Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

New Zealand Introduces Internet Filtering 215

Posted by timothy
from the watch-out-it's-catchy dept.
Thomas Beagle writes "The New Zealand government has been stealthily introducing a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system. Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users, ISPs representing over 94% of the market are already intending to join. Read the general FAQ and technical FAQ about the proposed Netclean Whitebox implementation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Zealand Introduces Internet Filtering

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @08:54AM (#28690353)

    Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.

  • by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:02AM (#28690471) Journal

    Why normal people support laws like this.

    They hear the word child pornography. Then they stop thinking. And if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.

  • by mc1138 (718275) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:05AM (#28690505) Homepage
    As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:07AM (#28690535)

    Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent, leads to another Great Firewall of China. So while I'm all for having child porn off of my internet, I don't particularly like how it could snowball.

  • It's inevitable. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OpenGLFan (56206) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:10AM (#28690567) Homepage

    Post-Iran, governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.
    ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules (whether that makes sense or not) and kick them off the network.
    Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand. (TV, radio, print.)

    Governments, ISPs, and businesses support it. Nobody important opposes it. (You are not important.) Why are we surprised that it is happening?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:12AM (#28690587)

    Sorry, but that's rubbish. The filter cannot stop https to undesired sites, neither can it cope with proxies. So all in all, it's utterly pointless to have to try and stop nefarious activities to all but the casual browser. The ISPs will know this, and should simply point it out. As ever, follow the money, this has nothing to do with kiddy pr0n.

  • by u38cg (607297) <calum@callingthetune.co.uk> on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:23AM (#28690739) Homepage
    Tough shit. No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend.
  • Re:Oh god :( (Score:1, Insightful)

    by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:28AM (#28690805) Homepage Journal

    Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

  • Re:Oh god :( (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DoubleUP (468055) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:33AM (#28690873)

    Nothing the NSA and CIA feel like telling you, anyway..

  • Re:Good to hear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macbeth66 (204889) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:46AM (#28691079)

    How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

    That would involve time, money and intelligence. Something that governments, by definition, are always in short supply of. Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route. They will do what looks good now, even if they know it will be a failure later. Hopefully during the next administration.

  • Re:Good to hear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QCompson (675963) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @09:56AM (#28691193)

    How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

    But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.

    Think about it. You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it, and that's one arrest. But if you bust all the people who download, trade, or look at those photos, you can potentially makes thousands of arrests! That's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident. Best of all, you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future. It's the gift that keeps on giving!

    No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.

  • Re:Good to hear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scubamage (727538) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:14AM (#28691417)
    Likewise, if MADD, PETA, and anti-smoking groups actually achieved their goals, they would be destitute, along with all of their employees. They'd also have nothing to use as propaganda. Maybe that's why PETA only actually adopted out 16 animals out of its "no kill" slaughter houses last year. They depend on the very thing they claim to want to stop. If that thing stops, no one will fund them. However, if the thing they're 'fighting against' is promoted and increased, so is their funding. Funny how that all works.
  • by PontifexPrimus (576159) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:19AM (#28691473)
    The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
    - H. L. Mencken
  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @10:40AM (#28691805)

    That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

    It's not just that it shuts down the rational part of their brain, but they wind up expecting someone *else* to do the protecting. Because, you know, being a parent yourself is too tough.

    I happen to be a father to two little boys (age 5 and 2) and I'll agree that being a parent is tough work. It's not all hugs and smiles with kids. There are temper tantrums. They *WILL* test boundaries to see how far they can go. Repeatedly. They *will* try to get away with things they shouldn't be doing. Keeping up with what is happening and keeping your kids in line (e.g. "No yelling in the store") and safe (e.g. "No running away from Mommy and Daddy in the parking lot") isn't always easy. Too many parents just let their kids run rampant because they don't want to exert the effort to set and enforce boundaries. Many people seem to want someone else to do the work for them. So they whine for the government to step in and "child proof" life. The problem is, you can't child proof life. Life has a lot of sharp edges to it. The trick is to teach your child to avoid the sharp edges *and* what to do if they accidentally hit upon one of them. That takes work and effort that too many parents just seem to not want to invest.

  • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @11:31AM (#28692527)

    Here's the thing.
    The kind of people who push for this crap genuinely believe that child porn is a big issue, that it's worth losing all those nice freedoms we have to get rid of it (or at least try as you might as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do) and that anyone who objects is some kind of pervert who is afraid of losing their child porn.

    There are people who genuinely believe that a police state is a good thing because "only criminals have anything to fear from a police state"

    There are people who genuinely believe that censorship is a good thing because they certainly don't want to be seeing... well just about anything since these are the kinds of nutters who write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

  • by nightfire-unique (253895) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @01:23PM (#28694171)

    It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.

    Let's assume the filter does its job (which most of us agree is unlikely). Has anyone considered that reducing access to child porn may actually increase the incidence of child rape?

    Maybe the sex drive works differently in these people, but if it doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume there is a significant risk associated with removing their "outlet?"

  • by slashbart (316113) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @02:12PM (#28694771) Homepage
    Define "quality of life"

    For me 5 weeks (or more) of paid vacation per year is better than 2. Or having more than 2 weeks warning before you are fired also counts as something. Or having a minimum wage that you can actually live on, or not having gun-ridden ghettos in every large city.

    I like the quality of life in the Netherlands way better than that in the US, and I've spent about a year of my life in the US.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday July 14, 2009 @03:39PM (#28695873) Journal

    I'm not an American, so I doubt very much my approval or disapproval of the Second Amendment means all that much. I will say that, at the end of the day, the State (whatever state you're living under, unless it's a failed state) has a far larger number of very lethal firearms and advanced weaponry than you'll ever manage to accumulate. So while you may have some false sense of security about building your private army in Oregon, the United States government has at its disposal weapons capable of turning countries into radioactive wastelands, so you're right to bear arms shouldn't make you feel all that secure.

    The 2nd Amendment was written when a reasonably equipped militia with some decent leadership could take on an army of the time. That hasn't reasonably applied since the Civil War. The best you can hope for if the government is really out to get you is a tragedy like Waco, and I don't really consider taking a bunch of children with you a reasonable example of holding the torch of freedom high.

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...