NZ Supreme Court Gives A Mixed Bag Extradition Ruling To Kim Dotcom; Extradition Still Alive, But He Can Raise Procedural Issues

from the this-case-will-never-end dept

It's been almost a decade since US and New Zealand forces did a silly made-for-Hollywood (and possibly by Hollywood) raid of Kim Dotcom's home in New Zealand for the crime of running a cloud storage service that some people used for infringing works. Since that time, Dotcom has been fighting extradition charges to the US. The case has taken many crazy twists and turns, including the US government seizing his assets by claiming he's a fugitive, even as he's been going through the standard legal process to determine if extradition is proper (and there's a very strong legal argument it is not even remotely proper).

That said, while Dotcom has won rulings showing illegal activity in how he was surveilled and arrested, he's also lost his attempts to block the extradition.

The latest ruling, from New Zealand's Supreme Court is unfortunately more of the same. The court has found that he can be extradited on 12 of the 13 charges against him, but also noted the procedural problems that have plagued the case mean that he still cannot be extradited. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that Dotcom (and his colleagues who were also arrested) were denied judicial review of the original ruling in the district court in 2015.

Dotcom and his lawyers have (accurately) stated that the ruling "is a mixed bag." But it's mostly mixed with bad news for Dotcom. The good part is just that he doesn't have to get shipped off to the US right away.

But on the whole this is a bad ruling for Dotcom. The key issue at play gets deep into the copyright weeds, about theories regarding criminal inducement of infringement, and whether or not New Zealand and the US have matching crimes. Unfortunately, so far it looks like the New Zealand courts (like too many of the US courts) don't really care to look at the actual specifics of what's in the law and just lump together a bunch of different concepts around "copyright infringement bad," without being willing to understand that building a platform that is used for infringement is not the same thing as infringing yourself. The court didn't seem to understand the difference here -- which is unfortunately not that surprising, but it is disappointing. These kinds of rulings damage the open internet, limit the kinds of services that can be built, and bring us closer to a locked down broadcast-only internet, the kind which Hollywood wants.

Filed Under: cloud storage, copyright, extradition, intermediary liability, kim dotcom, new zealand, procedural issues, us
Companies: megaupload

Five Eyes Countries Band Together To Complain About Facebook And End-To-End Encryption

from the breaking-Messenger-will-leave-criminals-with-only-dozens-of-secure-options dept

The world's law enforcement agencies are back at it, advocating for the demise of end-to-end encryption. The last time they all got together like this, they were complaining to Facebook for thinking about adding encryption to its Messenger service.

Because Facebook does so well reporting child porn to the proper authorities, the proper authorities have gathered to decry its decision to encrypt this service, claiming it would result in a lot of unobserved child porn being passed between users. With Facebook unable to eavesdrop on messages, the images and videos can be shared unnoticed.

And, again, the international law enforcement community is asking for weaker encryption… and namechecking Facebook as the cause of and potential solution to all the world's child porn problems. The new "international statement" opens up with a united declaration that everyone loves encryption, before getting to the long list of "buts."

We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security. It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. Encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world and we do not support counter-productive and dangerous approaches that would materially weaken or limit security systems.

Of course, that last sentence is a lie. At best, it's completely disingenuous. Almost immediately following this assertion that the undersigned have no intention or pursuing counterproductive/dangerous approaches, the Five Eyes crew (along with India and Japan) lists the counterproductive/dangerous ways they'd like encryption to be broken.

Particular implementations of encryption technology, however, pose significant challenges to public safety, including to highly vulnerable members of our societies like sexually exploited children. We urge industry to address our serious concerns where encryption is applied in a way that wholly precludes any legal access to content. We call on technology companies to work with governments to take the following steps, focused on reasonable, technically feasible solutions:

• Embed the safety of the public in system designs, thereby enabling companies to act against illegal content and activity effectively with no reduction to safety, and facilitating the investigation and prosecution of offences and safeguarding the vulnerable;

• Enable law enforcement access to content in a readable and usable format where an authorisation is lawfully issued, is necessary and proportionate, and is subject to strong safeguards and oversight; and

• Engage in consultation with governments and other stakeholders to facilitate legal access in a way that is substantive and genuinely influences design decisions.

I'm not sure what sort of "strong encryption" can handle all of these weak spots being introduced without turning into something easily misused, but these government reps are pretty sure people at these companies will come up with something. These governments have convinced themselves they're "stakeholders" in private conversations between citizens that are facilitated by services like Facebook's Messenger.

