The case for mandatory internet filtering

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

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1776135 5-May-2017 10:57

Rappelle:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

I don't know why the proponents of filters cling to them so grimly in the face of all evidence. I think it must be an emotional thing. It makes them feel like they are doing something, even if not much. It is also exploited for political purposes, which doesn't help. I suppose people driven by ignorance do ignorant things. What a pity the resources cannot be used for something that matters.

Why do assume that folks that may have a differing view to you are being ignorant?

How do you gather that "people driven by ignorance" equals "people with a differing view"?

read the entire post I referred to it is clearly implied

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1776138 5-May-2017 10:59

Rikkitic:

I don't know why the proponents of filters cling to them so grimly in the face of all evidence. I think it must be an emotional thing. It makes them feel like they are doing something, even if not much. It is also exploited for political purposes, which doesn't help. I suppose people driven by ignorance do ignorant things. What a pity the resources cannot be used for something that matters.

Its called the backfire effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1776144 5-May-2017 11:08

MikeB4:

Rappelle:

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

I don't know why the proponents of filters cling to them so grimly in the face of all evidence. I think it must be an emotional thing. It makes them feel like they are doing something, even if not much. It is also exploited for political purposes, which doesn't help. I suppose people driven by ignorance do ignorant things. What a pity the resources cannot be used for something that matters.

Why do assume that folks that may have a differing view to you are being ignorant?

How do you gather that "people driven by ignorance" equals "people with a differing view"?

read the entire post I referred to it is clearly implied

Not implying a thing. Specifically stating that ignorant people do ignorant things. People who support Internet filters are ignorant of what they actually can do. If they were not, they would realise that there is no reason to support them. The evidence for that is presented in this thread many times over. Just read the entire thread.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

shanehobson

69 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

#1779406 11-May-2017 06:48

Thank to everyone who posted comments to this thread. I've read all the comments and appreciate the range of opinions being expressed here. Your comments here will help me in my discussions with other people outside of this forum.

There have certainly been some strong arguments put forward opposing any form of mandatory filtering which I will be sure to put to the various regulators I meet day to day to test the tenacity of their conviction.

Thank you

Shane Hobson

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1779407 11-May-2017 07:52

Here's an example, using a vpn channel that kids can't just 'turn off' and works on a per device level.

"Family First NZ endorses SAFESurfer which blocks pornographic websites and material online. It’s an effective way to protect children from stumbling across, or deliberately accessing, internet pornography in the family home, and also out and about on cellular data and other WiFi networks. SAFESurfer has been developed by two IT experts who both have young families and have established the service under a charitable trust.

And now they have a great new phone app for all your family members who have a smartphone. Simple to install - and best of all, it's free!

(But we're sure they'd appreciate your support in other ways!)

Check out the website www.SAFESurfer.co.nz and download the phone apps for Android and iOS"

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1779416 11-May-2017 08:43

PhantomNVD: Here's an example, using a vpn channel that kids can't just 'turn off' and works on a per device level.

"Family First NZ endorses SAFESurfer which blocks pornographic websites and material online. It’s an effective way to protect children from stumbling across, or deliberately accessing, internet pornography in the family home, and also out and about on cellular data and other WiFi networks. SAFESurfer has been developed by two IT experts who both have young families and have established the service under a charitable trust.

And now they have a great new phone app for all your family members who have a smartphone. Simple to install - and best of all, it's free!

(But we're sure they'd appreciate your support in other ways!)

Check out the website www.SAFESurfer.co.nz and download the phone apps for Android and iOS"

Bollocks, they just get another phone, they go to a friends house and use their computer, etc etc etc.

When our kids were teens they had 2,3,4 and more different Facebook profiles for different groups of friends and family. They had accounts on Bebo and other social media sites.

Kids WILL LIE to their parents.

Parents are STUPID, they choose to believe their son/daughter is a goody two shoes, yet facts say otherwise, the high percentage of underage children having sex, the number of young children smoking pot, etc etc etc etc is much larger than you expect.

Staying "connected" is far more important to children these days than their parents, and they will engage in high risk behaviours to have that connection WITHOUT parental interference, make it harder, they will take higher risks.

By the time kids are 11-13 all you can do is give advice and hope you have taught them enough to stay safe, at this age their peer group has far more influence than the parents do.Worse is that if you try and hinder them/spy on them/lock them away they will rebel even harder and they will have lost trust in you as a parent, so when something does go wrong, they will not involve you.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1779449 11-May-2017 10:12

As I have made clear here, I am against any form of obligatory filtering (censorship) imposed by government or other authorities. There are numerous reasons why this is a bad idea. I do not object in principle to parents using filters to protect their children, which should be their decision to make, though I do believe this is the wrong approach. As pointed out above, kids are far smarter and more capable than the believers in filters may realise. The right way to protect your children is to be up-front with them, discuss and explain the things they need to be protected from, equip them with knowledge (as opposed to blinders) to cope with the evils they may stumble across, and respect them enough to trust them to use the good judgement you have equipped them with.

