Slashdot Mirror


A Sad Day For the New Zealand Internet

An anonymous reader writes "Another one bites the dust, as New Zealand's Internet filter stealthily goes live with two smaller ISPs, and three of the largest already rumoured to have signed up to do the same. However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,' so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?" Clever of one of the acquiescing ISPs to have named itself "Watchdog."

221 comments

  1. Um why by SolidAltar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?
    Unless this is a filter designed to reduce bandwidth use (Torrents, P2P) I truly don't understand the logic here.

    I did RFTA.

    1. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's called politics, mutual backrubs, one hand washes the other and so on; probably somewhat of a longterm investment that pays back in the form of favours and goodwill from the government.

      Politics and business are about benefiting on the back of the least powerful party, i.e. citizens/customers. Communication companies help the government with their surveillance. In turn, governments keep new regulations and consumer protection laws to a minimum or erode existing ones.

    2. Re:Um why by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not voluntary.

      If they don't their government will intervene.

    3. Re:Um why by SolidAltar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you source this? It's not in the article.

    4. Re:Um why by Sparx139 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you source this? It's not in the article.

      I'm going to go ahead and say he's wrong. Pulled from this page, it was linked to in another comment:

      The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.

      I'm hoping that this causes non-cooperating ISPs to start advertising the fact to attract customers. That, and that this falls flat on it's face and injects some sense into the Australian filter plan.

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    5. Re:Um why by alanw · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the UK it was recently reported that the government will not buy services from any ISP that does not implement the IWF blacklist.

      http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article7055882.ece

      And in the USA, the Minnesota Senate is considering a proposal to prevent state employees staying in hotels that offers "violent" pornography.

      http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=843624

    6. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "voluntary" in politics is doublespeak.

      It's doesn't mean: do whatever you feel like, there will be no consequences one way or another.

      It means:
      For now we leave you a choice but you better pick the right one or we'll just pass a law that will be even worse for you. By the way, nice tax-free service you're offering there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

    7. Re:Um why by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You *do* understand what an encrypted ZIP file is ?

      Rapidshare is full of them, and no filter in the world can block randomly encrypted bits.

      Unless you are suggesting shutting down every FTP, filehost, P2P application, Yahoo Group and other massive swathes of the Internet, this filter like all others is a waste of taxpayers money and government resources and time.

      I don't know why you think pedos are so dumb that they will name their files "little_naked_boy.jpg" ?

      They are possibly some of the most sneaky and conscientious people around when it comes to incriminating evidence, simply because of the very act they perform.

    8. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First they came for the Pedophiles...

      While this filter ostensibly targets child pornography, what is to stop it from being used to censor other 'obscene' or 'unwanted' material? It would not take much to tailor this filter to target political speech.

    9. Re:Um why by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good advertising campaign. Try fitting "Use us instead of our competitors, because they attempt to filter child porn and we don't! No, really, we don't want you using it for child porn, we just think that automated filtering is a technically unsolvable problem, and prone to corruption, so it's better to not have them in order to prevent legitimate sites from getting blocked." into a slogan.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    10. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet, the whole internet, and nothing but the internet.

    11. Re:Um why by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1, Troll

      and nothing but the internet

      But my ISP comes with a free* VoIP account with a DID (Direct In-Dial) number. Claiming to offer nothing in the way of addons isn't the best way to go.

      * There are some fees for making long distance calls

    12. Re:Um why by davepermen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      politics response: block rapidshare. solved. (they don't understand that the internet doesn't care about domains, about fixed servers.. a file can be anywhere, a link can go anywhere.. but they won't ever understand that. first, music, film and game industries should understand that copy protection never works :))

    13. Re:Um why by Eskarel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from the fact that this stuff generally doesn't work at all I'd hazard a guess that you're wrong about pedophiles and their relative degree of laziness.

      Ya see, these are people who do something which is pretty much universally reviled. Even serial killers, drug dealers, murderers, and normal every day run of the mill rapists hate people who do this sort of this to kids. If they were capable of just "jerking off to something else" I reckon they would have. There's plenty of freak porn that won't have your neighbours trying to burn down your house and/or kill you. Terrorists are more popular than these people.

      The corollary of this is of course that the automatic filter is supposed to be targeted at people who are likely to be more careful and paranoid than, as previously stated, terrorists. It would be harder to eliminate child pornography than it is to defeat terrorism, and we can all see what a lovely job the governments are doing at that.

      I'm perfectly happy for them to block child pornography(though I confess that the recent court decisions here in Oz about the old Simpson's cartoons we all saw back in the late 90's are going a bit too far). The problem is that these filters don't work, they're not even particularly good at stopping accidental exposure to this sort of thing let alone deliberate exposure, and they require resources and add a burden to internet connectivity which should not be born for so little benefit. The example I alway give is that even oppressive regimes who have the authority to burst into your house and shoot your for no real reason at all(China, North Korea, Iran) can't actually make them work.

    14. Re:Um why by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Surely, for Minnesota at least, that is an issue for the electorate to decide?

      I'm sure they would much prefer that all state employees should not be brutal knife-wielding homicidal maniacs, as opposed to just prevented from ever entering the Kitchenware department of a local store.

      Once again, the regulation has gone the wrong way. Regulate the officials, not the environment they live in.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:Um why by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Why was this moderated troll? Do you mods not remember the crusade in the US against newsgroups because of alt.binaries.erotica etc? Or the current crusade on bittorrent? Remember napster?

      --
      meep
    16. Re:Um why by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, I see some mod decided to rank as many comments as troll as possible if you look further down the page. Time to meta-moderate I guess.

      --
      meep
    17. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the internet, whatever you want"

    18. Re:Um why by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "voluntary" in politics is doublespeak.

      EVERYTHING in politics is doublespeak. As the old joke goes -- How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips move.

      Lately business seems to be following the same rulebook. Ny phone provider Boost, for instance, offers me "unlimited" voice, data, email, text, voicemail, and internet for fifty bucks a month, but if you look at the terms on their website you'll see they can shut you down if you use "an unreasonable" amount. Like a politician, saying "unlimited" doesn't mean it's unlimited.

      Of course, that's a US thing; in Britain the ASA would be on them like stink on excrement. I wish we had an ASA.

    19. Re:Um why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally prefer:
      You scratch my back, I'll comb yours!!

    20. Re:Um why by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you think pedos are so dumb that they will name their files "little_naked_boy.jpg" ?

      Yes, that would be stupid.

      "little_naked_girl.jpg" on the other hand...

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    21. Re:Um why by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, it could be. "We give you the whole Internet. Some of our competitors limit where you can go on the Interent because they think you can't be trusted not to go to 'bad' sites (where a 'bad' site is any site the government says is bad). We think you can be trusted to know what is best for you."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:Um why by 517714 · · Score: 1

      ... no filter in the world can block randomly encrypted bits ...</p></quote>
      Really? It borders on trivial to read a packet and if it is jibberish to block it, if it has plain text in the language(s) of your choice then you pass it. Yeah you would be throwing way the baby with the bathwater - but think of the children!

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    23. Re:Um why by Grundlefleck · · Score: 1

      I can't remember where I saw it (sorry, no citation) but I think it may have been a member of Scotland Yard's unit for these kind of crimes (for the UK). They said that basically, the only paedophiles left using the Internet to actually share materials are the really, really stupid ones. The ones that can properly organise these rings, and are successful in their attempts to find and harm children without being caught, only use the anonymous, confidential postal service to share the materials.

      I wonder how long before those packages are inspected.

      --
      I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
    24. Re:Um why by bsdewhurst · · Score: 1

      I don't think its that they don't want the Government to intervene. Look at who has implemented it, we will ignore the two small ISPs for now. Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear are all network owners in New Zealand.

      The government is currently deciding who will get 1.5 billion dollars to roll out fibre to the home in the main towns of New Zealand replacing Telecom's network and to a lesser extent taking customers off Telstra Clear's cable networks in Wellington and Christchurch. Telecom has placed two bids for the fibre money. Vodafone with its mobile network is interested in the second stage of funding for rural broadband. So they have reason to buddy up with the Government, Telecom in particular because it has the most to lose.

      It is also interesting that one of the ISPs that say they are not going to use the filter is Orcon, which is owned by Kordia, which is a state owned enterprise. The government can't even get the ISP they own to use it.

    25. Re:Um why by timnbron · · Score: 1

      Not sure how that's informative. Might be so in the US, but over here our little government just doesn't have the resources to intervene. The police are more concerned about speeding tickets and methamphetamine labs, the people are more concerned about the price of petrol and some church leader with a shiny car (search for "Brian Tamaki" and "Destiny Church"), and the government is more concerned about how to rebuild half of Auckland after the silly 'modern' building fads of the 90s.

      It's voluntary. And it hasn't even reached the technology page on the NZ Herald yet. Who cares?

      --
      There are some who call me ... Tim.
    26. Re:Um why by Petrushka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While this filter ostensibly targets child pornography, what is to stop it from being used to censor other 'obscene' or 'unwanted' material? It would not take much to tailor this filter to target political speech.

