July 21, 2009

Hi Henry.

I have made a summary of comments that have been made about a new web censoring program the government wants to introduce. This link provides a good analysis of the issues: (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6637). The New Zealand government is planning to introduce web site filtering. This follows an earlier announcement in March this year (2009) from the Communications and IT minister Steven Joyce "We have been following the internet filtering debate in Australia but have no plans to introduce something similar here". "The technology for internet filtering causes delays for all internet users. And unfortunately those who are determined to get around any filter will find a way to do so. Our view is that educating kids and parents about being safe on the internet is the best way of tackling the problem" (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/joyce-internet-filtering-agenda-nz-87186).

I find it hard to believe that filtering or blocking child pornography web sites is the prime objective here. There is so much more valuable information that can be gained from monitoring those sites. In fact it is often because of an open internet that pedophiles are discovered. I've been on the internet almost since the beginning and have never stumbled across child pornography. No matter what the realities are, this technology is sure to be implemented a lot more widely than is currently proposed.

As well as that, the government intends to keep the list of blocked web sites a secret. If this is being done in the public interest then why wouldn't you publish the names of web sites that are blocked, if they are in fact the only ones that the government says it is targeting?

We used to value free speech in the West. Even the slightest hint of an introduction of a filter will open the door to licensing and legislation on the internet and how it is governed. The countries who have prevented free speech have typically always had an appalling record of human rights abuses.

People who have nothing to hide are not afraid of free speech. Whenever someone is being disrespectful or dishonest it is more of a commentary on themselves than anyone or anything else so why not let users decide for themselves?

Regards

Doug

---