Another panelist, Stephen Bell, has written an article about the panel. A couple of quotes:

Legislative co-operation across countries is productive in tightly defined categories of offence, said Farrar; he gave the example of child pornography or spam, where there is a common understanding of an online activity that does harm.

But an attempt to combine legislative systems designed within different cultures poses the danger of an unduly restrictive “lowest common denominator” system of regulation and of simplistic “remedies” such as UK prime minister David Cameron’s airing the idea of shutting down Twitter to avert riots of the kind that recently hit British cities. Cameron quickly thought better of that suggestion in the face of public protest.

I quite enjoyed having a little dig at the UK PM, as it was hosted by the UK High Commission

“In theory, it’s illegal for anyone under 14 to be on Facebook,” said Farrar; “but there are whole classes of six-year-olds on it; they just add ten years to their age. Do you educate them on how to use Facebook, or just say ‘they shouldn’t be on there; let’s pretend they’re not’?”

A pragmatic approach is best; perhaps a “Facebook lite for kids” should be set up, he suggested.

It is best to cater for demand, than try to pretend it does not exist.

There is huge opportunity for digitally assisted processes to make citizen interaction with government easier and to further democracy by easing interaction on the formation of laws, said Farrar. “As a small business owner, I love interacting with Inland Revenue – I never thought I’d say that. If there’s a problem nowadays, I don’t spend two days on the phone any more; I use their secure email service.”

Note I’m less enthusiastic over the size of my payments to them

InternetNZ presents the election debate NetVision 2011, focused on New Zealand’s Digital Future. Major political parties will present and debate their visions across economic, social, cultural, environmental and government perspectives.

NetVision 2011 will be held at Wellington’s City Gallery on Tuesday 18 October from 7-9pm.

The debate will be streamed live on the Internet at www.r2.co.nz/20111018

A panel of Political Party spokespeople are participating in NetVision 2011 including Hon Steven Joyce (National), Clare Curran (Labour), Gareth Hughes (Green) and Peter McCaffrey (ACT). Confirmation from the Māori Party is awaited.

Sean Plunket is to MC the event, and journalists including Rob O’Neill and Sarah Putt will be on hand to quiz the politicians. They will also put questions posted on Twitter using the hashtag #Net11 to the politicians.

If you would like to be in the audience for the debate then email rsvp@internetnz.net.nz .

I’m in Auckland so will not be there in person, but will try and watch it online and follow the chat on Twitter. I encourage all those interested to tune in also, and ask questions that you want answers to.

Labour is proposing to levy a special Internet tax on Internet users to fund copyright holders, plus it is effectively proposing that the Government gain the power to regulate the non-broadcast media, allowing it to fine and censor newspapers and maybe even bloggers.

Let’s start with the Internet users tax.

Labour will also investigate the viability of a small copyright levy on Internet access, which would develop the digital platform for accessing Kiwi content mentioned above. Funds raised could go to content creators through an arms length collecting and distribution arrangement.

So vote Labour if you want a tax on Internet users. And like many taxes it might start small but over time it would grow. At first it might fund a content distribution system. Then it might fund projects which close the digital divide. And then it might fund Government websites (as they are done for the benefit of users not Government).

Just as I am against the Government’s DIA filter, because one day it might expand to be a filter against other content, likewise I am against any Internet tax on users.

Not let us look at the plans to control the media. This is not new – Labour looked at the same in their last term of office.

The consultation will also consider the regulatory mechanisms for content that is carried on broadcasting and telecommunications networks. It may be that the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Press Council and the Advertising Standards Authority could be brought together.

Now let us be very clear about this. The BSA is appointed by the Government, and has the power to not just uphold complaints but to fine broadcasters, order statements to be read on air and even to take a broadcaster off the air. The Press Council on the other hand has no powers, except its printed opinions.

Now in a merger (not just a sharing of backend functions), what do you think is more likely to happen under a Labour Government? That the BSA will be replaced by the Press Council or that the Press Council will be replaced by the BSA? But it gets even worse than that – the combined regulator would have power over all content carried on telecommunications networks. So this Government appointed regulator could rule on content on blogs (for example), and if it retains BSA powers even order a blog off the Internet.

