Thailand Has Become Totally Lost In Cyberspace

[Jai Dee]

Thailand has become totally lost in cyberspace

Thailand will soon be considered a country that has some of the world's toughest measures on Internet filtering.

By default or not, the pattern of the government's responses, since the coup last September, to information and video clips deemed offensive, including political views and comments, has been uneven and disastrous. This will have far-reaching implications.

As far as the Internet is concerned, the government has transformed Thailand into a repressive regime on a par with Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. As of last week, at least 50,000 sites were banned, including commentaries, anti-monarchy sites, anti-government sites and sexually explicit sites.

In the past six years, Internet usage in Thailand has increased many-fold. At the moment, at least 12 million regular users are facing heavy censorship by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) and the Royal Thai Police. At the moment, in the absence of an Internet law, these authorities are the highest arbiters determining what sort of information and images Thais should have access to.

The Thai authorities lack the understanding and skill to respond to new communication mediums. Quite often websites are shut down because monitoring officials do not want to risk their careers if dubious Internet content goes unfiltered. Eventually, they end up blocking more online content than they should. These bureaucratic responses and this official mindset is akin to that demonstrated by officials handling requests for public disclosure of government information.

After a brief, three-year period of enthusiasm following the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1997, the number of disclosure requests has now dwindled to the point of insignificance, as the responsible authorities' preponderance to turn down requests has increased exponentially. Officials who wrongfully disclose government information would face higher fines and more severe jail terms than those who broke the law and refused to give out information.

The number of banned websites varies in Thailand. MICT minister Sithichai Pookaiyaudom said less than two dozen sites have been banned under his leadership. But informal statistics show a huge discrepancy in the number of banned sites and the authorities' claims.

The problem is that the Thai authorities do not classify in detail the criteria used for online censorship. Previously, three types of content were prohibited online: pornography, anti-monarchy sites and sites critical of former PM Thaksin's style of leadership. The majority of banned sites between 2001-2005 were related to pornography and anti-Thaksin websites. That much was clear. However, following the coup last year, any online political views and commentaries critical of the Council for National Security and its interim government have not been tolerated. Strange as it may seem, similar critical comment of the government in printed media has not been banned. Sad but true, online critics have now been perceived as conspirators in the public relations campaign carried on by Thaksin, who has money and a penchant for using all available new media.

That helps to explain the Thai authorities' hysterical attitude. The infamous incident on YouTube, which is currently banned in Thailand, was a good illustration of how the banning of a website had the immediate effect of further publicising the offending material. It immediately helped to create mirror sites around the world. Before the YouTube ban in early April, numerous video clips were placed on the popular video-share website praising the Thai king and commemorating his 60-year reign. Unofficial statistics showed that before the coup, only nine websites existed with information considered offensive to the Thai head of state. The most notorious was Manusaya.com, which was shut down last March. As of April, the Thai authorities have identified 19 more sites and blocked them. As everyone can see, the ban has the opposite effect.

Now, the new cyber crime law, officially known as the Computer-Related Crime Act, is waiting for royal approval before its enactment. On the surface, the law may give confidence to Internet users as it sets out rules and regulations that oversee the Internet. Service providers, who helped draft the law, have been pleased with the content.

However, Thai media experts are concerned that this law will do much damage to online and citizen journalism, as well as restrict overall freedom of expression. Some of the provisions would turn online journalists into criminals if certain content is considered to endanger "national security".

To top it all, Thailand already has one of the world's most conservative censorship systems, with at least 27 laws which are either anti-press or limit freedom of expression. For instance, the antiquated legislation known as the Film Act of 1930 is still being used every day by the Thai Censorship Board to determine what Thai people will see in the globalised world of the 21st century. Similarly, the 1941 Printing Act also has done great damage to press freedom and to restrict publishers and journalists.

There are rogue elements in the Thai bureaucracy and judiciary that still want to control the way the Thai people think and express themselves. They should realise that these archaic laws have greatly undermined the creativity and aspirations of Thais - and the consequences might be unfathomable.

Editorial Opinion by Kavi Chongkittavorn - The Nation - 18 June 2007

[spot]

Agree with every word.

[John K]

This is next after the political front settles down.

[jackr]

All it takes is some trigger-happy monitoring official worrying about his carer, reading the wrong thread on TV and wallop.

[bkkandrew]

All it takes is some trigger-happy monitoring official worrying about his carer, reading the wrong thread on TV and wallop.

Typo - no perhaps all would be better if thery were all assigned a carer!

[boes]

................

[dkstoney]

We can only hope that people here stop caring about what others think and start thinking for themselves.

[Stephen Cleary]

Mr Sittichai is an absolute Internet expert - especially after he admitted recently - the only times he uses the Net are to check the occasional e-mail and look-up Tiger Woods's golf scores.

Check out FACT (Freedom Against Censorship Thailand) and their latest goings-on.

FACT

[rychrde]

these people are pathetic. Thai authorities obviously know next to nothing about the internet nor how to police it. Do they have no covert ops internet divisions? sh1t, I'm sure a few people from TV would do a better job but... ssshhhhh... don't tell them!

As the article says, i feel sorry for the kids. Then again, so called internet bars are full of kids playing games (which are mostly on the local network) thus freeing up bandwidth for the 2 people doing anything useful :-)

rych

[mellow1]

I suppose that it must be scary to contemplate the fact,that one day people will become educated enough, to decide they will now go after their oppressors.I do not see this as a pretty sight.

[chuchok]

[

There are rogue elements in the Thai bureaucracy and judiciary that still want to control the way the Thai people think and express themselves. They should realise that these archaic laws have greatly undermined the creativity and aspirations of Thais - and the consequences might be unfathomable.

Editorial Opinion bt Kavi Chongkittavorn - The Nation - 18 June 2007

I would say that it's a very good percentage of the ruling and elite class think like this."Don't do as we do,do as we say...for we know what is better for you.Trust us,we are the chosen ones...."

[John K]

There are too many people in the censorship game at the moment, and each seems to have their own reason. The players are The Minister of Culture, The junta, and a few others. If there was an injection of propaganda then I would be very concerned. So far all I have seen is blocking.

[Mid]

I would say that it's a very good percentage of the ruling and elite class think like this."Don't do as we do,do as we say...for we know what is better for you.Trust us,we are the chosen ones...."

true or not ,

the problem is that the serfs believe it ..........................................

[quiksilva]

Mr Sittichai is an absolute Internet expert - especially after he admitted recently - the only times he uses the Net are to check the occasional e-mail and look-up Tiger Woods's golf scores

and didn't find the internet "interesting"

[kmart]

There are too many people in the censorship game at the moment, and each seems to have their own reason. The players are The Minister of Culture, The junta, and a few others. If there was an injection of propaganda then I would be very concerned. So far all I have seen is blocking.

To use a technology effectively usually involves the discipline to have invented or developed it in the first place. Thailand's government is going backwards trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle, when it should be realising that the country's future depends on teaching and developing information technology. And not just assembling it.

[Plus]

The fact is that they are not able to block what they want - the Ministry of ICT cannot block a single video from youtube, for a example, it has to be done by ISPs, and getting everyone's immediate cooperation in the jungle that is IT in Thailand is impossible. So they block EVERYTHING instead.

There are no laws that govern the sensors, there are no laws that specify who does the sensoring and for what reasons and for how long, and there's no legal way to appeal against it.

I doubt they could possibly clear up this legal mess before the elections, and the new cybercrime law is not good enough either.

[Temp]

I believe that incompetency is a greater or at least equal problem to that of triggerhappy officials. I do not think I am alone in thinking that the inaccessibility of a large number of websites that simply seem to time out might be related to undersirable sideeffects from incompetent officials tinkering with the implementation of censorship. I do not think Thailand officially blocks yahoo mail, but it is a fact that it has been inaccessible for me(not the login site, but the domain set up for the mailbox) the last month. Before that there were also a lot of problems with accessing mail at yahoos servers. As I will not be here for so much longer this period I simply will not start trying to resolve this matter with the True(false?) "support" team, as I am sure one might be looking at several months of correspondance, visits from "engineers" that disrupt your schedule and so on. I can use alternative ways to reach the servers anyway.

Of course the real problem is the mindset of people that censor.

Temp

[Ping]

So what are the implications for TV?

(Self-censoring edit)

Edited June 18, 2007 by Ping

[marquess]

So what are the implications for TV?

(Self-censoring edit)

:D

[sriracha john]

From a previous "blocked websites, yadda yadda yadda" thread....

ok, other the aforementioned youtube and proxy server sites (which are banned by thaivisa), can someone provide specific websites that are blocked?

The reason I ask is that over the past 3 months, any number of threads have been started here saying this site and that site have been blocked... yet when I try them out, they invariably load up without any difficulty.

Probably not within Forum Rules.

Regards

PM'd you

Thanks for the lengthy list... but it seems I have no difficulty accessing 18 of the 20 I've tried so far...ranging over a variety of topics and issues. The other 2 were news articles that were no longer carried by the news organization on their current list due to their age, but are available from the archives for a fee.

