Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Zealand Introduces Internet Filtering

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the watch-out-it's-catchy dept.

Censorship 215

Thomas Beagle writes "The New Zealand government has been stealthily introducing a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system. Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users, ISPs representing over 94% of the market are already intending to join. Read the general FAQ and technical FAQ about the proposed Netclean Whitebox implementation."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Bastille Day: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690331)

and conveniently coincides with New Zealand's increasingly fascist practises.

Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout

Panties Stink (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690341)

Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!

Re:Panties Stink (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690467)

Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!

Re:Panties Stink (1, Funny)

bFusion (1433853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690543)

...Burma-Shave?

Governments love crime (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690353)

Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.

Re:Governments love crime (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690619)

What would fearmongers all around the globe be without terrorism, child porn or government conspiracies (depending on the side they're on and their interests)?

Re:Governments love crime (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691449)

I'm not even going to bother quoting Benjamin Franklin or George Orwell. All I can say is democracy is being taken over by people who despise liberty and fundamentally are terrified of the average citizen. Why precisely any of us tolerate such people in any such position of power is quite beyond me, but somehow or legislatures and bureaucracies have been populated by a pack of Robespierres.

Re:Governments love crime (1)

feandil (873841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691699)

people tolerate it because they're brainwashed. 60 years of television propaganda has its effect. and American propaganda is the most effective there has ever been, you were the first to introduce psychological analysis for product placement, and that very early.

Re:Governments love crime (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692527)

Here's the thing.
The kind of people who push for this crap genuinely believe that child porn is a big issue, that it's worth losing all those nice freedoms we have to get rid of it (or at least try as you might as well piss into the wind for all the good it will do) and that anyone who objects is some kind of pervert who is afraid of losing their child porn.

There are people who genuinely believe that a police state is a good thing because "only criminals have anything to fear from a police state"

There are people who genuinely believe that censorship is a good thing because they certainly don't want to be seeing... well just about anything since these are the kinds of nutters who write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

Re:Governments love crime (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691063)

Why?

Re:Governments love crime (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691135)

I rather think our (German) minister of families and youth did invent child porn on the net.

She seems to be the only one who ever saw any, even the police say child porn in distributed mainly via other channels. Still we are getting the same kind of filters on August 1st; nevermind they are not constitutional and there was a massive backlash in parts of the press and people, as well a record-breaking petition with for than 100k signatures.

Funny thing, she got some extremely ugly images of child porn from the police and showed them to the press. Of course she was indicted for possession and distribution, but the (local equivalent) of the DA didn't take up the case citing she had official reasons to do so.

Say, les mecs. You've got Bastille Day over in France today, haven't you? Could we send her over for a little re-enactment? We'll gladly take your Sarkozy on our national holiday and bore him to death with depressive speeches.

Re:Governments love crime (1)

feandil (873841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691663)

don't joke, we're going to get the same kind of law as soon as they managed to write it in such a way that it becomes constitutional. considering the constitutional council is mostly right wing conservatives it shouldn't take too long

Re:Governments love crime (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691997)

There's always drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. YMMV, many countries are far less nanny states than mine (USA).

Re:Governments love crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28692149)

Where would your government be without childporn?

Slightly less wealthy and slightly less powerful than without. Let's not kid ourselves here: child porn is only the latest in a long line of justifications for more revenue and more power over the people.

If you examine the history of any government that has ever existed, it's a slow but steady expansion of power and revenue. Governments only get bigger, never smaller, and this has been the goal of those in the business long before any government executive played the child porn card.

For christ's sake, the US government has expanded nearly exponentially over the past 10 years in power and revenue, and most of it happened before child porn was even a twinkle in the career politician's eye.

Re:Governments love crime (3, Informative)

garry_g (106621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692855)

Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.
What do you mean, "would surely invent it"? They are inventing it, at least as far as numbers and facts are concerned ... in Germany, "Zensursula" von der Leyen has come up with statistics about the amount of commercial Childporn distributed via Internet, none of which she to date has been able to actually back with any facts. Additionally, the "large number of countries" without legislation against child porn supposedly was the reason filtering (useless, as it's based on faking DNS results) is based on a year-old study, which on top of the age is also containing information that is plain wrong (e.g., if a country does not have specific laws against child porns, it is counted, even if it has outlawed all porn!). Upon examination of said list, it was found that out of almost 100 countries listed, only like 9 indeed didn't have laws against child porn. Of those, nearly all are well down on the technological scale, making distribution of child porn d@mn near impossible from there ...

