Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet

A Sad Day For the New Zealand Internet 221

Posted by timothy
from the if-you-can't-read-this-you-know-why dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Another one bites the dust, as New Zealand's Internet filter stealthily goes live with two smaller ISPs, and three of the largest already rumoured to have signed up to do the same. However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,' so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?" Clever of one of the acquiescing ISPs to have named itself "Watchdog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Sad Day For the New Zealand Internet

Comments Filter:
  • Um why (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SolidAltar (1268608) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:38AM (#31449430)

    Why would an ISP implement a filter voluntarily?
    Unless this is a filter designed to reduce bandwidth use (Torrents, P2P) I truly don't understand the logic here.

    I did RFTA.

    • Re:Um why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:48AM (#31449470)

      It's called politics, mutual backrubs, one hand washes the other and so on; probably somewhat of a longterm investment that pays back in the form of favours and goodwill from the government.

      Politics and business are about benefiting on the back of the least powerful party, i.e. citizens/customers. Communication companies help the government with their surveillance. In turn, governments keep new regulations and consumer protection laws to a minimum or erode existing ones.

    • Re:Um why (Score:4, Informative)

      by MrMista_B (891430) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:56AM (#31449504)

      It's not voluntary.

      If they don't their government will intervene.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SolidAltar (1268608)

        I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you source this? It's not in the article.

        • Re:Um why (Score:4, Informative)

          by Sparx139 (1460489) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:43AM (#31449676)

          I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you source this? It's not in the article.

          I'm going to go ahead and say he's wrong. Pulled from this page, it was linked to in another comment [techliberty.org.nz]:

          The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.

          I'm hoping that this causes non-cooperating ISPs to start advertising the fact to attract customers. That, and that this falls flat on it's face and injects some sense into the Australian filter plan.

          • Re:Um why (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @06:04AM (#31449764)

            "voluntary" in politics is doublespeak.

            It's doesn't mean: do whatever you feel like, there will be no consequences one way or another.

            It means:
            For now we leave you a choice but you better pick the right one or we'll just pass a law that will be even worse for you. By the way, nice tax-free service you're offering there, would be a shame if something happened to it.

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              "voluntary" in politics is doublespeak.

              EVERYTHING in politics is doublespeak. As the old joke goes -- How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips move.

              Lately business seems to be following the same rulebook. Ny phone provider Boost, for instance, offers me "unlimited" voice, data, email, text, voicemail, and internet for fifty bucks a month, but if you look at the terms on their website you'll see they can shut you down if you use "an unreasonable" amount. Like a politician, saying "unlimited" doe

          • Yeah, good advertising campaign. Try fitting "Use us instead of our competitors, because they attempt to filter child porn and we don't! No, really, we don't want you using it for child porn, we just think that automated filtering is a technically unsolvable problem, and prone to corruption, so it's better to not have them in order to prevent legitimate sites from getting blocked." into a slogan.

            • Actually, it could be. "We give you the whole Internet. Some of our competitors limit where you can go on the Interent because they think you can't be trusted not to go to 'bad' sites (where a 'bad' site is any site the government says is bad). We think you can be trusted to know what is best for you."
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @06:52AM (#31449900)

        That's basically the same ploy that was used here in Finland to get ISPs to censor certain (claimed to be) child porn domains. If the ISPs wouldn't do it "voluntarily", then it was understood that government would step in and make it mandatory. Interestingly, after a couple of years, some ISPs have turned off the censoring by default and allow people to explicitly order the censorship "service". Basically it felt like it was all about making politicians look good at that moment, nobody really cared about if it worked or not.

    • Re:Um why (Score:5, Informative)

      by alanw (1822) <alan@wylie.me.uk> on Friday March 12, 2010 @06:03AM (#31449758) Homepage

      In the UK it was recently reported that the government will not buy services from any ISP that does not implement the IWF blacklist.

      http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article7055882.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

      And in the USA, the Minnesota Senate is considering a proposal to prevent state employees staying in hotels that offers "violent" pornography.

      http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=843624 [kare11.com]

      • Re:Um why (Score:4, Insightful)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday March 12, 2010 @08:52AM (#31450452)
        Surely, for Minnesota at least, that is an issue for the electorate to decide?

