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
10373 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1770650 26-Apr-2017 14:12
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Filtering is part of the arsenal

 

 

No it is not. The cure is worse than the disease. Can't you get that?

 

 





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


14031 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1770668 26-Apr-2017 14:18
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Filtering is part of the arsenal

 

 

No it is not. The cure is worse than the disease. Can't you get that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I call it a cure ? no.  Do you not understand "part of" ?





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


634 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1770687 26-Apr-2017 14:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

From a parents point of view:

 

The problem is you can't filter everything. Secure or chat/messengers? These would be the most dangerous for kids. I have a 12 year old, and am very aware of what she can read or look at online.

 

Filtering it though? Well it's not illegal to offend someone swearing in a public place unless it's defamation.

 

I don't think filtering should be mandatory. There are options already with one ISP for filtering for kids Internet connections etc...

 

It's up to parents to teach kids how to be safe on the Internet, explain the dangers and reasoning behind choosing what to take in. I can place time limits on Internet access and don't believe in giving her 3/4G data to do what she wants with in the middle of the night or away from school Wi-Fi or time limited Wi-Fi at home and coverage only in public places.

 

That still doesn't stop what kids talk about or look at (we didn't have Internet when I was at school and that never stopped us) but what we teach them is the only strategy we've got. No filter would be perfect, and I wouldn't like it to be made illegal to not filter our speech so I'm against it.

 

I can't help but think how much money this would cost for a system that would be far from perfect and doesn't fix peoples psychological issues or learning/reasoning. Nothing makes up for safe education. Then when we are adults, we'll we're sopose to be old enough to reason what is illegal or not and understand the consequences of what we do with our time.

 

 edit: As already mentioned, the law is the law. Anything illegal offline is also illegal online. Censorship is not always better for the greater good. Pretending to ignore what kids should never be confronted with by just chucking a filter in front of it, only hides the problem and could be used as an excuse to less educate kids on Internet safety and reasoning.


Fat bottom Trump
10373 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1770694 26-Apr-2017 14:34
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Did I call it a cure ? no.  Do you not understand "part of" ?

 

 

There is no part of. And my use of the term is a standard English expression, as in, the cost of doing this is greater than the benefit derived from it. If you take the trouble to read the rest of this thread, instead of just elbowing in with your knee-jerk reactionary responses, you would see the multiple reasons why filtering does not and cannot achieve what you seem to think it would, and why mass government filtering/censorship/surveillance is a truly bad idea, especially since the people entrusted with enforcing it are likely to suffer from the same kind of blinkered thinking you do.

 

 

 

 





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


14031 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1770700 26-Apr-2017 14:41
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Did I call it a cure ? no.  Do you not understand "part of" ?

 

 

There is no part of. And my use of the term is a standard English expression, as in, the cost of doing this is greater than the benefit derived from it. If you take the trouble to read the rest of this thread, instead of just elbowing in with your knee-jerk reactionary responses, you would see the multiple reasons why filtering does not and cannot achieve what you seem to think it would, and why mass government filtering/censorship/surveillance is a truly bad idea, especially since the people entrusted with enforcing it are likely to suffer from the same kind of blinkered thinking you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"elbowing in with a knee jerk"  cut it out. If you look back a few pages I wrote "........Your reply is food for thought." I have given this thought from then and referred back to my experience, that is why I sated that it is PART or the arsenal. So kindly keep your ad hominems to yourself.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

 

 


927 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1770702 26-Apr-2017 14:44
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Filtering is part of the arsenal

 

 

No it is not. The cure is worse than the disease. Can't you get that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I call it a cure ? no.  Do you not understand "part of" ?

 

 

 

 

Well as "part of" crime stopping we could

 

Have everyone wear a GPS transponder 24/7, it will make crime solving much quicker, just think how much safer we will all be.

 

Have all cars fitted with a GPS transponder so the cops know who is speeding and auto send out fines.


927 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1770714 26-Apr-2017 14:56
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

 

Filtering is part of the arsenal

 

 

No it is not. The cure is worse than the disease. Can't you get that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I call it a cure ? no.  Do you not understand "part of" ?

 

 

Piratebay.org, that domain has been whack-a-mole for over a decade and more and has failed at every step.

 

Here is the most effective filter, having the kids computer in the lounge where the adults can see what they are doing.

