"It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better."

I'm glad I live in a country with public health care. It gives people the security to start their own companies without fear of eternal debt should they should get sick while not employed. I'm glad I live in a country with public roads. They cost me little and are well maintained. I'm glad I live in a country with a well-paid and well-trained police force who will help me if my shit gets stolen, and well-trained firefighters who will help me for free if my asshole neighbours accidentally set my house on fire. I'm glad I live in a country with working public transport. I pay a few hundred bucks a year and can get anywhere in my country in little time, without paying any additional fee.

The government can make people's lives better. The fact that there are sanctimonious assholes who are happy to force their own moral views on others does not change that. The fact that there are misguided idiots who think it's a good idea to censor what others can say or see does not change that.

It's important and good to fight censorship and repression and all that other shit that is currently happening. But to claim that nothing any government can do can make people's lives better is not only extremist, it's insane, and it's contradicting reality.

Re:Governments love crime

[MightyMartian]

I'm not an American, so I doubt very much my approval or disapproval of the Second Amendment means all that much. I will say that, at the end of the day, the State (whatever state you're living under, unless it's a failed state) has a far larger number of very lethal firearms and advanced weaponry than you'll ever manage to accumulate. So while you may have some false sense of security about building your private army in Oregon, the United States government has at its disposal weapons capable of turning countries into radioactive wastelands, so you're right to bear arms shouldn't make you feel all that secure.

The 2nd Amendment was written when a reasonably equipped militia with some decent leadership could take on an army of the time. That hasn't reasonably applied since the Civil War. The best you can hope for if the government is really out to get you is a tragedy like Waco, and I don't really consider taking a bunch of children with you a reasonable example of holding the torch of freedom high.

Re:Governments love crime

[computational super]

Yep, I say "more government", you read "any government - down with the police! down with the fire department! bring on the anarchy!". Like I said, never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Governments love crime

[Shakrai]

I think you've missed the point. Regardless of the feasibility of overthrowing a modern government by force of arms the GP quoted text that said "democracy is being taken over by people who despise liberty and fundamentally are terrified of the average citizen." If you aren't terrified of the average citizen than what argument can you come up with for disarming him?

I would also say that the fact that the government has nuclear weapons is largely irrelevant. If the shit ever hit the fan to the point that an actual rebellion was underway it's a reasonably safe assumption that a large portion of the armed forces would side with the citizenry and not the government trying to oppress them. I can't speak for other countries but in the US our armed forces swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They don't swear an oath to one person or one office.

You think you can find someone in the US armed forces willing to drop an h-bomb on an American city? Good luck with that.

Re:Governments love crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the actual child fiddlers meet in IRC...

Actually, a guy who was flatting with some friends of mine was busted for it, a few years ago. How did he get caught? He logged onto an IRC page, and the NZ police were waiting for him. Everyone I knew said it was an accident. It wasn't an accident when he was caught with the same sort of stuff on his laptop, by customs, 14 years later.

Re:Governments love crime

[SETIGuy]

Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there. It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better.

Yeah! Because things are just great in here in Somalia...

Re:Governments love crime

[JCZwart]

If you aren't terrified of the average citizen than what argument can you come up with for disarming him?

Plenty, as any country in which the possession of arms is more sternly regulated can attest to. No need to be scared shitless of your citizens to deny them free access to lethal arms.

If the shit ever hit the fan to the point that an actual rebellion was underway it's a reasonably safe assumption that a large portion of the armed forces would side with the citizenry and not the government trying to oppress them.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Soldiers are instructed to obey commands, and not so much to question them. By the time a sensible number of them will start questioning their superiors, damage will already have been done. Or a schism between army and citizens will have been created. Just look at all those countries whose armies do suppress the people.

Even more important: things just won't work that way. People won't start crowding the streets and the military won't be fighting them, as is the case in Iran, for example. Protests will be silenced long before that. This isn't an age in which armed conflicts will be fought out in a chivalrous manner.

So, where was your need to bear arms again?

Re:Governments love crime

[Shakrai]

Plenty, as any country in which the possession of arms is more sternly regulated can attest to. No need to be scared shitless of your citizens to deny them free access to lethal arms.

And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.

So, where was your need to bear arms again?

There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.

Re:Governments love crime

[flyneye]

I genuinely believe in the freedom for humans to do anything they want so long as they hurt no one in doing so.
I genuinely believe that a police state is not necessary to deal with pedophiles and the resultant porn.
I genuinely believe that those who coerce children into sex acts are not human and are fit to hunt like animals.
I genuinely believe that singling out a subculture of mutants harmful to children is not a situation dangerous to the freedoms of the rest of us.
I genuinely believe that censorship is bad and weeds are best pulled root and all.
I genuinely believe that anyone standing defense for pedophiles is a pedophile protecting their own and subject to extermination.
I genuinely believe killing and murder are different as white and black.
I genuinely believe that no one human could give two shits about the well being of those who prey on children.
So, live by your beliefs or die by them.

Re:Governments love crime

[flyneye]

Actually , it's a twofold reason. Our founders also realized that we may once again have need to revolt against the government and made sure we have the wherewithal to do so. Many nutballs argue against this in favor of their own agenda. Thomas Jefferson himself said we should have a revolt every few years just to keep the government honest and true.

Re:Governments love crime

[mdwh2]

I agree, I've seen this in the UK too. Lobbying groups such as the NSPCC put out claims such as 20,000 images a week (they're a charity, but they're also lobbying for new laws, such as criminalising possession of cartoons that appear to depict an under-18 year old).

And not just child porn - we have politicians such as Martin Salter making claims about a porn trade involving women from Guatemala being raped and murdered on camera, in order to push his law that criminalises possession of images involving consenting adults (even when the acts are staged).

Not to mention the scaremongering put out by Government-funded groups such as the POPPY project to do with sex trafficking, in order to support the Government's own proposed laws on consensual prostitution.

Re:Governments love crime

[JCZwart]

And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.

There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.

Your comment was modded up, though you completely miss my point. I wasn't talking oppressive countries here. For example, where I live arms are allowed but the right to them is not constitutionally empowered. You'll need a permit for them, and weapons are only available at special shops (as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores). This results in the general public not owning firearms. People that hunt do, as do people that collect guns. And that was exactly what I said, right? Restricted access to lethal arms.

And frankly, I'm quite content with that. Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.

Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence? If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own, not to mention his/hers ability to use it. I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.

Re:Governments love crime

[Shakrai]

as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores

What countries are those, out of curiosity?

Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.

And even in the crowded "somewhat civilized" 20th-century world you still have the right to defend your life against those that would take it away. Why is it that people always need to bring up stupid examples like "scare people off your lawn"? In no country that I'm aware of are you allowed to use deadly force on a mere trespasser. You are allowed to use it when you are confronted with the use or imminent use of deadly force and a reasonable person would believe that your life is in danger. What's wrong with that standard?

Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence

Hopefully never. I don't want to live with the knowledge that I've taken a human life. But the choice between having to live with that and being dead myself is not a hard one to make.

If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own

Says who? What about some thug with a knife? Are you going to try and take it away from him when he spent the last few years pumping iron in prison?

not to mention his/hers ability to use it

Why do you assume that a criminal is automatically going to be better equipped to handle a firearm than a law-abiding civilian? Most criminals are uneducated thugs who expect people to fold and surrender at the mere threat of violence.

I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.

You don't "wave a gun". Stop repeating misconceptions and at least learn a few things about the topic. It's illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of to brandish a firearm unless you honestly believe that your life is in imminent danger. You don't get to brandish it to scare off some thug who doesn't represent an imminent threat to your life. No responsible gun owner would "wave a gun in the face of danger". The gun isn't coming out unless the choice is kill or be killed.

As far as I'm concerned nobody has the right to tell someone that they have to be defenseless and meekly accept their fate should they ever be unfortunate enough to find themselves in a bad situation. We may live in a "somewhat civilized" society but the agents (i.e: law enforcement) of that somewhat civilized society aren't always able to protect us or even to respond in a timely manner when we need assistance. You are your own first and last line of defense. You'd better be ready.

Re:Governments love crime

[KingBenny]

thats why i would like to have a very rich person issue a challenge to find an actual child porn site on the internet just like that ... publicly

Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

Those "teen thais" are actually grandmothers there, we just can't tell the difference.

Good to hear

[Jugalator]

Especially as these filters are never misused for other things than child pornography for convenience, when they're in place and all.

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

Re:Good to hear

[emocomputerjock]

There aren't enough resources available for doing that, only for the filtering. If you want to have the authorities actually investigate crimes against children you're going to have to have a 15 cent tax for that.

