Excellent and helpful history thank you Mr Hobbit. My worry (among many) is that “safe” is a rather vexed term. We want Governments to keep us safe (army, Police, Fire etc) but ideas & speech are way more subtle. Obnoxious concepts like ‘cultural safety’, now practiced throughout so many institutions (Govt & private) are good examples. Most of us would prefer to have sicko shit like child porn stopped in its tracks, but you just have to watch the TV news, where they warn you you are about to watch a possum being shot to see where this can go. Regulating content for political purposes is of course their ‘end goal’ and must be resisted at almost all costs… To borrow the legal dictum, it’s generally better for lots of shit to flood the internet than for one person to have their freedom curtailed…
I have had dealings with Steven over the years and although we differ (and not for the first time) he does acknowledge that this is not an easy question. His approach to interpretation is more expansive than mine, which is more technically focused.
I imagine these would-be censors are glimpsing the beacon of Castle Anthrax, and are nowhere near Castle Corbenic. They are barging in with the noble intentions of Sir Galahad, only to find that what they have glimpsed is merely a 'grail-shaped beacon', not the Holy Grail itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwOslM8JN0I
The only state that appears to have actually gained control over their internet is the one that believes statesmen should be engineers, not lawyers. People may deride China's 'Great Firewall' approach, but the CCP do have more control over the distribution of internet media than any other political entity. However, I think most Kiwis would agree we don't want to live under that level of authoritarian censorship.
I once worked on a film project in China over the internet, and the CCP happened to be holding a party conference at the same time. To ensure secrecy, the CCP employed the 'Great Firewall' to shut down internet communications for days. I received sporadic messages from China during this communications blackout, so it wasn't fully successful, but the scary thing is that the CCP had even managed to shut down most VPN protocols.
Most criticisms of the 'Great Firewall' are based around how easy it is to 'tunnel out' with VPNs, but the speed and efficiency with which the CCP shut down VPNs during their conference is concerning. While I highly doubt they could 'close' these tunnels for an extended period of time, their capability to shut down VPNs indicates that these protocols are closely monitored and probably only left 'open' for intelligence gathering purposes.
Ultimately, all attempts to control internet distribution are bound to fail, even if they are successful in the short term. The basic game theory understanding of internet security is that 'black' hats (hackers) will always outpace 'white' hats (security specialists) because of the incentive structures: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158814726?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I didn't think the 2023 proposals would get anywhere, since Labour was likely to lose the election, leaving behind much bad feeling about overreach, arising from the response to the pandemic. But I did write in cautious support, while pointing out some of the problems. The FSU was quite clever, writing for their followers a lot of very histrionic rhetoric, invoking '1984' as per usual, and - most significantly - not linking their followers to the actual proposals. The subject is worth examining without an 'Armageddon is at hand' approach. As far as broadcasting is concerned, whatever Mr Plunket is, he's undoubtedly someone who has publicised his complainant's email address, with predictable results for the man concerned. He also, on X, reported a personal foe, David Farrier, to the US State Department: it was targetting 'foreigners' who'd celebrated Charlie Kirk's death, wanting people to dob them in. (Farrier was apparently in LA, and was very critical of Kirk). It's the power of dissemination / outreach that can be the problem, with potential consequences for individuals targetted by someone with a big audience and personal grievances.
I can see where this is going.... you won't be able to criticize in any way, an 'indigenous' regime change.
Excellent and helpful history thank you Mr Hobbit. My worry (among many) is that “safe” is a rather vexed term. We want Governments to keep us safe (army, Police, Fire etc) but ideas & speech are way more subtle. Obnoxious concepts like ‘cultural safety’, now practiced throughout so many institutions (Govt & private) are good examples. Most of us would prefer to have sicko shit like child porn stopped in its tracks, but you just have to watch the TV news, where they warn you you are about to watch a possum being shot to see where this can go. Regulating content for political purposes is of course their ‘end goal’ and must be resisted at almost all costs… To borrow the legal dictum, it’s generally better for lots of shit to flood the internet than for one person to have their freedom curtailed…
Thanks David
Comprehensive, informative and scary....
Good to hear your reasoned explanation on the Platform this morning, too
Yup, he spoke very well on The Platform. And didn’t that other chap (Stephen?) come across a bit of a plonker??
Yes, I had to accept he was a significant lawyer, but gee....!*!*!
He makes some good points and has done a more detailed discussion at https://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=792
I have had dealings with Steven over the years and although we differ (and not for the first time) he does acknowledge that this is not an easy question. His approach to interpretation is more expansive than mine, which is more technically focused.
there are no coincidences ...
I imagine these would-be censors are glimpsing the beacon of Castle Anthrax, and are nowhere near Castle Corbenic. They are barging in with the noble intentions of Sir Galahad, only to find that what they have glimpsed is merely a 'grail-shaped beacon', not the Holy Grail itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwOslM8JN0I
The only state that appears to have actually gained control over their internet is the one that believes statesmen should be engineers, not lawyers. People may deride China's 'Great Firewall' approach, but the CCP do have more control over the distribution of internet media than any other political entity. However, I think most Kiwis would agree we don't want to live under that level of authoritarian censorship.
I once worked on a film project in China over the internet, and the CCP happened to be holding a party conference at the same time. To ensure secrecy, the CCP employed the 'Great Firewall' to shut down internet communications for days. I received sporadic messages from China during this communications blackout, so it wasn't fully successful, but the scary thing is that the CCP had even managed to shut down most VPN protocols.
Most criticisms of the 'Great Firewall' are based around how easy it is to 'tunnel out' with VPNs, but the speed and efficiency with which the CCP shut down VPNs during their conference is concerning. While I highly doubt they could 'close' these tunnels for an extended period of time, their capability to shut down VPNs indicates that these protocols are closely monitored and probably only left 'open' for intelligence gathering purposes.
Ultimately, all attempts to control internet distribution are bound to fail, even if they are successful in the short term. The basic game theory understanding of internet security is that 'black' hats (hackers) will always outpace 'white' hats (security specialists) because of the incentive structures: https://substack.com/home/post/p-158814726?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
...nothing frustrates the beltway more than the prospect of losing control.
The deepfake bill is fair enough and cures an anomaly. The <16 Bill on the other hand is all about control
Doing a little dive into your archive the arguments you have laid out are very clear and compelling - thanks for the clarification.
I didn't think the 2023 proposals would get anywhere, since Labour was likely to lose the election, leaving behind much bad feeling about overreach, arising from the response to the pandemic. But I did write in cautious support, while pointing out some of the problems. The FSU was quite clever, writing for their followers a lot of very histrionic rhetoric, invoking '1984' as per usual, and - most significantly - not linking their followers to the actual proposals. The subject is worth examining without an 'Armageddon is at hand' approach. As far as broadcasting is concerned, whatever Mr Plunket is, he's undoubtedly someone who has publicised his complainant's email address, with predictable results for the man concerned. He also, on X, reported a personal foe, David Farrier, to the US State Department: it was targetting 'foreigners' who'd celebrated Charlie Kirk's death, wanting people to dob them in. (Farrier was apparently in LA, and was very critical of Kirk). It's the power of dissemination / outreach that can be the problem, with potential consequences for individuals targetted by someone with a big audience and personal grievances.