        I'm sure they would much prefer that all state employees should not be brutal knife-wielding homicidal maniacs, as opposed to just prevented from ever entering the Kitchenware department of a local store.

        Once again, the regulation has gone the wrong way. Regulate the officials, not the environment they live in.
  • Two words (Score:3, Informative)

    by presidenteloco (659168) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:42AM (#31449436)

    Encryption

    Proxies

    • Re:Two words (Score:4, Informative)

      by zwei2stein (782480) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:57AM (#31449512) Homepage

      Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

      IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

      ---

      Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

      • Re:Two words (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AuMatar (183847) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:05AM (#31449536)

        So drop all e-commerce and anything that requires a password, including half the forums on the internet? Yeah, that won't have any blow back.

      • Re:Two words (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gilgongo (57446) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:26AM (#31449608) Homepage Journal

        Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

        IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

        ---

        Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

        That's probably true, but I wonder how far things will go? For example, where I live, there are already kids setting up local wireless mesh networks to share their music collections and other stuff around. Sure, these are small and operated by pizza-munching geeks, but if the idea gained general traction and the Internet as we know it simply became something similar to cable TV today (plus perhaps a comms network similar to email), would not the people be able to steal the Internet revolution back? I'm also interested in whether this might mean a return in some form at least to the ancient (and perhaps default) mode of human life: that of small, tightly-knit communities.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          where I live, there are already kids setting up local wireless mesh networks to share their music collections and other stuff around.

          One of the few good things about censorship, it does lead to more technically and politically literate kiddies.

        • Sure, but try doing that over the ocean.

          That would limit the Internet to islands. Sure, you would have plenty of people to share with in a large city, but what about isolated places? Country-to-country connections? It would kill the Internet as we know it, unless someone would came with something better than "mesh networks".

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Krneki (1192201)

        Dropping connections that want to hanshake encryptions / look encrypted.

        IP-bans of proxies; general useleness of open proxies; ease of proxy detections.

        ---

        Do not solve social problem with technical means, it will never work (see: drm).

        If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.

        And there are also VPN connections.

        • by trapnest (1608791)
          That's not true. SSH and HTTPS look different.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by t0p (1154575)

          If you allow HTTPS site you can't block SSH tunneling.

          They don't need to block every https site. They block a list of named sites, and that list grows over time. The police add pedo sites to the list. Other agencies add other sites that they deem "inappropriate". The IWF maintain such a list and governments say it's good because it's targeting child porn sites. But there are also lists maintained by various governments, and they often filter for political sites too. It's impossible to run properly effective filtering by algorithm. So there will be lists

          • They don't need to block every https site.

            They do if they just block all encrypted traffic (which has nothing to do with blacklisting URLs), which is where this thread originated.

        • Someone is modding everyone who supports going around this filtering using encryption and/or proxies as a troll.

          That is very political use of modding. There is no: -1 Disagree so they are using -1 Troll for the same purpose.

          Suspicious. I wonder if there are organized interests trying to keep slashdot discussions on the "right" track
          these days. And yes, I'm seriously wondering that, and not saying it in order to promote an angry reaction.

      • Encrypted traffic :
        All VPN's
        All Secure transactions

        Proxies, which are almost universally used by businesses as a security measure

        Well that's all business off the internet - do you want an economy?

        P2P Traffic - Well that's BBC iPlayer and similar streaming services, many game updates etc ...

        Almost everything that has been used for nefarious or illegal purposes was originally developed and is still widely used for legitimate reasons ...

        While you are at it you had better stop people using envelopes in the mail

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      Jail.

      Suprise butt sex.

  • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:44AM (#31449456)

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'

    You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed [ustr.gov] to forcing the world [iipa.com] to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA [iipa.com]) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SolidAltar (1268608)

      Crap, it's too bad the International Intellectual Property Alliance is against stealing website templates. It's like 1997 all over again.

  • by microbee (682094) on Friday March 12, 2010 @04:52AM (#31449484)

    Google can quit!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      That would be a crippling blow to NZ, indeed. I hear that Google has the most comprehensive sheep index! ~

  • NZ Filtering FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

    by BeagleBoi (87688) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:03AM (#31449534) Homepage

    If you want to know more about it, check the NZ Internet Filtering FAQ at: http://techliberty.org.nz/issues/internet-filtering/filtering-faq/ [techliberty.org.nz]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bmo (77928)

      "The DIA say that the filter will not be used for law enforcement."

      AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH H AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH

      *breathe* AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAH

        HAHAAHAHAH *wipes eyes*

      The entire justification for the filter is CP with a side order of bestiality.

      And it won't be used for prosecution. That's rich.

      *Snort*

      --
      BMO

      • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:53AM (#31449714)

        This, to me, is the strangest thing about these filtering/censorship proposals. On the one hand, it's claimed that only really, really illegal stuff will be blocked by it -- the worst of the worst that pretty much guarantees a prison sentence merely for possessing, and that the lists will be accurate and won't block legitimate content. On the other, people who are detected trying to access this stuff won't be charged or even investigated?

        It seems very strange. Obviously there's simple explanations for this lack of coherency, but the self-contradictory nature of the proposals is so much more transparent than usual in politics.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Nerdfest (867930)
          It's fairly simple. They're lying.
        • by vadim_t (324782)

          Well, if having child porn is a crime of posession it'd be weird to get charged for failing to find a way to obtain some. It'd be like locking somebody up for having expressed at some point the desire to get some heroin, but failing to find a dealer.

          • by Sasayaki (1096761)

            That's not weird at all. In most countries I know of, conspiracy to commit murder or attempted murder carries much the same penalty as murder, by and large (parole conditions etc not withstanding).

            What IS weird is that pictures of murders (and movies with with murders in them) are so very, very common- played on our household TVs, in our movie theatres and present on almost any media you can find today... but the mainstream view is that this is harmless, just a fantasy, and not harmful to adults even in gra

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bmo (77928)

            it'd be weird to get charged for failing to find a way to obtain some.

            No, actually. There are plenty of ways of being convicted of a crime if you fail to suceed. They call it conspiracy.

            "Vadim has hit the server 50 times this year. We should get a warrant to search his computer for illegal activity that wasn't stopped by the server. Also, we should get a warrant to arrest him for conspiracy to acquire child pornography"

            Or...

            "Vadim has been blocked by the server 50 times this year. Let's look at the log

    • Re:NZ Filtering FAQ (Score:5, Informative)

      by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:50AM (#31449702) Homepage Journal

      Everyone should read this.

      The scheme is currently voluntary for the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as there is no law to force them to use it.
      How does the filtering work?

            1. A list of banned sites and their internet addresses is maintained by the Department of Internal Affairs.
            2. The DIA then use a routing protocol to tell the participating ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that the ‘best’ way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.
            3. When a person tries to access a site (banned or not) on one of the filtered addresses, their ISP knows to divert the request to the DIA’s server.
            4. The DIA’s filtering server then looks at the request. If it is to a banned site, the request is refused and a message is sent back to the person. If it is to a non-banned site, the DIA’s filtering server passes the request on to the real server through the DIA’s internet connection.

      Does the filtering work with HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

      HTTPS (secure HTTP) is used for security on sites that need it for services such as internet banking and online shopping.

      HTTPS requests can’t be examined by the filter server (because they use encryption for the security). This means that all HTTPS traffic to an internet address that has any banned content (possibly for a completely different website) will be passed through the filter.

      Does the internet filter only apply to web browsing or does it apply to other traffic as well?

      All traffic (web, email, P2P, etc) for a filtered internet address will be forwarded to the DIA’s server.

      All non-web Internet traffic will be forwarded through the filter to the destination site.

      What type of material is censored?

      The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, and text articles. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.

      Can other types of material be censored in the future?

      There is no technical reason why the same technology could not be extended to block websites with other types of content.

      Apparently the NetClean software is contractually restricted to only being used to block child pornography.

      So far, so good.

      But these are bad:

      Is it possible to check whether a website is on the filtered list?

      The only way to check whether the website is filtered is by attempting to access it.
      If a website is filtered is it possible to find out why?

