Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
Fat bottom Trump
10207 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5029

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769141 23-Apr-2017 09:41
Send private message

1eStar: I wish I could filter on Geekzone.

 

It is called the 'off' switch. Or, if you wish to be more precise, 'don't click on this post that is probably going to annoy me'.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1908 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 460

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1769143 23-Apr-2017 09:46
Send private message

toyonut:

 

antoniosk:

 

freitasm:

 

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.  

 

 

QFT.

 

 

???

 

 

Quoted For Truth

 

 

Thanks





________

 

Antonios K

 

Click to see full size


909 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 428


  # 1769147 23-Apr-2017 09:57
5 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Talkiet:

 

 

 

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

 

 

 

 

Yes it is conceptually very different in practice.  It may have been possible in the past for a censor to individually review and classify every book or magazine, movie print for release, or DVD coming in to the country. 

 

It's not physically possible for a censor to individually review and classify billions of web pages.  It's futile because those pages can change, the worst offenders (kiddy porn etc) would probably continue to do what they do on the internet now, essentially unimpeded except for possible risk of being caught by "sting" operations or surveillance, they're also probably using other than the WWW.

 

People can also bring terabytes of data into the country in person on devices.  Would be very nice - but practically impossible - to "search" every device and flash memory chip coming in, if you wanted to wait years in a line while customs/immigration at the border checked every device from every passenger on an A380, demanded keys to every encrypted file then examined the contents.

 

If there was to be some government regulation filtering access to content, my preference would be that all ISPs should offer "family safe" filtering as an option, that option is on by default, and that service should carry no additional charge. 

 

 

Family safe ????

 

Define that, who's family, yours ?, mine ?

 

Many Atheists believe religion causes harm, do we ban religious material even while it gets beamed into people homes via TV.

 

Religious people believe all the other religions are false, do we stop access to Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, Atheism etc etc etc etc etc ?

 

How about the News, why is seeing a REAL bomb dropped from a US plane killing dozens of REAL people not count as offensive ? Surely branding these victims on the ground as something less than human is offensive , that path leads back to slavery, removal of sexual equality, removal of gay rights etc etc, and I am sure there are segments of the population who are all for rolling back the clock on those rights.

 

Do we block material on the web from Anti-vaxxers, or anti-fluoridation groups ?

 

Perhaps we block countries we disagree with, never mind that refugees and immigrants use the net to try and stay in contact with friends and family who can not leave.

 

Farmers would love the Greens to be blocked as just "bloody tree huggers", Japan would love to see anti-whaling stopped.

 

What about euthanasia , that debate is real, do we give religious groups the right to block it for everyone because their family thinks it is unsafe ?

 

 

 

Until you can get rid of racism, sexism, anti-gay sentiment you are starting from a dangerous place. Until you can stop violence be it against women , children or men in real life where real harm is done, you have already failed. Until we have adequate mental health services, drug rehabilitation services, improved education and health services, censorship is throwing money is the wrong direction because these things cause real harm to real people in greater numbers in our own country.

 

 

 

Filtering the internet for "good" is fuelled by fear mongering but who's real goal is to make money off that irrational fear.

 

Want to protect the children, educate them.


Fat bottom Trump
10207 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5029

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769148 23-Apr-2017 10:03
Send private message

Wow. Excellent post.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




68 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

  # 1769152 23-Apr-2017 10:21
Send private message

I expected these sorts of points of view, but not nearly so many people showing an interest. I won’t be able to respond to every comment, but I’ll try to cover what I can.

 

 

 

JimmyH : “I will take responsibility for what I view, and for controlling what any minors who may have access to my connection can do.”

 

 

 

Rikkitic : “Ultimately it all comes back to individual integrity.”

 

You’re probably both responsible individuals and can probably be trusted with a gun as well (I’m not being sarcastic). But what about your slightly loony neighbour who cannot be trusted to behave responsibly when allowed access to materials (real or digital) that can cause harm to you ?