Of course, what politician can resist finally getting his wet dreams of actively taking charge of all of the country's citizens access to free information fulfilled?

Politics suck.

Hey (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690367)

Those "teen thais" are actually grandmothers there, we just can't tell the difference.

Good to hear (4, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690371)

Especially as these filters are never misused [wikileaks.org] for other things than child pornography for convenience, when they're in place and all.

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

Re:Good to hear (2, Interesting)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690713)

There aren't enough resources available for doing that, only for the filtering. If you want to have the authorities actually investigate crimes against children you're going to have to have a 15 cent tax for that [slashdot.org] .

Re:Good to hear (3, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691079)

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

That would involve time, money and intelligence. Something that governments, by definition, are always in short supply of. Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route. They will do what looks good now, even if they know it will be a failure later. Hopefully during the next administration.

Re:Good to hear (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691193)

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.

Think about it. You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it, and that's one arrest. But if you bust all the people who download, trade, or look at those photos, you can potentially makes thousands of arrests! That's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident. Best of all, you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future. It's the gift that keeps on giving!

No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.

Re:Good to hear (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691417)

Likewise, if MADD, PETA, and anti-smoking groups actually achieved their goals, they would be destitute, along with all of their employees. They'd also have nothing to use as propaganda. Maybe that's why PETA only actually adopted out 16 animals out of its "no kill" slaughter houses last year. They depend on the very thing they claim to want to stop. If that thing stops, no one will fund them. However, if the thing they're 'fighting against' is promoted and increased, so is their funding. Funny how that all works.

Re:Good to hear (1)

DM9290 (797337) | more than 5 years ago | (#28693045)

No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced. At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.

stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.

Re:Good to hear (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691441)

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward

first rule of government: make laws such that anyone can be 'guilty' of something. keep the population in fear and control.

they do not WANT to fix certain social evils. they LIKE it, that they have this ever-present boogeyman around.

remember when saddam was the central boogeyman? we got rid of him and we need an new one.

'child pedos' are the universally hated boogeyman. the law loves the fact that they can pass ANY law if it mentions pedo or terror.

you will never find actual law enforcement spending much time FIXING this social problem. they are more power-enabled by letting the fear work for itself. they can get more 'done' with the population always afraid of someone 'evil doer' (remember when bush used that phrase almost daily?)

Re:Good to hear (1)

mordejai (702496) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692593)

How about spending the resources on busting child molesters and exposing child trafficking rings instead?

There. Fixed it for you.

First, they (we!) would have to focus on the real criminals instead of the mentally ill (which should be treated, but in a different way)

Re:Good to hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28692611)

In fact the blocked sites can use the service to block https sites belonging to other entities since the list is domain based, not IP based. They'll need a whitelist to prevent that from happening.

I've never understood (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690401)

Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.

Re:I've never understood (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690471)

Why normal people support laws like this.

They hear the word child pornography. Then they stop thinking. And if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.

Re:I've never understood (2, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690777)

Hate to point out the obvious, but they have to be thinking first in order to stop.

The two minute hate, and choosing between various advertised products doesn't count.

You forgot about the money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690919)

None of this stuff is ever free. Vacations and Swiss Bank Accounts... err, I mean, State-of-the-Art filtering software and Cyber-Police cost a pretty-penny, fellow citizen!

Now be a good spouse and breed more tax-payers... I mean kids!

Re:I've never understood (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691119)

if you question the sense, you are a pedophile, or support them.

I've heard debates about this sort of thing, and I've never heard this sentiment be expressed or even remotely implied by supporters of filtering. Most (vocal) supporters are quite aware that paedophilia is not supported among the community, and that there are other reasons to oppose filtering.

In fact, it's almost like you're saying, "if you support filtering, then you jump to conclusions and you don't think critically."

