Archive for July 2009
Clare Curran, the IT & Communications spokesperson, has confirmed that the Labour Party supports the DIA’s proposed Internet filtering scheme.
This is hardly a great surprise as the initial testing stages were done under the auspices of the Labour government.
Clare goes on to quote/paraphrase David Cunliffe (the Minister at the time):
He also stated that New Zealand had no intention of following Australia’s legislation of mandatory filtering by ISPs. New Zealand’s response to undesirable material has been an emphasis on education, as demonstrated by Netsafe. The Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act had no legislative authority for website filtering, he said.
I find this a bit disappointing, especially when Clare has obviously been doing a lot of thinking around other Internet-related issues such as copyright. I think it might be time to do some thinking around the Internet filtering problem too.
My second letter to the Department of Internal Affairs seemed to get lost so I sent them another copy. I just got the response (page 1, page 2, page 3). Unfortunately the letter is now a bit obsolete as I have found out all of the answers by other means.
However, seeing as I have nothing to say about the letter I thought this would be a good time to make a few comments about the DIA and government in New Zealand:
- The Official Information Act is wonderful. It’s enabled me to request useful information from the DIA and expect to get it as of right.
- I’m impressed that the DIA have generally made a good job of answering my questions (although not always in the detail I’d like).
- Someone jokingly told me the other day that I’d better not want to leave the country (as the DIA administer our passport issuing system). It pleases me that a) that idea had never crossed my mind, b) that I can’t see that happening in New Zealand.
Of course, it’s exactly this openness that I like that matters so much. The OIA is good – but the secret censorship scheme takes away from that. We need accountability so that we don’t end up in the same situation as the Australians with their farcical scheme aimed at dentists and dog kennels. An open and democratic government needs to work in an open and democratic manner.
Finally, I’d like to say that I support the DIA in their fight against child abuse and the people who make and traffic in images of child abuse. They have done some good work in catching people and bringing them to justice.
When I started my campaign against internet filtering my original concern was that the government would be running a secret censorship scheme.
However, as I’ve found out more about how the filtering will work (see the Technical FAQ), I’ve become increasingly impressed with just how useless it is. The DIA’s proposed internet filtering system is not going to stop the people who want blocked material from accessing it.
Here are some of the major technical problems with it:
1. It can’t intercept encrypted web traffic (https).
When internet web traffic gets diverted to the DIA, their filter server examines the request to see which website it is going to and then the request is either blocked or allowed. This does work if the web traffic is in plain text and not encrypted.
Of course, many people don’t want anyone to see the information they’re sending over the web to the bank, or the credit card number they’re sending to an online shop. So someone invented a secure form of web traffic (called https) that encrypts everything sent to and from the web server. More and more sites are starting to use secure web traffic for everything (e.g. Google Mail).
It’s not hard to change your website from non-secure http to secure https. And, if you do, the DIA filter server can’t intercept it.
2. It can’t intercept file sharing, email, chat, instant messaging or anything other than unencrypted web traffic.
Most mainstream movies and music are shared with peer to peer file sharing. The DIA’s filter server won’t look at this type of traffic.
Most online communications are through email or instant messaging. The DIA’s filter server won’t look at this type of traffic.
Why wouldn’t people who spread child pornograpy use the same tools available to everyone else on the internet?
The DIA’s filter server only examines unencrypted web traffic, ignores everything else, and is therefore doomed to irrelevance.
3. Adding new entries to the filter is a manual process.
Creating and moving websites is fast and easy these days. My own web server (used for this blog) only took about an hour to set up.
To be blocked by the DIA’s server, someone has to find out about the site, check it, and then add it to the list. At which point it can just be moved to a new name on the web.
When websites are so easy and quick to set up, I just don’t see how it’s possible for them to do a good enough job to keep the filter list up to date enough.
4. The filter will only be used by some ISPs.
A number of ISPs in New Zealand do not intend to use the DIA’s internet filter. They don’t see it as part of their business. To quote the words of one ISP’s CEO – “we’re the pipe, not the censor”.
If a number of major ISPs don’t use the filter, is there any point in implementing it for the ones that do?
And if the ISP wants to implement their own filter for their business/school clients, they’ll surely be wanting to ban more than is covered by the DIA filter.
5. A motivated person can easily get around the filter.
Most importantly of all, even if all those other points weren’t true, it’s just too easy for a motivated person to work around the filter.
