Some image boards being blocked after Christchurch attacks?

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Some image boards being blocked after Christchurch attacks?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41042

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2200649 18-Mar-2019 10:44

As I said on Twitter, a permanent solution requires a framework with reporting, investigation and outcomes. We don't want things like DMCA takedown notices that are issued in the USA that have nothing to do with copyright infringement, just being sent because someone disagrees with whatever is being said - obviously not a copyright breach but the companies hosting content are required by law to take it down first and make very hard for people to restore content later.

What if some religious leader decides to start sending notifications because they disagree with someone in issues like same sex marriage?

Same thing here. There are obvious clear cases of spreading hate content but still need to be investigated first because sometimes it's not as clear as we can see in the specific situation we have seen in the last couple of days.

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.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2939 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1860

#2200650 18-Mar-2019 10:45

Coil:

SirHumphreyAppleby:

A Code of Practice is not a legally binding document.

No but legislation is!

While the DIA publicly states the Act specifies the criterion for inclusion, there is no legislative or regulatory mechanism in place to bind them to it.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2200651 18-Mar-2019 10:45

wellygary:

Coil:

This is about censorship without any formal proceedings.

No

This is about private companies doing things that probably 99% of their customers support,

SkyTV has dumped Sky News Australia currently too....

Theses are private decisions, not government ones....

Some dairies have chosen not to sell smokes, is that "censorship" too....

No,

Sky TV dumped Sky New AU due to them showing footage of a certain video. This is a commercial decision.
Dairies not selling smokes is good principal and another commercial decision.

Whether or not people support what has been done they have none the less haphazardly filtered websites of their own choosing prior to any form of formal proceeding.
I agree, it is good to censor it. What I do not agree with is censoring via private decisions (As you said yourself) with no formal proceeding. Where is the line drawn? Do they next week start censoring other websites with no formalities and their own judgement? Where is the discretion?

Whether or not this would be the outcome if there was something discussed at a legal level is irrelevant as the principal of this is above and beyond that.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2200655 18-Mar-2019 10:47

My personal view is don't blame the organisations that wish to run their houses as they see fit but blame the individuals and groups that post the material that is unacceptable. I applaud the actions taken to block the material.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

loceff13

1089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 340

#2200661 18-Mar-2019 10:54

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2200668 18-Mar-2019 11:00

loceff13:

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

The issue is that not just the big sites like 4chan are being blocked, 3rd party anonymous video/file/image hosting sites that are frequently used for genuine reasons are being blocked too. How do you filter what an anonymous user uploads?

If they really wanted to censor this stuff, they missed out paste bin, the documentation of the shooter is replicated there, they missed facebook, videos are being sent via messenger in there...

The other question is how far or not far do they go in censorship? Why censor one thing and not another? Why do it without any form of formal proceedings?

The whole censorship thing here is good PR for a knee jerk reaction only justified by emotion. When someone shows me something formal where people have made an actual decision on what happens and have gone through the correct process then I will be quiet.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2200686 18-Mar-2019 11:23

Coil:

Whether or not people support what has been done they have none the less haphazardly filtered websites of their own choosing prior to any form of formal proceeding.

I agree, it is good to censor it. What I do not agree with is censoring via private decisions (As you said yourself) with no formal proceeding. Where is the line drawn? Do they next week start censoring other websites with no formalities and their own judgement? Where is the discretion?

The discretion is wherever they choose ... and you are able to go a choose a different ISP, its called a free market..

Would you like a requirement that ISPs are "forced" to carry everything until a formal national level decision is made to ban something???...

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2200695 18-Mar-2019 11:33

wellygary:

Coil:

Whether or not people support what has been done they have none the less haphazardly filtered websites of their own choosing prior to any form of formal proceeding.

I agree, it is good to censor it. What I do not agree with is censoring via private decisions (As you said yourself) with no formal proceeding. Where is the line drawn? Do they next week start censoring other websites with no formalities and their own judgement? Where is the discretion?

The discretion is wherever they choose ... and you are able to go a choose a different ISP, its called a free market..

Would you like a requirement that ISPs are "forced" to carry everything until a formal national level decision is made to ban something???...