      It's not ostensible at all, since the scope of what is filtered is secret. In effect, its only use is political. IMHO.

    27. Re:Um why by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Politics is about being seen to be doing something, whether or not it actually does anything. Otherwise if you don't do something your opponent will accuse you of being for something that is not fashionable.

      There are first term politicians with principles. There are very few second term politicians with principles.

    28. Re:Um why by Torrance · · Score: 1

      I suspect it is because the government has $1.5 billion awaiting to be awarded to an ISP or ISPs to implement a next generation broadband network across the country. They're all biting at the bit to be awarded part of the contract, and I suspect that they think complying with a voluntary filter will increase their chances.

      More a case of the carrot than the stick, and politics carries on as usual.

    29. Re:Um why by kickme_hax0r · · Score: 1

      Orcon's stance seems to be "We're not implementing it, yet." http://twitter.com/Orcon/status/10339783484

    30. Re:Um why by Hardtrance · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Capitulate or we legislate. This is how we end up with crap like the comics code, MPAA movie ratings, ESRB ratings, etc, ad nauseum.

      --
      This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
    31. Re:Um why by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. The filter comes from the civil service. To make it mandatory, parliament would have to intervene. That might happen later, but there's no talk about it at the moment, and it isn't likely to happen simply because ISPs don't voluntarily sign on.

    32. Re:Um why by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Just my opinion, but I don't think this would fly in NZ. At best it would be a big gamble.

    33. Re:Um why by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      It's not all that complicated, you just have to look at it from the right perspective.

      Most ISPs in NZ probably trust the DIA. Our civil service, by and large, is fairly trustworthy, so this wouldn't be particularly surprising. (We lack the American tradition of always mistrusting any part of the government as a matter of principle.)

      The filter appears to be technically sound, and to have minimal impact on the ISP and customers.

      It seems likely that many customers would be in favour of an anti-child-porn filter, and only a few would object. Probably a PR win on the whole, or at worst only a slight downside.

      The ISP management (like most people) are probably opposed to child porn as a matter of principle, so if it doesn't cost them much to filter it out, why not? I suspect at the end of the day this may have been the bottom line in many cases.

      Management might also be worried that one of their customers will turn out to be running a child-porn server, and want to paint themselves in the best possible light in advance as it were.

      No doubt there are other possible motivations. I see no reason to dream up conspiracy theories to explain it.

  2. Two words by presidenteloco · · Score: 2, Informative

    Encryption

    Proxies

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Two words by zwei2stein · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

      IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

      ---

      Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    2. Re:Two words by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So drop all e-commerce and anything that requires a password, including half the forums on the internet? Yeah, that won't have any blow back.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Two words by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Jail.

      Suprise butt sex.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Two words by gilgongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

      IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

      ---

      Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

      That's probably true, but I wonder how far things will go? For example, where I live, there are already kids setting up local wireless mesh networks to share their music collections and other stuff around. Sure, these are small and operated by pizza-munching geeks, but if the idea gained general traction and the Internet as we know it simply became something similar to cable TV today (plus perhaps a comms network similar to email), would not the people be able to steal the Internet revolution back? I'm also interested in whether this might mean a return in some form at least to the ancient (and perhaps default) mode of human life: that of small, tightly-knit communities.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    5. Re:Two words by Krneki · · Score: 1, Troll

      Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

      IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

      ---

      Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

      If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.

      And there are also VPN connections.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    6. Re:Two words by trapnest · · Score: 1

      That's not true. SSH and HTTPS look different.

    7. Re:Two words by t0p · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.

      They don't need to block every https site. They block a list of named sites, and that list grows over time. The police add pedo sites to the list. Other agencies add other sites that they deem "inappropriate". The IWF maintain such a list and governments say it's good because it's targeting child porn sites. But there are also lists maintained by various governments, and they often filter for political sites too. It's impossible to run properly effective filtering by algorithm. So there will be lists involved. But who maintains the lists?

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    8. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a reply on Slashdot to that same assertion, "technical means cannot solve social problems", which I'd hoped would quiet that lame argument forever, but I guess lame arguments never die.

      Before irrigation, starvation was a social problem. Technology solved it.

    9. Re:Two words by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      They don't need to block every https site.

      They do if they just block all encrypted traffic (which has nothing to do with blacklisting URLs), which is where this thread originated.

    10. Re:Two words by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Before irrigation, starvation was a social problem. Technology solved it.

      Solved it? There are still a lot of people dying from starvation every day.

    11. Re:Two words by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Encrypted traffic :
      All VPN's
      All Secure transactions

      Proxies, which are almost universally used by businesses as a security measure

      Well that's all business off the internet - do you want an economy?

      P2P Traffic - Well that's BBC iPlayer and similar streaming services, many game updates etc ...

      Almost everything that has been used for nefarious or illegal purposes was originally developed and is still widely used for legitimate reasons ...

      While you are at it you had better stop people using envelopes in the mail, and monitor all phone calls ?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    12. Re:Two words by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Indeed, one has 67% more letters in it's acronym than the other.

      --
      meep
    13. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. But in any case, developping your own protocol isn't that hard (and with a bit of knowledge in cryptology, you can make it virtually unbreakable), neither is setting up a local wireless mesh. Let's not forget that the internet routes around obstructions, that's what it's designed to do.

    14. Re:Two words by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      where I live, there are already kids setting up local wireless mesh networks to share their music collections and other stuff around.

      One of the few good things about censorship, it does lead to more technically and politically literate kiddies.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    15. Re:Two words by karlzt · · Score: 0

      no, in the case of finnland.

    16. Re:Two words by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Wifi detector cars. Sniff the connection, if there's an encrypted connection that doesn't use a government-approved private key, then triangulate, and arrest the owner of the access point.

      Free space optical isn't vulnerable to that one, although FSO gear is more easily visible to the naked eye.

    17. Re:Two words by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Sure, but try doing that over the ocean.

      That would limit the Internet to islands. Sure, you would have plenty of people to share with in a large city, but what about isolated places? Country-to-country connections? It would kill the Internet as we know it, unless someone would came with something better than "mesh networks".

    18. Re:Two words by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Someone is modding everyone who supports going around this filtering using encryption and/or proxies as a troll.

      That is very political use of modding. There is no: -1 Disagree so they are using -1 Troll for the same purpose.

      Suspicious. I wonder if there are organized interests trying to keep slashdot discussions on the "right" track
      these days. And yes, I'm seriously wondering that, and not saying it in order to promote an angry reaction.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    19. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remove tinfoil hat. It's just someone abusing the moderation system. Meta-mod it.

    20. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll? Seriously?

      For those that don't get what the parent is trying to say. The point is unless they block all encrypted traffic or move to a whitelist-only filtered internet, there is nothing to stop any geek from setting up a private encrypted proxy in a country without filtering.

    21. Re:Two words by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      Wifi detector cars. Sniff the connection, if there's an encrypted connection that doesn't use a government-approved private key

      Hm. Well, just tunnel in that case I suppose. Still, it's hard to imagine any democratic government being successful in pushing through laws that mandated government-approved keys for general encryption. At least, they tried something similar with the Clipper Chip and it didn't get far.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    22. Re:Two words by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Tunneling through the government approved connection? Um... that defeats the purpose. ;)

      Unless you mean physically tunneling. As in, digging a hole.

      As for a democratic government... this is a republic, not a democracy. And, it's controlled by corporations that would be willing to push through such a law just to ensure their profits - the MAFIAA would LOVE this.

  3. Re:Like many fads, by SolidAltar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Like internet censorship too will never last."

    Censorship will exist as long as either

    1.) There are governments with secrets to hide
    2.) ZOMG SAVE TEH CHILDREN

    I forsee neither of these going away anytime soon. As in, Ever.

  4. Re:Like many fads, by SolidAltar · · Score: 0, Troll

    Correction in the quote:
    "Like many fads, internet censorship too will never last"

  5. circumvent to destabilize by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'

    You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed to forcing the world to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.

    1. Re:circumvent to destabilize by SolidAltar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crap, it's too bad the International Intellectual Property Alliance is against stealing website templates. It's like 1997 all over again.

    2. Re:circumvent to destabilize by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention that their logo is a friggin' bitmap.

    3. Re:circumvent to destabilize by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1

      It's like 1997 all over again.

      Only in the IIPA's dreams, you know, the one where only a few geeks knew what an internet was... that or they can't hire any decent developers without conscience to help them with their internet killing plans.

    4. Re:circumvent to destabilize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone mentioned this.

      As a tiny country, we've been given the raw end of trade deals with a lot of countries, and as a result NZ is trying to boost its economy by free trade agreements.
      We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result.
      China was also being 'nice' to us, since we were one of the few countries that would trade with their government, what with their human rights record being in the bin. We got a fair bit of flack over the trade treaty both locally and international.
      Still our exports are way up as a result, and it looks to have been a good deal. As they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.

