Self Censorship Plagues Net

[maxjay]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1744...hip-plagues-net

Self censorship plagues net

By: PENCHAN CHAROENSUTHIPAN Published: 28/05/2009 at 12:00 AMNewspaper section: News Fear of severe penalties for breaching security regulations have led to many internet-based public forums adopting a policy of self-censorship, a seminar was told yesterday.

The 2007 Computer Crimes Act which allows officials to shut websites and jail the operators have forced webmasters to impose stricter content controls.

"They use their own judgement to decide which questions and replies in the forums are dangerous and then delete them to avoid problems," said Sarinee Achawanantakul of Thai Netizen Network, a group of internet users campaigning for cyber community rights.

Internet service providers made things worse, Ms Sarinee said. Some toe the state line by helping officials block websites which they consider inappropriate.

"But these methods are not effective," Ms Sarinee told a seminar held at Thammasat University to mark the launch of a website featuring the life of university founder Pridi Banomyong, a former prime minister and statesman.

She said the methods only violated rights to expression of opinion. The government and website operators should respond to groundless content by correcting facts and using technicians to track those who were involved.

The government is closely watching websites which serve as forums on social and political issues after they became popular channels. Some had become so powerful they could direct public opinion or cause changes in society, said media scholar Ubonrat Siriyuwasak.

More appropriate actions to regulate these websites would benefit people as "net power and email forwarding draws public participation in helping to decide some state policies", Ms Ubonrat said.

Two cases related to internet-related offences have stood out. Prachatai operator Jiranut Premchaiporn was charged on March 6 after she allegedly failed to delete inappropriate words.

Internet user Suwicha Thakhor became the first casualty of the Computer Crimes Act when jailed for posting an edited photo on his blog deemed defamatory to His Majesty the King.

[Plus]

She said the methods only violated rights to expression of opinion.

Apparently openly obusive and derogatory posts do not exist. It's all just innocent "expression of opinion".

[TheLaughingMan]

"They use their own judgement to decide which questions and replies in the forums are dangerous and then delete them to avoid problems,"

Sound familiar?

[Ulysses G.]

She said the methods only violated rights to expression of opinion.

Apparently openly obusive and derogatory posts do not exist. It's all just innocent "expression of opinion".

How about forums that freely allow lies and slander against other websites and private individuals, but censor anything negative about the site itself? Are these hypocrites above the law?

The reason that forums like Thai Visa have to be so strict is because certain posters have no respect for anything other than their juvenile need for attention. It is too bad that these neurotic creeps have to ruin a good thing for everyone else.

[JetsetBkk]

... The government is closely watching websites which serve as forums on social and political issues after they became popular channels. Some had become so powerful they could direct public opinion or cause changes in society, said media scholar Ubonrat Siriyuwasak....

And we don't want that, do we!

[maxjay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8020039.stm

Plan to monitor all internet use

By Dominic Casciani

BBC News home affairs reporter

Communications firms are being asked to record all internet contacts between people as part of a modernisation in UK police surveillance tactics.

The home secretary scrapped plans for a database but wants details to be held and organised for security services.

The new system would track all e-mails, phone calls and internet use, including visits to social network sites.

The Tories said the Home Office had "buckled under Conservative pressure" in deciding against a giant database.

Announcing a consultation on a new strategy for communications data and its use in law enforcement, Jacqui Smith said there would be no single government-run database.

But she also said that "doing nothing" in the face of a communications revolution was not an option.

The Home Office will instead ask communications companies - from internet service providers to mobile phone networks - to extend the range of information they currently hold on their subscribers and organise it so that it can be better used by the police, MI5 and other public bodies investigating crime and terrorism.

Ministers say they estimate the project will cost £2bn to set up, which includes some compensation to the communications industry for the work it may be asked to do.

"Communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers, paedophiles, save lives and tackle crime," Ms Smith said.

"Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who seek to do us harm.

"It is essential that the police and other crime fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job, However to be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single central store."

'Contact not content'

Communication service providers (CSPs) will be asked to record internet contacts between people, but not the content, similar to the existing arrangements to log telephone contacts.

But, recognising that the internet has changed the way people talk, the CSPs will also be asked to record some third party data or information partly based overseas, such as visits to an online chatroom and social network sites like Facebook or Twitter.

