Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

NZ to follow the Chinese internet model?

New Zealand is working hard to become the first Western nation to strike a free trade agreement with China.

In negotiation such a complex deal, it's only natural that there will have to be some give and take on the part of both nations.

We've already seen that NZ has plenty of give in such cases, with the number of instances where our government has apparently capitulated to pressure from another being far too long to list.

The use of busses to effectively silence the voices of anti-China protestors in Christchurch, use of the law to force the removal of "Free Tibet" banners from K Road in Auckland, etc, etc.

In fact, one could also be forgiven for thinking that the current NZ government was just a little too keen to embrace the political leanings of their Chinese peers.

Now don't get me wrong -- I've got nothing against the Chinese people, I have Chinese friends and they're good folks. However, I can't say I agree with the way China oppresses the rights of its people or those of neigbouring countries.

Now, by drawing a long bow, I think one could almost say that the first step towards China-like state censorship of political content on the NZ internet has begun.

What am I talking about?

Well the anti-government website DontVoteLabour.org.nz which used to look like this, now looks like this

Andy Moore, the guy who set the site up, could have fought a claim by the Electoral Commission who claimed that he was in breach of the law but as we all know, that would have taken an armful of cash to feed the hungry lawyers.

Now it should be pointed out that Andrew's site got the bash *not* because he spent too much money (a mere $1K he says), but because he didn't include his name and address.

Please visit the sponsor!

But hasn't anyone involved in enforcing this law read the paper recently?

Have they not seen Andy's name plastered all over the paper as the operator of this website?

Do they not know how to use a telephone book or the electoral register to find out where he might live?

Isn't this just a totally stupid bit of legislation when it comes to the use of the Net as a political tool?

Let's face it, you can set up a website for (by my reckoning) as little as $200, if you use a low-cost registrar, low-cost US-based hosting, and create the pages yourself.

So nobody who sets up a site such as DontVoteLabour is going to be spending more than pocket-change to do so -- hence it's unlikely to breach the spending aspects of the EFA. And really, there's not a whole lot of difference in this case between Andy setting up his site and him standing on a street-corner with a megaphone.

But here's a puzzler for the bureaucrats and lawmakers -- what if someone living in the USA, Europe or even Australia decided to set up and run a website designed to promote an NZ political party or candidate?

What if they did so through an anonymising service and didn't provide a name and address on the website?

The reality is that this would be a *very* simple thing to do, and give the low cost, it could be done in large volumes -- effectively making the shutting down of DontVoteLabour a joke.

How would the Electoral Commission react to a dozen or even a hundred US-based websites published by anonymous individuals or organisations?

Well they'd be breaking NZ law -- but there'd be absolutely no way for NZ law to do a damned thing about it. After all, neither the "registration by proxy" companies, nor the hosting companies would be obliged to disclose their clients' names -- since they're outside the jurisdiction of NZ law.

And, thanks to the nature of the Net,those sites would be just as accessible as any NZ-based ones.

I hope someone will do this -- because I really wonder if the Electoral Commission's next step would be to force ISPs to block such websites so as to make them inaccessible from New Zealand.

Gosh, really does sound like China doesn't it?

It is indeed very sad that our politicians are (once again) showing their power-lust by seeking to clamp down on those who might wish to disempower them.

And isn't it funny that although Andy's site has been shut down, my Pro-Government banner hasn't raised an eyebrow, despite the lack of a name and address and despite exceeding the per-candidate spend limit ($1,000) by an unregistered individual or group.

Andy's site was easily construed as a personal statement just like a blog, so why was it shut down? Surely, if Andy can't be allowed to have his say, why should I?

No, there's no political bias in the enforcement of the EFA, no way, can't be.

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font