 

Its cheap (costs $0) and its probably the most effective tool out there.

 

 


1957 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1770720 26-Apr-2017 15:11
Send private message

There is clearly a wide gulf between those of us who are OK with some forms of filtering or censorship and those who of us are arguing against any.

 

We can agree on some things, like it is better "having the kids computer in the lounge where the adults can see what they are doing." But we're just not going to agree on the overall parameter that limits solutions to "no filtering or censorship".


Fat bottom Trump
10373 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1770722 26-Apr-2017 15:12
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

"elbowing in with a knee jerk"  cut it out. If you look back a few pages I wrote "........Your reply is food for thought." I have given this thought from then and referred back to my experience, that is why I sated that it is PART or the arsenal. So kindly keep your ad hominems to yourself.

 

 

Since you approve of food for thought, here is some food for thought from the DIA filtering website (which hasn't been updated in years, by the way, so I guess Peter Useless doesn't consider it too much of a priority, or probably he has just forgot about it):

 

"The Department considers it important that the public has realistic expectations of the system and does not develop a false sense of security.

 

"We have worked for a number of years on educative material and strongly support the Netsafe message that parental supervision is the most effective mechanism to ensure that children have a safe Internet experience.

 

"Opponents of the filter say there is a low incidence of accidental viewing of child abuse material and as such it is not a major source of harm.

 

"The Code of Practice states that, of the potential threats that a child might be exposed to through the Internet, inadvertent exposure to child sexual abuse images is very small."

 

 

 

Yup. You read  it here. "Inadvertent exposure to child sexual abuse images is very small." Even the DIA thinks so. Emphasis above is mine, of course.

 

The FAQ goes on to state that viewing child abuse images can be a pathway to becoming a potential offender and making it harder to see such images can reduce the market for them, but this is presented as mere opinion, with no citations or other evidence to back it up. The FAQ does cite Internet NZ as saying the best option is educating people about desktop and hosted filters and making them available. In other words, it should be a matter of individual parental responsibility. Read it for yourself

 

 





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


UHD

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  # 1770742 26-Apr-2017 15:58
Send private message

shanehobson:

 

In the interests of a lively debate, I'd like to propose that there is a strong case for Government mandated internet filtering.

 

I'm expecting to debate this topic in a public forum later this year and want to hear from people with opposing points of view (advocates of a unfiltered internet) to see how well my argument stands up to public scrutiny. 

 

We accept Govt mandated controls in many aspects of life which infringe on our personal freedom for the greater good of society or for our own protection.

 

Examples include; gun control, speed limits, WOF, seat belts, motorcycle helmets.

 

Imagine a society where anyone can obtain a handgun by walking into a gun store, complete some cursory checks and walk out with a loaded, lethal weapon. We don’t need to imagine that society, it exists today in the USA where there were about 9000 gun deaths in 2014*. If we applied that same death rate to NZ, nearly 500 people per year would die as a result of being shot. Instead, our actual gun death rate is around 40 per year. Even if we accept that societal differences account for a large portion of this variation it seems obvious to me that a hundred people every year in NZ owe their lives to our Government regulating the sale & possession of firearms in NZ.

 

If we accept that Government regulation that trades some of our freedom for a greater community good why shouldn’t we accept that in a digital world ?

 

 

 

Disclosure: I'm paid to sell filtering solutions to ISPs. But these opinions expressed here are not those of that company and in some case are not even my own opinions. These points of view are put forward to encourage a healthy debate.

 

 

You make an interesting case for internet filtering. As with most discussions the devil is in the details and your posts are very light in that regard; arguably necessarily so since you're trying to market a solution that might like to keep its capabilities unannounced. I'll try to keep my response light too.

 

In general, the limitations we accept on our freedom are accepted because they do more good than harm. Try and think of a law we have on our books that offers more harm than good to our society. This is the case for each one of your examples. The administrative behemoth that is the WoF and vehicle registration system is - despite itself - a better option than willy-nilly allowing all vehicles to operate on our roads and the downstream negative effects that would result in.

 

It is demonstrably false that a system designed to filter information at a governmental level does more good than harm. This is quite a massive discussion topic but simply consultation of history will reveal that every attempt at filtering (including newfangled technological versions) are woefully inept at doing their job and give rise to ugly concepts like censorship, thought police, and most importantly: do not achieve what they were designed to.