      The US on the other hand, we've been trying to get a free trade agreement for decades.
      The US on the whole really doesn't care very much for our country.
      When we introduced a nuclear free zone, preventing any cargo or nuclear powered ships from entering our international waters, we seriously pissed off the US, as most of their navy is nuclear powered.
      The result was that america turned their backs on us and snubbed us.
      About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us, and they go and have a war with iraq, with the bold statement "Your either with us, or against us". Well our little country after having our Prime Minister being breifed with their top secret classified information, decided that there wasn't grounds for war and didn't send any troops to the invasion. (we've sent troops to help rebuild in afghastan however)
      Cold shoulder treatment again.
      And fastforward to now, when the US goverment has with last years trade talks, basicly told us that the offer is still on the table, but were not going to look at it just yet.
      Now the US has told us in between the lines ways, that the trade agreement won't happen until we put in the 3 strike rules. In fact they are likely to start killing off our trade unless we do.
      Frankly after putting up with their shit for so long, i'd love to tell the US to go fuck themselves and play their politics game elsewhere. Trying to trade with them is like bending over backwards.

    5. Re:circumvent to destabilize by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1
      Believe me, the US would love to keep ignoring/punishing the tiny speck of a market that is NZ, but...

      About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us

      and

      We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result... they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.

      You got that right - the only reason the US is "warming to NZ" is that it is scrambling to sign up trade deals with all these string attached right now, because quite frankly in a few years China/SE Asia will be the bigger trade partners, especially for the well placed Aussie and NZ. That will mean much less political clout for the US to push around your little markets with - loss of power.

      Aussie did not ban any nuclear ships and has already signed up with a few US trade "deals" - they still got shafted with the worst of the DMCA, filtering etc. To add insult to this injury, the evidence in coming in that the US trade deals are not working out in Australia's favor at all. Basically the only people that seem to benefit from US trade "deals" are the politicians that hurried through their implementation.

  6. Re:Like many fads, by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1, Troll

    I forsee neither of these going away anytime soon. As in, Ever.

    I don't see 'em going away, either - not when we have power-hungry groups who have been including the Internet in their thinking for some time.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  7. Alternatively by microbee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Google can quit!

    1. Re:Alternatively by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would be a crippling blow to NZ, indeed. I hear that Google has the most comprehensive sheep index! ~

  8. NZ Filtering FAQ by BeagleBoi · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want to know more about it, check the NZ Internet Filtering FAQ at: http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/

    1. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by bmo · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The DIA say that the filter will not be used for law enforcement."

      AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH H AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH

      *breathe* AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH

        HAHAAHAHAH *wipes eyes*

      The entire justification for the filter is CP with a side order of bestiality.

      And it won't be used for prosecution. That's rich.

      *Snort*

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Everyone should read this.

      The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.
      How does the filtering work?

            1. A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.
            2. The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the ‘best’ way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.
            3. When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA’s server.
            4. The DIA’s filtering server then looks at the request. If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person. If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA’s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA’s internet connection.

      Does the filtering work with HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

      HTTPS (secure HTTP) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.

      HTTPS requests can’t be examined by the filter server (because they use encryption for the security). This means that all HTTPS traffic to an internet address that has any banned content (possibly for a completely different website) will be passed through the filter.

      Does the internet filter only apply to web browsing or does it apply to other traffic as well?

      All traffic (web, email, P2P, etc) for a filtered internet address will be forwarded to the DIA’s server.

      All non-web Internet traffic will be forwarded through the filter to the destination site.

      What type of material is censored?

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

      Can other types of material be censored in the future?

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

      Apparently the NetClean software is contractually restricted to only being used to block child pornography.

      So far, so good.

      But these are bad:

      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.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This, to me, is the strangest thing about these filtering/censorship proposals. On the one hand, it's claimed that only really, really illegal stuff will be blocked by it -- the worst of the worst that pretty much guarantees a prison sentence merely for possessing, and that the lists will be accurate and won't block legitimate content. On the other, people who are detected trying to access this stuff won't be charged or even investigated?

      It seems very strange. Obviously there's simple explanations for this lack of coherency, but the self-contradictory nature of the proposals is so much more transparent than usual in politics.

    4. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's fairly simple. They're lying.

    5. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Well, if having child porn is a crime of posession it'd be weird to get charged for failing to find a way to obtain some. It'd be like locking somebody up for having expressed at some point the desire to get some heroin, but failing to find a dealer.

    6. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Based on that FAQ, it's time to switch your webserver to HTTPS, they don't block *any* HTTPS traffic, even to 'blocked' addresses.
      So those in the biz of hosting kiddy porn simply need a self signed certificate and the vile scum they call customers will still be able to access them, come to think of it, i can't believe they'd pipe that content over the web unencrypted anyway

    7. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      That's not weird at all. In most countries I know of, conspiracy to commit murder or attempted murder carries much the same penalty as murder, by and large (parole conditions etc not withstanding).

      What IS weird is that pictures of murders (and movies with with murders in them) are so very, very common- played on our household TVs, in our movie theatres and present on almost any media you can find today... but the mainstream view is that this is harmless, just a fantasy, and not harmful to adults even in gratuitous amounts. I certainly think so.

      So why is it then that hand-drawn porn of the Simpsons is considered extremely harmful and dangerous, when the Simpsons are not real people, never were... and in any event are (in a technical sense) ALL over the age of 21 (even Maggie)? There's not even a real "actor" there. Just ink and paper, nothing more. I'll say it again: "Just ink and paper, nothing more."

      And yes, IAAA (I Am An Australian).

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    8. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by bmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it'd be weird to get charged for failing to find a way to obtain some.

      No, actually. There are plenty of ways of being convicted of a crime if you fail to suceed. They call it conspiracy.

      "Vadim has hit the server 50 times this year. We should get a warrant to search his computer for illegal activity that wasn't stopped by the server. Also, we should get a warrant to arrest him for conspiracy to acquire child pornography"

      Or...

      "Vadim has been blocked by the server 50 times this year. Let's look at the logs of where he goes. Oh, this looks interesting. Let's see if it needs to be blocked or not. *visits site* Hmmm... illegal content. Call Judge Judy to cut a warrant to search his computer"

      Honeypots already exist for this purpose. This is something that the East German Stasi only wish they had. This will be a nice centralized honeypot with all your internet activity neatly filed away, sorted and scored by "relative illegality" and when you hit a certain score, you're hosed.

      It won't end with CP. As we've seen with Australia, a whole bunch of things are censored in the name of "Protecting the children". Scope creep happens. Scope creep in government (or bureaucracies in general) is a foregone conclusion.

      It sounds like tinfoil, but if you told me 15 years ago countries would be doing national firewalls and censoring, I would have accused you of shiny haberdashery.

      You know it's going to happen.

    9. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      So perhaps this is a good reason to encourage everyone to convert their web sites to HTTPS only?

      --
      linquendum tondere
    10. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be like locking somebody up for having expressed at some point the desire to get some heroin, but failing to find a dealer.

      Attempting to buy narcotics is a crime in most jurisdictions (I have no idea about New Zealand), so I don't think your example works like you intended.

    11. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was cracking up when I read that part, but then I read it again.

      HTTPS (secure HTTP) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.

      So already in their eyes, HTTPS is not supposed to be used for anything outside of economic transactions. I wonder where their legislative focus could end up next.

    12. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Julie188 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. That site says, "New Zealand’s censorship laws forbid viewing or owning certain types of material (e.g. depictions of bestiality or sex with children) and this applies to material accessed over the internet too. A number of people have been convicted for possessing material they have downloaded over the internet." ... Now I'm torn. Censorship is evil. But it does make sense to make it illegal to view or own materials which harm others, like children. The bigger concern is that the Scoop story says that the NZ government is keeping the list of stuff they are censoring a secret. If they are censoring for pedophiles -- they should be forthright about it, after all, isn't the idea to let them know its not ok? But if they are spying on their citizens, that's completely awful. Julie

    13. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Also important:

      ISPs that will implement the DIA filter
      * Vodafone/Ihug
      * TelstraClear
      * Maxnet

      ISPs that won’t implement the DIA filter
      * Orcon
      * Natcom
      * Callplus/Slingshot

      ISPs that will offer filtered and unfiltered feeds
      * Snap

      ISPs on the fence
      * Telecom/Xtra
      * World Exchange (WxC)
      * WIC

      Numerous ISPs unaccounted for there, but I've been meaning to move away from TelstraClear ever since I first found out about this. I'm fairly deeply ashamed that I haven't already.

    14. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off-topic, but

      shiny haberdashery

      Completely brilliant! At first I thought it was a Firefly/Serenity reference, but then I got it. I might have to use that one in future...

    15. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Numerous ISPs unaccounted for there,

      How many ISPs in NZ don't use one of the listed ones for their traffic? What happens if a smaller ISP buys, say 100 Mbps of International Internet in the Sky Tower from, say, TelstraClear? Will they auto-filter the ISP, or will they leave it to the ISP to filter themselves?

    16. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      They are only censoring child pornography. They are not releasing the list of web sites being blocked, on the grounds that this would provide paedophiles with a list of web sites to visit. I'm not sure what if any oversight is planned, but the folks in question have a fairly good reputation and are probably trustworthy. At the moment.

    17. Re:NZ Filtering FAQ by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      It's not that complicated. They realise that when you click on a link, you don't have any way of knowing where it goes, and that most people visiting child pornography sites are probably doing so accidentally.

