New Zealand bolts net filtering regime into place Shows Oz

New Zealand bolts net filtering regime into place Shows Oz - and us - how it's done

By John Ozimek Posted in Government, 6th February 2009 09:15 GMT

If you thought that net filtering and grandiose firewalls were the exclusive preserve of West Island (or "Australia", as the locals like to call it), think again. New Zealand is showing that it, too, is ready to play its part in the great Antipodean censorship stakes.

Last week, the Department of Internal Affairs (http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf) (DIA) announced it was setting up a filter system that will allow internet service providers to stop people accessing child pornography.

The filter system has already been trialled in hundreds of thousands of New Zealand households, and Internal Affairs deputy secretary Keith Manch confirmed that the voluntary system will block access to around 7000 websites carrying images of child sexual abuse.

As always, with such systems, there are concerns that this power could be abused: internet Safety group NetSafe (http://www.netsafe.org.nz/) welcomed the move, while warning that there could be concerns if the department later used the filter to block a wider variety of websites.

Manch denies that any such plans exist and stressed that the filter is only for targeting the sexual abuse of children. The department is now finalising its analysis of the trial and will be discussing with internet providers how to implement the system. So is New Zealand following its nearest neighbour into internet overkill? The possibility exists, but given the New Zealand track record on censorship to date, it seems unlikely.

The legal framework governing internet content in New Zealand is the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, as amended by the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Act 2005  Outwardly, this Act is quite draconian, combining in one law almost every bit of censorship that the UK has erected piecemeal over the last ten years.

The Law makes it an offence to to possess or trade in "objectionable" publications. "Objectionable" is broadly defined (http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-What-is-Objectionable?OpenDocument) as: "a publication...(that) describes, depicts or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availablity of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good."

Although the law does not specifically reference the internet, officials claim that it does cover online publication. Not only has New Zealand managed to bring together in one Act the concepts of possession and publication – now governed by entirely separate law in the UK.

They have also pulled together child abuse, violent or coercive sex, terrorism and race hatred into the same legal bucket. That is a very neat approach, allowing for a remarkable consistency of policing. In practice, however, the DIA focus tends to be mostly on those involved in the distribution or possession of child porn. A good comparative evaluation of internet censorship in New Zealand and Australia can be found at the Open Net resource, here (http://opennet.net/research/regions/au-nz). Both have official bodies with powers to investigate and police the internet – although New Zealand lacks the power to order a formal takedown of websites. Meanwhile, cybersafety education for all New Zealanders - children, parents, schools, community organisations and businesses – is provided in a highly positive fashion by independent non-profit organisation, NetSafe. As debate on the shape of internet regulation in the UK hots up, the New Zealand model is one that is worth examining. The legal framework offers a clarity now almost wholly absent from the UK. NetSafe looks to be much closer to the spirit of the Byron Review, which called for a calmer, more inclusive response to the challenges of the internet than our current mindset which appears to be locked into an obsession with control, either through blocking and takedown (the Internet Watch Foundation) or film-style classification and a regulatory body to police content. ®

BT in the UK block 58 Million Requests for Child Porn Annually

It is estimated that "there are more than 58 million attempts to access sites on the Internet Watch Foundation's (IWF) blocklist annually"

Recent announcements of the number attempted accesses made to child sexual abuse imagery using BT internet connections may come as a shocker to many who suppose that most wanting access to this material would use other methods such as peer to peer networks.

With between 35,000 and 40,000 attempted accesses daily, this projects to around 58 million attempts annually.

This figure is based off a list of URLs which are managed by the IWF foundation and number between 800 to 1200. Feasibly the numbers may alter significantly with increased list numbers.

The good news is, that this is 58 million times the system has prevented access to known child sexual abuse imagery.

Although the figure is difficult to analyze with respect to source and intent of requests for the material, it is a sign that the open internet is in need of filtering to lessen access to known child sexual abuse imagery.  Requests for this material are still significant to warrant filtering.

