Concerning, but the devil is in the detail.

Takedown notices, attempts to hold content hosts liable for content and filtering are all very, very bad things, and I certainly don't trust that they would "only be used in situations where other options for seeking removal of objectionable content would be ineffective".

The Films Video and Publications Classification Act already uses vague definitions that are open to abuse. We've seen that with Wicked Campers. It's a slippery slope.

It does need to be worded correctly. For example, when does a terrorist attack "end"? If someone were to blow up a building, could a reputable news organisation show police/firefighters entering, or would the whole event be part of the attack?

Hopefully there would be a measure of common sense around this. Although it may be a bit moot; if an attack occurs in another country then the vast majority of the streamers will be overseas and not subject to NZ law anyway.

Come to think of it, even bits of the Christchurch attack livestream were shown on the TV news!

What is the intention here?

Tto punish NZers for sharing links, or to punish tech companies for providing them... with regard to the second point, I'm pretty sure NZ's actual jurisdiction is significantly limited,

Or, Is this an admission that the Christchurch call were all the tech companies sat down and sang kum-ba-ya with governments is a failure,??

Expanding DCEFS. is a pretty huge step but DCEFS is a voluntary sign up for ISPs, are they planning on making it compulsory?

Madness.

We need the opposite.. ISP's need to be legally required to be completely content neutral and not block access to anything. 

I wonder if this is a bit like Youtubes take down notice thing. Where if someone has bad content, that if youtube get a take down complaint they can take it down. Although don't they have some form of appeal?

Lias:

 

Madness.

 

We need the opposite.. ISP's need to be legally required to be completely content neutral and not block access to anything. 

 

Who should be responsible for that? Or should we revoke all censorship and objectionable material laws for all types of media?

Cheers - N

Talkiet:

 

Lias:

 

Madness.

 

We need the opposite.. ISP's need to be legally required to be completely content neutral and not block access to anything. 

 

 

Who should be responsible for that? Or should we revoke all censorship and objectionable material laws for all types of media?

 

Cheers - N

 

 

 

isn't that what we have top notch companies like cloudflare to protect us from such content?

Talkiet:

 

Lias:

 

Madness.

 

We need the opposite.. ISP's need to be legally required to be completely content neutral and not block access to anything. 

 

 

Who should be responsible for that? Or should we revoke all censorship and objectionable material laws for all types of media?

 

Cheers - N

 

If people use their ISP connection to break the law, I'd consider the police to be the appropriate authority to deal with it. I certainly do not consider it the ISP's job to police what people do with their connections. Or even to log, monitor or otherwise pay any attention to it.

I consider that an ISP's job is to provide it's customers a secure, reliable, and private connection to the internet at large. Not to be the content police, or the moral police, or any other sort of police.