3 ms·

They're also blocking 4channel.org (which is the worksafe, e.g. retro gaming, version of 4chan, /pol and /b etc are on 4chan.org) and zerohedge and others not s

They're also blocking 4channel.org (which is the worksafe, e.g. retro gaming, version of 4chan, /pol and /b etc are on 4chan.org) and zerohedge and others not sharing the video. I just wanna read about TurboGrafx and Sega Genesis...

erentz 8y ago
Technical point. "They" in this case is not the NZ government, it's assorted ISPs in NZ who quickly and independently decided to do this after the event.
- deminature 8y ago
  These sites are usually only blocked via DNS and still accessible via their IP.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  Yes exactly, the NZ ISPs decided unilaterally to ban access to places that were hosting the snuff film within hours of the terrorist attack, this wasn't a government action. If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by.
  - PostOnce 8y ago
    Well, should we not then also ban Facebook? 4channel.org never hosted the video (and, afaik, never linked to it), but Facebook.com did, so then why is the former banned and not the latter?
    - erentz 8y ago
      If you're a customer of one of the ISPs in question (sounds like you are), you could try contacting them and asking the reasoning behind their blocks of these sites, and the reason for the inconsistencies you point to. If they brush you off, then since you're in NZ you may also find various NZ gaming or technical community forums on which people have similar feelings to discuss this and see if you can get a more satisfactory answer as a group. Also you might write to your MP or the relevant minister about this and the subject of net neutrality in the broader sense.
  - erentz 8y ago
    Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what the motivations were behind the initial block that these ISPs put in very quickly after the attack. (Don't know if there's any threads on NZNOG about it, haven't gone looking.) One possibility, I had was the operations folk were trying to block suspicious sites in case they were being used for communication or would prompt further incidents in what was then an unfolding terrorist attack. That the blocks continue now is something that should be discussed in the NZ ISP community. Do we want ISPs to be able to make unilateral blocking decisions or should they be legally required to be neutral? Maybe this will shape a future net neutrality law.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Guilt by association. Amazing. I lost respect for NZ when I read that they're happy with censorship, but this makes it seem even worse. I suppose me coming from an ex-Soviet state makes me view it from a different angle.
  - sampo 8y ago
    > If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by. In 2008 there was a minor diplomatic incident between Finland and Thailand. Finnish police kept a list meant to block child porn websites, they just didn't do a very good job about it. The police had blocked a Thai portal that contained, among other things, memorial pages for a recently passed away Thai princess. Thailand happens to be quite serious about their royalty and offenses about their dignity. The portal probably contained other sections, and maybe some actual cp had been posted in some discussion boards there, who knows. But that's not how the Thai government wanted to see the case, when they were told that a princess' memorial site was blocked in Finland with a police notice about cp. (If you did the same in Thailand, it could be up to 15 years in prison.) There were some talks about Thailand withdrawing their ambassador from Finland, but the diplomatic crisis got resolved. ref. https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html
  - CLS99 8y ago
    The problem is that the list of blocked sites seems to have been poorly thought out in general, a lot of websites became collateral damage. Among the blocked sites were a small video hosting site that was complying with removing copies of the video that surfaced, and a website for creating web citations/historical snapshots of static webpages (which seems ridiculous because it is technically impossible for the site to have anything but static content). Of course the largest sources of this video were not targeted by these blocks, which the cynic in me attributes to their market share. Beyond the double standards and collateral damage a question should be raised; is blocking these sites actually stopping the spread of the video, or is it creating a taboo and playing into the exact kind of conspiratorial disinformation the shooter believed? Obviously the video is vile, but by taking such extreme reactions don't we just give ammunition to the people who believe like the shooter and reenforce their misheld belief of being victims?
- PostOnce 8y ago
  Sort of. The ISPs opt into a filter, but the government runs the filter... and if all the ISPs have opted in, and the government is running the filter, then is it not the government doing the censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...
  - erentz 8y ago
    From the ISPs statements and what’s been reported though it wasn’t this block list that was used. These ISPs just did it themselves.
    - ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
      And it was only some ISPs. I was a bit confused to being with as mine didn't seem to block it.

