Thai opinion: Who are we to define online 'freedom'?

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Who are we to define online 'freedom'?
Tulsathit Taptim
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Call me ignorant or naive, but the thing that concerns me as far as the Internet goes is speed. There has been much fuss about online freedom lately - which I think is taking it a bit too far. We are all cyberspace toddlers, so talking about rights, liberty, responsibility and state control in relation to the "single gateway" is like kindergarten kids pondering a university course.

But if you are worried about speed, count me in. The single gateway will be just as the name suggests - one doorway through which data flows in and out. Some experts say it could create a bottleneck. If the system crashes, I will be without many of the things necessary in my life. Whether it's temporary or not doesn't matter. An hour without the Internet and I'll lose much of my identity, 90 per cent of my work, and the chance to say goodnight, good morning and happy birthday to my loved ones. (I can call them up to say those things, of course, but that wouldn't be cool.)

If you think this is about freedom, leave me out. The single gateway is not the only way to spy or control. A guy called Edward Snowden will assure you that if the powers-that-be are determined and sophisticated enough, knowing what we watch late at night, whom we interact with online, or who we think should die a horrible death is a piece of cake, whether it's via a single, double or multiple gateway.

I wonder what America would have to say officially about the single gateway, though. Better still, I wonder how Snowden, now on the run from Washington's legal reach for "stealing" and "exposing" sensitive US government data, would react to American politicians' stand on the issue.

What I'm trying to say is that, if you think Snowden is right about excessive state surveillance, quit worrying about the single gateway, because it's a waste of time. And if you think Washington is right about him being a thief, a traitor or a terrorist, then you can also stop worrying. At least one American politician has accused Snowden of putting the lives of his compatriots at risk, which I think is damning proof in itself of what the US authorities have been doing.

It's one thing if Snowden put American lives in danger by lying. It's another if he put those lives in danger by simply telling the truth. In other words, if what he "stole" and "exposed" was good, why would it put lives in danger? And if what he "stole" and "exposed" was bad, was trying to stop it a bad thing?

Snowden is tweeting now, which in my book demonstrates the benefits of an Internet that is not strictly controlled. But as I said earlier, the Internet and freedom are complex issues and we are all still learners. To jump the gun one way or another is not recommended. I mean, if we asked Washington whether Thailand should have a single gateway, we might get one answer; if we asked whether Snowden has the right to tweet, we might get another. The two questions, in fact, are deeply related.

The much-criticised motivation for implementing a single gateway in Thailand is the same as it was for American authorities - whose resulting actions Snowden exposed. And his outcry over invasion of privacy, state surveillance and exaggerated national security interests is pretty much the core argument of the single gateway's opponents in Thailand. As we can see, it's a very complicated matter, and even the best political scriptwriters will struggle to simultaneously lambast both Snowden and the political motives for the single gateway.

If I could nominate one new word for the dictionary, it would be "Snowdengate". We could say it defies contemporary thinking on freedom, national security, privacy, democracy and patriotism. The word doesn't just challenge the moral conscience of American leadership; it also requires that all of us do some genuine soul-searching. After all, "Snowdengate" mixes "Edward Snowden" and "single gateway" nicely.

Brandishing the slogan "We are born to be free" in debates is easy. It's just as simple for the other side to hit back with "Great freedom comes with great responsibility." The hard part is "accepting" the argument of the people who don't agree with us. "Freedom" is not black and white, folks, and we can land ourselves with a double standard if we are not careful.

Do you want your parents to share your passwords? Do you want to know the passwords of your children? Answer these with a hand on your heart and you'll know what I mean, which is why I'll stick to complaining about lousy Internet speeds.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Who-are-we-to-define-online-freedom-30270340.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-07

[noitom]

This Thai again writes a nonsensical rambling piece of tripe and says absolutely nothing that we don't already know. He imagines, he speculates, he dabbles, and dances, but he never supports his position with facts and figures and the essence of free speech and individual freedom. He pontificates and he meanders but never informs logically.

[NeverSure]

He doesn't even discuss what the single gateway could do which is to censor content. What does that have to do with Snowden other than Nothing?

He is correct that people can spy now, but he's clear off topic. The single gateway is about denying people content in the first place.

He talks about America but America doesn't censor the internet or newspapers or demonstrators. This author has really lost the plot.

Cheers.

[Tatsujin]

Wow, more aimless ramblings that make no sense at all. Tulsathit, please, please, get another job cos you have zero clue about being either a "reporter", a "journalist" or a "writer".

You obviously have no clue what "freedom" actually is (not surprising really given the state this country is in), and neither "freedom" or the "internet" are complex issues, but try this explanation from the US Department of State:

"Internet freedom is a foreign policy priority for the United States, and has been for many years. Our goal is to ensure that any child, born anywhere in the world, has access to the global Internet as an open platform on which to innovate, learn, organize, and express herself free from undue interference or censorship."

I think that sums it up quite nicely, and a quick Google search found that for me.

So, Mr "Reporter", why didn't YOU use the "freedom" you have (mostly) and do this for yourself or is freedom and the internet too "complex" for you to understand and therefore you can't write coherently about it?

[daoyai]

cut the "writer" some slack, he states from the get go he is like a kindergartener in a uni. class. ... such self awareness is his best defense.

[bamnutsak]

Call me ignorant or naive, but the thing that concerns me as far as the Internet goes is speed.

Both?

What a doofus.

