New Zealand filters the web

Stealthy launch of some dodgy practices...

In New Zealand some ISPs have started filtering Internet content on behalf of the Kiwi government.

According to Stuff, the NZ Department of Internal Affairs' (DIA) Internet filter is now operational and is being used by the Internet service providers (ISPs) Maxnet and Watchdog.

However the filter was bought in without much in the way of controversy because the Kiwi government hit on the clever idea of not actually telling anyone. The filter went live on February 1 but the DIA did not announce the fact publicly.

The manager of the DIA's Censorship Compliance Unit, Steve O'Brien, denied that there was subterfuge in the launch of the Internet filter. He said it was trialed for nearly two years and the plans have been shown in the display area of the DIA offices for some time.

We expect that the display area was a cellar and the plans were locked in a filing cabinet marked "beware of the leopard", but we guess it is far too late to moan about it now.

The Kiwi filter is apparently less harsh than the one planned across the Tasman Sea in Australia. The Aussie filter was recently identified by Reporters Without Borders as being on a par with something the might be seen in Saudi Arabia. The Kiwi one just lists sites that contain images of child sexual abuse.

The New Zealand system is also voluntary whereas the Australian one is not. ISPs who have signed up to use it so far have told their customers about it and there are no laws to back it up.

However there is a problem with the way the New Zealand government is going about it. TechLiberty claims the list of what is filtered is kept secret, in direct contrast to the rest of New Zealand's censorship regime where the Chief Censor must publish decisions banning offensive material.

Behind the scenes with Mass Effect 3! GTX 560 VGA round-up! Essential Skyrim tweaks to improve your game! Plus reviews, news, hardware, more games, and easy to following modding guides for PC builders. ON SALE NOW!

