The case for mandatory internet filtering

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › The case for mandatory internet filtering

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#1768763 22-Apr-2017 10:29

Drawing a parallel between gun control and speed limits is a pretty broad step to take when looking at internet filtering and only one you would try and make if you wanted to install fear into your audience and you had no other particularly valid arguments for filtering that would stand up in their own right.

DIA already filters access to harmful content (kiddie porn and I think beastiality?) all of which only a very very small (and sick) proportion of society would argue against that sort of filtering, but beyond that and there are too many special interest / lobby groups arguing for or against any other blocks -

News sites, do we really want any Government to be able to say which news site we can and can't access?

Porn, ditto to the above, imagine if the Christian lobbyists controlled what could legally be viewed. Is porn necessary for a society, probably not, but is it bad or harmful? Thats another can of worms waiting to be opened....

Other than to promote special interests groups agenda's, I really can't see much of an argument for filtering...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1768764 22-Apr-2017 10:30

shanehobson:

We accept Govt mandated controls in many aspects of life which infringe on our personal freedom for the greater good of society or for our own protection.

Examples include; gun control, speed limits, WOF, seat belts, motorcycle helmets.

Imagine a society where anyone can obtain a handgun by walking into a gun store, complete some cursory checks and walk out with a loaded, lethal weapon. We don’t need to imagine that society, it exists today in the USA where there were about 9000 gun deaths in 2014*. If we applied that same death rate to NZ, nearly 500 people per year would die as a result of being shot. Instead, our actual gun death rate is around 40 per year. Even if we accept that societal differences account for a large portion of this variation it seems obvious to me that a hundred people every year in NZ owe their lives to our Government regulating the sale & possession of firearms in NZ.

If we accept that Government regulation that trades some of our freedom for a greater community good why shouldn’t we accept that in a digital world ?

This is a straw man fallacy. guns are controlled because on the hands on unbalance, emotional individuals they can cause serious harm or death. Similarly speed limits, WOF, seat beats and helmets are regulations that exist to avoid harm to oneself or to others.

Internet does not cause harm. Information should be free.

Any filtering of information (or logging of information seeking) can be used to round up citizens exercising their rights of seeking knowledge.

The Internet is not the boggeyman. It can be used to distribute bad content but law enforcement should be looking at the source, not the channel. This is already done, effectively as we see reported from time to time.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1768767 22-Apr-2017 10:37

sen8or: DIA already filters access to harmful content (kiddie porn and I think beastiality?) all of which only a very very small (and sick) proportion of society would argue against that sort of filtering ...

There's already a very good arguement against it in this thread, in that it can effectively be used as a kiddie porn finder.
Beyond that, there's also the question of the form the filter takes. Ignoring the above arguement a blacklist is targeted and not a problem - but breaking all encryption to deep packet inspect all internet in NZ to find kiddie porn is not ok.

gzt

17146 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1768771 22-Apr-2017 10:44

JimmyH: If my ISP does this, I will switch ISPs. If all ISPs have to do this, I will be first in line for a secure VPN.

Which instantly raises the slippery slope of government requirements for that also.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1768772 22-Apr-2017 10:46

Also consider the implications of no-accountability. The DIA Internet filter set out to have regular meetings of an oversight committee of people in the industry, and that is not happening as reported here (29 March 2017):

It has recently come to our attention that the Independent Reference Group, the body providing oversight of the DCEFS internet filter run by the Department, has not met since August 2015.

This is almost two years without the steering committee meeting.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1768773 22-Apr-2017 10:47

gzt:
JimmyH: If my ISP does this, I will switch ISPs. If all ISPs have to do this, I will be first in line for a secure VPN.

Which instantly raises the slippery slope of government requirements for that also.

One of the recent telco acts, TICS or the other one, seemed to me to give the SIS and or GCSB mandated backdoor access to any VPN being sold in NZ. So buying offshore would be a must, and if we're getting serious about control those offshore services are probably the first onto the filter.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1768785 22-Apr-2017 10:59

freitasm:

Also consider the implications of no-accountability. The DIA Internet filter set out to have regular meetings of an oversight committee of people in the industry, and that is not happening as reported here (29 March 2017):

It has recently come to our attention that the Independent Reference Group, the body providing oversight of the DCEFS internet filter run by the Department, has not met since August 2015.

