Before i rant here, this is my personal thoughts on censorship. Perhaps im an idealist, but im sick to death of criminals getting away with shit.
To me, censorship means we filter out child porn, and other illegal garbage that no decent person would ever want to watch. It’s my belief that the IT industry in NZ is too small for them to get away with massive blanket filtering like china. New Zealand is too small, and the govt will bow to any major pressure by its users because we do tend to band together.
This is clearly demonstrated with Section 92a being stopped in its tracks.
However, the current censorship plans which has everyone up in arms, only stops paedophiles getting their perverted kicks out of naked children. It has nothing to do with anyones humans rights at this stage. Would it not be a better idea to sit back and see how it goes before getting up in arms and starting protests right away?
The world has become to PC for me now, where paedophiles can get away with it because somebody is too worried about their personal human rights. Does anyone think about the rights of those being violated? then having their photo posted on forums for other disgusting humans ?
Rather than just voting our the Censorship, perhaps try offering a better solution? Im not totally adverse to castrating those found guilty of these sick crimes.
Agreed, at times communities must moderate themselves, this may mean loss of ‘freedoms’ but the rewards for the community far outweighs the costs. As far as child abusers go, there should be no outlet/inlet at all, any channel should be actively closed, if there is no market, there will be no industry.
Agreed, at times communities must moderate themselves, this may mean loss of ‘freedoms’ but the rewards for the community far outweighs the costs. As far as child abusers go, there should be no outlet/inlet at all, any channel should be actively closed, if there is no market, there will be no industry.
This is not about not wanting to get to these criminals. There are laws already out there for this and there is action in this area: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Press-Releases?OpenDocument
Where the whole thing is bad is that there isn’t any law that explicitly tells us what they can prevent YOU of accessing.
So while today they scream “Think of the children”, tomorrow there must be a secret meeting where they decide that whatever Linux enthusiasts write is communism so it shouldn’t be available to anyone to read – and then start blocking things.
Or they decide if anyone writes against S92 then it’s of course dissent and they can’t stand dissent so in a secret session they decide to add this to the “filtering list”.
Remember, it’s harder to remove a bad law or filter once something is in place than it’s to prevent it coming to life.
This is not about not wanting to get to these criminals. There are laws already out there for this and there is action in this area: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Press-Releases?OpenDocument
Where the whole thing is bad is that there isn’t any law that explicitly tells us what they can prevent YOU of accessing.
So while today they scream “Think of the children”, tomorrow there must be a secret meeting where they decide that whatever Linux enthusiasts write is communism so it shouldn’t be available to anyone to read – and then start blocking things.
Or they decide if anyone writes against S92 then it’s of course dissent and they can’t stand dissent so in a secret session they decide to add this to the “filtering list”.
Remember, it’s harder to remove a bad law or filter once something is in place than it’s to prevent it coming to life.
I agree with M Freitas – s92a was slammed, and this is just the backdoor in..Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Although your points are interesting, they are essentially just idealistic and a little naiive.
are they naive though? or is everyone else being just a touch paranoid? are we heading the same over PC bullshit paranoia that we see in america?
I agree with M Freitas – s92a was slammed, and this is just the backdoor in..Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Although your points are interesting, they are essentially just idealistic and a little naiive.
are they naive though? or is everyone else being just a touch paranoid? are we heading the same over PC bullshit paranoia that we see in america?
A good and sensible rant. If a level of censorship prevents you from creating/managing/watching devo stuff..the simple answer is… don’t be a devo. Kiddie junk is the worst kind of abuse and I’m all for any steps to protect society from Garry Glitter and his mates.
A good and sensible rant. If a level of censorship prevents you from creating/managing/watching devo stuff..the simple answer is… don’t be a devo. Kiddie junk is the worst kind of abuse and I’m all for any steps to protect society from Garry Glitter and his mates.