Re:I've never understood (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691795)

I've had it happen to me more than once, both here and on Fark, and it's not just just about filtering. Any time you don't advocate 100% nuclear option law enforcement against child porn, the crazies come out of the woodwork and all critical thinking / actual *discussion* in the conversation evaporates in a matter of minutes (or span of a few posts).

Re:I've never understood (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692327)

I bet it has happened to you, especially on internet forums. It gives the crazies a chance to mouth off about their opinions, and suddenly it becomes all partisan politics, and no genuine consideration for other people's opinions.

But, on the same token, it would be unfair and grossly inaccurate to characterise a viewpoint by those who express them anonymously on the internet. For example, I just read the OP's post, who opposes internet filtering, and who accuses, in a sweeping statement, people with the opposite opinion of jumping to conclusions, but that doesn't mean I can conclude that everyone against filtering is a hypocrite. All I'd have to do is choose one of the many intelligent statements on the subject, some right here on this forum, to see that it's not true.

Posting Violation Short-Circuits Logic: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691173)

They hear the word child pornography.

Dude, that's gross! You just broke Section 38.2 of the Thoughtcrime Statutes.

 

And if you question the sense...

That's it you twisted creep! You're going to prison for a LONG time!

Re:I've never understood (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691547)

That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

It's basically an appeal to parents' base instinct to protect their children. An instinct that gave mammals a significant evolutionary advantage (due to the relative difficulty of mammals bearing young), but not one that engages the rational part of the brain. That's why any organization trying to get an otherwise rational adult to part with their money or give political support makes as many appeals to children as possible.

Re:I've never understood (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691805)

That's close, but not quite broad enough: For a lot of voters the word "child" is enough to shut down the rational part of their brain.

It's not just that it shuts down the rational part of their brain, but they wind up expecting someone *else* to do the protecting. Because, you know, being a parent yourself is too tough.

I happen to be a father to two little boys (age 5 and 2) and I'll agree that being a parent is tough work. It's not all hugs and smiles with kids. There are temper tantrums. They *WILL* test boundaries to see how far they can go. Repeatedly. They *will* try to get away with things they shouldn't be doing. Keeping up with what is happening and keeping your kids in line (e.g. "No yelling in the store") and safe (e.g. "No running away from Mommy and Daddy in the parking lot") isn't always easy. Too many parents just let their kids run rampant because they don't want to exert the effort to set and enforce boundaries. Many people seem to want someone else to do the work for them. So they whine for the government to step in and "child proof" life. The problem is, you can't child proof life. Life has a lot of sharp edges to it. The trick is to teach your child to avoid the sharp edges *and* what to do if they accidentally hit upon one of them. That takes work and effort that too many parents just seem to not want to invest.

Re:I've never understood (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690695)

Actually, I'm the opposite. I can understand why a normal person would not think through the issues beyond "we need to protect against child porn", misguided though it might be; it's an understandable response. Politicians, on the other hand, are paid to think about exactly these kind of issues and the fact they don't care to exposes their moral bankruptcy.

Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn (3, Interesting)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690425)

Since neither FAQ mentioned any mechanism for reporting sites that have illegal content, I assume that means they're relying on some dedicated law-enforcement professionals to go out looking for child porn/bestial porn.

That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.

And hey, slowing down everyone's internet experience for only half a million dollars/year? That's quite a steal!

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690675)

It reeks of something very different. Namely that "your input is not welcome". We don't want you to report 'bad' sites. We know what sites are bad for you.

Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690819)

That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.

"I protect the country from pedophiles! So, BTW, you're really 18? You don't look it."

The Netclean Whitebox software proposed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691165)

From the FAQ:

"What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server canâ(TM)t examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.

This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection."

I can see that working out well.

Oh god :( (4, Interesting)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690427)

We only just got rid of this laughably insane idea in Australia... here the ISP's refused to co-operate.

Actually, no, sorry, a few did co-operate, just so they could show the govt how laughably infeasible it was!

And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(

Re:Oh god :( (4, Funny)

Blixinator (1585261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690447)

Just please don't move to America.

Re:Oh god :( (0, Flamebait)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690615)

Just please don't move to America.

LOL, fuck no. The US is pretty much a third world nation compared to other first world nations now a days (Australia, NZ, Canada, Europe, etc.) Lack of basic necessities like govt. health care, poor education, poor wages and such is really placing it low on the list.

