Internet Censorship

DS Danyl Strype Public Seen by 17

Netsafe are the pushers of the "Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System" currently run through the NZ Department of Internal Affairs. This system sets up a secret blacklist of sites which are automatically blocked using the gateway on the main cable connecting NZ to the rest of the internet. This is equivalent to the Chinese censorship system sometimes referred to as the "Great Firewall of China". Netsafe are involved in similar internet censorship systems around the world, which use the excuse of child porn as justification, even though there is no way filtering the free web can possibly prevent the production or trading of documented sexual child abuse (commonly referred to as 'child porn').

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff seems to be in collaboration with NetSafe:

Although Marie Shroff is stepping down soon:

This is still highly concerning, and suggests that the office of the Privacy Commissioner has been compromised by the current government. Parliamentary Commissioners are selected by the current government, and activist groups have expressed similar concerns about the independence and integrity of the current Commissioner for the Environment, and Race Relations Conciliator.

Previous discussions of legislative responses to bullying using digital networks can be found here:
and here:


David Peterson Tue 11 Feb 2014 8:35AM

Have you read what Falkvinge has said on CP?

Falkvinge is very critical of this censorship, seeing it is nothing but a sneaky underhanded attempt by governments to control the internet and our lives.


Hubat McJuhes Tue 11 Feb 2014 8:45AM

I very much appreciate your initiative here and agree that this is a very important issue and threat.

But I would like to ask you to change your wording in the description in one very important aspect:
There is no such thing as 'child porn'.

Pornography is about exposing sexual acts performed in mutual agreement of those exposed. Some might not like it, some might find it morally wrong: but it is not a crime.

What is commonly referred to as 'child porn' is actually child abuse, documented by camera with the intent to make profit from the crime committed.
Using the word 'porn' in this realm is an euphemism.

Can I therefore ask you to exchange 'child porn' with 'documented child abuse', please?


Danyl Strype Tue 11 Feb 2014 10:22PM

I take your point @hubatmcjuhes . You are welcome to change the description yourself, either by putting the propaganda term in quotes "child porn" or by changing it to your suggested wording.

Process note: anyone can change the descriptions in the Context Box of any thread. The purpose of them is to keep a running summary of the discussion as it progresses, so new people can join long-running or heavily commented discussions without having to read every single comment, many of which may be low quality or tangential.


Adam Bullen Thu 13 Feb 2014 9:48AM

I generally disagree with censorship on principal.

However, on this issue I also disagree on technical merit. It is impossible to censor a website from technically adept users. As long as that site is still on the net it is still accessible by those skilled in the use of the net.

Reading a few forums on getting around blocks etc, will inform those not yet up to speed in a very short period of time. Look at the failure of various organisations at removing access to The Pirate Bay, possibly one of the most targeted sites in history.

There are many other issues around censorship on the net, such as if something is blocked incorrectly, what is the process to remove that block.