Political correctness is about an authority enforcing conformity. Therefore you would be better off saying the a PC world is a censored world, because censorship (to any degree) is about conformity and control over a group.
However, it seems your take on the meaning of PC is obviously the opposite. ‘Paranoid’ (in my mind) by no means equals ‘political correctness’.
I think perhaps your definition of PC needs a little research?
Political correctness is about an authority enforcing conformity. Therefore you would be better off saying the a PC world is a censored world, because censorship (to any degree) is about conformity and control over a group.
However, it seems your take on the meaning of PC is obviously the opposite. ‘Paranoid’ (in my mind) by no means equals ‘political correctness’.
I think perhaps your definition of PC needs a little research?
Wait a minute. “Think of the children” and let’s filter the Internet *IS* the PC paranoia bullshit.
Leaving the traffic untouched is the way of doing it. You don’t see the NZ Post opening your letters to make sure you are not trafficking on this kind of material. They only do it if there’s a reason to suspect you are.
Same principle applies for S92. You don’t see NZ Post looking on your letters to see if you are not sending copies of lyrics by mail. This is not their job. But if there’s suspicion that you, and a court of law orders then they will help the investigation officers. They won’t do it for every single letter (“packets”).
I don’t need anyone from the nanny state to tell me what I can read. I am a grown up adult and don’t want to see book burning around towns. I know not to touch those books.
Education, good parenting is the key. Also there are tools that families can use.
Making it a blanket filtering system is just simply against my own capacity of discerning good from evil. You don’t need state, church or my neighbour to help you discern the difference. But if I go out of the right path then yes you should pay for your actions.
It’s very different being a liberal thinker than being pro-crime.
Wait a minute. “Think of the children” and let’s filter the Internet *IS* the PC paranoia bullshit.
Leaving the traffic untouched is the way of doing it. You don’t see the NZ Post opening your letters to make sure you are not trafficking on this kind of material. They only do it if there’s a reason to suspect you are.
Same principle applies for S92. You don’t see NZ Post looking on your letters to see if you are not sending copies of lyrics by mail. This is not their job. But if there’s suspicion that you, and a court of law orders then they will help the investigation officers. They won’t do it for every single letter (“packets”).
I don’t need anyone from the nanny state to tell me what I can read. I am a grown up adult and don’t want to see book burning around towns. I know not to touch those books.
Education, good parenting is the key. Also there are tools that families can use.
Making it a blanket filtering system is just simply against my own capacity of discerning good from evil. You don’t need state, church or my neighbour to help you discern the difference. But if I go out of the right path then yes you should pay for your actions.
It’s very different being a liberal thinker than being pro-crime.
I agree with Jesse… PC is conformity, filtering, restriction of your will.
OK perhaps PC wasnt the right word.
My point is that just because they are filtering paedos doesn’t mean they are filtering other stuff just yet, Are we not jumping the gun a tad early by saying no now? Is there an alternative system we could use?
I’m just anti jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is, I would rather question what’s happening and why, and is there another alternative rather than just saying no.
Rather than saying ‘no we don’t want censoring’ perhaps ‘no we dont want this censoring but we wouldn’t mind doing this which seems like a better idea’. Give them an alternative so both sides are happy?
I agree with Jesse… PC is conformity, filtering, restriction of your will.
OK perhaps PC wasnt the right word.
My point is that just because they are filtering paedos doesn’t mean they are filtering other stuff just yet, Are we not jumping the gun a tad early by saying no now? Is there an alternative system we could use?
I’m just anti jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else is, I would rather question what’s happening and why, and is there another alternative rather than just saying no.
Rather than saying ‘no we don’t want censoring’ perhaps ‘no we dont want this censoring but we wouldn’t mind doing this which seems like a better idea’. Give them an alternative so both sides are happy?
really M Freitas, you wouldn’t consider restrictions on just child porn?? surely it is the responsibilty of the community at large to look after its weaker members. maybe the law needs to be looked at, children need protecting at any cost, for in their adulthood they will reflect the upbringing they had.
really M Freitas, you wouldn’t consider restrictions on just child porn?? surely it is the responsibilty of the community at large to look after its weaker members. maybe the law needs to be looked at, children need protecting at any cost, for in their adulthood they will reflect the upbringing they had.