The majority of the sites clearly seem to be non-Thaksin related which is not what I was specifically looking for given the thread topic, but nevertheless it seems most are open anyway so it seems to reinforce my doubts about these "thousands and thousands of websites that are blocked" statements.

I will keep going through the list, however, and thank you again for sending it.

Now that's interesting, since the list I sent you is barred [e.g BBC news items] from my connexion in Bangkok.

Specific examples :-

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5367936.stm

theage.com.au/news/business/thai-riches-hinged-on-wise-kings-prodigal-son/2006/06/27/1151

On my connexion come up as green screen of death

Regards

/edit to add specifics//

Phew... ok, finally finished with the list provided.

63 total sites on the list (some were duplicated so second one removed)

Of the 63 total sites, was to able to access directly without difficulty 31 of them. There were an additional 29 sites that were accessed to the main website, but the individual extension did not exist (many were from free websites and once they exceeded the bandwidth provided for free and evidently not paid for, they were cancelled). If a website doesn't exist, I don't consider it blocked, which is reasonable I feel. Others in the category had various tags from the web host such as "contents deleted by uploader" or were news articles moved by the news organizations into archives which were available only upon paid subscription service.

btw, The Age link above is in that category. The first BBC link I can access without any difficulty.

There were 3 websites of the 63 that timed out. I did not receive the "green screen" on ANY of the 63 websites, including the ones that timed out. By "sneezing", I ultimately accessed all three. 1 site was a site that contained off-color jokes (ala youtube), 1 site was porno (rather disgusting, even by my standards, "grandma porn") :D and 1 site was political in nature.

So as it turns out...... one site out of sixty-three supposedly blocked websites was really worthy of being considered "blocked."

Thank you for the list as it DID confirm that my suspicions that reports of "Thousands Blocked" are very dubious... at least from where I sit.

If this so-called FACT group is producing this list with a bazillion blocked websites.... it doesn't seem too accurate.

[A_Traveller]

from where I sit

I say again that from my connexion and others that I know of political sites, pro-Thaksin sites etc. register either as the Green Screen of Death or simply do not connect. Again if you were able to access the site then you have access to this list of 17,000+ sites, which has been updated since I sent you a short quick extract. Maybe you should try testing from there as well. As of yesterday sites I identified to you are GSD's, these being tested from two seperate locations.

You also don't seem to be willing to understand the cat and mouse aspect of this where sites light up, get blocked, go dark there, and reappear. This is especially true of free hosted sites.

Regards

[ozterix]

from where I sit

agree with a traveller, this is only depending on where you sit or more precisely on what connection you have. Most of the business connections (meaning fixed IP and professional setup) will result in access authorised to 90% of what is currently deemed to be blocked. The main reason is that these connection can cost up to 100K a month and the ISP does not want to upset the business holder and therefore do not monitor traffic or websites visited. I guess SJ was testing on his office setup and not a home standard adsl

I say most because i heard of some ISP blocking occasional traffic on professional connections as well.

for all the other connections now, dynamic IP, which is what all home connections are, there is total control and monitoring on what you do and where you go. In that case, all the reported website would not be authorised.

I have however noticed a few days ago that on another home connection that I have with tot, the monitoring has dissapeared... beats me!

oz

[lannarebirth]

I believe that incompetency is a greater or at least equal problem to that of triggerhappy officials. I do not think I am alone in thinking that the inaccessibility of a large number of websites that simply seem to time out might be related to undersirable sideeffects from incompetent officials tinkering with the implementation of censorship. I do not think Thailand officially blocks yahoo mail, but it is a fact that it has been inaccessible for me(not the login site, but the domain set up for the mailbox) the last month. Before that there were also a lot of problems with accessing mail at yahoos servers. As I will not be here for so much longer this period I simply will not start trying to resolve this matter with the True(false?) "support" team, as I am sure one might be looking at several months of correspondance, visits from "engineers" that disrupt your schedule and so on. I can use alternative ways to reach the servers anyway.

Of course the real problem is the mindset of people that censor.

Temp

This seems about par for the course amongst a group who, when asked to join the global underseas fiberoptic networks, responded with "how much will you pay us". And it's been shitty internet in Thailand ever since.