I also recently spent a month in San Francisco this year, and well... great to visit friends, but no, would never live there, not in a million years. No, not even if you PAID me to live there.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

Blixinator (1585261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690629)

Yes, but no filtering.

Re:Oh god :( (2, Insightful)

DoubleUP (468055) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690873)

Nothing the NSA and CIA feel like telling you, anyway..

Re:Oh god :( (3, Informative)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690683)

There are people who live in the US that you wouldn't be able to pay to live in San Francisco.

Re:Oh god :( (1, Insightful)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690805)

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690963)

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

Just because you completed a stay with your homeless Hippy friends in San Fran means jack shit. I've been to Australia and Canada, and neither exceed my standard of living (and I'm just a working class engineer). Australia I will say one thing about: I've never seen a group of more racist small-minded white people in my life. I learned new slang for Aborigines and Asians that I never knew existed. How's that White Australia policy working out for you? Oh, you repealed it? Then why all the animus to non-whites?

And no, they're standard of living isn't all that great. Hell, I've lived in towns in Turkey that were better than some small Aussie towns. Say what you will about US culture, but Aussie culture is a joke. Think Asian Redneck.

Prison colony indeed...

As for Canada, since we've vacuumed up all of their doctors, scientists, and engineers of note I'll let you work out why that is.

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691823)

Don't know why I'm bothering to launch into a rant at this anonymous troll, but, well, here goes.

Lol ... this is just ... lol. The US has vast ghettos of people living at or near the poverty line in almost every major city. There's barely anything like that in Australia. I've lived in both countries for extended periods of time, in multiple places (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne in Australia, and Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison WI, Minneapolis MN and New York City in the US) and the poverty in the US is simply staggering to me. Whereas I took my American in-laws to the worst places in cities here and they were like "this is what you call a ghetto?".

Also you seriously must have been out in the middle of nowhere to have encounted such significant racism (or you visited 40+ years ago ... at which time the US wasn't exactly a shining beacon of equality either). In most places where people actually live it's no better or worse than any other developed country, on average. In the major cities (where 90% of the population lives), its a true melting pot these days. Around a full quarter of everyone in Australia was born overseas.

As for quality of life, again, you must have been out in the middle of nowhere. In almost every way you can measure, Australia scores very well for quality of life. We have a higher percentage of literacy, higher percentage of university educated, higher life expectancies, a MUCH higher minimum wage, universal health care, a welfare system that doesn't randomly stop paying unemployed people after only a few months etc. Also I appreciate the fact that that high fructose corn syrup (and various other nasty additives) you pump into almost every food over there is banned here (literally, it's illegal). Not to say our diet is particularly good ... but at least our Coke has actual cane sugar in it.

I'm not doubting your observations ... but they don't fit with what I've seen in my many years living here. It'd be like me going to the US, living in some small town in the deep south for a few years, and assuming that that is what America is like. I think you're judging the vast majority of us on the actions of a few rednecks in what sounds like must be the NT or outback Queensland/WA. You have to remember that America is a nation of towns and small cities, but Australia isn't. Australia is one of the most urbanised places on earth, with almost everyone living in the 10 or so largest cities. So our isolated small towns are a bit weird I'll give you that, but that's because we don't really have many of them and they are separated from everyone else by thousands of kilometres.

Don't take this as anti-American. It's not ... I love the US and will be returning to live there again in another 2 years. For anyone earning a decent living, the standard of living is about the same in both places (although I still reckon the quality of food is much better here). But for those who are more unfortunate, the US is a brutal place to be (and if you google for any comparative quality of living stats, it will show this).

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690985)

Mod me flamebait all you want, but the fact is it's TRUE. Americans are so blinded and oblivious to the better conditions outside their own country elsewhere, even as far close as their own northern border.

As an American who lived in Scandinavia, I can attest the veracity of your claims. America needs to get its act together.

Re:Oh god :( (2)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691111)

I live in America and I've been to Italy. I can tell you that if the US is a 2nd-world country then Italy is third-world country.

You act like healthcare sucks here. If you have a plan, it is the best in the world. Most Americans (like 85%) have a health plan. Of the ones that don't, a third make over $50k and choose not to get a plan and a third already qualify for government coverage but never bothered to pursue it.