 

 

 

Freitasm : “The Internet is not the boggeyman. It can be used to distribute bad content but law enforcement should be looking at the source, not the channel.”

 

If we accept that the ‘internet’ is the collection of hardware & protocols that enables packets to traverse the world, then the internet is just infrastructure, just like a road or a copper line network carrying data, voice & electricity.

 

If the infrastructure was being controlled/filtered then we would see the regulator disconnecting physical networks into criminal’s homes (eg cut off the electricity supply to meth labs).

 

I think what we are discussing is the regulation of the use of that infrastructure.

 

Your assertion that law enforcement should only occur at the source isn’t a practical response.  If we translate your sentiment into a real world scenario where the police were required to only do police work “at the source” (as you suggest is appropriate for internet crime) then the police are restricted to capturing bank robbers while they’re inside the bank. As soon as the robber gets in his car onto the motorway (open access infrastructure) then it’s game over for the police unless they can predict where the robber is going and resume their work at the robbers destination. Obviously an unacceptable situation, but if we consider that the internet is just open access infrastructure like a road then why would we not permit law enforcement to occur there as well.

 

 

 

sen8or : “DIA already filters access to harmful content (kiddie porn…”

 

The DIA offers a voluntary filter that NZ ISPs can choose to implement. Just eight NZ ISPs are using it [https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-DCEFS-Internet-Service-Providers]. If a consumer of kiddie porn finds themselves with one of these ISPs and can’t get the material they want, they simply switch to another ISP not on the list.  If we agree that kiddie porn is not acceptable in our society under any circumstance why wouldn’t we accept an across the board filter that applies to all ISPs that has an opt-out process for “approved individuals” (such as genuine research or law enforcement) ?

 

 

 

Rikkitic : “Children of course should be protected from things like this,” … “but that is no justification for blanket censorship. The real world is full of nasty people doing nasty things.”

 

Pumpedd : “Its time people sorted out there own lives and began to parent their children rather than expecting the government to do it. Lack of parenting in this country is having disastrous effects.”

 

We either rely on parents to make good judgements to limit their child’s access to these things or in the absence of good parents we fall back to regulation by way of age restrictions on magazines, movies, alcohol, tobacco.

 

Those regulations are not perfect, underage children will still access “forbidden fruits”, but without any form of regulation that access would be much more widespread.

 

If we didn’t have this regulation as a safety net to help protect poorly parented children then those children have potential to grow into adults doing bad things in your neighbourhood.  That’s not a desirable outcome for me.

 

 

 

Rikkitic : “If anyone really cared about the kids of dubious parents, they would vote hundreds of billions of dollars to give them one-on-one mentoring throughout their childhoods until they were happy, well-balanced adults. Like all things, it is a money question.”

 

You make a very good point. That’s the reason we ban the sale of tobacco to children. It’s much cheaper to ban tobacco sales than it is to permit tobacco sales to children and then pay to try to persuade them not to use tobacco.  This argument can be applied to an online world as well, blocking harmful material is cheaper than trying to educate people to use it safely. There’s always a trade off when Govt money is involved, spend more on education means spend less on something else (hip operations) or we all pay more tax.

 

 

 

toyonut

 

You asked a few questions about successful filtering deployments.

 

I can’t get into whether or not they were successful as that’s an objective view held by the regulator, consumer & ISP involved.

 

I’m sure there are some negative effects, but I’m not specifically aware of any. In some regions the filters simply block access to a specified list of domains (therefore no surveillance occurs). In another region I’m working with the only reporting requirement is to report ‘number of attempts to access a website on the List that was blocked by the Filtering System every month’. There is absolutely no mention in any part of the regulators requirements to report any identifying information.  I’m not aware of any region where mandatory filtering has been implemented where any identifying information of any sort is collected, stored or reported on.  In some regions, the mandatory filter is applied across the board and individuals can opt-out (either automatically on request or after some sort of approval process). 

 

You make a good point about it being mandated for sex offenders. Currently some paroled sex offenders are not permitted internet access at all which I would argue is gross overkill that is disadvantaging the offender.

