Thailand To Build A Firewall To Block 'offensive' Websites

[Steve2UK]

Meanwhile - if not quite "while Rome burns" yet......

STILL ON HOLD

Telecom industry awaits direction while ICT minister's attention is occupied elsewhere

By: Komsan TortermvasanaPublished: 2/02/2009 at 12:00 AMHopes were high when the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva delivered its policy statement to the Parliament on Dec 30 and ministers began to announce their goals.

But when it came time for Ranongrak Suwanchawee to set the direction for telecommunications policy, she declared that her first priority would be censorship of the internet. She told top officials of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) ministry that their duty was to ferret out and block websites that officials believe carry insults to the monarchy. Not a word about any broad strategy for technological development, regulatory and concession reform, multi-billion-baht investment or other issues of strategic importance to Thailand's ICT industry.

"Don't ask me much," the former nurse told journalists on her first day in office.

"Often press conference will leave me with nothing to say. I don't have any special policy, but would like all agencies under the ministry to continue working as usual.

She pledged to hold another news conference after making the rounds of all the agencies under her care, including the state telecom enterprises TOT and CAT Telecom. A month has passed and there's been no sign of the minister dropping by TOT or CAT for a chat.

Full article continues:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/teleco...0/still-on-hold

[henryalleman]

There is something rotten in the kingdom of .......... if they need LM laws to protect it

[Plus]

I'll just refer you back to the contradiction (in blue) in Post #205 - which you have still not addressed........ unless it's the fact that the original "block but don't sue" statement has now morphed into "Suing depends on their capabilities. If it's one or two offensive groups, they can try and go after them, if they have the jurisdiction."

There's a difference between "they can try" and "they are suing everyone left and right" - after all there are thousands of websites on their list.

The woman currently in charge of ICT ministry doesn't know "webcam" from ".com", she might have grand plans for suing everyone but she really has no clue what she is talking about. I hope they just keep blocking stuff and stop at that. The right step should be making the process transparent and open venues for appeal but I don't think anyone has time for that rigth now.

[animatic]

"transparent and open venues for appeal"

would mean the actual content would be discussed

in a public quotable forum, they do NOT want that...

[Plus]

Not necessarily, just like current court proceedings on LM cases are not broadcast all over the world. As long as you know which agency blocked your site and where you can appeal it would work jsut fine.

[wedders]

I was going to mention this on the Thai Visa / The Nation tie-up thread, but I see that it has been locked. That's a shame, because it kind of confirms what some people were worried about, imho.

It occurred to me that the tie-up with an establishment media mouthpiece at a time when the government is cracking down on critical Internet sites and certain rather illusory freedoms of speech in LOS could be very handy indeed. The link could help TV avoid potential problems in this respect. The timing is interesting.

[Crushdepth]

"transparent and open venues for appeal"

would mean the actual content would be discussed

in a public quotable forum, they do NOT want that...

My work site was inadvertently banned once by the ICT ministry, because I was using disk space on a shared commercial webserver, which apparently had *one* offensive site on it. The server IP was blocked. This shut down the offensive site, and *all others* on the same server. We were given no warning whatsoever and received *no reply* to our representations to the ministry. Our host eventually solved the problem by shifting the sites to a different server (or maybe they just assigned it a different IP, not sure).

The irony? My work site is a *government* website.

[cmsally]

I thought this article was rather relevant in how the govt are now viewing the foreign media. This is the Bangkok Pundits Eng. translation as it appears in the Thai language Kom Chad Luek. Please note paragraphs marked "BP" are commentaries by the Bangkok Pundit.

Threat From the Foreign Media

Posted by Bangkok Pundit | 2/05/2009 10:00:00 PM

In case you thought it was just The Manager which has been ranting and raving against the "evil" foreign media, it isn't. The so-called progressive and enlightened Nation Group Kom Chad Luek has an editorial entitled ภัยจากกระแสสื่อข้ามชาติ which can be loosely translated as "Threat From the Thoughts/Trends of the Foreign Media". Have summarized (almost a full translation) the editorial below:

PM Abhisit has achieved sufficient success from his Davos trip. In addition, to meeting foreign leaders, journalists, he also conversed with important people in various fields. He also had the opportunity to explain Thailand's policies and positions on various matters.

