10 ms·

New Zealand has always had an official censor (Office of Film and Literature Classification [1]), responsible for what works are available in the country. They

New Zealand has always had an official censor (Office of Film and Literature Classification [1]), responsible for what works are available in the country. They already have an internet filter which blocks access to certain domains/ip ranges/etc. [2] Of course they would require similar abilities once Facebook came to their notice by broadcasting a terrorist's murder spree. [3] It would have been "You are selling to New Zealanders. We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_Office_(New_Zealand) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_Office_(New_Zea... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings

Taniwha 4y ago
IP filters don't really work for something like facebook or twitter though - they block everything or nothing - really you need to get them involved to limit what they send to NZ clients
- Thorrez 4y ago
  That sounds like exactly what jpollock is saying. jpollock says New Zealand threatened to block everything.
  - Taniwha 4y ago
    No, he's talking about the ability to install an IP block for packets coming into NZ, not in other countries - in the past, as I understand it this has largly been used to black hole child porn sites
    - jpollock 4y ago
      I'm talking about NZ's history of censorship, the tools that they already have for Internet censorship, and why the NZ government considered it important. The IP block is a tool. It is also able to intercept HTTP traffic for sub-domain blocks, but everything is https now, so that doesn't work. That leaves IP blocking, which I'm pretty sure NZ would have done if Facebook had refused to block content deemed illegal to import into NZ. NZ has blocked the importation of books and video going back to 1880 (according to Wikipedia)[1]. New Zealanders continue to decide to keep the Classification Office - none of the political parties consider it an "issue". It works for the kiwis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Ze...
      - NickNameNick 4y ago
        The web content filtering thing was a bit odd. It was several years ago, but as I recall, Some (not all) NZ ISPs installed the filtering system, which let most IPs through, but redirected some to web proxies which were configured to filter banned content.
        Aaron2222 4y ago
        It's optional for ISPs to implement, and it only filters CSAM.
- jpollock 4y ago
  NZ would have turned Facebook off, and said precisely why - Facebook wanted the ability to continue to distribute videos showing a terrorist murdering New Zealanders who were praying. The NZ Government would have won that argument. "Facebook refused to honour and respect our laws. They prefer to distribute illegal content, so we have turned them off at the border."
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Then what? Facebook is banned and the country learns to use vpns and get around other content restrictions.
    - Rapzid 4y ago
      Everybody already uses a VPN in New Zealand. Netflix bro.
    - JediLuke 4y ago
    - philliphaydon 4y ago
      It wouldn’t happen. Facebook works because it’s more than social media. You have a market place, clubs, businesses, etc on Facebook. When you take all that away because you can’t advertise your Facebook page. Or your parents can’t just open their phone to see photos of your baby. The effort outweighs the benefit and people won’t use a vpn to access it. Just a fringe group of people who want the content no matter what.
cycomanic 4y ago
One important aspect is that NZ (and Australia as well IIRC), have always had laws that gave name suppression to people accused of a crime and its been illegal to publish names of accused if they were granted name suppression. I think this is one of the primary cases how some of the censorship laws have been used.
philliphaydon 4y ago
But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why. (I used to submit for classification for adult content for distribution in NZ or streaming in hotels) Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.
- patmcc 4y ago
  Do you understand the distinction between moderation and censorship? Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want. Gmail running spam filters is moderation. The government blocking you from sending emails to journalists is censorship.
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    > Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want. Except when it isn’t. All media content goes through classification and censorship in New Zealand. You cannot air anything on tv without classification. My comment was on the processor of classification and censorship that occurs during the classification process. > Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want. You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
    - patmcc 4y ago
      >>Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no. This was your original comment. Yes, people want moderation of their platforms, otherwise they become unusable. Most people want some degree of censorship (CSAM is the obvious case). But there's a big difference between Twitter censoring something and the government doing it. For example Facebook can say "hey we don't want people posting nude photos" - that's censorship. And that's fine; they don't want to run a site that has nude photos. >>Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want. Yep, they do both, in varying degrees. The government should be more restrained. >>You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content. Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.
josephcsible 4y ago
> We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice. I wish companies in the free world would unite to choose the latter option, and so force New Zealand to choose between giving in and allowing freedom of speech, or having their Internet become as useless as North Korea's.
- dmix 4y ago
  All of the defenders of the policy reminds me of when Google's CEO Eric Schmidt in 2009(!) famously defended mass surveillance: > "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." If what the gov is censoring is so important then they should publicly post a list of everything they censored (Google's public DMCA list is a good example). They have nothing to hide right? If it's for the public good then the public should have the option to see what they were being protected from.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Well, we have some knowledge; we know for a fact NZ has censored the manifesto and recorded video stream of Brenton Tarrant, the guy who elaborately planned and carried out a massacre of 51 people at a mosque in Christchurch. I believe they've done the same for stuff like ISIS and other terrorist materials, but I don't know the specific details of that. In the Tarrant case we do know: the manifesto (not too hard to find) is about equal parts polemic and roadmap/planning document. The video recording is from a helmet-mounter camera and basically looks like a first person shooter video, except that all the targets are fleeing civilians. It's not impossible for people in NZ to see these materials; academics, journalists and so on can apply for permits to obtain and possess the material. Absent that, possession is, as I understand it, a crime, but one with a very low chance of being caught. The primary intent of the law is to have a strong sanction to prevent people distributing it and inciting similar incidents in the future. I'm not convinced that forcing the materials fully out of circulation is a foolproof preventive strategy, but it certainly creates barriers to the acquisition/ collection of such material by wannabes, and collecting this sort of material is definitely A Thing among other mass shooters, who are quite a bit more social than most people imagine and have an online community of sorts. So the free speech argument generally goes along the lines of 'we don't know what we don't know, allowing the free flow of ideas is the only rational way to ensure freedom of life and the discovery of new ideas without inhibition.' But from NZ's point of view, they definitely don't care for a repeat or innovation in the practice of massacres, and the surviving relatives and neighbors of the dead presumably don't care to see the murder of family and friends become a an entertainment commodity or be weaponized by trolls who use the material to traumatize them further (please, let's not pretend that this doesn't happen). And they've balanced their prohibition with exceptions for serious analysis and study with a straightforward application process, albeit a subjective one that is administered by bureaucrats rather than a mechanical system. So there's a concrete example, with come added context (sorry, it's late and I'm not at my main machine so I'm not going to dig up a pile of links/documents to flesh it out to article quality). So, should we accord any weight to those considerations, including the exceptions, and if not why not?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vbezhenar 4y ago
How does that work with Whatsapp? It claims E2E. Yet Australia requires companies to develop backdoors if necessary to get access to private information.
Alphaeus 4y ago
The filter is voluntary for ISPs to join, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which runs it) doesn't have the power to make it mandatory. Also the Office of Film and Literature Classification lets you look at the classifications for everything online (including stuff that is banned), IIRC with a reason as to why it was classified the way it was.