I think people are forgetting an ISP service ends at delivering you your pathway to the internet, it is not their responsibility or service to be a moral self check.

There needs to be a national level of filtering which is uniform rather than any ISP choosing to do as they wish without any regulation or notification..

If you can't comprehend and agree with that then sign away your freedom of speech at the dotted line below.

.........................................

edit^ As a forum of self proclaimed geeks I am really let down to see that there is not much support behind this. Whether people are treading on eggshells in fear of getting banned for having an opinion during these times I am unsure. I would think that most people here can see through the fogginess of emotion in the situation and protest this cowboy censoring. Anyway, I should not be surprised, we spend most of the time here talking about things that are not geeky and the only geeky things we do is ask for help when stuck on geeky stuff..

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2200700 18-Mar-2019 11:35

Coil:

loceff13:

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

The issue is that not just the big sites like 4chan are being blocked, 3rd party anonymous video/file/image hosting sites that are frequently used for genuine reasons are being blocked too. How do you filter what an anonymous user uploads?

If they really wanted to censor this stuff, they missed out paste bin, the documentation of the shooter is replicated there, they missed facebook, videos are being sent via messenger in there...

The other question is how far or not far do they go in censorship? Why censor one thing and not another? Why do it without any form of formal proceedings?

The whole censorship thing here is good PR for a knee jerk reaction only justified by emotion. When someone shows me something formal where people have made an actual decision on what happens and have gone through the correct process then I will be quiet.

example if MF chose to block certain content on Geekzone, the decision has gone through correct process.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2200704 18-Mar-2019 11:39

MikeB4:

Coil:

loceff13:

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

The issue is that not just the big sites like 4chan are being blocked, 3rd party anonymous video/file/image hosting sites that are frequently used for genuine reasons are being blocked too. How do you filter what an anonymous user uploads?

If they really wanted to censor this stuff, they missed out paste bin, the documentation of the shooter is replicated there, they missed facebook, videos are being sent via messenger in there...

The other question is how far or not far do they go in censorship? Why censor one thing and not another? Why do it without any form of formal proceedings?

The whole censorship thing here is good PR for a knee jerk reaction only justified by emotion. When someone shows me something formal where people have made an actual decision on what happens and have gone through the correct process then I will be quiet.

example if MF chose to block certain content on Geekzone, the decision has gone through correct process.

Don't go comparing apples to pears here.
This is his website that he owns and it is with in his right to put what ever he wants here, we are free to leave if we wish. ISP's do not own the internet, they just deliver it to you and should abide by the laws around that delivery of service. E.G: Censorship....

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
13036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3896

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

Subscriber

#2200713 18-Mar-2019 11:45

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1903/S00432/isps-working-together-to-block-websites-with-footage.htm

The one large RSP i see missing from this list is trustpower.

Just to shutdown a few discussions here.

DIA is only for CP explicitly. it was not a valid option in this situation.

For spark, the reason for acting in this way was simple. following the horrific act, there where Direct links to the content being shared all around.

Be it on facebook, Twitter or wherever else, Many were landing with this content autoplaying - At least personally i saw numerous counts of people deleting eachother because they were making this content 'pop up'.

That content is quite scaring.

Blocking these sits as a temporary measure cut short a lot of this sharing. It would have been far more ideal if the content simply was not shared, or could have been automatically filtered.

for all the sites that have been blocked, there are ongoing attempts to get the content removed. Soon as that happens they will be removed from the blocks.

I can't supply an official word on when they will be removed

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2200715 18-Mar-2019 11:50

Coil:

MikeB4:

Coil:

loceff13:

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

The issue is that not just the big sites like 4chan are being blocked, 3rd party anonymous video/file/image hosting sites that are frequently used for genuine reasons are being blocked too. How do you filter what an anonymous user uploads?

If they really wanted to censor this stuff, they missed out paste bin, the documentation of the shooter is replicated there, they missed facebook, videos are being sent via messenger in there...

The other question is how far or not far do they go in censorship? Why censor one thing and not another? Why do it without any form of formal proceedings?