And that's what this is about. The statement cites Facebook's success in handling child porn while trying to use that against it.

In 2018, Facebook Messenger was responsible for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of CSAM [child sexual abuse material to the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)]. These reports risk disappearing if end-to-end encryption is implemented by default, since current tools used to detect CSAM [child sexual abuse material] do not work in end-to-end encrypted environments.”

If this is true, then there's nothing else that can be done. Weakened encryption that allows Facebook to intercept users' messages does nothing for the millions of Facebook users who've never trafficked in illegal content. The company can either give users security and privacy, or it can give these governments what they want. There's no middle ground that's going to accommodate both groups.

And this push against Facebook is working. These statements were converted into news articles claiming Facebook is "responsible" for 94% of all reported child porn. But that wording suggests Facebook is the problem, rather than its users. Facebook made 94% of the reports, showing once again it's been doing what it can to combat the problem.

Its decision to offer encryption to Messenger users isn't being made lightly. It's aware of the downside. But it's also aware of the threat posed to its users by a number of malicious entities, which include authoritarian governments and state-sponsored hackers. If it wants to protect its millions of innocent users, it has to offer the same shelter to criminals using the service. That's how it goes. The middle ground governments think the private sector should nerd towards simply doesn't exist.

Filed Under: australia, backdoors, canada, encryption, five eyes, india, japan, new zealand, security, uk, us
Companies: facebook

In 'N Out Burger Continues Its Bullshit Pop-Up Technique To Keep Trademarks It Isn't Actually Using

from the literally-in-and-out dept

Roughly a year back, we discussed famed American burger chain In 'N Out Burger cynical process for keeping trademarks it owns in certain countries in place, despite the chain having no actual presence in the country. You might be wondering how a company with no storefronts or delivery business in a given country could possibly hold valid trademark rights to its brand, given trademark law's requirement that companies actually use their trademarks in commerce to keep them. The answer to that is that In 'N Out flies staff out to several countries once every couple of years and launches a pop-up store, slinging burgers for a short period of time before packing everything up and heading home. The chain claims that this is done to raise its profile in other countries for an eventual permanent launch. Except that those launches never actually happen.

It's all very frustrating, if for no other reason than nobody can figure out why In 'N Out cares so much about trademark rights in a country it sure doesn't seem to have any interest in doing business in. Well, the confusion continues, as In 'N Out has announced it will once again launch pop-up stores in New Zealand.

American fast food chain In-N-Out Burger will open a pop-up store in Auckland on Thursday, sparking hopes for a permanent restaurant.

The pop-up store will be be open between 11am and 2pm at the Portland Public House.

But if history is anything to go by, burger lovers should not get too excited.

No, they shouldn't. Even this Stuff post indicates that there doesn't seem to be any question as to the chain's doing this strictly to keep its trademarks from being invalidated. The law in New Zealand requires a trademark holder to engage in "genuine use" of the mark within the country three years from it being granted. These pop-up stores are In 'N Out attempting to fulfill that genuine use requirement, although there are questions as to whether or not such a use actually counts as genuine.

Lawyer Clair Foggo, from Potter IP, said the company could be trying to protect its trademark in New Zealand.

"What happens is if you have a trademark registration, you have three years from the date of registration to use it. If you don't use it in a genuine way it become vulnerable to revocation."

If a trademark is not used within a three year period and lapses, a person can apply to have it removed from the register and may file their own application for the trademark claim, Foggo said.

"It sounds like they are trying to use their trademark in a genuine way, not just putting out some merchandise or using it on social media," she said. "However there may be some question whether operating a one day pop up shop amounts to "genuine" or token use."

So what counts as genuine use? It's delightfully ambiguous, of course. That ambiguity melts away, however, once you consider what the purpose of trademark law actually is, which is to prevent public confusion as to the source and association of goods and services. In that context, fleeting uses by major foreign brands preventing domestic companies from making use of similar branding makes absolutely zero sense. In fact, you could argue that In 'N Out's tactic achieves the opposite. Ironically, the use of pop-up stores only increases the brand awareness of the company within New Zealand, where the company mostly does not bother doing business. It may be only because of these pop-up stores, in other words, that a domestic company using similar branding would create confusion.

Bottom line: it would be quite nice if In 'N Out would stop playing these trademark games, and ceased using hamfisted and cynical tactics just to have trademark rights in a country it doesn't want to do business in.