BP: Success comes from appearances and mere statements?

The editorial continues:

One thing that may cause problems and make Abhisit anxious is the way that foreign media are presenting news especially on their coverage on the Rohingya who tried to sneak into Thailand to find work (โดยเฉพาะการปฏิบัติต่อชาวโรฮิงญา ซึ่งพยายามหลบหนีเข้าประเทศไทยเพื่อหางานทำ) and the accusations that the Thai military did not follow human rights principles (ของการถูกกล่าวหาว่ากองทัพไทยไม่ปฏิบัติต่อกลุ่มชนเหล่านี้ตามหลัก มนุษยธรรม).

In addition, there are foreign journalists who are fixated on presenting negative news about Thailand including some statements which are lese majeste which has created suspicions that the propagating of this news is not in line with the ordinary presentation of news and appears that they have conspired with one group of Thais (นอกจากนั้น ยังมีสื่อต่างประเทศซึ่งจ้องเสนอข่าวด้านลบต่อรัฐบาล รวมทั้งมีข้อความเชิงหมิ่นสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์และพระราชวงศ์ จนสร้างความน่าสงสัยว่าการประโคมข่าวเช่นนั้นไม่เป็นการนำเสนอข่าวตามภาวะ ปกติ และเป็นเหมือนการสมรู้ร่วมคิดกับคนไทยกลุ่มหนึ่ง). This has created a more difficult situation for the government that what it should be in and to explain the truth to the world (ทำให้สภาวะของรัฐบาลต้องเผชิญความยุ่งยากมากกว่าที่ควรจะเป็น และต้องใช้เวลาในการแก้ไข อธิบายต่อสังคมโลกให้รับรู้ความจริง).

BP: Conspiracy! The thing that BP doesn't get was that the foreign media and NGOs were critical of Thaksin when he was PM – the part about NGOs is more in relation to the earlier post today on Sutin's interview in The Manager than this current post. To use one example, Jonathan Head who the PAD and their supporters accuse of being pro-Thaksin wrote a number of critical stories of Thaksin during the war on drugs – see here and here as just two examples. The Thaksin government had a "frosty" relationship with the foreign media – think of Crispin and Tasker and their time at FEER. Editorial writers at The Nation and The Manager are the ones who fixated on something, it is always and everything is about Thaksin. No matter that we have a new government. When it comes to criticising – although will concede that Yoon's op-ed today was surprisingly critical of the new government – it is all Thaksin. When he was in power, after the coup, and now. Abhisit defends the military and goes into complete denial mode over the Rohingya and they couldn't be more silent. Were they silent over what happened at Tak Bai? No. The foreign media weren't then either too – they focus on who is in government.

The editorial continues:

The problem about statements verging on lese majeste is a sensitive one. Related agencies, ie the Foreign Ministry, must find a way to explain so they understand. This includes answering questions to refute the smearing of an important institution of the country (ปัญหาข้อความเชิงหมิ่นต่อสถาบันนั้นถือเป็นประเด็นละเอียดอ่อน จะนำมาชี้แจงเป็นเปลาะๆ ไม่เหมาะสม หน่วยงานที่เกี่ยวข้อง เช่นกระทรวงการต่างประเทศคงต้องหาทางอธิบายให้สื่อต่างๆ ได้เข้าใจ รวมทั้งตอบคำถามเพื่อหักล้างความพยายามใส่ร้ายป้ายสีสถาบันสำคัญของประเทศ).

BP: And if they don't understand, will they be sent to re-education camps? (BP pictures camps running ASTV 24/7….)

