|
NZGeek
 |
|
|
Internet filter introduced by stealth in NZ
| Pages: 1 2 |
| geek_timmo1 |
March 11, 2010, 1:39 pm |
|
|
#1 | http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/3434754/New
-Zealands-internet-filter-goes-live
Was anyone else aware of this? ! From my perspective there has zip discussion about this in the media- No debate about whether it is a good idea, No warnings nothing... ... it was switched on on the 1st Feb.
For something that is so totally against the principles of a free society, im dismayed that it was introduced in this way | |
|
| geek_0800xford |
March 11, 2010, 1:45 pm |
|
|
#2 | | "Tech Liberty understands that Telstra Clear, Telecom and Vodafone have said they will implement the filter, with Orcon, Slingshot and Natcom saying that they won't. " hmmmm |
| geek_swivel |
March 11, 2010, 1:55 pm |
|
|
#3 | | Bet you use Google and they have filters. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 11, 2010, 2:03 pm |
|
|
#4 | I'm down with it.
As for the way it was introduced, there is no better way. Publicity doesn't stimulate debate and thought, just a media frenzy and knee jerk reactions.
One of the major points is the public doesn't know what is being blocked, but you can't make a list of all the blocked kiddy fiddler sites public! Transparency is not an option here. |
| geek_swivel |
March 11, 2010, 2:09 pm |
|
|
#5 | | They are just getting in line with other countries. |
| geek_hammerer |
March 11, 2010, 4:57 pm |
|
|
#6 | Over the past year it was discussed online, in newspapers, and most importantly, in this Trade Me message board.
It is not "totally against the principals of a free society": the principals of my kids' schools are right behind it! |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 11, 2010, 8:11 pm |
|
|
#7 | Since KiddyPorn is illegal everywhere on the entire planet, it would be just as easy and make a lot more sense to contact whoever is hosting the material and have it removed.
A group in Germany did this for all entries on the leaked Australian list. The vast majority of listed sites were _NOT_ CP. About 60 entries that did host CP were all (100%) removed within 24 hours. |
| geek_lostdude |
March 11, 2010, 8:23 pm |
|
|
#8 | Website firewalls are stupid. What is the point when any dickhead with a HDD full of kiddy pr0n can just share it via the millions of existing filesharing ways available. I still can't wrap my head around the motivation behind this stupid idea. They will be playing catch up for the rest of its feeble lifespan.
I just sincerely hope that only port 80 traffic is rerouted through it. |
| geek_gobi |
March 11, 2010, 9:39 pm |
|
|
#9 | Its a crock... simply put in place so that someone somewhere can justify their existence by appearing to try to tackle the problem. Its laughable in that hosted sites probably make up 0. 01% of CP or similar out there.
Porn (legal or not) has always been readily available with a steady evolution of sharing methods from BBS and FTP in the 80's to IRC and DCC in the 90's; and various P2P, torrents in the last decade.
NNTP (usenet) has steadily plodding along through all that change, with some of the more "famous" newsgroups (e. g. ABPEPT and ABPEET) still being readily available on non-free servers around the world.
I wonder what the next decade holds in store, now that Pedobear is an internet icon, and Chans, Rule 34, and jailbait being common lingo.
One silly filter blocking a comparably tiny number of websites that can be cloned in minutes - meh.
Parents, this in not going to keep your kids safe, this is YOUR job. |
| geek_maccas77 |
March 13, 2010, 12:03 am |
|
|
#10 | | the next decade will bring about anonymous p2p apps like freenet then the authorities are really fucked. Censorship has never and will never work. |
| geek_blenheim-trader |
March 13, 2010, 12:08 am |
|
|
#11 | Anything that blocks child porn Im all for ... ... ... . . :)
But if it blocks more than that its a different story... |
| geek_vriesgedroog |
March 13, 2010, 11:24 am |
|
|
#12 | | Blocking CP is all good but in the end thats not going to be all it will be used for. It just allows the gov't to decide what we view which is BS! |
| geek_mone |
March 13, 2010, 11:31 am |
|
|
#13 | | We are not stupid. Sony, Microsoft, Universal and the RIAA have obviously made some pretty big donations to Labour and National, and now its time to return the favour and move to ban P2P under the pretense of eradicating kiddieporn. |
| geek_wayne472 |
March 13, 2010, 11:39 am |
|
|
#14 | | It establishes the principle that the government can choose to arbitrarily set up a new censorship scheme and choose which material to block, with no reference to existing law. The list of what is filtered is kept secret, in direct contrast to the rest of New Zealand's censorship regime where the Chief Censor must publish decisions banning offensive material. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 12:13 pm |
|
|
#15 | Freenet is the perfect mechanism for people to trade and store kiddie porn... on *your* computer...
