The Greens’ Internet Rights and Freedom Bill

April 23rd, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The have released a crowdsourced bill – the Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill. It’s a serious and valuable contribution to politics and the . There are three major aspects to their proposal.

  1. Ten Internet rights and freedoms
  2. Creation of an Internet Rights Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission
  3. Creating a Chief Technical Officer (CTO) for the NZ Government.

The ten proposed Internet rights and freedoms are:

  1. Right to Access
  2. Freedom from search, surveillance and interception
  3. Freedom of expression
  4. Freedom of association
  5. Right to privacy
  6. Right to encryption technology
  7. Right to anonymity
  8. Right to a safe and secure Internet
  9. Freedom of innovation
  10. Freedom from restriction

The full bill is here.

While I don’t agree with everything in the bill, there’s a lot I do agree with, and I think it would be an excellent bill to pass first reading and go to select committee for feedback.

Tags: ,

64 Responses to “The Greens’ Internet Rights and Freedom Bill”

  1. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    Why not just leave it alone? All this gives us is ambiguous platitudes and a new bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Wow, it only took you three minutes to read the bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    I don’t see the right to be held responsible for being a twat on the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (888 comments) says:

    CTO for NZ Government – Kim Dotcom
    Internet Rights Commissioner – Rajen “Ban Nigella” Prasad

    Nice move Toxic Greens!!! We are waiting for UFB and there is not even a date for our area and you are talking about some ambiguous crap as if it is your basic human right….I am annoyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. alloytoo (542 comments) says:

    I have to agree with Huevon, this seems like an awful waste of time, and addition to bureaucracy.

    What’s not unenforceable is already covered by existing legislation, if that legislation is falling short, we should beef it up for the digital age.

    The only thing I do approve of, is the right to use encryption, between that, and the existing privacy act we should be good to go.

    Lord only knows why the greens want lengthy unenforceable or superfluous laws, they are just a wasteful bunch who don’t think of the trees that have to die to print this nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mara (784 comments) says:

    More laws, more restrictions, more oversight, more bureaucracy and interference and more frigging Govt. interference. Bugger off Greens!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    I would disagree with a right of access. Rights should be, IMHO, restricted to the most fundamental things like (for example) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So if you make it a human right, either it will be shot full of exceptions and caveats so it is worthless, or we finish up having to supply free fibre to people in the remotest of locations at enormous cost for no reasonable economic return.

    And do they even propose that, gasp, Climate Change deniers, will be actually allowed to indulge in their perversions online and unhindered ?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “Freedom of association”

    Well, they have an immediate problem here because the very same Human Rights Act they support violates the right to freedom of association.

    “Freedom from restriction”

    What does that one even mean???

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ciaron (1,431 comments) says:

    I suspect the problem is not what the want to do, It’s how they would go about achieving it that would be problematic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    I wonder if this is an attempt to stop any potential siphoning of the youth vote by the Internet Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Freedom of expression???

    This from the Greens, the same Greens who run the most heavily censored blog site in the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    It looks pretty solid. Allowing corporations, through governments acting on their behalf, to restrict access to and content on the internet is a growing threat to the democratic process and the development of the species. There is not much more important than allowing humanity the ability to share ideas and information, unfettered and instantly across the globe.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    “1.Right to Access”

    OK, so lets unlock true Green speak. What this means is that the Greens are going to use our money to give “free shit” to the losers and parasites out there. The good old tax payer (aka Rich pricks) will be providing “free” internet to everybody else.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bullion (68 comments) says:

    I think some oversight is good, especially around net neutrality:

    (2) Network neutrality

    (a) Everyone has the right to access Internet services free from an Internet
    service provider applying traffic control or traffic prioritisations to
    discourage use of a competitor service, or to encourage use of a partnered
    service.
    (b) No Internet service provider shall restrict or deny the interoperability or
    interconnection of a device or network to the Internet, unless authorised by
    law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (2,059 comments) says:
    April 23rd, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    “Freedom from restriction”
    What does that one even mean???