Re:Good to hear

[macbeth66]

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

That would involve time, money and intelligence. Something that governments, by definition, are always in short supply of. Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route. They will do what looks good now, even if they know it will be a failure later. Hopefully during the next administration.

Re:Good to hear

[QCompson]

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.

Think about it. You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it, and that's one arrest. But if you bust all the people who download, trade, or look at those photos, you can potentially makes thousands of arrests! That's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident. Best of all, you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future. It's the gift that keeps on giving!

No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.

Re:Good to hear

[scubamage]

Likewise, if MADD, PETA, and anti-smoking groups actually achieved their goals, they would be destitute, along with all of their employees. They'd also have nothing to use as propaganda. Maybe that's why PETA only actually adopted out 16 animals out of its "no kill" slaughter houses last year. They depend on the very thing they claim to want to stop. If that thing stops, no one will fund them. However, if the thing they're 'fighting against' is promoted and increased, so is their funding. Funny how that all works.

Re:Good to hear

[TheGratefulNet]

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward

first rule of government: make laws such that anyone can be 'guilty' of something. keep the population in fear and control.

they do not WANT to fix certain social evils. they LIKE it, that they have this ever-present boogeyman around.

remember when saddam was the central boogeyman? we got rid of him and we need an new one.

'child pedos' are the universally hated boogeyman. the law loves the fact that they can pass ANY law if it mentions pedo or terror.

you will never find actual law enforcement spending much time FIXING this social problem. they are more power-enabled by letting the fear work for itself. they can get more 'done' with the population always afraid of someone 'evil doer' (remember when bush used that phrase almost daily?)

Re:Good to hear

[mordejai]

How about spending the resources on busting child molesters and exposing child trafficking rings instead?

There. Fixed it for you.

First, they (we!) would have to focus on the real criminals instead of the mentally ill (which should be treated, but in a different way)

Re:Good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact the blocked sites can use the service to block https sites belonging to other entities since the list is domain based, not IP based. They'll need a whitelist to prevent that from happening.

Re:Good to hear

[DM9290]

No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.

stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.

Re:Good to hear

[Drakkenmensch]

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

"It's always slower to do things fast, more complicated to do things simple and more expensive to do things cheap." - Humphrey from Yes Minister, answering the minister on why government can't work more efficiently.

Re:Good to hear

[torkus]

US law now reads something like:

Innocent until proven guilty*

*unless accused of rape, copyright infringement, drunk driving, pedophilia, terrorism, racism, discrimination, or breaking of of the laws you're not legally allowed to know about.

(followed by millions of pages of law, case law, court rulings, 'popular law', and FUD)

Re:Good to hear

[Techman83]

And Australia. Recently and I can't find the article, a man was charged in NSW for having some indecent Simpsons pictures on his computer.

Re:Good to hear

[bh_doc]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html

Not just charged, convicted.

Re:Good to hear

[Techman83]

Just the link I was looking for. I was searching, but the state the world is in, it was making me a little uncomfortable put the string into a search engine.

That saddens me more that a completely innocent person can be made to feel that way.

Re:Good to hear

[Kalriath]

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.

Bad example. Here in the USSNZ, the government is firing thousands of state officials. They'd LOVE the opportunity to cut funding, and end sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.

I've never understood

[MikeRT]

Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.

Re:I've never understood

[Jugalator]

Why normal people support laws like this.

They hear the word child pornography. Then they stop thinking. And if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.

Re:I've never understood

[u38cg]

Actually, I'm the opposite. I can understand why a normal person would not think through the issues beyond "we need to protect against child porn", misguided though it might be; it's an understandable response. Politicians, on the other hand, are paid to think about exactly these kind of issues and the fact they don't care to exposes their moral bankruptcy.

Re:I've never understood

[sakdoctor]

Hate to point out the obvious, but they have to be thinking first in order to stop.

The two minute hate, and choosing between various advertised products doesn't count.

Re:I've never understood

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.

I've heard debates about this sort of thing, and I've never heard this sentiment be expressed or even remotely implied by supporters of filtering. Most (vocal) supporters are quite aware that paedophilia is not supported among the community, and that there are other reasons to oppose filtering.

In fact, it's almost like you're saying, "if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically."

Re:I've never understood

[dkleinsc]

That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

It's basically an appeal to parents' base instinct to protect their children. An instinct that gave mammals a significant evolutionary advantage (due to the relative difficulty of mammals bearing young), but not one that engages the rational part of the brain. That's why any organization trying to get an otherwise rational adult to part with their money or give political support makes as many appeals to children as possible.

Re:I've never understood

[Knara]

I've had it happen to me more than once, both here and on Fark, and it's not just just about filtering. Any time you don't advocate 100% nuclear option law enforcement against child porn, the crazies come out of the woodwork and all critical thinking / actual *discussion* in the conversation evaporates in a matter of minutes (or span of a few posts).

Re:I've never understood

[Jason Levine]

That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

It's not just that it shuts down the rational part of their brain, but they wind up expecting someone *else* to do the protecting. Because, you know, being a parent yourself is too tough.

I happen to be a father to two little boys (age 5 and 2) and I'll agree that being a parent is tough work. It's not all hugs and smiles with kids. There are temper tantrums. They *WILL* test boundaries to see how far they can go. Repeatedly. They *will* try to get away with things they shouldn't be doing. Keeping up with what is happening and keeping your kids in line (e.g. "No yelling in the store") and safe (e.g. "No running away from Mommy and Daddy in the parking lot") isn't always easy. Too many parents just let their kids run rampant because they don't want to exert the effort to set and enforce boundaries. Many people seem to want someone else to do the work for them. So they whine for the government to step in and "child proof" life. The problem is, you can't child proof life. Life has a lot of sharp edges to it. The trick is to teach your child to avoid the sharp edges *and* what to do if they accidentally hit upon one of them. That takes work and effort that too many parents just seem to not want to invest.

Re:I've never understood

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I bet it has happened to you, especially on internet forums. It gives the crazies a chance to mouth off about their opinions, and suddenly it becomes all partisan politics, and no genuine consideration for other people's opinions.

But, on the same token, it would be unfair and grossly inaccurate to characterise a viewpoint by those who express them anonymously on the internet. For example, I just read the OP's post, who opposes internet filtering, and who accuses, in a sweeping statement, people with the opposite opinion of jumping to conclusions, but that doesn't mean I can conclude that everyone against filtering is a hypocrite. All I'd have to do is choose one of the many intelligent statements on the subject, some right here on this forum, to see that it's not true.

Re:I've never understood

[DM9290]

Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.

yeah right. like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee. LOL

Re:I've never understood

[computational super]

In fact, it's almost like you're saying, "if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically."

Er... "almost like"? I can't speak for the OP, but that's exactly what I'm saying. Seeing as how it's true and all.

Re:I've never understood

[ferrouswheel]

Yeah, except they just tried to put this system in place with barely a blip on the public radar. Most normal people had no idea the internet was under a filtering test.

Re:I've never understood

[Anonymous Coward]

if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically.

Re:I've never understood

[Techman83]

Sounds like my Beagle. Little bugger pushes my patience to the limits (and I'm quite a patient person). Well at least I'll be well used to it when I decide to spawn my own little bundles of evil.

Re:I've never understood

[BiggerIsBetter]

Too many parents just let their kids run rampant because they don't want to exert the effort to set and enforce boundaries.

New Zealand is particularly bad for this now. "Parents are telling truancy officers that they don't know how to make their children go to school because they can no longer smack them."

Re:I've never understood

[Delosian]

The majority of the people here in New Zealand do not support internet censorship but we all agree that Child Porn needs to be dealt with. The problem is that when the government mentions a tactic to tackle Child Porn the people all say YES! but they rarely take the time to wonder what the government has in mind to do this and what it will try to sneak in while it doing is there, such as suppressing Free Speech which the Human Rights Act 1993 does if one bothers to read the Bill. For example if one tries to talk about minority crime rates, that's illegal! While no one has gone to jail for it as far as I know, some experts have been denied a visa to enter the country to speak on this very topic because it violates the Human Rights Act 1993.

Re:I've never understood

[jesset77]

That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

Sweet, so: "Think of the children!" has now been replaced by "Stop thinking, for the children's sake!"

Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn

[sweatyboatman]

Since neither FAQ mentioned any mechanism for reporting sites that have illegal content, I assume that means they're relying on some dedicated law-enforcement professionals to go out looking for child porn/bestial porn.

That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.

And hey, slowing down everyone's internet experience for only half a million dollars/year? That's quite a steal!

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn

[Opportunist]

It reeks of something very different. Namely that "your input is not welcome". We don't want you to report 'bad' sites. We know what sites are bad for you.

