The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

New Zealand set to join internet blocking club

Concerns over oversight and spying on users

Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery

New Zealand is preparing to join the list of internet blockers. From last week, New Zealanders who want to know what is in store for them can access a useful new online resource - "the Compleat Thomas Beagle" - which includes a FAQ providing in-depth coverage of political and technological issues involved.

At present, New Zealand has no official internet blocking, although possession and publication of obscene material is covered under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. Responsibility for policing what goes on to the internet falls to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), who have largely been concerned with material featuring the abuse of children or sex with animals.

Once blocking goes live, the DIA claim that the block list will focus exclusively on the first of these categories: it is reported that the DIA’s Censorship Compliance Unit has developed a list of over 7000 sites containing child pornography. If true, this is an interestingly large figure, being about five times the size of the block list maintained by the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation, and significantly larger than the lists put in place over the last year or so by other European nations.

Two features of the DIA’s approach are likely to excite controversy. The first is the degree of oversight carried out in respect of the DIA’s work. As debate over internet censorship grows, the question that continues to be put to governments and law enforcement is how they can re-assure the public that blocked sites fall within legitimate law enforcement criteria.

The line of "trust me: I’m a police officer" is not one that inspires great public confidence.

To date, the DIA has refused to publish their list, claiming, via the Official Information Act, that to do so would be "likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial".

Initially, the block list will be voluntary: ISP’s may choose whether or not to take it. Where ISP’s do choose to make use of the service – facilitated via Netclean Whitebox - a routing protocol will inform them that the "best" way to the internet address of the banned site’s web server is through the DIA’s filtering server.

Where an individual requests access to a banned site, the DIA server may refuse the request and bounce a message back. There is some facility for individuals to object to the site being blocked: since the list runs at internet address level, a number of sites may be blocked that host perfectly legitimate content.

At present, there is no agreement on whether or not to refer the names of individuals attempting to access blocked sites to law enforcement. This is the second issue likely to prove controversial: it was proposed recently in respect of laws passed to block access to similar material in Germany – and legislators decided that such a move would be a step too far.

New Zealand has still to make up its mind.

The Department of Internal Affairs has budgeted an additional $617,000 for Censorship Enforcement Activities for the 2009/2010 financial year, including $150,000 for internet filtering software.

ISP’s that have already said they will participate in this scheme include hug, Watchdog, Maxnet and TelstraClear. Telecom (Xtra) and Vodafone have also expressed interest. This would mean that blocking would apply to around 94% of the New Zealand internet on the day it goes live. ®

What you need to know about cloud backup

Latest Comments

re: No need for censorship

So you're saying that there is no need to block access to kiddy porn, just take the kiddy porn site down.

Ummm that's quite hard to do if the site is on the other side of the world where your government has no power. The only way to deal with issues like that is to cut access.

0
0

Couple of things wrong

For one, the ISP is 'iHug' and not 'hug'; and that brand of ISP is now 100% owned by Vodafone. Vodafone/TelstraClear/Telecom own the lion share of internet users.

The other is that the (secret) block list is by specific URL; not IP. The IP address is used to only route suspect traffic to the URL checking box.

I think this is a bad thing - imagine being reported to the police because you followed a link to Simpson characters doing naughty things? (yes - cartoons can be classified as CP - but we don't know as the list is secret).

I am not defending CP, but If my ISP does sign up to this I will move to another that does not do this. If the block list was publicly available and agreed upon (like other censored material), I might be more open to accepting this.

0
0

@Sabine Miehlbradt

That's one of the most informative and thought provoking comments I've seen here in a long time. Thank you.

0
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
UK telcos chuck another £1m at online child abuse watchdog
Web enforcers IWF gain power to seek and destroy illegal content
 breaking news
Pttow! Ofcom kicks hams out of MoD bands
Geet off my land, you, you ... 'secondary user'
 breaking news
Now you can use your phone instead of your wallet at the ATM, too
Blimey, these little paper towels out of the vending machine are really expensive
 breaking news
UK.gov's £530m bumpkin broadband rollout: 'Train crash waiting to happen'
Whitehall whispers of damning watchdog report next month
Google launches broadband balloons, radio astronomy frets
A careless Loon could blind the square kilometre array
 breaking news
MySpace zaps millions of teens' tearful rants, causes wave of angst
'Your crappy redesign SUCKS, I wanna read my blogs' screech users
 breaking news
Microsoft Office 365 on iPhone NOW: No, we're not making this up
Word, Excel, Powerpoint for your pocket-stroker
Increased cell phone coverage tied to uptick in African violence
'Significantly and substantially increases the probability of violent conflict'
 breaking news