 

Information filtering, therefore, does more harm than good for a civilised society and as such there is little to no case for a government to attempt to filter information or require institutions to do so on their behalf.

 

 

 

The above is the entirety of my response, if you'd like more detail then you'll have to provide more detail on what sort of a system you envision and what it would aim to achieve.

 

 


2627 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1770757 26-Apr-2017 16:22
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

Filtering is part of the arsenal

 

 

Sorry, I disagree. It isn't.

 

For the reasons discussed above it is likely to be largely ineffective, with a lot of collateral damage, and potentially set the scene for an erosion of the freedom of information. It will also provide parents with a false sense of security, meaning so,me won't do what they need to because the "gummint" is taking care of it for them.

 

If you think it is a legitimate tool, then pray tell us your thoughts on:

 

- who is currently being "harmed" and how, that would be prevented by a filter (bearing in mind child porn is already illegal and blocked by DIA)

 

- what sort of things you think should be blocked (eg, Playboy.com, discussion fora for psychologically vulnerable gay teens, discussion sites related to suicide, legitimate research on suicide, information on where to get an abortion, US news stories that mention a name suppressed by the courts here, sites on chemistry (including youtube which has how-to videos on gunpowder making), adult themed books, religious sites (if so which ones - ISIL, the Vatican, the Zoroastrians), music torrent sites, US Netflix, breast cancer sites.....). Because I assure you McCoskrie et al will lobby for most or all of these.

 

- who decides what will be blocked, and what I'm allowed to know about?. Bearing in mind the amount of material is *enormous* and these sites won't be paying classification fees. A selection of local "worthies"? McCoskrie after taking advice from above? The vicars wife? A random selection of ex-MPs?

 

- whether adults will be able to request an unfiltered account

 

- how you will prevent people bypassing it

 

- how you will prevent scope creep.

 

Bear in mind partial success is pretty much pointless. All it takes is one child to find and copy daddy's picture stash to a USB stick and it will be all around the playground. Heck, the first girly magazines I ever saw in was in primary school (aged about 8) when the vicars daughter found and brought some of daddy's stash to school.

 

Far from being part of the solution this is a flawed, toxic and anti-freedom pipe dream. As a solution it's like the apocryphal quote from the Vietnam War: "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it". I don't want to live in a country where a bunch of faceless civil servants and superannuated MPs decide what I am and am not allowed to know about.


927 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 1770758 26-Apr-2017 16:23
5 people support this post
Send private message

UHD:

 

shanehobson:

 

In the interests of a lively debate, I'd like to propose that there is a strong case for Government mandated internet filtering.

 

I'm expecting to debate this topic in a public forum later this year and want to hear from people with opposing points of view (advocates of a unfiltered internet) to see how well my argument stands up to public scrutiny. 

 

We accept Govt mandated controls in many aspects of life which infringe on our personal freedom for the greater good of society or for our own protection.

 

Examples include; gun control, speed limits, WOF, seat belts, motorcycle helmets.

 

Imagine a society where anyone can obtain a handgun by walking into a gun store, complete some cursory checks and walk out with a loaded, lethal weapon. We don’t need to imagine that society, it exists today in the USA where there were about 9000 gun deaths in 2014*. If we applied that same death rate to NZ, nearly 500 people per year would die as a result of being shot. Instead, our actual gun death rate is around 40 per year. Even if we accept that societal differences account for a large portion of this variation it seems obvious to me that a hundred people every year in NZ owe their lives to our Government regulating the sale & possession of firearms in NZ.

 

If we accept that Government regulation that trades some of our freedom for a greater community good why shouldn’t we accept that in a digital world ?

 

 

 

Disclosure: I'm paid to sell filtering solutions to ISPs. But these opinions expressed here are not those of that company and in some case are not even my own opinions. These points of view are put forward to encourage a healthy debate.

 

 

You make an interesting case for internet filtering. As with most discussions the devil is in the details and your posts are very light in that regard; arguably necessarily so since you're trying to market a solution that might like to keep its capabilities unannounced. I'll try to keep my response light too.