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn

[Sloppy]

That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.

"I protect the country from pedophiles! So, BTW, you're really 18? You don't look it."

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

16 in NZ ;)

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

don't tell us what's bad
we'll tell you
don't call us
we'll call you

Oh god :(

[DiSKiLLeR]

We only just got rid of this laughably insane idea in Australia... here the ISP's refused to co-operate.

Actually, no, sorry, a few did co-operate, just so they could show the govt how laughably infeasible it was!

And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(

Re:Oh god :(

[Blixinator]

Just please don't move to America.

Re:Oh god :(

[DiSKiLLeR]

Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).

Re:Oh god :(

[Cimexus]

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. I usually think of New Zealanders as our friends across the pond. That is, that despite our friendly jokes at each others' expense, we are very similar countries. But this is a night and day difference. In Australia the ISPs were basically all up in arms about the proposed filter, and it was in large part due to the Internet industry's concerns that that proposal was thankfully scrapped (or at least appears to be headed for certain defeat, at least in its current form). This was on ideological, as well as technical grounds - the ISPs know full well that any filter can be trivially circumvented through a variety of means, so it's basically useless, but yet would cost them (and thus their customers) a lot of money.

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

I sure hope the tech-savvy New Zealand public fights this in the same way we did here in Australia. These filters might start out as benign but there is massive potential for abuse there, and more to the point, I just generally don't like the idea of artificially constraining and slowing down what has been until this day a free and open network. We already pay a lot for connectivity down here due to our isolated geographical location ... don't let them make it even slower/more expensive due to this crap.

The other reason you need to fight it is that if this gets successfully implemented there, it will be used as an example here and in other countries: "Look, NZ did it ... maybe we should?" That's a slippery slope we want to avoid if at all possible.

Re:Oh god :(

[DiSKiLLeR]

Just please don't move to America.

LOL, fuck no. The US is pretty much a third world nation compared to other first world nations now a days (Australia, NZ, Canada, Europe, etc.) Lack of basic necessities like govt. health care, poor education, poor wages and such is really placing it low on the list.

I also recently spent a month in San Francisco this year, and well... great to visit friends, but no, would never live there, not in a million years. No, not even if you PAID me to live there.

Re:Oh god :(

[Blixinator]

Yes, but no filtering.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that particular retardation is still alive and well in Australia and is currently under trial. Despite a lack of support from just about everyone outside of a few minorities, the Australian government continues to forge ahead with it.

Re:Oh god :(

[AndrewNeo]

There are people who live in the US that you wouldn't be able to pay to live in San Francisco.

Re:Oh god :(

[DiSKiLLeR]

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

Re:Oh god :(

[DoubleUP]

Nothing the NSA and CIA feel like telling you, anyway..

Re:Oh god :(

[cellurl]

I think slashdot should create a PAC (political action committee).
We all voluntarily donate $10/yr to fight back.
We need a centralized voice like the FSF, but in Washington.
Anyone out there want to start it? I will donate today.
Perhaps I will contact the FSF.
I should run as our first US pirate-party.
Anyone want to back me. See my log...

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

Just because you completed a stay with your homeless Hippy friends in San Fran means jack shit. I've been to Australia and Canada, and neither exceed my standard of living (and I'm just a working class engineer). Australia I will say one thing about: I've never seen a group of more racist small-minded white people in my life. I learned new slang for Aborigines and Asians that I never knew existed. How's that White Australia policy working out for you? Oh, you repealed it? Then why all the animus to non-whites?

And no, they're standard of living isn't all that great. Hell, I've lived in towns in Turkey that were better than some small Aussie towns. Say what you will about US culture, but Aussie culture is a joke. Think Asian Redneck.

Prison colony indeed...

As for Canada, since we've vacuumed up all of their doctors, scientists, and engineers of note I'll let you work out why that is.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

As an American who lived in Scandinavia, I can attest the veracity of your claims. America needs to get its act together.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't base your trip to the us going to california lol

and please keep your government health care to yourselves, we already pay enough taxes here.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, fuck no. The US is pretty much a third world nation compared to other first world nations now a days (Australia, NZ, Canada, Europe, etc.) Lack of basic necessities like govt. health care, poor education, poor wages and such is really placing it low on the list.

I also recently spent a month in San Francisco this year, and well... great to visit friends, but no, would never live there, not in a million years. No, not even if you PAID me to live there.

Well remember every part of the US is different; NY city is different then San Francisco is different then Madison, Wisconson is different then Anchorage, Alaska. With as large as the place is, anyone can find a place that fits their style of living. Personally I can't stand NY city and have no desire to live in San Francisco.
As for being a third world nation compared to other nations because of lacking govt. Health care, educational standard and poor wages, I have to disagree. The reason our education sucks is because we focus on the unimportant things and do our best to make everyone special, mostly due to bad legislation at all levels. I have no clue what you mean by low wage since a better comparison is buying power which contrary to popular belief the US still has on average one of the highest values (couldn't find a reference so can't give a specific number). As for govt. Health care, if the system actually worked like it was suppose to why is canada moving away from a one payer system? Why do Canadians still jump the boarder to get access to the US health system? Why did Hawaii's attempt at it fail miserably? Personally, if having one of the highest standards of living in the world and more personal freedoms means I get to live a few years less, I'm all for it.
And if you really don't think the USA is worth moving to, fine that is your choice. But at least realize it is personal choice and many other people are risking their lives to have a chance to live here.

Re:Oh god :(

[Bigby]

I live in America and I've been to Italy. I can tell you that if the US is a 2nd-world country then Italy is third-world country.

You act like healthcare sucks here. If you have a plan, it is the best in the world. Most Americans (like 85%) have a health plan. Of the ones that don't, a third make over $50k and choose not to get a plan and a third already qualify for government coverage but never bothered to pursue it.

Wages are higher here than anywhere else. You just need to work for it.

My guess is that you benefit far more from your government than you pay in...and that is why you find America repulsive. You might only benefit a little bit.

Education (and health care and wages for that matter) are all suffering from central-government control. We still have the best higher-education in the world. That won't last if we keep doing what we are doing, but where will you find a better secondary education?

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).

The correct link is http://pirateparty.org.au . Thanks.

Re:Oh god :(

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/)

Groan. They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them. Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.

Re:Oh god :(

[that IT girl]

Government health care is *not* a 'basic necessity'.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(

Yes, whenever I despair about the path America is on I have always told myself, "Well, I can emigrate to NZ." Now that looks less enticing. Hopefully, they'll come around like they did in Oz.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know why I'm bothering to launch into a rant at this anonymous troll, but, well, here goes.

Lol ... this is just ... lol. The US has vast ghettos of people living at or near the poverty line in almost every major city. There's barely anything like that in Australia. I've lived in both countries for extended periods of time, in multiple places (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne in Australia, and Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison WI, Minneapolis MN and New York City in the US) and the poverty in the US is simply staggering to me. Whereas I took my American in-laws to the worst places in cities here and they were like "this is what you call a ghetto?".

Also you seriously must have been out in the middle of nowhere to have encounted such significant racism (or you visited 40+ years ago ... at which time the US wasn't exactly a shining beacon of equality either). In most places where people actually live it's no better or worse than any other developed country, on average. In the major cities (where 90% of the population lives), its a true melting pot these days. Around a full quarter of everyone in Australia was born overseas.

As for quality of life, again, you must have been out in the middle of nowhere. In almost every way you can measure, Australia scores very well for quality of life. We have a higher percentage of literacy, higher percentage of university educated, higher life expectancies, a MUCH higher minimum wage, universal health care, a welfare system that doesn't randomly stop paying unemployed people after only a few months etc. Also I appreciate the fact that that high fructose corn syrup (and various other nasty additives) you pump into almost every food over there is banned here (literally, it's illegal). Not to say our diet is particularly good ... but at least our Coke has actual cane sugar in it.

I'm not doubting your observations ... but they don't fit with what I've seen in my many years living here. It'd be like me going to the US, living in some small town in the deep south for a few years, and assuming that that is what America is like. I think you're judging the vast majority of us on the actions of a few rednecks in what sounds like must be the NT or outback Queensland/WA. You have to remember that America is a nation of towns and small cities, but Australia isn't. Australia is one of the most urbanised places on earth, with almost everyone living in the 10 or so largest cities. So our isolated small towns are a bit weird I'll give you that, but that's because we don't really have many of them and they are separated from everyone else by thousands of kilometres.

Don't take this as anti-American. It's not ... I love the US and will be returning to live there again in another 2 years. For anyone earning a decent living, the standard of living is about the same in both places (although I still reckon the quality of food is much better here). But for those who are more unfortunate, the US is a brutal place to be (and if you google for any comparative quality of living stats, it will show this).

