PDA

View Full Version : This proposed child porn filter...



Kindel
02-08-2009, 03:34 AM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10584982


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?

Speedy Gonzales
02-08-2009, 03:54 AM
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)

mikebartnz
02-08-2009, 04:22 AM
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.

Greg
02-08-2009, 04:40 AM
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.

Metla
02-08-2009, 10:36 AM
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
02-08-2009, 10:37 AM
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"?

R2x1
02-08-2009, 11:09 AM
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.

Cato
02-08-2009, 01:18 PM
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.

Greg
02-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Of course the question Kindel has to be asked is why he's "researching" child porn sites.

Kindel
02-08-2009, 04:17 PM
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.

pctek
02-08-2009, 06:17 PM
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).

Might, might, might....


How about complaining about them when they happen, instead of assuming all this.

I think it's a good idea blocking evil kiddie porn sites. Why are you so upset about it?

hueybot3000
02-08-2009, 06:27 PM
Flag bloggin the sites, just hang the sick ****s viewin it

johcar
02-08-2009, 06:46 PM
Might, might, might....


How about complaining about them when they happen, instead of assuming all this.

I think it's a good idea blocking evil kiddie porn sites. Why are you so upset about it?

I have to side with Kindel here - as much as I detest child pornographers.

If you complain AFTER something happens, it's usually a hell of a lot more difficult to reverse it (example: Sue Bradford's well-intentioned, but poorly thought through, anti-smacking legislation), especially when you are talking about a government department. Look at the fuss and cost we are facing for that pile of crap!!)

Most people work on the "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" principle...

Once it's a done deal, I can see all sorts of objections being raised by various (self-)interest groups to prevent the Save The Gay Whales Trust site (or similar - in other words, sites that should never have been there in the first place) being taken off The List...

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)??"

Slippery slope.....:groan:

somebody
02-08-2009, 07:22 PM
The slippery slope is the concern - once the technology is in place, it is easy for the government to "accidentally" start blocking other websites.

The best way is to simply prosecute those who view this material - it's absolutely disgusting that anyone would look at that sort of stuff. The systems are already in place to identify offenders.

rob_on_guitar
03-08-2009, 09:45 AM
What needs to happen is like what becoming a regular theme in some movies of late, where there is a team of geeks the track and trace KP posters/suppliers and send a death sqaud after them.

Noone would care about the death of them kiddie porn freaks. So lets just kill them. Honest.

R2x1
03-08-2009, 03:18 PM
Nah - - Susie Smack would claim you are discriminating against them on the basis of occupation.

Agent_24
03-08-2009, 03:55 PM
I also have concerns about who gets to choose what is and isn't blocked and how they decide this. Of course if like they say, they are only blocking child porn and nothing else then I guess that is OK. But again, once this program is in place, adding more websites to the blocked list would be very easy

I remember the program they used at school, you couldn't search google images for "Blue screen of death" but you could search google normally for "I want to be a terrorist and make bombs to blow up the school" (WTF!?!?! - and no, I am not joking)



"Better a fence at the top of a cliff then an ambulance at the bottom"

I agree, it always makes more sense to address the root cause of a problem than to patch up the results of it.

But what to do here? Arrest the people who run the sites and those who look at them? Sounds like a good idea - maybe. Even that would have its downsides. (remember many people have been threatened by the MAFIAA for piracy that never happened because someone forged their IP or broke into their WiFi)

In any case just blocking this stuff (or anything) never stops it. Look at the prohibition of alcohol in America, that didn't work either.


Personally I would rather use programs on my own computer to block sites that I don't want (which I do)

Perhaps this big blocklist could be "open source" ?


Noone would care about the death of them kiddie porn freaks. So lets just kill them. Honest.

I wouldn't care either but when you're talking about the death penalty you have to be sure that you've got the right person. And don't forget that the death penalty makes people like this cover their tracks by any means necessary so they don't get caught

Metla
03-08-2009, 04:17 PM
Has anyone here ever happened across what would be termed child porn while browsing the internet?

I never have, so whose going to report it?, people activly searching for child porn?

just doesn't add up to me.

johcar
03-08-2009, 04:41 PM
Perhaps this big blocklist could be "open source" ?


Which would make it a Porn Shopping List....


Has anyone here ever happened across what would be termed child porn while browsing the internet?

I never have, so whose going to report it?, people activly searching for child porn?

just doesn't add up to me.

Ditto. And a well-intentioned anti child porn organisation is pushing a plugin for Firefox (http://www.childalert.co.nz/) to report sites.... :groan:

Kindel
03-08-2009, 10:18 PM
Has anyone here ever happened across what would be termed child porn while browsing the internet?

I never have, so whose going to report it?, people activly searching for child porn?

just doesn't add up to me.

That's a good point actually, though I use Opera which as a built-in adblocker, I used the internet for years before that in the days of IE before I knew any better, and still never came across anything like child porn.



