| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 101939 | 2009-08-01 15:34:00 | This proposed child porn filter... | Kindel (6640) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 797154 | 2009-08-01 15:34:00 | www.nzherald.co.nz Internet users take issue with child-porn filter 4:00AM Friday Jul 17, 2009 Internet service providers will soon begin blocking access to hundreds of websites that are on a secret blacklist compiled by the Department of Internal Affairs, but critics say the system lacks transparency. The department this week announced its new Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System, which it said would help fight child sex abuse. The $150,000 software will be provided free of charge to ISPs in a couple of months and will reroute all site requests to Government-owned servers. The software, called Whitebox, compares users' site requests with a list of banned links. If a match is found, the request is denied. It will not cover email, file sharing or borderline material. Internal Affairs Secretary Keith Manch said the scheme was voluntary for internet service providers, but Yahoo!, Xtra, TelstraClear and Vodafone - representing over 93 per cent of the market - had all expressed interest in adopting it. Internal Affairs first trialled the scheme in 2007 and 2008 with some ISPs, but IT Minister Steven Joyce said in March that the Government had no plans to introduce internet filtering technology. The minister's office yesterday declined to comment. Critics say the system has been introduced by stealth and lacks accountability. The department will not disclose the 7000 objectionable websites for fear "inevitably some people would visit them in the interim", effectively facilitating further offending and making the department party to the further exploitation of children. Internal Affairs censorship compliance head Steve O'Brien said the blacklist would be personally reviewed by staff each month and would be restricted to paedophilic content only. But systems administrator and IT blogger Thomas Beagle said the system had been deliberately kept "under the radar" to avoid public debate. Filtering systems in Australia, Denmark and Britain have been accused of serious flaws, with unexplained blacklistings of straight and gay pornography, Wikipedia articles and small businesses. Mr Beagle said he favoured providing optional clean feeds for users, but believed Governments would be tempted to expand the blacklist in reaction to events. If the blacklist was managed in an open manner people would be able to challenge what was being done to "protect" them, he said. Internet NZ said it could be abused and anything that attempted to redirect internet traffic had the potential to "break" the internet. A little bit old but I searched and couldn't find a thread. Does anyone else think this is a terrible idea in light of Australia's planned one blocking (and still blocking, judging by recent blacklists on wikileaks) legitimate sites? It all seems a bit fruitless too, considering how easy it is for people to circumvent this sort of thing via proxies etc. Does anyone have any more info on it, ie whether the list will be publicly available, and which other ISPs (aside from those mentioned in article) will be opting in? |
Kindel (6640) | ||
| 797155 | 2009-08-01 15:54:00 | Nothing wrong with it, if it blocks child porn and porn sites. I wouldnt care less. Just as long as it doesnt block valid sites (that have nothing to do with porn) | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 797156 | 2009-08-01 16:22:00 | Nothing wrong with it, if it blocks child porn and porn sites. I wouldnt care less. Just as long as it doesnt block valid sites (that have nothing to do with porn) These things start out with the best of intentions and then it all gets corrupted. The Australian one had barely started and there were problems with it. I think child porn is absolutely sick but they are attacking this in totally the wrong manner. Why doesn't every country get together and just cripple the web hosts that carry this child porn. It is the old story where they catch things at the bottom of the cliff rather than the top. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 797157 | 2009-08-01 16:40:00 | It is the old story where they catch things at the bottom of the cliff rather than the top.Never heard that one before but it's a good analogy. | Greg (193) | ||
| 797158 | 2009-08-01 22:36:00 | I don't know what I think of it, The subject is of such a revulsion that on the one hand any action is fine, do it. On the other, I think its a crap idea, The sites move faster then people can report them, people that want that crap will still find it, and its not nescerserily just sitting on websites in full view for people to find and report. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 797159 | 2009-08-01 22:37:00 | Never heard that one before but it's a good analogy. You have never heard the old "Better a fence at the top of a cliff then an ambulance at the bottom"? |
Metla (12) | ||
| 797160 | 2009-08-01 23:09:00 | Who is administering it? The Government? It will be extremely and obscenely expensive, done badly, and the wrong people will get punished. Tradition demands it. Hanging was designed for child pornographers, it is suitable for all who profit from it too. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 797161 | 2009-08-02 01:18:00 | While we will all agree child porn is a terrible thing... We can't let this happen. This is just step one for Big Brother. The big question is where will this end? There are so many things out there that "someone" can decide are wrong for us, or that we can't handle it, or this or that. And it will not end. I will say what I have said on other forums about this... In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. And of course the finest one to remember, since we all have moral opposition to the likes of child porn. But we should never forget that the Republic died in the cheers of the masses. Same thing is happening today. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 797162 | 2009-08-02 01:23:00 | Of course the question Kindel has to be asked is why he's "researching" child porn sites. | Greg (193) | ||
| 797163 | 2009-08-02 04:17:00 | WTH dude? That was pretty uncalled for. If you could point out where I've "researched child porn sites" I'd appreciate that. My main concern is that the Australian list blocks like likes of redtube, and prior to mistakes being pointed out, sites such as that of a dentist's surgery. My secondary concern is that, like Koz said, they can start with the most harmful (child porn) but who's to say they're not going to decide "terrorist" websites (this could be anything from Maori separatism to animal rights to, hell, I don't know, the Save The Gay Whales Trust). Euthanasia sites have been an issue with the Aussie filter, for example. |
Kindel (6640) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||