Re:Oh god :(

[feandil]

yes it is. that's why we're humans and not animals, we take care of our own kind.

Re:Oh god :(

[mcgrew]

Of the ones that don't, a third make over $50k

$50k is the median income, and in many places barely pays for food, rent, and utilities. It's about what I make, and it's not expensive to live here, UNLESS you have to buy insurance (thank God my employer offers it). Private insurance is damned expensive if your employer doesn't offer it.

Saying someone making $50k "chooses" to be insured is like my saying I "choose" not to buy a Ferrari.

Wages are higher here than anywhere else.

[citation needed] Wages are only half the equation. Costs are the other half. And speaking of citations, Wikipedia says you're wrong.

Education (and health care and wages for that matter) are all suffering from central-government control.

Education here doesn't suffer from government control, it suffers from lack of funds. The government doesn't control health care unless you're eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, and wages (see linked wiki) suffer from too little government control.

You should stop listening to that Oxycontin-addled radio personality.

Re:Oh god :(

[nelsonal]

I suspect that most of health care is that Americans have terrible diet and excercise habits, so our health care looks bad. If you have a nation that would be dead at 60 but kept alive to 74 and competitive with other nations whose health habits would keep them alive to 70 but with healthcare live to 75 the traditional metric used to judge health care is going to look pretty similar (slightly worse for the first country) especially if the costs are much higher in the first country.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't know every region of Italy. Lombardy for example (where I live). This is a rather good place, with a first class public healthcare, good hospitals, home assistance, everything you need is provided. And it's all paid by tax income. You need a hearth transplant? here it is. A chemotherapy? no problem. You don't pay a euro for the service. And if you happen to lose your job you will not be left in the dust. Every healthcare service is assured to everyone, no questions.
Sure, our hospitals aren't five stars hotels, but are good enough to keep you alive and well. And if you are rich enough you can always go to a private hospital. We have many of them for who are willing to pay.
In southern Italy there are much more problems though...

Re:Oh god :(

[Blixinator]

... So how did it get to this? I made a joke about internet filtering following this guy around and now we're debating basic human rights. I suspect a butterfly somewhere in Asia is to blame.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'll happily gloat over your putrid corpse when I find you rotting in the street because you didnt have enough money to pay yourself the "luxury" of medical treatment.

I can only wish it to happen to you, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

Re:Oh god :(

[Skjellifetti]

When one of your children is diagnosed with, say, Type I diabetes and cannot get private coverage after the age of 24 due to a pre-existing condition, you will realize why Gov't health care is, indeed, a basic necessity.

Re:Oh god :(

[greenbird]

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.

Re:Oh god :(

[daveime]

You don't pay a euro for the service

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the *base* income tax rate 40% in Italy ?

And that's just the base ... higher earners pay even more ?

Having spent 3 years half way between Florence and Pisa, in a town so backward they still close on Wednesday afternoons, Sundays, and in fact ANY time when you might actually be able to visit the supermarket, don't kid yourself. Most people probably die of boredom or depression long before they need any serious healthcare.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, minimum wage is awful. Too bad no one in the US can make more than that.

There's a ton of opportunity in the US. I'm relatively inexperienced, only having been out of college for a few years. That said, I didn't have a hard time finding a job that paid me over $100k in the past year (including bonuses).
Sure the cost of living may be higher, but that salary more than makes up for it.

Try living in the UK sometime - similar or lower salary (exchange-rate adjusted), but MUCH higher cost of living. Apartments and food are astronomical there compared to here. In my experience, even living in a remote town in Scotland is much more expensive than living in New York City. Similar rent in Scotland, much more expensive food (restaurants and grocery stores), much more expensive gas, higher taxes... and much less chance of making a good salary.

If I chose to live outside of a big city in the US, the cost of living goes down substantially. So does your salary, however.

YMMV.

Re:Oh god :(

[Bigby]

1. I said nothing about median or average income. Americans make more money than anyone else. This is a capitalist country. Of course a poor or uneducated person would be better off somewhere else with a plethora of social benefits. Let them move as there are others that will step in for the opportunity to work their way up. It is natural selection. Imagine if we actively tried to prevent evolution from happening... You may call me "insincere", but those that don't "teach a man to fish" are insincere.
2. Secondary education is getting expensive because school loans are so freakin' cheap. General Rule: if you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you can get a 2% student loan, you will get more students. This has placed an increase in demand on our relatively steady supply of secondary education causing prices to go up and/or quality to go down. Without the central-government, the prices wouldn't be nearly as high and schools not nearly as packed. Is it a good idea in the end to level the playing field for the young? Yes. But you still have to blame cheap loans by the central-government for the expense, whether justified or not.
3. You actually think government isn't involved in health care outside of Medicare and Medicaid? Ask any doctor why the prices are so high. And don't forget that employer-managed health insurance (separation of doctor/patient) exists because of government and that big business lobbies big government to cut out competition. Side note: bigger government will only benefit big business and if you think otherwise, it is naive.
4. Who in their right mind would listen to Rush?

Re:Oh god :(

[Coward Anonymous]

Wait until you really need your health insurance and you'll very quickly find out it isn't there after all when the insurance company tells you to go screw yourself and they ain't gonna pay to keep you around.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess neither is the police or fire department. Both of which are funded by the government. I suppose you wouldn't mind not being rescued from your house as it burns because you don't have enough money to pay for the rescue.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

[qutoe]We still have the best higher-education in the world.[/quote]

Actually, I VERY strongly disagree. US third level institutions are terrible compared to other first world nations. While the quality of life in the US is much higher than most other first world nations (All of Europe for example), its third level system is a joke. Part of the reason for this is because secondary school is so poor. US third level institutions only dedicate a third or less of your classes to your actual field of study. The majority of classes you are required to take have absolutely nothing to do with your degree. No other education system in the world is like this. People who graduate with a US degree in reality have spent not much time learning their field. Even the number of class hours per semesters are lower than those given by European institutions.

Re:Oh god :(

[computational super]

we take care of our own kind

And when he says "we", he means "you", not "him". He's the one that needs taken care of.

Re:Oh god :(

[that IT girl]

I'm not having children, primarily because I can't afford them, and I do NOT believe it's everybody else's responsibility to foot the bill so I can have them.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

base income tax rate 40% in Italy? false, that's not the base, that's somewhat less than maximum.

And I (we) really don't care about the fact that supermarkets are closed on Sunday (and here in Milan is not even the case) and I'm definitely not bored nor depressed!

Anyway, you like living in the USA, I like living in Italy ... so what's the point?

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to site a source for the wages in a country, try to use the median wages and not mandated minimum wages. Unless you assume a very large portion of the population makes the minimum wage it isn't that useful to compare. You may not be wrong, but this citation isn't making your case.

Re:Oh god :(

[bckrispi]

If you think the current state of health insurance is anywhere *close* to adequate, I can guarantee that you have *never* had a long-term illness to deal with. The moment you do, your mis-informed opinion will change.

Re:Oh god :(

[srjh]

Haven't been keeping up with the developments, have you?

This "laughably insane" idea is alive and well, as of two hours ago.

And with precisely the same reasoning - any time you disagree with the government... "but, child porn!". The filters won't work, they'll be trivial to defeat. "Child porn!". This is a top-secret blacklist without a scrap of accountability, confirmed to contain mostly adult pornography... "CHILD PORN!"... and multiple political websites "you don't support child porn do you?". Your top-secret list of the most evil content on the internet leaked, exactly as we told you it would "kiddy fiddler!". Even PG-rated material is on the blacklist... "PEDOPHILE!".

Ugh. And more depressingly, the tactic's working.

Re:Oh god :(

[Lunzo]

The thing with medians is that they doesn't tell you what the distribution is like. It could be a nice bell curve or it could be that people on minimum wage are over-represented (I suspect this is more likely).

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately we're not a tech-savvy public :( and as for why ISPs would cooperate well this will likely be extended to other filtering ie stoping file sharing and Vodafone for example operates an online music store(at least for mobile phones?) so they have rather a conflict of interests in this area.

Re:Oh god :(

[that IT girl]

First of all, I never said anything resembling "the current state of health insurance is adequate". The "sick care" system we have is corrupt from the core, due to the pharmaceutical industry having the FDA and the doctors both wrapped around their little finger. They want to keep people sick and on their medications so they can keep raking in the billions, so they cover up symptoms and do nothing to treat the root cause of chronic issues.

And actually, I've been managing chronic pain for close to four years now. That's still not anybody else's responsibility, why should you have to pay for my injury?