Wages are higher here than anywhere else. You just need to work for it.

My guess is that you benefit far more from your government than you pay in...and that is why you find America repulsive. You might only benefit a little bit.

Education (and health care and wages for that matter) are all suffering from central-government control. We still have the best higher-education in the world. That won't last if we keep doing what we are doing, but where will you find a better secondary education?

Re:Oh god :( (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692077)

Of the ones that don't, a third make over $50k

$50k is the median income, and in many places barely pays for food, rent, and utilities. It's about what I make, and it's not expensive to live here, UNLESS you have to buy insurance (thank God my employer offers it). Private insurance is damned expensive if your employer doesn't offer it.

Saying someone making $50k "chooses" to be insured is like my saying I "choose" not to buy a Ferrari.

Wages are higher here than anywhere else.

[citation needed] Wages are only half the equation. Costs are the other half. And speaking of citations, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says you're wrong.

Education (and health care and wages for that matter) are all suffering from central-government control.

Education here doesn't suffer from government control, it suffers from lack of funds. The government doesn't control health care unless you're eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, and wages (see linked wiki) suffer from too little government control.

You should stop listening to that Oxycontin-addled radio personality.

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28692245)

Obviously you don't know every region of Italy. Lombardy for example (where I live). This is a rather good place, with a first class public healthcare, good hospitals, home assistance, everything you need is provided. And it's all paid by tax income. You need a hearth transplant? here it is. A chemotherapy? no problem. You don't pay a euro for the service. And if you happen to lose your job you will not be left in the dust. Every healthcare service is assured to everyone, no questions.
Sure, our hospitals aren't five stars hotels, but are good enough to keep you alive and well. And if you are rich enough you can always go to a private hospital. We have many of them for who are willing to pay.
In southern Italy there are much more problems though...

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691049)

you can't base your trip to the us going to california lol

and please keep your government health care to yourselves, we already pay enough taxes here.

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691051)

LOL, fuck no. The US is pretty much a third world nation compared to other first world nations now a days (Australia, NZ, Canada, Europe, etc.) Lack of basic necessities like govt. health care, poor education, poor wages and such is really placing it low on the list.

I also recently spent a month in San Francisco this year, and well... great to visit friends, but no, would never live there, not in a million years. No, not even if you PAID me to live there.

Well remember every part of the US is different; NY city is different then San Francisco is different then Madison, Wisconson is different then Anchorage, Alaska. With as large as the place is, anyone can find a place that fits their style of living. Personally I can't stand NY city and have no desire to live in San Francisco.
As for being a third world nation compared to other nations because of lacking govt. Health care, educational standard and poor wages, I have to disagree. The reason our education sucks is because we focus on the unimportant things and do our best to make everyone special, mostly due to bad legislation at all levels. I have no clue what you mean by low wage since a better comparison is buying power which contrary to popular belief the US still has on average one of the highest values (couldn't find a reference so can't give a specific number). As for govt. Health care, if the system actually worked like it was suppose to why is canada moving away from a one payer system? Why do Canadians still jump the boarder to get access to the US health system? Why did Hawaii's attempt at it fail miserably? Personally, if having one of the highest standards of living in the world and more personal freedoms means I get to live a few years less, I'm all for it.
And if you really don't think the USA is worth moving to, fine that is your choice. But at least realize it is personal choice and many other people are risking their lives to have a chance to live here.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692095)

I suspect that most of health care is that Americans have terrible diet and excercise habits, so our health care looks bad. If you have a nation that would be dead at 60 but kept alive to 74 and competitive with other nations whose health habits would keep them alive to 70 but with healthcare live to 75 the traditional metric used to judge health care is going to look pretty similar (slightly worse for the first country) especially if the costs are much higher in the first country.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691445)

Government health care is *not* a 'basic necessity'.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

feandil (873841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691833)

yes it is. that's why we're humans and not animals, we take care of our own kind.

Re:Oh god :( (3, Interesting)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690453)

Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691115)

Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).

The correct link is http://pirateparty.org.au . Thanks.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691361)

We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/)

Groan. They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them. Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.

