Objectionable Material & Website Blocking

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Objectionable Material & Website Blocking

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

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202277 20-Mar-2019 10:31

I agree again, but it is a complex issue and I have no real answers. However in the absence of any international agreement (as likely as the Earth being proved to be flat) I guess it is up to each government to decide the rules for their part of society and put in place procedures, protocols, oversight and review to manage the issue.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2202281 20-Mar-2019 10:35

@ripdog I have removed a sentence from your reply.

No personal attacks or comments about other users. Stick to commenting the opinions and ideas.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202283 20-Mar-2019 10:36

gehenna:

Lias:

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

That's crazy.

To be clear, I don't mean that people should be do anything they want online without consequence, but that governments should not be able to control any part of the internet based on their countries laws. If someone downloads kiddie porn, they can be arrested, prosecuted, and punished without the government needing to control the internet to do it.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

gehenna

8499 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202290 20-Mar-2019 10:42

That would depend on where that part of the internet is hosted, surely? The Pirate Bay when hosted in Sweden was clearly outside our jurisdiction, but had it been hosted here it would be in violation of our laws and treated accordingly. You wouldn't just have ISPs block users from accessing it, you'd take the site down - an unsophisticated example but I have a headcold today :)

Blocking access to KNOWN sites and services that supply content that's prohibited in NZ is not outside the bounds of reason IMO. Blocking sites and services based on the suspicion that they might have prohibited content is murkier, and blocking access to a bunch of sites just because they exist in the "image sharing" category, for example, is plain wrong in my opinion. But there's so much nuance here, and a lot that we don't know as the general public.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202304 20-Mar-2019 11:09

gehenna:

That would depend on where that part of the internet is hosted, surely? The Pirate Bay when hosted in Sweden was clearly outside our jurisdiction, but had it been hosted here it would be in violation of our laws and treated accordingly. You wouldn't just have ISPs block users from accessing it, you'd take the site down - an unsophisticated example but I have a headcold today :)

Blocking access to KNOWN sites and services that supply content that's prohibited in NZ is not outside the bounds of reason IMO. Blocking sites and services based on the suspicion that they might have prohibited content is murkier, and blocking access to a bunch of sites just because they exist in the "image sharing" category, for example, is plain wrong in my opinion. But there's so much nuance here, and a lot that we don't know as the general public.

If there was to be rules around the use of the internet, it would need to be internationally agreed upon. Until then it should remain a free place.

I quite like the car analogy so I will make another one.

When you go for your licence and get a car you obtain the ability to take yourself where you want, when you want, how you want.
There are laws when driving like speed limits and giving way, these are written in a book and posted on road signs. Our cars do not come with electronic speed limiters just as much as our cars will not refuse to drive own a driveway of a cult/oppressive group if we want to take them there.

The thing is that we know what we are getting into if we use a car, You also have the chance to be subject to some very nasty things at any age or life position in a car and I have been after 100,000's kms traveled. I didn't subscribe to seeing anything bad by entering a car but heck, its the nature of the beast. Same goes for the internet, you don't subscribe to everything you see but if you have good judgement you can move yourself away from it as we did by continuing our journeys in the car.

The thing is that the car is a tool for transport of people that can be used for good things and also bad things. The users that want to convey this content is the issue, not the tool for transport. No matter what you do like minded people will always find solace in like minds and will find a way to convey their ideas between each other.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202320 20-Mar-2019 11:29

gehenna:

That would depend on where that part of the internet is hosted, surely? The Pirate Bay when hosted in Sweden was clearly outside our jurisdiction, but had it been hosted here it would be in violation of our laws and treated accordingly. You wouldn't just have ISPs block users from accessing it, you'd take the site down - an unsophisticated example but I have a headcold today :)

Blocking access to KNOWN sites and services that supply content that's prohibited in NZ is not outside the bounds of reason IMO. Blocking sites and services based on the suspicion that they might have prohibited content is murkier, and blocking access to a bunch of sites just because they exist in the "image sharing" category, for example, is plain wrong in my opinion. But there's so much nuance here, and a lot that we don't know as the general public.

@gehenna If someone setup a website that was 100% purely devoted to content that was all illegal in NZ, then even though it would go against my personal beliefs around net neutrality I can see a reasonable case being made, but none of the recent blocking is anywhere close to that. This was using nuclear weapons to kill a spider.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202337 20-Mar-2019 11:50

I don’t have an answer to the issue of changing attitudes or preventing radicalisation. I don’t know why people go down this path or how they can be turned from it. I only want to comment on the matter of Internet censorship.

I believe information must be free. I have always been completely opposed to all forms of censorship as a matter of principle. I had trouble when the DIA filter came along, because how can anyone support the victimisation of children? So I fudged the issue, told myself this was a special case, and kept quiet about it even though I remain opposed to it in principle.

In the special case of child abuse images, which is the proper term, not ‘kiddieporn’, I think censorship is the lesser of evils but it is only necessary because governments and international organisations are not prepared to go to the trouble and expense of actually eradicating this depravity. It is almost impossible to detect and prevent every pervert who produces this crap at the individual level, but more could certainly be done to stop the distribution of it on the Internet. It is just a question of money and will.

When beheading videos appeared, I made a principled decision not to search them out, not that I wanted to anyway. What possible purpose is served by watching someone’s life being ended in such a way? I believe my opposition in principle to censorship also obliges me to be responsible in what I choose to view. If I reject censorship by external forces, I must impose my own self-censorship. So in fact I am not against censorship at all, just against others making the decisions for me.

It has been a game for me to find ways around censorship, just to see if I could. But I have been selective in the locks I chose to pick. I have no wish to view people having horrible things done to them.

When I became aware of the Christchurch shootings, the live feed had already ceased. I knew I could easily access one of the copies but why would anyone want to? What kind of person feeds on a tragedy like this? There are limits, and I think this event exceeds all of them.

I think the actions of our ISPs were correct and laudable. I think they did exactly what needed to be done, and I only wish they could have done it even quicker. Their subsequent appeals to international companies and organisations I fully applaud and support. I believe this specific video is a special case that warrants special treatment. I do not see this as a free speech issue. I see it as a public conscience one.

Because of this event, I have changed my views on censorship. I now believe it is the best solution in specific circumstances. What I would like to see is a formalisation of what our Internet providers did in this case. Some kind of emergency response unit should be established by all ISPs with or without government involvement. It should have the ability and the authority to issue emergency blocking orders for any sites deemed an immediate threat to public safety. This power should only be exercised in situations comparable to the Christchurch shootings. It should be an emergency response to emergency situations. It should be instantaneous.

Any emergency blocking could only be temporary. This would be enshrined in law. There would be a fixed period after which the blocking must cease. During that time the decision to block could be reviewed by the courts or another body and possibly extended if very specific criteria are met. Any blocking would be subjected to rigorous and constant review after the emergency that precipitated it. This would be enforceable in law.

This is my suggestion for a way forward to limit the damage that can be done by unrestricted distribution of harmful content while also maintaining maximum protection for the free flow of information. Censorship should be allowed, but only in exceptional circumstances, and only temporarily. Enforcing the temporary aspect should help to prevent abuse by authorities or vested interests.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2202352 20-Mar-2019 12:05

I just pose one question to everybody who believes this is censorship and should not be allowed.

Do you believe that we should screen mail at the border to detect drugs or illicit material which is illegal in NZ? Or to stop somebody simply importing a gun in NZ which would be illegal here? If not, why not?

Do you believe baggage and people should be screened by Customs at the border to to detect drugs or Tillich material which is illegal in NZ? Or to stop somebody simply importing a gun in NZ which would be illegal here? if not, why not?

I simply fail to see how blocking accessing Internet content hosted overseas which may breach NZ law is any different to the rules society has had in place for many decades. I'll completely turn the question around and ask why we don't have Internet censorship already..

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2202355 20-Mar-2019 12:09

If anyone here starts posting conspiracy theories or spreading unfounded and incorrect information, we will start banning.

Enough of crap. If you know what you are about to post is false or if you know something because a friend of a friend told you then stop and think before posting.

If you don't have facts, be quiet. It is ok to give an opinion but do not claim to know something you don't.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202358 20-Mar-2019 12:23

sbiddle:

I simply fail to see how blocking accessing Internet content hosted overseas which may breach NZ law is any different to the rules society has had in place for many decades. I'll completely turn the question around and ask why we don't have Internet censorship already..

Although I have changed my mind about censorship, I strongly disagree with this suggestion. I disagree because the law is an ass. It is against the law to access information about growing marijuana or methods of euthanasia. The law assumes that accessing information is equivalent to acting on it. Controlling access to information really is a slippery slope.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gehenna

8499 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202362 20-Mar-2019 12:28

Lias:

This was using nuclear weapons to kill a spider.

I'd burn down my own house if I knew there was a spider in there capable of killing 50 people and injuring another 50 with one bite.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202364 20-Mar-2019 12:31

My view on this is the sites that host and promote this vile crap should be classified the same as child porn.

Yes it's just my own judgement call but I personally find promotion and distribution of a mass murders video just as vile if not more vile than child porn (if that is possible).

So why as a society have laws been enacted to say "child porn on the internet is bad, we won't tolerate it and do everything in our power to stop it" yet "mass murderer live casting the deaths of many people is free speech".

And I am specifically look at you Cloudflare for tolerating it but you don't seem to care unless law enforcement has told you to, child porn included.

If as a society we say distribution of this sort of vile content is just as vile as child porn and if you want to do it you should be treated the same.

This is not to say I want the DIA filter to also handle this sort of content as that shouldn't happen. But if the response to someone wanting to watch the video would be the same as someone wanting to watch child porn then that is how you change minds.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202365 20-Mar-2019 12:34

Rikkitic:

sbiddle:

I simply fail to see how blocking accessing Internet content hosted overseas which may breach NZ law is any different to the rules society has had in place for many decades. I'll completely turn the question around and ask why we don't have Internet censorship already..

Although I have changed my mind about censorship, I strongly disagree with this suggestion. I disagree because the law is an ass. It is against the law to access information about growing marijuana or methods of euthanasia. The law assumes that accessing information is equivalent to acting on it. Controlling access to information really is a slippery slope.

It's illegal to access information about growing marijuana? really?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202370 20-Mar-2019 12:38

Yes, because growing it is still against the law here and any information that facilitates breaking the law is illegal. For the same reason the Peaceful Pill book was initially banned here because it included descriptions of euthanasia techniques and importing barbiturates. It was only allowed after a censored version was produced. You are less free than you may imagine.

Edited to add: This is my understanding from past information. I am, of course, not a lawyer so cannot vouch for the veracity of this. I believe it to be true.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2202374 20-Mar-2019 12:50

Rikkitic:

Yes, because growing it is still against the law here and any information that facilitates breaking the law is illegal. For the same reason the Peaceful Pill book was initially banned here because it included descriptions of euthanasia techniques and importing barbiturates. It was only allowed after a censored version was produced. You are less free than you may imagine.

Edited to add: This is my understanding from past information. I am, of course, not a lawyer so cannot vouch for the veracity of this. I believe it to be true.

Yikes I had better start looking out for the black helicopters 😇

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