      We don't see a lot of malicious prosecution in New Zealand, presumably because the folks in charge of making these decisions are civil servants rather than politicians.

  9. Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this becomes a real problem, it would become a test for democracy. Next elections nobody concerned should vote the current party in power. Next time they'll think about that before doing something so stupid.

    1. Re:Democracy by BeagleBoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      We have two major parties in NZ (Labour and National).

      The filter process was started when Labour was in power.

      It's now gone live while National is in power.

      At least the Greens are against it! Oh, pity they only get ~5%.

    2. Re:Democracy by Konster · · Score: 1

      So...start a new party.

      Call it the Packet Party.

    3. Re:Democracy by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      ...which will get even fewer votes than the Greens.

      I think the next step for democracies is to scrap the party system and have voting based on particular policies, not on some nebulous notion of a "party platform". The common system of voting in a bunch of drongos every few years and writing to representatives and hope they'll support your views is far from ideal, and modern technology makes it quite feasible to enable voters to have a much more direct say on particular issues.

      But I'm not sure any of the major political parties would ever support such a scheme; certainly not while they're in power.

    4. Re:Democracy by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      4 million people isn't a lot and perhaps half of them are eligible to vote.

      So Start a Party call it th will of the people and if elected will take the majority view on any issue. Each topic would have a poll I doubt it would be able to be a huge part of Politics but every vote would b e reflecting what people want. Just as the Green Party doesn't control any countries government it certainly influences both the left and right.

      In a PR system 5% of 4 Million is 200,000, probably could be a working reality with 100,000 people voting for it.

      could kick something like that off with a facebook page.

    5. Re:Democracy by t0p · · Score: 1

      Rule of the majority. Rule by Facebook. eep

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    6. Re:Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, pity they only get ~5%.

      That's because NZ has only 4 million people.

    7. Re:Democracy by master5o1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps try this: http://pirateparty.org.nz/

      --
      signature is pants
    8. Re:Democracy by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I think the next step for democracies is to scrap the party system and have voting based on particular policies, not on some nebulous notion of a "party platform". The common system of voting in a bunch of drongos every few years and writing to representatives and hope they'll support your views is far from ideal, and modern technology makes it quite feasible to enable voters to have a much more direct say on particular issues.

      I agree, that's a great idea, in principal. I doubt that any politician, even assuming an honest one, perfectly represents my views.

      The big problem, though, is that 1) parties will form no matter what, and 2) few people have the time to become knowledgeable enough about every issue to make in informed vote. For example, I heard on NPR the other morning, that a temporary speed limit for boats on my state's big lake will be made permanent. I think it was 45mph during the day and 25mph at night. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I have no idea; I'm not a boater, and live far away from the lake. If it were put to a vote I'd have to either abstain or get advice from someone whose opinion I trust. If lots of people begin taking the advice from people they 'trust', this begins to resemble a party system again...

    9. Re:Democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We have two major parties in NZ (Labour and National).

      Well, guys, you don't get to blame FPTP for this - you have MMP, so the only ones to blame are the electorate.

      So, could it be that this is indeed what the people want, and we see democracy working as designed?

    10. Re:Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you have to vote on boating legislation? In a world without parties, candidates would likely be single-issue, or only represent a few related issues (simply by merit of the fact that they don't have enough publicity or money to fully enumerate and quantify their stance on every issue). Ideally, people would preferentially vote for candidates representing their views for each issue (eg, candidate (A/B/C) for issue X, candidate (D/E/F/G) for issue Y and candidate (H/I/J) for issue Z). If voters didn't have a particular opinion on some issue, they could leave the box blank for all candidates for that issue (obviously, changing the voting methodology would be part of this theoretical reform). It would mean a lot more candidates (but there's never a lack of lazy scumbags and starry-eyed ideologues who want to be politicians), and voting would be more complex, but this is still better than the bundling of issues which leads to the two-party nonsense we have now.

      Of course, you're absolutely correct that parties will form no matter what. People decide their stance on issues that don't directly affect them (and sometimes those that do) from their peers (social groups, news-media, role models, colleagues) which inevitably means that the majority of people will end up with a particular stance on a bundle of issues (eg, "conservative", "environmentalist/green", "liberal", "libertarian", etc). Politicians will simply capitalise on this fact and out-compete their 'single issue' competitors. But I suspect that I'm preaching to the choir here..

    11. Re:Democracy by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      My thinking here is that the people who put forward proposals would also be responsible for putting together a concise summary of why their view is the best (it would need to be concise, since voters won't read a wall of text). Their opposition would then vet their summary for accuracy, so any claims made would need to be backed by evidence. A few weeks of debate would probably be more than enough for most issues to make it to the final stage where they can be put to the vote. A voter who spent a few minutes reading all the summaries would then be sufficiently informed to make a decent decision. Those who don't care can abstain from the vote, and those who are really interested can always do their own research and check out the citations for evidence presented in the summaries, and so on.

      With this system, parties won't be so important. You'd probably want to require a certain amount of support within the House before a proposal could actually be put forth to vote (so if only one or two representatives backed it, it wouldn't make it through to the voters); in this case, you'd probably have groups forming to back particular issues, disintegrating after the matter was settled. There should probably be a "none of the above" option in every vote, too, so even if you do get a silly situation where there's only two proposals and they're both terrible, the voters can refuse to back either. (I think there's a significant difference between "voting no" and "not voting at all".)

      I think such a scheme could effectively be implemented using the internet to vote so it's not a huge burden on the populace, and such voting could occur very frequently, even weekly. That way there would only be a small number of issues each time, making it viable for the populace to read the summaries for issues they're interested in and have their say. Also, the summaries would make it easy for the mainstream news media to present the issues in an unbiased manner.

    12. Re:Democracy by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I don't believe any of the credible parties have objected to the filter. For reference, it wasn't a political decision, it was implemented by the civil service.

  10. invasion ? probably yes by Atreide · · Score: 4, Funny

    "so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"

    That is probably true.
    Since there is rumor CNN might have proof that Bin Laden has been seen there for vacation.

    People also say he is accompagnied by Sadam Hussein and Joseph Stalin.
    Who are said to have found some oil offshore.

    --
    The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
  11. Human Rights? by teslar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I do have to admit that this is the first time I heard about the filter... but how can they possibly square that with human rights? Especially this part:

    Article 19
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?

    1. Re:Human Rights? by SolidAltar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean people care about freedom. People vote in dictators all the time.

    2. Re:Human Rights? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?

      Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve. If the people don't pay attention, the government will be corrupt. If the people is willing to put up with human rights abuses, the government will be willing also. If the people are willing to put up with unbalanced budgets and lack of healthcare for some people, the government will be willing to also. See also slavery in America prior to the civil war.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Human Rights? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      A democracy is just a dictatorship trough sock puppets. The puppets can change to simulate non-existing free choice.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Human Rights? by kubitus · · Score: 1

      NZ is in the Echelon group -isn't it? So it is Echelon implemented inside.

    5. Re:Human Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      New Zealander here. I don't think enough people here are bothered by it, at this stage anyway. Why? "Think of the children!!!" of course. The sad thing is that the common public opinion is something along these lines: "I'm totally opposed to censorship but I'll make an exception in this case because it's child porn. What a sick pervert you must be if you don't support this! It's the least we can do!" The *really* sad thing is that this view also seems to be shared by some people who seemingly are tech-savvy and claim to value civil liberties.

      We are not helping ourselves.

    6. Re:Human Rights? by t0p · · Score: 1

      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948. I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then. Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere. So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    7. Re:Human Rights? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Me, too. I live in NZ, and this article on Slashdot is the first I have heard of this filtering in NZ. That seems strange. On the other hand, the government can and does spend huge amounts of time sensing the opinions and feelings of the people only to then ignore them and ham-handedly put into place whatever policies it wanted to in the first place. All the while beating its chest over how democratic it is. BS.

    8. Re:Human Rights? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      You haven't heard of it before because that information was filtered.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    9. Re:Human Rights? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.

      Democracies don't give you the government you deserve[1], they give you the worst government any 50.1% or more of your fellow citizens can be tricked into voting for.

      [1] As if anyone actually deserved to be ruled by any government. Democracies have advantages and disadvantages relative to other forms of government, but these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type. Among other issues, so long as any government exists we will never be free of "legitimized" coercive—that is, criminal—behavior.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:Human Rights? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Among other issues, so long as any government exists we will never be free of "legitimized" coercive—that is, criminal—behavior.

      On the flip side, so long as no government exists, there's no such thing as "criminal" behavior - as it is, by definition, the kind of behavior that breaks criminal law, which can only exist and be enforced by a government (any entity doing so would be government in effect, even if it calls itself differently).

      So, with a government, you have legitimized but limited coercion. Without a government, you have coercion by anyone who is stronger than you, without any limits or recourse. Make your pick.

    11. Re:Human Rights? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type.

      lol......you seriously are trying to get rid of government? Well, there has to be a certain amount of admiration for anyone who attacks windmills, but, personally I think you are an idiot. I fully support the use of force by government in many cases, especially for cases like arresting murderers and enforcing contracts.

