Department of Internal Affairs to Implement NZ Internet Filter

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Department of Internal Affairs to Implement NZ Internet Filter

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

165 posts

Master Geek

#324971 29-Apr-2010 21:07

PaulBrislen: There's a world of difference between the filter operated by the DIA and the kinds of things you're all talking about.

Then why won't they release a copy of blocked sites?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#324975 29-Apr-2010 21:10

PaulBrislen: There's a world of difference between the filter operated by the DIA and the kinds of things you're all talking about.

I'm well versed with the slippery slope argument, but the DIA filter is operated under the Films, Classifications act and can ONLY be applied to objectionable material.

So what's defined as "objectionable" and how/why can that definition get changed?

VFNZPaulBrislen

970 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#324977 29-Apr-2010 21:17

The term is defined in the Films, Classifications act and I have no idea what it covers (really try to avoid such things) but it's the same basis as the ratings for movies etc.

The DIA site has a huge amount of detail on this:

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Digital-Child-Exploitat...

(apologies for the Notes URL. Shudder).

and on reading it I discover:

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (the FVPC Act) deems a publication to be objectionable if it promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes (section 3(2)(a)).

Paul Brislen
Head of Corporate Communications
Vodafone

http://forum.vodafone.co.nz

VFNZPaulBrislen

970 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#324978 29-Apr-2010 21:18

shiroshadows:
PaulBrislen: There's a world of difference between the filter operated by the DIA and the kinds of things you're all talking about.

Then why won't they release a copy of blocked sites?

Why do you think?

Quick, stand over there and don't you DARE think about pink elephants!

There is an oversight group that monitors how they're operating:

The Department established an Independent Reference Group (IRG), the membership of which is representative of enforcement agencies, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet users, and agencies and community groups with an interest in the welfare of children.

The general function of the IRG is to maintain oversight of the operation of the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System to ensure it is operated with integrity and adheres to the principles set down in the Code of Practice.

Paul Brislen
Head of Corporate Communications
Vodafone

http://forum.vodafone.co.nz

shiroshadows

165 posts

Master Geek

#324979 29-Apr-2010 21:28

PaulBrislen:
shiroshadows:
PaulBrislen: There's a world of difference between the filter operated by the DIA and the kinds of things you're all talking about.

Then why won't they release a copy of blocked sites?

Why do you think?

Quick, stand over there and don't you DARE think about pink elephants!

There is an oversight group that monitors how they're operating:

The Department established an Independent Reference Group (IRG), the membership of which is representative of enforcement agencies, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet users, and agencies and community groups with an interest in the welfare of children.

The general function of the IRG is to maintain oversight of the operation of the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System to ensure it is operated with integrity and adheres to the principles set down in the Code of Practice.

Well if its so the actual site arn't revealed it
shouldn't matter, if the filter is blocking the sites.

Why not just contact the sites internet provider to get it taken down. Much cheaper and more efficient.

After what has happened in Australia it'll be a struggle to convince people
its legit.

Aaroona

3196 posts

Uber Geek

#324980 29-Apr-2010 21:31

shiroshadows:

Well if its so the actual site arn't revealed it
shouldn't matter, if the filter is blocking the sites.

Wrong. Since proxy sites are readily avaliable, it would defeat the purpose of the filter and the Government would then be assisting "those" people.

shiroshadows:

Why not just contact the sites internet provider to get it taken down. Much cheaper and more efficient.

I do however agree with you on this. I would have thought it would be more efficent, cheaper, and would keep the public happy.

It's funny because I actually just wrote a paper on Censorship in New Zealand the other day.

shiroshadows

165 posts

Master Geek

#324982 29-Apr-2010 21:33

Aaroona:
shiroshadows:

Well if its so the actual site arn't revealed it
shouldn't matter, if the filter is blocking the sites.

Wrong. Since proxy sites are readily avaliable, it would defeat the purpose of the filter and the Government would then be assisting "those" people.

Yeah well that effectively means the filter is pointless anyways if its soo easily bypassed

Aaroona

3196 posts

Uber Geek

#324983 29-Apr-2010 21:36

shiroshadows:
Aaroona:
shiroshadows:

Well if its so the actual site arn't revealed it
shouldn't matter, if the filter is blocking the sites.

Wrong. Since proxy sites are readily avaliable, it would defeat the purpose of the filter and the Government would then be assisting "those" people.