The editorial continues:

In regards to the Rohingya, the government should not get too excited as the Rohingya are foreign workers who tried to sneak into the country to work illegally, such as using false documents and are victims of human traffickers because they do not fit within the definition of a political refugee or economic refugee. Abhisit has followed the right policy and this includes negotiating with all parties. There should be an international meeting on this issue to find a solution especially western countries to receive them as Thailand does not have enough resources to look after them (ส่วนปัญหาชาวโรฮิงญานั้น รัฐบาลไม่สมควรตื่นเต้นเกินไป เพราะชาวโรฮิงญาเป็นแรงงานข้ามชาติ พยายามหลบหนีเข้าเมืองเพื่อหางานทำโดยวิธีนอกกฎหมาย เช่นการใช้เอกสารปลอม หรือหวังรอให้ไปประเทศอื่นๆ เป็นเหยื่อของขบวนการค้ามนุษย์ เพราะไม่เข้าข่ายเป็นผู้ลี้ภัยเศรษฐกิจหรือการเมือง ที่ผ่านมานั้นนายกฯ อภิสิทธิ์ดำเนินแนวนโยบายถูกต้อง พร้อมเจรจาทุกฝ่าย และควรเรียกร้องให้มีการประชุมนานาชาติ หาทางออก หรือยื่นข้อเสนอให้รัฐบาลชาติอื่นๆ โดยเฉพาะประเทศตะวันตก รับตัวไป เพราะประเทศไทยไม่มีทรัพยากรเหลือเฟือสำหรับเลี้ยงดูแรงงานเถื่อนแบบถาวร).

BP: A mere unimportant issue that the Thai military caused 600 or so people died. Nothing here to get excited about. To get really excited and for there to be an independent investigation, one death in front of parliament from a projectile thrown by the police is what is needed.

Many would argue that the Rohingya are prima-facie refugees (given they face systematic torture and killings at the hands of the Burmese government). Abhisit just dismisses that they are refugees out-of-hand and the Foreign Ministry states they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution (meanwhile the Thai authorities are treating the most recent arrivals in hospital after their beating by the Burmese military – they freely admit they were beaten by the Burmese military as they don't want people to gain the impression that their injuries were caused by the Thai authorities). Kom Chad Luek doesn't even think to question whether they might actually fit the definition of a refugee.

btw, if they are not actual refugees (as Kom Chad Luek and the Thai government claim), why would western countries take them? The position is not logically coherent, they are not refugees when it comes to the Thai government to do something, but this changes when they want western governments to take them.

Then the most extraordinary part of the editorial:

One way of reducing the problem is using organisations and the state media to make them useful, such as embassies and media network and also persons who are believable to "crusade for" the truth instead of just being of the receiving end. The entire foreign media has a different intention. Thailand is not the first country to be on the receiving end of negative news. This is not being impartial or professional. Other countries have also faced the same problem (ช่องทางสำคัญเพื่อบรรเทาปัญหา สร้างความกระจ่างให้ประชาคมโลก คือการใช้องค์กรและสื่อของรัฐให้เป็นประโยชน์อย่างเต็มที่ เช่นสถานทูตในต่างประเทศ เครือข่ายสื่อ รวมทั้งบุคลากรที่น่าเชื่อถือในการรณรงค์ให้ข้อมูลความจริง แทนที่จะเป็นฝ่ายตั้งรับข้อกล่าวหาซึ่งถูกประโคมโหมให้เลวร้ายเกินสภาพความ เป็นจริง เพราะสื่อข้ามชาติล้วนมีเจตนาหรือวัตถุประสงค์ต่างกัน และไทยไม่ได้เป็นกรณีแรกซึ่งตกเป็นเป้าหมายของการเสนอข่าวด้านลบ ซึ่งไม่เป็นการปฏิบัติหน้าที่ด้วยความเที่ยงตรง ไม่มีความเป็นวิชาชีพ โดยที่ประเทศอื่นๆ ก็เผชิญกับการรุมเล่นงานมาก่อนเช่นกัน).

BP: Kom Chad Luek is encouraging the government to use the state media as a tool of the state and act as its propaganda wing. So much for the need for an independent media…

Those people who will crusade for the truth is simply people who will spin for the government.