      You seem mainly annoyed that a large group of people can push a smaller group around, but this isn't a problem of government, it's a problem wherever there is a large group of people. Living in society together is hard.

      --
      Qxe4
    12. Re:Human Rights? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, so long as no government exists, there's no such thing as "criminal" behavior - as it is, by definition, the kind of behavior that breaks criminal law

      Criminal:
      * condemnable: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; ...
      * guilty of crime or serious offense; ... (Source)

      You're ignoring several common definitions. No, "criminal" is not exclusively defined by governments, even ignoring the international sense where no one government has any jurisdiction. An obvious counter-example would be common law, which arose from private dispute-resolution unassociated with any government. In any event, whenever you see me using the term it is synonymous with "aggression", or the use of force (i.e. violation of natural property rights) against a non-aggressor.

      any entity doing so would be government in effect, even if it calls itself differently

      Defense from aggression is not the only qualification for government. Among other things, to be a government an organization must (a) claim a monopoly on the use of defensive force; (b) use non-defensive force, a.k.a. aggression; (c) claim that it has a "legitimate" right to act as it does, when any other organization in its place would be classified as organized crime. Note that (b) is required to enforce (a).

      You can consider other organizations "governments" if you like, but if they don't meet criteria (a) or (b) above then I am not opposed. It is the behavior which is important, not the label.

      So, with a government, you have legitimized but limited coercion. Without a government, you have coercion by anyone who is stronger than you, without any limits or recourse.

      With a government, you have legitimized coercion by someone who is stronger than yourself, without any effective limits or recourse. So long as others consider the coercion "legitimate" you cannot organize any defense. Without a government others may attempt aggression against you, but this aggression is clearly illegitimate and you are free to work with others to voluntarily defend yourself and your community. If your goal, like mine, is to eliminate aggression then only the latter choice offers any hope at all. From the perspectives of ideology and practicality alike, there really is no choice at all but to oppose aggression in all its forms.

      In practice, the most common aggression most people experience originates with their own governments, not private criminals. What thief could escape unscathed after taking thousands of dollars from millions of people, year after year? What extortionist could get away with unjust demands on the scale of those handed down by government bureaucrats? True crime is the domain of rare and degenerate individuals, but governments make criminals of ordinary citizens and label it "public service."

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    13. Re:Human Rights? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I fully support the use of force by government in many cases, especially for cases like arresting murderers and enforcing contracts.

      You might have a point if governments were actually required to arrest murders or enforce contracts. Fortunately, they aren't.

      You seem mainly annoyed that a large group of people can push a smaller group around, but this isn't a problem of government, it's a problem wherever there is a large group of people.

      No, I'm annoyed that anyone can push anyone else around without the action being seen as criminal. Yes, crime will probably always exist. I get that. There's no need to endorse and legitimize it, however.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    14. Re:Human Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defense from aggression is not the only qualification for government. Among other things, to be a government an organization must (a) claim a monopoly on the use of defensive force;

      Any organization that would have to determine whether the use of force was "aggressive" or "defensive" (which would be necessary, since we don't want defensive use of force by private parties to be criminal, right?) is effectively monopolizing the use of defensive force (since it only permits others to defend themselves by delegating its own power to do so).

      (b) use non-defensive force, a.k.a. aggression;

      This hinges on the same thing as above - someone must first define what consitutes defense, and to do so, one must also define what constitutes aggression.

      To give a simple example, in some cultures, looking at a man's wife in a wrong way could well be deemed "aggression", and would be met by violent reprisal with full backing of the society.

      claim that it has a "legitimate" right to act as it does

      "Legitimacy" is a label used by governments, so defining a government via that label is kinda recursive.

      With a government, you have legitimized coercion by someone who is stronger than yourself, without any effective limits or recourse.

      Not so in a properly democratic government.

      Without a government others may attempt aggression against you, but this aggression is clearly illegitimate and you are free to work with others to voluntarily defend yourself and your community.

      In practice, you might find it hard to rally the community to your help in all but the most desperate cases. You know, "first they came for the Jews" and all that - that kind of thing goes on regardless of "legitimacy" of aggression.

      So far, reflecting on the known human history, I see no evidence that a decentralized community can resist determined outside attacks, assembling only for the purpose of defense, without forming permanent a power structure for that purpose (which will inevitably become more and more government-like).

      y. If your goal, like mine, is to eliminate aggression then only the latter choice offers any hope at all.

      My goal is to minimize aggression. The ideal is zero, of course, but I do not believe that to be achievable in foreseeable future. In the meantime, I prefer a society with a reasonably low, mostly constant, and predictable level of aggression, to the one which can theoretically reach zero in some very distant future, but in practice has significantly higher levels here and now (and high possibility of collapsing into a state which has a high constant and predictable level of aggression - such as a successful, long-lasting dictatorship).

      In practice, the most common aggression most people experience originates with their own governments, not private criminals.

      But that is the whole point of the social contract! The only reason why use of force by the government is tolerated is because it is used (among other things) to curtail aggression of private criminals. So long as net balance is positive for the citizens, the government is seen as legitimate (this is where the concepts such as "mandate of heaven", "king's peace" etc come from). If government demands too much without giving much in return as well, we get a revolution.

      True crime is the domain of rare and degenerate individuals

      Then where do governments come from, and why do they enjoy such broad support?

      Also, it would seem from experiences of various "failed states" (such as Somalia) that removing the government doesn't result in a magical establishment of a peaceful anarchist society - instead, we see bloody civil wars, and increased oppression on all levels of society - and, ultimately, government-like structures and institutions arise out of the chaos (warlords etc). That contradicts your assertion.

    15. Re:Human Rights? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Nah, the info just has not appeared in the local newspaper. And, to think of it, maybe that is not so surprising. If the information was filtered, then how could I see it on Slashdot?

    16. Re:Human Rights? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the UN, or any government in the world has taken the position that article 19 prohibits the censorship of child pornography.

      If you want to argue that it does, I'll respect that viewpoint, but I don't think NZ is exactly going out on a limb here as far as the UN is concerned. (They're far more worried that we might not discriminate against the descendants of Europeans thoroughly enough.)

    17. Re:Human Rights? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I looked at this some time back, and again more recently when it was confirmed that my workplace's internet provider (I work at the University of Waikato) will be using the filter.

      Personally, I can't work up any outrage over it. The proposal seems to be technically sound and minimally intrusive, so while I couldn't say I was in favour, I'm not really concerned.

    18. Re:Human Rights? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      It was in the local news long ago, but it never got much attention. Note that while it is true that it is "the government" implementing the filter, it wasn't a political move. It's something the civil service did on it's own initiative, under existing law.

    19. Re:Human Rights? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Depends on which source your local news comes from. I find mine tends to be lacking often.

    20. Re:Human Rights? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, I don't know exactly where I first heard about it. I want to say it was in the Herald, perhaps one or two years back, but I couldn't swear to that - I work in IT, so it might have been bought to my attention by a coworker.

      I'm just saying the DIA weren't keeping it secret. The newspapers just didn't seem to think it was much of a story.

    21. Re:Human Rights? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      I am retired, and living in the provinces, so news can be iffy.

      I quite agree with you about the DIA not keeping it secret. I just had not heard of it, and I was kind of surprised to see it on /. first.

      'Nuff said.

  12. Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice RSS Widget for replying!

  13. We'd be happy to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"

    The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests. We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much. We will though commit to spending billions to rebuild your country after our war of words. And finally the issue at hand. We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!

    1. Re:We'd be happy to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests. We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much.

      Well shit. You mean John Key wasn't installed by America?

    2. Re:We'd be happy to help by whatajoke · · Score: 1

      We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!

      NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours. Try 50$ with 10G cap.

    3. Re:We'd be happy to help by Yosho · · Score: 1

      NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours. Try 50$ with 10G cap

      While that sucks and all, with a 56k dialup connection, assuming you were even capable of hitting the max transfer rate, you'd only be able to get a little about 17 GB in one month if your connection was going full-blast 24 hours a day. Assuming that the connection will generally be idle for over half the day and at less than the max on average for the rest of it, it's unlikely that even a fairly active dial-up user would hit a 10 GB cap.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  14. Why? by exallon · · Score: 1

    It keeps amazing me that the governments of the "free" world does everything they can do stop internet freedom. It would also be very interesting to know who decides and on what grounds a site should be filtered on. Also what kind of filtering, http? smtp? p2p? msn? twitter? Facebook? youtube?

    1. Re:Why? by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I imagine it will be managed by the censorship office - the same folks that, for example, provide the ratings for videos. It's also been made pretty clear that the only grounds (for now at least!) are child pornography.

  15. NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by baker_tony · · Score: 1

    This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ. Internet there is already shiit.

