New Zealand Internet censorship proposed laws

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › New Zealand Internet censorship proposed laws

1 | 2

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#2502571 10-Jun-2020 21:29

Handle9:
vexxxboy:

you cant censor the internet.

Practically you can. There are always ways around this of course but most people don't have a VPN or know how to obtain one.

If the point of this legislation is to slow down the spread of live streamed murder/abuse/child porn then it makes sense.

but it doesnt slow down the people who want to access live stream murders / child porn etc, they know how to get round censorship and all you are doing is censoring the internet for people who would never access it in the first place, so it is a lot of effort for pretty much no reward and a waste of time.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2502576 10-Jun-2020 21:36

vexxxboy:

but it doesnt slow down the people who want to access live stream murders / child porn etc, they know how to get round censorship and all you are doing is censoring the internet for people who would never access it in the first place, so it is a lot of effort for pretty much no reward and a waste of time.

It slows down some of them and significantly slows down the people who would "casually" consume this content. There is an impact on the network effect, especially in real time.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#2502588 10-Jun-2020 22:27

Handle9:

vexxxboy:

but it doesnt slow down the people who want to access live stream murders / child porn etc, they know how to get round censorship and all you are doing is censoring the internet for people who would never access it in the first place, so it is a lot of effort for pretty much no reward and a waste of time.

It slows down some of them and significantly slows down the people who would "casually" consume this content. There is an impact on the network effect, especially in real time.

again the material they want to censor cant be casually consumed , you really have to know what you are doing and where to look for it, do you think the average person can find child porn. you are not slowing them down .

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2502595 10-Jun-2020 22:36

vexxxboy:

Handle9:

It slows down some of them and significantly slows down the people who would "casually" consume this content. There is an impact on the network effect, especially in real time.

again the material they want to censor cant be casually consumed , you really have to know what you are doing and where to look for it, do you think the average person can find child porn. you are not slowing them down .

A ton of people casually consumed the Christchurch massacre on Facebook. They weren't looking for it, it popped up in their feed. That is why the ISPs filtered content and this legislation was introduced.

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2502669 11-Jun-2020 06:27

vexxxboy:

again the material they want to censor cant be casually consumed , you really have to know what you are doing and where to look for it, do you think the average person can find child porn. you are not slowing them down .

it’s the ‘average person’ who creates child porn and other objectionable content. It’s the ‘average person’ who finds out where to post it. It’s the ‘average person’ who promotes this stuff to other ‘average people’.

Plugging holes prevents ‘average people’ from even creating the content in the first place - that is the point - if you can’t publish it, you are less likely to create it in the first place.

yes, this is a simplistic argument. But it’s better to plug holes than simply washing your hands, saying ‘it can’t be stopped so don’t even try’.

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#2502678 11-Jun-2020 07:33

Handle9:

A ton of people casually consumed the Christchurch massacre on Facebook. They weren't looking for it, it popped up in their feed. That is why the ISPs filtered content and this legislation was introduced.

and to my point even now if you wanted to watch it now it would take you minutes to find it even though it is banned in NZ, filters or not . So again a lot of effort for no result. I stand by my argument , you cant censor the internet, if people want to see or watch something they can and will.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2502686 11-Jun-2020 08:22

I also think filters are easy to get around, and those who want to consume objectionable material quickly learn how to do it. I don't think censorship is particularly effective, and one problem I see with it is that politicians and others with little technical understanding place too much belief in it. In the case of child abuse images, criminalisation is more effective than censorship, because those who want to view it know they run a big risk of getting caught, and big penalties if they do. Of course this doesn't stop them completely, but it does drive them far underground, making it harder for 'casual' consumers to find them.

The key to any effective enforcement is international cooperation. On its own, there is little that New Zealand can do. If most countries take this seriously and work together to squelch it, the results can be much better. Whether this leads to other problems is another matter.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2502893 11-Jun-2020 13:22

Handle9:

A ton of people casually consumed the Christchurch massacre on Facebook. They weren't looking for it, it popped up in their feed. That is why the ISPs filtered content and this legislation was introduced.

They didn't block Facebook where most of the casual consumption would've been.

Once Facebook was aware they started searching and taking it down, some people knew enough to alter the signature of video so algorithms to find and delete had to be updated.

The ISP's blocked the likes of chan4, which up to then I've never heard of.

People that shared the video were rightly so arrested in NZ.

loceff13

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#2502945 11-Jun-2020 14:24

I would rather they focus on how the media reports mass shootings etc to work towards discouraging copycat attacks(given theres been atleast 2 chch inspired attacks in the year since), the fame element of mass shootings is awful and showing a persons face and bodycount etc for hours on tv over a week does not help in any way. Whats on the internet is out there forever no matter how many sites you block.

ripdog

548 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2504091 13-Jun-2020 13:46

The child porn filter was always a joke. The problem with it was not technical, but... logical. Child porn is easily the most heavily investigated and enforced illegal content on the web, and AFAIK there are no jurisdictions which turn a blind eye to it being hosted. Thus, if the NZ govt learns of the existence of CP on the internet, they're going to report it to Interpol, who will pass that on to local law enforcement in the hosting country, who will attempt to arrest those involved - where not possible, they will at least take the content down. Now the content is no longer accessible, what does the DIA filter block?

In the case of the remote govt delaying a takedown of the content in question in order to set up a sting on the group involved, then obviously the NZ govt cannot institute a block on the content without tipping off the criminals of the govt attention - so again, filter useless.

If the CP has not been discovered by a govt and thus is still accessible on the internet, then it's *still* not going to be filtered, because how do you filter something you don't know about?

The only reasonable argument for the new law is that in the *absurdly unlikely* example of a second NZ mass shooting broadcast on FB/YT, that the government could act faster than how FB did during the Christchurch shooting... by instituting a DNS block of the entirety of Facebook?

I've obviously got no access to the DIA filter list, but if I did, I bet it'd be a long list of defunct and totally legitimate website domains. The only thing the filter has achieved is to waste public money and to increase public/tech sector acceptance of censorship of the NZ internet - with little critical examination of whether the benefits outweigh the costs or whether the filter will achieve anything at all. No doubt the lack of pushback is due to the dual rallying cries of 'protect the children!' and 'defeat the terrorists', despite the fact that internet filters do nothing to further either of these laudable goals.

The RNZ article includes a quote: "The core of the debate to come is: 'is the perfect the enemy of the good, in this space?'", and I'd argue that this expansion of censorship is neither perfect nor good, nor anything at all. No reasonable argument is presented for a filter of all 'objectionable content', no plan for how such a thing could lead to a reduction in harm in the community.

1 | 2