Ditto. And a well-intentioned anti child porn organisation is pushing a plugin for Firefox (http://www.childalert.co.nz/) to report sites.... :groan:

Saw this on the news, the DIA review the reported sites. I can imagine it just being flooded with false reports and cancelled. Got a trouoblesome ex-partner you don't like? Why not report his or her site as child porn! etc. Or just people doing it for the hell of it. Sure to be a high-school computer lab hit.

whellington
03-08-2009, 10:28 PM
GG

R2x1
03-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Perhaps they could let Nortons do the blocking - it would be expensive enough to satisfy the gov't crusaders, it would be slow enough to avoid any harm, and it wouldn't catch squat, so no innocents would be harmed in making this typical Gummint blunder onto a slippery slope.

Cato
04-08-2009, 06:27 AM
Might, might, might....


How about complaining about them when they happen, instead of assuming all this.

I think it's a good idea blocking evil kiddie porn sites. Why are you so upset about it?

Because then it will be far too late.

This is not so much about child porn as it is about censorship. And once it starts do you think it will end with just kiddie porn?
It would be very naive to think so.

mikebartnz
04-08-2009, 12:52 PM
Because then it will be far too late.
So true and to quote from the poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Gobe1
04-08-2009, 03:34 PM
Yep agreed, it will be too late.
Like the Humans rights act, once its in you cant get rid of it.
I blame those m(*&^%$#$s that flew those planes into those buildings. The world hasnt been the same since. It has given govts the power to do anything. I bet Bin Laden would have thought twice if he could see the aftermath now

wratterus
04-08-2009, 03:49 PM
Yep agreed, it will be too late.
Like the Humans rights act, once its in you cant get rid of it.
I blame those m(*&^%$#$s that flew those planes into those buildings. The world hasnt been the same since. It has given govts the power to do anything. I bet Bin Laden would have thought twice if he could see the aftermath now

Or would he? Was it even him? :illogical :angry

Gobe1
04-08-2009, 04:04 PM
Yeah i suppose, its not him that has to pay exorbitant prices for petrol, get frisked everytime he goes through an airport etc. Hes probably laughing at us stupid westerners

Cicero
04-08-2009, 04:14 PM
How exactly do they block sites that hardly ever come up, like others on here I have never come across Child porn?

Kindel
04-08-2009, 08:55 PM
How exactly do they block sites that hardly ever come up, like others on here I have never come across Child porn?

It doesn't work like that, it blocks access at an ISP-level. So if someone goes to the address, intentionally or otherwise, they're blocked. Don't really know how else to explain it

Sweep
04-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Hmmmm.

Censorship.

I am of an age where I remember Patricia Bartlett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Bartlett

I do not agree with child porn by the way.

My point here is that if the censors have to watch all this stuff and classify it to protect the rest of us from being corrupted then why are the censors not being corrupted by watching?

prefect
04-08-2009, 10:26 PM
I always wondered why that failed nun wasnt taken out.
She was a joke I actually felt sorry for her because she was so out of touch with the times.
Those were my times pre herpes pre aids great times for casual sex.
All you had to do after closing time at the boozer was not fall over and you were in like Flynn.

Sweep
04-08-2009, 10:58 PM
I always wondered why that failed nun wasnt taken out.
She was a joke I actually felt sorry for her because she was so out of touch with the times.
Those were my times pre herpes pre aids great times for casual sex.
All you had to do after closing time at the boozer was not fall over and you were in like Flynn.

So I take it you were born before other STDs were around. Gee you must be older than I am. I might add that you might even be older than Henry VIII among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis

R2x1
04-08-2009, 11:11 PM
He caught a Bed-ford, that's pretty serious.

Sweep
04-08-2009, 11:18 PM
He caught a Bed-ford, that's pretty serious.

The Bedfords are easy to catch. Even at my age I could run faster than that. :lol:

R2x1
04-08-2009, 11:20 PM
A cold is easy to catch too - try getting rid of it - - that's the trick.

prefect
05-08-2009, 08:47 AM
So I take it you were born before other STDs were around. Gee you must be older than I am. I might add that you might even be older than Henry VIII among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis
Syphilis is treatable, love may be fleeting but herpes is for ever and AIDS means death.

Cicero
05-08-2009, 09:02 AM
Syphilis is treatable, love may be fleeting but herpes is for ever and AIDS means death.

Quite right Pre!

Gobe1
05-08-2009, 10:06 AM
Geez what happened to this thread?

Cicero
05-08-2009, 10:21 AM
Geez what happened to this thread?

It's called a slight digression and quite normal.

somebody
05-08-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2722444/Men-who-imported-child-porn-freed



Two men remanded in custody after admitting importing child pornography have been freed after paying fines.

The men, who were on a visiting cargo ship, were each fined $2000 and ordered to pay court costs when they appeared in North Shore District Court on Friday.

...

"This will hopefully send a clear message out to members of the seafaring community that this type of material is not acceptable in New Zealand."



Err... really?

Billy T
05-08-2009, 01:20 PM
Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death.