Hi Liz,
You bring up a great point. I don’t want to ever see child porn, have no desire to, etc. And, coming from the States, maybe I’m more paranoid (though I would call it vigilant…) than some.
My main problem with this scheme is that there is no transparency, no publication of what sites are being filtered, no consent given from end users to having their internet access screened for appropriateness by people and entities they don’t know.
Emma Hart sums it all up quite well here: http://publicaddress.net/6042#post6042
I am OK with the government filtering/censoring to a degree. I just want the process, content, and participants out in the open for scrutiny. Citizens can’t push back against what they don’t know is happening.
All good points coming up, Filtering some stuff is a great idea. As adults we need to protect the younger members of society.
But we most definitely do not want to filter out everything and give the Govt a free reign on this at all, we need some transparency as stated. What if the list was managed by some sort of voting method? Sites which were blocked should be well known that they are blocked and why they are blocked so parents can also find this out.
For people who host on the same servers as them it would be handy to know that my website is blocked because some other website on the server has illegal content, or as an admin its handy to know what site to take down to get unblocked.
Hi Liz,
You bring up a great point. I don’t want to ever see child porn, have no desire to, etc. And, coming from the States, maybe I’m more paranoid (though I would call it vigilant…) than some.
My main problem with this scheme is that there is no transparency, no publication of what sites are being filtered, no consent given from end users to having their internet access screened for appropriateness by people and entities they don’t know.
Emma Hart sums it all up quite well here: http://publicaddress.net/6042#post6042
I am OK with the government filtering/censoring to a degree. I just want the process, content, and participants out in the open for scrutiny. Citizens can’t push back against what they don’t know is happening.
All good points coming up, Filtering some stuff is a great idea. As adults we need to protect the younger members of society.
But we most definitely do not want to filter out everything and give the Govt a free reign on this at all, we need some transparency as stated. What if the list was managed by some sort of voting method? Sites which were blocked should be well known that they are blocked and why they are blocked so parents can also find this out.
For people who host on the same servers as them it would be handy to know that my website is blocked because some other website on the server has illegal content, or as an admin its handy to know what site to take down to get unblocked.
Liz, the problem is that there’s no oversight and no one knows what’s filtered. FWIW the NZ list is bigger than the AU list! How do you know they are not filtering CNN.com because CNN published news on some police action breaking a pedo distribution ring?
@Carl There’s protection already. DIA works with the NZ Police to enforce the laws and catch those criminals. Read here http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Press-Releases?OpenDocument
Liz, the problem is that there’s no oversight and no one knows what’s filtered. FWIW the NZ list is bigger than the AU list! How do you know they are not filtering CNN.com because CNN published news on some police action breaking a pedo distribution ring?
@Carl There’s protection already. DIA works with the NZ Police to enforce the laws and catch those criminals. Read here http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Press-Releases?OpenDocument
@M Freitas wow that list is disturbing…
@M Freitas wow that list is disturbing…
Liz: “Filtering some stuff is a great idea. As adults we need to protect the younger members of society.”
That is why you should be free to install filtering software on your own computer, or subscribe to a voluntary filtering service from your ISP.
“What if the list was managed by some sort of voting method?” Let every busybody in the land decide what’s fit for an adult to watch and read? That’s just mob-rule mentality.
I can understand people’s disgust with child pornography – but let’s not allow that cloud our judgement.
Julian
Installing stuff on my computer doesn’t stop the paedophile from accessing pornography of other children, i already run a strict filter for my own kids.
Got any better suggestions?
Liz: “Filtering some stuff is a great idea. As adults we need to protect the younger members of society.”