Instead of the authorities getting fucked, they will fuck you over. |
| geek_mone |
March 13, 2010, 12:53 pm |
|
|
#16 | | They interviewed a cyber security guy on tvnz last septembet about this, he said filtering public websites in the hope of eradicating kiddie porn is stupid because there are no public kiddie porn websites. They all operate on user specific channels and medium, this is like filtering motorways for P labs. There are no P labs on motorways. |
| geek_ferita |
March 13, 2010, 1:00 pm |
|
|
#17 | First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon. penet. fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 1:05 pm |
|
|
#18 | Assuming that there is a covert conspiracy behind the destruction of net neutrality to block people downloading copyright material, doesn't that make you all think twice about downloading copyright material in the interests of protecting net neutrality?
No, I thought not. |
| geek_r32skyliner |
March 13, 2010, 1:12 pm |
|
|
#19 | | Aww, it's a sad day when they block kiddy pron... |
| geek_0800xford |
March 13, 2010, 1:22 pm |
|
|
#20 | | and beast. cx |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 13, 2010, 3:39 pm |
|
|
#21 | Another interesting though;
The music/movie industries always argue that the free sharing of music and movies on the internet means that there will be no market for new music and movies, and therefore the artists won't get paid and nobody will make new music and movies.
Nobody ever applies the same argument to child porn.
Allowing all of the already-created child porn to be freely shared on the internet would kill whatever market there is for new child porn. There would be no market and therefore no more children would be abused.
no? |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 3:41 pm |
|
|
#22 | | Market? How much money do you make selling paedoporn? |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 13, 2010, 3:50 pm |
|
|
#23 | | I guess that's where both arguments start to fall apart. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 3:55 pm |
|
|
#24 | Okay, so in the interest of protecting the children we should all be filesharing pictures of children being molested.
Yeah, I see your logic there. |
| geek_0800xford |
March 13, 2010, 3:59 pm |
|
|
#25 | | "won't someone think of the children! ? " |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 4:06 pm |
|
|
#26 | It's okay, it turns out to be a minor issue. If we are going to draw parallels between the two, naked pictures of them are exactly the same as a Hollywood movie or song in the Top 40.
No harm can come from downloading them. | |
|
| geek_mone |
March 13, 2010, 4:48 pm |
|
|
#27 | | You dont get it, filtering will not stop kiddie porn, filtering only filters mainstream publicly available sites. There is no kiddie porn sites that is available publicly or on google anyway. |
| geek_0800xford |
March 13, 2010, 4:51 pm |
|
|
#28 | /b/
lolichan |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 4:51 pm |
|
|
#29 | | So you think its wrong to *try* and block access to some child pornography? |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 13, 2010, 5:29 pm |
|
|
#30 | The question is, do you want to stop people looking at pictures or do you want to stop children getting hurt?
For what it's worth though, the filter achieves neither objective. |
| geek_0800xford |
March 13, 2010, 5:32 pm |
|
|
#31 | | so this is the difference between "illegal" and "wrong" |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 5:34 pm |
|
|
#32 | | ... and its not worth setting up speed cameras or having police monitoring traffic because it doesn't stop speeding or accidents. |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 13, 2010, 5:51 pm |
|
|
#33 | Good analogy, it just needs a little tweaking;
It's not worth having the police set up random checkpoints to stop the illegal trafficking of midget wrestlers, because the number of illegal midget wrestlers being trafficked on New Zealand roads is just about identical to the amount of CP available on the public WWW. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 5:55 pm |
|
|
#34 | | The police *should* be stopping midget wrestlers on the road. The little buggers are a danger because they can't reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel at the same time. |
| geek_0800xford |
March 13, 2010, 5:59 pm |
|
|
#35 | i agree, damn those midgets
rule 34 |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 13, 2010, 5:59 pm |
|
|
#36 | "A group in Germany [ reported to the webhosts and/or ISPs responsible]all 1500+ entries on the leaked Australian list. The vast majority of listed sites were _NOT_ CP. About 60 entries that did host CP were all (100%) removed within 24 hours. "
We're spending a lot of money on a 'filter' when the DIA could just send an email for every site they're alerted to and have the problem solved properly in less time than it takes to update the filter list. Then could spend the rest of the money on policing, victim support, or whatever. Something that would actually help. |
| geek_rozendaal |
March 13, 2010, 6:25 pm |
|
|
#37 | | The problem is that a NGO decides what is to be blocked and as we already know from Australia many of the blocked sites had nothing to do with kiddy porm, many were the victims of the PC morality flavour of the month. I don't like Kiddie Porn; however the process and the lists need to be open so the public can have their say and input. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 6:27 pm |
|
|
#38 | Oh well, if a 'group in Germany' claims that then it must be true.