    I think it means that even if you are a Christian kiddie fiddler you will be allowed to post your opinions. (Not that I know any Christian kiddie fiddlers, …just saying.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    Creation of an Internet Rights Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission

    No. No. No. No more flippin’ Commissions.

    Right to Access – have this now
    Freedom from search, surveillance and interception – Good luck with when data travels across borders
    Freedom of expression – have this now
    Freedom of association – have this now
    Right to privacy – have this now
    Right to encryption technology – WTF?
    Right to anonymity – have this now
    Right to a safe and secure Internet – nothing is safe and secure
    Freedom of innovation – have this now
    Freedom from restriction – have this now

    There. Saved the taxpayers millions.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    More government to ensure no government interference.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    I think the intention here is good, but in my opinion the way they’re going about it is not. What needs to happen is some additional regulation to guarantee things such as net neutrality, and more of an Ombudsman like position to handle disputes about ISPs and the like. Nothing like the HRT is required. The existing privacy commissioner should be able to handle the privacy aspects, and existing laws regarding freedom of expression should cover the rest of it.

    Perhaps the practicalities might be solved at committee stage?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Peter (1,471 comments) says:
    April 23rd, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    Right to encryption technology – WTF?

    US surveillance agencies have a long history of opposing the use of encryption technology anywhere: Paper on Codes Is Sent Despite U.S. Objections

    By JOHN MARKOFF
    Published: August 9, 1989

    A paper describing fast and inexpensive ways of keeping computer information private has been distributed by computer around the world, over the objections of the secretive Federal agency that gathers electronic intelligence.

    The wide circulation of the paper has renewed a dispute pitting national security against academic freedom.

    The paper, written by a Xerox Corporation computer scientist, was obtained by a San Francisco independent computer consultant strongly opposed to a request by the agency, the National Security Agency, that Xerox restrict its circulation on the ground of national security. The consultant, John Gilmore, transmitted it on a computer network to more than 8,000 sites around the world. Business and Individual Use

    Mr. Gilmore said he had decided to transmit the paper to make a point about what he considers the suppression of valuable information on the technology of writing and deciphering messages in code, or cryptography.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “It looks pretty solid”

    It looks like a load of euphemistic crap. I seriously doubt that after all this time the watermelons have suddenly discovered a concern for genuine freedom and rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    Freedom of Innovation? This is buzzword pap.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fentex (973 comments) says:

    This first right seems the most important and relevant, especially as government begins to require use of the Internet to communicate with it;

    1. Right to Access

    This second seems wishful thinking, in an absolute sense. Surely consideration to policing crimes must allow for some observation?

    2. Freedom from search, surveillance and interception

    These two seem right and proper, though the first is going to be tangled immediately with libel, copy and trademark rights. It can’t be gauranteed in isolation form law considering those topics. It also is in conflict with #8.

    3. Freedom of expression
    4. Freedom of association

    This fifth merely restates the second. Did the authors feel compelled to write tne? I think they did,. and I think that undermines the effort. It ought be boiled down to what is essential.

    5. Right to privacy

    While I concur with these, it’s really again a restatement of other principles inferred by rights to privacy.

    6. Right to encryption technology
    7. Right to anonymity

    If this eighth exists as anything other than the sum of other rights then it means safety and security in a different context to privacy and freedom of expression. That implies it means a right not to feel threatened by others expression, not to be stalked or insulted and as such will be in tension with others rights.

    I think there is an issue regarding uncivil and threatening behaviour to address, I don’t think these rights as a whole, and this one in particular, succeeds at doing so.

    8. Right to a safe and secure Internet

    These last two interest me as they speak to the concept of the Internet remaining free of encumbrance and infrastructure straight jackets that restrict how end points may communicate. There is a lot implied by such a guarantee – for instance it implies governments cannot mandate ISP censorship of communication for any such mandatory technology would require enforcing use of it’s protocols and forbid circumvention by unrestricted innovation.

