Loss of Privacy

Yahoo! news attempted to censor a photo of the Boobs on Bikes parade down Auckland’s Queen Street.

They’re just boobs anyway. No need to censor them, or their reflections, in the first place.

From Michael Geist’s website:

As I posted over the weekend, I had the pleasure of participating in the PublicACTA conference in Wellington, New Zealand.  The Wellington Declaration is a must-read, as is the extensive media coverage that ACTA has received over the past 48 hours in New Zealand (NZ PC World, National Business Review, IT News, ComputerWorld NZ, NZ Herald).  The last few days have provided a model for how those concerned with ACTA should become engaged with future rounds of talks.

For those looking for up-to-date information on ACTA, my column this week (Toronto Star version, homepage version) previews the New Zealand talks, noting the pressure points on transparency and substance of the treaty.

Even better, all the videos from the PublicACTA conference can accessed online.  I have embedded my talk below. It provides a primer on the background of ACTA, reasons for concern, and a brief comment on what can be done.  An MP3 version of the same talk can be downloaded here.

It gets really good about 25 minutes in.

A proposed new bill in New Zealand would move the country a step closer to becoming a police state.  Under the new proposals, the right to remain silent would be removed, police would be able to search houses without warrants, and the police would be given the power to search computers remotely.  Privacy activists have raised concerns that the new bill would give too much power to the police, enabling them to restrict the freedom of speech.

Parliament’s justice and electoral select committee is considering the Search and Surveillance Bill which is based on a 2007 Law Commission report and also brings together police powers which are scattered through numerous statutes.

It gives police and other law enforcement agencies increased powers such as the ability to compel people to answer questions, clone computer information and makes changes to searches and surveillance.

While MPs have stated that the new bill is to focus only on criminals, privacy advocates worry that it could easily be turned against regular citizens.  The problem lies in the fact that, given these types of powers, if the police “think” a person is a criminal, they can proceed to search homes and computer equipment as well as put surveillance teams on the suspected criminal.

While there is a slim chance this will pass into law, if you live in New Zealand, write to your MP and tell them not to vote for such a bill.

Hot on the heels of watching Australia discover that an internet filter is ridiculous and would never work, New Zealand thinks it’s a great idea and has begun implementing their own filter.

Remember, it’s not about child porn like they claim.  It’s about blocking whomever and whatever they like.

Then there’s ‘drift’. I know this is a dubious ‘slippery slope’ argument, but if you look at the legislation that governs censorship in New Zealand, nowhere is child pornography separated from other objectionable material. Customs already acts in cases of possession of bestiality material – why not filter for that as well? It’s clearly objectionable. And if you’re doing that, then why not the worst, most violent pornography as well, the kind covered by Britain’s extreme pornography law? In fact, why not everything already defined as objectionable?

All ‘objectionable’ material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is ‘objectionable’, or should instead be given an ‘unrestricted’ or ‘restricted’ classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

• acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty

• sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct

• sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature

• sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both

• physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain

• exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both

• degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

• promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

• represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

Again, this law is far too broad and can easily be manipulated.  Then again, the filtering technology can’t even be used on IPv6 or over https.  It also can’t be used on Tor, FREENET, and WASTE.  So, tell me again, who are they really going after here?