I agree that we need some sort of reform, but more privatised than socialised. I have too many Canadian friends who've told me of how badly the system works up there, and how many people come here and pay out of pocket just to see a doctor in a reasonable amount of time. America does not need to go down that path.

Re:Oh god :(

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got one, http://www.pirateparty.co.nz/

Re:Oh god :(

[Techman83]

Don't jump for joy yet, as it isn't quite dead. Alledgedgly Conroy has to wait 6-8 weeks for the results to come through from the ISPs that were part of the trial. And some of those ISPs have a vested interest in providing positive results as that is what their business is all about. Eg. Webshield FAQ: Does WebShield filtering slow my connection down? and if you look at this page WebShield Filtering, this statement makes me laugh and die a little inside at the same time "There are over 65,536 communication ports on the Internet. Only 5 are essential. WebShield can block any combination on a per user basis." which is a blatent lie, if you look at the page they include FTP, which uses a random ports! (Connect on 21, data comes back on a different port). And on their feedback form, it's statements like this "Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress." that really scare me!

Re:Oh god :(

[bckrispi]

That's still not anybody else's responsibility, why should you have to pay for my injury?

The ironic thing about that comment is that other people do pay for your injury. That's how insurance works. The risk (and cost) is spread out across all participants. Literally: the healthy policy holders pay to treat the sick ones. And to take it a step farther, you and I also pay for people who don't have medical coverage. Since they don't have anything resembling primary care, the only time they get treatment is when they go to the ER. Since they can't pay their bill, do you think the hospital is going to take the loss?? Hell no! They pass the expense off to the insurance companies, who, in turn, pass it off to us.

Re:Oh god :(

[that IT girl]

And you don't think there's something wrong with that model?

Re:Oh god :(

[mcgrew]

The minimum wage is the only metric that matters. You think you got through college because of your own attributes, but you and I were just lucky. Period. If you had suffered a head injury as a child resulting in an IQ of 85, you would never get the chance. You'd be flipping burgers and/or cleaning toilets.

If your parents were both alcoholics it would be even worse - your IQ would be lower due to fetal alcohol syndrome and your upbringing would probably have you dropping out of high school.

If all your primary and secondary school teachers were incompetent you would never get to college unless your IQ was well over 100 and your parents read to you and encouraged you to learn independantly.

The pay of a college educated person is a terrible metric.

Re:Oh god :(

[mcgrew]

It is natural selection.

Natural selection is for witless animals. Humans should self-select.

Secondary education is getting expensive because school loans are so freakin' cheap

I'm appalled at your classism.

Ask any doctor why the prices are so high.

A doctor will tel you it's the price of malpractice insurance. Do you want your options limited when the drunken surgeon amputates the wrong leg? Bad doctors drive up the price of good doctors. And, have you seen what an MRI machine costs?

And don't forget that employer-managed health insurance (separation of doctor/patient) exists because of government

Score: -1, total bullshit

4. You, apparently. He spews the same kind of tripe you're spewing.

Re:Oh god :(

[bckrispi]

Well, that's just how insurance works (in general). Risk is spread out across a large population. I've never filed an auto insurance claim. I've never filed a homeowner's insurance claim. But I gladly pay the premium for them for the piece of mind that the insurance will be there when I need it. I have no problem with the concept itself. But the implementation of it in the health insurance industry is woefully lacking.

One way of containing medical costs is to insure as many people as possible. People without medical insurance go to ERs' for one of two reasons:

1. Since they can't see a primary physician, they can only get treatment for minor issues at an ER. What would normally be a $100 primary physician charge becomes a $2000 ER charge - all to treat the same condition
2. Since they can't see a primary physician, simple illnesses are ignored until they become so severe that they require Emergency care. A simple respiratory infection that could be treated with a cheap antibiotic, if left untreated, can become something potentially life-threatening like pneumonia.

If you guarantee coverage so everyone has primary care access, you will alleviate a tremendous burden on our ER's, and you'll be removing a great financial burden on those of us who'd be footing the tab for them. Face it: we're going to pay for poor peoples' medical coverage anyway. If they have access to primary care, our cost goes down.

ISP's are in a tough spot

[mc1138]

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.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that's rubbish. The filter cannot stop https to undesired sites, neither can it cope with proxies. So all in all, it's utterly pointless to have to try and stop nefarious activities to all but the casual browser. The ISPs will know this, and should simply point it out. As ever, follow the money, this has nothing to do with kiddy pr0n.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Opportunist]

Actually, I think the ISPs that want to sign up highly computer-savvy, low support-calls creating people would probably stand up against the law and 'fight' it as good as they can.

Anyone who spent 6 months on the internet knows that such a tool is doomed to fail. Either the implementation sucks. Or the list gets out (pretty much creating a "pedo menu" of sorts, along with a lot of fallout should any site on the list not belong there). And many are just pissed off at the mere concept of government thinking it may decide what's good for me to know.

So if you're an ISP and if you want to put some stress off your supporter's backs and if you want people who will pay their ISP bills before considering gas or water...

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[u38cg]

Tough shit. No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Sloppy]

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?

No, you make a stand over centralized filtering. Everybody knows that it won't be limited to child porn. They just need some reminders. Point at how every other country that has head down this road, has failed to limit their filters to child porn, and ask how many billions of dollars the NZ government is going to spend to solve the (currently) unsolvable problem of computers not knowing the difference between porn and non-porn ("is this photo of a nude person, erotic?"), and the computer's lousy job of guessing peoples' ages ("is this model 18 years old, or only 16?").

Ask people if the relatively easy problem of finally ending The Spam Problem has been solved. (Show me you can reliably classify text, and then I'll give you images to work on.)

If the NZ economy is able to support an Apollo Project of strong AI, then I think they're fucking awesome. Just make sure the taxpayers understand that either that is what they are committing 50% of their GDP to, or else the filter people are lying to them.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[PontifexPrimus]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[mattwarden]

We have documents that protect individual liberties against the good intentions of the ignorant masses.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason the government chose child porn is because they're betting on no one being willing to take a stand over it. Besides, it's censoring ship you're making a stand over, regardless what they want to make it out to be.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[greenbird]

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.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a framing issue. Politicians frame it as "protection from X" (Where X is very very scary in almost everyone's perception. Think child porn, terrorists, drug dealers coming for your children etc.)

Another possible framing is "CENSORSHIP in the name of x" where the act of censorship is seen for what it is, an act of government taking control over everyone's information flow, the first step to a future of "government-approved news" etc. A big invisible hand that can and will make inconvenient information disappear.

Yes, it is a tough choice, if you accept the government's framing. It's quite an easy one if you don't.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[jc42]

Everybody knows that it won't be limited to child porn. They just need some reminders. Point at how every other country that has head down this road, has failed to limit their filters to child porn, ...

This story did come along just a couple of days after it was revealed that the Chinese "Green Wall" porn filter flagged such things as an image of Garfield the Cat as porn, along with such images as a piece of roast pork and the face of Johnny Depp. OK; I'll admit that the last one is getting close.

And lest we try to claim that this was due to the primitive nature of Chinese computing, we should take a good look at the results of such filters in countries that have been in the business longer. Thus, here in the US, there have been things like the repeated blocking of breast-cancer support forums.

Of course, the real issue is the imposition of government censorship via a scare campaign about something that hardly has an Internet presence at all. But that won't convince the people that most need convincing, because the politicians themselves probably aren't much concerned with such trivia. So we should be on the lookout for fun absurd stories about the things that the NZ filters actually block.

One way of fighting such things is to publicly point out how stupid they are in practice, making the politicians look stupid for supporting such things. I mean, how can you respect a system that thinks we don't have the right to see Garfield comics? Yeah; I know; it stopped being funny 30 years ago. But that makes it look even dumber that the government has been spending its time (and our money) implementing something that blocks it because the software can't tell Garfield from kiddie porn. Or is that kitty porn?

(And why are they spelled "kiddie" and "kitty"? That's what firefox's spell checker insists is right. ;-)

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot

[Anonymous Coward]

. It's about child porn my ass.

Do you have an ass like a 10 year old boy?

This path leads to the dark side...

[Anonymous Coward]

Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent, leads to another Great Firewall of China. So while I'm all for having child porn off of my internet, I don't particularly like how it could snowball.

Re:This path leads to the dark side...

[QCompson]

There's no way it could snowball. The NZ government is well aware of the possibility of a slippery slope and will do everything it can to avoid that situation. From the FAQ:

Can other types of material be censored in the future?

There is no reason why the same technology could not be extended to block websites with other types of content.

Oh. Nevermind.

Re:This path leads to the dark side...

[ferrouswheel]

The FAQ is independently written by my flatmate, not by the people actually running the scheme. Thus (I'm guessing) that the answer to this question is just his analysis of the situation.

Re:This path leads to the dark side...

[krenaud]

Of course if couldn't snowball. All sites and references to snowballing are filtered out.

Re:Panties Stink

[bFusion]

...Burma-Shave?

Ireland got it worse yesterday

[ionix5891]

small bit offtopic

but theres no mention on slashdot of the new 1984 style big brother law coming in in Ireland :(

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html

Re:Ireland got it worse yesterday

[spicyed]

That's pretty scary. I love how they use the same child porn line to justify keeping all text messages and phone records for a year too.

mynuts won, # FUDging, hypenosys & censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

easy enough to do when one's conscience is directed buy some randoidian lazy is fair mentality.

looks like our hero is getting steamrolled into continued fatal compromise.

& yes, this post will be deleted/permanently 'hidden' within moments. eye gas that's how robbIE has to doo (as in poop) it now.

It's inevitable.

[OpenGLFan]

Post-Iran, governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.
ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules (whether that makes sense or not) and kick them off the network.
Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand. (TV, radio, print.)

Governments, ISPs, and businesses support it. Nobody important opposes it. (You are not important.) Why are we surprised that it is happening?

Safe Harbour

[thesupraman]

The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.

My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?

ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.

In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.

Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?

Re:Safe Harbour

[spicyed]

It's quite easy to bypass a filter like this. The offender could opt in for the free protection while tunneling in his encrypted files.

Re:Safe Harbour

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs. It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences. It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.

It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.

Re:Safe Harbour

[badfish99]

No. there's a much better way to get legal immunity. Set up a porn filtering business and sell it to the government, like these people have done. Then you can spend all day "checking web sites", and you won't get locked up: in fact, you'll get paid for it.

I don't know about New Zealand, but in the UK you might even be in line for a knighthood from the Queen, for "services to the child protection community".

Re:Safe Harbour

[thesupraman]

Yes, writing too fast in the middle of working on things so got some of the terminology wrong..

So tell me, as I would be technically guilty if say someone hacked my computer and left such files there, or hacked the WEB on my wireless router and transfered such data, why should I not be able to also get such protection?

The issue here is that the data on computers is a LONG way from under the control of their owner - there are many many ways that data can both arrive and leave without the owner knowing, and no suitable defensive measures for the owner.

Why should there not be? if these filters are so good that they can provide the ISPs with legal protection (of course they are not as they are tirivial to bypass..) then why are they not good enough to also provide myself with protection from other third parties?

this is my whole point, the systems are so full of holes they are worthless - and yet they provide protection only for a select subset of entities at risk from prosecution. Where is the equivalent protection for end users?

If I am to be 100% responsible for all content on my home computer/network, then why are the ISPs not responsible for theirs? is them having a business model more important than me being ABLE to act legally?

And as we all know, it is meant to be 'a get out of jail free' for the ISPs - they simply complain that they cannot be held responsible, and they are given this - why is the same not available to normal people who are also willing to try and follow such rules?

Or perhaps you can explain how I can feasible guarantee not to offend with a home computer attached to the internet? (not attempt.. guarantee.)

Do you want to be held responsible for anything done with a computer you own? you you have children and their friends who ever use that computer? friends and family who visit? have you ever got a virus on your computer? do you use a wireless access point?

Won't somebody think of the children?

[M-RES]

Won't somebody think of the children? I mean, come on, we're adults and we have easy access to our adult porn on teh tubes, but what about the kiddies, how are they going to access their porn if these filters are put in?

Or am I misunderstanding the concept of kiddie porn?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

So looking at kiddie porn is OK, but only if you're a kiddie yourself? That's so deeply twisted, it made my brain hurt. Well done, sir.

Protect the imaginary children!

[QCompson]

From the FAQ:

What type of material is censored? The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.

Stories and drawings. Because icky thoughts must be banned.

Re:Protect the imaginary children!

[amateur6]

Also from the FAQ:

Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?
The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.

If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?
No.

And if you do access a site on the filtered list, your IP is logged, your bank accounts frozen, and the Gestapo kick in your door...

Re:Protect the imaginary children!

[SlashDread]

bad news for the Bros Grimm.... I mean, cmon, little red riding hood and a big bad wolf? That is some sick stuff! Before you know it, all children are into menstrual fetishes.

Re:Protect the imaginary children!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ:

What type of material is censored?

The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.

Stories and drawings. Because icky thoughts must be banned.

This would include novels such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" (child rape scene) and "Brave, New World" (child sex scenes) as well as multiple other works of literature.

After all, we can't have people thinking icky thoughts.

Re:Protect the imaginary children!

[bill_mcgonigle]

This would include novels such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" (child rape scene) and "Brave, New World" (child sex scenes) as well as multiple other works of literature.

There's also a very popular older book about a 13 year old girl who gets knocked up by a supernatural being.

You forgot about the money.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this stuff is ever free. Vacations and Swiss Bank Accounts... err, I mean, State-of-the-Art filtering software and Cyber-Police cost a pretty-penny, fellow citizen!

Now be a good spouse and breed more tax-payers... I mean kids!

First they came for the paedophiles and...

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the paedophiles and I did nothing to stop them because I was not a paedophile

Then they came for the children but could not put them in with the paedophiles for obvious reasons, realised they had made a terrible mistake, so had to let them go again and I did nothing because I was not a child.

Then they came for the gay people and found that they could put some of the gay people in with the paedophiles without too much problem but had to let the rest go and I did nothing because I was not gay, or so I thought at the time

Then the paedophiles escaped and boy were they mad, and they came looking for all the normal people and I did nothing because by then I figured I was at least a bit gay and so did not fit the 'normal' profile but they had other ideas and took me anyway, and there was nobody else left to save me. Life just isn't fair sometimes.

The Netclean Whitebox software proposed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ:

"What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server canâ(TM)t examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.

This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection."

I can see that working out well.

Posting Violation Short-Circuits Logic:

[Anonymous Coward]

They hear the word child pornography.

Dude, that's gross! You just broke Section 38.2 of the Thoughtcrime Statutes.

 

And if you question the sense...

That's it you twisted creep! You're going to prison for a LONG time!

Interesting technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

From the technical details article:

Does it support the next version of IP, v6?
No.

Whoops.

What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server can't examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.
This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection.

Whoops part 2.

Is it possible to circumvent the filtering?

It is relatively easy for a motivated user to circumvent the filtering. This is done by routing the requests to a proxy service in another country that does not filter the required site.
There are also a number of free services that exist to allow people to escape from government monitoring of their internet usage. These services include: Tor, Freenet and WASTE.

Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of child porn abhorrent and sickening. It's just that I don't understand why governments continue to push filtering as the answer when it's never going to work. If they want to get rid of the problem, all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack. They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task, and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs.

Re:Interesting technical details

[swilver]

If they want to get rid of the problem, all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack. They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task, and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs.

Yeah, cause you know, there's no collateral damage when doing a massive DDOS attack.

Re:Interesting technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.

One of the nicer things about NZ: they're legally obliged to give this information, even if it's sort of awkward.

Thomas Beagle (who compiled all this info using Official Information Act requests and is my flatmate) currently has an unfinished request that they publish the list of blocked sites. Originally they refused, but he's complained to the Ombudsman and it's entirely possible they'll be required to make it available.

Re:Interesting technical details

[ferrouswheel]

Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.

Those details are given by the writer of the FAQ who isn't affiliated with the scheme.

Re:Interesting technical details

[kzieli]

Yes well. the obvious conclusion, If the police find said software on your system then you must be breaking the law. After all honest citizens have no need for software that bypasses the internet filters, seeing as we only filter out things that an honest law abiding citizen would not want to look at

Re:Interesting technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a blog you're quoting, not the official release. That's because there is no official release.

Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users = Optional for users.

Choose an ISP that doesn't support filtering. If they want to make money (which you can bet that they do), they'll have to keep their service unfiltered. Problem solved.

Re:Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users...

[misexistentialist]

An ISP that opts out of filtering is in turn opting in to deliver child porn. After the first user is found with child porn on their network, government pressure and litigation will force the rogue ISP into compliance, likely with further concessions to block all obscene content or log traffic.

Re:Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't actually have much choice here in NZ. We get to choose between an expensive connection with acceptable uploads and download speeds, or an expensive connection with unacceptable upload and acceptable download speeds.

blacklist on WikiLeaks...

[MancunianMaskMan]

in 10 .. 9 .. 8 .. kiddi pr0n sales go up.

Dark Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone seriously into illegal online stuff should be on dark networks by now. Only the stupid are left without using fully encrypted peer to peer systems.

