Up Front: Young and Sort of Free
82 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
How long before an MP here promotes it here?
As someone else mentioned, Trevor Rogers tried it in the dim, dark days of dial-up only internet. That led to the formation of the Network Society, a one-note wonder that didn't last but galvanized some opposition.
More recently, in 2005, InternetNZ co-operated with DIA and Netsafe to research the UK "cleanfeed" option. You can find the report on their site (but only by searching - I doubt conspiracy but suspect cock-up):
Cleanfeed Evaluation - 4 March 2006
Cleanfeed Evaluation, Appendix 1
Cleanfeed Evaluation, Appendix 2I did the research and wrote the report recommending against going with it as, while it only stopped pornographic images (and not terrorist stuff), it wouldn't stop all of it (and would therefore provide false comfort) and also that the legal definition of offensive material in NZ is a lot tighter than the UK, where the list is compiled, and it would allow stuff to come through that wouldn't be legal here.
One thing I did take out of the study was a new understanding of the terminology and how it defines the discussion. Hence, I no longer talk about "kiddieporn" but instead about images of child abuse, because that's what it is. Every image is a record of a child being damaged, in my view. And those records (and thus the memory of the event) now have huge distribution and permanence. How can a victim get over that experience when the reminders may turn up at any time?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of censorship. I volunteered for the project (thinking I'd only be technically verifying some software - hah! - there is only one way to test whether a filter works, and that is to try it. Not Fun) because I wanted to make sure that the system wouldn't be the sort of thing that the Watchdog filter became. But I don't think there's any particular reason to enable access to images of 6 year olds being penetrated by adults, and that some of the lighter stuff I had to look at.
I had some good discussions with the DIA people and the Censorship Office people about the nature of censorship. The principle they wanted to apply was if it was illegal in print, it should be illegal online. The worry they had was how to block it - image by image or whole site blocks? They didn't want to block legal material because of 1 image, for example. They really do care and, like Emma, I wouldn't want their job as a full-time gig.
There is another evaluation happening at the moment for a different system run by a Swedish network. TelstraClear have already announced that they are going to implement it, although other players are evaluating. I am not part of the program, but spoke to DIA to get some details - they're not sure about it yet and advised TelstraClear to to announce it but, I'd guess, the NZ arm is following the Australian corporate lead.
Regarding Watchdog, I had some discussions with them at the time, as they were also involved with ECPAT. I found them to be earnest but extreme, and very of the opinion that they could prevent child abuse by stopping people seeing images of it. I also thought they were convinced of their rightness and that they could be forgiven any excesses because their cause was just. As Emma said, the people who want to filter are the last people you'd want to do it.
Regarding a definition of pornography, there isn't a legal definition in New Zealand. What our censors go for is offensive material "injurious to the public good". They have criteria - it's laid out pretty well in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and on their website.
And, finally, I stand by my assessment of 2005 that filtering the Internet doesn't work and provides a false sense of security. In my view, governments are better to go after the bastards who produce the stuff than the poor mug who gets titillated (or worse) by it.
-
BTW the "poor mug" can also be a sick bastard but more often is someone who is curious. The law treats them the same, and enforcement regards the imagery as a precursor to physical paedophilia, on the basis that "all the paedophiles we catch have child porn on their systems". They have no statistics on whether all the people who have looked at child abuse images have gone on to molest, but regard it as an article of faith that they will.
-
@ Stephen
Couldn't agree more.
-
I'm kind of hoping the idea will be quietly swept under the carpet in Oz. They've had their trial, so the fundies will shut up for a while, and the impact on services so bad, I can't imagine the ISPs will roll over easily.
If they do, the likely outcomes are that all the "virtuous" people who never look at porn will bitch mightily at the impact on service (because Aussie internet speeds aren't much to write home about outside a few blocks of the Syd and Melb CBDs); and the huge percentage of people who do look at porn ("sex" is still the top search term in Google) will be demanding they be taken off any filter list, thus rendering it effectively useless.
I can't see any witch hunts evolving from asking to be taken off the filter - safety in numbers and all that. Interesting stats in this wee clip:
-
I'm kind of hoping the idea will be quietly swept under the carpet in Oz. They've had their trial, so the fundies will shut up for a while, and the impact on services so bad, I can't imagine the ISPs will roll over easily.
When I first read about Aussie politicians mooting the idea, that was my initial reaction, that it wouldn't fly.
I now think they're too strongly and publicly committed to it to back down even if it's as bad as it looks like it's going to be. They're certainly rolling on with it.
And I would love it if so many people opted out that the scheme became ridiculous. But given that requires a)awareness and b)effort, I'd be surprised to see it happening.
-
the likely outcomes are that all the "virtuous" people who never look at porn will bitch mightily at the impact on service; and the huge percentage of people who do look at porn will be demanding they be taken off any filter list, thus rendering it effectively useless.
And the two groups will be one-and-the same in their bitching about speed, because even when you're off the filter list the necessity to pass through the filtering system still impacts traffic flow. I seriously doubt that ISPs will maintain two full networks, one for the virtuous and one for the vile, but that's what it'll take to give non-filtered users an unimpacted internet experience. The expense of separating traffic would be gargantuan, so it's just not going to happen.
-
Yes, there is a Wizards DVD (Region 1, NTSC) NOW, but there wasn't when I got my torrent. And yes, I had signed the petition. I am undecided whether to purchase it, I note there are quite a few for sale second hand on amazon.co.uk...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.