Taniwha 4y ago

IP filters don't really work for something like facebook or twitter though - they block everything or nothing - really you need to get them involved to limit what they send to NZ clients

Thorrez 4y ago
That sounds like exactly what jpollock is saying. jpollock says New Zealand threatened to block everything.
- Taniwha 4y ago
  No, he's talking about the ability to install an IP block for packets coming into NZ, not in other countries - in the past, as I understand it this has largly been used to black hole child porn sites
  - jpollock 4y ago
    I'm talking about NZ's history of censorship, the tools that they already have for Internet censorship, and why the NZ government considered it important. The IP block is a tool. It is also able to intercept HTTP traffic for sub-domain blocks, but everything is https now, so that doesn't work. That leaves IP blocking, which I'm pretty sure NZ would have done if Facebook had refused to block content deemed illegal to import into NZ. NZ has blocked the importation of books and video going back to 1880 (according to Wikipedia)[1]. New Zealanders continue to decide to keep the Classification Office - none of the political parties consider it an "issue". It works for the kiwis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Ze...
    - NickNameNick 4y ago
      The web content filtering thing was a bit odd. It was several years ago, but as I recall, Some (not all) NZ ISPs installed the filtering system, which let most IPs through, but redirected some to web proxies which were configured to filter banned content.
      - Aaron2222 4y ago
        It's optional for ISPs to implement, and it only filters CSAM.
jpollock 4y ago
NZ would have turned Facebook off, and said precisely why - Facebook wanted the ability to continue to distribute videos showing a terrorist murdering New Zealanders who were praying. The NZ Government would have won that argument. "Facebook refused to honour and respect our laws. They prefer to distribute illegal content, so we have turned them off at the border."
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Then what? Facebook is banned and the country learns to use vpns and get around other content restrictions.
  - Rapzid 4y ago
    Everybody already uses a VPN in New Zealand. Netflix bro.
  - JediLuke 4y ago
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    It wouldn’t happen. Facebook works because it’s more than social media. You have a market place, clubs, businesses, etc on Facebook. When you take all that away because you can’t advertise your Facebook page. Or your parents can’t just open their phone to see photos of your baby. The effort outweighs the benefit and people won’t use a vpn to access it. Just a fringe group of people who want the content no matter what.