    1. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      this has very little to do with the government, they recommend that isp's enable it, but it is not compulsory (as of yet) many of the isp's that are agreeing to implement it are ones generally regarded as companies that like to keep a strong-hold on their customers, many of the other isp's are relatively small ones that still value their image to consumers

    2. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that list also puts the UK only at number 11, and even the top number Iceland is kind of dubious when you look at the complete screw up they made with their banks, and their decision to make the choice of fixing the solution between not fulfilling their commitments to repay their international debts, or force their citizens to repay it, rather than, you know, going after the people who ran off with a large portion of the cash. They've not exactly got a great history of honesty in fulfilling their international obligations on fishing and so forth because they also enjoy the money it brings it regardless of the legality of it. Hell, even Sweden is number 6 and look how the RIAA was able to install a puppet judge in their courts, and how their ministers were able to force a police raid at the request of the RIAA on TPB.

      So either the bar for being low on corruption is so low that anyone can simply step over it and still be hailed a hero on the list, or the listing is completely and utterly useless. Sadly, I'm inclined to believe it's probably actually the former, however seeing Canada 3 places behind the UK does make me question that- the idea that Canada is more corrupt than the UK is laughable.

    3. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      And how does this discussion relate to government corruption? Not at all that I can see.

    4. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they're acting corrupted to me, from the article: "The DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) refuses to say which other ISPs will be joining the filter, claiming the right to negotiate in secret." DIA had something to do with the government last time I checked... www.dia.govt.nz

    5. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      In my book, corruption would be related to influence of outside agents on the government actions. As I read what happened, it sounds just like typical NZ government action, probably based on not wanting to appear the fool to all and sundry.

    6. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      It wasn't particularly secret.

      It should also be noted that (in contrast, for example, to the Australian proposal) this filter was not politically driven, but implemented by the civil service.

    7. Re:NZ 2nd least corrupt government?! by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      This comes as a great surprise to me, considering the NZ government is SUPPOSED to be the 2nd least corrupt government in the world: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption All this talk in the article of secretly implementing crap to filter the internet doesn't bode well for NZ. Internet there is already shiit.

      Interesting point. My understanding (from a fellow Kiwi who is usually pretty reliable on these sorts of things) is that it is known that NZ government administrations under-report corruption to a criminal level.

      It may interest fellow 'dotters that we don't ship out the encumbent administration when a new government takes power. That's right - unlike the US, we leave them there to undermine the incoming cabinet. This can be particularly challenging when the outgoing government has been nine consecutive years in power, leaving behind it a thoroughly indoctrinated public service to receive the incoming party..

      I'm not so sure this is different from the UK system of governance (although we have no House of Lords) so I may well be off-base with this thought.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  16. NZ ISP experience by DigMarx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having recently moved to NZ, I'm still not used to having a 25 gig/month data cap, but at least my ISP (Slingshot) has taken a stance against the filter. We'll see how long that lasts. Having dealt with numerous account issues (overcharges, undercharges, VoIP issues, you name it) in the two months I've had it, I have a pretty dim view of their professionalism. At least I can reach an actual human being in customer service. They're usually quite polite and helpful (I make it a point to be also). Gotta give them kudos for that, at least.

    1. Re:NZ ISP experience by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Wow ... I was going to suggest that you just moved to a higher plan, but I took a look at their website and 25 GB is the highest. Wtf?

      I thought we had it bad here in Australia with data caps, but yours are way worse. For the same $50 as you're paying for 25 GB, plans here are generally in the upwards of 60 GB (TPG will even give you 130 GB for $49.99). Plus even 200 GB plans are still under 100.

      It's weird that Slingshot doesn't have any higher plans (even expensive ones!).

    2. Re:NZ ISP experience by DigMarx · · Score: 1

      Actually if you factor in the landline (who uses those anymore?) it's pushing $100 NZ. I've got a package for $80/mo. using a dedicated VoIP line. It's not a big savings, but it's better than nothing. The upside is that the speed's uncapped, so I get 12 mbps or so down. It's a big contrast with Thailand, where they don't really have data caps but the fastest DSL sub they offer is around 8 mbps, severely bottlenecked outside SE Asia.

    3. Re:NZ ISP experience by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Back in October I was looking for a new broadband plan since my old one was being discontinued by Telecom. I don't think at that time I saw ANY that offered as much as 25GB. Certainly I did not see any for $50. I wound up taking a "naked DSL" plan with Voip telephone and unlimited-speed internet for which I pay by the GB used, giving me essentially no cap. It is only $1 per GB. Given the 1-3 mb/s service I get typically, I don't know how I could manage to download as much as 25 GB. I am having trouble reconciling the figures published here with my own experience in NZ.

    4. Re:NZ ISP experience by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Where on earth do you live in NZ that you can get 8-12 mbps internet? I have never heard of that being possible. Remember in NZ, anything over 256kbps is still considered broadband.

    5. Re:NZ ISP experience by mckenzie.carl · · Score: 1

      Slingshot is a budget ISP that has a very bad reputation. There are a few ISPs that will sell you unlimited topups of 10 or 20GB at a time if you can afford it & one very oversubscribed ISP that lets you set your cap as high as you want & only charges for the amount of data used each month. Our ISPs get paid for a lot of unused data because you have to estimate how much data you are going to use in advance.

      On a slight tangent, Watchdog (the ISP mentioned in the summary) are a top notch NZ ISP that have always filtered their connections above & beyond the government filter. They fill a niche market consisting mainly of schools and overbearing parents.
      I have a few primary schools as clients & watchdog is perfect for them. The principal can show worried parents that they are taking steps to ensure the children don't see anything they shouldn't & if you have to ring the helpdesk for any reason, the staff are friendly, helpful & understandable. It is very rare to ring an ISP & speak to someone who lives in NZ AND speaks perfect English.

    6. Re:NZ ISP experience by samboneym · · Score: 1

      Mate, try Orcon. They're a little more expensive but the connection is rock solid, you do actually get the speed you pay for and they actually have technically competent support staff.

    7. Re:NZ ISP experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slingshot is is the el budgeto isp. If you want larger plans, use their overlord company, callplus. Better yet, move to Orcon, who have better pricing, are faster, and also don't use the filter.

    8. Re:NZ ISP experience by DigMarx · · Score: 1

      I'm right smack in Auckland CBD. I can burn through my monthly data cap like shit through a goose. Woohoo.

      Zo

    9. Re:NZ ISP experience by DigMarx · · Score: 1

      Slingshot is a budget ISP that has a very bad reputation...It is very rare to ring an ISP & speak to someone who lives in NZ AND speaks perfect English.

      I don't doubt they've got a bad rep. However, they do sell data blocks if you exceed your monthly cap, and if you don't want to buy them they scale you back to "dialup speed". Off-peak time (2am-8am for my plan) is free, so that's when I schedule my torrent client, etc. As far as customer service goes, they've all been Kiwi so far. It's just a shame I've needed to call them so often!

    10. Re:NZ ISP experience by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Figures. The one and only big city gets lots of good stuff, and we out in the provinces get the crumbs left over. Nonetheless, I download as much as I ever want, and rarely exceed 10 GB per month.

    11. Re:NZ ISP experience by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      The bulk of our traffic (all of it, I think, except perhaps some via satellite) has to go to Australia first, then on to the rest of the world. Naturally it's more expensive here.

      There is a proposal to put in a much bigger pipe which I gather will bypass Australia. Hopefully once implemented it will bring prices down.

    12. Re:NZ ISP experience by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Any house near enough to the local exchange should be able to get line speeds in this range.

      Of course, actual download speed from specific sites will vary depending on overall load, particularly at the bottleneck between us and the rest of the world.

    13. Re:NZ ISP experience by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      I don't think our local exchange likes for houses to be built in its backyard. No one around here gets speeds that high.

      I like your remark about the bottleneck. Whenever I read about the government's program to bring high-speed broadband to 75% of Kiwis in the next 10 years (and my residence is always listed just outside that 75%), I wonder who will fix the skinny straw that NZ sucks data through. Fiber to the door will not deliver data faster from the rest of the world. I do see there is a consortium planning to put in a new cable, but I can only wonder if they will be successfully funded.

    14. Re:NZ ISP experience by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I do have a reference for an article about the consortium - probably the same one you've already read, but on the offchance anybody else is interested:

      $900m plan to open NZ internet tap

  17. A bad precedent by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nooo...

    That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia. Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!".

    Although it's sorta funny ... I was being berated by a kiwi on this very forum a few weeks ago, who was going on about how crap Australia was and that he couldn't wait to go home to NZ where there was "no chance of an internet filter". Joke's on him now, I guess. At least our 'filter' is still only an (unpopular) proposal, rather than actually implemented. Yet.

    1. Re:A bad precedent by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia. Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!".

      Well, you could point out all the differences. For example, our one will probably actually work, as it only affects a very small amount of traffic.

  18. Re:Like many fads, by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  19. Don't forget us brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    And don't forget us brits too.

    1. Re:Don't forget us brits by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I do find our government's attitude to the whole child porn thing somewhat amusing.

      Firstly, the subject gets brought up every time the government wants to win brownie points with the great unwashed - yet the reality of the situation is that kids are far more likely to suffer mental and physical abuse from bullying peers at school rather than the supposed paedophiles that we're told are there on every street corner.