Security services could then seek to examine this data along with information which links it to specific devices, such as a mobile phone, home computer or other device, as part of investigations into criminal suspects.

The plan expands a voluntary arrangement under which CSPs allow security services to access some data which they already hold.

The security services already deploy advanced techniques to monitor telephone conversations or intercept other communications, but this is not used in criminal trials.

Ms Smith said that while the new system could record a visit to a social network, it would not record personal and private information such as photos or messages posted to a page.

"What we are talking about is who is at one end [of a communication] and who is at the other - and how they are communicating," she said.

Existing legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act would continue to apply. Requests to see the data would require top level authorisation within a public body such as a police force. The Home Office is running a separate consultation on limiting the number of public authorities that can access sensitive information or carry out covert surveillance.

'Orwellian'

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "I am pleased that the Government has climbed down from the Big Brother plan for a centralised database of all our emails and phone calls.

"However, any legislation that requires individual communications providers to keep data on who called whom and when will need strong safeguards on access.

"It is simply not that easy to separate the bare details of a call from its content. What if a leading business person is ringing Alcoholics Anonymous, or a politician's partner is arranging to hire a porn video?

"There has to be a careful balance between investigative powers and the right to privacy."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "The big problem is that the government has built a culture of surveillance which goes far beyond counter terrorism and serious crime. Too many parts of Government have too many powers to snoop on innocent people and that's really got to change.

"It is good that the home secretary appears to have listened to Conservative warnings about big brother databases. Now that she has finally admitted that the public don't want their details held by the State in one place, perhaps she will look at other areas in which the Government is trying to do precisely that."

Guy Herbert of campaign group NO2ID said: "Just a week after the home secretary announced a public consultation on some trivial trimming of local authority surveillance, we have this: a proposal for powers more intrusive than any police state in history.

"Ministers are making a distinction between content and communications data into sound-bite of the year. But it is spurious.

"Officials from dozens of departments and quangos could know what you read online, and who all your friends are, who you emailed, when, and where you were when you did so - all without a warrant."

The consultation runs until 20 July 2009.

[ilovefashionTV]

She said the methods only violated rights to expression of opinion.

Apparently openly obusive and derogatory posts do not exist. It's all just innocent "expression of opinion".

How about forums that freely allow lies and slander against other websites and private individuals, but censor anything negative about the site itself? Are these hypocrites above the law?

The reason that forums like Thai Visa have to be so strict is because certain posters have no respect for anything other than their juvenile need for attention. It is too bad that these neurotic creeps have to ruin a good thing for everyone else.

Id sooner juvenile lies then Big Brother locking people away for posting Caricatures or their opinion, as they do are are willing to do in many nations including LOS.

Big Brother is a pervert!

As for censoring negative things about ones own website, well thats ok as its their business, if i posted a horrid sign above lets say Mcdonalds it wouldnt be in their interest to leave it there, same rules apply.

Edited May 28, 2009 by ilovefashionTV

[phaethon]

The reason that forums like Thai Visa have to be so strict is because certain posters have no respect for anything other than their juvenile need for attention. It is too bad that these neurotic creeps have to ruin a good thing for everyone else.

Ulysses G. is clearly being disrespectful to juvenile neurotic creeps and should be censored and censured.

Oh, and please censor this post in case it upsets the G-man...

[Plus]

Id sooner juvenile lies then Big Brother locking people away for posting Caricatures or their opinion, as they do are are willing to do in many nations including LOS.

If they manage to incite riots and murder, as was the case with red shirts recently, it doesn't look so juvenile anymore, does it?

Big Brother is a pervert!

And so are "juvenile liars".

The govt is accountable before the people, at least in principle. Who are those anonimous revolutionaries and how can you hold them accountable and transparent? Who will take responsibility is something goes terribly wrong?

"But poster "jcloveschildren" said that yellows/reds/communists/royalists deserve to be beaten and shot, Your Honor"

"And you believed him?"

"Everybody did"

[RKASA]

Way over the top.

OK lets only let yellows use the internet,  like voting reds are to dump to use the internet.  Fits right in with all the other krap.

No I am not red/yellow or even blue.  Why not let real Freedom have a chance.  Thailand has only faked it like most other things.

and thats what incite riots, not words.