This is almost two years without the steering committee meeting.

The worst thing about this and every other kind of censorship is the inevitable unaccountability. This always happens. By their very nature, censors seek to remain under their rocks so their judgements cannot be held to scrutiny. As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1768807 22-Apr-2017 12:25

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.

QFT.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1768842 22-Apr-2017 12:58

So who are these joyless prune-faced moral guardians who get to vet what I am allowed to see? What qualifies them to view hour upon hour of material so corrosive and degrading that the merest glimpse of it would send me into a hellish downward spiral? What is it that gives these gatekeepers of depraved temptations such moral fibre that they remain unaffected by the extreme evils that I must be protected from? Are they members of the Salvation Army? Soldiers trained in pornographic warfare? Genetic mutants selected for their ability to remain unaffected by the sight of a pulsating vulva?

I am strongly against all forms of censorship as a matter of principle. Yes, even child abuse images. I think even in this case the cure is worse than the disease. It is against the law to view such stuff, as it should be. Anyone who does can and should be prosecuted. This kind of material should be seriously pursued at the source by international law enforcement. But trying to prevent people at the consumer end from viewing it is as futile as trying to prosecute people for visiting prostitutes (as they still do in the USA). It just drives the market underground and makes it harder to find the sources. In any case, most illegal material is not found on regular web sites these days. The main reason for such filters is that they are an easy way to appear to be doing something. The really horrific stuff won’t be stopped this way. And a question well worth asking is what does the consumer of child porn then do if his access is blocked? Does he shrug and say oh well and turn on the TV instead? Filtering is a lie designed to make money and to create a phony sense of security. It is just a meaningless political gesture to appease Family First voters. It doesn’t achieve a thing. If you seriously think filtering can make a blind bit of difference, you are fooling yourself.

Ultimately it all comes back to individual integrity. I refuse to look at images of people being shot in the sea, or beheaded, or violently abused. Such horrors add nothing to my life. I am already repulsed by despicable acts like these and I do not need to witness them to feel outraged by them. Children of course should be protected from things like this, just as they should be protected from tobacco and alcohol, but that is no justification for blanket censorship. The real world is full of nasty people doing nasty things. Deal with it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1768853 22-Apr-2017 13:19

I get so tired of individuals who want the government to control, regulate or legislate against anything that the consider bad. The internet was designed to be free, but NOT above the law.

Its time people sorted out there own lives and began to parent their children rather than expecting the government to do it. Lack of parenting in this country is having disastrous effects.

Maybe we should legislate to NOT allow certain parents to have children.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1768856 22-Apr-2017 13:31

Pumpedd:
Maybe we should legislate to NOT allow certain parents to have children.

We do, see CYFS. If you mean procreation, well, sure - and then let's regulate the airspace in which pigs fly.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1768858 22-Apr-2017 13:35

If anyone really cared about the kids of dubious parents, they would vote hundreds of billions of dollars to give them one-on-one mentoring throughout their childhoods until they were happy, well-balanced adults. Like all things, it is a money question. Everyone wants an easy answer, no-one wants to stump up.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1768859 22-Apr-2017 13:42

Go live in China. They have a lot of internet filtering there.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1768889 22-Apr-2017 14:17

Do you have any examples of successful filtering deployments?

Have those deployments had any negative effects?

Have those deployments led to increased surveillance on citizens? Or have they only done what they set out to do which was to block the worst content on the internet?

Do you think such a system could be opt in? or only automatically applied and opt out?

One could argue that a system with all upsides and no downsides would be so good people would be willing to sign up for it when asked. Perhaps it could be mandated for registered sex offenders.

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1768911 22-Apr-2017 14:28

I have to wonder what happens when people who are addicted to certain kinds of porn have their access to that porn shut off. Do they then feel driven to find their satisfaction in other ways? Maybe the porn acts as a safety valve and is actually the lesser of evils? I don't know, just posing the question.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11