    9. Freedom of innovation
    10. Freedom from restriction

    An Internet Bill Of Rights is a useful focus for legislation regarding the Internet, but it needs considerable debate and refinement from this to be focused usefully on the core rights that must be protected.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (2,060 comments) says:
    April 23rd, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    It looks like a load of euphemistic crap. I seriously doubt that after all this time the watermelons have suddenly discovered a concern for genuine freedom and rights.

    Considering the importance of the internet as a medium through which humanity communicates, organises and develops this dismissal of the importance of what the Greens are proposing is an utter contempt for genuine freedom and the most basic of human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fentex (973 comments) says:

    Network neutrality is an important topic, though a bit of a bug bear to those with libertarian ambitions.

    To mandate access be a right implies access delivers certain functionality (that which one has a right to). Without guaranteed network neutrality the implication cannot be satisfied. These two things are linked.

    Yet if one believes Internet connectivity is a private service delivered by contract between private parties then what is network neutrality? Isn’t legislating for it interfering in private contracts and we ought rely on competition to provide for it?

    Legislating for network neutrality is an admission that competition cannot provide it. Which is something I believe is true, but again implies things that would tie some in logical knots when they argue against regulation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “this dismissal of the importance of what the Greens are proposing is an utter contempt for genuine freedom and the most basic of human rights.”

    No, it’s utter contempt for the Greens. The watermelons trot out freedom when it suits, and ignore it when it doesn’t. Your assumption is that we should believe they are concerned for genuine freedom. I don’t believe that for one moment.

    If they are truly concerned about issues like freedom of association, then let’s see the policy to dump or at least reform the Human Rights Act. Until then, my default position with regards to them and their policies is scepticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The internet is a great a step forward for man as the printed word was

    It has the potential to totally change how we communicate and who we rate as peers.

    Having had an interesting threat to be sued by a pseudo on here today :lol: who insisted he would be able to locate me to serve papers on. The privacy aspect also the legal repercussions of online content deserve to legislated for not decided by activist judicial interpretation of out dated laws from twenty or so years ago pre the net.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    It seems odd that a party which supported the EFA now thinks the following are important;

    Freedom of expression, Right to privacy, Right to anonymity, Freedom from restriction.

    I guess they grew some sack and don’t think they need to nod yes sir to Labour anymore ??? – Any other possible explanation ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Fentex (973 comments) says:

    “1.Right to Access”

    OK, so lets unlock true Green speak. What this means is that the Greens are going to use our money to give “free shit” to the losers and parasites out there.

    I don’t think such a cynical view is necessary. As a point of debate for formulation of law this would likely be enacted as a prohibition on government denying anyone access to the Internet (as some judges do in some jurisdictions) and no requirement it be provided.

    Our guarantees of free speech are not guarantees we shall be given phones, printing presses, time on tv or mega-phones. Neither would a right of access to the Internet be a guarantee of the equipment to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “It seems odd that a party which supported the EFA now thinks the following are important;

    Freedom of expression, Right to privacy, Right to anonymity, Freedom from restriction.”

    Exactly. They are not remotely credible when it comes to issues of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    “Published: August 9, 1989″

    LOL

    The encryption genie is long out of the bottle.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘Dump the Human Rights Act’ and ‘They are not remotely credible when it comes to issues of freedom’
    Somewhat contradictory statements.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    No mike, not at all. By telling employers on what conditions they may choose not to hire someone the HRA violates freedom of association.

    So it’s contradictory to advocate it in one area but not in another.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You really are an idiot sometimes Shawn. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    And violated by the Human Rights Act mikey.

    No matter what the Bill of Rights says, the Human Rights Act violates freedom of association.

