Statistics New Zealand recently released the results of their latest survey of ISPs (Internet Survey Providers). This included data on how many ISPs offered an Internet content filtering service.
Continue reading Internet Filtering Offered by ISPs
Monthly Archives: December 2009
Poll Shows NZers Against Internet Censorship
Stuff is running a poll about Internet censorship next to an article about the Australian plans to censor the Internet. While online polls aren’t very statistically valid, I was still heartened to see the results:
Should New Zealand censor the internet?
- 13% – Yes, just like we censor films & TV.
- 61% – No, it’s against free speech.
- 26% – No, it’s a waste of money.
A total of 87% of the 1964 people who voted were opposed to Internet censorship.
Media Release: Tech Liberty welcomes planned Section 92A revision
New section 92A of Copyright Act does a far better job of balancing civil liberties and copyright enforcement.
Commerce Minister Simon Power released a statement revealing an intended framework and policy to replace Section 92A of the Copyright Act. This section, meant to come into force this year, was suspended after a broad coalition of rights holders, ISPs, and stakeholders opposed the original vague and ill-defined wording.
Continue reading Media Release: Tech Liberty welcomes planned Section 92A revision
Media Release: New Zealand has no place in anti-democratic ACTA negotiations
The Ministry of Economic Development refuses to reveal draft text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement at a briefing in Wellington today.
Ministry of Economic Development (MED) spokesperson George Wardle, at a briefing in Wellington today, said that they could not release the draft text of the treaty as all parties to the negotiation had agreed to keep it confidential. He also refused to say who in New Zealand they had consulted with and refused to reveal what New Zealand was arguing for. The Ministry of Economic Development is working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade representing New Zealand’s interests in the negotiations.
Continue reading Media Release: New Zealand has no place in anti-democratic ACTA negotiations
ACTA and the New Copyright Deal
Why New Zealand should withdraw from the secret and anti-democratic process around the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) treaty negotiations.
Summary
- New technology is creating challenges to copyright and therefore the content industry.
- Our copyright laws will need to change in a way that meets the requirements of everyone.
- The ACTA process is trying to use a secretive and undemocratic process to change our copyright laws to satisfy one sector.
- The New Zealand government should withdraw from the ACTA negotiations and keep to treaties that can be publicly discussed.
Law Commission to Review Official Information Act
The Law Commission is continuing its run of reviewing significant laws (Search and Surveillance Bill, Suppression of Evidence report). This time it’s the turn of the Official Information Act 1982. Their work is at a very early stage – they’re canvassing views in an attempt to come up with an issues paper to guide further discussion.
Continue reading Law Commission to Review Official Information Act
All we need to do is filter the Internet
Compare:
Judge David Harvey told the seminar that internet providers (ISPs) should be set up specifically to block suppressed information and issue “take-down” notices to those who had posted it. “Internet content can in fact be managed and controlled. It is a question … of how far we want to go to do that.”
‘Alliance’ needed to enforce name suppression online, Stuff.co.nz
And contrast:
Seeking to deny the protesters a chance to reassert their voice, authorities slowed Internet connections to a crawl in the capital, Tehran. For some periods on Sunday, Web access was completely shut down — a tactic that was also used before last month’s demonstration.
Iran chokes off Internet on eve of student rallies, Yahoo News
Law Commission Clarifies Position
In our recent article, Law Commission Demands ISPs Filter the Internet, we wrote that the Law Commission’s report Suppressing Names and Evidence required internet service providers (ISPs) to be able to block access to information hosted on overseas websites.
At the R v Internet seminar in Wellington, Warren Young, Deputy Head of the Law Commission, stated that this was not their intention (while admitting it was badly worded). Rather they only intended for local ISPs to have to take down locally hosted information. While this is somewhat of a relief as it means that we can avoid the necessity of implementing a China-style Internet censorship system, there are still a number of problems with this position.
- It puts the burden on ISPs to remove material when the onus should be on the people who have published the material (i.e. the individual blogger or the site that allowed the comment in their forum). Putting the liability on the ISP is like blaming the local dairy owner for the content of the newspapers they sell.
- Many websites that are popular in New Zealand, such as Facebook and Twitter, are not hosted in New Zealand. While it might be possible to make requests to the individuals discussing suppressed information (and even act against them if they are in NZ and can be identified), this is going to be as successful as King Canute was at stopping the tide.
- While ‘responsible’ bloggers and media companies may take down material suppressed by the NZ courts, this just means that anyone searching for information will find the myriad of ‘irresponsible’ sources who probably don’t even realise they’re in contempt of court.
R v Internet – Summary
A summary of the main links to articles about the R v Internet seminar held in Wellington on December the 3rd.
Tech Liberty summary of events:
- Session 1 – Chris Finlayson (Attorney General), Tony Smith (law professor, VUW), David Collins (Solicitor General)
- Session 2 – Panel discussion with Steven Price (media law expert), Robert Lithgow QC, Brent Edwards (journalist)
- Session 3 – Warren Young (Law Commission) and Judge David Harvey
- Session 4 – Panel discussion with Sinead Boucher (Fairfax), Ursula Cheer (associate professor, Canterbury), David Farrar (blogger)
Kiwiblog (David Farrar) summary of events:
R2 video:
R v Internet – Final Panel
Sinead Boucher – Group Online Editor, Fairfax
Everything’s changing very, very fast, no sooner do they get a handle on something then they have to rethink it. What we discuss today might be obsolete in another year.
Last year they had a talk about social media and didn’t even mention Twitter in their meeting. Now Twitter is changing everything, news goes out instantly – and then half an hour later the judge suppresses the information.
Continue reading R v Internet – Final Panel