[sriracha john]

I thought we didn't quote blogs in here much less run them in their entirety ... this one is an example of why!

A small quote and a link but to quote the blog in its entirety is not allowed. Post has been edited.

As the vast majority of the previous post falls into blog commentary and not a simple translation of a news article, it falls outside compliance with this mod comment.

[Maestro]

A nonsensical post has been deleted.

--

Maestro

[Plus]

Re Bangkok Pandit's translation - the percieved problem with foreign media and journalists like JH is not their support for Thaksin but their ridiculous belief in some sort of a red revolution ala Jakrapob style going on in the country. They apparently firmly believe in conspiracy by misterious elites, Abhisit being the puppet of the military and all kinds of nonsense they hear on red stages.

The fact that PTP, the political arm of red movement, is run by three members of Thaksin family doesn't sound any alarm bells there, no questions about the red sincerety.

To the rest of the country reds are compromised beyond salvation while the likes of Nirmal Ghosh and Nick Nolstiz prance around them with their cameras trying to put a human face on it.

So, in a way, Kom Chad Luek is right - these foreign journalists are being fed nonsense by a group of Thais.

Re. Rohingya - if the West sees them as refugees they are free to take them, Thailand doesn't see them as ones, it treats them just as another group of Burmese it doesn't want. I don't see the same duplicity BP does here.

Western media jumped on a story here - refugees running from evil Burma regime being sent to death by evil Thais, they are going to milk to the end, the truth is another victim here in pursuit of a best selling "journalism", just like Iraqi WMD or old Kosovo "horseshoe" plan or recent Georgia war.

[Journalist]

Thai website to protect the king

The government in Thailand has set up a special website urging people to inform on anyone criticising the monarchy. It has also established an internet security centre to co-ordinate the blocking of websites deemed offensive to the monarchy....

....this story continues on...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7871748.stm

and submit your ideas for bannable sites via...

www.protecttheking.net

[cmsally]

The whole issue of foreign journalism and it's criticisms is I feel showing one of the inherent problems in Thai politics and society. Which is the inability to accept criticism. This is , I believe why it is so important to preserve free speech; otherwise you won't be blocking insults you will be blocking criticism. Lets face it criticism is mostly taken as an insult and there is usually much skirting around the point to avoid it.

There is the whole idea of truth emanating from top down, and obviously looking at the previous article this is something for which there is a mission to carry on. However with the evolution of society as a whole, now more than ever there is criticism of politicians, bureaucracy, military and the whole system.

If Thailand is going to look more credible on the world stage, then it has to address the criticisms more convincingly instead of hauling around this massive chip on its shoulder. At the moment its responses look very much like it knows there are problems but it will not address them. Constructive dialogue and discussion is seen as being guilty as accused. And there is great fear of being less than the view through the rosy painted glasses.

[Journalist]

^And by declining to participate in grown up dialogue around matters, it just makes those who have a bee in their bonnet about it even more extreme.

Hence the UDD petition - tantamount to challenging the authorities to jail every signatory.

But its not just Thailand. In Europe, if one starts making comments perceived to be in-valid about the Holocaust, you can end up in jail in certain countries.

[Plus]

At the moment its responses look very much like it knows there are problems but it will not address them. Constructive dialogue and discussion is seen as being guilty as accused.

On LM issue there's no problem and a few of the opponents are not engaging in any kind on constructive dialogue, they are just being vocal and offensive.

On Rohingya issue Thailand was caught on the wrong site of western media stick, that's all. Any other country facing thousands of boat people would treat them the same. The problem is not of Thailand turning them away though the media makes it seems so. At this point Abhisit is right to listen to his army first, not CNN.

[cmsally]

At the moment its responses look very much like it knows there are problems but it will not address them. Constructive dialogue and discussion is seen as being guilty as accused.

On LM issue there's no problem and a few of the opponents are not engaging in any kind on constructive dialogue, they are just being vocal and offensive.

On Rohingya issue Thailand was caught on the wrong site of western media stick, that's all. Any other country facing thousands of boat people would treat them the same. The problem is not of Thailand turning them away though the media makes it seems so. At this point Abhisit is right to listen to his army first, not CNN.

Well if you regard no problem as no discussion and criticism allowed, then that pretty much proves my point.

Second point - the issue at hand is that refugees were supposedly towed out to sea and basically left to die. Instead of being processed as illegal immigrants they were left in the hands of the ISOC, not immigration nor police.

I believe Abhisit then said an enquiry would be made via ISOC, in other words leaving an enquiry in the hands of the same people supposedly guilty of mistreatment.

The issue is not with acceptance or deportation, it is about method and means used (and personnel).

BBC article

[Plus]

no discussion and criticism allowed

For some five pages I've been saying that they block insults, not "criticism". Falling on dead ears.

As for Jonathan Head's article (not him again!) - it's very impressive, but he hasn't investigated anything new - all allegations come from the same "Arakan" project, he just interviewed them once again for maximum sensationalism.

Rohingya people have been coming here for years by thousands, Thailand even has build a special holding facility for them on one of the islands and apparently there's a policy of turning them away with food and water and December incident wasn't the first one. Why make so much fuss now? For the sake of tens of thousands of Rohingyas or for the sake of the story?

There's a separate thread in this forum for Rohingya, there's no need to discuss the details here. I just say that creating a good selling story is more important than facts and Thailand is right in being very sceptical of western media here, they do not look after the truth, they need viewing numbers and people going "oh" and "ah".

[TAWP]

no discussion and criticism allowed

For some five pages I've been saying that they block insults, not "criticism". Falling on dead ears.

And for five pages we have been saying that you are wrong.

Just because You say it's insults (which also is a subjective definition) doesn't make it true.

Hence the invitation to prove that you are right. That you decline in full.

[Journalist]

Rohingya people have been coming here for years by thousands, Thailand even has build a special holding facility for them on one of the islands and apparently there's a policy of turning them away with food and water and December incident wasn't the first one. Why make so much fuss now? For the sake of tens of thousands of Rohingyas or for the sake of the story?

There's a separate thread in this forum for Rohingya, there's no need to discuss the details here. I just say that creating a good selling story is more important than facts and Thailand is right in being very sceptical of western media here, they do not look after the truth, they need viewing numbers and people going "oh" and "ah".

If this story had then been written three months ago then, would you have been so rational and analytical ...(or would you be screaming blue murder?!)

Thats the problem, posters are subconsciously politicising the story. And their party prejudices are governing how they interpret the cocktail of information and conjecture trickling out....

On topic then: my point being - this is an example of how a routine immigration story could conceivably be slanted into a national security matter and requiring a cover-up....and then website bannings start being the next step down the slippery slope

Edited February 6, 2009 by Journalist

[wedders]

A nonsensical post has been deleted.

--

Maestro

It was only superficially 'nonsensical' (iyo) because it referred to a topic we cannot discuss openly.

It alluded to the advantages allegedly gained by TV through the tie-up with the Nation, a thread that was suddenly and unfortunately locked recently.

In terms of avoiding mishap - with respect to the new website encouraging people to report any hint of contravention of lese majeste laws, combined with the crackdown on internet sites - the link with the party line-toeing Nation is , imo, very handy indeed.

[pete_r]

Thai website to protect the king

The government in Thailand has set up a special website urging people to inform on anyone criticising the monarchy. It has also established an internet security centre to co-ordinate the blocking of websites deemed offensive to the monarchy....

....this story continues on...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7871748.stm

and submit your ideas for bannable sites via...

www.protecttheking.net

That stinks. Now anyone who dislikes their neighbor can give them trouble with a few clicks.

What next, a ministry of denunciation?

[wedders]

That stinks. Now anyone who dislikes their neighbor can give them trouble with a few clicks.

That is what I wrote, in my mod-deleted post in the early hours of this morning, almost word for word.

[cmsally]

Thai website to protect the king

The government in Thailand has set up a special website urging people to inform on anyone criticising the monarchy. It has also established an internet security centre to co-ordinate the blocking of websites deemed offensive to the monarchy....