Re:Oh god :( (2, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690607)

Yes I have to admit the fact in the summary that ~94% of ISPs are willing to implement this struck me as being really bizarre. I usually think of New Zealanders as our friends across the pond. That is, that despite our friendly jokes at each others' expense, we are very similar countries. But this is a night and day difference. In Australia the ISPs were basically all up in arms about the proposed filter, and it was in large part due to the Internet industry's concerns that that proposal was thankfully scrapped (or at least appears to be headed for certain defeat, at least in its current form). This was on ideological, as well as technical grounds - the ISPs know full well that any filter can be trivially circumvented through a variety of means, so it's basically useless, but yet would cost them (and thus their customers) a lot of money.

I wonder why NZ ISPs are so different in their opinion (at least as reported by this article)?

I sure hope the tech-savvy New Zealand public fights this in the same way we did here in Australia. These filters might start out as benign but there is massive potential for abuse there, and more to the point, I just generally don't like the idea of artificially constraining and slowing down what has been until this day a free and open network. We already pay a lot for connectivity down here due to our isolated geographical location ... don't let them make it even slower/more expensive due to this crap.

The other reason you need to fight it is that if this gets successfully implemented there, it will be used as an example here and in other countries: "Look, NZ did it ... maybe we should?" That's a slippery slope we want to avoid if at all possible.

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690631)

Actually, that particular retardation is still alive and well in Australia and is currently under trial. Despite a lack of support from just about everyone outside of a few minorities, the Australian government continues to forge ahead with it.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690955)

I think slashdot should create a PAC (political action committee).
We all voluntarily donate $10/yr to fight back.
We need a centralized voice like the FSF, but in Washington.
Anyone out there want to start it? I will donate today.
Perhaps I will contact the FSF.
I should run as our first US pirate-party.
Anyone want to back me. See my log...

Re:Oh god :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691563)

And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(

Yes, whenever I despair about the path America is on I have always told myself, "Well, I can emigrate to NZ." Now that looks less enticing. Hopefully, they'll come around like they did in Oz.

Re:Oh god :( (1)

Blixinator (1585261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692907)

... So how did it get to this? I made a joke about internet filtering following this guy around and now we're debating basic human rights. I suspect a butterfly somewhere in Asia is to blame.

ISP's are in a tough spot (4, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690505)

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690587)

Sorry, but that's rubbish. The filter cannot stop https to undesired sites, neither can it cope with proxies. So all in all, it's utterly pointless to have to try and stop nefarious activities to all but the casual browser. The ISPs will know this, and should simply point it out. As ever, follow the money, this has nothing to do with kiddy pr0n.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690735)

Actually, I think the ISPs that want to sign up highly computer-savvy, low support-calls creating people would probably stand up against the law and 'fight' it as good as they can.

Anyone who spent 6 months on the internet knows that such a tool is doomed to fail. Either the implementation sucks. Or the list gets out (pretty much creating a "pedo menu" of sorts, along with a lot of fallout should any site on the list not belong there). And many are just pissed off at the mere concept of government thinking it may decide what's good for me to know.

So if you're an ISP and if you want to put some stress off your supporter's backs and if you want people who will pay their ISP bills before considering gas or water...

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (5, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690739)

Tough shit. No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691007)

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?

No, you make a stand over centralized filtering. Everybody knows that it won't be limited to child porn. They just need some reminders. Point at how every other country that has head down this road, has failed to limit their filters to child porn, and ask how many billions of dollars the NZ government is going to spend to solve the (currently) unsolvable problem of computers not knowing the difference between porn and non-porn ("is this photo of a nude person, erotic?"), and the computer's lousy job of guessing peoples' ages ("is this model 18 years old, or only 16?").

Ask people if the relatively easy problem of finally ending The Spam Problem has been solved. (Show me you can reliably classify text, and then I'll give you images to work on.)

If the NZ economy is able to support an Apollo Project of strong AI, then I think they're fucking awesome. Just make sure the taxpayers understand that either that is what they are committing 50% of their GDP to, or else the filter people are lying to them.

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (5, Insightful)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691473)

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

Benjamin Franklin (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691827)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin

Re:ISP's are in a tough spot (-1, Troll)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28693031)

I challenge you to prove that child porn actually causes any lasting harm to the child beyond the fuss that adults make over it.

