Department of Internal Affairs to Implement NZ Internet Filter

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11

1015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 39

#237139 20-Jul-2009 12:08

So are they including every porn site that uses keywords like "lolita", "schoolgirls" and "underage", etc, etc.

From what Ive seen *ahem* heard *ahem* most porn sites use this crappy tactic but I doubt more than 0.001% of them actually have anything of the sort

I just wonder where they got 7000 websites from...

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#237160 20-Jul-2009 13:28

Asmodeus, anything that even looks underage is illegal - whether the subject is 13 years old or 35.

The 7000 websites probably came from that lot that run the UK filter or something - so we can look forward to patches of Wikipedia being filtered and stuff like that too.

Asmodeus

1015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 39

#237167 20-Jul-2009 13:57

"looks underage"

OK firstly Im not supporting underage anything at all, but isn't that a bit subjective?

So if a cougar chucks on a school uniform, thats illegal to look at?!

Who decides? The chief censor or this company?

dman

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

#241093 31-Jul-2009 21:12

stupid stupid stupid, this is a sad time for NZ internet

we really can't trust the politicians with ANYTHING can we?!

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#241095 31-Jul-2009 21:18

I'm planning to write to relevant MPs about this. If anyone is interested in putting their name to it also (I'll give you a preview first) or sending a copy themselves I'm happy to do accommodate this.

dman

956 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 33

#241099 31-Jul-2009 21:41

add my name to it, I'll email you with my real name

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

tristanb

89 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#243860 7-Aug-2009 11:22

Looking at the wikileaks page of the Australian blacklist (while not actually going to the nasty sounding pages).

There's all these anti-abortion sites that show pictures of fetuses. (Most look like natural intrauterine deaths, as in a vacuum abortion there's not actually that much left to see). Now I don't really see how this is child porn. I guess they're not wearing clothes.

Another site on the list is abbywinters.com. Now I recognise this site, it's pornography, but not illegal. It's an Australian-made porn site and generally quite tame. On the discussion page about the list a lot of the other sites are apparently legal too.

If the NZ department of internal affairs cannot release the urls on the list, it should state that each item is in fact illegal and how. Otherwise we're going to have a whole lot of inappropriately blocked sites. (e.g. Wikipedia, Wikileaks)

I have a feeling that our list is just going to be a quick dump of any page that is submitted using the IA toolbar that both TV1 and TV3 have advertised on their news programmes last week.

tristanb

89 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#243861 7-Aug-2009 11:32

Child Alert ( http://www.childalert.org.nz/ ) was the toolbar I was thinking of.

Wasn't Graham Capill part of ECPAT? These people seem to have a strange experience with the internet if they keep finding illegal porn just randomly browsing. I use the internet a lot, and have never seen an illegal kp website. I wouldn't waste screen real estate with such a button.

There's technically illegal stuff (e.g. 2girls1cup) on the net, but I imagine that most of the traders of objectionable material don't use http.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#250464 25-Aug-2009 18:45

There's now a draft of a code in the DIA site. I posted a few comments in my blog with links to the pdf.

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.

timestyles

424 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#250492 25-Aug-2009 20:31

tristanb:

These people seem to have a strange experience with the internet if they keep finding illegal porn just randomly browsing. I use the internet a lot, and have never seen an illegal kp website. I wouldn't waste screen real estate with such a button.

This reminds me from the film 40 days and 40 nights:

Him: So, what do you do for laundry money?
Her: I'm a cyber nanny.
Him: What--what's that?
Her: I spend all day looking for pornography on the web.
All right, say you have a ten-year-old kid...
with an iMac and a browser, and she searches "Girlfriends"...
and then gets lesbian mud wrestling.
Probably not the best thing. -But you can't avoid it.
Like today, I ran a search for "sandbox"...
and got "eat my box"...
"Sandy's hot box"...
and my favorite, "vagina beach."
My job is to find the site and block it out.
Him: So, you have to look at these sex sites all day long?
Her: Yeah. All day.
Him: Drive you crazy after a while?
Her: Yeah. Some days I think...
that if I have to look at another blowjob I'll scream.
Him: God, yes.

SamF

1598 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 252

Trusted

#250496 25-Aug-2009 20:39

Interesting! This is very reassuring to see! It looks like the DIA have gone to some lengths to ensure:
A) The filter continues to be used as intended
B) It is not used as a tool for the prosecution of people viewing child porn*

Two things that surprised me a bit:
1) The following clause:

Additions are only made to the list with the agreement of at least 3 warranted inspectors of publications that the material on the website meets the criterion that they explicitly show children being sexually abused.

So the way I read this is that sites which are 'simply' showing explicit images / videos of kids are not going to be blocked, only ones which show actual sexual abuse. I'm actually not sure if this goes far enough now! I guess they have to start somewhere.

2) That (according to this document) simply having an illegal image on your screen is considered 'possession'! If this is the case then I'm all for this filter for that reason alone!

The limitations, balances and checks outlined in this document (assuming it's passed without modification) goes a long way to reassuring me that this system (at least as proposed) is not able to be abused. Of course it could all be changed fairly easily and it wouldn't be the first time that there's been a 'soft sell' to get a system in place with the long term goal of changing it into something else at a later stage. Maybe it's just the consipiracy theorist in me

. But at the end of the day it's the same as any system / organisation which is granted some kind of authority (eg; the police), as long as there is oversight & accountability, it can all work smoothly, as intended, and largely without the abuse of that authority. As long as it remains open to public scrutiny then all will be well.

* Freitasm, you mentioned in your blog that you thought logging the IP address was too much information for the stated purpose of "troubleshooting the connections", however, you may have missed the line under 7.1.1 which says:

Local IP – represents the IP address of the user – this is anonymised to protect the identity of the requester

Four_seven

38 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#250506 25-Aug-2009 21:09

I disagree with this filter. Spend the money on improving internet speeds in NZ, not on a magical filter which in my opinion is not needed:
When was the last time you accidently stumbled upon the questionable material they are trying to block?
They're not exactly hard to bypass, as stated by john gilmore - "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." proxies and tunnels if you're that way inclined.
The people trading such materials are protected behind more than just http sites, which is the extent of the filtering. This isn't going to stop them, or the production of said materials.

Am I the only one interpreting this as DRM on our web connections, with so many possibilities for abuse down the line?

rphenix

990 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 127

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#250509 25-Aug-2009 21:14

Four_seven: I disagree with this filter. Spend the money on improving internet speeds in NZ, not on a magical filter which in my opinion is not needed:
<snip>.

Am I the only one interpreting this as DRM on our web connections, with so many possibilities for abuse down the line?

Nope I agree 100% Once you agree to filter one thing, it makes it easy to agree to filter the next thing. I would rather they invest the money impementing a task force to catch kiddy fiddlers.

Aaroona

3204 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

#250510 25-Aug-2009 21:16

rphenix:
Four_seven: I disagree with this filter. Spend the money on improving internet speeds in NZ, not on a magical filter which in my opinion is not needed:
.

Am I the only one interpreting this as DRM on our web connections, with so many possibilities for abuse down the line?

Nope I agree 100% Once you agree to filter one thing, it makes it easy to agree to filter the next thing. I would rather they invest the money impementing a task force to catch kiddy fiddlers.

+1,000,000

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#306251 11-Mar-2010 12:46

And the filter went "live" today.

My thoughts from back in July 2009 are still fresh.

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.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11