      Secondly, the whole child porn thing could be stopped in its tracks if spineless governments actually took on the big financial corporations & forced them to police themselves. Thankfully I'm no expert on child porn but the solution seems fairly logical - the stuff is being produced to make money for someone, therefore there are lots of credit card transactions going on in the sale of the stuff. Therefore force the credit card companies to police those transactions and stop them happening - if they don't, name and shame them in the public media.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Don't forget us brits by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Don't filter, don't force companies to filter, but go after the ones making the material, by any means nessesary

    3. Re:Don't forget us brits by t0p · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996. The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from Wikipedia). So there's no legal standing to what it does. What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly. So sites get blocked if the IWF thinks they might be illegal. This has resulted in cases like when Wikipedia was blocked in 2008. Internetarchive.org was also blocked in the past. Similarly to the NZ filter, IWF does not inform sites that they have been blacklisted, nor does it make its list available to the public. So IWF has nothing to do (officially) with government or law enforcement, yet it is part publicly funded (through national government and EU grants), and an awful lot of UK citizens find their internet access is filtered according to its list. Who needs official censorship when you've got a voluntary system like this?

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    4. Re:Don't forget us brits by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "herefore there are lots of credit card transactions going on in the sale of the stuff. Therefore force the credit card companies to police those transactions and stop them happening - if they don't, name and shame them in the public media."

      They do, they are, and this is the police's main weapon in fighting it, the credit card companies are very cooperative ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    5. Re:Don't forget us brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. If sites are known to offer illegal content, owners should be tracked down and prosecuted. Surely, this kind of nasty content is illegal everywhere in the world.

      Instead, we have a central filtering database. Not just that this approach is very superficial, not just that it involves false positives, it also means that almost all UK traffic goes through IWF servers. As they are not a government or law enforcement agency, you'd expect this to be part of the ISP terms of service, but most of the time it is not. What this seems to be is ISPs clandestinely passing all your browsing information to a third party.

      Some two years on, my ISP keeps promising to answer my questions about this, but I got no answers so far.

  20. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I'm sorry... are you from the past?

    Bloody Aussies... check your facts next time.

    As any Kiwi could tell you, sheep numbers are plummeting with the dairy boom. 32 million sheep and 5.8 million dairy cows in 2009.

    I have to agree that the government does some stupid things sometimes though. Mostly when they try to copy Australia.

  21. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by Volguus+Zildrohar · · Score: 2, Funny

    To be fair, a lot of our stupidity results from our proximity to Australia. It's like trying not to have the volume too loud when you're living beside the airport.

    (It's a friendly rivalry, really)

    --
    When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
  22. Carbon footprint? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    Oh, sorry. You said "China".

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  23. It's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia/New Zealand is a testbed for how extreme western democracy can go. They tried one through the front door, and the other via a backdoor. Sorry you kiwis got it up the backdoor, but it's far more embarassing up the front door.

  24. Re:Same "it's voluntary" ploy here in Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's basically the same ploy that was used here in Finland to get ISPs to censor certain (claimed to be) child porn domains. If the ISPs wouldn't do it "voluntarily", then it was understood that government would step in and make it mandatory. Interestingly, after a couple of years, some ISPs have turned off the censoring by default and allow people to explicitly order the censorship "service". Basically it felt like it was all about making politicians look good at that moment, nobody really cared about if it worked or not.

  25. Sorry, won't work until you talk funny by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Oh, you speak the queens english? That is good enough. Prepare to be liberated! (Also known as kiss your ass goodbye)

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  26. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1, Informative

    As any Kiwi could tell you, sheep numbers are plummeting with the dairy boom. 32 million sheep and 5.8 million dairy cows in 2009.

    As a Kiwi, I wasn't aware of that. Not all of us obsess over the sheep population.

  27. new zealand is a fictional country by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i think this story is referring to where peter jackson is from

    you know, middle earth

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  28. Re:Like many fads, by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

    *Attempted* Censorship will exist as long as either

    1.) There are governments with secrets to hide
    2.) ZOMG SAVE TEH CHILDREN

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  29. but don't we all already really know.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    the target result that will be eventually achieved is censorship and control over what is communicated publicly over the internet.
    And all that is really going on here is the effort to water it down little by little in public semi acceptance and the newbees that simply don't know better.

    Freedom is a simple word to understand.

    And its easy to see this sort of censorship does not support freedom.

    Read the Declaration of Independence if you doubt the intent of the government, any government.

  30. Re:Like many fads, by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    internet censorship too will never last.

    It might last, but it wont take long before people find other ways to do the things they want to do. it's always been like this. All it takes is enough people adjusting to it, it spreading and becoming more convenient until it raises brows enough to slap it down.

    And then, the next alternative will sprout up.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  31. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by master5o1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is a very important topic taught to us every year at schools, universities and even in the news.

    --
    signature is pants
  32. That graph doesn't mean what you think it means by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Corruption takes three forms:

    • There is the pure and simple corruption: Here is 10.000 give me the contract.
    • There is the common american corruption: I donate 10.000 to your election campaign, now how are you going to vote on this bill that is not directly tied to me, but benefits me quite by accident?
    • And then there is corruption of the mind, the ivory tower. When politicians and those in power become so estranged from the real world that they might as well be on the take.

    This last one is actually most insidious, because the above leave a paper trail and can land you in jail. Being incompetent carries no such penalty, if it did, most judges would be in jail. These kind of measures are not introduced out of malice, but out of a sense "something must be done, this is something, therefor it must be done".

    the problem is ultimately the voter. Politicians are like women, once they reach a certain age you should replace them with a new model.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  33. Filtering NEVER works by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not that I support Child Pornography but I have seen many filtering systems over the years and NONE of them (including the one proposed for Australia or the one that seems to be being used in New Zealand) are going to stop someone who wants to find Child Pornography.

    No filtering system that I have seen even attempts to block the kinds of encrypted p2p networks used by many child pornographers.

    The right solution to child porn is to go after the people who are taking these pornographic photographs of kids in the first place and lock them up in a Gulag, Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, Jail, Camp or whatever the appropriate correctional institution may be. If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal and pressure the government of the country where its not illegal to make it illegal.

    1. Re:Filtering NEVER works by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That idea sucks. Why couldnt all the homosexuals in the USA get extradited to Iraq so their heads can get chopped off?

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    2. Re:Filtering NEVER works by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal...

      Extradition treaties generally only cover actions which are illegal in both jurisdictions, for which you should be grateful. Just consider some of the more oppressive regimes you've heard of, and whether you'd care to be extradited to their jurisdiction to be tried for actions which aren't illegal in your home country.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:Filtering NEVER works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually believe that the filters' purpose are for stopping child porn, do you? You can't possibly be that naive.

  34. How to annoy the ISPs by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Maybe the best way to get ISPs to stop being censorship bitches is every time you have connectivity issues, is to call them up and complain your site has probably been caught in the government censorship filter and you can't see any reason why it would be blocked. Here is hoping that enough complaints of false positives will change things. After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?

    Sounds like like you guys really need a pirate party to defend your liberties and in the mean time VPN all your important traffic.

    BTW does the filter support IPv6

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:How to annoy the ISPs by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?

      You can always just check.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:How to annoy the ISPs by kickme_hax0r · · Score: 1

      After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?

      From the FAQ:

      The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an “Access is refused” page is returned. The internet address of the requesting computer is logged.

      .

  35. Just one question... by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

    Is New Zealand's government not elected by it's citizens?
    There is not truer saying than "We get the government we deserve."

  36. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

    A troll moderation? Seriously? I am in fact a Kiwi, and I honestly didn't know that the livestock population was going through a shakedown.

  37. UK town name, sCUNThorpe, a classic example by GuyFawkes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    of why filtering doesn't work.

    No, I don't mean just the fact that the simple text string filter is too crude, but mainly the fact that there is no penalties imposed (eg loss of job) on the assholes who implement filtering technology with the same due diligence as an indian first line support call centre, and fuck up the entire internet for whole groups of users, or domain owners.

    Scunthorpe is just one example, what is crude, evil or illegal to one person, is totally innocent and innocuous to another person.

    Back in the day, no ISP wanted to touch filtering with a bargepole, not even if it cut their upstream bandwidth costs by 50%, for one simple reason... once you filter, you take legal responsibility for EVERYTHING, and open yourself up to lawsuits.

    Goodbye "common carrier" and "mere conduit" status.

    EU Law states (and I know exactly of what I speak, being personally instrumental in this law being codified and specified within UK Law) that for the purposes of the Electronic Commerce Directive an ISP is a "mere conduit"

    As this applies to a UK ISP this ruling SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS the "mere conduit" from all civil, and criminal, liabilities, even if the material in question is defamatory, copyright violation, or even child pornography... PROVIDED THEY REMAIN A "MERE CONDUIT"

    The nanosecond you start filtering, you are no longer a mere conduit or common carrier.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:UK town name, sCUNThorpe, a classic example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention PENISton

  38. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A troll moderation? Seriously? I am in fact a Kiwi, and I honestly didn't know that the livestock population was going through a shakedown.

    Since it's dairy, is that a milkshake down?

