ISPs may have to remove suppression order data

Relevant offers

Digital living

Should cars have black boxes? Google tests ads in Australian maps Web piracy may kill 1.2 million jobs Aussie bid to shut offensive site John Grisham goes digital Rural broadband: virtual teachers? Police target crims on Facebook Twitter tries to dodge China's firewall Raunchy teacher pics spark Facebook probe YouTube rapper in quarantine

InternetNZ has questioned a recommendation by the Law Commission that internet providers should stop customers accessing information that breaches court suppression orders.

The commission said it believed it should be an offence for internet providers (ISPs) to fail to remove or block information they knew was in breach of a suppression order "as soon as reasonably practical".

InternetNZ deputy executive director Jordan Carter says it would be less of a concern if the commission was proposing that website-hosting companies should remove illegal information from customer sites, but quite a different thing if ISPs were asked to censor content on the internet wherever it might be. "That is not something we would ever support."

Mr Carter says he believes the commission may not have made up its mind.

InternetNZ is seeking clarification on the quality of the information ISPs would be required to act on – whether they would have to investigate complaints about alleged breaches made by the public or act only on information supplied by a court.

The non-profit society will hold a seminar in conjunction with the commission next month, where Mr Carter expected the issues would be discussed.

The recommendation was one of dozens the commission issued in a report on the suppression of names and evidence. It sidestepped arguments over whether it should be a criminal offence for jurors to conduct their own research on information pertaining to trials. Jurors might use the internet to inquire about patent cases, medical issues or other matters that "should be decided only on evidence presented to the court".

But the commission said criminalising such research raised wider issues, and was outside the scope of the review on suppression.