One fairly simple way (and you could write instructions that would let even the non-technically savvy do it). Sign up for US$10/month account with a hosting firm in the US. Install MyEnTunnel on your PC and point it at your account in the US… and everything you do on the internet goes through the US and will never go anywhere near the DIA’s filter server.
Most people won’t bother doing this, but the people who want this material know that it’s illegal and are already used to using similar techniques to avoid detection.
Conclusion
Even if we ignore the political problems and the internet performance problems, we’re still left with the major problem that the filter just won’t work.
So why are we wasting time and money on it?
The Green Party has announced that they are opposed to the DIA’s plans to filter the internet.
Metiria Turei has given a comprehensive answer to the questions I asked, including:
…the Green Party sees the role of ISPs as common carriers and that ISPs should not be made responsible for content that passes through their networks or for material on web sites which they host.
Green Party Policy explicitly states that ISPs must, within the constraints of legal requirements, provide a censorship free service for users who do not want any form of censorship.
I suggest you read the response in full.
I am still waiting for statements from the other major parties.
The list of which ISPs will or won’t implement the filter has been moved to Tech Liberty.
The Department of Internal Affairs has just issued a press release in which they:
- State their intention to start the filter service within a couple of months.
- Say that the filter will not cover email or file sharing.
- Say that the information collected will not be used for law enforcement.
- Claim that Internet NZ is happy with their plans.
- Say that an independent reference group will be established to oversee the operation.
I have updated the general FAQ and technical FAQ with the new information.
Edit: DIA have released an amended version clarifying the position of Internet NZ.
Original version: “We understand that Internet NZ is happy with our plans but the society will be able to review the hardware setup to ensure it complies with industry best practice.”
Amended version: “Internet NZ has requested further information which the Department will provide. The society will be able to review the hardware setup to ensure it complies with industry best practice.”
It’s now available on their website, but here is the complete text of what they emailed me (amended version):
Continue Reading “DIA Announces Internet Filtering Implementation” »
It looks like this site is going to be taken over by the topic of internet filtering for a little while. The normal (if infrequent) programming may or may not return at any time. Here’s a bit of an update on what’s happening.
Internet Filtering FAQs
Articles and Links
Collecting Information
I am endeavouring to collect more information around this issue. This includes asking political parties for their policy, talking to ISPs, writing to the Chief Censor, etc, etc. I will post news as the responses come in.
News Feed
I have created the @nzcensor Twitter feed for posting links to articles of interest. It will include new articles as well as any interesting older articles that I find. You can get it at:
- Twitter – @nzcensor
- Web – http://twitter.com/nzcensor
Send me an email at thomas@thomasbeagle.net if you wish to suggest a link.
Next Steps
I believe the next step is to start a campaign against the planned internet filtering scheme. This will mean developing a policy followed by deciding on and implementing a strategy. Feel free to volunteer!
In March 2009, Communications and IT Minister Steven Joyce had the following to say about internet filtering:
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.
Maybe Steven Joyce should be having a little chat to Nathan Guy, the Minister of Internal Affairs?
The NZ Internet Filtering Technical FAQ is now hosted at Tech Liberty.
I have recently been writing some entries about internet censorship/filtering and how it is about to be implemented in New Zealand. (See my Frequently Asked Questions list for more information about it.)
I thought it might be worth explaining why I am concerned about the prospect of an internet filtering scheme being implemented in New Zealand.
- There is no external oversight of which sites are banned. I believe that censorship in a democratic society should be as open as possible.
- While the internet filtering may be voluntary for ISPs, with most of the big ISPs on board (i.e. Telecom/Xtra, TelstraClear, Vodafone/Ihug) it will not be voluntary for normal internet users. I also believe it will be very politically difficult for an ISP to withdraw from the scheme once they have joined.
- It is being implemented in a very “under the radar” way so as to avoid the fuss that has been raised in other countries such as Australia. If we are going to implement internet filtering I believe it should be done openly and through law, not stealthily and through a pseudo-voluntary scheme.
- It is giving the government a powerful tool to suppress information on a medium that many people find too open. While the current public plan is to only use it for child pornography, I expect that it will be expanded to cover other material in reaction to events.
- The proposed internet filtering will not be very effective as a) it relies on manually adding websites to the filter, b) it is relatively easy for motivated users to circumvent it by using web proxies located in other countries. If so… why are we bothering?