Yeah well that effectively means the filter is pointless anyways if its soo easily bypassed

I agree, but what I was trying pointing out was why they won't publish the list, not how easy it is to bypass (though I spose they both tie in together)

But yes, I agree. I believe this filter is useless. It monitors only HTTP traffic and as many more have pointed out, someone who REALLLY wants something will find a way around it.

Whether it means they use FTP, HTTPS, Usenet, Filesharing or whatever else is avaliable to them.

EDIT: Changed my post. I see it sounded a bit weird when I re-read it.

adam77

46 posts

Geek

#324987 29-Apr-2010 21:44

Aaroona:

I do however agree with you on this. I would have thought it would be more efficent, cheaper, and would keep the public happy.

I think this gets tricky when you cross international borders,
host country may different laws,
ineffective/slow/corrupt law enforcement,
poor diplomatic relations,
...

Aaroona

3196 posts

Uber Geek

#324989 29-Apr-2010 21:46

adam77:
Aaroona:

I do however agree with you on this. I would have thought it would be more efficent, cheaper, and would keep the public happy.

I think this gets tricky when you cross international borders,
host country may different laws,
ineffective/corrupt law enforcement,
poor diplomatic relations,
...

true.. but surely most countries have something that makes these types of sites illegal (in their host country)?

If the Internet Host was served, much like the p2p chain has (the likes of ISOHunt etc), then I'm sure the host would cut them off pretty quickly.

dman

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

#325054 30-Apr-2010 04:10

freitasm: See why I always said the DIA filter is not to be trusted? From http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html:

""Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

The venue was a seminar organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm on May 27, 2007, under the title "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?". The speaker was Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group, a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations, like IFPI and others... "

thanks a lot for that, I've now spread that juicy quote amongst all of my hundreds of facebook 'friends' :D :P

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

Screeb

698 posts

Ultimate Geek

#325384 30-Apr-2010 18:03

PaulBrislen: There's a world of difference between the filter operated by the DIA and the kinds of things you're all talking about.

I'm well versed with the slippery slope argument, but the DIA filter is operated under the Films, Classifications act and can ONLY be applied to objectionable material. So nothing else. It would take an act of parliament to broaden the reach of the filter and that's the top of the slippery slope.

As it stands today the DIA filter in NZ is quite different to the Aussie filter or to any of the others. It's built in a different, very simple way and sites are added to it manually - that is, two DIA investigators have to agree that an image is objectionable and only then will it be added. It's not an IP based filter or similar, it's based on two people agreeing the image is illegal in NZ and blocking it accordingly.

There is no slow down of other sites because it's site specific. Slow down occurs when it's an IP based filter and you're looking at a legitimate site near the one that's blocked (same IP range for instance).

You've ignored my point. I argue that it's not just about the slippery slope of widening the net in terms of material that is filtered, but rather a slippery slope of public acceptance of censorship. THEN comes the widening of the net by taking off the current restrictions, now that they have more public acceptance than if they did that right at the start.

It should also be noted that even text can be potentially filtered by the current system (despite the fact that they say images are the "focus", text can still be included). It would fall under "objectionable publication". That is a very worrying thought. It's one thing to censor images, but censoring opinions is simply not acceptable IMO, regardless of how horrible one may think that opinion is. If there's one thing the US has got right, it's free speech.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#399665 3-Nov-2010 15:19

Telecom New Zealand has confirmed today they will be joining the Internet Filtering scheme.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79289 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2532470 31-Jul-2020 22:23

And ten years later, let's bring this thread back to life.

Back in May 2020 the DIA issued a tender "Digital Child Exploitation Filter System (DCEF)"

Today this article expands on it: "The Government is upgrading its system for blocking child abuse websites"

In May, the Government advertised to replace the current software, powered by NetClean’s Whitebox, saying it had come to the end of its life.

The same month, Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin introduced a long-awaited bill updating the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

The proposed legislation would allow DIA to bring the child exploitation filter into law, and extend it to also filter content deemed objectionable by the chief censor’s office.

In the tender documents, DIA said: “In the future, the department may need to filter violent extremism content. Please advise if and how your solution could be expanded to provide filtering on this content when other protocols (e.g. peer to peer) are used.”

The bill updating the Classification Act 1993 is here.

SamF

1578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2532479 31-Jul-2020 23:02

And so the 'scope creep' begins!

I'm a little surprised that it took 10 years TBH!

Good spotting @freitasm!

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