For the love of my daughter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690515)

Why else would I starve for 16 days? [starvingformygirl.com]

<aside>Yeah, I hate comment spam also, but this is a decent cause. I could have just posted another 1.2.3...Profit joke and been modded funny!</aside>

This path leads to the dark side... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690535)

Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent, leads to another Great Firewall of China. So while I'm all for having child porn off of my internet, I don't particularly like how it could snowball.

Re:This path leads to the dark side... (3, Funny)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690947)

There's no way it could snowball. The NZ government is well aware of the possibility of a slippery slope and will do everything it can to avoid that situation. From the FAQ:

Can other types of material be censored in the future?

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

Oh. Nevermind.

Ireland got it worse yesterday (5, Interesting)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690557)

small bit offtopic

but theres no mention on slashdot of the new 1984 style big brother law coming in in Ireland :(

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html [independent.ie]

Re:Ireland got it worse yesterday (1)

spicyed (954272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691113)

That's pretty scary. I love how they use the same child porn line to justify keeping all text messages and phone records for a year too.

mynuts won, # FUDging, hypenosys & censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690565)

easy enough to do when one's conscience is directed buy some randoidian lazy is fair mentality.

looks like our hero is getting steamrolled into continued fatal compromise.

& yes, this post will be deleted/permanently 'hidden' within moments. eye gas that's how robbIE has to doo (as in poop) it now.

It's inevitable. (2, Insightful)

OpenGLFan (56206) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690567)

Post-Iran, governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.
ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules (whether that makes sense or not) and kick them off the network.
Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand. (TV, radio, print.)

Governments, ISPs, and businesses support it. Nobody important opposes it. (You are not important.) Why are we surprised that it is happening?

informative Bitchbitch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690627)

states that there the above is far the last night of that FreeBSD is see. The number , a Gproud member

Safe Harbour (2, Interesting)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690641)

The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.

My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?

ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.

In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.

Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?

Re:Safe Harbour (1)

spicyed (954272) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691201)

It's quite easy to bypass a filter like this. The offender could opt in for the free protection while tunneling in his encrypted files.

Re:Safe Harbour (2, Informative)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691279)

The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs. It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences. It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.

It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.

Re:Safe Harbour (1)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692335)

Yes, writing too fast in the middle of working on things so got some of the terminology wrong..

So tell me, as I would be technically guilty if say someone hacked my computer and left such files there, or hacked the WEB on my wireless router and transfered such data, why should I not be able to also get such protection?

The issue here is that the data on computers is a LONG way from under the control of their owner - there are many many ways that data can both arrive and leave without the owner knowing, and no suitable defensive measures for the owner.

Why should there not be? if these filters are so good that they can provide the ISPs with legal protection (of course they are not as they are tirivial to bypass..) then why are they not good enough to also provide myself with protection from other third parties?

this is my whole point, the systems are so full of holes they are worthless - and yet they provide protection only for a select subset of entities at risk from prosecution. Where is the equivalent protection for end users?

If I am to be 100% responsible for all content on my home computer/network, then why are the ISPs not responsible for theirs? is them having a business model more important than me being ABLE to act legally?

And as we all know, it is meant to be 'a get out of jail free' for the ISPs - they simply complain that they cannot be held responsible, and they are given this - why is the same not available to normal people who are also willing to try and follow such rules?

Or perhaps you can explain how I can feasible guarantee not to offend with a home computer attached to the internet? (not attempt.. guarantee.)

Do you want to be held responsible for anything done with a computer you own? you you have children and their friends who ever use that computer? friends and family who visit? have you ever got a virus on your computer? do you use a wireless access point?

Re:Safe Harbour (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691327)

No. there's a much better way to get legal immunity. Set up a porn filtering business and sell it to the government, like these people have done. Then you can spend all day "checking web sites", and you won't get locked up: in fact, you'll get paid for it.

I don't know about New Zealand, but in the UK you might even be in line for a knighthood from the Queen, for "services to the child protection community".

Won't somebody think of the children? (3, Funny)

M-RES (653754) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690659)

Won't somebody think of the children? I mean, come on, we're adults and we have easy access to our adult porn on teh tubes, but what about the kiddies, how are they going to access their porn if these filters are put in?

