DIA revamps Internet filter Code of Practice
The Department of Internal Affairs have released a new version of the Code of Practice (PDF) for their proposed Internet filtering system, as well as the initial membership of the Independent Reference Group (PDF).
Independent Reference Group (IRG)
The initial members of the Independent Reference Group are:
Internet Filtering Offered by ISPs
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.
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.
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 – Third Session
Law Commission Review of Suppression
Warren Young, Deputy President of the Law Commission, started off the afternoon sessions by talking about the Law Commission's Suppressing Names and Evidence report (PDF).
General principles:
- Open justice unless this would result in injustice.
- Bill of Rights Act – freedom of expression. But reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society.
Law Commission Demands ISPs Filter the Internet
Updated: see our update to this post.
Sometimes it seems that every day there is another threat to people's abilities to use the Internet. Each special interest group has their own barrow to push, often with honourable intent, that causes them to make impossible or unreasonable demands.
Today's effort is from the Law Commission. They've published their Suppressing Names and Evidence report and it includes the following (recommendation 26 from the report, page 66, PDF):
Where an internet service provider or content host becomes aware that they are carrying or hosting information that they know is in breach of a suppression order, it should be an offence for them to fail to remove the information or to fail to block access to it as soon as reasonably practicable.
Tech Liberty welcomes US defense of internet freedom
Yesterday, Hilary Clinton made a speech committing the USA to the cause of internet freedom.