The BSA has the powers it has, because the airwaves are deemed the property of the Government, and the BSA so to speak is a condition of leasing them. But newspapers and the Internet are not the property of the Government, do not need Government permission to be used, and the Government should not have content control over them beyond the normal laws of the land.

The only acceptable converage of content regulation is if the self-regulatory model of the Press Council and ASA is extended to broadcasters rather than the BSA model extended to press and the Internet.

So having got past the two big negatives, let’s look through the rest of the policy.

Labour believes a single network regulator for Telecommunications and Broadcasting has merit.

Now on the network side, I agree. I think the two sectors are converging and in terms of competition issues, a single regulator would be sensible.

Labour will investigate creating a Ministry of Communications and IT, based in the Ministry of Economic Development, to bring together all policy involving broadcasting, communications and information technology issues.

A Ministry within a Ministry? So is the CEO of the MCIT responsible to the SSC or to the CEO OF MED?

Labour would appoint a Chief Technical Advisor, who would have responsibility for producing technology roadmaps for New Zealand, for overseeing NZ‟s national digital architecture driving the uptake of ICT across society.

I quite like this proposal, based partly on what Obama did.

Labour will complete the fibre rollout in urban areas within the limit of the $1.35bn of funds available for investment by Crown Fibre Holdings.

Labour at the last election did not commit to fibre to the home. Their total broadband package was $300m compared to $1.5b for National, which would have funded a collection of discrete projects but not a nationwide roll-out to 75% of NZers. It is good they have appreciated the importance of fibre to the home and are committed to carrying on with the spend.

Labour will conduct a public discussion about the objectives and the process for the spectrum auction, and how the proceeds from the auction should be spent in New Zealand, before the auction occurs.

A lot of the document is about reviews and discussions. I thought one could be a bit bolder than that on the spectrum auction. it’s apple pie and motherhood.

Labour will increase funding to Computer Clubhouses for the most vulnerable communities in NZ. Labour will also increase funding to Computers in Homes in order to make more rapid progress in bridging the digital gap. (We have allocated up to $2.7 million a year for the expansion of these two initiatives.)

That’s a nice specific commitment, and they are both very worthwhile projects. Of course we have yet to see how the spending promises will be funded, apart from presumably greater debt. But to be fair the amounts here are fairly modest.

Labour affirms that the fundamental human right to impart and receive information and opinion necessarily includes the ability to access the Internet in order to give practical effect to the right in today‟s world.

Excellent. A very clear statement.

Labour will introduce a bill within 90 days of taking office to remove from the Copyright Act the ability to introduce account suspension for infringing file sharing as a remedy the District Court can impose.

This has been previously released, and welcomed by me. I note suspensions are not available at the moment, and only can be if a future Cabinet decides they are necessary. However it would be a good thing to get the ability removed.

Labour will enact and implement the draft Patent Bill currently before Parliament that excludes computer software.

This is also National’s position, and Government policy.

Labour will issue a binding instruction to government agencies to implement a whole of government approach to open software.

Some specifics of this instruction would be:

• Require that when the government pays for software to be created, it will be owned by the government, and will be shared within government and with the public using an open source license.
• Require all software developed under Crown Copyright to be made available to the public on an open source license.

They look good ideas to me.

Labour will set an aspirational target of 2/3 of government agencies using some form of open source software for a reasonable proportion of their software needs by 2015.

I’m a fan of open source software, and its potential. I think the great value it brings is not the cost savings but the community of developers who can innovate with it. However the aspirational target seems rather arbitrary and populaist to me. Why 2/3rds? Why not 80% or 90% or 100%? And what does a reasonable proportion mean? If an agency uses Firefox browsers will that count?

I’m all for reducing the barriers and inertia in parts of Government to make sure open source software gets considered on its merits. But I think there are dangers in central Government setting an arbitrary target. It is not a case of all open source software is good and all proprietary software is bad. One has to weigh up the suitability for the tasks needed.