 

“In the examples you have seen, what has the education aspect looked like? “

 

In a NZ example, Netsafe is the standout example. A Govt funded organisation who educates our society about being safe online. I’ve personally spoken with hundreds of parents of children asking who they would turn to for help keeping their kids safe online. None named their ISP, but a reasonable number named Netsafe. Full credit to Netsafe for achieving that level of awareness.

 

 

 

Rikkitic : “I have to wonder what happens when people who are addicted to certain kinds of porn have their access to that porn shut off”

 

Very good question. Consumers of online kiddie porn are either being satisfied by their online fix and therefore the continual supply of kiddie porn to this group is keeping children at the consumer end safe from offenders or (in a worst case scenario) the supply of online kiddie porn is causing them to seek a more real experience which poses enormous risk to the children in their neighbourhood. 

 

In the case of kiddie porn (as opposed to adult porn) there is also the problem that the content creation is causing harm at the source and so every possible step should be taken to eliminate that harm. If demand diminishes then the supply (and therefore child harm) must also reduce, probably not in direct proportion but surely one child not harmed is worth the effort.  In an extreme, hypothetical example if kiddie porn in all forms (online & print medium) could be 100% blocked then all demand ceases, therefore the content providers will need to find some other way to make a dollar. 

 

 

 

freitasm : “I am not sure the OP ever mentioned a specific topic of filtering/censorship.”

 

That was a deliberate choice on my part to see where the discussion went. We’ve quickly gone down a porn path, but there are many more examples of objectionable/undesirable/harmful content available online.

 

 

 

Talkiet

 

Thanks for your well rounded comments.

 

 

 

JimmyH

 

You seem to be saying that harmful material should not be blocked until proven harmful.

 

DDT, asbestos, cigarettes were all promoted as good things to have around when first offered to consumers.

 

 

 

 

 

 


810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  # 1769157 23-Apr-2017 10:49
Send private message

I see you're still conflating filtering with regulation and control. If what you're proposing has no measure of collecting identifiable information then it cannot be used for law enforcement and your bank robber analogy doesn't apply. Not that filtering and tracking are the same thing anyway.

Fat bottom Trump
10207 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5029

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769161 23-Apr-2017 10:58
4 people support this post
Send private message

There is a lot to go through here and I will take the time to do it, but my first reaction is that you (or anyone else) have no business deciding what is appropriate content for me to access. I deeply resent the suggestion that you think you do. In this society there are adults, children and the mentally disabled. The latter two are special categories deemed in need of protection. Adults are assumed to be capable of making adult choices. I do not like you implying that I am a child or mentally disabled.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4118 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2869

Trusted

  # 1769170 23-Apr-2017 11:53
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

There is a lot to go through here and I will take the time to do it, but my first reaction is that you (or anyone else) have no business deciding what is appropriate content for me to access. I deeply resent the suggestion that you think you do. In this society there are adults, children and the mentally disabled. The latter two are special categories deemed in need of protection. Adults are assumed to be capable of making adult choices. I do not like you implying that I am a child or mentally disabled.

 

 

What about someone implying that _ILLEGAL_ material should be able to be blocked? Is that ok?

 

Cheers - N





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 572
Inactive user


  # 1769171 23-Apr-2017 11:56
Send private message

There is no case for internet filtering because I don't trust special interest groups to not hijack it to further their own agendas.


4118 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2869

Trusted

  # 1769172 23-Apr-2017 11:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

cadman:

 

There is no case for internet filtering because I don't trust special interest groups to not hijack it to further their own agendas.

 

 

By logical extension then you don't trust the government to make laws so you don't think there should be any laws either?

 

And objectively, you should be stating that YOU can't see a case, not that "there is no case". It's your opinion, not fact.

 

N.