    So, easy question. Can employers choose whatever reasons they like not to hire someone?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    As somebody who’s failed to notice socialism always fails your continual support for Labour makes you look like the most stupid person on the planet – with the exception of mickysavage from the standard who seems to think that socialism works and that unions exist for the benefit of workers rather than just as the Labour party funding arm.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    They can if that reason is that the person isn’t in the appropriate union !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    ShawnLH: I guess you also have utter contempt for a number of other parties, such as the ones that implemented the HRA? Who was that again?

    And no, employers can’t choose whatever reasons they like not to hire someone, as they can’t discriminate based on the 13 or so criteria specified in the HRA (e.g. Age, sex, ethnicity), except in certain instances.

    So yes, the HRA takes away your right to discriminate. Because, you know, the rights of those you discriminate against should also be taken into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    One person’s freedom of associaiton is another person’s discrimination. We have laws to trade off these competing values.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “We have laws to trade off these competing values.”

    Which effectively make one null and void. Freedom of association for the purpose of peaceful law abiding activity should be absolute. The right to discriminate should not be abridged.

    But thanks for proving my point that the Greens are being hypocritical.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    How are the Greens being hypocritical? All of the rights they propose will be subject to the catch all of limits justifiable in a free and democratic society. Your problem is seeing everything from a religiously motivated set of rigid principles, where you are incpable of making rational trade offs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    Right to encryption technology – Haven’t the luddites heard of https and PGP?
    Freedom of expression – So there would be no problems with a Green government when someone starts up a Climate Denial website? Bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. altiora (279 comments) says:

    Just a trojan horse to allow state intervention in the future by making it look like we need to state to “protect” the internet and to “protect” the internet rights of the “vulnerable”. The internet was invented without state intervention and has flourished without state intervention. Leave it alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    OneTrack: If that’s your worry, shouldn’t you be supportive of the plan?

    It’s amusing that you’re referring to the Green’s as luddites, when they’re all for technology. Just not stone-age technology like burning stuff that has nasty consequences for the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “Your problem is seeing everything from a religiously motivated set of rigid principles”

    I actually have Libertarian principles in mind mikey.

    Try again. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Brazil Congress passes internet bill of rights

    Brazil’s Senate unanimously approved groundbreaking legislation that guarantees equal access to the internet and protects the privacy of Brazilian users in the wake of US spying revelations.

    President Dilma Rousseff, who was the target of US espionage according to documents leaked by former NSA analyst Edward Snowden, plans to sign the bill into law. She will present it on Wednesday at a global conference on the future of the internet, her office said in a blog.

    The legislation, dubbed Brazil’s “Internet Constitution,” has been hailed by experts, such as the British physicist and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, for balancing the rights and duties of users, governments and corporations while ensuring the internet continues to be an open and decentralised network.

    To guarantee passage of the bill, Rousseff´s government had to drop a contentious provision that would have forced global internet companies to store data on their Brazilian users on data center servers inside the country.

    The rule was added to the bill after revelations last year that the US National Security Agency had spied on the personal internet communications of Brazilians, including those of Rousseff among other world leaders.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/60043842/brazil-congress-passes-internet-bill-of-rights.html

    US spying is a reality we need to be protected from in real democracy

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    leftyliberal – Maybe you can give some examples of technology that the Greens are actually in favour of, and are actually using themselves. Something a bit more specific than some imprecise platitude, like “Green Jobs”.

    LFTRs? Nope. GMOs? Nope. Solar? Dont see one on Metirias house.

    nb The luddite comment was primarily directed at the policy regarding encryption. Which we already have – https and PGP, etc. So what problem are they trying to solve with that item. Or are they just making mindless statements which are meaningless in the real world but that the happy clappers will cheer for?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Brazil conference to plot post-NSA internet

    A global conference in Brazil on the future of the internet in the wake of US spying revelations might be much less anti-American than first thought after Washington said it was willing to loosen its control over the web.

    Bowing to the demands of Brazil and other nations following revelations last year of its massive electronic surveillance of internet users, the United States has agreed to relinquish oversight of the internet Corporation for Assigned of Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit group based in California that assigns internet domain names or addresses.