The whole censorship thing here is good PR for a knee jerk reaction only justified by emotion. When someone shows me something formal where people have made an actual decision on what happens and have gone through the correct process then I will be quiet.

example if MF chose to block certain content on Geekzone, the decision has gone through correct process.

Don't go comparing apples to pears here.
This is his website that he owns and it is with in his right to put what ever he wants here, we are free to leave if we wish. ISP's do not own the internet, they just deliver it to you and should abide by the laws around that delivery of service. E.G: Censorship....

The ISP is not censoring the internet, a NZ ISP could never achieve that. What they are doing is saying our pathway is not available to reach that material something they have every right to do so. If an ISP decided that they did not want their house to be used to access say Facebook they can do that, they will have the make that decision based on that impact to their business. They are not censoring it as Facebook is still there and available.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2200727 18-Mar-2019 12:08

MikeB4:

Coil:

MikeB4:

Coil:

loceff13:

If the sites in question opt not to provide any content filtering to their NZ audience will they eventually be unblocked? It could be 2+ years before a trial is completed.

The issue is that not just the big sites like 4chan are being blocked, 3rd party anonymous video/file/image hosting sites that are frequently used for genuine reasons are being blocked too. How do you filter what an anonymous user uploads?

If they really wanted to censor this stuff, they missed out paste bin, the documentation of the shooter is replicated there, they missed facebook, videos are being sent via messenger in there...

The other question is how far or not far do they go in censorship? Why censor one thing and not another? Why do it without any form of formal proceedings?

The whole censorship thing here is good PR for a knee jerk reaction only justified by emotion. When someone shows me something formal where people have made an actual decision on what happens and have gone through the correct process then I will be quiet.

example if MF chose to block certain content on Geekzone, the decision has gone through correct process.

Don't go comparing apples to pears here.
This is his website that he owns and it is with in his right to put what ever he wants here, we are free to leave if we wish. ISP's do not own the internet, they just deliver it to you and should abide by the laws around that delivery of service. E.G: Censorship....

The ISP is not censoring the internet, a NZ ISP could never achieve that. What they are doing is saying our pathway is not available to reach that material something they have every right to do so. If an ISP decided that they did not want their house to be used to access say Facebook they can do that, they will have the make that decision based on that impact to their business. They are not censoring it as Facebook is still there and available.

That is called censoring Mike...
Anyway, back to the point, they have no legal grounds to censor this content and their job remains limited to providing you a link to the internet, not filtering it at their discretion. What their users do on the internet does not concern nor affect their business and if they are looking into what their users are doing then this is a privacy breach.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41042

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2200740 18-Mar-2019 12:38

From the DIA:

Sharing of Christchurch shooting video likely to be against the law

15 March 2019

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) advises that people who share the video of the shooting today in Christchurch are likely to be committing an offence.

A DIA spokesperson says that the video is likely to be objectionable content under New Zealand law.

“The content of the video is disturbing and will be harmful for people to see. This is a very real tragedy with real victims and we strongly encourage people to not share or view the video.

“We are working with social media platforms, who are actively removing this content as soon as they are made aware of an instance of it being posted.

“If you see this video or any objectionable material online, you can help take it down by reporting the incident to the online platform it is hosted by. All social media platforms have a complaints function you can follow.

“We are aware that people may have unsuspectingly viewed the video on social media platforms thinking it is a media article, so please be vigilant of images that yourself and those around you are viewing, particularly our young people.”

If you or someone you know has viewed the video and are struggling with what you have seen please see 1737 ‘Need to talk’ or free call or text 1737.

If you are concerned that something you have seen may be objectionable, contact the Censorship team.

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.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#2200755 18-Mar-2019 12:57

I A few people offering to show it to me on their phones. I did say no to viewing it.

If someone wish’s to see it they don’t even need to go on internet now, copies are in the wild.

Guess when the Sky court one comes up ISP’s will no longer be able to say they are not the internet police and that it will create big costs to do it, so I’m wondering if ISP’s blocking stuff here is setting a precedent.

Sounds like sites being blocked are used for other purposes as well, hopefully there’s some more finesse in fine turning what’s blocked.

I’m not against it being blocked, just wondering what the future implications of it will be.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4