cycomanic 4y ago

One important aspect is that NZ (and Australia as well IIRC), have always had laws that gave name suppression to people accused of a crime and its been illegal to publish names of accused if they were granted name suppression. I think this is one of the primary cases how some of the censorship laws have been used.

philliphaydon 4y ago

But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why. (I used to submit for classification for adult content for distribution in NZ or streaming in hotels) Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.

patmcc 4y ago
Do you understand the distinction between moderation and censorship? Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want. Gmail running spam filters is moderation. The government blocking you from sending emails to journalists is censorship.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  > Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want. Except when it isn’t. All media content goes through classification and censorship in New Zealand. You cannot air anything on tv without classification. My comment was on the processor of classification and censorship that occurs during the classification process. > Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want. You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    >>Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no. This was your original comment. Yes, people want moderation of their platforms, otherwise they become unusable. Most people want some degree of censorship (CSAM is the obvious case). But there's a big difference between Twitter censoring something and the government doing it. For example Facebook can say "hey we don't want people posting nude photos" - that's censorship. And that's fine; they don't want to run a site that has nude photos. >>Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want. Yep, they do both, in varying degrees. The government should be more restrained. >>You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content. Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.

josephcsible 4y ago

> We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice. I wish companies in the free world would unite to choose the latter option, and so force New Zealand to choose between giving in and allowing freedom of speech, or having their Internet become as useless as North Korea's.

dmix 4y ago
All of the defenders of the policy reminds me of when Google's CEO Eric Schmidt in 2009(!) famously defended mass surveillance: > "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." If what the gov is censoring is so important then they should publicly post a list of everything they censored (Google's public DMCA list is a good example). They have nothing to hide right? If it's for the public good then the public should have the option to see what they were being protected from.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Well, we have some knowledge; we know for a fact NZ has censored the manifesto and recorded video stream of Brenton Tarrant, the guy who elaborately planned and carried out a massacre of 51 people at a mosque in Christchurch. I believe they've done the same for stuff like ISIS and other terrorist materials, but I don't know the specific details of that. In the Tarrant case we do know: the manifesto (not too hard to find) is about equal parts polemic and roadmap/planning document. The video recording is from a helmet-mounter camera and basically looks like a first person shooter video, except that all the targets are fleeing civilians. It's not impossible for people in NZ to see these materials; academics, journalists and so on can apply for permits to obtain and possess the material. Absent that, possession is, as I understand it, a crime, but one with a very low chance of being caught. The primary intent of the law is to have a strong sanction to prevent people distributing it and inciting similar incidents in the future. I'm not convinced that forcing the materials fully out of circulation is a foolproof preventive strategy, but it certainly creates barriers to the acquisition/ collection of such material by wannabes, and collecting this sort of material is definitely A Thing among other mass shooters, who are quite a bit more social than most people imagine and have an online community of sorts. So the free speech argument generally goes along the lines of 'we don't know what we don't know, allowing the free flow of ideas is the only rational way to ensure freedom of life and the discovery of new ideas without inhibition.' But from NZ's point of view, they definitely don't care for a repeat or innovation in the practice of massacres, and the surviving relatives and neighbors of the dead presumably don't care to see the murder of family and friends become a an entertainment commodity or be weaponized by trolls who use the material to traumatize them further (please, let's not pretend that this doesn't happen). And they've balanced their prohibition with exceptions for serious analysis and study with a straightforward application process, albeit a subjective one that is administered by bureaucrats rather than a mechanical system. So there's a concrete example, with come added context (sorry, it's late and I'm not at my main machine so I'm not going to dig up a pile of links/documents to flesh it out to article quality). So, should we accord any weight to those considerations, including the exceptions, and if not why not?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vbezhenar 4y ago

How does that work with Whatsapp? It claims E2E. Yet Australia requires companies to develop backdoors if necessary to get access to private information.

Alphaeus 4y ago

The filter is voluntary for ISPs to join, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which runs it) doesn't have the power to make it mandatory. Also the Office of Film and Literature Classification lets you look at the classifications for everything online (including stuff that is banned), IIRC with a reason as to why it was classified the way it was.