Kiwiblog

The NZ part of the World Internet Project has released their 2009 survey results. Some interesting stats:

• 83% of NZers are Internet users, 6% are ex suers and 11% have never used it.
• 83% of home users are on broadband
• 93% of users use the Internet at home, 68% at work, 24% at school or uni
• 6% of Internet users connect through their mobile phone for more than an hour a week
• Half of all users have been online for less than ten years.
• Around half the households have more than one computer connected to the Internet
• Market share is 52% Xtra, 16% Telstra-Clear, 9% Slingshot, 9% Vodahug,
• 60% satisfied with Internet speeds, 23% are not
• 65% rate the Internet as an important source of information, over TV 55%, newspapers 53%, radio 44% and libraries 45%
• More respondents say they use the Internet to visit religious and spiritual sites than say they visit sexual sites. I think respondents may be fibbing about that one, based on known traffic stats!
• 19% of users read blogs regularly and almost 40% have read a blog sometimes.
• 48% of users belong to a social networking site
• Of social networkers, the most frequently used network is Facebook on 75%, and 18% Bebo.
• 25% of users have made friends online and 56% of them have gone on to meet them
• 45% support government funding of universal Internet access, and 31% oppose.
• Asian NZers have highest user rate, with 97% using the Internet
• 88% of Internet users in main cites are on broadband, and in rural NZ it is 67%

The Herald reports:

The Herald reports:

Death threats for Libby killer

The teenager who was yesterday unmasked as Liberty Templeman’s murderer has received death threats on the internet.

Tall (1.9m) Hermanus Theodorus Kriel, known as Theo, posted a webpage in July 2008, four months before he killed 15-year-old Liberty.

Within hours of a judge lifting his name suppression yesterday, dozens of angry messages appeared about the boy.

One person wrote: “You are going to find out what HELL is like you sad little selfish disrespectful murdering lying prick.”

Another comment said: “I hope he rots in hell.”

A third person said: “Hope you get a cell with a big smelly gangster who makes you his ass bitch.”

The media like labelling things as death threats, but to my mind, these are not death threats. They are, shall we say, strong expressions of (understandable) anger.

In my mind, you need two elements for something to be a death threat:

1. It should actually make a threat of death. There is a difference between saying I hope you die, and saying I will kill you.
2. It should be communicated to the individual by phone, post or e-mail etc. A rant on a Trade Me forum is not a threat, for example.

The HoS reports:

A kiwi salesman was stunned to receive a $1100 bill from Telecom for just 10 minutes of internet access from his laptop.

Michael Crake racked up the charges after using a computer fitted with a mobile broadband device while at Sydney airport.

Oh dear. He got clobbered with the outrageous $30 a MB that Telecom and Vodafone extort from users who roam overseas.

The price charged is massively higher than that faced by users from many other countries that roam. It has zero resemblance to actual costs.

But putting that aside, my bigger gripe is that the telcos do not do enough to inform people of this charge.

When you roam overseas it should flash up a huge warning that tells you what the cost will be on that network, and require you to confirm that you understand the price and accept it.

Reuters reports:

China has attacked Washington’s call to lift internet censorship and warned the Obama administration to heed alarm bells over trade, Taiwan and Tibet.

China said that US calls for greater internet freedom were harmful to bilateral ties and that the Chinese government banned any form of hacking, in response to a speech by the US Secretary of State.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for China and other authoritarian governments to lift their curbs on citizens’ use of the internet in a speech on Thursday (Friday NZ time).

It was a good speech which is in full here.Also an interesting Q&A.

This is not just about what China do behind their own borders, but the threat they may pose to the greater Internet with state sanctioned cyber attacks.

“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” said Clinton, calling growing internet curbs the present-day equivalent of the Berlin Wall, contravening international commitments to free expression.

Clinton also urged Beijing to investigate the complaint about cyber spying from China that Google said targeted it and dozens of other companies, as well as Chinese dissidents.