      No.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Based on that FAQ, it's time to switch your webserver to HTTPS, they don't block *any* HTTPS traffic, even to 'blocked' addresses.
        So those in the biz of hosting kiddy porn simply need a self signed certificate and the vile scum they call customers will still be able to access them, come to think of it, i can't believe they'd pipe that content over the web unencrypted anyway
      • So perhaps this is a good reason to encourage everyone to convert their web sites to HTTPS only?
      • Maybe the best way to get ISPs to stop being censorship bitches is every time you have connectivity issues, is to call them up and complain your site has probably been caught in the government censorship filter and you can't see any reason why it would be blocked. Here is hoping that enough complaints of false positives will change things. After all how are you to know whether a site is mearly slashdotted or being blocked?

        Sounds like like you guys really need a pirate party to defend your liberties and in

  • by Atreide (16473) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:08AM (#31449550)

    "so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"

    That is probably true.
    Since there is rumor CNN might have proof that Bin Laden has been seen there for vacation.

    People also say he is accompagnied by Sadam Hussein and Joseph Stalin.
    Who are said to have found some oil offshore.

  • Human Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teslar (706653) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:08AM (#31449552)

    Ok, I do have to admit that this is the first time I heard about the filter... but how can they possibly square that with human rights [hrea.org]? Especially this part:

    Article 19
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SolidAltar (1268608)

      Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean people care about freedom. People vote in dictators all the time.

    • Re:Human Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:30AM (#31449624) Journal

      I get that various dictatorships and so on around the globe might not care all that much about human rights, but New Zealand was still a democracy last time I checked?

      Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve. If the people don't pay attention, the government will be corrupt. If the people is willing to put up with human rights abuses, the government will be willing also. If the people are willing to put up with unbalanced budgets and lack of healthcare for some people, the government will be willing to also. See also slavery in America prior to the civil war.

      • Democracies don't give you good government, they give you the government you deserve.

        Democracies don't give you the government you deserve[1], they give you the worst government any 50.1% or more of your fellow citizens can be tricked into voting for.

        [1] As if anyone actually deserved to be ruled by any government. Democracies have advantages and disadvantages relative to other forms of government, but these minor differences pale in comparison to the disadvantages inherent in government itself, of any type. Among other issues, so long as any government exists we will never be free of "legi

    • A democracy is just a dictatorship trough sock puppets. The puppets can change to simulate non-existing free choice.

    • by t0p (1154575)
      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights dates from 1948. I think the authorities would say the internet was not taken into account back then. Anyway, the USA signed up to that as well, and they are probably the greatest violator of human rights in the Northern hemisphere. So I think that old document is rather irrelevant.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:35AM (#31449644)

    "so perhaps the USA will launch an invasion to free the poor downtrodden Kiwis from their own evil government?"

    The USA would be more than happy to overthrow your government for you and install a dictator friendly to our interests. We can also free you from your public health care system and bring in a less efficient private system that will only cost you 2X as much. We will though commit to spending billions to rebuild your country after our war of words. And finally the issue at hand. We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!

    • We promise to bring you the same great internet service that we have in the USA. If you haven't experienced dial up before you're in for a treat!

      NZers will gladly exchange their internet access for yours. Try 50$ with 10G cap.

  • NZ ISP experience (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DigMarx (1487459)

    Having recently moved to NZ, I'm still not used to having a 25 gig/month data cap, but at least my ISP (Slingshot) has taken a stance against the filter. We'll see how long that lasts. Having dealt with numerous account issues (overcharges, undercharges, VoIP issues, you name it) in the two months I've had it, I have a pretty dim view of their professionalism. At least I can reach an actual human being in customer service. They're usually quite polite and helpful (I make it a point to be also). Gotta give t

    • by Cimexus (1355033)

      Wow ... I was going to suggest that you just moved to a higher plan, but I took a look at their website and 25 GB is the highest. Wtf?

      I thought we had it bad here in Australia with data caps, but yours are way worse. For the same $50 as you're paying for 25 GB, plans here are generally in the upwards of 60 GB (TPG will even give you 130 GB for $49.99). Plus even 200 GB plans are still under 100.

      It's weird that Slingshot doesn't have any higher plans (even expensive ones!).

  • A bad precedent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cimexus (1355033) on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:49AM (#31449696)

    Nooo...

    That means there's more chance the proposed filter might come to fruition in Australia. Now the Government can point and say "see, NZ did it!".