erentz 8y ago

Technical point. "They" in this case is not the NZ government, it's assorted ISPs in NZ who quickly and independently decided to do this after the event.

deminature 8y ago
These sites are usually only blocked via DNS and still accessible via their IP.
Taniwha 8y ago
Yes exactly, the NZ ISPs decided unilaterally to ban access to places that were hosting the snuff film within hours of the terrorist attack, this wasn't a government action. If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  Well, should we not then also ban Facebook? 4channel.org never hosted the video (and, afaik, never linked to it), but Facebook.com did, so then why is the former banned and not the latter?
  - erentz 8y ago
    If you're a customer of one of the ISPs in question (sounds like you are), you could try contacting them and asking the reasoning behind their blocks of these sites, and the reason for the inconsistencies you point to. If they brush you off, then since you're in NZ you may also find various NZ gaming or technical community forums on which people have similar feelings to discuss this and see if you can get a more satisfactory answer as a group. Also you might write to your MP or the relevant minister about this and the subject of net neutrality in the broader sense.
- erentz 8y ago
  Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what the motivations were behind the initial block that these ISPs put in very quickly after the attack. (Don't know if there's any threads on NZNOG about it, haven't gone looking.) One possibility, I had was the operations folk were trying to block suspicious sites in case they were being used for communication or would prompt further incidents in what was then an unfolding terrorist attack. That the blocks continue now is something that should be discussed in the NZ ISP community. Do we want ISPs to be able to make unilateral blocking decisions or should they be legally required to be neutral? Maybe this will shape a future net neutrality law.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Guilt by association. Amazing. I lost respect for NZ when I read that they're happy with censorship, but this makes it seem even worse. I suppose me coming from an ex-Soviet state makes me view it from a different angle.
- sampo 8y ago
  > If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by. In 2008 there was a minor diplomatic incident between Finland and Thailand. Finnish police kept a list meant to block child porn websites, they just didn't do a very good job about it. The police had blocked a Thai portal that contained, among other things, memorial pages for a recently passed away Thai princess. Thailand happens to be quite serious about their royalty and offenses about their dignity. The portal probably contained other sections, and maybe some actual cp had been posted in some discussion boards there, who knows. But that's not how the Thai government wanted to see the case, when they were told that a princess' memorial site was blocked in Finland with a police notice about cp. (If you did the same in Thailand, it could be up to 15 years in prison.) There were some talks about Thailand withdrawing their ambassador from Finland, but the diplomatic crisis got resolved. ref. https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html
- CLS99 8y ago
  The problem is that the list of blocked sites seems to have been poorly thought out in general, a lot of websites became collateral damage. Among the blocked sites were a small video hosting site that was complying with removing copies of the video that surfaced, and a website for creating web citations/historical snapshots of static webpages (which seems ridiculous because it is technically impossible for the site to have anything but static content). Of course the largest sources of this video were not targeted by these blocks, which the cynic in me attributes to their market share. Beyond the double standards and collateral damage a question should be raised; is blocking these sites actually stopping the spread of the video, or is it creating a taboo and playing into the exact kind of conspiratorial disinformation the shooter believed? Obviously the video is vile, but by taking such extreme reactions don't we just give ammunition to the people who believe like the shooter and reenforce their misheld belief of being victims?
PostOnce 8y ago
Sort of. The ISPs opt into a filter, but the government runs the filter... and if all the ISPs have opted in, and the government is running the filter, then is it not the government doing the censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...
- erentz 8y ago
  From the ISPs statements and what’s been reported though it wasn’t this block list that was used. These ISPs just did it themselves.
  - ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
    And it was only some ISPs. I was a bit confused to being with as mine didn't seem to block it.