This filtering will only prevent/catch the ignorant.

Benjamin Franklin

[DJRumpy]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin

"Voluntary" - right...

[mi]

Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users

Yes, right. "Voluntary". You can join the system "voluntary", or you'll have to enforce anti-child pornography laws yourself, and we'll be extra careful checking, that you do...

Another example of such "voluntary" joining are "E-ZPass" — you don't have to sign-up, but certain toll-plazas have no other means to pay any more. The other, I fear, will be the "public healthcare option", that law-makers are discussing...

Re:"Voluntary" - right...

[Hatta]

Another example of such "voluntary" joining are "E-ZPass" -- you don't have to sign-up, but certain toll-plazas have no other means to pay any more.

Really? So what happens when you show up to such a plaza and have no E-Z pass?

Re:"Voluntary" - right...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Really? So what happens when you show up to such a plaza and have no E-Z pass?

You pull into the reality lane and pay cash like everybody else who's not from the compatible region. Though they are photographing license plates now.

Re:"Voluntary" - right...

[mi]

So what happens when you show up to such a plaza and have no E-Z pass?

You are let through. Then, a week or so later, you get a letter in the mail demanding the actual toll amount, plus $25 "video-toll fee" — their cameras record your license plate.

Why are the ISPs signing up to this?

[jonwil]

Given the negative experience in Australia with the filtering trial and given that there is extra expense involved for the ISPs in installing and maintaining the filtering kit (even if the government buys the filtering kit and pays for any on-going software licenses, there are still expenses involved), why would an ISP want to sign up to this?

Unless there is some kind of carrot (i.e. "sign up to this and you will get immunity for illegal stuff downloaded by your users) or stick ("if we dont get enough ISPs signing on to the "voluntary" system, we will make it mandatory"), I dont see where the benefit for the ISP is.

Thankfully our ISPs here in Australia are fighting the Australian filter on the grounds that it wont work and that it will cost lots of money and slow down everyones internet connection.

yer out. mate.

[JackSpratts]

in addition to the censorship nonsense your ministers are this very afternoon mulling over a 3 strikes law. serves you right for living in such a pretty spot.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0907/S00165.htm

- js.

more information

[nimbius]

they appear to be censoring specific topics like#&^#

[NO CARRIER]

Writing the geek out of the political equation.

[westlake]

Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it

But it does exist - as part of the sex trade in children - and it is not an invention of the government:

UNICEF - Convention of the Rights of the Child - Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

Ratified 2002. By New Zealand in 2000.

To provide some perspective: the "Optional Protocol" also forbids the use of children in combat: In plain English, the Convention bars the enslavement and exploitation of children by both private individuals and the state.

 

The domino theory

[westlake]

Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent...

The slipperly slope argument reduces everything to extremes of action or inaction.

That is a receipe for political impotence.
 

Re:The domino theory

[QCompson]

The slipperly slope argument reduces everything to extremes of action or inaction.

And when the topic is internet censorship, inaction is exactly what is needed.

I don't see what the issue is

[brentonboy]

If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so? It looks like the ISPs are being up-front about it and not hiding what they are doing.

As much as people on /. complain about this sort of thing, I think that in practical terms, this makes the world a better place.

Re:I don't see what the issue is

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you would be in breech of contract with your users, eg you are failing to deliver traffic for them. (No doubt many if not most ISPs have weasel words in their contract such that you have to give them money but they don't have to do a damn thing.)

You would of course be on firm ground in doing so if the traffic was illegal, but I happen to know that this filter was blocking updates to the NOD32 antivirus software at one stage. It also buggers up https and many other applications because the proxy looks like a man in the middle attack. Actually, and I speak from experience with the NZ system here, introducing a filtering system like this is a really good way of buggering up the performance of your network and giving your customers a poor experience.

I hope my use of the word bugger does not offend, but here in NZ as the result of a court decision it is no longer offensive to use that particular word. It was used in a Toyota TV commercial and now widely appears on the spare tyre cover of many Toyota 4 wheel drives.

Also please note that the ISPs are not being all that up front about it, hence the use of the word "stealthily" in the summary.

It may or may not make the world a better place, but it certainly gives the government the means to prevent you knowing any bad news that they don't want you to have, so I guess it will look better.

Re:I don't see what the issue is

[Anonymous Coward]

The issues are:

1. The list is secret.
2. The technology can be trivially bypassed.

Re:I don't see what the issue is

[BeagleBoi]

Hi there. Do you have any more information about the filter blocking updates to nod32 or any other problems created by the filter? If so, please email me at thomas@thomasbeagle.net

Re:I don't see what the issue is

[Anonymous Coward]

If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so?

Technically? Not a problem. In reality? The ISP does not control what gets blocked. This can - and will - mean that legal sites may be accidentally blocked, legal sites that someone in the government disagrees with / dislikes will be blocked, etc.

It's a classic case of the slippery-slope in two ways:

1) The more ISPs that voluntarily adopt this filtering, the stronger the case for mandatory adoption.

2) While it's put in-place to "protect the populous", once it is in-place it's easy to find excuses to expand the scope of the filtering, which combined with lack of significant oversight results in a system highly vulnerable to abuse.

Something to consider

[nightfire-unique]

It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.

Let's assume the filter does its job (which most of us agree is unlikely). Has anyone considered that reducing access to child porn may actually increase the incidence of child rape?

Maybe the sex drive works differently in these people, but if it doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume there is a significant risk associated with removing their "outlet?"

Re:Something to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.

Citation Needed please.

Re:Something to consider

[nightfire-unique]

If you're really interested in the subject, do some googling. It is a well documented phenomena.

Re:Something to consider

[Macgrrl]

Something else to consider, in the majority of adult porn, the models have given consent. In child porn, by definition the model is incapable of giving consent.

The concern with child porn is twin edged: filtering is intended to prevent distribution which is an effort to reduce demand for the product, however more important is to tackle production, because that's where the real harm is done.

quality of life higher?

[slashbart]

Define "quality of life"

For me 5 weeks (or more) of paid vacation per year is better than 2. Or having more than 2 weeks warning before you are fired also counts as something. Or having a minimum wage that you can actually live on, or not having gun-ridden ghettos in every large city.

I like the quality of life in the Netherlands way better than that in the US, and I've spent about a year of my life in the US.

Re:quality of life higher?

[Kittenman]

Amen to that - I got offered a job in Pennsylvania once - beautiful state (lucky people who live there). Job came with two weeks holiday a year. I was getting four a year in the UK at the time.

New Zealand's internet slowed down

[Anonymous Coward]

If New Zealand's internet is slowed down any more, it will be close to stopping :-(

Re:New Zealand's internet slowed down

[Zardoz44]

This needs to be modded up. NZ is still in relative dark ages with the internet. Lots of talk about it getting better, but the basic services you can buy here are dreadful. It's only been around a year since they offered "uncapped" uploads, which means higher than 127kbps. It costs roughly $70 for 10GB/month for "naked internet" which means you don't need a phone as well, and that's only just arrived. Unless you can get cable internet, which is only in a few selected areas. My office had a 35GB monthly cap for about 30 people not too long ago. Now we have unlimited, but the bandwidth is sketchy. I've seen the internet in other parts of the world. We got the shaft when it came to handing out tubes.

Re:New Zealand's internet slowed down

[agm]

I live in NZ (Tauranga specifically) and my internet connection is fine. According to local speed test sites I have a 8.6Mb/s down speed and 0.75Mb/s upload speed. I'm happy with that.

Dangerously vulnerable

[Anonymous Coward]

From the technical faq it seems the filter server would be particularily vulernable to DDOS attacks by spamming banned addresses: "The filter server uses BGP over the secure tunnel to advertise to the ISPs a route to each individual filtered internet address (a /32 route). This tells the ISPs to send all traffic for that internet address to the filter server."

For their own sake I hope they take steps to remedy this.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.

[citation needed]

They should just track it better.

[Anonymous Coward]

By doing this they are just forcing the Pedo-porn lovers to use some alternative. Why not use the technology to track it instead.

People blocking

[gringer]

From the technical FAQ:

When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes:

• ...
• The requested website is banned and is therefore on one of the filtered internet addresses. The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an âoeAccess is refusedâ page is returned. The internet address of the requesting computer is logged.
• ...

So, if I want to put a black mark on someone, I look at the list of banned URLs, and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL. I could also put a message on the original page saying something like, "if you get an 'access is refused'" message, go back and click on the link again. It's worth it!"