One of the best parts of the speech was:

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

A speech by itself won’t change anything, but the focus of the US Government at the highest levels is a good thing.

The US Embassy has e-mailed:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver a major policy address on Internet freedom live from the Newseum in Washington, D.C. January 21, 2010, 9.30am EST, Friday 3.30AM NZ time.  Secretary Clinton will lay-out the Administration’s strategy for protecting freedom in the networked age of the 21st Century.

Following her speech, there will be a panel discussion on this issue. To participate, either by watching a high quality video stream of the speech and panel discussion or by submitting questions and comments while viewing go to: http://netfreedom.state.gov. From here, you may choose the high quality video option or the interactive CO.NX room. As always, no password is necessary. Enter as a guest and type the username of your choice.

For further information please visit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135379.htm

Information is also available at America.gov’s feature page on Internet Freedom. You can also follow the speech on Twitter: http://twitter.com/us_mission_nz

When released, a transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks will be available at http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/

I will be very very interested to watch this. Not quite enough, to be up at 3.30 am, but once I get up.

Hat Tip: Clare Curran

A very interesting survey done in November by UMR of 1,000 adult NZers about morality on the Internet. I blog most of the findings below. It is important to remember this is a poll of all NZers, not just of Internet users.

Respondents were asked about eight activities and if they thought they were morally acceptable or morally wrong, regardless of legality. Morally acceptable percentages are

1. A single person using Internet dating 82%
2. A single person flirting online 69%
3. A single person watching porn online 41%
4. Watching copyrighted TV online via Youtube 31%
5. A married person watching porn online without spousal knowledge 21%
6. Downloading copyrighted music for free 18%
7. Downloading copyrighted movies for free 13%
8. Married person flirting online without spousal knowledge 6%

I think the first three are morally acceptable, but the last four are not. No 4 depends a bit on context – if that is the only way to see a TV show in your country, I don’t think it is morally unacceptable.

I’m am amazed that some people think it is morally unacceptable to use Internet dating if single.

Men in all eight categories are more likely to say something is morally acceptable. The biggest difference is with a single person watching porn online – 56% of men say morally acceptable and only 26% of women.

Age difference also pronounced. 59% of under 30s say pron watching is fine for singles, while only 17% of over 60s agree.

Also og interest is 47% of respondents said they have downloaded music files even though only 18% say it is morally acceptable.

Well just in time for year end, my complimentary copy of Norton Internet Security 2010 turned up. Time to try the install.

The installation was going fine until it discovered some remains of Trend Micro 2007, which has proven resistant to deletion. I tried everything but couldn’t get rid of it, but then realised you can just skip the warning about a possible conflict.

Next step was the product key. I had a brain meltdown and tried entering the serial number instead. Finally realised my mistake, and got it right.

After that it was all smooth sailing, and all installed in under 10 minutes. I’ve been using Norton for the last two years, and have to say yet to have a a real problem. Norton 360 was a bit difficult, but Internet Security 2009 worked perfectly I found, and 2010 looks to do the same.

I like the fact it doesn’t just keep away the real nasty stuff, but alerts me to even tracking cookies, and allows me to delete them as I go.

What Internet Security packages do readers use and like the most?

Whale Oil has blogged the court summons he has received from the Police alleging breach of name suppression law.

He is due in court on the 5th of January. If he pleads not guilty, then it might be held over for hearing at a later date. He is seeking pro bono lawyers.

The Police have charged him over a post which they allege identifies the “musician” and for a post which they allege identifies the sportsman. In the latter case, they also allege his post identified the alleged victim.

The two charges of breaching a name suppression order are under s140(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.  The maximum fine is $1,000 per offence, but this can be for every day the breach continues (if proven).

The charge of identifying the alleged victim is under s139(1), but also has a maximum fine of $1,000.