....this story continues on...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7871748.stm

and submit your ideas for bannable sites via...

www.protecttheking.net

At least some part of this discussion has been taken up with disagreements over criticism & insults and how this effects the issue.

Some people have tried to say that censorship is only for insults, not criticism. My argument being that in this society there is very little cultural room for debate and difference of opinion. Hence criticism is often construed as insult. Therefore you may like to look at the wording above. In fact if you look at it in reality, it seems more to do with criticism.

It's a veritable little Pandora's box of retribution regarding personal disputes, promotion, status; just start off a rumour and watch them slide.

[Plus]

..for five pages we have been saying that you are wrong...

Just because You say it's insults (which also is a subjective definition) doesn't make it true.

No, actually it's the first time that someone questioned if the banned websites carried anything but insults. Up until now it was "I don't care what their content is" argument.

"Critical stuff" is regularly posted on popular sites like New Mandala, for example. They are not banned. Giles blog is not banned, lots of political blogs that are critical of the monarchy's role in recent events are out there and are not banned. Giles book is not banned/blocked, even if Giles is under investigation for writing it.

If you allege that some sites are banned unfairly and contain no insults, the burned of proof is on you, btw, not on me. The ones that I've seen were offensive, and I've been saying that there is no freedom to insult in Thailand.

Journalist, I don't think I'd be saying anything different on Rohingya story if it happened before Dems took power. This kind of things happen all the time, it's Thailand's MO, regardless of who is in charge in Bangkok.

There were hundreds of Krabi farmers in the same position on the groun on front pages once, no one blamed it on Thaksin, or Democrat MPs in that province - these stories are largely apolitical.

Just seen this:

It's a veritable little Pandora's box of retribution

It most certainly is, but the cause of this situation is the large number of clearly offensive sites out there. It's like police trying to disperse a mob and you argue that you don't feel safe on the streets and there's a threat to your freedom and you can be wacked with a truncheon for no good reason. Yes, sure, the crackdown is not the right time to visit your local 7 Eleven, but the cause of it is the mob, not the police actions.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Plus

[sriracha john]

A nonsensical post has been deleted.

--

Maestro

It was only superficially 'nonsensical' (iyo) because it referred to a topic we cannot discuss openly.

< snipped >

5) Discussion of moderation issues, actions or moderation policies concerning individual cases are not allowed in the forums.

[sriracha john]

That stinks. Now anyone who dislikes their neighbor can give them trouble with a few clicks.

That is what I wrote, in my mod-deleted post in the early hours of this morning, almost word for word.

5) Discussion of moderation issues, actions or moderation policies concerning individual cases are not allowed in the forums.

[Journalist]

^By quoting Rule 5, and by saying you are not allowed to discuss moderating issues, you are therefore discussing moderation issues.

Catch 22.

[wedders]

That stinks. Now anyone who dislikes their neighbor can give them trouble with a few clicks.

That is what I wrote, in my mod-deleted post in the early hours of this morning, almost word for word.

5) Discussion of moderation issues, actions or moderation policies concerning individual cases are not allowed in the forums.

Ok thanks, I've been around for a while but I'm not a regular reader/poster. That's my excuse anyway. My apologies to the powers-that-be.

I'll rephrase the earlier quote:

That is what I wrote, 'previously', almost word for word. Heck, it's like walking on egg shells around here.

[sriracha john]

^By quoting Rule 5, and by saying you are not allowed to discuss moderating issues, you are therefore discussing moderation issues.

Catch 22.

You seem to misunderstand the forum rules as easily as you misunderstand lese majeste.

[TAWP]

If you allege that some sites are banned unfairly and contain no insults, the burned of proof is on you, btw, not on me. The ones that I've seen were offensive, and I've been saying that there is no freedom to insult in Thailand.

Now, my little Sherlock, tell me how I can prove this without 1) risking to get ThaiVisa banned or 2) linking to a banned site with/without going through a proxy and having the post deleted...