The case for mandatory internet filtering

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › The case for mandatory internet filtering

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1770364 25-Apr-2017 21:56

Some interesting points. I don't think I would be prepared to go as far as he does though I an against censorship in principle, but I certainly agree that a rational discussion of the issue would be a positive thing. Unfortunately, many people are not capable of conducting a rational discussion on an issue like this. The panicky rush to join the howling chorus of condemnation would overwhelm any attempts at meaningful discourse. People who are so eager to express their disgust are simply not prepared to pause and listen.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1770371 25-Apr-2017 22:15

Rikkitic:
Some interesting points. I don't think I would be prepared to go as far as he does though I an against censorship in principle, but I certainly agree that a rational discussion of the issue would be a positive thing. Unfortunately, many people are not capable of conducting a rational discussion on an issue like this. The panicky rush to join the howling chorus of condemnation would overwhelm any attempts at meaningful discourse. People who are so eager to express their disgust are simply not prepared to pause and listen.

You are making assumptions and generalisations.

shanehobson

68 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#1770403 26-Apr-2017 08:01

Aredwood:

If the aim is to catch people viewing or trying to view kid porn. Then a far better way would be to not block anything, But still have a blacklist of sites. When someone views a blacklisted website. The Police, DIA ect get notified, and all of the accesses of blacklisted sites get logged. This means that viewers don't know that they are being watched, the owner of the banned website doesn't know that their visitors are being tracked. ...

You make a good point there. Quite similar to the difference between hidden speed cameras in unmarked locations and signposted & marked speed cameras.

Probably quite an effective deterrent. But I suspect those who oppose Govt monitoring of your internet use will put up quite a strong fight opposing this.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1770471 26-Apr-2017 09:19

It also begs the questions of:

- what is the harm, and to whom, that is being prevented?

- is the solution proportionate to any identified harm?

Most people seem to cite hand-waving edge cases to try and justify sweeping censorship changes. But who decides what is "harmful" and what isn't - a game, the Elijah Woods film Maniac (which apparently doesn't case harm to Aussies or Americans, but is harmful to Kiwis and banned here), a name suppressed by a court order, the award-winning Ted Dawe book Into the River, religious sites, a music torrent site, a chemistry site (OMG, a gunpowder formula, think of the children!)?

Freedom of information is not something that we should give away lightly, and doing so to address the alleged "harms" that I have seen quoted feels like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. It won't hit the fly, but will smash up a lot of other stuff. At worst, we get a tool that can be corruptly used by politicians to stop us accessing information they don't want us to see. At best, we get a clunky bureaucratic system where people like the music industry and Bob McCoskrie will be constantly lobbying and litigating to have me "protected" from things they don't like, and which blocks thousands of legitimate sites with false positives.

Personally, I doubt you can just stumble across child porn. I have been using the internet since 1995, and I never have. Regular folk never look for that type o material, and the people who are intently after it material can simply use ToR or a good VPN to bypass the filter, then what would the filter practically achieve anyway?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1770489 26-Apr-2017 09:44

Moved this discussion to a more appropriate sub-forum.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1770513 26-Apr-2017 10:10

JimmyH:

It also begs the questions of:

- what is the harm, and to whom, that is being prevented?

- is the solution proportionate to any identified harm?

Most people seem to cite hand-waving edge cases to try and justify sweeping censorship changes. But who decides what is "harmful" and what isn't - a game, the Elijah Woods film Maniac (which apparently doesn't case harm to Aussies or Americans, but is harmful to Kiwis and banned here), a name suppressed by a court order, the award-winning Ted Dawe book Into the River, religious sites, a music torrent site, a chemistry site (OMG, a gunpowder formula, think of the children!)?

Freedom of information is not something that we should give away lightly, and doing so to address the alleged "harms" that I have seen quoted feels like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. It won't hit the fly, but will smash up a lot of other stuff. At worst, we get a tool that can be corruptly used by politicians to stop us accessing information they don't want us to see. At best, we get a clunky bureaucratic system where people like the music industry and Bob McCoskrie will be constantly lobbying and litigating to have me "protected" from things they don't like, and which blocks thousands of legitimate sites with false positives.

Personally, I doubt you can just stumble across child porn. I have been using the internet since 1995, and I never have. Regular folk never look for that type o material, and the people who are intently after it material can simply use ToR or a good VPN to bypass the filter, then what would the filter practically achieve anyway?

Applause. Intelligent and relevant questions that I have not seen addressed here. Ultimately, censorship is pointless and silly. It always has been but in the age of the Internet it is especially so.

The salient points are that people who are not looking for banned images are unlikely to encounter them accidentally, while those who want to see them cannot be deterred by a filter. The potential harm that a filter prevents is vastly outweighed by the actual harm that it does.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ronw

1222 posts

Uber Geek

#1770525 26-Apr-2017 10:24

I would worry more about what other purposes the monitoring could/will be used for. Remember the old Wanganui Law Enforcement system that was going to be so heavily monitored there would be no unlawful uses. But still all sorts of people that had access started using the system to find out information that had nothing to do with law enforcement. How long before Governments would sue the monitoring to did up dirt on their opponents. They already do this as we have seen why make it easier for them

Nokia 7 Plus
Nexus 6P 32Gb
Nexus 6 Phone
Nexus 5 Phone
Nexus 7 2013 Tablet
Samsung TAB A 8"
Samsung TAB A 10"

& many Windows laptops, Desktops etc

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1770591 26-Apr-2017 12:00

The damage caused by child pornography is profound and life long. Any society that does not do everything possible to stop it has very very deep issues. If that means filtering has to be in the arsenal then so be it.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1770593 26-Apr-2017 12:02

JimmyH:

Personally, I doubt you can just stumble across child porn. I have been using the internet since 1995, and I never have.

I have.

I stumbled across a site blocked by the Department of Internal Affairs Internet filter several years ago, probably in the first year of filtering. From memory, I had gone to a search aggregation site and followed what looked like a useful link. This is one reason that I always use a link checker in my web browsers.

It was quite a shock but I was grateful that the site was blocked. This is one reason - to prevent inadvertant access - for me to support filtering. That is why used to run filtering for our family. Without it my children regularly - almost monthly - stumbled across unsavoury sites when searching for things that children are interested in.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1770596 26-Apr-2017 12:08

MikeB4:

The damage caused by child pornography is profound and life long. Any society that does not do everything possible to stop it has very very deep issues. If that means filtering has to be in the arsenal then so be it.

We're way past this discussion, as such a filter is already in place in New Zealand (although optional for ISPs) and the largest ones already joined in.

The OP's post seems to want to go beyond what's already there.

shanehobson

68 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#1770597 26-Apr-2017 12:10

Rappelle:

But the good thing is, you are in charge of the filtering. You get to decide what's appropriate for your children to see. I think it's probably a responsible choice as a parent to do something like this- but at the parent level, not government level.

And what do you propose we do for the children being raised by parents who simply don't care ?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1770602 26-Apr-2017 12:25

If you are seriously arguing that a national filter is necessary or justified to protect children from bad parenting, then you really need to re-examine your ideas. That is sheer, hyperbolic nonsense.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1770604 26-Apr-2017 12:28

MikeB4:

The damage caused by child pornography is profound and life long. Any society that does not do everything possible to stop it has very very deep issues. If that means filtering has to be in the arsenal then so be it.

The point is that filtering doesn't stop it. The damage has also already been done. The child is victimised long before the image reaches the filter. You are looking in the wrong places for answers.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1770626 26-Apr-2017 13:04

shanehobson:

And what do you propose we do for the children being raised by parents who simply don't care ?

That's superficially sensible, but doesn't really stand up to analysis. A filter won't fix bad parenting. Not remotely.

If you want your connection filtered, then go for it. Purchase the software you are peddling yourself and install it on your home system. Leave mine alone.

EDIT: And what you do if you have reason to consider that a child is being raised by truly bad parents to the extent that their environment is unsafe is notify CYFs. They will take it from there. However, it needs to be real bad parenting - not just let them watch a movie that is classified such that they shouldn't see it. If your complaint is essentially an internet variant of "the found one of dad's playboys under the bed ..... OMG!", then I suspect they won't take it any further.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1770643 26-Apr-2017 13:41

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

The damage caused by child pornography is profound and life long. Any society that does not do everything possible to stop it has very very deep issues. If that means filtering has to be in the arsenal then so be it.

The point is that filtering doesn't stop it. The damage has also already been done. The child is victimised long before the image reaches the filter. You are looking in the wrong places for answers.

Filtering is part of the arsenal

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11