Filed Under: burgers, new zealand, pop-up stores, trademark
Companies: in-n-out

Filipina Girl From New Zealand Takes Her Slime Show International After Fending Off Nickelodeon Lawsuit

from the slimeballs dept

Update: As a reader helpfully pointed out in the comments, the original source article for this post incorrectly suggested that Weischede had defeated Viacom in a legal battle. In the link included in the comment, which provides far more detail, it turns out that this was resolved when Viacom dropped its opposition as opposed to having it defeated. I have left in the original post and inputted this update for the sake of clarity.

You may not recall the name Katharina Weischede, but we wrote about this Filipina teenager from New Zealand back in 2018, when Viacom decided to oppose the 13 year old on trademark grounds because she dared to make and sell "slime" as a business. More specifically, Katharina has earned the nickname in New Zealand of "Slime Princess", which is what she applied for in her trademark application. Viacom opposed the application, citing that its Nickelodeon division has trademark rights for "slime" in the country already.

It was an absurd opposition on every level, from Katharina's company carrying something like a $20k valuation at the time, to the overly broad mark which Viacom was purporting to be protecting, to the pure PR nightmare that was getting into a legal battle with a bright teenager looking to start a fun business.

And, to make the whole thing worse, The Slime Princess (TM) defeated Viacom at the trademark office.

Katharina, however, stood her ground and started an campaign via a Givealittle page to raise money for a legal battle with the entertainment giants to keep her trademark. According to her, the support she received from kids and adults all over New Zealand have really inspired her to fight for her passion.

After a grueling legal battle, Katharina prevailed in court and has slain the giant that threatened her kingdom of slimes. Nearly two years after the case, she now continues to make her own creations of slimes and builds an army of fans and supporters via her own platforms and networks to continue bringing smiles in the faces of young kids and even adults.

And, far from simply taking the win and staying silent, she is taking her show on the road. Katharina is visiting the Philippines to share the story of her business, including the legal struggle with Viacom, to other young entrepreneurs. At 13, she has a legal victory over a massive entertainment company on her belt, not to mention her story in starting her own business at that age to begin with. It's a cool story and one that hopefully will highlight to others that standing up to big businesses is in fact possible.

She will be staying in the country for a few days to meet with kids, share her stories, play with them and make fun slimes.

“It’s going to be a an amazing experience here. I’ve always looked forward to sharing it with the kids here in the Philippines. I dreamt of experiencing it here, and now I am here, this is going to be different and special.”

Slime-on, Slime Princess (TM).

Filed Under: katharina weischede, new zealand, nickleodian, philippines, slime, slime princess
Companies: viacom

Complete Overreaction: Professor Calls For Shutting Down Facebook Live, Post-Christchurch

from the take-a-deep-breath dept

It is generally a bad idea to make any massive change in the wake of a tragedy. It is certainly reasonable to explore and discuss some of these ideas, but the temptation to overreact to an emotional sample size of one is often too great, leading to very silly outcomes. Take, for example, a suggestion by professor Jennifer Grygiel, in the wake of the awful attack in Christchurch, New Zealand a few weeks back. As with other "blame the tech" attempts, her focus is less on the speed with which the platforms removed content, but more with the fact that live-streaming is even available at all. Her proposal? No more live-streaming at all.

Grygiel at first repeats an earlier argument she made that all live-streaming must be put on "time delay" for censors to review. She notes that she first pushed this idea a few years ago, in the wake of another "streamed live" attack.

In the wake of Godwin’s murder, I recommended that Facebook Live broadcasts be time-delayed, at least for Facebook users who had told the company they were under 18. That way, adult users would have an opportunity to flag inappropriate content before children were exposed to it. Facebook Live has broadcast killings, as well as other serious crimes such as sexual assault, torture, and child abuse. Though the company has hired more than 3,000 additional human content moderators, Facebook has not gotten any better at keeping horrifying violence from streaming live without any filter or warning for users.

But, wait, you say: how does this work? Apparently the idea is that adults are allowed but kids are magically put on time delay. Well, now we've massively scaled back the proposal such that a very small percentage of the userbase is effected (which, is certainly better, but...). Of course, there's no indication that the problem of streaming these videos live was that any kids watched them. Indeed, I've heard no such reports.

So this "time delay" plan wouldn't have stopped nearly all of the people who did see the video.

