Connect
Related Content
On Twitter
TelecomTV One - News

New Zealand turns on the internet filters: weeks ago!

Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 March 2010 | 1 Comments | (0)
Tags: New Zealand censorship Internet pornography

The New Zealand government has now implemented its promised Internet 'filter' and has thus triggered the predictable fury of the country's Internet libertarians, but it's a hard row to hoe. By Ian Scales.

In fact the system has been filtering away in New Zealand since the beginning of February, after a series of trials over two years; a fact that has served as a focus for further fury because - by avoiding a start date - the government has brilliantly blunted any chance of a rallying point forming for direct protest action.

 

And by running the thing in advance it has also partly wiped away fears that it would prove grossly (and counter-productively) inefficient and would create havoc (it clearly didn't because nobody knew it was on). Clever old government.

But the filter is still objectionable on a range of grounds.

Advertisement
From the obsessively techy observation that what is supposed to be a distributed and highly resilient system (the Internet) is now dependent on one or two central points of failure which will introduce problems into the network upsetting applications and so on (which hardly sounds like a killer argument); to the fact that content is filtered without the public being told in detail what's been expunged (doesn't happen with conventional censorship); right through to the real nub of the philosophical discourse - which is that filtering content in this way is just plain wrong.

No ifs or buts. It is not up to Internet Service Providers to filter on behalf of users because it's not their place - the Internet is (or should) be owned by its users and run as a open system. End of.

Nice try, but all this is trumped, of course, by those two magic words: 'child' and 'pornography'. It's very hard to argue from any sort of position of strength when your utterances must be prefaced by a ringing disavowal of child pornography, preferably backed up with a claim to multiple female parenthood.

But the problem is that once you have a filter in place, the thing will creep on. It will, from now on, be that much more easy to institute other filterable content types as the government spotlight falls upon new wrongs that must be righted.

Pro-terrorist literature, for instance. Who could be against filtering that? Racism, self-harm, Scientology, Britain's Got Talent. It's all objectionable and it all arguably in need of filtering - especially Britain's Got Talent.

And once we get used to filtering, will anyone bother arguing about it again?

please sign in to rate this article
46097
 

1 comments (Add Yours) - click here to sign in

(1) 12 March 2010 21:02:49 by Malcolm Dick

To put in perspective, two very small New Zealand ISP's agreed to trial the government filter scheme. Many ISP's in NZ have privacy concerns and declined, as once such a scheme is in place, there are no legal/regulatory restraints on the government adding any site they feel like to the list, and indeed tracking the individuals usage. There are far more effective ways of catching pedophiles than sending every single internet access request to the government to have a squizz at and see if they want to block or monitor the traffic.
Sadly the ISP's that volunteered did not even have the courtesy of advising their customers that they were being censored.