[sriracha john]

from where I sit

agree with a traveller, this is only depending on where you sit or more precisely on what connection you have. Most of the business connections (meaning fixed IP and professional setup) will result in access authorised to 90% of what is currently deemed to be blocked. The main reason is that these connection can cost up to 100K a month and the ISP does not want to upset the business holder and therefore do not monitor traffic or websites visited. I guess SJ was testing on his office setup and not a home standard adsl

I say most because i heard of some ISP blocking occasional traffic on professional connections as well.

for all the other connections now, dynamic IP, which is what all home connections are, there is total control and monitoring on what you do and where you go. In that case, all the reported website would not be authorised.

I have however noticed a few days ago that on another home connection that I have with tot, the monitoring has dissapeared... beats me!

oz

All of the above stats.... 1 true blocking out of 63 "blocked sites".... was from a home ADSL connection. The same as everyone else residing in the sub-division and I imagine the same as anyone connected to the Net with TT&T. There's nothing special or expensive in this very normal connection.

I mentioned my doubts regarding these huge numbers (50,000 as per FACT)... I discount that huge number as they aren't truly blocked if the sites are dead, not active, or merely repeated 3 or 4 times on the same list.

I would have hoped they would show some integrity by putting out a REAL number but that would result in a far, far shorter list... and... for them to say, "OMG!! 50,000!!!" is quite an

attention-getter.

Truth is... it's not 50,000 and is actually no where near that.

Edited June 18, 2007 by sriracha john

[IMA_FARANG]

Thailand has become totally lost in cyberspace

Thailand will soon be considered a country that has some of the world's toughest measures on Internet filtering.

By default or not, the pattern of the government's responses, since the coup last September, to information and video clips deemed offensive, including political views and comments, has been uneven and disastrous. This will have far-reaching implications.

As far as the Internet is concerned, the government has transformed Thailand into a repressive regime on a par with Burma, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. As of last week, at least 50,000 sites were banned, including commentaries, anti-monarchy sites, anti-government sites and sexually explicit sites.

In the past six years, Internet usage in Thailand has increased many-fold. At the moment, at least 12 million regular users are facing heavy censorship by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT) and the Royal Thai Police. At the moment, in the absence of an Internet law, these authorities are the highest arbiters determining what sort of information and images Thais should have access to.

The Thai authorities lack the understanding and skill to respond to new communication mediums. Quite often websites are shut down because monitoring officials do not want to risk their careers if dubious Internet content goes unfiltered. Eventually, they end up blocking more online content than they should. These bureaucratic responses and this official mindset is akin to that demonstrated by officials handling requests for public disclosure of government information.

After a brief, three-year period of enthusiasm following the passage of the Access to Information Act in 1997, the number of disclosure requests has now dwindled to the point of insignificance, as the responsible authorities' preponderance to turn down requests has increased exponentially. Officials who wrongfully disclose government information would face higher fines and more severe jail terms than those who broke the law and refused to give out information.

The number of banned websites varies in Thailand. MICT minister Sithichai Pookaiyaudom said less than two dozen sites have been banned under his leadership. But informal statistics show a huge discrepancy in the number of banned sites and the authorities' claims.

The problem is that the Thai authorities do not classify in detail the criteria used for online censorship. Previously, three types of content were prohibited online: pornography, anti-monarchy sites and sites critical of former PM Thaksin's style of leadership. The majority of banned sites between 2001-2005 were related to pornography and anti-Thaksin websites. That much was clear. However, following the coup last year, any online political views and commentaries critical of the Council for National Security and its interim government have not been tolerated. Strange as it may seem, similar critical comment of the government in printed media has not been banned. Sad but true, online critics have now been perceived as conspirators in the public relations campaign carried on by Thaksin, who has money and a penchant for using all available new media.

That helps to explain the Thai authorities' hysterical attitude. The infamous incident on YouTube, which is currently banned in Thailand, was a good illustration of how the banning of a website had the immediate effect of further publicising the offending material. It immediately helped to create mirror sites around the world. Before the YouTube ban in early April, numerous video clips were placed on the popular video-share website praising the Thai king and commemorating his 60-year reign. Unofficial statistics showed that before the coup, only nine websites existed with information considered offensive to the Thai head of state. The most notorious was Manusaya.com, which was shut down last March. As of April, the Thai authorities have identified 19 more sites and blocked them. As everyone can see, the ban has the opposite effect.

Now, the new cyber crime law, officially known as the Computer-Related Crime Act, is waiting for royal approval before its enactment. On the surface, the law may give confidence to Internet users as it sets out rules and regulations that oversee the Internet. Service providers, who helped draft the law, have been pleased with the content.