    “The focus has changed from a political reaction to the NSA allegations to one of more constructive criticism and talk about the future of the internet,” said William Beer, a cyber security expert based in Sao Paulo.

    The two-day Net Mundial conference in Sao Paulo, which will be opened on Wednesday by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, will discuss cyber security and how to safeguard privacy and freedom of expression on the internet, as well as the shape of a future international body to oversee the decentralized digital network.

    Officials from dozens of countries – from China and Cuba to the United States and European nations – will attend, but organisers say they will have no more voice at the event than internet companies, academics, technical experts and groups representing internet users.

    “All of them should have equal participation in this multi stakeholder process,” said Virgilio Almeida, Brazil’s secretary for IT policy, who will chair the conference.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/60043809/brazil-conference-to-plot-postnsa-internet

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    leftliberal – I think my real concern about this is covered by altiora’s comment at 6:32.

    Just another layer of state control and bureaucracy with it’s stated aim of giving us exactly what we already have. So no problem to be solved, except to try and lure some Internet Party voters back to the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Guess you missed the recent Green’s policy on solar – primarily they’re interested in renewables (solar/wind/biomass etc.) Personally I’d completely support further research into LFTR and the like, though unfortunately there’s little appetite for it in the west. The Green’s are anti-nuclear power. In case you’re interested, here’s their energy policy. I’m sure you’ll find things to disagree with (as do I) but perhaps there’ll be the odd thing to agree with as well…

    https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/energy_20130816.pdf

    The key with encryption is your right to use it, not whether or not it already exists. i.e. essentially your right to privacy.

    I agree that we don’t need any large increases in Government for this, as I stated above. i.e. I disagree with the implementation as currently proposed, primarily due to the proposed increases in administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    My points and questions:

    1. Why is the Chief Technology Officer only responsible for the “digital” sector, rather than other manifestations of technology? If the CTO is not responsible for all technology, then why not give the position a better name?

    2. The requirement for the government to promote free open source software looks a bit stupid in view of the OpenSSL clusterfuck we’ve seen over the last couple of weeks. Heartbleed has, I believe, highlighted some fundamental issues with open source software that the IT industry has to come to grips with. In the mean time, I’d treat it with suspicion.

    3. I quite like the right for people to be free from surveillance. The NZ government are monitoring most (or all?) internet connections to block web sites that the government doesn’t approve of. The list of web sites is secret but claimed to be only banned pornography. The experience from the UK and Australia is that these systems expand to filter other material. We need to stop this happening in NZ, and the easiest way to do this is to scrap the existing filter and legislate a ban on monitoring of any sort.

    4. Are IP addresses “personal data”? I’d argue yes, in which case ISPs would be banned from logging them. That’ll shut down IP rights holders from tracing pirates. That sounds like a good thing to me.

    5. “No person shall be forced to reveal their identity on the Internet” hinges on the definition of “forced”. Government is implementing a number of applications that require a verified identity. Renewing your passport, for instance. I suppose you avoid being forced to reveal your identity by not renewing your passport online.

    6. The Bill tries to entrench itself. We don’t have that type of legislation.

    7. The Bill appears to create a right to security on the Internet, 17 (1). Although this is mainly concerned with “data”. The security of data isn’t the only driver for internet security. Personally, I think telcos could do more to secure the Internet in NZ, although this would require monitoring of traffic and therefore conflict with other provisions in the Bill. For instance, I’d be in favour of ISPs and telcos intercepting bot-net traffic and shutting down infected connections. And filtering malicious traffic originating overseas, such as malware and denial of service attacks.

    8. Some of it is just a bit odd. Like “Everyone has the right to develop and use free open source software on the Internet”. Do we really need to be so specific in our rights? I can’t think of any possible reason for a law to make it illegal to develop open source software. It’s just very strange, as if someone with an open source agenda is pushing that agenda in an inappropriate venue.