  39. More to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything government does, has done, and possibly could do, is founded on the principle of coercion. The entire business of government relies on a special "right" to employ coercion (or threat thereof) as a means to an end. This is what seperates government from the rest of us, and in fact defines government. Coercion. (Of course you won't ever catch a politician admitting this.)

    The "public sector" would realistically be termed the "coercive sector", and the "private sector" the voluntary sector. Regardless of whether you generally support organized coercion or not, organized coercion is precisely what government is.

    1. Re:More to the point by calibre-not-output · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no such thing as a "threat of coercion". Threats are coercion.

      --
      Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
  40. They probably ARE HTTPS-based by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    I think any porn site will require payment. For that fact alone, they already have a secure site, if only to prevent scaring away paying customers.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:They probably ARE HTTPS-based by BlakJak-ZL1VMF · · Score: 1

      Two points.
      1) Porn Sites may offer SSL but from my laymans POV, why would they add additional load to their servers? Authentication and Payment may well be SSL covered but I doubt those gigabytes of videos and stills are passed via anything other than HTTP in the majority of cases - allowing much easier load balancing, caching and such.

      2) The way the NZ filter will work, if your IP is filtered your traffic is going to pass thru their router based on the BGP advertisement anyway, so you're going to get a performance hit if you happen to wind up on a server which appears in their list, SSL or not.

      --
      -.-. --.-
  41. Does anyone use these filtered ISPs? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how these filters work. That is, how you can get around them. Everyone shouts "VPNs! Encrypted Proxies!" but do you have to go that far. Are they just names-level filters? Can they be bypassed by manually setting your DNS to google/OpenDNS? Or via a hosts file or directly typing the pinged numerical IP. Do they block http: but not ftp: ?

    Not just the NZ filter. But also the UK and trialled Aust filter. Has anyone had a chance to actually throw rocks at a filtered account?

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    1. Re:Does anyone use these filtered ISPs? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      They are basically just a list of blacklisted URLs (and probably also the equivalent IPs). As you say, dead easy to get around ... these aren't sophisticated filters scanning everything you do ala China (so people comparing the situation in democracies like NZ and Australia to China are wayyyy over-reacting). The proposed Australian one just had a few hundred URLs on it.

      So basically they are completely useless since any nasty material like CP is generally transmitted via usenet/private IRC/torrents/etc, not on public HTTP sites. Freedom of expression issues aside, their complete uselessness ALONE is justification for opposing the damn things. What a waste of taxpayers' money.

    2. Re:Does anyone use these filtered ISPs? by BeagleBoi · · Score: 1

      The NZ filter works by collecting a list of banned websites.

      The websites addresses are converted to IP.

      These IPs are advertised to the ISPs via BGP.

      The ISPs divert all traffic for that IP to the government filter server.

      The government filter server examines the request against the list of banned websites, and decides whether to forward or block. Only HTTP is examined, everything else is forwarded.

      So, you can't get around it via DNS tricks.

      More details: http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-technical-faq/

  42. Re:Like many fads, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution is simple. Let's stop having kids in protest. I'd give 10 years before the government buckles under this. The prospect of discontinued production of new taxpayers will scare them shitless.

  43. a billion sheep twitter each other by peter303 · · Score: 1

    That image went through my head.
    I wonder what they say.

  44. Insanity by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

    The Christian certainty that theirs is the only morality and their certainty that we all really want to be moral by their standards drives them to commit atrocities that they would rail against if it were perpetrated by another religion.

    1. Re:Insanity by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      New Zealand is not a particularly religious nation. Technically I think theists are still in the majority, but most are non-practising.

      It is pretty unlikely that the filter in question was introduced as part of a Christian agenda.

    2. Re:Insanity by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      You are deluded if you think otherwise. I doubt they are blocking political web sites that advocate anything other than New Zealand political values.

    3. Re:Insanity by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they aren't blocking any political web sites, but I don't understand how this is relevant. No ISP would agree to implement such a filter, and the DIA would have no legal grounds to create one. (The only two areas of their responsibility that relate directly to the internet are censorship compliance and money laundering/terrorist financing.)

      I think most atheists object to the sexual abuse of children; I do, for one. Therefore, absent any specific evidence, I don't see any reason to presume a Christian agenda in filtering it. With respect, I think that living in New Zealand I'm better placed to judge the likelihood of there being any excessive Christian influence in our civil service - and make no mistake, such an influence would be considered excessive by our social norms. Christians and other theists in New Zealand are expected to keep their beliefs out of the workplace. (Atheist groups in America talk about closet atheists; in New Zealand, Christian groups talk about closet Christians. The social context is completely different here.)

      Note also that the same law that prohibits child pornography in New Zealand also prohibits pornographic material involving scatophilia or urophilia. Those clauses were added as a compromise to gain the support of a Christian faction for the legislation. If the filter had been driven by a Christian agenda it would almost certainly have included this class of material.

      Finally, I would note that the censorship compliance division, responsible for the filter, are the same folk who rate pornographic videos in New Zealand. The relevant laws give them enough wiggle room to be much more restrictive than they are, so I conclude they are doing their job responsibly and without pushing any personal agendas.

  45. Re:Like many fads, by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You need to generalize this from "uncensored internet" to "privacy", but otherwise, judging by developments in the last decade or so, you're spot on.

  46. and goodbye to Gropecunt Lane by axl917 · · Score: 1

    A recent featured article on the Wikipedia, even;

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

  47. Progressives by operagost · · Score: 1

    Come now, Hillary... that's not very progressive of you. Government knows best, right? Or do you even like telling other countries what to do?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  48. Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communication companies help the government with their surveillance. In turn, governments keep new regulations and consumer protection laws to a minimum or erode existing ones.

    Years ago, the Bush misgovernment passed a law to retroactively provide the US telecoms immunity for spying on its own people at the government's behest.

  49. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In his defense, he is a tin of shoe polish.

  50. Re:Like many fads, by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the uncensored internet is the fad coming already to a close?

    Maybe, but I think this is going to be a country by country thing. In America, the concern won't be things like child porn, it'll be bandwidth and piracy. I don't think you'll see ISP's blocking what you can get, as much as throttling what you can get if you spend all night downloading DVD's. While in places like Europe and Australia and NZ, it'll be less of a broadband concern and more of a nanny state thing. People will download movies relatively freely, but their ISP's... at the behest of their governments... will monitor and report all "uncorrect" browsing.

    The Americas will have politically uncensored but commerce-throttled Internet, and Europe and Asia will have free wheeling downloading with heavy censorship. Russia and China will eventually all but lock down their gateways to only government-approved sites.

    While this may surprise people, it shouldn't. New Zealand is one of the most liberal countries in the world... a no nukes policy, an Air Force with no fighter planes, etc. ... but along with that comes a nanny state attitude by leaders.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  51. Watchdog by timnbron · · Score: 1

    Watchdog has positioned themselves as filtering specialists. They always have. That's why they call themselves "Watchdog". Parental control is their biggest selling point.

    Funny though, their logo is a duck. Never worked that one out.

    --
    There are some who call me ... Tim.
    1. Re:Watchdog by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Funny though, their logo is a duck. Never worked that one out.

      Maybe its supposed to be a goose?

      Geese have been used for home defense purposes for a long long time. Seriously.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Watchdog by timnbron · · Score: 1

      Looks like they've changed it - http://watchdog.co.nz/home.htm - it's now a metal dog. But I still have a mug with the duck logo on it. Watchduck, we used to call them...

      --
      There are some who call me ... Tim.
  52. Enables serruptitious surveillance by Burz · · Score: 1

    They could 'accidentally' send routing commands to ISPs for sites that are not actually banned. The traffic for those sites would then be routed through the DIA ready for snooping.

    How does the filtering work?

                1. A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.
                2. The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the ‘best’ way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.
                3. When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA’s server.
                4. The DIA’s filtering server then looks at the request. If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person. If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA’s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA’s internet connection.

    1. Re:Enables serruptitious surveillance by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

      Certainly they could, but our civil service is reasonably free of corruption, so personally I'd consider that a low risk.

      Note that the only part of the DIA's job that would be applicable would be anti-money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, and even that would be in a separate division.

      Remember also that the ISPs will be able to see which sites are affected, and would be liable to blow the whistle if the filter is being misused. I suspect covert surveillance would probably be conducted by more covert means.

  53. Good timing, by the way. by timnbron · · Score: 1

    Good timing Slashdot. You posted this at 9:30pm NZ time. It's already off the front page. Now nobody will know...

    --
    There are some who call me ... Tim.
  54. Re:It's just stupidity and ignorance of technology by CaptainDefragged · · Score: 1

    Watch out or the "West Island" may annex you ;)

    --
    Don't tailgate - the end is near!
  55. It should be noted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that Watchdog is aimed mainly for families & schools, and have in the past always implemented their own filtering on connections. in which case It should be no surprise for anyone familar with Watchdog's mission that they have been one of the first to sign up for the government provided filtering.

  56. A modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A well-distributed botnet, with fast flux DNS switching, could be turned into a pretty good replacement for freenet, and an efficient way past these filters. Somebody with a botnet could sell such a service.

    There are several problems with trust. One is how to trust the owner with your credit card details. CCBill maybe?