That is why you should be free to install filtering software on your own computer, or subscribe to a voluntary filtering service from your ISP.
“What if the list was managed by some sort of voting method?” Let every busybody in the land decide what’s fit for an adult to watch and read? That’s just mob-rule mentality.
I can understand people’s disgust with child pornography – but let’s not allow that cloud our judgement.
Julian
Installing stuff on my computer doesn’t stop the paedophile from accessing pornography of other children, i already run a strict filter for my own kids.
Got any better suggestions?
Aside from the moral and legal arguments, nobody has pointed out the numerous technical problems with this technology.
* It works on IP, so has the potential to block more than just the websites they are targeting. Other websites, other services (email) etc.
* What about the countless proxy servers / anonymising services out there? Do they get blocked too? Fairly obvious thing to use to get around this type of block.
* What about ToR?
As for the list not being made public, it will be – witness the Australian list making it onto wikileaks.
I firmly believe that if someone is commited to viewing ‘questionable’ material (of whatever type) then a blacklist of this sort is just not going to stop them. This is a simplistic approach to solving a complex problem and is doomed to fail.
I suppose the authorities feel they have to be seen to be doing *something* to combat this problem, the problem in this case is it is just wasting taxpayers money.
Aside from the moral and legal arguments, nobody has pointed out the numerous technical problems with this technology.
* It works on IP, so has the potential to block more than just the websites they are targeting. Other websites, other services (email) etc.
* What about the countless proxy servers / anonymising services out there? Do they get blocked too? Fairly obvious thing to use to get around this type of block.
* What about ToR?
As for the list not being made public, it will be – witness the Australian list making it onto wikileaks.
I firmly believe that if someone is commited to viewing ‘questionable’ material (of whatever type) then a blacklist of this sort is just not going to stop them. This is a simplistic approach to solving a complex problem and is doomed to fail.
I suppose the authorities feel they have to be seen to be doing *something* to combat this problem, the problem in this case is it is just wasting taxpayers money.
Let’s get to another example… Let’s say the recording industry association is not happy with the new copyright law in New Zealand – too “lose”.
They then manage to get some friends lobbying the DIA to include illegal download sites in that non-disclosed list.
Let’s say the people overseeing the list are not technically savvy. They receive a complaint look at the site and think “Yes, there’s a torrent link here, let’s block it”.
Now let’s say that’s actually ubuntu.com. Or any other site that legally distributes ISO images for their software. Or any other site where bands directly distribute their music through torrent files – without having anything to do with the recording industry association.
You see where I am going? Who decides what’s in the list and how well prepared are the people doing it?
I am not saying the people adding things to the list are bad people. I am saying that sometimes there will be situations that go beyond their control or knowledge.
Let’s get to another example… Let’s say the recording industry association is not happy with the new copyright law in New Zealand – too “lose”.
They then manage to get some friends lobbying the DIA to include illegal download sites in that non-disclosed list.
Let’s say the people overseeing the list are not technically savvy. They receive a complaint look at the site and think “Yes, there’s a torrent link here, let’s block it”.
Now let’s say that’s actually ubuntu.com. Or any other site that legally distributes ISO images for their software. Or any other site where bands directly distribute their music through torrent files – without having anything to do with the recording industry association.
You see where I am going? Who decides what’s in the list and how well prepared are the people doing it?
I am not saying the people adding things to the list are bad people. I am saying that sometimes there will be situations that go beyond their control or knowledge.
Hi Liz
I don’t often agree with Mauricio, but he’s right in this instance.
The lack of transparency is disturbing, though you can’t really publish the list without negating the whole purpose. I have confidence in the people at DIA who will be working this beat, because I know and trust them, but 10 years from now, who knows?
It’s not about the paedophiles’ human rights – it’s about the rest of us getting blocked for something we’re not even doing.
