Govt internet filter going live is sad day for NZ

**Insanity_rules** · 17th March 2010, 13:45

They refer to New Zealand as the place they outlawed fun, trust me I've just been and heard! Made me sick to my stomach.

**kwaka_crasher** · 17th March 2010, 13:51

Originally Posted by mashman

It's my 90 minutes... i'll do with it what I please thank you very much

... you tootle off there and play with your oddly shaped balls

...

I've heard alcoholics spout that same mantra.

Oh well, I guess you'll get the governance you deserve.

**SPman** · 17th March 2010, 13:55

Originally Posted by davereid

The aussie filter is compulsory, and they don't even attempt to claim its about kiddie porn.

They censor anything they want, with the aussie govt having admitted that less than 1/3 of the list is even alledged to be illegal porn.

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/05/28/au...derage-images/

It's officially only at the trial stage - it's not proposed to become law until after the next elections, so that whoever gets in can say they have a "mandate from the peoplel" to implement it!!! They even censor sites that divulge information about it!

Oh yes - pron makes up less than 1% of all internet traffic - the biggest (mis)user of the net is Spam - up to 70% of all emails are spam! Surely it would be better for the governments to attack spammers...but...it isn't an emotion puller like kiddie porn......

**Pedrostt500** · 17th March 2010, 13:58

Originally Posted by freedom-wedge

Option 3 would be the good choice and you are correct over due. It would put a stop to the use of heart string terminology used to justify extreme measures, only the facts should be presented. Within this filter there is secrecy that should not be there, and the potential for its misuse is enormous. But we all believe that it will be used ethically right.

Any watch dog group set up to censor the cencors, would be easy for a Beauracrat / Government to side step, Just cut their funds off, and send them on wild goose chases, fill the intrays up with somuch paper work that it will be 99% garbage and not give them the time or staff to read through it.

keep in mind Governments Change, both as in People and Parties, but what does not change is the beauractats in the back office, ( Remember that kid that was always picked on in School, and now has an inferiorority complex, and wants to see you pay dearly), they are the ones who want total controll over what yuou see eat and do.

**freedom-wedge** · 17th March 2010, 16:55

Originally Posted by Dave Lobster

It's not just that trial. That sort of a timeframe is quite normal for most serious crimes.

Buying time at our expense. Again, that's normal. They'll be the ones dragging it out so the public's eye is distracted, and will have forgotten about it.

Just think, if it gets dragged out for long enough, it'll be on that Sensing Bullshit programme on the propaganda box..

See Also..

This is a side issue but the charges laid after the event don’t warrant what’s going on, if you read the case notes and such you will see its the crown dragging this out and hoping everyone forgets because they need people to forget such a blunder. laws are being changed on the back of it also, blunder begets further extremes. Check out the charges they are facing and you decide if this was all worth it. I know your right about this in the norm but this case isn’t normal

**Skyryder** · 17th March 2010, 17:24

I was listening to RNZ on the way home and they were talking about the Internet access as a Human Right. I’ve just had a quick look at some of this and there is bit of stuff on the net on this issue.

Here is one link where it has been made law.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...ight_franc.php

The RNZ guest was talking about where there is a right there also exists a responsibility. I think that this is fundamentally true. Rights are enshrined in law but if you abuse these rights then there are penalties for doing so.

Each and everyone has the right to sit for a drivers licence when reaching a certain age. There is no right that it must be given to you unless you can pass some tests.

We have rights in a marriage but break them and you may find that these rights no longer exist if the other partner chooses to ‘terminate’ the marriage. Essentially rights have responsibilities designed so that society is not inconvenienced with by those who chose to exercise their rights.

Which brings me to the question. Do we have the right to access the internet, and if so

Should these rights be subject to laws and regulation in a manner that is not contrary to the values that society hold in general??

Skyryder

**davereid** · 17th March 2010, 17:51

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I was listening to RNZ on the way home and they were talking about the Internet access as a Human Right. I’ve just had a quick look at some of this and there is bit of stuff on the net on this issue.

Here is one link where it has been made law.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...ight_franc.php

The RNZ guest was talking about where there is a right there also exists a responsibility. I think that this is fundamentally true. Rights are enshrined in law but if you abuse these rights then there are penalties for doing so.