    9. Sections of the Bill related to freedom to use software seem to conflict with Apple’s iTunes philosophy, where Apple have to approve all software before people are allowed to install it on their computers. For instance, Apple had to approve the Internet Party enrollment app before they’d allow Apple users to join the Party. Does this mean Apple computers would be banned in NZ? If so, I’m quite happy that the patent trolls will be kicked out of the country.

    10. Speaking of which, we could do with a ground-up review of copyright and patent law to bring it in line with the 21st century.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (16,529 comments) says:

    If it bans scrawny, ginga men with silly, squeaky little voices and ugly women wearing bones round their necks from ever appearing on the internet again I’ll vote for it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ShawnLH (5,017 comments) says:

    “Just a trojan horse to allow state intervention in the future by making it look like we need to state to “protect” the internet and to “protect” the internet rights of the “vulnerable”. The internet was invented without state intervention and has flourished without state intervention. Leave it alone.”

    EXACTLY RIGHT!

    Greenies talking about freedom are like used car salesmen talking about a good deal. You jsut know you gonna get screwed down the line.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Right to anonymity?

    So if you do a whois lookup you could be infringing on someone’s rights?

    Or it is the domain registries that are doing it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    How about the right to use Dvorak?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. georgebolwing (846 comments) says:

    No, no, no, no, no.

    This is just stupid.

    There are important things for the New Zealand Parliament to be doing. Repealing all the other stupid laws enacted because some lazy politician wanted to look cool would be a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    The internet was invented without state intervention and has flourished without state intervention.

    How do you figure that? I’d probably think very hard about that statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    Exclude some infrastructure.

    Now tell us how the internet has flourished thanks to state intervention.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Yoza (1,872 comments) says:

    Kimble (4,095 comments) says:
    April 23rd, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Exclude some infrastructure.

    Now tell us how the internet has flourished thanks to state intervention.

    Without state funding there would be no internet, … you whacky guys!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Without state funding there would be no internet, … you whacky guys!

    A huge exaggeration. Totally misleading in fact.

    Telecoms has always had a huge private industry component.

    Packet switching was always going to happen one way or another.

    Now, if you want to talk about the Manhattan Project or fusion reactors you’d possibly be correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Exclude some infrastructure.

    Now tell us how the internet has flourished thanks to state intervention

    Exclude *some* infrastructure? You mean like the main pipes into the country, the system for registering domain names and the expertise to keep it connected 24×7 during the hey days of the 90s? I would.call that “flourishing”. – you’ve clearly no idea what you are talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Packet switching was always going to happen one way or another.

    And it did exist at the time. But it hadn’t been scaled. And no private enterprise saw the value in doing so enough to get it up past where it was. So despite your prodistations it just didn’t happen the way you wanted it to. It’s like The Intrnet only existed post 2000 to you? Swallow your pride and give credit where it is due to the ivory tower academics and “waffly” thinkers, wat. You can tell from the constant tone of your posts in the past that you won’t, however, too stubborn.

    Ive learnt something from this though. I’ all keep your “oh but please sir it *could* have happened like this” argument for the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    There is no ‘right’ to the internet. In nz you have the priviledge of choosing from a number of companies so that you may access the Internet. Thats all you need.

    This is the same horseshit rhe occupy wankers were pushing, that internet access is a basic human right. Which of course means it should be ‘free’.

    I trust the greens when they talk about keeping the state out of my life so very very little. As big state devotees, are they seriously trying to tell us that they want this massice state that will mandate all sorts of things in your life (kids, shower heads, access to pies etc) and then somehow will not use this state power to pry into my life via their department of the internet? Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Daigotsu (457 comments) says:

    Stalinist crap. The Greens’ true agenda is on display here, to increase government control of even the most innocuous aspects of Kiwi life. Disgusted to see some so-called conservatives are applauding!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Blair36 (4 comments) says:

    As to be expected from a Greens bill, rights for all the people but no responsibilities attached. Responsibilities for Government and ISP’s and no rights attached.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote