Objectionable Material & Website Blocking

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

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

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202377 20-Mar-2019 12:57

Coil:

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.

By your analogy then perhaps if internet users had to earn a license first, we wouldn't be in a position where we have to debate the merits of the state/ISPs blocking certain sites/content. Your analogy shows society thinks people must be responsible enough to use our road infrastructure, and to not do harm to themselves or others, or that infrastructure. That's something we don't mandate for internet users, who have free reign to do anything they want online.

rugrat

3106 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2202379 20-Mar-2019 13:01

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.

And there is the answer to why people are against blocking, because it has the protential to go a lot further then horrific stuff. Pirate Bay is not horrific stuff.

I pay a certain service provider, but sometimes wish to view stuff in better quality then provided. Please don’t go down old arguments of why wrong/not wrong.

The blocking as protential to prop up commercial interests not just public protection.

JohnDunlop

16 posts

Geek

#2202381 20-Mar-2019 13:06

I can see that most geeks on here really value their freedom to access what they like.

Problem is when your freedom causes or may cause another person to be traumatised, exploited, scammed etc if they are not as net-savvy as most here or are savvy but dangerous or vulnerable.

I see fb yt etc as publishers cos they enable individuals to spread their ideas as we used 8to do in books, newspapers , posters and pamphlets.
So they need to take responsiblity for the consequences of their actions.

In a civilised society there are rules that protect the vulnerable by curbing some freedoms.

tehgerbil

1102 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#2202384 20-Mar-2019 13:12

Sorry guys, my post was out of line.

Whatever side of the fence you're on the fact that the websites were blocked without any real knowledge of what is blocked or any notification advising customers was a really insidious way to do it.

Understand the need for urgency, but at least send out an email, or add a note to the 'outages' web page rather than effectively keeping customers in the dark.

The lack of transparency is quite disturbing.

gehenna

8495 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202386 20-Mar-2019 13:14

rugrat:

And there is the answer to why people are against blocking, because it has the protential to go a lot further then horrific stuff. Pirate Bay is not horrific stuff.

Well I did say it's an unsophisticated example, BUT I was responding directly to the previous point about legal jurisdiction, not making a case for or against access to Pirate Bay. The gap is wide between what I was saying, and what you've picked up from mention of TPB.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202388 20-Mar-2019 13:15

gehenna:

Coil:

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.

By your analogy then perhaps if internet users had to earn a license first, we wouldn't be in a position where we have to debate the merits of the state/ISPs blocking certain sites/content. Your analogy shows society thinks people must be responsible enough to use our road infrastructure, and to not do harm to themselves or others, or that infrastructure. That's something we don't mandate for internet users, who have free reign to do anything they want online.

It is almost something I think should have an age restriction. I'll give an example..

I was undeniably once an extremely impressionable 14 or so year old and on image boards joking about things I had no understanding of at the time, even though it may have been dark humor and I knew what it meant on the surface and understood why it was funny I was unknowingly part of a rhetoric that you would not consciously support with more understanding and maturity.

This topic is actually meant to be about general censorship not a bunch of minors on image boards sharing a video or objectionable content living in a world of confirmation bias sh1t posting racist and dark humor. There is more to the internet than just these guys, they have been around since the inception of it and they will be there till the end. Its just that one of them has made themselves a bit more known to society than ever before.

nonahs

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

#2202392 20-Mar-2019 13:22

sbiddle:

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..

I mean we'd need a firewall that inspects every packet to check for illegal content which is not a very viable solution especially with TLS, but if there was some way block specific illegal content then sure. The way it's been done however, by blanket banning websites would be equivalent to blocking anyone or any mail from Central America or Thailand from entering New Zealand since those places are popular for drug trafficking.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202398 20-Mar-2019 13:34

tehgerbil:
Sorry guys, my post was out of line.

Whatever side of the fence you're on the fact that the websites were blocked without any real knowledge of what is blocked or any notification advising customers was a really insidious way to do it.

Understand the need for urgency, but at least send out an email, or add a note to the 'outages' web page rather than effectively keeping customers in the dark.

The lack of transparency is quite disturbing.