I think that the majority of 'anti' posters to this thread need to get their heads into a more appropriate space, and preferably one not accessed via a sphincter. Sexual exploitation, abuse and murder of children is a sad and shocking reality, it is happening somewhere right now as you read this, and as you start work on your righteous indignation.

Failed access to some borderline site or a mistaken block on a legitimate site that could be removed in fairly short order just doesn't stack up against the realities for those kids.

Priorities people, priorities.

Self-interest must come, not second, but last!!!

Billy

R2x1
05-08-2009, 01:47 PM
I guess from where you sit that is a valid opinion.
If you believe the state will succeed in any of it's (stated) objectives, or that no significant pollution of hard-won liberties will ensue, may I interest you in some foil hats?

Cicero
05-08-2009, 02:52 PM
I guess from where you sit that is a valid opinion.
If you believe the state will succeed in any of it's (stated) objectives, or that no significant pollution of hard-won liberties will ensue, may I interest you in some foil hats?

Well said K9.

Cato
05-08-2009, 03:39 PM
Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death.


People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

How about, instead, we hunt down the bastards who do this and lynch them?

It'll end up a lot cheaper, and will be more effective, then the proposed filter.

And how can anyone be so naive as to think this will stop anyone "into" it? They'll find other ways to easily bypass the filter.

Billy T
05-08-2009, 04:14 PM
It truly staggers me to see how many people here are prepared to leap to the defense of the utterly indefensible.

This is not a matter of potential loss of liberty to gain security. It is about accepting the risk of temporary inconvenience, or a possible loss of amenity (that might never happen) in support of one of the most basic rights of humanity.

That is the right of all children to enjoy a childhood free of sexual abuse. For them to enjoy their right to be a child. It is bad enough that a minority of parents maltreat their children, but to sanction physical and sexual abuse for the gratification of others, then to postulate that sanction as protection of your 'rights' as an adult is as selfish an expression of self-gratification over moral obligation as I have ever seen.

Pastor Martin Niemöller's words apply equally well to those children, except that in this instance the threat to their rights and freedom is far greater than any threat to yours.

If they came for your child..................But I wasn't a child, so I did nothing, except mouth platitudes about MY rights. If somebody somewhere else in the world wants to screw little kiddies and post their obscene acts on the internet, that's ok, so long as MY rights are not infringed.

No Sir! Not in my backyard.

There are some very distorted priorities out there. You can judge a Society by how it treats its children, and you can judge equally well our Society by its response to how others treat their children.

Shame on those who would put their wants above abused childrens' needs.

Billy

Kindel
05-08-2009, 07:51 PM
Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death.

I think that the majority of 'anti' posters to this thread need to get their heads into a more appropriate space, and preferably one not accessed via a sphincter. Sexual exploitation, abuse and murder of children is a sad and shocking reality, it is happening somewhere right now as you read this, and as you start work on your righteous indignation.

Failed access to some borderline site or a mistaken block on a legitimate site that could be removed in fairly short order just doesn't stack up against the realities for those kids.

Priorities people, priorities.

Self-interest must come, not second, but last!!!

Billy

Yeah I agree (in principal) but in practice, is it actually going to save any kids? And on second thought, wearing shoes made in [insert SE-Asian nation here] probably contributes more to harming exploited kids. At least not buying shoes made in country X is, quantifiably, more likely to help their situation. A filter that is cincumventable and only stops access for people who aren't actually LOOKING for the stuff though? Waste of time.

Kindel
05-08-2009, 08:10 PM
Wow, came across this link. Has the DIA's answers on everything. Looks like it won't impact on speed afterall (not that my ISP is implementing it anyway, but still)

http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/05/10/the-response-from-internal-affairs/

mikebartnz
05-08-2009, 09:15 PM
It truly staggers me to see how many people here are prepared to leap to the defense of the utterly indefensible.

This is not a matter of potential loss of liberty to gain security. It is about accepting the risk of temporary inconvenience, or a possible loss of amenity (that might never happen) in support of one of the most basic rights of humanity.

That is the right of all children to enjoy a childhood free of sexual abuse. For them to enjoy their right to be a child. It is bad enough that a minority of parents maltreat their children, but to sanction physical and sexual abuse for the gratification of others, then to postulate that sanction as protection of your 'rights' as an adult is as selfish an expression of self-gratification over moral obligation as I have ever seen.

Pastor Martin Niemöller's words apply equally well to those children, except that in this instance the threat to their rights and freedom is far greater than any threat to yours.

If they came for your child..................But I wasn't a child, so I did nothing, except mouth platitudes about MY rights. If somebody somewhere else in the world wants to screw little kiddies and post their obscene acts on the internet, that's ok, so long as MY rights are not infringed.

No Sir! Not in my backyard.

There are some very distorted priorities out there. You can judge a Society by how it treats its children, and you can judge equally well our Society by its response to how others treat their children.

Shame on those who would put their wants above abused childrens' needs.

Billy
Calm down Billy T no one is leaping to the defence of the utterly indefensible.
It is just legitimate sites in Aussie have been caught out with their filter and why the hell don't they close down the web hosts that are hosting this crap. Surely that would be far more practical and effective.