    Although it's sorta funny ... I was being berated by a kiwi on this very forum a few weeks ago, who was going on about how crap Australia was and that he couldn't wait to go home to NZ where there was "no chance of an internet filter". Joke's on him now, I guess. At least our 'filter' is still only an (unpopular) proposal, rather than actually implemented. Yet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2010 @05:50AM (#31449704)

    And don't forget us brits [iwf.org.uk] too.

    • I do find our government's attitude to the whole child porn thing somewhat amusing.

      Firstly, the subject gets brought up every time the government wants to win brownie points with the great unwashed - yet the reality of the situation is that kids are far more likely to suffer mental and physical abuse from bullying peers at school rather than the supposed paedophiles that we're told are there on every street corner.

      Secondly, the whole child porn thing could be stopped in its tracks if spineless governments a

      • Don't filter, don't force companies to filter, but go after the ones making the material, by any means nessesary
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "herefore there are lots of credit card transactions going on in the sale of the stuff. Therefore force the credit card companies to police those transactions and stop them happening - if they don't, name and shame them in the public media."

        They do, they are, and this is the police's main weapon in fighting it, the credit card companies are very cooperative ....

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by t0p (1154575)
      Yes, you may be surprised to learn that various ISPs in the UK have been taking part in a voluntary filtering scheme since 1996. The Internet Watch Foundation is a "non-governmental charitable body" that "operates in informal partnership with the police, government, public and Internet service providers" (from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). So there's no legal standing to what it does. What's more, it compiles a black-list of sites whose content the IWF considers is potentially illegal, and ISPs block the sites accordingly
  • Oh, sorry. You said "China".
  • i think this story is referring to where peter jackson is from

    you know, middle earth

  • the target result that will be eventually achieved is censorship and control over what is communicated publicly over the internet.
    And all that is really going on here is the effort to water it down little by little in public semi acceptance and the newbees that simply don't know better.

    Freedom is a simple word to understand.

    And its easy to see this sort of censorship does not support freedom.

    Read the Declaration of Independence if you doubt the intent of the government, any government.

  • by jonwil (467024) on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:05AM (#31450566)

    Not that I support Child Pornography but I have seen many filtering systems over the years and NONE of them (including the one proposed for Australia or the one that seems to be being used in New Zealand) are going to stop someone who wants to find Child Pornography.

    No filtering system that I have seen even attempts to block the kinds of encrypted p2p networks used by many child pornographers.

    The right solution to child porn is to go after the people who are taking these pornographic photographs of kids in the first place and lock them up in a Gulag, Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, Jail, Camp or whatever the appropriate correctional institution may be. If you cant do that because its not illegal in the country they happen to reside in, extradite them to a country where it is illegal and pressure the government of the country where its not illegal to make it illegal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by digitalsushi (137809)

      That idea sucks. Why couldnt all the homosexuals in the USA get extradited to Iraq so their heads can get chopped off?

  • Is New Zealand's government not elected by it's citizens?
    There is not truer saying than "We get the government we deserve."
  • by GuyFawkes (729054) on Friday March 12, 2010 @09:49AM (#31450914) Homepage Journal

    of why filtering doesn't work.

    No, I don't mean just the fact that the simple text string filter is too crude, but mainly the fact that there is no penalties imposed (eg loss of job) on the assholes who implement filtering technology with the same due diligence as an indian first line support call centre, and fuck up the entire internet for whole groups of users, or domain owners.

    Scunthorpe is just one example, what is crude, evil or illegal to one person, is totally innocent and innocuous to another person.

    Back in the day, no ISP wanted to touch filtering with a bargepole, not even if it cut their upstream bandwidth costs by 50%, for one simple reason... once you filter, you take legal responsibility for EVERYTHING, and open yourself up to lawsuits.

    Goodbye "common carrier" and "mere conduit" status.

    EU Law states (and I know exactly of what I speak, being personally instrumental in this law being codified and specified within UK Law) that for the purposes of the Electronic Commerce Directive an ISP is a "mere conduit"

    As this applies to a UK ISP this ruling SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS the "mere conduit" from all civil, and criminal, liabilities, even if the material in question is defamatory, copyright violation, or even child pornography... PROVIDED THEY REMAIN A "MERE CONDUIT"

    The nanosecond you start filtering, you are no longer a mere conduit or common carrier.

  • That image went through my head.
    I wonder what they say.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...