Second, this whole plan assumes that (a) the only reason these attacks occurred was because of the ability to live-stream, and (b) that there aren't other live-streaming options out there (there are many). It also ignores that even if "adults" were able to view the content first, there's no indication that they would report it. Indeed, Facebook noted that less than 200 people viewed the initial live-stream, and no one reported it. So, that would mean that this video still would have gone out to anyone after the "time delay" even if Grygiel's plan was in place.

Facebook relies on users as moderators, and most livestreams don’t have as large an audience as TV, so its delay would need to be longer — perhaps a few minutes. Only then would enough adult users have screened it and had the opportunity to report its content. Major users, including publishers and corporations, could be permitted to livestream directly after completing a training course. Facebook could even let people request a company moderator for upcoming livestreams.

Except, again, no one reported the original video, so nothing would have changed with this plan. And lots of recent mass killings and attacks weren't live-streamed by the killers (in fact, most are not). This plan seems to be taking a side issue (live-streaming) with the real issue: a very terrible, sick person decided to kill a huge crowd of people for terrible reasons. For what it's worth, Grygiel also seems somewhat confused about the legal aspects of all of this:

Facebook has not yet taken this relatively simple step, and the reason is clear. Time delays took hold in TV only because broadcasting regulators penalized broadcasters for airing inappropriate content during live shows. There is effectively no regulation for social media companies; they change only in pursuit of profits or to minimize public outcry.

First off, it's not a "relatively simple step." It's actually asking for something that is incredibly complex and would likely create lots of problems, with little obvious benefit. Second, the reason that broadcasters can be penalized is because they are using the public airwaves, which they got in exchange for certain conditions placed on them regarding obscenity. The internet is not like that, and part of the reason that there's "effectively no regulation" on the internet is because the First Amendment bars it. While I'm sure that "pursuit of profit" is clearly a driving force for all of these internet platforms, to argue that that is their only driving force, and that they don't care about the wider impact is a fun narrative totally devoid of actual understanding of those who are operating these platforms.

Either way, without recognizing any of this, Grygiel then says that after Christchurch she doesn't even think the time delay idea is enough, and that live-streaming should be banned -- unless all content is "professionally moderated" a la television.

That’s why I’m no longer recommending just a livestream delay for adolescent users — it was an appeal to protect children when more major platform changes are unlikely. But all people deserve better and safe social media. I’m now calling on Mark Zuckerberg to shut down Facebook Live in the interest of public health and safety. In my view, that feature should be restored only if the company can prove to the public — and to regulators — that its design is safer.

Handling livestreaming safely includes having more than enough professional content moderators to handle the workload. Those workers also must have appropriate access to mental health support and safe working environments, so that even Facebook employees and contractors are not unduly scarred by brutal violence posted online.

This is a massive overreaction to a few crazy people using one particular tool. Yes, we agree that most people should not watch these videos, but using the very, very, very edge case to argue that live-streaming shouldn't exist makes no sense at all. Again, most mass shootings aren't live-streamed. And the ones that are still aren't viewed by that many people. And, as a society, we're (thankfully) learning not to share the video around as much (yes, there are trolls and assholes who are posting it, but unless you were really looking for the video, you weren't going to accidentally stumble over it). And most kids I know aren't likely to go searching for such a thing.

What happened in New Zealand was truly awful. But overreacting like this does no one any good at all.

Filed Under: christchurch, live streaming, new zealand
Companies: facebook

Three Lessons In Content Moderation From New Zealand And Other High-Profile Tragedies

from the no-magic-wands-available dept

Following the terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, social media companies and internet platforms have faced renewed scrutiny and criticism for how they police the sharing of content. Much of that criticism has been directed at Facebook and YouTube, both platforms where video of the shooter's rampage found a home in the hours after the attacks. The footage was filmed with a body camera and depicts the perpetrator's attacks over 17 minutes. The video first appeared on Facebook Live, the social network's real-time video streaming service. From there, Facebook says, it was uploaded to a file-sharing site, the link posted to 8Chan, and began to spread.

While the world struggles to make sense of these horrific terrorist attacks, details about how tech companies handled the shooter's video footage and written manifesto have been shared, often by the companies themselves. Collectively, these details in combination with the public discourse on and reaction to, as the New York Times referred to it, "a mass murder of, and for, the internet," have made clear three fundamental facts about content moderation, especially when it comes to live and viral content:

1. Automated Content Analysis is Not a Magic Wand

If you remember nothing else about content moderation, remember this: There is no magic wand. There is no magic wand that can be waved and instantly remove all of the terrorist propaganda, hate speech, graphically violent or otherwise objectionable content. There are some things that automation and machine learning are really good at: functioning within a specific and particular environment (rather than on a massive scale) and identifying repeat occurrences of the exact same (completely unaltered) content, for example. And there are some things they are really bad at: interpreting nuance, understanding slang, and minimizing discrimination and social bias, among many others. But perfect enforcement of a complex rule against a dynamic body of content is not something that automated tools can achieve. For example, the simple change of adding a watermark was enough to defeat automated tools aimed removing video of the New Zealand shooter.