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


Fat bottom Trump
10207 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5029

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769182 23-Apr-2017 12:22
2 people support this post
Send private message

 

 

 @shanehobson:

 

 

 

You’re probably both responsible individuals and can probably be trusted with a gun as well (I’m not being sarcastic). But what about your slightly loony neighbour who cannot be trusted to behave responsibly when allowed access to materials (real or digital) that can cause harm to you ?

 

And who is to decide that? You? Some committee of 'experts'? Maybe my slightly loony neighbour is just eccentric. What you propose is a huge invasion of privacy and massive trampling of individual rights. 

 

 

 

Your assertion that law enforcement should only occur at the source isn’t a practical response. 

 

That isn't what he said. He said enforcement should not be directed at the channel. Those who consume child abuse images and other illegal material should be and are prosecuted. This has nothing to do with filtering.

 

 

 

If we agree that kiddie porn is not acceptable in our society under any circumstance why wouldn’t we accept an across the board filter that applies to all ISPs that has an opt-out process for “approved individuals” (such as genuine research or law enforcement) ?

 

This argument is frequently used by vested interests to obfuscate the issue. If you agree that preventable death is not acceptable in our society under any circumstances, why wouldn't you accept an across the board ban on hunting and owning a car? 

 

 

 

If we didn’t have this regulation as a safety net to help protect poorly parented children then those children have potential to grow into adults doing bad things in your neighbourhood.  That’s not a desirable outcome for me.

 

Although you responded to selected comments by several people, you studiously avoided addressing the issue of whether filtering actually works, whether one agrees with it or not. It does not work. It is a sop to lull parents made anxious by your fear-mongering comments about 'children have potential to grow into adults doing bad things in your neighbourhood.' As I pointed out, your filter is an excellent tool for finding child pornography sites. It also doesn't work for the kinds of places where most child pornography is found these days (Facebook groups, Usenet, the Dark Web). It is extremely easy to circumvent with Tor, which has now been simplified to the point that anyone can download and use it just like any other browser. And if you think today's 10 and 12 year-olds are not perfectly capable of doing that, you are living in a dream world. 

 

 

 

In an extreme, hypothetical example if kiddie porn in all forms (online & print medium) could be 100% blocked then all demand ceases, therefore the content providers will need to find some other way to make a dollar. 

 

A bold experiment (that will never be tried for precisely that reason) would be to dramatically increase the penalties for viewing or possessing any porn featuring actual children while also greatly increasing the budget for surveillance and prosecution, but at the same time allowing registered sex offenders to access certain manga images under strictly controlled conditions.

 

 

 

Thanks for your well rounded comments.

 

Your prejudices are showing. This was the only poster who agreed with your preconceptions.

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that harmful material should not be blocked until proven harmful.

 

This statement does not make any sense. Apart from that, what most of us who object to filtering of any kind are saying is we don't want the government or any other group deciding what is good for us. What makes you so superior that you are able to decide what others should or should not see, and to determine which segments of the population are so backward that they cannot be trusted to make those kinds of decisions for themselves?  

 

I have no problem with parents protecting their children in any way they see fit, though placing their faith in a filter is both naive and misguided. I also have no problem with the existence of a filter, as long as it truly is voluntary, and the people using it understand exactly what it cannot do. Personally, I think the money spent on this kind of snake oil can be put to much better use.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  # 1769183 23-Apr-2017 12:22
Send private message

Talkiet:

Rikkitic:


There is a lot to go through here and I will take the time to do it, but my first reaction is that you (or anyone else) have no business deciding what is appropriate content for me to access. I deeply resent the suggestion that you think you do. In this society there are adults, children and the mentally disabled. The latter two are special categories deemed in need of protection. Adults are assumed to be capable of making adult choices. I do not like you implying that I am a child or mentally disabled.



What about someone implying that _ILLEGAL_ material should be able to be blocked? Is that ok?


Cheers - N


What illegal material? If material is illegal it's because of the harms creating it causes, in which case it'll still happen if it's filtered and no harm is prevented.

I agree with law enforcement on the internet, but that's not what filtering is.