Re:People blocking

[gringer]

And also, from the general FAQ:

Visits to non-banned sites on the same servers as banned sites will have to go through the DIA's filter server and will then be forwarded out to the real server through the DIA's internet connection. This will have some impact on performance, although the extent will largely depend on how good the performance of the DIA's filter is, and whether they have enough internet bandwidth to be able to service the requests they pass through.

So, to slow down the filter, I need to find a non-banned site on the same server as a banned site, then access a large file. According to the technical FAQ, the address of the requesting computer won't get logged. A working DOS would need bandwidth greater than that of the DIA, which is likely to be rather difficult.

As a NZ citizen...

[kaffiene]

I have absolutely no problem with this. At all.

NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption. I don't share the (apparently common view here) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse. Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar.

It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments. I don't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid. So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs. If they abuse the system then it can be removed.

Re:As a NZ citizen...

[Anonymous Coward]

NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption.

Certainly an interesting claim. Have you any proof of this?

If they abuse the system then it can be removed.

Not an easy task.

Re:As a NZ citizen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, dude, with the authorities in NZ covering up stuff like this:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/05/media_release_f.html

I wouldn't trust them to run an internet filter... or anything, in my assessment, the people who run our country are basic morons :(

Re:As a NZ citizen...

[professorguy]

Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar

Um, the list is secret. How would they know?

If they abuse the system then it can be removed

Um, the list is secret. How would you know?

Hospitals take the ER loss all the time

[professorguy]

for people who don't have medical coverage.... do you think the hospital is going to take the loss?

If the patient has no medical coverage, how do you propose they "pass these expenses off to the insurance companies"? Which insurance company is going to be cutting a check for services rendered to someone who does not have a policy?

No, what happens is the hospital takes massive losses on an ER for this very reason. That's why private practice clinics open up all over--they skim off the profitable insured patients leaving the deadbeats for the ER. Thus more losses for the hospital.

Hospitals around here are closing ERs (and birthing centers--same reason). What do you do if you have a trauma? Hope you can hold on for the 2 hour ride to the nearest ER.

Personally, I have no problem with government health care because there will be rationing and less services available. This will actually increase people's overall quality of life since more people will die earlier. YES, I SAID IT.

Re:Hospitals take the ER loss all the time

[bckrispi]

If the patient has no medical coverage, how do you propose they "pass these expenses off to the insurance companies"? Which insurance company is going to be cutting a check for services rendered to someone who does not have a policy?

Yes, they do just that - after they raise their premiums to cover the expense.

Better electronic toll collection

[mi]

Khmm... My original posting in this thread, which was on topic, was moderated "off-topic" by an irate supporter of the "public healthcare option"... Oh, well. Let's switch to the topic of E-ZPass between us....

You pull into the reality lane and pay cash like everybody

Except the "cash" lines are increasingly scarce... With "E-ZPass" phasing out human operators, your only alternatives for cash payment is "exact change" on many exits. And some plazas are already "E-ZPass only" — at least, during certain hours of the day...

But, because joining E-ZPass is "voluntary", they aren't regulated or looked at and enjoy the best of both world's: the business' lack of oversight and the government's monopoly, which leads to the gems like this, for example:

a) The MTA may change the "FAST LANE Program Terms and Conditions" at any time by giving customers notice thereof. The terms and conditions shall become effective seven (7) days after such notice has been given. No written notice is required, and you hereby waive any requirement that written notice be provided. Such notice may be given through any means, including, but not limited to, advertising such notice in the media, posting such notice on message boards along the MTA's toll roadways, or otherwise, as determined by the MTA. If you have provided an electronic mailing address to the MTA with your application, you authorize that such notice may be provided by sending such notice to that electronic mail address, in the MTA's discretion.

The whole system is the "AT&T" all over again, and its designers in government — fascist fools ("fascist" as in "government runs businesses", not as in "death camps" — don't get worked up).

They should've put forth a standard and let multiple electronic-payment companies compete:

1. a motorist with an account with one of such companies approaches the gate, that's equipped with hardware from all of the competitors;
2. one of the competitors's devices recognizes the approaching car as "theirs" and opens the gate vouching to pay;
3. the car is on its way, the driver's account with one of the vendors is charged;
4. the money is sent to the road's owner (the State usually) and a portion of it is kept as the vendor's, wait for it...
5. Profit!

This would open the market to competition and encourage significant improvements in costs, privacy (there is no reason, why this service can't be as anonymous as phone-cards), and customer service... But one has to think like a free-market capitalist, rather than a Statist government functionary to come up with it...

Re:Better electronic toll collection

[bill_mcgonigle]

Khmm... My original posting in this thread, which was on topic, was moderated "off-topic" by an irate supporter of the "public healthcare option"... Oh, well. Let's switch to the topic of E-ZPass between us....

They've probably lost interest in this story, but if not, I'll happily burn some karma for good conversation!

Except the "cash" lines are increasingly scarce... With "E-ZPass" phasing out human operators, your only alternatives for cash payment is "exact change" on many exits. And some plazas are already "E-ZPass only" -- at least, during certain hours of the day...

I don't think it's too high a barrier to expect somebody entering a toll road to have some cash. If stuck without change, I might tape up a $1 bill and photograph it. :) I hope it's well-marked at entrances that change is required at exits. I mean, it ought to be.

Can you give me an example of these EZ-Pass-Only plazas? What could they possibly expect somebody from another region of the Country (or Canada, eh?) to do?

No written notice is required...

Boy, another reason to refuse to get one. It's like they're trying to make a case for privitization of roads.

("fascist" as in "government runs businesses", not as in "death camps" -- don't get worked up).

I'm one of the six people here who has studied early 20th century Italy. ;)

5. Profit!

Where's the grift for beauracrats who grant the monopoly?

(there is no reason, why this service can't be as anonymous as phone-cards)

I understand here in NH there's talk about milling through billing records to send math-based speeding tickets to help with the budget gap. Deducting from the EZ Pass account would be an expeditious way to do that, but they want to know who to hurt if you don't pay your protection in full. Plus they want to know where people go so they can better prosecute them as the need arises.

Re:Better electronic toll collection

[mi]

I don't think it's too high a barrier to expect somebody entering a toll road to have some cash. If stuck without change, I might tape up a $1 bill and photograph it. :) I hope it's well-marked at entrances that change is required at exits. I mean, it ought to be.

You may have cash, but if it is not in "silver" coins (copper pennies aren't acceptable), you can't use it... And no, it is not marked — not on entrances, not on the pre-exit signs ("This exit is change or E-ZPass only, the nearest human-operated exit is X miles away"). No.

Can you give me an example of these EZ-Pass-Only plazas?

Driving around NYC I listen to traffic-radio. Every once in a while they add a comment, that such-and-such plaza is currently "E-ZPass only". Even on plazas with cash gates, those are few and the lines to them are even longer, because they are on the sides — so that merging back into heavy traffic after paying takes forever. One can spend 10-15 minutes paying cash vs. under a minute of going through an E-ZPass lane.

What could they possibly expect somebody from another region of the Country (or Canada, eh?) to do?

An occasional visitor will go through a different road or wait. Regular drivers are being arm-twisted into getting E-ZPass and submitting to the thus-increased government surveillance...

I understand here in NH there's talk about milling through billing records to send math-based speeding tickets

Oddly enough, I think, that's a good thing, because the fines will apply to all. Whereas the cops are prone to selective enforcement, the computer will not be swayed by the driver being a judge, another cop's brother, a good-looking woman, etc. It should also fine even those, who've only exceeded the limit by 1 mph (on average — their peak speed must've been much higher anyway). I welcome it, because enraging almost all of the citizens by these fines is the surest way to significantly increase (or even abolish) the speed limits...

Re:Better electronic toll collection

[bill_mcgonigle]

it is not marked -- not on entrances, not on the pre-exit signs ("This exit is change or E-ZPass only, the nearest human-operated exit is X miles away"). No.

Well, one would hope the Judge isn't a total statist, if it's worth the time to fight the fine.

An occasional visitor will go through a different road

Why would he?

or wait

What do you mean, sit at the EZPass toll and honk for a human?

Regular drivers are being arm-twisted into getting E-ZPass and submitting to the thus-increased government surveillance...

Working as intended, I'd venture.

Oddly enough, I think, that's a good thing, because the fines will apply to all. Whereas the cops are prone to selective enforcement, the computer will not be swayed by the driver being a judge, another cop's brother, a good-looking woman, etc. It should also fine even those, who've only exceeded the limit by 1 mph (on average -- their peak speed must've been much higher anyway). I welcome it, because enraging almost all of the citizens by these fines is the surest way to significantly increase (or even abolish) the speed limits...

Yeah, if it weren't tied to your ID it would be perfect for the reasons you cite. The 85th percentile guys seem to have the right idea.