 

In general, the limitations we accept on our freedom are accepted because they do more good than harm. Try and think of a law we have on our books that offers more harm than good to our society. This is the case for each one of your examples. The administrative behemoth that is the WoF and vehicle registration system is - despite itself - a better option than willy-nilly allowing all vehicles to operate on our roads and the downstream negative effects that would result in.

 

It is demonstrably false that a system designed to filter information at a governmental level does more good than harm. This is quite a massive discussion topic but simply consultation of history will reveal that every attempt at filtering (including newfangled technological versions) are woefully inept at doing their job and give rise to ugly concepts like censorship, thought police, and most importantly: do not achieve what they were designed to.

 

Information filtering, therefore, does more harm than good for a civilised society and as such there is little to no case for a government to attempt to filter information or require institutions to do so on their behalf.

 

 

 

The above is the entirety of my response, if you'd like more detail then you'll have to provide more detail on what sort of a system you envision and what it would aim to achieve.

 

 

 

 

The only people who benefit from filtering are the ones who make money from it.

 

Black-lists fail because thousands of new throw away domains are created each day, and existing domains get hacked and misused.

 

White-lists fail because thousands of new domains are created each day, and existing domains get hacked and misused.

 

Then we get into liability, who is responsible if a legitimate business gets black listed because of a typo ? Ask business owners whose listing have been missed in phone directories what happens.

 

Filtering has zero to do with keeping anyone safe, its all about someone making money.


2627 posts

Uber Geek


  # 1770917 26-Apr-2017 21:19
6 people support this post
Send private message

sir1963:

 

Filtering has zero to do with keeping anyone safe, its all about someone making money.

 

 

And about getting opportunistic politicians reelected.

 

One of the oldest tricks in the book - convince the enough of the general public that there is a terrible and scary boogyman out there, they (or even better their children) are in mortal peril, and that you have a solution that will protect them. It doesn't matter that the solution won't work when implemented, by then it has done its job in the hustings.

 

 


3803 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 1771130 27-Apr-2017 10:38
Send private message

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. 

 

 

Disagree.

 

You are confusing child sexual abuse and child pornography. Child sexual abuse most certainly does cause profound and lifelong damage, to the point I personally think it should carry a harsher sentence than murder. If that abuse is recorded and distributed, then it could certainly aggravate that damage. However, if a 16 year old girl sends a picture of herself naked to her boyfriend, legally it's child porn in most jurisdictions, but is not going to cause profound and lifelong damage. Same goes for cartoons or artwork of naked children, assuming the artist isn't actually a child abuser.





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.




68 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

  # 1771137 27-Apr-2017 10:47
Send private message

UHD:

 

 

 

You make an interesting case for internet filtering. As with most discussions the devil is in the details and your posts are very light in that regard; arguably necessarily so since you're trying to market a solution that might like to keep its capabilities unannounced. I'll try to keep my response light too.

 

 

 

 

My comments are deliberately light in detail with regard to filter capability because I was interested in a broader discussion about the positive and negative aspects of mandatory filtering. As soon as we start discussing technical characteristics of specific filter systems then it we deviate from the wider discussion. 


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 »

Disney+ streaming service confirmed launch in New Zealand
Posted 20-Aug-2019 09:29


Industry plan could create a billion dollar interactive games sector
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:41


Personal cyber insurance a New Zealand first
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:26


University of Waikato launches space for esports
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:20


D-Link ANZ expands mydlink ecosystem with new mydlink Mini Wi-Fi Smart Plug
Posted 19-Aug-2019 20:14


Kiwi workers still falling victim to old cyber tricks
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:47


Lightning Lab GovTech launches 2019 programme
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:41


Epson launches portable laser projector
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:27


Huawei launches new distributed HarmonyOS
Posted 12-Aug-2019 20:20


Lenovo introduces single-socket servers for edge and data-intensive workloads
Posted 9-Aug-2019 21:26


The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 6.3
Posted 9-Aug-2019 16:57


Symantec sell enterprise security assets for US$ 10.7 billion to Broadcom
Posted 9-Aug-2019 16:43


Artificial tongue can distinguish whisky and identify counterfeits
Posted 8-Aug-2019 20:20


Toyota and Preferred Networks to develop service robots
Posted 8-Aug-2019 20:11


Vodafone introduces new Vodafone TV device
Posted 7-Aug-2019 17:16



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.