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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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 :(

[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: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.

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

[u38cg]

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

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

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

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.

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: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.