Some, then, have suggested banning of all live video. However, that overlooks activists' use of live streams to hold government accountable and report on corruption as it is happening, among other uses. Further, the challenges of automated content analysis are by no means limited to video. As a leaked email from Google to its content moderators reportedly warned: "The manifesto will be particularly challenging to enforce against given the length of the document and that you may see various segments of various lengths within the content you are reviewing."

All of this is to reiterate: There is no magic wand and there never will be. There is absolutely a role for automated content analysis when it comes to keeping certain content off the web. Use of PhotoDNA and similar systems, for example, have reportedly been effective at ensuring that  child pornography stays off platforms. However, the nuance, news value, and intricacies of most speech should give pause to those calling for mass implementation of automated content removal and filtering.

2. The Scale, Speed, and Iterative Nature of Online Content – Particularly in This Case – is Enormous

It is a long-standing fact of the internet that it enables communication on a vast scale. Reports from YouTube and Facebook about the New Zealand attack seem to indicate that this particular incident was unprecedented in its volume, speed, and variety. Both of these companies have dedicated content moderation staff and it would be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this staff could handily keep up with what seems to be multiple copies of a single live video. But that overlooks a couple of realities:

• The videos are not carbon copies of each other. Any number of changes can make identifying variations of a piece of content difficult. The iterations could include different audio, animation overlays, cropping, color filters, use of overlaid text and/or watermarks, and the addition of commentary (as in news reporting). Facebook alone reported 800 "visually distinct" videos.
• There is other content – the normal, run-of-the-mill stuff – that continues to be posted and needs to be addressed by the same staff that now is also scrambling to keep up with the 17 copies of the video that are being uploaded every second to that single platform (Facebook in this case; YouTube's numbers were somewhat lower, but still reaching one video upload every second, culminating in hundreds of thousands of copies).

It's worth noting here that not a single person reported the live video stream to Facebook for review. The video was reportedly viewed "fewer than 200 times" while it was live but the first report came 12 minutes after the stream ended – a full 29 minutes after the broadcast began. That's a lot of time for a video to be shared and reposted by people motivated to ensure it spread widely, not only on Facebook, but on other sites as well.

In addition to proving the challenges of automated content review, the New Zealand attacks demonstrated weaknesses of the companies' own systems, particularly when dealing with emergencies at scale. YouTube, for example, was so overwhelmed by the flood of videos that it opted to circumvent its standard human review process to hasten their removal. Facebook, too, struggled. The company has a process for handling particularly sensitive content, such as an individual threatening to commit suicide; however, that process wasn't designed to address a live-streamed mass shooting and likely could not easily be adapted to this emergency.

3. We Need Much Greater Transparency

As non-governmental and civil society organizations have hammered home for years, there needs to be more transparency from tech companies about their policies, processes, and practices that impact user rights. One of the more promising developments from 2018 in this space was the release of reports by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook providing a quick peek under the hood with respect to their content enforcement. While there is still a long way to go from the first year's reports, the reaction to their publication shows a hunger for and deep interest in further information from tech companies about their handling of content.

Among companies' next steps should be transparency around specific major incidents, including the New Zealand attacks. Social media platforms are still reeling from over a week of whack-a-mole with a heavy side of criticism. But once they are able to identify trends or data points across the incident, they should be shared publicly and contextualized appropriately. For example, how did Facebook identify and handle the 800 distinct versions of the video? Did those include uses of the video in news reporting? How was the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism – an entity formed to share information on images and videos between companies – engaged?

One challenge for companies when providing transparency into their policies and practices is doing so without providing a roadmap to those looking to circumvent the platforms' systems. However, extant transparency reporting practices – around, for example, government requests for user data – suggest companies have found a balance between transparency and security, tweaking their reports over time and contextualizing the data within their larger efforts.

What's Next?

