Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
How long before an MP here promotes it here?
As someone else mentioned, Trevor Rogers tried it in the dim, dark days of dial-up only internet. That led to the formation of the Network Society, a one-note wonder that didn't last but galvanized some opposition.
More recently, in 2005, InternetNZ co-operated with DIA and Netsafe to research the UK "cleanfeed" option. You can find the report on their site (but only by searching - I doubt conspiracy but suspect cock-up):
Cleanfeed Evaluation - 4 March 2006
Cleanfeed Evaluation, Appendix 1
Cleanfeed Evaluation, Appendix 2I did the research and wrote the report recommending against going with it as, while it only stopped pornographic images (and not terrorist stuff), it wouldn't stop all of it (and would therefore provide false comfort) and also that the legal definition of offensive material in NZ is a lot tighter than the UK, where the list is compiled, and it would allow stuff to come through that wouldn't be legal here.
One thing I did take out of the study was a new understanding of the terminology and how it defines the discussion. Hence, I no longer talk about "kiddieporn" but instead about images of child abuse, because that's what it is. Every image is a record of a child being damaged, in my view. And those records (and thus the memory of the event) now have huge distribution and permanence. How can a victim get over that experience when the reminders may turn up at any time?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of censorship. I volunteered for the project (thinking I'd only be technically verifying some software - hah! - there is only one way to test whether a filter works, and that is to try it. Not Fun) because I wanted to make sure that the system wouldn't be the sort of thing that the Watchdog filter became. But I don't think there's any particular reason to enable access to images of 6 year olds being penetrated by adults, and that some of the lighter stuff I had to look at.
I had some good discussions with the DIA people and the Censorship Office people about the nature of censorship. The principle they wanted to apply was if it was illegal in print, it should be illegal online. The worry they had was how to block it - image by image or whole site blocks? They didn't want to block legal material because of 1 image, for example. They really do care and, like Emma, I wouldn't want their job as a full-time gig.
There is another evaluation happening at the moment for a different system run by a Swedish network. TelstraClear have already announced that they are going to implement it, although other players are evaluating. I am not part of the program, but spoke to DIA to get some details - they're not sure about it yet and advised TelstraClear to to announce it but, I'd guess, the NZ arm is following the Australian corporate lead.
Regarding Watchdog, I had some discussions with them at the time, as they were also involved with ECPAT. I found them to be earnest but extreme, and very of the opinion that they could prevent child abuse by stopping people seeing images of it. I also thought they were convinced of their rightness and that they could be forgiven any excesses because their cause was just. As Emma said, the people who want to filter are the last people you'd want to do it.
Regarding a definition of pornography, there isn't a legal definition in New Zealand. What our censors go for is offensive material "injurious to the public good". They have criteria - it's laid out pretty well in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and on their website.
And, finally, I stand by my assessment of 2005 that filtering the Internet doesn't work and provides a false sense of security. In my view, governments are better to go after the bastards who produce the stuff than the poor mug who gets titillated (or worse) by it.
-
I just found a nice site with Senate and House voting stats (apologies if it's been mentioned before) at cqpolitics.com
Also, an articulate interview with Mat Damon, questioning Palin's candidacy. Let's hope that makes it into the celebrity news.
-
Members of the House of Representatives? Bad form.
In an election year? Pull the other one, it's French.
-
Does anybody on the left believe that Bush was behind the 9/11?
Nah, everyone knows it was Darth Cheney
-
At this time they could even benefit from Hagar the Horrible
-
@Paul Campbell
Speaking of the LHC - here is a technical site that is monitoring the powerup of the LHC and will indicate problems as they develop
That was brilliant! I had a quick squizz at the code and found these comments:
<!-- the first person to ask for an RSS feed gets a free black hole in their junk
ok FINE here --><!-- oh shit bears -->
<!--
[ddrucker@scatter ~]$ host -t txt freon.3e.org
freon.3e.org descriptive text "Anesthetized monkeys exposed to 25,000 ppm or 50,000 ppm [of freon] for 5 minutes had [cardiac] [arrhythmia]s including [tachycardia] and decreased contractility (U.S. EPA 1983)" -->Buggered if I know what the lat one means
-
My thought, watching McCain at the RNC, was that he looked really, really uncomfortable, and quite hesitant.
-
@RB
Eeewww indeed! -
With ref to "executive expeiernce" , Punditkitchen has a nice image"
-
@RB
Oh, absolutely yeah. I agreeFactCheck only work to the letter of the comment, not anything underlying. If the rumour-mill was saying she tried to cut the funding through use of a veto, they'd confirm it. But the rumour was that she'd cut the funding, and the fact was that funding increased. So they called it.
I think their finding on the librarian is a little naive as well.
The link you posted before led me to have a closer look at The Public Record site. Some excellent stuff on there.