@Carl: Cracking down on the “market” will not prevent production of this material. It won’t even slow it down. Those who really want it don’t get it through the web, anyway. What it might do is prevent the unsuspecting and the curious from accessing, but at what cost? The “by-catch” from filtering systems is the problem.
Hi Liz
I don’t often agree with Mauricio, but he’s right in this instance.
The lack of transparency is disturbing, though you can’t really publish the list without negating the whole purpose. I have confidence in the people at DIA who will be working this beat, because I know and trust them, but 10 years from now, who knows?
It’s not about the paedophiles’ human rights – it’s about the rest of us getting blocked for something we’re not even doing.
@Carl: Cracking down on the “market” will not prevent production of this material. It won’t even slow it down. Those who really want it don’t get it through the web, anyway. What it might do is prevent the unsuspecting and the curious from accessing, but at what cost? The “by-catch” from filtering systems is the problem.
Here’s a well-reasoned blog post by someone who has “worked on transparent and content-modifying proxies in the past.” As he says, “This is not about the budget. This not about the technical issues behind the implementation. This is not about whether child-porn is good or bad. Instead, it is about control over what we can see and say on the Internet, it is about the establishment of a wide-spread and arbitrarily usable censorship infrastructure, which once in place, can be used for anything that those who control it see fit.”
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6637
Yeah I have to admit, I do like that post, its very sensible and smart (unlike the govt!)
Here’s a well-reasoned blog post by someone who has “worked on transparent and content-modifying proxies in the past.” As he says, “This is not about the budget. This not about the technical issues behind the implementation. This is not about whether child-porn is good or bad. Instead, it is about control over what we can see and say on the Internet, it is about the establishment of a wide-spread and arbitrarily usable censorship infrastructure, which once in place, can be used for anything that those who control it see fit.”
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6637
Yeah I have to admit, I do like that post, its very sensible and smart (unlike the govt!)
We already have censorship of child porn in NZ; the DIA have already prosecuted people for having offensive material on there computers.
This is taking it much further; a secret list that could contain anything, will block access to pretty much any average user in NZ (I’m sure the hard-core child porn people probably use other methods anyway).
I really don’t have any idea of how much if any child porn occurs in NZ; I doubt little if any, but police should do everything they can to stop that; not filtering every users access to the internet through some special list that can’t be checked.
I am also a little disturbed about how far this goes; in Australia cartoon characters (like The Simpson parodies) were judged to be child porn. I really fail to see how blocking that saves children.
How would you feel, if you were rickrolled & clicked on a tinyurl link via twitter or something to a blocked site; would you suddenly find yourself on a police watch list as a suspected paedophile?
You could imagine that if some fundamentalist religious nut got there way with a black list like that…. remember it is going to be administrated by a set of faceless government employees.
We already have censorship of child porn in NZ; the DIA have already prosecuted people for having offensive material on there computers.
This is taking it much further; a secret list that could contain anything, will block access to pretty much any average user in NZ (I’m sure the hard-core child porn people probably use other methods anyway).
I really don’t have any idea of how much if any child porn occurs in NZ; I doubt little if any, but police should do everything they can to stop that; not filtering every users access to the internet through some special list that can’t be checked.
I am also a little disturbed about how far this goes; in Australia cartoon characters (like The Simpson parodies) were judged to be child porn. I really fail to see how blocking that saves children.
How would you feel, if you were rickrolled & clicked on a tinyurl link via twitter or something to a blocked site; would you suddenly find yourself on a police watch list as a suspected paedophile?
You could imagine that if some fundamentalist religious nut got there way with a black list like that…. remember it is going to be administrated by a set of faceless government employees.
Yep, foobar is very heavy on his privacy (he blogs on Geekzone, is well read but I never met him and don’t know who he is (although I have a hunch)) and he makes a good case – exactly what I think.
Yep, foobar is very heavy on his privacy (he blogs on Geekzone, is well read but I never met him and don’t know who he is (although I have a hunch)) and he makes a good case – exactly what I think.