And what harm is caused by a filter? Lose of transparency and public trust. The blacklist becomes a shopping list for criminals. Illegal activity is driven further underground where it's harder to police.


TBH I'm still not seeing any coherent case for mandatory filtering, just lot's of "don't like bad stuff". Well, for the most part the anti-filtering side agrees there. So show us how mandatory filtering prevents real harms, rather than simply sating moral panic. Until that case is made I see no point in looking at the harms filtering causes and looking to weigh the balence.

4118 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2869

Trusted

  # 1769186 23-Apr-2017 12:27
Send private message

PaulBags:
Talkiet:

 

Rikkitic:

 

 

 

There is a lot to go through here and I will take the time to do it, but my first reaction is that you (or anyone else) have no business deciding what is appropriate content for me to access. I deeply resent the suggestion that you think you do. In this society there are adults, children and the mentally disabled. The latter two are special categories deemed in need of protection. Adults are assumed to be capable of making adult choices. I do not like you implying that I am a child or mentally disabled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about someone implying that _ILLEGAL_ material should be able to be blocked? Is that ok?

 

 

 

Cheers - N

 


What illegal material? If material is illegal it's because of the harms creating it causes, in which case it'll still happen if it's filtered and no harm is prevented.

I agree with law enforcement on the internet, but that's not what filtering is.

And what harm is caused by a filter? Lose of transparency and public trust. The blacklist becomes a shopping list for criminals. Illegal activity is driven further underground where it's harder to police.


TBH I'm still not seeing any coherent case for mandatory filtering, just lot's of "don't like bad stuff". Well, for the most part the anti-filtering side agrees there. So show us how mandatory filtering prevents real harms, rather than simply sating moral panic. Until that case is made I see no point in looking at the harms filtering causes and looking to weigh the balence.

 

No, because there are decent arguments both sides. I happen to think it's _reasonable_ to block some material and you don't. A bit like some parts of society agree with certain laws and some don't

 

Cheer s- N

 

 





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


Fat bottom Trump
10207 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5029

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1769187 23-Apr-2017 12:29
Send private message

 Agree completely with the above. @Talkiet: How does filtering help anything? Those 'illegal materials' have already been created. And again, for the umpteenth time, filtering doesn't work. It has no effect whatsoever on the sites where most illegal material exists.

 

Edit: another post slipped in-between. I mean I agree with the post before Talkiet.





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


4118 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2869

Trusted

  # 1769189 23-Apr-2017 12:33
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

 Agree completely with the above. @Talkiet: How does filtering help anything? Those 'illegal materials' have already been created. And again, for the umpteenth time, filtering doesn't work. It has no effect whatsoever on the sites where most illegal material exists.

 

 

Sorry, I'm not going to continue this discussion - you're presenting factually inaccurate statements there. "no effect whatsoever"? Wrong. For YOU perhaps true, across a large userbase, WRONG.

 

I'm out sorry, while this currently has nothing to do with my day job, it might get there and for that reason alone I'm being careful about what I say. Nothing I have said on this topic represents any company policy that I know of. (If it does, it's co-incidence).

 

Cheers - N





--

 

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Dunedin selects Telensa to deliver smart street lighting for 15,000 LEDs
Posted 18-Jul-2019 10:21


Sprint announces a connected wallet card with built-in IoT support
Posted 18-Jul-2019 08:36


Educational tool developed at Otago makes international launch
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:57


Symantec introduces cloud access security solution
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:48


New Zealand government unveils new digital service to make business easier
Posted 16-Jul-2019 17:35


Scientists unveil image of quantum entanglement
Posted 13-Jul-2019 06:00


Hackers to be challenged at University of Waikato
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:34


OPPO Reno Z now available in New Zealand
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:28


Sony introduces WF-1000XM3 wireless headphones with noise cancellation
Posted 8-Jul-2019 16:56


Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35


Air New Zealand uses drones to inspect aircraft
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:39


TCL Electronics launches its first-ever 8K TV
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:18



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.