Each and everyone has the right to sit for a drivers licence when reaching a certain age. There is no right that it must be given to you unless you can pass some tests.

We have rights in a marriage but break them and you may find that these rights no longer exist if the other partner chooses to ‘terminate’ the marriage. Essentially rights have responsibilities designed so that society is not inconvenienced with by those who chose to exercise their rights.

Which brings me to the question. Do we have the right to access the internet, and if so

Should these rights be subject to laws and regulation in a manner that is not contrary to the values that society hold in general??

Skyryder

I think its a bit rich to describe internet access as a human right - its a technology, it doesnt really qualify.

But, you cpuld convince me that you have the right to information that is not modified, distorted or couurpted by someone "smarter"

**kwaka_crasher** · 17th March 2010, 17:57

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Rights are enshrined in law but if you abuse these rights then there are penalties for doing so.

Which brings me to the question. Do we have the right to access the internet, and if so should these rights be subject to laws and regulation in a manner that is not contrary to the values that society hold in general??

That's simply not the issue here. It's the secrecy and the fact it won't be effective for it's intended purpose but can easily be harnessed to prevent claimed unintended purposes in very short order.

I see some are claiming that the filter is to prevent accidental access. That is a weak argument. I've been using the internet since it became mainstream here and I've never accessed, accidentally or otherwise, any child pornography.

**Skyryder** · 17th March 2010, 18:37

Originally Posted by davereid

I think its a bit rich to describe internet access as a human right - its a technology, it doesnt really qualify.

But, you cpuld convince me that you have the right to information that is not modified, distorted or couurpted by someone "smarter"

The last sentance could be construed as grounds to ban the internet.

To be fair I have not formed an opinion on this yet as this s'arvo was the first time I have heard of the possibilty of having access to the net a human right.

I'm not too sure that technowledgy is grounds for dismissal on this. Do we have a human right to expect propper sanitation in our cities, water, electricity............all of these are provided by technologies. The fact that some of these 'services' can be curtailed if we fail to meet out obligations to them suggests that on these 'items' human rights do not exist. But herin lies a problem. There are provisions with WINZ where if payment can not be made (obligations) the state picks up the tab. This leads to another question is there a 'rights issue here or is it one of compassion?

The point is...................does a technology automaticly exclude itself....... and is a human right nothing more than a freedom to choose or act in a manner accepted withing the values of our western democracy.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 17th March 2010, 18:52

Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher

That's simply not the issue here. It's the secrecy and the fact it won't be effective for it's intended purpose but can easily be harnessed to prevent claimed unintended purposes in very short order.

I see some are claiming that the filter is to prevent accidental access. That is a weak argument. I've been using the internet since it became mainstream here and I've never accessed, accidentally or otherwise, any child pornography.

Most laws can be circumvented and I agree that having a law which I think this filter is, (there may well be some debat on that) will in no way prevent persons from breaking it. But I have raised another issue and in truth I am not too sure if this is related with the filter or not. you say no. I have no reson to disagree as I am in the dark on a lot of IT issues. But the French decision does raise an interesting point that I bought up and that is rights do have obligations attached to them. These obligations are in statute and break someof these and your right to move a bout will be curtailed for a number or months or years.

davereid has said no on the grounds that the internet is a technology.....................I'm not too sure that I agree with this as said in a previous post...............so I'm going to sit back and see if anyone takes this up.

Skyryder

**bogan** · 17th March 2010, 19:32

Originally Posted by Skyryder

davereid has said no on the grounds that the internet is a technology.....................I'm not too sure that I agree with this as said in a previous post...............so I'm going to sit back and see if anyone takes this up.

the hardware used is a technology, and the communication medium, but the information itself isn't. Though its hardly the first time the gubbermint has withheld info is it.

**kwaka_crasher** · 17th March 2010, 19:41

Originally Posted by Skyryder

...I am in the dark on a lot of IT issues.

As are the majority. Therein lies the most insidious problem - over time most are not even going to know what's being 'censored'.

Sure, I can get around the filtering at this level, as can others, including, I'm sure, the majority of CP addicts due to their 'hobby' being so largely based on the internet these days and their need for anonymity. But who is to say the creep of filtering won't gradually be expanded, given some actually believe "it is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion".

It's the camels nose under the tent...