Thailand To Build A Firewall To Block 'offensive' Websites

[Crushdepth]

I wouldn't worry to much, it will be easy to bypass as it is in China.

'tis true, I had a monkey with it on a recent visit to China and it is trivial to circumvent. And if the Chinese can't make internet censorship work then nobody else should waste their energy trying.

But having read the thread again, I agree that the real intent is actually to give the authorities carte blanche for censorship, without oversight. That's bad news and will certainly be abused.

[sriracha john]

But having read the thread again, I agree that the real intent is actually to give the authorities carte blanche for censorship, without oversight. That's bad news and will certainly be abused.

Absolutely this is about attempts to control the Net of any anti-government sites.

Going back to the OP, we have the now-banned Somchai in the thick of it.

Prime Minister and Defence Minister Somchai Wongsawat had discussed this with the intelligence units, the Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT) and the Communications Authority of Thailand

Although, I don't doubt that the PTP replacements, if they are installed, will pick this right up and move forward with it. That is unless the budgeted 500 Million Budget has already been spent. In that case, they'll begin seeking funding for a 650 Million Baht project to evaluate whether or not government schools need school desks for elementary students (not to actually buy desks, mind you, just to study whether or not they are needed).

Now then, if the Dems get into the driver seat, it'll be interesting to see their position on this issue with the Net.... and if by some miracle, the 500 Million Baht has NOT already been spent, whether they cank the program and put it towards something actually beneficial... like school desks.

[blaze]

But having read the thread again, I agree that the real intent is actually to give the authorities carte blanche for censorship, without oversight. That's bad news and will certainly be abused.

Absolutely this is about attempts to control the Net of any anti-government sites.

Going back to the OP, we have the now-banned Somchai in the thick of it.

Prime Minister and Defence Minister Somchai Wongsawat had discussed this with the intelligence units, the Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT) and the Communications Authority of Thailand

Although, I don't doubt that the PTP replacements, if they are installed, will pick this right up and move forward with it. That is unless the budgeted 500 Million Budget has already been spent. In that case, they'll begin seeking funding for a 650 Million Baht project to evaluate whether or not government schools need school desks for elementary students (not to actually buy desks, mind you, just to study whether or not they are needed).

Now then, if the Dems get into the driver seat, it'll be interesting to see their position on this issue with the Net.... and if by some miracle, the 500 Million Baht has NOT already been spent, whether they cank the program and put it towards something actually beneficial... like school desks.

Wasn't the proposal to block offending websites originally a Democrat motion?

[sriracha john]

But having read the thread again, I agree that the real intent is actually to give the authorities carte blanche for censorship, without oversight. That's bad news and will certainly be abused.

Absolutely this is about attempts to control the Net of any anti-government sites.

Going back to the OP, we have the now-banned Somchai in the thick of it.

Prime Minister and Defence Minister Somchai Wongsawat had discussed this with the intelligence units, the Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT) and the Communications Authority of Thailand

Although, I don't doubt that the PTP replacements, if they are installed, will pick this right up and move forward with it. That is unless the budgeted 500 Million Budget has already been spent. In that case, they'll begin seeking funding for a 650 Million Baht project to evaluate whether or not government schools need school desks for elementary students (not to actually buy desks, mind you, just to study whether or not they are needed).

Now then, if the Dems get into the driver seat, it'll be interesting to see their position on this issue with the Net.... and if by some miracle, the 500 Million Baht has NOT already been spent, whether they cank the program and put it towards something actually beneficial... like school desks.

Wasn't the proposal to block offending websites originally a Democrat motion?

As per OP, the coalition government's (Peua Pandin) ICT Minister Mun Patanotai gets the nod

[digitele]

To quote a wise man;

"The truth will set you free."

Not around here. You'll be locked up.

Welcome to Thailand!

[TAWP]

blaze>> How about you agree that all censorship is bad instead of trying to derail the issue by turning this into a partison issue?

[cmsally]

To quote a wise man;

"The truth will set you free."

Not around here. You'll be locked up.

Welcome to Thailand!

Unfortunately , quite correct.

[TAWP]

To give food for thought, this weeks printing of the Economist has been voluntary banned by the importer.

[cmsally]

To give food for thought, this weeks printing of the Economist has been voluntary banned by the importer.

Well there's voluntarily and "voluntarily" isn't there.

[blaze]

blaze>> How about you agree that all censorship is bad instead of trying to derail the issue by turning this into a partison issue?

I was responding to SRJ's musing on how the Dems might handle this- perhaps you should re-read the posts where in I don't think it was ever acknowledged that the real push behind this was, at least in part, the Democrats discovery of thirty odd 'bad' sites last May- But of course- anything even mildly critical of the dems- no matter how factual=- will be regarded in some quarters as partisan muckraking.

