Him and Me

Nobody lives a "free" life, we all must live by rules and regulations. There's certain things that we just can't do and there's officals in place to "police" that.

The interent is just another form of media and not everything is available via the media (newspapers/tv) for public viewing why should the Internet be any different?

Him and Me

i just fail to see how censoring child porn on the internet means everything else will get censored to

If i tell my child not to use swear words does that mean eventually i'll stop him using all words???...it just doesn't follow!!

i just see this thread as conspiracy theories at its best

RobClubley

If the "authorities" know what these sites are, why don't they spend time getting the source shut down?

It's an interesting way to go about it. The government regulates what can be shown on TV, but that's different as it's broadcast to all.
The internet itself is a communications medium. It's akin to them blocking phone calls to the numbers of people who they deem to be criminals/undesirables.

Systems like this are open to abuse, depending on how the rules are applied and how the lists are made. The fear is that once the infrastructure is in place it can easily be expanded to block anything, like in China. This may be a conspiracy theory, but it's not exactly implausible.

Him and Me

Agree that it COULD be expanded but it's NOT!...They're just trying to stop people looking at vile images. China is a whole different ball game all together, they're a communist state for a start. NZ isn't

Lets remember that goverment's all over the world for decades have been "controlling" what we see/hear/do and will do for decades to come!!...again i go back to my point of the power of the vote that we have in this democratic society

I think on this 1 its gonna have be an "agree to disagree"

Persephone

You're right, no one is completely free to do whatsoever they like and no society could ever remain stable if it was. There should and will always be laws in place to punish those who transgress.

I wish I could have an absolute belief that any present or future government can be trusted fully which is why rules and regulations need to be in place when it comes to censorship. The old phrase 'power corrupts' keeps popping into my head and censorship can be a very powerful tool when it comes to asserting control China is a good case in point. What rules are there governing what can and cannot be filtered and who are they accountable to? Does anyone know? There are regulations in place for censoring other types of media so why not the internet? As you said 'why should the internet be any different?'
The problem with allowing a system where there are no regulations in place mean that there is nothing stopping a government from banning other sites that are against the public interest [in their view]. And we will never get to see that list so we will not know what information is being suppressed. I'm sure a lot of MPs would have been quite happy to keep their expenses claims which were perhaps within the rules but maybe morally dubious secret

Again there is no reason why censoring child porn should necessarily lead to censorship of other sites as long as there is accountability and the Government is completely open as to what is and is not banned. Any government that can prevent access to certain sites should have to inform the public as to what those sites are and why they are banned.

I'm all in favour of censoring access to internet child porn [ as any normal person would] but there have to be strict guidelines in place as there already are for other types of media.

Persephone

My point is that we won't know that the censorship has been expanded unless there are regulations that mean the government has to be open about what is and is not banned. So why not put a system in place now to stop it happening? We may have the power of the vote but unless one party states that it is going to put in place regulations as to how and when the filter can be applied then it is pretty worthless in this case. Maybe the current government is intending on doing just that but I would like to hear from them that that is the case
You are right, all governments exert control over what we can and cannot see usually in the interests of national safety but that control should have regulation. I don't think any of us disagree about the basic premise of whether people should be allowed to view child porn - obviously that is a no brainer. The disagreement seems to be about whether the government should be forced to be open and accountable

lapsed kiwi

Of course you'd know. How long do you think it would take for someone living in a non-NZ country to phone/email/skype someone in NZ saying "have you seen that website about sheep shagging / exclusive brethren / free masons?", and for NZ person to find out he can't access it and then publicise the censorship? About 5 minutes I'd say.

Any censorship system that gets abused by a particular govt is going to rapidly put egg all over face of that govt. This is a global community we live in.

Persephone

I would hope so, but why should it come to relying on someone from overseas for us to realise that an abuse of power has taken place? Would it not be preferable if regulation was in place right from the start and the public were informed of which sites were censored and why?
It's done for films, videos and books so why not the internet?

lapsed kiwi

Because publishing a "blacklist" would make it very easy to access a VPN to a less censored country and use the blacklist as a source of illicit material

Persephone

Had to google VPN, I think I said earlier that I'm not computer savvy!.
Yes, publishing a blacklist would make it very easy to know which sites to look for and that could be an argument as to why it should not become public knowledge. Though I would imagine that someone who is intent on looking for child porn and is already bypassing any filtering in place using a VPN will not decide that it's just too much hassle to do a search for relevant sites and give up. Assuming I've understood how a VPN works, then censoring the list strikes me as being seen to do something regardless of whether it is that effective. So it will stop those who do not have the skills or wherewithal to use a VPN in which case knowing site names is irrelevant, they won't be able to access them anyway; those that are intent on bypassing the filter will still do so.
If making the list public knowledge is too controversial what about an independant body tasked to monitor the filter rather than the DIA. The members of this and their political, religious and commercial interests become public knowledge? It's a thought, still prone to abuse and also pressure from the government but preferable maybe to the three unknown DIA individuals mentioned in the original article

BEVS

BE is owned by Internet Brands of the USA.

Yarpy. I can see from your other posts that ID and censorship is a hobby horse of yours , both for here and for the UK. I can also read from your posts that you are not living in New Zealand . Or are you?

bananalana

odd - I live in Australia and never come across anything being censored - I have been able to look at everything I want (including poker sites which we play on often - granted I am not looking up anything dodgy like child pron though).

Havent bothered to read any other posts yet so will have to go back and do that now.

Yarpy

But do you live in South Australia?

Rann Government curbs internet debate
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...02/2807584.htm

Strictly speaking this is not censorship. But how many people, including BEVS, would post on British Expats if they had to publish their name and postcode???

I go along with the slippery slope argument. Blocking some Internet sites is fully justified - but how far should that ban go and who decides ?

BEVS

People & authorities know who I am and where I live .

Now..... are you living in New Zealand or not?

Or are you just after stirring the shite to scare people for no good reason other than you find it fun.

Yarpy

Nothing of the kind. This is a discussion about public policy - in a public place. Something that, in a free society, you are allowed to do!