There are no quick fixes. There are no magic wands. We will continue to debate and discuss and argue about whether the tech companies "did the right thing" as they responded to the New Zealand shooter's video, his manifesto, and public reaction to both. But as we do so, we need transparency and insight into how those companies have responded, and we need a shared understanding of the tools and realities of the problem.

As details have emerged about the attacks in New Zealand and how they played out on social media, much of the analysis around internet companies' handling of user content has fallen into one of two buckets:

• Tech companies aren't doing enough and refuse to use their enormous money/power/tools/resources to address the problem; or
• The problem is unsolvable because the volume of content is too great for platforms to handle effectively.

The problem with presenting the issue as this dichotomy is that it overlooks – really, completely ignores – the fact that an unknown number of viewers watched the live video but did not report it to Facebook. Perhaps some viewers were confused and maybe others believed it was a joke. But the reality is that some people will always chose to use technology for harm. Given that fact, the question that will ultimately guide this debate and shape how we move forward is: What do we want our social media networks to be? Until we can answer that question, it will be hard, if not impossible, to address all of these challenges.

Reposted from the Center for Democracy & Technology

Filed Under: ai, automation, content moderation, new zealand, scale

New Zealand Censors Declare Christchurch Shooting Footage Illegal; Start Rounding Up Violators

from the this-will-end-badly dept

Following the recent mass shooting in New Zealand, the county's government swiftly declared the live footage of the attack, along with the shooter's manifesto, "objectionable." This classification is more than a condemnation: it made both illegal to possess or distribute. Thanks to this response, New Zealand law enforcement is now rounding up and charging anyone who violates this post-tragedy decision to make newsworthy content the legal equivalent of child porn.

The first reported arrest occurred March 17th, two days after the shooter livestreamed his attack on local mosques.

A teenager has appeared in a New Zealand court charged with distributing the livestream video of a deadly mass shooting at Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque.

The 18-year-old, whose name was suppressed by the judge, was also charged with publishing a photograph of the mosque with the message “target acquired”, and for inciting violence.

He faces a maximum of 14 years in prison for each charge, prosecutors said.

On top of the stiff potential penalties, the judge also apparently believed the 18-year-old posed enough of a threat (for further violence or just simply disappearing) to deny him bail.

The arrests resulting from New Zealand's media censorship office's declaration continue.

A Christchurch businessman has appeared in court on charges of distributing footage of one of the mosque shootings.

Philip Neville Arps, 44, had his application for bail declined when he appeared in the Christchurch District Court today.

He was remanded in custody until his next appearance on April 15.

Another arrest for distributing "obscene" footage and another denial of bail.

In both cases, those arrested appear to be sympathetic (if that's the right word -- it seems so wrong) with the shooter's hatred of Muslims and preference for a whiter tomorrow. The 18-year-old's "target acquired" comment suggested, at minimum, they saw nothing wrong with targeting members of certain religions.

Philip Arps appears to be a long-time proponent of white nationalism -- even going so far as to use a symbol appropriated by neo-Nazis as the logo for his business. Arps apparently spent the days after the shooting praising the shooter and refusing to apologize for his views. A review of Arps' business by Stuff Magazine shows Arp hasn't exactly kept his personal beliefs and his company's public presence from intermingling.

Beneficial Insulation also charges $14.88 per metre for insulation – 14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists.

The company's website www.BIIG.co.nz, is an acronym for the company's full name Beneficial Insulation Installs Guaranteed. BIIg was the name of a barracks at Auschwitz concentration camp, operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II and the Holocaust.

While it may seem like it's a good idea to take these people out of circulation, the fact that they're facing a possible 14 years for sharing content arbitrarily declared "obscene" is… well… obscene. These may appear to be clear-cut interpretations of the law, given the sympathies of the people arrested, but future arrests may not be so unambiguous. The footage declared illegal is still newsworthy and the media censorship board hasn't exactly made it clear it won't be sending cops after people who use the footage for journalism, research, or criticism.

The ban of the complete video does not automatically mean that any image or short extract from it is also banned. However any edited clips, screenshots or still images taken from the full video depicting scenes of violence, injury or death, or that promote terrorism, may also be illegal.

Violations will be in the eye of the government beholder. Some violators won't even know they've violated the law until they're being rung up on charges and denied bail. This is an overreaction to a pretty much unprecedented development: the livestreaming of a mass murder. The potential for misjudgment and abuse is huge, given the natural tendency of people to share and comment on newsworthy incidents.

Filed Under: attack, censorship, christchurch, criminal, free speech, massacre, new zealand, philip arps, sharing, video