Original Press 7th April 2009 at the Register

EU Want Laws for Mandatory ISP Blocking of Child Porn

The European Union turns up the heat so governments will be able to force ISP blocking of CSAI

Clearly the European Union seeks consistency and increased cooperation with a raft of initiatives to impact child sexual abuse.

Sexual exploitation and abuse of children is increasing, with 10-20% of children in Europe predicted to be victims of sexual assault during their childhood.

"Research also suggests that this phenomenon is not decreasing over time, but rather that certain forms of sexual violence (such as abuse of teenagers) are on the rise. The child victims portrayed in pornography are getting younger, and the images are becoming more graphic and more violent." Memo/09/130

Shame and fear make fighting child sexual abuse difficult. The Internet have made it easier to groom cfhildren and to produce and distribute images. CSAI is produced in different countries with different and sometimes non-existent laws to apprehend and convict those perpetuating the industry. Involvement in viewing CSAI for some leads to later abuse of children.

The European Union has stepped up the heat to create consistency amongst a raft of measures, across Europe, encouraging further cooperation to combat child sexual abuse. For ISPs there may be little choice but to enforce blocking of CSAI. Blocking access to imagery greatly reduces the numbers of people accessing this material out of curiosity or unintentionally.

Repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA the European Commission adopted a Proposal for a new Framework Decision to combat sexual exploitation and abuse of children. Article 18 of the proposal deals with "Blocking access to websites containing child pornography". Article 18 states that:

"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to enable the competent judicial or police authorities to order or similarly obtain the blocking of access by internet users to internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography, subject to adequate safeguards."

Once adopted, a European Commission framework decision obliges member states to bring national law in line with its provisions.

In the UK where blocking CSAI has been largely voluntary and has had the support of ISPs to achieve 95% coverage, achieving the last 5% may now be achievable. Previous resistance based on cost of technology and membership to the IWF are no longer an excuse since the introduction of a fully externally hosted service by Watchdog International Ltd remove these obstacles.

To inquire about the UK or Australian Externally Hosted WhiteBox solution email us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  

For further press go to The Register an article by Chris Williams - 2nd April 2009 11:44 GMT

For Memo /09/130 25/3/2009 - Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA.

For the Commission of European Communities Proposal itself.

Prosecutors in USA push for child pornography legislation

By Michelle Dupler, Herald staff writer Published: 02/26/09 2:09 am OLYMPIA —

Prosecutors urged lawmakers on Wednesday to pass a bill aimed at making viewing child pornography online a crime.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 5183, which would make it a felony to look at sexually explicit images of minors on the Internet. The bill was introduced by Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, at the request of Attorney General Rob McKenna. McKenna said at a news conference in January that he wants to close a loophole in the law that allows pedophiles to escape prosecution when they look at child pornography online as long as they don’t download it.

The bill would add a second degree to the felony crime of possessing child pornography that criminalizes the intentional viewing of sexually explicit images of minors. Hobbs said the idea is to catch the pedophiles who are smart enough to watch streaming video that never touches their hard drives, thereby eluding prosecution.

“The bill catches up with the technology,” he said. Committee members had concerns about whether the bill might be too broad, and might mean people who unknowingly possess sexually explicit images might be prosecuted.

Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood, gave the example of buying a used hard drive for his old home computer. “What if I buy one and don’t know the stuff was there?” he said. “How would I be able to prove my innocence?” Proponents said it’s prosecutors who would have to prove guilt by establishing intent and a pattern of viewing prohibited material. “Nobody wants to prosecute anybody for pop ups on their (home computer),” said Mark Rose, a deputy prosecutor for Snohomish County.

Lawyer Robert Quillian opposed the bill on behalf of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers because the group fears it will result in innocent people being prosecuted.

“This particular statute paints with a broad brush and will result in liability for folks who shouldn’t have it,” he said.