What a ridiculous response.
You except any ISP to send an email to all customers saying we have blocked this list of sites for these reasons.
Way to drive people who otherwise wouldn't have known about them to the sites by providing the list.
Blocking without notification is the only sensible response and if you wanted to know why then ring your ISP and speak with them saying you want to view this vile content and they can refer you onto the authorities for being a disturbed individual who should be on a watch list like anyone else who wants to watch child porn.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202400 20-Mar-2019 13:45

BarTender:
tehgerbil:

Sorry guys, my post was out of line.

Whatever side of the fence you're on the fact that the websites were blocked without any real knowledge of what is blocked or any notification advising customers was a really insidious way to do it.

Understand the need for urgency, but at least send out an email, or add a note to the 'outages' web page rather than effectively keeping customers in the dark.

The lack of transparency is quite disturbing.

What a ridiculous response.
You except any ISP to send an email to all customers saying we have blocked this list of sites for these reasons.
Way to drive people who otherwise wouldn't have known about them to the sites by providing the list.
Blocking without notification is the only sensible response and if you wanted to know why then ring your ISP and speak with them saying you want to view this vile content and they can refer you onto the authorities for being a disturbed individual who should be on a watch list like anyone else who wants to watch child porn.

I think most have tunnel vision, limiting this discussion to people wanting to see content relating to terrorist attacks or gore or child abuse and having that as a common goal and disregarding most other things that censorship may encompass. History shows people have an uncanny ability to abuse power in a conflict of interest.

Side note: (Please everyone stop using the CP word, It really effing tilts me, child abuse is the correct work, pornography is visual material to stimulate sexual excitement and child abuse does not deserve the recognition of sexual excitement)

tehgerbil

1102 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#2202418 20-Mar-2019 13:56

BarTender:
tehgerbil:

Sorry guys, my post was out of line.

Whatever side of the fence you're on the fact that the websites were blocked without any real knowledge of what is blocked or any notification advising customers was a really insidious way to do it.

Understand the need for urgency, but at least send out an email, or add a note to the 'outages' web page rather than effectively keeping customers in the dark. The lack of transparency is quite disturbing.

What a ridiculous response.
You except any ISP to send an email to all customers saying we have blocked this list of sites for these reasons.
Way to drive people who otherwise wouldn't have known about them to the sites by providing the list.
Blocking without notification is the only sensible response and if you wanted to know why then ring your ISP and speak with them saying you want to view this vile content and they can refer you onto the authorities for being a disturbed individual who should be on a watch list like anyone else who wants to watch child porn.

What the hell. No, you've totally twisted my response. Not cool. For instance in AUSTRALIA (of all places) they told the public via mass media.

New Zealand ISP's chose to quietly block the websites without informing anyone.

This lack of transparency is a slippery slope.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2202420 20-Mar-2019 14:04

I saw press releases from the ISPs and from the TCF. I saw articles on Stuff and New Zealand Herald.

Not sure but I think you missed those.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202423 20-Mar-2019 14:11

The next time I hear the words slippery slope I'll throw my screens out the window

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2202424 20-Mar-2019 14:16

freitasm: I saw press releases from the ISPs and from the TCF. I saw articles on Stuff and New Zealand Herald.

Not sure but I think you missed those.

I did too, it was only after myself and one other questioned on GZ what was going on they appeared, but did see them after the fact none the less.

This is the first known communications about censorship/blocking of any form I can find through google. All media articles come after.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111322733/facebook-battles-to-stamp-out-horror-footage-of-christchurch-shooting

This article was posted at 18:02 on the 15th. They said "

Spark spokesman Andrew Pirie said the company, Vodafone and the country's third largest internet provider Vocus had agreed to block their customers accessing three overseas websites that would not be known to most New Zealanders but which had provided access to the video". The number of sites was inaccurate as well, As I observed more than 3 domains being "blocked"

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202425 20-Mar-2019 14:23

tdgeek:

The next time I hear the words slippery slope I'll throw my screens out the window

Why? Is there a slippery slope outside you want to watch them slide down?

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.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2202427 20-Mar-2019 14:25

Lias:

tdgeek:

The next time I hear the words slippery slope I'll throw my screens out the window

Why? Is there a slippery slope outside you want to watch them slide down?

Sorry, busy. The glassman has arrived

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