Restricting internet access.

[mart]

Just received this from my ISP here in NZ.
"Hello
This message is to inform you of a change in policy regarding access to some web sites via TelstraClear internet.
We have decided to filter access to all known child sex abuse sites.
This decision is based on the abhorrent nature of the content of these sites and our desire to create a safe online environment for our customers and their families.
There are approximately 7000 known child sex abuse sites in the world. Many of them change their online address every couple of days. As a result, the list of sites is refreshed daily.
TelstraClear will not be keeping records of any users who attempt to access these sites. This is not an intelligence gathering or covert measure. It is a simple filtering process to make the internet safer for all.
Someone trying to access one of these listed sites will be redirected to a default page notifying them that access to that address is not allowed. This action will not impact the speed or performance of your broadband.
We trust you will support our move to create a safe online environment. We appreciate and value your continued support and custom.

Kind regards
The team at TelstraClear"

Its OK by me as long as it only applies to child sex abuse sites.

Mart

[one eyed jack]

Yes of course they wont collect details because this protects people "higher up" who are most likely to be the users of such sites.

I'm sure these sites could be shut down by the authorities if need be but the reason why they continue to exist is because of that same reason.

[JonnyHungwell]

Why did they even need to inform customers? - it's a publicity stunt to pretend they're doing something and keep the government off their backs, because they know some legislation is ciming and they don't want it to cost them money. This is a lame attempt to look as if they're doing something - but at the end-of-the-day it's useless, because they admit 'it's 'all known child sex abuse sites' - and it's virtually guaranteed that the vile stuff will be in the unknown domains.

This is tackling the problem from the wrong end, a bit like the fight on drugs - you can't stop the problem by stopping the end user getting to it. If anyone were serious they'd go after the site owners/uploaders themselves - although this would be slightly difficult for the majority of what they deem 'child abuse sites', because whereas everyone in the world pretty much agrees on what constitutes child porn, the UK stands out amongst western nations by applying over zealous rules to define 'abuse'. So what we define as an abusive site, pictures of young girls in provocotive poses etc., where there is no sex or nakedness - are perfectly legal in the US and most of Europe, although in the UK are thought of as illegal and abusive. My guess is 90% of their list is this type of site.

A typical British approach to a problem. The only real solution in today's world is to harmonise the laws internationally, so what is a crime here is a crime there - but no hope of that, so we're stuck with feeble offerings like this.

[mart]

Before you start a rant about the UK government perhaps you should have read my post carefully.
I'm in NZ....thats New Zealand and I refer to my NZ ISP.

Mart

[JonnyHungwell]

I did read your post fully - only the NZ bit didn't register, but I wondered why I got a subliminal picture of a sheep in my mind! BT tried this a couple of years ago in the UK, only it proved to be a failure - don't know whether they still do it?

[eroticartist]

Hi Mart,
What is deemed by the authorities to be an image of "child abuse" in NZ?
Mike Freeman.

[Lucifer Sam]

Personally I believe the internet is monitored more closely than we realise including our browsing habits. Even perfectly sound sites like this are probably checked on regular basis just because its a place for adult industry people and fans to communicate. You'd go mad if you knew how much they watch us all....Me? Paranoid??

Anyway, thats what I reckon.

[Deano!]

eroticartist wrote:

> Hi Mart,
> What is deemed by the authorities to be an image of "child
> abuse" in NZ?
> Mike Freeman.

Good point. You might find that genuine child porn on obscure sites gets through , while images of 28 year old models in plaid skirts on 'brand name' sites are blocked. The easiest target, rather than the most deserving usually gets hit.

[leobloom]

what sometimes bothers me personally is age of sexual consent and the age which it's legal to performer in adult material, internationally I mean. In the UK, age of consent 16, adult material 18, now different countries have different laws concerning this, say in Holland, I'm no expert but I think you copuld be in porn at Seventeen(maybe a tad younger). But a Seventeen year old is above the age of consent here, but It would be illegal to perform the act on film, would that constitute child porn? Internationally, consent law would be difficult to harmonise. Since I'm twenty six now, I would feel a bit uncomfartable knowing a girl in a skin flick was 18, 19 say(but i'm just odd).

[JonnyHungwell]

A young boy riding on the back of a sheep would come close