So even if Whale is found guilty, it would just be a fine at this stage. If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility

Before I add my comments, you can also see some summaries at Tech Liberty NZ blog (worth subscribing to also).

Also the Twitter feed is extensive. Over 250 tweets. Is one of the best Twitter coverages I have seen as we had nine or ten people et the seminar twittering and several people not there also commenting and asking questions.

The morning session was mainly focused on contempt of court, and the afternoon on name suppression issues.

Warren Young, the Deputy President of the Law Commission, gave an overview of the recommendations from their recent report on suppressing names and evidence. He said the threshold for getting name suppression shoudl be “extreme hardship” not just hardship as at present.

Most usefully he clarified that the recommendation relating to ISPs removing or blocking suppressed material is not meant to imply an obligation on ISPs to block overseas hosted material, just to remove material hosted on their own networks.

I asked a question about whom an ISP should be obliged to act on a complaint from – my preference is it should only be if the Crown Law Office or Police inform an ISP of suppressed material.

Judge Harvey spoke about the challenges of the Internet and supressed material, but did not think the horse had bolted. He made the case that one doesn’t have to achieve perfect suppression – it is often mainly aimed at making it hard for jurors to access material not relevant to the trial.

The final panel was myself, Sinead Boucher (Group Online Editor for Fairfax) and Ursula Cheer from Cant Uni Law School. Sinead and I talked about the issues we face from a practical point of view in trying to complay with the law, and Ursula touched on how different technologies come in and out of vogue with different challenges.

Now I can’t avoid mentioning a huge fuckup I did. It was one of the rare times I was speechless as I realised what I had done. I had a few slides to go with my talk, and I was talking about the recent high profile entertainer case, and was detailing the different sites you could find out on.

The point I was making was it was not just blogs, but the name was on Yahoo Answers, MSN NZ, was findable through Google search and even on the entertainer’s facebook page. I found it amusing that the entertainer himself could be liable for breaking his own name suppression.

I displayed the above page to show the comment someone had made on the page. I pointed out to the room packed full of lawyers from the Courts, Ministry of Justice, Crown Law, Law Commission etc (plus the Judge who originally dealt with the case) how careful I had been to draw green boxes over seven parts of the page to stop my showing the page, itself being a breach of the suppression order.

I went on to say how I then realised the URL gave the name away also, so had to go back and green that out also, and then also realised two of my open tabs displayed the name, and edited the graphic for a third time to green them out.

Just as I was about to move on, someone in the audience then pointed out that sadly I had overlooked the Google search box in the Google toolbar, and to my horror there indeed was the name of the entertainer (now behind a yellow-brown box). I was mortified as the audience started pissing themselves with laughter.

I mean how much worse can it be – you are boasting about how careful you have been to not break the name suppression order, and bang the name is up on the screen in front of everyone – and especially in front of that audience.

In the general discussion at the end, there was some discussion around the role of the media committee of the Courts. The TVNZ lawyer said the committee had one rep from print media and one from broadcast media, and many in the room thought an additional rep from Internet media could be a useful thing. Of course that is a decision for the judiciary, but it was agreed InternetNZ would write to the Chair to discuss the concept.

Feedback from participants was incredibly positive, especially from many of the lawyers. A common comment was how useful it was not just having lawyers there discussing things academically, but also having media and Internet practitioners with practical knowledge. There was a strong feeling that there should be more opportunities to get the various industries together on issues of mutual interest.

Kudos to InternetNZ President Frank March who MC’d the day well to finish ahead of time, and to the InternetNZ staff who primarily organised it. And most of all to the participants – had many great contributions not just from the speakers, but from the floor.

The seminar on the Internet and the Courts has been really good so far. You can follow it on Twitter here. It is also being filmed and will be viewable on the Internet.

Chris Finlayson gave a very amusing and interesting opening address. Referred to how someone once threw a cat at a Judge and the Judge said if you do it again, it will be contempt. It is indexed in law journals as “cat throwing-contempt-one cat allowed-two cats is contempt”.

