A Geekzoner (BarTender) has put together a few apps that may be useful if you ever wonder about mobile coverage...

The first one is a map of New Zealand cell sites. The second one (pictured below), gives you a view of which cell sites are available near an address you enter.

The third one is a link you can use in your smartphone. It is a GPS-based cell site map and will use your smartphone's GPS to show your current location and which cell sites are near you.

Bookmark these now... These maps show cell site information for 2degrees, Telecom New Zealand, Vodafone New Zealand and Woosh.

Incredible reading the "reasons" for DMCA notices sent to Twitter, asking for tweets to be removed. Here are some:

Where does this Tweet link to: The Tweet links to another website where the infringing material is made available.

Where is the infringing material: The linked website links to another website where the infringing material is available for display or download.

These people are sending notices to Twitter for what a third party posted. And it's not even to the site where something is made available, but it's a link to a web site that links to another web site.

Well, let me get the clear picture. Could someone please explain to me what part of "hyperlinked text" these folks are missing?

As per the linked page (hey, caution here, we are using the infamous "hyperlinked text" thing they don't like!):

Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.

Twitter would not seem to be "contributorily or vicariously liable" as it is not hosting the material itself - no even in second degree, but they obviously don't want to get into a court to show how idiot is this kind of action.

I am not saying legitimate DMCA notices shouldn't be sent. I am saying DMCA notices shouldn't be sent left and right without aiming at the right companies.

Obviously, IANAL and we all know that logic is not something that prevails in the world these kind of people live.

While some have changed the world by creating design products and pushing for better user experiences, Bill and Melinda Gates are changing the world by saving lives.

Yes, I agree that saying "3.4 million lives saved from Hepatitis B" would be assuming every single person who received a vaccine would have been infected. But the thing here is actually that all those people were given improved odds of not getting sick, thanks to the vaccines paid for this man. Thanks to the research funded by his foundation. Thanks to the funds given to manufacturing companies that would otherwise have no way of making those vaccines, seeing large pharmaceutical companies are not interested in losing money making things that would go for free or small subsidies by governments and ONGs.

Bill and Melinda Gates have given US$ 28 billion to charity so far. This is 48% of their worth.

And while some in the tech industry keep saying Bill Gates should go back to working with Microsoft and change its current direction (a romantic vision of a cut throat industry), I think it's better for the world if he stays working on his foundation instead.

I do have a dislike for infographics but it's important for people that demonize Bill Gates to realise what he's been doing for years now:

This infographic was sourced from frugaldad.com, but I found out a page with very good specific programme ones from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Remember back in 2009 there was some discussion about New Zealand government giving the DIA powers to maintain an Internet and Website Filter (Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System) containing a list of pages that should not be accessed by New Zealanders because of their child exploitation-related contents?

I have been reading some of the committee reports and this is a summary. Note the highlights will appear in order of most recent reports to the oldest ones, and of course you should read the links to have the full picture.

The filter itself is optional to ISPs, but once an ISP decided to use the filter then all its customers would be automatically included - it's not optional for customers. Currently the following ISPs are using the filter:

• Airnet
• Maxnet
• Telecom New Zealand
• TelstraClear
• Vodafone
• Watchdog
• Xtreme Networks

I am reading the latest briefing document (December 2011) and it gives us some interesting data to date:

• seven ISPs
• 16.1 million requests blocked
• 415 records in the filter list
• 368 unique web sites
• 25 appeals.

Going through some meeting minutes I found that one of the committee members objected to the reported number of blocked requested being technically correct but too high. To be fair, as per the minutes, this is number of requests, not number of page views. Remember a web page can be made up of many items to be downloaded, hundreds even.

Reading the minutes of March 2011 we  find out that the DIA isn't only involved in filtering but actively working in identifying people trading this material over peer-to-peer networks, as found in the minutes of this meeting:

Officials demonstrated software that had been developed in-house for the easy identification of IP addresses trading child sexual abuse images over peer-to-peer networks. This tool has been translated and made available to enforcement agencies in over 20 countries.

I see one of the committee members commented on the Australian filter list and shared fears of political interference in some cases:

The Group noted that following the elections in Australia, the implementation of a compulsory filter is back on the agenda with a filter list that addresses child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. Duncan Campbell noted that the inclusion of websites supporting terrorism on the Australian filter list could be subject to political interference.

Also on the same report, there's a nod to some of the criticism towards the filter:

It was noted that critics of the website filtering system often state the DIA would be better to spend its money pursuing actual offenders. Officials agreed that these statements demonstrate that the public is not fully aware of the enforcement action taken by the DIA and information on the number of search warrant and prosecutions undertaken should be made available on the department's website.

I found a small change in directions on how information collected by the Internet filter is used. When the filter was created, its proposal had this:

2.4 A person who views a website containing chid sexual abuse images is in possession of those images, if only for the period they appear on the screen. The Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System therefore will help prevent inadvertent exposure to these images and will also help prevent New Zealanders from committing crimes.

Note how the minutes from February 2010 describes the filter as not being an enforcement tool:

It was explained that the filtering system is not an enforcement tool and could not be used to aid prosecutions. The Department was unaware of any European jurisdiction, currently using a webpage filtering system, which uses their system for enforcement purposes.

And later from a committee meeting in August 2011:

Andrew Bowater asked whether the Censorship Compliance Unit can identify whether a person who is being prosecuted has been blocked by the filtering system. Using the hash value of the filtering system's blocking page, Inspectors of Publications now check seized computers to see if it has been blocked by the filtering system. The Department has yet to come across an offender that has been blocked by the filter.