[Maestro]

Posts discussing lèse majesté, except the quotes of a local news articles, and posts mentioning the King or the monarchy have been deleted.

Topic closed.

--

Maestro

[Jai Dee]

In the interest of posting new developments on this topic, I am re-opening this thread.

However members are strongly warned... any posts that contain discussion or speculation about the Thai Royal Family will be immediately deleted and the offending member banned from the forum.

[Jai Dee]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

Is Internet censorship going out of hand and hurting users' freedom?

Amid rising censorship of websites deemed critical or defaming of the monarchy, some Internet surfers have joined up the Thai Netizen Network to fight for the freedom of expression. The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk talks to Sarinee Achavanuntakul, a key member of the group about the issue. Here are some excerpts:

Your group met with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva recently to express concerns about the growing number of blocked websites. What was his reaction?

His reaction was more positive than I expected. He said very clearly that the Information and Communications Technology Ministry's "war room" approach was "not what we had discussed", (negotiating with website owners to remove offending content rather than blocking whole sites) and that he had "no intention" of amending the Computer Crime Act. We will closely monitor these issues.

Authorities now say there are 10,000 websites with content defaming the monarchy. Is blocking them the right action?

Blocking is definitely not the right thing to do because:

It violates users' freedom in Thailand while people overseas can still access the content;

It cannot guarantee that the creators will be caught;

Such content can be more rapidly disseminated because it can be posted somewhere else in seconds and it will be impossible to block them all;

It is a waste of the government's limited resources, which should be doing other important jobs such as arresting people behind "phishing" sites;

I don't think anyone who is loyal to the monarchy will become disloyal if they read defaming content, if any thing people will become more sympathetic to the monarchy after seeing such content.

So I think the government's oft-cited reason that so-called "lese majeste websites" constitute a "threat to national security" is mostly bunk.

Should there be a law controlling Internet usage in Thailand? And what do you think about the attempt to pass such a law?

I think any law that controls Internet usage (apart from one that traces cyber-criminals) is unnecessary and even harmful as it impedes public debate that is integral to every democratic society. It is unnecessary in most cases because there are other more effective methods, such as Net nannies that block out pornographic sites or control children's Internet usage.

I think that in some circumstances, for example, if the country is facing a very high "national security" risk from a global terrorist group, then controlling Internet usage could be justifiable. That is not the case in Thailand.

Why are you personally concerned about Internet censorship and should the public care?

For reasons I raised earlier, Internet censorship is harmful as it smothers public debate on important issues. This is why everyone should care. As someone who has learned and continues to learn a lot from discussions on various blogs and web-boards, I am very concerned about Internet censorship.

Given the recent blocking of websites, what is your prediction of the future of freedom of online expression in Thailand?

It will get worse. Despite what the PM said, I think the government will buckle under pressure from ultra-conservatives. The ICT Minister and Justice Minister already seem more than ready to "go with the flow".

Why do you think the authorities are so insecure about these websites?

I think the authorities are insecure about anything they see as chaotic and uncontrollable. The Internet, by its nature, is both. So, they tend to overestimate the dangers and underestimate the Net's benefits.

Many users are now required by law to register before using an Internet cafe. Is this justifiable?

Absolutely not. Requiring users to open accounts (without disclosing real identity) and keeping traffic logs alone provide sufficient data for the authorities to trace suspects and arrest them, as we have seen recently in Thailand. Since disclosing real identity on the Internet is not needed to catch criminals, why should the government require people to do so? I think Thai ISPs and Internet cafes should start trying to protect their customers' rights instead of eagerly complying with the government's wishes, including some very aggressive self-censorship.

Source: The Nation - 23 January 2009

[Pierrot]

In the interest of posting new developments on this topic, I am re-opening this thread.

However members are strongly warned... any posts that contain discussion or speculation about the Thai Royal Family will be immediately deleted and the offending member banned from the forum.

Especially if it's just a smoke screen to cover what these measures really are: an attempt to limit freedom of speech. This government had a taste of absolute power when a minority was able to overthrow an elected government. Recent events have proved that accountability, either nationally or internationally, wasn't running very high in their agenda. On the bright side, such measures will alienate some of their stronger supporters, the educated Bangkok middle class. But they shouldn't wait too long to make their voice heard.

[Journalist]

Is there a list available of what sites are barred?

[TAWP]

Is there a list available of what sites are barred?

Yes, however due to the nature of the sites listed one probably cannot link it here. However, it was once posted here before and some trailing url might still be around... especially the site focused on leaks by posting items in a wiki format...