He also said how relieved he was to find the room full of relatively normal people (ie lawyers) rather than Farrar-like hobbits

Professor Tony Smith had what I considered a good suggestion that the Courts have a staffer who proactively looks for material before a trial starts that may be pose a risk to a fair trial, and asks voluntarily for temporary removal.

Solictor-General David Collins talked about how Internet issues take up a large amount of his time, and the inability of getting Yahoo to remove material. Is seeking an agreement between governments to seek to enforce each other’s court orders to ISPs. There are some risks with this approach, as if publishers are deemed to be subject to the laws of every country they have readers, the lowest common denominator can apply.

Steven Price said that compulsory filtering only happens in repressive countries like China and Australia. Heh. Said genie was out of the bottle but not sure if it is a problem. Thinks there should be less use of contempt.

Robert Lithgow QC said he was probably only person in room who has prosecuted for contempt, defended people for contempt, has been charged with contempt himself and in fact appears shortly in the Supreme Court for Vince Seimer over his contempt issues.

He agreed with Steven Price largely and said the law of contempt is fundamentally buggered and only getting at the nutters now. He also said that there is no constitutional significance to modern commercial media as we don’t need them now, as bloggers are the public! Said the press are watchdogs and mongrels. They bark indiscriminately and only interested in food and biting!

Radio NZ Political Editor (and Chair of EPMU Media Committee) Brent Edwards said Internet got around censorship in even most sinister regime, so will do so in countries like NZ.

Robert Lithgow suggested all court cases should have a static camera so people can view over Internet, and not rely on the media so much. I agree entirely.

The SMH reports:

Politicians are tweeting, blogging and poking, but most remain out of reach when it comes to receiving petitions over the internet.

But all that will change if the Australian Government accepts a recommendation from a parliamentary committee that the House of Representatives should treat electronic petitions the same way it treats those delivered on paper.

What a good idea. No 10 Downing Street allows this, as does the Australian Senate. Would be a good initiative for New Zealand Parliament to also embrace.

The Law Commission published yesterday a report and recommendations to Government on suppression order. One chapter deals with the Internet, which I will talk about in more detail. First the major recommendations:

• starting point for considering publication of evidence and names should be a presumption of open justice
• suppression should only be used in exceptional cases where there were compelling reasons
• grounds on which suppression may be granted need to be clarified and tightened
• development of a national register of suppression orders should be advanced as a matter of high priority.

These all seem good and sensible moves to me. The use of suppression orders has been growing, and they should be the exception, not the rule. Having tighter criteria is a good step in the right direction.

I am especially pleased to see the recommendation for a register of suppression orders. It is very difficult to sometimes know what has or has not been suppressed. And this is a complaint not just from me, but from many in the media.

With regards to the Internet, they recommend:

Where an Internet service provider or content host becomes aware that they are carrying or hosting information that they know is in breach of a suppression order, it should be an offence for them to fail to remove the information or to fail to block access to it as soon as reasonably practicable.

The wording here is somewhat vague.  Under the best case scenario this is not greatly different from the status quo. ISPs already have an implicit obligation to remove material if it is in breach of a suppression order.

But what has not been defined is is what they mean by carrying information, and what they mean by “become aware”. It is one thing to require an ISP to remove material hosted by that ISP. It is quite another to require them to try and block information from other sources.  That would be highly undesirable, plus it won’t work. ISPs should be responsible (once notified) of material on their own networks, but not be ordered to block overseas sites such as Wikileaks etc.

What constitutes bringing the information to the attention of an ISP will need clarification also. I have no problem with an ISP having to remove material upon official request by the Solicitor-General and Crown Law. But just having a member of the public allege hosted material breaches a suppression order should not be enough. The ISP is not competent to decide what is or is not a breach of a suppression order – hence it should be an official agency that has to make the request.

So overall the main recommendations look to be a move in the right direction. The recommendation relating to the Internet is too vague to be able to say for sure at this stage.

In a fit of good timing, there is a seminar on the 3rd of December where some of these issues can be discussed and debated.  The seminar, titled R v The Internet, is hosted by InternetNZ, the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice.

The seminar is at Te Papa, and has an impressive line up of speakers, including:

Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney-General
David Collins QC, Solicitor- General
Tony Smith, Dean, VUW Law School
Steven Price, Barrister & author of Media Minefield
Robert Lithgow QC
Brent Edwards, Media Committee, EPMU
Warren Young, Deputy President, Law Commission
Judge David Harvey
Sinead Bouchier, Group Online Editor, Fairfax
Ursula Cheer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Canterbury

I’m also taking part in one of the panels. I think it will be a fascinating day. It is intended for legal, media, and Internet professionals, and anyone can register to attend for $100 + GST. You can also apply for a discounted rate.

Newswire report on a nice wee initiative:

RESIDENTS have pooled their knowledge of public fruit trees and wild foods from Aro Valley to Island Bay and pinpointed the locations on Google Maps.

The map directs to 22 locations of apples, plums, edible mushrooms, wild parsley, blackberries, and more.

Lisa Johnston, 27, a member of environmental group 42 Collective, started the project earlier in the year, and her page has now attracted more than 5000 views.

“If we’re not actually spending some time looking at what we’ve already got and using what we already have, then we’re kind of being neglectful and wasteful,” she says.

It is a work in progress and the idea is that people not only use it to find free food but add pointers to trees and herbs they know about.

Jacob Butler, 22, a student, says his dad told him about the map and he has already used it to gather rosemary and kawakawa that was growing around Newtown.

“I think it’s great, absolutely great, and the more people who get involved, it’s just going to get bigger and the web will grow. There will be more fruit sources and things like that.”

Jacob says there is enough food that students will not pillage the spots but says his one fear is that people might go too far and add pointers to plants like cabbage trees and Nikau palms.

“The problem with harvesting these is that you have to kill the plant.”

Each marker includes a note about what time of year the food is ripe and, if it’s on private land, whether the owner must be asked first before gathering.

Urban hunters and gatherers can type “Edible Wellington – A Gatherer’s Guide” into maps.google.com to find free food and share their own spots.

Jacob Butler collecting rosemary growing in Newtown

The map points to 22 locations of apples, plums, edible mushrooms, wild parsley, blackberries, and more.

Lisa Johnston, 27, a member of environmental group 42 Collective, started the project earlier in the year, and her page has now attracted more than 5000 views. …

Each marker includes a note about what time of year the food is ripe and, if it’s on private land, whether the owner must be asked first before gathering.

Urban hunters and gatherers can type “Edible Wellington – A Gatherer’s Guide” into maps.google.com to find free food and share their own spots.

I’ ve tried it out, and it works well. There is so much great info one can add to Google Maps.

Hat Tip: Roar Prawn

Some readers may have followed the case of Liskula Cohen who was called a skank and “psychotic lying whore” on a blogger.com blog. Google owns these.

Cohen regarded this as defamatory and went to court to sue the author, and as part of that the court ordered Google to reveal the identity of the author.

Google complied and supplied the e-mail address used to register the blog. And this allowed Cohen to deduce that a Rosemary Port was the author.

Now to my mind, this is how it should be. If you defame someone anonymously, then your identity will be revealed.

Port, rather than apologise for her slander, is now saying she will sue Google for A$18 million for revealing her email address.

I think Port needs to get over herself and get a grip. Google was ordered by a court to reveal her address. I can’t see she has any chance of success.

The SST has an interview with Father of the Internet Vint Cerf.

Cerf was in Auckland and Wellington last week as the keynote speaker at a conference addressing an impending crisis in the internet’s infrastructure. In the next two years, the world will run out of internet addresses, necessitating a shift to an updated version of internet protocol called IPv6. It will have enough addresses for everybody in the world (China currently has only 22% internet penetration), as well as their phones, PDAs and whatever else they want to put online (Cerf knows of a guy who internet-enabled his surfboard). The impending scarcity will lead to an ugly scramble of grey markets and desperate, retroactive crisis management unless efforts are sped up to adopt the new protocol.

“It’s going to be messy,” he says. “I’m not looking forward to 2010.”

The latest projection is that IANA will allocate the last IPv4 block to an RIR in July 2011, and the RIRs will allocate the last block in May 2012.

Cerf is often asked to predict where technology will lead in the future; you need only to go back a decade to check his hit rate. In 2000, he wrote in Time magazine of a mobile device on the horizon that would combine a phone, camera, email, payment system and digital book, and would have a catchy name. He suggested Widget (Wireless Internet Digital Gadget for Electronic Transactions); seven years later, Apple plumped for “iPhone”.

His current predictions that the falling cost and rising sophistication of programmable devices will allow the internet to be widely embedded in inanimate objects, in our bodies, and in outer space are already starting to be realised. Cerf’s wine cellar is internet-enabled, sending him a text message when the temperature and humidity reach unfavourable levels. Cheap, passive computers, embedded in objects and activating sensors, will become ubiquitous, he predicts, leading to advancements in automated shipping and inventory control.

I like the Internet-enabled wine cellar.

Was interested to see this PR:

New Zealand’s leading business search directory yellow.co.nz is now available to the country’s estimated 20,000 iPhone owners with today’s launch of the Yellow iPhone app.

The Yellow iPhone app provides location awareness via the iPhone’s built in GPS, mapping and directions functionality courtesy of Google Maps and the ability to save businesses to your contacts and email search results to others. …

Features include:

• Full ability to search Yellow’s entire directory
• Local search via iPhone’s integrated GPS
• Find local businesses on the integrated maps
• Get driving or walking directions to any business via Google Maps
• Email  business details to friends & contacts
• Save your favourite searches for next time
• Add your favourite businesses direct to your iPhones contacts

The local serach vis GPS is what especially interest me. I think location based services over your mobile is the next big thing. I can see you walking past your local bookshop, and they’ll be able to text you and say “Hey if you want to pop in we’ve got the third book in that series you have already pucrahsed Parts I and II of – and we’ll give it to you 15% off”.

I hope Yellow work on a similiar tool for the Blackberry.

I was on Media 7 last week with Russell Brown, Nat Torkington and Colin Jackson discussing 20 years of the Internet in NZ. It was a fun discussion and reminded me of how much we take for granted today, and how different the world was before the Internet.

Finally signed up for twitter which is a sort of micro-blog – maximum 160 characters – more like the Facebook status updates.

Anyway my latest twitter updates are displayed on the sideroll, and if you are on twitter you can follow me directly.

All these different social networks get difficult it manage, so pleased to have Ping.fm referred to me. One can do updates there which flow into all your different networks. So for example it will update both Twitter and Facebook status updates. Aldo does Flickr, Bebo, various blog platforms.

This table comes from Whats my Pass (via BoingBoing). It’s fascinating insight into what people use.

Also for the non geeks:

ncc1701 The ship number for the Starship Enterprise
thx1138 The name of George Lucas’s first movie, a 1971 remake of an earlier student project

I wonder how many people worldwide have used those as passwords?

1. Neil Sanderson has research from Pew. In 2008, the number of people gettign their news off the Internet went from 24% to 40%, beating newspapers at 34% for the first time.  Tv remains top at 70R% but is slowly declining.
2. Chris Trotter has a repost of a 2001 address he gave on defence. Many may be surprised by his views. I found myself agreeing with much of it!
3. Tim Blair notes that *only* 1,147 cars were burnt in France on New Year’s Eve, which was described by authorities as “rather calm”
4. MacDoctor finds the new English requirements for foreign nurses as idiotic at a time of nursing shortages, and points out most NZ nurses could not meet the new standard.

There’s been quite a bit of media interest lately about the Australian Government’s daft idea to force Australian ISPs to install compulsory filters that will ban sites the Government deems undesirable.

Radio NZ did a piece this morning:

The Australian government plans to force Australian ISPs to filter out more than a thousand websites with content including child pornography, excessive violence, crime and drug information as well as promoting terrorism.

The policy, dubbed the ‘Great Aussie Firewall’, has been met with a storm of criticism across the Tasman.

Internet New Zealand board member David Farrar says much of the banned content is traded over peer-to-peer networks which won’t be caught by filters.

He says the filters will also cause a sharp fall in download speeds for Australian users.

Internet Service Providers Association of New Zealand president Jamie Baddeley said the policy is insane and unworkable.

But he says it is symptomatic of pressure coming on ISPs to do more to police the internet.

One can also listen to the full item, at the bottom of the linked page. Jordan Cater is also interviewed.

I’ve also just been interview by TV3 for their 6 pm news tonight on the same issue.

I commented that luckily in NZ we have far smarter MPs, and I doubt more than a handful here would back some sort of compulsory government filter.

Also put in a plug for Netsafe, who provide really great resources for those worried about Internet safety.

1. Great to see a $100,000 fine for Lance Atkinson for spamming. The law was designed to allow us to target the big time professional spam outfits who make us pay through our ISP costs for their spamming. It’s all about property rights, and they have no right to make me pay for them sending me and others billions of emails.
2. The Law Commission is looking at the vexed issue of suppression orders and the Internet. It is a very worthy topic. As a web publisher myself I find it difficult to obey the law, because I don’t know what information has been suppressed, so it is difficult to police the site for mentions of it, when you don’t know that the info itself is suppressed. The entire suppression and contempt regime does need to be evaluated against the Internet age we are in, and this looks a useful first step.  You can read the paper from the Commission here, and submit on it by February.

Michelle Sullivan continues her rating of the parties and their websites. In her earlier article she gave National an A and Labour a C+ for their web strategies.

• NZ First – same design since 2002 – a D
• ACT - website okay but needs tweaking, not enough use of social networking and You Tube – a C
• Maori Party – simple website, little content – a C
• Family Party – a shiny website, too American, but will be popular with many. No grade given
• Green Party – expected big things but underwhelmed. Suggest more video on front page. Overall good and gets a B grade.
• United Future – nice three column setup. Blgo is integrated into site. Also like minipolls. A solid B.
• Progressive – unusual design – some will like it. Little content – C-.

So the overall rankings would be:

1. National A+
2. Greens B
3. United Future B
4. Labour C+
5. ACT C
6. Maori C
7. Progressive C-
8. NZ First D

That is pretty close to the rankings I gave out earlier this year in various presentations I did on the issue. I had Greens and National the top two but Greens higher. I also had Progressive and NZ First as the bottom two.  I did have ACT over Labour though but still around the middle.

The SST reports on the PR advice to Sanlu (the company part owned by Fonterra) from its PR company in China:

Carried on Chinese weblogs, the memo, purportedly from Sanlu’s PR company, notes growing numbers of damaging references to the company, which is 43% owned by Fonterra, in connection to infant kidney failures, and lays out strategies for addressing the issue. These included silencing victims, and paying off Baidu, China’s largest internet search engine, to remove negative references from its web searches.

Paying Google not to carry negative references on your comapny – now that could be a lucrative income stream.

Except of course once it got known, Google would lose market share massively.

The memo also said a “PR protection” deal had been negotiated with Baidu, in which Sanlu agreed to buy $640,000 of advertising with the search engine, in return for having negative stories blocked from search results.

Hmmn wonder how much they’ll pay Kiwiblog to remove a negative story. Wouldn’t cost $640,000!

Winston – make an offer