July 16th, 2009

happy

*insert snappy title here*

Discovery of the morning - two of the work type jackets that are hanging in my wardrobe actually have pockets! The makers had done that thing where they put in pockets and then sew them shut so they hang nicely on the rack. Now, I buy all of my work clothes in op shops, so that means these jackets have had at least one previous owner that hadn't discovered the pockets. Go figure.

Frantic unpicking of some very tight stitching ensued. And now I can actually carry my cellphone without having to carry a bag.

This is momentous. Yes it is.

Collapse )

And for edm, who very kindly fiddled with our non-existent internet last night, I did call Telstraclear, and yes, the outage was at their end, and they reckon it's fixed now. Thank you for the helpful advice - I'm now confident that I can at least diagnose whose problem it is when/if it happens again. Yay!

PS I've had this icon for a while but this is the first time I've remembered to use it.
happy

Internet filtering for Unzud

Because we're a nation of deviants!

The press release from the Department of Internal Affairs.

FAQ about it, compiled by beagl who is the most informed person I know on this topic.

What concerns me about this is the secrecy in which the whole thing has been undertaken and the potential for slippage. New Zealand's government process is considered to by fairly transparent, but this hasn't been. I think everyone agrees that child pornography is objectionable, but I've looked up the law governing what's considered objectionable, and there's loads of scope for other things to end up being included in the list of banned sites - Kink (NSFW), for example - under the same secrecy. How would we know?

Never mind how many of the ~7,000 sites on the current list (five times the size of the UK's list and which we are not allowed to know the content of) didn't actually involve exploitation of children, because our law allows for censorship of stories and drawings as well as films and photos (fanfiction people take note - you'd be familiar with this issue yeah?).

I have a question. The spokesperson for the DIA says: "It is the result of real children being sexually abused and exploited in the worst possible way. Each time anyone anywhere in the world accesses one of those images, the child depicted is victimised again.” Which I completely agree with. But if the filter is intended to prevent exploitation and abuse of children, and not for law enforcement, why are the IPs of people looking at fictional stories being logged? And where is the action to remove the sites from the web altogether? Surely, if DIA knows these sites exist and wants child abuse to stop, contacting the ISP for the sites will result in removal, which will hit them far harder than stopping a tiny number of Kiwis a year from seeing them? Read the comment from Sabine Miehlbradt on the Register's article about this. It's thought provoking.

Anyway, I'm going to let people read the three links and decide for themselves - it's an emotive issue. I just wanted to make it a bit more public than it has been, because that's how it should have been in the first place.