This is a big change in usage of filter log records. As said before the filter is there to prevent inadvertent exposure, so a PC being blocked doesn't mean intent. It could've been inadvertent, right?

In the February 2010 meeting we read:

Asked to address some of the criticisms of website filtering, officers explained that, while a website filtering system will not address peer-to-peer trading it will still make a significant contribution to combating child sexual abuse images. There is a great deal of traffic going to objectionable websites and inadvertent exposure to this material is a real risk of being online. Websites also play a part in transactions to purchase child sexual abuse images and act as a gateway to peer-to-peer services. Often an offender's first interaction with this material is through such websites. The filtering system is also a tool to raise the public's awareness of this type of offending and the harm caused to victims. The Group agreed that this particular aspect of the filter needs to be more clearly conveyed to the public.

So it looks like the filter is working, the committee is doing a good job of keeping on top of things, although there has been some change in how the information collected is now being used to help investigations, which wasn't what the filter was intended for (at least not what they set in the first meeting).

The two most recent reports also list some of the reasons submitted by people who stumble on the filter page and request access to the material behind it. The list is sad and hilarious, reading like a description of dumb scum people:

• I just want to see it
• I fantasy about my aunt
• I don't have children
• Its only hentai there is no auctal harm in it
• Curious
• Not Real
• Just to see if its as bad as you say it is ok
• Reaserch
• I like cute boys
• Just looking
• None of your business
• At 70 yrs old I should be able to see this
• just peeking so i can report it for blocking

These idiots really are the lowest of the lowest scum, right? The filter seems to be doing its job, the DIA is working hard to catch people trading this type of content. So why am I touching (no pun intended) on this again, after two years?

Because back in 2009 when the filter was created many people (myself included) were afraid a nationwide Internet filter system could one day be used for political purposes either by filtering free speech, or protecting copyright ownership and so on.

It seems the filter has been well applied in the last couple of years, although I disagree with the stance change in "not helping investigation prosecution" to "helping investigation and prosecution", but so be it, it's still within the child exploitation limits.

But because there was this change I still fear other changes can be made. I still have fears that our own little DIA filter can one day be expanded from "think of the children" to "think of the copyright owners and anyone who dares disagree with the established opinion or government actions". Check foobar's old blog post on this possibility. Read about the proposed SOPA legislation in the US. And read about the recent Spanish anti-piracy law.

Yes, I know. Think of the children. But think of our future too.

Seriously having a laugh at the coincidence today on NBR's technology RSS feed:

(1) Drunken BlackBerry execs chewed through restraints

(2) 'Best BlackBerry ever' gains local release

The first story refers to a couple of drunken RIM executives who were fired a couple of weeks ago from the Canadian company after creating a stir during a long haul flight. The second story is about the local launch of a new BlackBerry smartphone.

Separate the stories are unrelated. But when listed in a sequence like that, I thought it hilarious...

If reports are true, the New Zealand government have plans to subsidise Igloo set top boxes when the old analogue TV signals are turned off next year.

According to the New Zealand Herald:

The move is aimed at easing the transition to digital transmission, but would fit with Government policies that promote pay TV and undermine Freeview and the free-to-air TV sector.

Igloo is a digital receiver with a pay-per-view option. It will receive all open free-to-air channels, plus you can pay a monthly fee to receive additional channels, supplied by Sky. You will also be able to pay to watch specific movies or events. It is 51% owned by Sky Television.

If the New Zealand government wanted to give subsidies to help the transition between analogue to digital TV next year it should go to Freeview, our free-to-air broadcast platform, not to a private platform owned by a company that already dominates the satellite TV market in this country.

TelstraClear "unleashed" an unmetered weekend. And what a weekend it has been (still Sunday morning here). If you are not in New Zealand you should know most ISP plans are "metered", i.e. customers have a usage allowance measured in GB, with overage charges after that.

TelstraClear is the country's second largest ISP and boldly announced all data traffic from Friday 2nd Dec 2011 6pm through Sunday 4th Dec 2011 would be "unmetered", meaning this traffic would not be counted towards the customers' usage.

Obviously people would take advantage of this, by either uploading their digital content to online storage and backup, downloading as much content as possible for later viewing, or watching as much as possible YouTube, or using video calls like crazy - it's almost Christmas after all.

There's a long discussion on Geekzone on "how was your TelstraClear performance during free data weekend" and comments on NBR here.

Here's an interesting comment on Geekzone:

I must confess that I'm a bit confused as to why people are painting TelstraClear as callous, outrageous, moronic, illegal gits for actually TRYING to do, for once, what people have been clamouring for - "all you can eat" broadband.

Be careful what you wish for. 

I decided to post my reply to this comment in this blog post as well, to make it more visible outside the forum. And I agree with the gist of that comment.

This is because ISPs can't provision resources based on a constant peak demand, because what happens with all those resources during non-peak times? Who's paying for that? The costs would be enormous, which would of course be reflected on prices to consumers.

This "experiment" weekend by TelstraClear is not even a valid model showing how much resources the second largest ISP would need, because people are actually using a lot more than they would normally, just because this is an unusual event.

In effect what we are seeing here is the most demanding usage the network would be required to service. But not necessarily the demand an all you can eat plan would require in "normal" sense.

What are your views? Do you think unlimited plans are a good idea? Or do you think metered plans are better? What would you suggest to limit the impact of the Tragedy of Commons for example, where a few use all the available limited resources that should be shared by a larger group?