Most favour extending govt’s internet filter

Most favour extending the reach of the government's internet and website filter into areas beyond child exploitation images, according to an InternetNZ survey - but a majority also want to decide for themselves whether they're covered by Internal Affairs' censorship technology.

The survey found public opinion split – and a bit confused – over censorship software deployed by Internal Affairs and ISPs.

In 2010, the government introduced censorship technology - officially known as The Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System - designed to block access to images of child exploitation.

Unlike Australia, participation the New Zealand government’s internet filter programe is voluntary. Internet service providers can refuse to install the filtering technology, and some have.

The voluntary nature of the scheme allows the government to stick to its pledge, first made to NBR, to favour parental responsibility over mandatory censorship.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, which administers the filter, the following mobile and landline internet service providers have joined the programme:

• Airnet
• Maxnet
• Telecom
• Telstra Clear
• Vodafone
• Watchdog
• Xtreme Networks
• 2 Degrees

CallPlus/Slingshot and Orcon (part of state-owned Kordia) are conspicuous absentees.

Both are part of the “big five” that dominates the ISP market (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone, Orcon and CallPlus/Slingshot).

InternetNZ, which administers the .co.nz domain and lobbies on behalf of internet users, has just released a survey of 1000 New Zealanders over the age of 18, asking them for their opinions on the filter.

The research was carried out by UMR. Responses were coloured by the fact most (46%) were unaware the filter existed before being contacted by the polling company and only 19% were aware if their ISP was using the filter.

InternetNZ says the key findings were:

1. The majority of New Zealanders want to be able to decide for themselves whether an Internet filter is used.
2. Two-thirds of respondents support extending the filter to block access of other material [a disturbing result for filter opponents, many of whom worry about “mission creep,” and the potential of future governments to abuse the technology]
3. Only a quarter of parents with dependent children use Internet filtering technology.
4. Opinion is divided over whether a filter that blocks access to child sexual abuse images reduces the number of children who are sexually abused. 

Findings 1. and 2. seem contradictory. NBR put this to InternetNZ.

Policy lead Susan Chalmers replied:

“I suspect that people were responding to the questions independently and reacting to two different things.

“When someone is asked if they prefer that ‘other material’ be filtered, they may then think of something that personally offends them. It could be anything. They then respond that they would support the filter catching that material. This is highly subjective. The complexity of the matter means that research in this area must be highly detailed,” Ms Chalmers said.

“As for the ‘who decides to filter’ question, people generally value choice. So if they're asked how they feel if they don't have a choice, they'll respond negatively.”

Tech Liberty has closely monitored the internet filter.

The watchdog's founder, Thomas Beagle, posted this afternoon: 

"It seems clear to us that people do want the option of using a filter, but the one provided by the Department of Internal Affairs isn't it. Instead more ISPs should be offering filters that cover a wide range of material for those who want it (and those that do offer them should make sure their customers are aware of it)."

RAW DATA: Read InternetNZ’s full survey (PDF)