Or am I misunderstanding the concept of kiddie porn?

Re:Won't somebody think of the children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691403)

So looking at kiddie porn is OK, but only if you're a kiddie yourself? That's so deeply twisted, it made my brain hurt. Well done, sir.

Protect the imaginary children! (4, Interesting)

QCompson (675963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28690833)

From the FAQ:

What type of material is censored? The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.

Stories and drawings. Because icky thoughts must be banned.

Re:Protect the imaginary children! (1)

amateur6 (1597289) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691161)

Also from the FAQ:

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.

And if you do access a site on the filtered list, your IP is logged, your bank accounts frozen, and the Gestapo kick in your door...

First they came for the paedophiles and... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28690961)

First they came for the paedophiles and I did nothing to stop them because I was not a paedophile

Then they came for the children but could not put them in with the paedophiles for obvious reasons, realised they had made a terrible mistake, so had to let them go again and I did nothing because I was not a child.

Then they came for the gay people and found that they could put some of the gay people in with the paedophiles without too much problem but had to let the rest go and I did nothing because I was not gay, or so I thought at the time

Then the paedophiles escaped and boy were they mad, and they came looking for all the normal people and I did nothing because by then I figured I was at least a bit gay and so did not fit the 'normal' profile but they had other ideas and took me anyway, and there was nobody else left to save me. Life just isn't fair sometimes.

Interesting technical details (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691179)

From the technical details article:

Does it support the next version of IP, v6?
No.

Whoops.

What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?

If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server can't examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.
This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection.

Whoops part 2.

Is it possible to circumvent the filtering?

It is relatively easy for a motivated user to circumvent the filtering. This is done by routing the requests to a proxy service in another country that does not filter the required site.
There are also a number of free services that exist to allow people to escape from government monitoring of their internet usage. These services include: Tor, Freenet and WASTE.


Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of child porn abhorrent and sickening. It's just that I don't understand why governments continue to push filtering as the answer when it's never going to work. If they want to get rid of the problem, all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack. They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task, and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs.

Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691185)

Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users = Optional for users.

Choose an ISP that doesn't support filtering. If they want to make money (which you can bet that they do), they'll have to keep their service unfiltered. Problem solved.

Re:Optional for ISPs + Mandatory for users... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692655)

An ISP that opts out of filtering is in turn opting in to deliver child porn. After the first user is found with child porn on their network, government pressure and litigation will force the rogue ISP into compliance, likely with further concessions to block all obscene content or log traffic.

blacklist on WikiLeaks... (1)

MancunianMaskMan (701642) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691387)

in 10 .. 9 .. 8 .. kiddi pr0n sales go up.

Dark Networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28691507)

Anyone seriously into illegal online stuff should be on dark networks by now. Only the stupid are left without using fully encrypted peer to peer systems.

This filtering will only prevent/catch the ignorant.

"Voluntary" - right... (0, Offtopic)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#28691965)

Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users

Yes, right. "Voluntary". You can join the system "voluntary", or you'll have to enforce anti-child pornography laws yourself, and we'll be extra careful checking, that you do...

Another example of such "voluntary" joining are "E-ZPass" — you don't have to sign-up, but certain toll-plazas have no other means to pay any more. The other, I fear, will be the "public healthcare option", that law-makers are discussing...

Why are the ISPs signing up to this? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692475)

Given the negative experience in Australia with the filtering trial and given that there is extra expense involved for the ISPs in installing and maintaining the filtering kit (even if the government buys the filtering kit and pays for any on-going software licenses, there are still expenses involved), why would an ISP want to sign up to this?

Unless there is some kind of carrot (i.e. "sign up to this and you will get immunity for illegal stuff downloaded by your users) or stick ("if we dont get enough ISPs signing on to the "voluntary" system, we will make it mandatory"), I dont see where the benefit for the ISP is.

Thankfully our ISPs here in Australia are fighting the Australian filter on the grounds that it wont work and that it will cost lots of money and slow down everyones internet connection.

yer out. mate. (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28692525)

in addition to the censorship nonsense your ministers are this very afternoon mulling over a 3 strikes law. serves you right for living in such a pretty spot.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0907/S00165.htm

- js.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>