This is the biggest issue with the proponents of censorship devices: They don't have sufficient respect for those they think they need to protect.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

shanehobson

69 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

#1779460 11-May-2017 10:32

I would always advocate that filters are part of a multifaceted solution that includes education and discussion. I don't think any proponent of filters would suggest that they are a perfect solution.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1779466 11-May-2017 10:35

@shanehobson: I don't think any proponent of filters would suggest that they are a perfect solution.

You may not but there are other people with their own agendas who would go full on hard filter. Don't underestimate radicals.

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.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1779480 11-May-2017 11:15

freitasm:

@shanehobson: I don't think any proponent of filters would suggest that they are a perfect solution.

You may not but there are other people with their own agendas who would go full on hard filter. Don't underestimate radicals.

I agree with this. Filtering is just one of the tools but must have legislative checks and independent oversight.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1779537 11-May-2017 11:33

MikeB4:

I agree with this. Filtering is just one of the tools but must have legislative checks and independent oversight.

You mean like this well-functioning oversight agency?

https://nzccl.org.nz/content/letter-peter-dunne-re-failure-oversight-dias-internet-filter-irg

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1779542 11-May-2017 11:38

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I agree with this. Filtering is just one of the tools but must have legislative checks and independent oversight.

You mean like this well-functioning oversight agency?

https://nzccl.org.nz/content/letter-peter-dunne-re-failure-oversight-dias-internet-filter-irg

as I wrote independent oversight

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ripdog

548 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 373
Inactive user

#1779569 11-May-2017 12:41

Ugh, censorship.

A number of people in this thread have stated how they believe that the best kind of filtering is child porn-only. There is some kind of general idea that the internet is full of CP. The fact is, it isn't. For a CP site to be put on a government filter list, it must first be discovered by the government - at which point you can be sure it will swiftly be taken down.

International authorities persecute CP site owners with zeal unmatched by enforcement of any other internet-based crime. CP simply doesn't exist on the clearweb anymore, with the possible exception of private sites (obviously gathering data about private CP sites is impossible). All public CP sites have migrated to censorship-resistant platforms like Tor hidden sites, or FreeNet. On those platforms, no amount of govt regulation will block anything, although it is possible to block the entire platform with deep packet inspection (although Tor has been working around even that in China).

Governments who censor know that their lists are worthless at preventing access to CP, and of course worthless at protecting children. The filter lists that have been leaked have been analyzed by security researchers, who find that they are lists of long-dead websites and a few legit sites.

So why do they bother? Power, probably.

I'm proud of living in a country with no mandatory internet censorship. Let's keep it that way - and hopefully make an even stronger statement by abandoning the DIA filter system as well. We'd probably be the only country in the world rolling back a filtering program, rather than expanding it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1779634 11-May-2017 13:32

Interesting point: After Thomas Beagle wrote to Dunne pointing out that the DIA was not living up to its own code of practice, suddenly an IRG meeting magically took place after nearly 1 1/2 years (instead of the 3x a year promised), and it even took place just a couple of weeks before Beagle's letter! An amazing coincidence, but of course it is an election year.

Another interesting point: According to the minutes of the IRG meeting, they have now discovered a new reason to keep sucking at the public teat. Sure, CP sites no longer exist as such, but now there are 'gateway' sites and 'text-based' child porn that must be combatted. And as the IRG darkly observes, "it is widely understood that the printed word
can be more disturbing than images". Of course they don't say where they get that from, but hey, they don't have to. After all, it is "widely understood" so it must be so.

So the taxpayer will have to keep on paying. Once a quango always a quango and may it ever keep expanding. This, of course, from the body that is supposed to prevent mission creep! Clearly these god-like protectors of your morals and mine just cannot get enough child porn. If there isn't any, they will find it anyway. And these are the ones who are supposed to be overseeing.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

Edited to add the link I forgot

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1779795 11-May-2017 18:14

ripdog:

A number of people in this thread have stated how they believe that the best kind of filtering is child porn-only. There is some kind of general idea that the internet is full of CP. The fact is, it isn't. For a CP site to be put on a government filter list, it must first be discovered by the government - at which point you can be sure it will swiftly be taken down.

Yes, this mystifies me a bit. I have been using the internet since the early consumer days here (in the 90s when a 9.6kbps and 6 MB/mo allowance for international traffic was considered a good package). At times I have been a very heavy user.

I have never stumbled across CP. Not once.

So I am highly skeptical of those who claim that the internet is full of CP, and without a filter innocent people will be constantly accessing it by accident.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11