Ads by Google

18 Comments

osama_bin_athlon Mar 15, 2010 10:22 AM	this is getting out of control! what's happening to ALL our Civil Liberties? we're just allowing the pollies to do what they like. where's the Council for Civil Liberties these days? I think that we're all going to have to arm up..... very sad state of affairs
clockworkman Mar 15, 2010 10:31 AM	"The Kiwi one just lists sites that contain images of child sexual abuse. The New Zealand system is also voluntary whereas the Australian one is not. ISPs who have signed up to use it so far have told their customers about it and there are no laws to back it up." did you see that bit OSA ?
Jeruselem Mar 15, 2010 11:16 AM	Well, that's what the NZ government tell us about what's filtered. We all know governments can't be trusted.
Caelum Mar 15, 2010 11:55 AM	At first i was thinking this is pretty bad.... but really, i'm not entirely sure it's as bad as first implied. Yes, it filters 'stuff', which the gov't has decided is bad. No, i don't think the list should be secret. Having said that - it is an optional 'opt in' program that ISP's have kept their customers informed about. No, it isn't perfect, but it is a damn sight better than the australian solution.
Mudg3 Mar 15, 2010 12:36 PM	I'm totally with Caelum here. Sure Its abit sus when they are filtering the net without informing the public but I don't think anyone can disagree with filtering child porn. Totally unlike what our filter is going to be like.
majestic975 Mar 15, 2010 12:52 PM	Yes, no one would disagree with filtering child porn, we would all support that, BUT once the filter is in place its easy to filter other sites as well. Why put everyone in the same category, wouldnt it be easier to use Interpol to demand that the place that hosts such a site, atually bring down the site and then prosecute them? If we filter the feed, it means that such sites will actually continue to exist, so we havent solved the problem at all, criminals and sex offenders will continue to operate as normal. Which also means that since the sites are still up, deprived individuals just need to find a way to by pass the filter. Which can be easily done. Its all a political game, nothing to do with actually solving the problem at all.
Tyno Mar 15, 2010 1:35 PM	This reminds me of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
sirtrancealot Mar 15, 2010 1:58 PM	i'm going to start my own interwebs ^.^, i'm sick of this filtering nonsense! lol
DiStOrTeD Mar 15, 2010 3:37 PM	@majestic975 is right on the money. Couldn't agree more with you. I think web hosting companies that do not remove such content as soon as possible after they are alerted to the fact should also be liable. Ideally I would support a licensing system for hosting websites. Think about it. No child porn, No malware infected websites, Each site is licensed to its owner and its owner is responsible 100% for its content.
elmo198 Mar 15, 2010 4:18 PM	I dont care what they are filtering these days, personally I think they shouldnt touch it, the WWW is everything and anything. once ppl try to filter this and that, soon or later, the government will control what we are allow to know and trust.. it might not happen now, but 5-10yrs down, we will all be just mindless sheep. I dont care they are filter child porn, the fact is, there are worst shit out there than that.. just leave the shit alone. DiStOrTeD: thats not even going to work mate.. sure you want fries with that too? how about a million dollar? the future of interest is all about sharing. twitter, facebook, torrents, etc.. you cant lock a site to one person. coz it just wont work.. there will be millions of ppl going through a site and altering it, think Wiki
DiStOrTeD Mar 15, 2010 6:18 PM	Wow elmo your imagination really is horrid, Think about it. If you edit a wiki you leave your signature on what you changed. You leave your license number. You sign up for facebook, you put in your license. As for torrents that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here. Well done to you. I agree it would be a stupidly hard task but thats simply because the human race is lazy. Its all about taking responsibility for your content. Not locking the masses in to your opinion of what is questionable content.
fliptopia Mar 15, 2010 9:28 PM	This sounds fine. Filtering child porn is much different to saying that you will filter things that "aren't nice". This is a no open-to-interpretation filter that is voluntary too. I think if there is to be a filter you should be able to opt out if you don't want it. Maybe even choose which things you want to have filtered. As for giving out lists of what sites are filtered... well how would that work? Hey pedos, here is a list of sites you may have missed. Get an anonamiser proxy and be disgusting at them.
Sparky Mar 15, 2010 10:39 PM	Well here's a rather disturbing thought. If theses individuals get off on watching kiddy porn and we cut of their supply what's going to happen? Keep a close eye on your kids.
Seloh Mar 17, 2010 5:31 PM	Licence wont work as people would just "borrow" someone else's also a driving licences is a photo ID that has to be sighted ... hows that going to work over the net signing up for hotmail or facebook.
DiStOrTeD Mar 18, 2010 4:50 PM	Please tell me where I said that it was a photo ID and please tell me where I said the technology used. Stop being so narrow minded. You're just as bad as the politicians passing this kind of crap. A combination of Biometrics with digital signatures could possibly work?
Jonjon Apr 10, 2010 11:45 PM	Where there is a will, there is a way. That's the one thing the whole human race has in common. Even pedophiles. That's the sad truth. There will always be a work around- isn't that what atomicans are trained to look for, anyway?
psyched May 29, 2010 9:59 PM	I think some of the comments above seem to be 'its too hard, so we just wont tackle it at all', pretty bullshit attitute if you ask me. Yes I would assume that their are some very IT savy lowlifes who make their crust from this kind of content, however does that mean we just roll over? And the comment which seemed to take issue with the list not being made public - wtf? So you're wanting to turn the NZ government into an advertising avenue for this kind of material? Please, just stop a moment and think.
Awatif Jun 4, 2010 3:23 PM	from my personally I think they should not touch it or do the internet filter because this is not them responsibility it is the World Wide Web soon or later, also I thin that may lead to the more thing from the government or they will control what we are allow to know and trust I do care they are filter child porn this is the best thing the government must do it soon also i do not why the government still think especially about child born. It is all about taking responsibility for your content. Not locking the masses in to the opinion of what is questionable content. Finally I agree it would be a stupidly hard task but that’s simply because the human race is lazy.

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Latest Competitions

Thermaltake kicks off your gaming year with a BANG
Thermaltake has started off the new year with a bang by giving away a Tt eSport Theron Laser mouse to not one or two, but TWENTY lucky Atomicans!

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 133 | February, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?