Department of Internal Affairs to Implement NZ Internet Filter

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Department of Internal Affairs to Implement NZ Internet Filter

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#2532482 31-Jul-2020 23:34

I believe this is the bill in question:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_97940/films-videos-and-publications-classification-urgent

vexxxboy

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#2532557 1-Aug-2020 09:20

after reading the bill i cant see how effective it would be for overseas online publications. How much power has the district court got over , say, a site in Russia for making them removing a publication that someone in NZ thinks is objectionable .

Common sense is not as common as you think.

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#2778166 14-Sep-2021 12:15

Looks like the select committee have removed all requirements / provisions for Internet filtering from the latest 'censorship' bill, which is very good news IMO!:

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0268/latest/LMS294551.html

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3250431 18-Jun-2024 15:39

After 15 years since launch, here is an update. Press release:

The Department of Internal Affairs [Department] is making a significant upgrade to their Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System, which blocks access to websites known to host child sexual abuse material, says Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.

“The Department will incorporate the up-to-date lists of websites hosting child sexual abuse material provided by the Internet Watch Foundation, a UK-based not-for-profit organisation, into its existing filter,” says Ms van Velden.

This will increase the number of blocked URLs from around 700 to up to 30,000 on any given day. The IWF filter is updated daily using both human analysis and artificial intelligence to identify webpages confirmed to host this illegal material. The Department is currently implementing the filter and expects to have it fully incorporated this year.

“This is a major step in preventing children from being retraumatised by having records of their abuse shared online, as well as preventing New Zealanders from viewing this material- including unintentional access by children.”

The Digital Child Exploitation Filter is currently fully operational in New Zealand as well as Samoa and Tonga and work is underway to extend it to the Cook Islands.

The filter blocks criminal content which is confirmed to contain children. Other adult content which is legal in New Zealand will not be blocked.

“This criminal material has no place in New Zealand. It is abhorrent. I am pleased that the Department is taking steps to upgrade the filtering system to prevent more children from being harmed,” says Ms van Velden.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#3250504 18-Jun-2024 16:46

Interesting, thanks for the update!

Link?

My unanswered questions from this:

What kind of vetting (if any) is done by NZ authorities on the list?
What process (if any) is there to appeal / have your website removed from the list in the event that it was incorrectly added?

Questions for the DIA of course, but I thought I'd echo them here.

I might fire off an email to them about it now.

amanzi

Amanzi
1354 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 332

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3250507 18-Jun-2024 16:51

Am I correct in thinking that these block lists can only work for domain names, e.g. www.example.com, and not "webpages" as the press release says?

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3250508 18-Jun-2024 16:53

The same IWF that has been repeatedly criticized since it's inception for overreach and lack of transparency, that has previously blocked wikipedia articles and the wayback machine?

Next we'll be filtering for anything with words Tipper Gore doesn't like.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#3250510 18-Jun-2024 16:57

amanzi:

Am I correct in thinking that these block lists can only work for domain names, e.g. www.example.com, and not "webpages" as the press release says?

Yes, it's a DNS-level block and only applies to ISPs who opt-in to the service (which is most of the big NZ ISPs I believe).

mkissin

402 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 391

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3250511 18-Jun-2024 17:06

The IWF website seems pretty comprehensive.

Appeals process - Complaints (iwf.org.uk)

Criteria for inclusion - url-list-policies-procedures-and-processes_.pdf (iwf.org.uk)

Apparently, their list is only about 6000 entries long (URL blocking FAQs (iwf.org.uk)), so it seems fairly narrow in the general scheme of things. Always scope for things to go wrong, of course.

I don't have a horse in the race, beyond CSAM is a Bad Thing.

amanzi

Amanzi
1354 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 332

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3250512 18-Jun-2024 17:08

SamF:

amanzi:

Am I correct in thinking that these block lists can only work for domain names, e.g. www.example.com, and not "webpages" as the press release says?

Yes, it's a DNS-level block and only applies to ISPs who opt-in to the service (which is most of the big NZ ISPs I believe).

The IWF website has this description about the list but I'm not sure if this is the same list NZ is using: "The addresses included on our List are at URL (webpage) or image level, rather than domain level. And we update it twice a day, adding new URLs as our analysts find them and removing URLs that no longer contain the criminal content. This means that our dynamic List is precise and networks aren’t over-blocked. The only images included are criminal and they’ve been individually assessed by one of our world class analysts. Only if an entire website is dedicated to confirmed child sexual abuse will we block at domain level."

If NZ is only doing DNS blocking at the domain level, would they block an entire domain if there's only one URL on the list, or do they only block the domains that are specifically blocked at the domain level in the list? e.g. if a single page on Reddit got added to the list, surely NZ wouldn't block the entire reddit.com domain?

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#3250513 18-Jun-2024 17:21

mkissin:

The IWF website seems pretty comprehensive.

Thanks for that info @mkissin; very useful.

Yes, I concur, that it does seem pretty solid. I still have some concerns however.

I see from those docs that the classification of material to be blocked is based on UK law.

While this is likely to line up with NZ law pretty closely, it may not.

That leads on to further questions regarding appeal if there is some kind of conflict on this front.

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#3250514 18-Jun-2024 17:22

amanzi:

If NZ is only doing DNS blocking at the domain level, would they block an entire domain if there's only one URL on the list, or do they only block the domains that are specifically blocked at the domain level in the list? e.g. if a single page on Reddit got added to the list, surely NZ wouldn't block the entire reddit.com domain?

Looks like those docs that @mkissin linked have the answers you seek.