cws82us: Sounds like censorship to me. What’s next they going to start blocking Facebook and Twitter ?

In a perfect world, yes

ripdog:

 

 

 

I'll take you up on that. The DIA filter is an amazing combination of useless and a slippery slope to greater censorship (by introducing the infrastructure).

 

 

 

I can't disagree more. The DIA filter exists and blocks content that is illegal in New Zealand. You would be breaking NZ law by accessing and viewing some of the content that filter does block.

As for it being a "slippery slope" I'd love to see some evidence to back that. I know two of the people on the IRG that enforces the DIA filter and it's safe to say they have done (and continue to do) a brilliant job ensuring the DIA filter is only used for the purposes of which it was established despite lobby groups such as Sky TV and large media companies wanting content added to it for purposes outside the scope it exists for.

The single failing with any type of filter now is CDN networks and the problems they pose when blocking a site isn't as simple as blocking an IP address.

This is how I see it:

If the video were to be shown on a giant 30 foot video screen played on a loop in private land right next to a major highway, there would be outrage and public condemnation against the company who owns/leased the screen, the owner of the land, and the person responsible for placing it there. 

However this is pretty much exactly what is occuring on the internet, and people are absolving the land owner (Facebook) of any responsibility and condemning those wanting to take it down, saying it's 'free speech' or other such arguments. I don't understand. 

If the landowner refused to take down the video, I would expect the government would block access to the road until the video was taken down to prevent the possibility of it being seen.

The internet (for better or worse) is public territory, this video has the ability to cause untold levels of mental and physical harm. Saying "Because it's online means it's beyond reproach by free speech laws" is like arguing the billboard on the side of a road should stay because "It's only accessible by a car".

Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

Your road analogy. Roads are public territory, as are footpaths, parks, and so on. But there are rules.

The internet has a vast capability and reach. It can help us or hurt us, but many seem to feel that its fine to have no rules. That makes no sense at all. If I ran a business manufacturing widgets there are rules. Has to be safe, a certain quality, free of certain harmful chemicals. Some internet businesses such as FB and T and others can seemingly do what they want.

cws82us: What’s next they going to start blocking Facebook and Twitter ?

Hope so.

My news website is now blocked.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-19/after-blocking-zerohedge-and-others-nz-telcos-demand-big-tech-censorship-surge

In regards to people talking about legality, the laws of any country should not apply to the internet. If you think it's appropriate for NZ to call for blocking of this content,  I hope you are all happy with Thailand having anything critical of their monarchy blocked, or China having anything to do with the Tiananmen square massacre, the USA having Wikileaks blocked, Russia blocking the internet archive and parts of Wikipedia, etc. 

sbiddle:

 

ripdog:

 

 

 

I'll take you up on that. The DIA filter is an amazing combination of useless and a slippery slope to greater censorship (by introducing the infrastructure).

 

 

 

 

I can't disagree more. The DIA filter exists and blocks content that is illegal in New Zealand. You would be breaking NZ law by accessing and viewing some of the content that filter does block.

 

You really think there is child porn on the internet which a government is aware of but not prosecuting, simply filtering? Really?

There's plenty of information which is illegal to possess in NZ. It is not the role of the internet provider to enforce that. In addition, a filter is a pathetically weak, minimal effort way of attempting to enforce such laws, and is trivial to bypass - even for non-technical users. Have you seen the number of ads that VPN providers have been slinging around the place recently?

Not to mention my personal issues with the idea of illegal information. That's some freako-1984-Black Mirror sh!t. Information does not radicalise people, communities do.

Just discovered that my ISP, 2degrees is doing this crap too. Ugh. I didn't notice because I run my own DNS, which turned out to be a bloody good idea.

2D is excellent in every other way, but if a vocally anti-censorship ISP appears, I will probably jump ship. This sh!t has no place in a democracy.

tdgeek:

 

Your road analogy. Roads are public territory, as are footpaths, parks, and so on. But there are rules.

 

The internet has a vast capability and reach. It can help us or hurt us, but many seem to feel that its fine to have no rules. That makes no sense at all. If I ran a business manufacturing widgets there are rules. Has to be safe, a certain quality, free of certain harmful chemicals. Some internet businesses such as FB and T and others can seemingly do what they want.

 

I believe that the internet should be treated like a sovereign nations embassy, even though technically parts of it are "here", our laws don't apply.

Relevant.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/russia-makes-it-illegal-to-insult-officials-or-publish-fake-news/

Welcome to our future, unless we fight this madness.

sbiddle:

 

The single failing with any type of filter now is CDN networks and the problems they pose when blocking a site isn't as simple as blocking an IP address.

 

I think this sums it up, the DIA filter is very much a tick box/political/emotional move for company's to say they are doing their bit, boards and management teams at the larger telco's without much technical skill are going to be very reluctant to not implement, whereas when you have company's with more technical knowledge at the management end (say Callplus - Snap before 2d - and funnily enough Government run ISP's like Kordia and REANNZ) have so far resisted and are not part of the filter, presumably because they know it does not work. 

Lias:

 

tdgeek:

 

Your road analogy. Roads are public territory, as are footpaths, parks, and so on. But there are rules.

 

The internet has a vast capability and reach. It can help us or hurt us, but many seem to feel that its fine to have no rules. That makes no sense at all. If I ran a business manufacturing widgets there are rules. Has to be safe, a certain quality, free of certain harmful chemicals. Some internet businesses such as FB and T and others can seemingly do what they want.

 

 

I believe that the internet should be treated like a sovereign nations embassy, even though technically parts of it are "here", our laws don't apply.

 

To a large degree I agree with you @Lias and in the beginning the Internet was definitely a better place and I truly wish it was still that place and your view was fitting, but twenty years on it has changed and alas being hijacked and perverted. It is not the place originally visioned. However, the Internet is not a mystical land outside of society it is a part of society and much more so now than twenty years ago, because it is a part of society it is subject to the rules of society. It is right that it is moderated to comply with the rules of society. 

Lias:

 

the laws of any country should not apply to the internet.

 

That's crazy. 

MikeB4:

 

To a large degree I agree with you @Lias and in the beginning the Internet was definitely a better place and I truly wish it was still that place and your view was fitting, but twenty years on it has changed and alas being hijacked and perverted. It is not the place originally visioned. However, the Internet is not a mystical land outside of society it is a part of society and much more so now than twenty years ago, because it is a part of society it is subject to the rules of society. It is right that it is moderated to comply with the rules of society. 

 

The problem with that Mike, as I've noted above, is who's rules and who's society? Choosing one countries laws is very problematic, so do we choose "international law"? The closest thing we have to that is the UN, but they can rarely agree on what colour the sky is and are fairly toothless to boot.