Sponsor's Message

As members of a free society, we decry the fact that the governments of some countries such as China have imposed blatant censorship on the web that their citizens see. There's very little chance of accidentally stumbling on a website that might offer views contrary to those of the government over there.

Of course here in New Zealand we still have unfettered access to anything and everything that's on the web, both good and bad. We certainly don't expect our government or our telcos to treat us like children or abuse their power by imposing arbitrary control over or our web-browsing activities.

Well if the situation in the UK is any hint of what's to come, you might want to take advantage of this freedom while you can.

It seems that in the UK, British Telecom has decided to play censor by blocking access to sites which are considered "illegal" under British law.

We're told that this is primarily a tool to fight child pornography but there appear to be no safeguards to ensure that it won't also be applied to websites that might fall outside that definition.

Now have your say Got something to say about today's column, or want to see what others think?  Visit The Forums While you're here, why not visit the Aardvark Hall of Shame and perhaps make your own nomination.

Now those who seek to impose their opinions, beliefs and standards on others just love the fact that there's kiddy-porn on the Net. Just as governments around the world have been able to use the "war against terror" as a convenient excuse to ride roughshod over the rights of their citizens -- filtering internet content on grounds that you're protecting customers or citizens from the evils of kiddy porn becomes a wonderful justification for the introduction of access controls.

Nobody in their right mind is going to stand up and say "people should be allowed to access kiddy porn websites if they choose" -- so those charged with implementing filtering systems can install an infrastructure that has the ability to block access to any part of the net, without much of a complaint from the masses.

Once that infrastructure is in place, it becomes a very simple task to the decide that maybe all anti-government sites should also be blocked -- or perhaps those websites that publish embarrassing reports about events in Iraq -- or *anything* that the telcos or government decide they'd rather not have the public knowing about.

No, I'm not going to stand up and say "let the kiddy-porn flow" -- but I am going to stand up and say that we must be *very* careful about allowing *anyone* to introduce a *control* layer between net users and net content.

Once such controls are introduced (as they are in China), the choice of what can and can't be seen becomes an enormously powerful tool that will doubtless be given to a privileged few. These few will then have the ability to impose their own standards, beliefs and opinions on the rest of the Net public.

Of course it would be interesting to find out exactly what the legal aspects of such a move might be here in New Zealand.

As I understand it, a "carrier" is indemnified against prosecution if their services are used to access illegal content -- providing that carrier is unaware of the offending. If a complaint is lodged or if offending is detected then the carrier must act to prevent it.

However, any carrier that decides to become a member of the Net-police and actively monitors content in an attempt to pre-emptively detect and block content may well lose their carrier status and the indemnity it provides. In effect, if you're going to block illegal websites then you have an obligation to block them all.

Could this situation occur here?

I doubt it -- but let's not forget that we're currently blessed with a government that has clearly indicated that it wants to be increasingly involved in making decisions for us and not allowing us the right to take responsibility for our own affairs.

We also have a government that has been the subject of several complaints regarding violations of human rights, and one which is seemingly not beyond bending the rules to achieve any outcome it might seek.

Hidden speed cameras, a claim that all drivers in Northland would be stopped by police last weekend, the confiscation of legally purchased personalised registration plates criticising a government department, and a raft of other examples show that although we may not end up like China, we could find ourselves behind a filtering system similar to that used by Singapore.

It's up to you to decide whether you're prepared to accept such a system.

If you feel that this is a good thing and/or you hold a "geniune affection" for yours truly -- then you are welcome to gift me some money using the buttons provided. In gifting this money you accept that no goods, service or other consideration is offered, provided, accepted or anticipated in return. Just click on the button to gift whatever you can afford. NOTE: PayPal bills in US dollars so don't accidentally gift more than what you were intending :-)

Contacting Aardvark
I'm always happy to hear from readers, whether they're delivering brickbats, bouquets or news tip-offs. If you'd like to contact me directly, please this form. If you're happy for me to republish your comments then please be sure and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!