This isn't just about child pornography. There are things illegal in this country, such as bestiality, that are legal in others. So there is no recourse to have that content removed. |
| geek_cybertao |
March 13, 2010, 6:28 pm |
|
|
#39 | | I'd really like to see examples of what these many sites are. |
| geek_rozendaal |
March 13, 2010, 8:13 pm |
|
|
#40 | The list used to be on Wikileaks, they may be up again.
There were some dentists, and sites deemed to be "hate" such as American Christian sites that were against homosexuality amongst others that i do not recall |
| geek_mone |
March 14, 2010, 10:13 am |
|
|
#41 | | Because speeding does happen on roads. But filtering public websites for kiddie porn is like filtering motorways for P lab houses. There are none on motorways |
| geek_cybertao |
March 14, 2010, 10:24 am |
|
|
#42 | Did you know they are testing drivers for drug use now?
But whatever. We all know you bandits are upset that the law is coming out west to stop you from cattle-rustling cows with the © ranch brand on them.
Not one person has mentioned what sort of information the government plans to censor, such as enforcing suppression orders, or interested in discussing if they would be wrong to do so. The usual argument being 'they need to change with the technology'... but you will find they will change the technology instead. |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 14, 2010, 10:25 am |
|
|
#43 | Wikileaks is still not up, but from memory; a dentist, a canteen supply store and a boarding kennel were all listed because they had been hacked sometime in the past. A perfect example of how CONTACTING the site would have been a lot more productive than blacklisting since none of those sites intended to host anything offensive.
Other entries included an anti-abortion site and various information about assisted suicide. Parts of wikileaks were also blocked, from memory this was commentary about the Danish blacklist, and not surprisingly wikileak's leak and analysis of the Australian blacklist.
That's already the first step towards blocking any site critical of the government, as happens in China or Thailand. Remember that when Thailand's filter was introduced it too was only going to block the most extreme and illegal websites. That's what they always say, because who is going to object to filtering child porn?
"Shock sites" such as meatspin are banned. You may disagree, but I know more than a few teens who think these sites are hillarious. Meatspin for example is funny if you're already familiar with the completely innocent 'leakspin' site. It's also worth reading the controversy around "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" - a satirical (and deliberately offensive) site which was removed from Google Australia's search results and would probably be blocked by the filter.
Dark humour and extreme sarcasm are now illegal in Australia¡
The Christian lobby has already begun lobbying for the filter to cover far more material. More ordinary porn is an obvious target. Richard Dawkins will be next. |
| geek_0800xford |
March 14, 2010, 10:32 am |
|
|
#44 | | it's a sad day when me4tspin, go4tse and lolicats are banned... |
| geek_little_egypt |
March 14, 2010, 10:36 am |
|
|
#45 | I think the point is that there is always something which offends someone. Where do you draw the line?
I find Christianity offensive, as does Richard Dawkins and a growing number of "militant atheists". We'd like to see all Christian websites banned by this filter. |
| geek_deodar |
March 14, 2010, 10:38 am |
|
|
#46 | Mone"We are not stupid. "Right LOL. Ferita#17;History repeats don't
it? What you gonna do when they come for you mone? Say I've never
had CP on my HD, I'm innocent. Canine Porn is an abberation. ! |
| geek_0800xford |
March 14, 2010, 10:50 am |
|
|
#47 | | how many of you just googled lolicats |
| geek_wayne472 |
March 14, 2010, 10:55 am |
|
|
#48 | | Stopping child porn and bestiality being accessed? goodness gracious me, that would never happened if Labour were still in, Oh no no no! |
| geek_0800xford |
March 14, 2010, 2:04 pm |
|
|
#49 | http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article. cfm? c_id=30&
;objectid=10631938
same again, but from the herald @ 4am today |
| geek_mone |
March 14, 2010, 2:22 pm |
|
|
#50 | | True except that it is ineffective in stopping either. | |
| | Pages: 1 2 | | Leave your comment: | |
NZGeek Message Board > Internet filter introduced by stealth in NZ
|
|
|
|