However, Thai media experts are concerned that this law will do much damage to online and citizen journalism, as well as restrict overall freedom of expression. Some of the provisions would turn online journalists into criminals if certain content is considered to endanger "national security".

To top it all, Thailand already has one of the world's most conservative censorship systems, with at least 27 laws which are either anti-press or limit freedom of expression. For instance, the antiquated legislation known as the Film Act of 1930 is still being used every day by the Thai Censorship Board to determine what Thai people will see in the globalised world of the 21st century. Similarly, the 1941 Printing Act also has done great damage to press freedom and to restrict publishers and journalists.

There are rogue elements in the Thai bureaucracy and judiciary that still want to control the way the Thai people think and express themselves. They should realise that these archaic laws have greatly undermined the creativity and aspirations of Thais - and the consequences might be unfathomable.

Editorial Opinion by Kavi Chongkittavorn - The Nation - 18 June 2007

Amazing.

From what he says you think that i would not be able to log on to this forum, not able to post my reply here, and if I did I would soon be arrested.

I guess that isn't happening is it?

I'm not saying that Thailand is totally free, but when has it ever been?

Does anybody remember the May riots, when the police attacked the protestors? I was in BKK at the time.

This article is a lot more politics and political opinion than fact.

Probably what he wanted as its purpose. don't you think?

Incidentally, my 8 year old granddaughter uses the local internet cafe to do research for her school papers and reports.

Hope she won't be arrested for accessing 'PROHIBITED INFORMATION"

Edited June 18, 2007 by IMA_FARANG

[Plus]

Metacafe.com seems to be blocked now, I can't find anything offensive on that site at all. There are no results for Thaksin or anything like that. There's no obvious porn either.

It's still far cry from 50,000 sites, presumably political. ICT claimed numbers probably are far closer to reality.

FACT doesn't do itself any good by deliberately inflating the numbers.

Nothing will improve until the new government is in place anyway.

[solo siam]

Lets say that conservatively 49,500 of those sites that are banned are porn or paedophile sites, pirated software etc.., so 500 sites are blocked - Out of what 30 million or so!

It just doesn't sound like a big deal to me, I can read my email, read the news and browse - I can only think of perhaps one or two occasions when a site I went to visit was blocked, on average I must visit 10-20 sites a day for the past 5 years.

[rychrde]

This seems about par for the course amongst a group who, when asked to join the global underseas fiberoptic networks, responded with "how much will you pay us". And it's been shitty internet in Thailand ever since.

really? didn't know, but now figures why when the cablesbroke off Taiwan LOS seemed pretty much at the bottom of the heap regarding getting bandwidth back to 'normal'.

rych

[Stephen Cleary]

Metacafe.com seems to be blocked now, I can't find anything offensive on that site at all. There are no results for Thaksin or anything like that. There's no obvious porn either.

It's still far cry from 50,000 sites, presumably political. ICT claimed numbers probably are far closer to reality.

FACT doesn't do itself any good by deliberately inflating the numbers.

Nothing will improve until the new government is in place anyway.

On the subject of porn

Pornographic magazines are banned and extremely rare these days. The MICT is now trying to block as many pornographic websites it can.

Kinda strange really.......when you can walk along Patpong, Suthisarn, Nana Plaza, Walking St and see porn in the flesh.

Governments have been really serious about cracking down on porno publications, movies and now porn sites. But how come they've never truly clampdown on naked dancers? Or, perhaps it just proves, that the governments have always had a secret agenda 'Promote Thailand as a place for sex - good for the economy.

Edited June 18, 2007 by stevesuphan

[ozterix]

from where I sit

agree with a traveller, this is only depending on where you sit or more precisely on what connection you have.

oz

All of the above stats.... 1 true blocking out of 63 "blocked sites".... was from a home ADSL connection. T

SJ,

you are making a generalisation of your own connection, it is wrong. You probably have your connection through a local small ISP who is not on the radar and does not monitor traffic and if in sriracha, I guess I know them very well. They give you a great service.

as far as the number is concerned, you can't really identify how many are blocked but you can know that first they block specific sites by their domain names, for thaksin and other political related activities and then they subscribe to a blocking service which blocks by category, like nudity, gambling etc... we know these services very well, and there are not a good service but the only existing solution if you want to ban something. You can not yourself identify the millions sites and the new ones poping up everyday so only way is block a category, updated on a central service where computer systems will do the analysis for you. This can also be deployed at a smaller level in schools and companies. It is very common in business and education, less in government, but a standard system.

if they block porn and drug and violence, 50000 is a small number plus all the political ones.

just understand that if you are not blocked, 1000s in bkk are...