Labour will establish a Computer Emergency Response Team for New Zealand.

Most countries have one of these. I’m not sure whether this would be part of the National Cyber Security Centre just opened by the Government, or on top of that.

Overall there are some good aspects to Labour’s policy, and it reflects the work Clare Curran has put in getting to grips with the sector. But I’d be a lot lot happier with it if they firmly ruled out any further content regulation of the media and the Internet, and also ditched their policy to look at having a special Internet users tax to fund copyright holders interests.

Men are more likely to rate technology as a necessity of life than women, a recent survey suggests.

I read this, and my first thought was no that is not right. Sure e-mail and web is important, but I’d rather go without them than without women.

But then I realised that what they meant should be expressed as:

Men are more likely than women to rate technology as a necessity of life, a recent survey suggests.

The importance of order in a sentence!

Wellington will have free access to high-speed wireless internet on the waterfront from December.

And the city council hopes to make free wi-fi a permanent fixture in the central business district in time for next year’s Rugby World Cup.

From December, anyone with an internet-capable smart phone, iPad or laptop computer will be able to connect free of charge between Queens Wharf and Te Papa within range of a waterfront server in the NZX building.

The initiative is the brainchild of Trade Me and is being paid for by the online auction company, in association with the council.

Great.

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast said moves were already under way to expand the free wi-fi initiative to the city centre – subject to costs associated with the project. If successful, Wellington would be among the world’s first cities to offer residents and visitors free downtown wi-fi access.

The council was calling for expressions of interest to provide the service permanently around the Golden Mile.

A council graphic shows the proposed coverage stretches from Westpac Stadium to the Embassy end of Courtenay Place.

Positively Wellington Tourism chief executive David Perks said the initiative would make it easier for visitors to make the most of the city and tell others about it.

“Being able to access free wi-fi on the waterfront will mean our visitors can not only freely access information about where to go and what to do in the city, they can post photos of the picturesque harbour, public art and other attractions to their friends, families and digital networks throughout the world.”

I would not under-estimate how much extra tourism one could attract by promoting Wellington as a free wi-fi city. A huge number of travellers now travel with a laptop or 3G phone even.

The cost of wireless in hotels is outrageous at $30 or so a day.

Cafenet (run by Citylink) used to be superb value. I recall in the 1990s how great it was to get 80 MB of data for just $20. Sadly Cafenet are still charging the same rice in 2010, despite the costs of bandwith being less than 1/10th what they were in the 1990s. They have gone from cheapest to most expensive.

BMW New Zealand customers will soon be able to surf the internet using the vehicle’s dashboard-mounted information display screen.

The company has announced that customers with a suitable screen, iDrive system and internet-capable mobile phone will be able to buy wireless internet functionality.

The system will allow BMW customers to access the internet and email, although drivers will only be able to view the web and email pages when the vehicle is stationary.

I like it. One of those BMWs will do nicely for my birthday present thank you very much.

It’s an un-conference, which means the agenda is fluid – set by participants. It is free to attend, but you need to register in advance.

Steven Joyce will be doing an opening address, and other speakers or panelists include:

• Colin MacDonald, LINZ CEO
• Mirian Lips, e-Government Professor, VUW
• Zachary Tumin, Associate Director for Technology & Governance:The Ash Institute at Harvard Kennedy School
• Rodrigo Mizuno, Worldwide e-Government Managing Director:Microsoft Corporation
• Clare Curran, Labour IT/Comms Spokesperson
• Henk Verhoeven, Solution Architect:Intergen

If you have a passion for using technology to build a more open government, then consider registering to come along. Here’s one proposal I’d love a political party to adopt:

www.oia.govt.nz

The Government every day is releasing mounds of information under the OIA – but only to the person who thought to request it. I’d love to see a pdf of every OIA response put onto a central website – www.oia.govt.nz, so anyone can see the information released and use it. A good taxonomy and search engine for the site and it will be a gold mine.

• 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%

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.