[Plus]

The sites I have seen so far are simply insulting rather than critical.

I don't accept the notion that freedom to insult equates with freedom of speech.

<snip>

[Plus]

Ok, I think I had a valid point, let me rephrase it - the reason for the current censorship campaign is the offensive nature of those sites, it would have been a lot easier to argue freedom of speech if they showed a modicum of civility and respect first.

As it stands now - freedom or not, no serious discussion with "establishment" can be possibly conducted on the currently offered level. They simply look to be banned to find a reason to spout even more abuse.

[Pierrot]

Ok, I think I had a valid point, let me rephrase it - the reason for the current censorship campaign is the offensive nature of those sites, it would have been a lot easier to argue freedom of speech if they showed a modicum of civility and respect first.

As it stands now - freedom or not, no serious discussion with "establishment" can be possibly conducted on the currently offered level. They simply look to be banned to find a reason to spout even more abuse.

How do you know that? Have you read/watch them all ? Or any of them?

How is the committee who decide what Thai people are authorized to watch selected? Under which supervision? Is there any possible appeal ?

Honestly I don’t know which model Thailand is trying to emulate. Political control, it’s China, moral control, it’s Iran. I don’t know with which people will feel the more comfortable? Or, for that matter, the less uncomfortable …

[henryalleman]

The great democracies of China, Russia North Korea and Myanmar are blocking website, why should it be different in Thailand.

They have a good reason to do so. Its to protect the people and keep the country united and protect his institutes. Because freedom of speech is often misused by irresponsible people, who use it to lie and upset the people by doing so.

Of course you can always ask the question why institutes have to be protected if there are no problems with them.

[henryalleman]

The sites I have seen so far are simply insulting rather than critical.

I don't accept the notion that freedom to insult equates with freedom of speech.

<snip>

In a genuine democracy I have the right to insult and being insulted by others.

[Journalist]

The sites I have seen so far are simply insulting rather than critical.

I don't accept the notion that freedom to insult equates with freedom of speech.

<snip>

In a genuine democracy I have the right to insult and being insulted by others.

No, democracy has nothing whatsoever to do with being free to defame people. In the same way that 'democracy' does not give anyone the right and freedom to take a dump through someone's letterbox.

Put that misused word away.

[TAWP]

The sites I have seen so far are simply insulting rather than critical.

I don't accept the notion that freedom to insult equates with freedom of speech.

<snip>

In a genuine democracy I have the right to insult and being insulted by others.

No, democracy has nothing whatsoever to do with being free to defame people. In the same way that 'democracy' does not give anyone the right and freedom to take a dump through someone's letterbox.

Put that misused word away.

Of course freedom for the people has nothing to do with democracy. Something to remember for some that shouts that 'democracy über alles' when there is an argument in this forum.

In fact, democracy is often the tool to enforce the opposite of true freedom, i.e. The dictatorship of the majority.

And I also disagree with the sites needing to be banned in any shape or form. And yes, I have seen some of the content.

[gbswales]

I feel that blocking any websites is a waste of time and money as there are so many ways to communicate information and files over the internet which does not involve websites - This however is targetting peoples rights to free speech. In a democratic society the public both inside and outside the country must have the opportunity to speak freely, criticise and even condemn the establishment of government. In Thailand in particular you frequently find political parties taking the name of the monarchy to support their arguments. I imagine a certain Mr Thaksin must be wishing that he had thought of this as a means to block any criticism or exposure!

In the UK there are loads of sites critical of the monarchy here - many of us support the Queen but she is still just a woman who must be accountable to the people and is certainly not above criticism. Indeed she has in the past quite rightly reacted to it - such as bowing to pressure to return to London and fly the union flag at half mast at the time of Dianna's death.

Be careful Thailand the next step could well be to ban sites carrying political debate other than propoganda put around by the government of the day. It is beginning to sound like China!

(I hope none of this contravenes rules on Thaivisa.com - I dont think it should since I am not discussing the monarch, rather what the government is trying to do)

[Plus]

I have seen some of the content but by no means have a full picture of what is out there.

My point is that there are plenty of examples of low grade insults that deserve to be banned simply for insulting one's intellegence, not to speak of LM laws. If there are babies being thrown out with the water - tough luck, got caught in a bad company.

If they want to debate legitimate issues they should find legitimate channels, even on the Internet. Open public discussions on politics and religion rarely produce anything else but big fights, even among close friends and families.

Why take such sensitive issue as Thai monarchy and plaster it all over the Internet? What could that possibly achieve? What are they trying to achieve?

>>>

Should the websites be banned? I don't have an answer, if it's a campaign to unanonimously sneak through a back door, then why not close it? It's not only China and Russia who block the Internet - Americans also don't allow some terrorist or islamist propaganda, you can't broadcast Osama Bin Laden videos, for example.

It's a very fluid game, ANY govt feels like it's losing mind control it would turn to censorship. I think that it all depends on the perception, there are no hard and fast rules.

[TAWP]

My point is that there are plenty of examples of low grade insults that deserve to be banned simply for insulting one's intellegence, not to speak of LM laws. If there are babies being thrown out with the water - tough luck, got caught in a bad company.

/../

Should the websites be banned? I don't have an answer, if it's a campaign to unanonimously sneak through a back door, then why not close it? It's not only China and Russia who block the Internet - Americans also don't allow some terrorist or islamist propaganda, you can't broadcast Osama Bin Laden videos, for example.

First of all, it doesn't matter if you think an insult is low grade. And neither should it matter when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. You don't have to visit the site. Exercise that right and don't.

Secondly you are incorrect that it's not allowed to broadcast islamic propaganda or Osama Bin Laden videos to the US. Not saying that the US isn't trying to do the same fascist steps as the EU and outlaw for instance access to foreign gambling sites, but we aren't there yet.

[Plus]

First of all, it doesn't matter if you think an insult is low grade. And neither should it matter when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. You don't have to visit the site. Exercise that right and don't.

By that logic they should allow posting insults in newspapers and hurting abuse off TV screens - everyone has a "right" not to read it or switch the channel.

I don't know what form of censorship is better - US like mass witch hunt or simply banning the sites Thai style. I don't agree with the methods the US used to convince everyone that all reds were bad or all islamists are terrorists.

I'm glad we don't have similar govt sponsored campaign to paint all dissidents as unpatriotic Thais that need to be hunted and exposed.

So far it's just "keep it to yourself", very Thai solution, imo.

[TAWP]

First of all, it doesn't matter if you think an insult is low grade. And neither should it matter when it comes to freedom of speech and expression. You don't have to visit the site. Exercise that right and don't.

By that logic they should allow posting insults in newspapers and hurting abuse off TV screens - everyone has a "right" not to read it or switch the channel.

Of course they should.

If you start a magazine you can decide to post pictures of horse-manure on each page if you want to. And I can choose not to buy it.

So far it's just "keep it to yourself", very Thai solution, imo.

No, it's not. Banning a site isn't 'keep it to yourself' since the visitors cannot reach it. And when (/if) they find who put them up they go to jail for it. That is very much not a 'keep it to yourself'. It IS the witch hunt you claim to be afraid of.

Is this really so very hard to see?

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

So far it's just "keep it to yourself", very Thai solution, imo.

No, it's not. Banning a site isn't 'keep it to yourself' since the visitors cannot reach it. And when (/if) they find who put them up they go to jail for it. That is very much not a 'keep it to yourself'. It IS the witch hunt you claim to be afraid of.

Is this really so very hard to see?

Libel laws generally (i.e. worldwide) have struggled to keep up with technology - e.g. the internet - perhaps more so because there is often a reluctance to make them more even more draconian and stifling to what can be presented as "free speech". For instance, the UK has come under criticism because the costs involved in libel actions there are usually crippling and often mean that the party with the deepest pockets wins by default. So, often just the threat of an action being brought will be enough to achieve what the would-be plaintiff wants. That, of course, has echoes here in Thailand.

Plainly, there are also issues of jurisdiction - i.e. if the author and website concerned are based outside a given country's legal/practical reach. In itself, that has led to (at least) government pressure being put on a country's ISP's (nearly always operating under and relying on licences from that country's government) to "cooperate". Again, this has echoes in Thailand.

As you rightly say, it's very clearly not "keep it to yourself" - "it's prevent people under your control from seeing what you don't want them to see"........ just as it is in China - courtesy of Google et al playing ball with the host government and just as it was in the UK with Thatcher "denying the oxygen of publicity" to the IRA (a policy soon abandoned as being as unworkable as it was absurd).

Just comparing which form of censorship is "better" is missing the point. Where what is clearly political censorship is concerned, they are all fully bad/wrong. Beyond that, we all have our own thresholds for what we regard as acceptable/unacceptable for sites catering to porn, paedophile, "sick" interests etc - but that's another matter entirely.

While some of us may not go so far as the full Libertarian mile, there is clearly a danger that so readily banning/blocking access to material deemed "offensive" just as readily slides into banning/blocking access to material and entire sites that are merely critical and therefore "inconvenient". From what I have seen in the last few weeks, many Thailand-related blog sites are already being hyper-cautious in what they say and how they say it - and what else they link to.

[GomerPyle]

Without the possibility of criticism, ther can be no truthful praise.