What good is speed if you can't look at anything? You want the MICT page to "pop" for you?

This is like the HiSo idiot trying to drive his Ferrari in traffic on Sukhumvit. Not only does he not know how to utilize the clutch; he isn't going anywhere, But he does look so mahvelous.

The ultra-Monarchists so fear a few, relatively innocuous articles that they'll do anything to control the masses.

[lovelomsak]

Thais simple donot understand freedom. They have never had it. How can they understand something they know nothing about.

[BigBadGeordie]

Having read the OP more than once I feel we should follow Tulsathit Taptim's advice.

Yes I will call you ignorant and naive Khun Tulsathit!

[Wilsonandson]

He has a point the internet is slow compared with neighbouring countries. Does Thailand have 4G yet? And the number of gateways is only 10 at the moment whilst in the Phillipines it's 17. Fibre optic technology is on its way though I see, so hopefully the speed will improve. The AEC is improving its internet and so is Thailand, this single gateway may be a bad idea but an idea is all it is at the moment. Let's wait and see.

[bamnutsak]

He has a point the internet is slow

I think his point is that he will trade freedom for speed. But then, the piece is so poorly written - I read it twice - maybe I'm missing his point(s)?

[mark131v]

I have stopped being surprised at the drivel this guy turns out but what is scary is that some editor has read this and thought 'yep, perfect, print it...'

[FangFerang]

"talking about rights, liberty, responsibility and state control in relation to the "single gateway" is like kindergarten kids pondering a university course."

Wow--telling people they are just children who should shut up and sit down is so....helpful.

Thanks.

[docshock13]

More butt-kissing pro-junta propaganda from (what should rightfully be called) The Abomi-Nation. Does this rag even print news anymore?

[X pat]

As I have sead in the past,be sure brain is in gear before putting mouth in motion.

[oneday]

Couldn't get past the first paragraph. I'll have to take with me this statement and leave it at that.

Call me ignorant or naive...

[Srikcir]

There is an irony in the author's glorification of Snowden's breach of USA national security. The Junta would not view a similar breach of Thai miitary and current government State secrets any different than the USA government. The author might be more effective with a direct criticism of the current Thai government for suppression of freedom of speech if his concerns for individual freedom are real.

But then he might lose his job.

[gandalf12]

The biggest problem with a single gateway is availability. Multiple gateways are used not to look good but ensure a high availability. As for censorship it is irrelevant how many gateways you have this can always be initiated.

The writer though appears to be writing just to fill space and has no real information contained in the text just rambling from issue to issue.

[Dustdevil]

Bulls***. Freedom of expression means freedom of expression. It does not mean with freedom of expression comes responsibility. It does not mean "Oh, you are free to express anything you want except things I don't like." Who the hell is the Thai government or press to lecture us on freedom of expression? Sure it's their country--I don't have a problem with that. Just don't give us condescending lectures about free expression when you don't %#*ing even fundamentally understand it.

[Lorn]

There is an irony in the author's glorification of Snowden's breach of USA national security. The Junta would not view a similar breach of Thai miitary and current government State secrets any different than the USA government. The author might be more effective with a direct criticism of the current Thai government for suppression of freedom of speech if his concerns for individual freedom are real.

But then he might lose his job.

Exactly. Just like a journalist for Fox news would if they wrote anything that was pro-Obama or a MSNBC reporter would if they wanted to publish anything that didn't tow the Democrat party line. Journalism in both countries has become a joke.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Lorn

[gandalf12]

Bulls***. Freedom of expression means freedom of expression. It does not mean with freedom of expression comes responsibility. It does not mean "Oh, you are free to express anything you want except things I don't like." Who the hell is the Thai government or press to lecture us on freedom of expression? Sure it's their country--I don't have a problem with that. Just don't give us condescending lectures about free expression when you don't %#*ing even fundamentally understand it.

No country has total freedom of speech and it is understandable. If you start inciting violence then yes there are going to be consequences. What you are talking about though doesn't go that far. Yes we should, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else have the right to express our opinion. I assume the writer is pretty much a moron who has lived under a stone all his life if he really thinks we should be told what we can and can not say in respect to anything.

[WhizBang]

An hour without the Internet and I'll lose much of my identity

I stopped reading at this statement. What a pathetic thing to say. This guy really needs to get a life. Sad.

[hawker9000]

"Who are we to define online 'freedom'?"

Well, if you have to ask ...

...obviously not you.

Pretty surprising for someone who presumably thinks of himself as a "journalist".

[Krataiboy]

Who cares what Big Brother in Bangkok calls this outrageous attempt to impose state control of the Internet? It's the concept which is at issue, not some name dreamed up by some junta spin doctor to massage it past a sceptical public.

The very fact that this latest plot against personal liberty is being hatched in plain sight, rather than covertly, is a measure of the contempt in which the un-elected current leadership holds the captive electorate.

Roll on 2017,

[elgordo38]

Couldn't get past the first paragraph. I'll have to take with me this statement and leave it at that.

Call me ignorant or naive...

Locked into the old world of "its OK to keep me ignorant" but like a new world junkie I want "Speed" Funny mixture?

[dageurreotype]

Wow, more aimless ramblings that make no sense at all. Tulsathit, please, please, get another job cos you have zero clue about being either a "reporter", a "journalist" or a "writer".

You obviously have no clue what "freedom" actually is (not surprising really given the state this country is in), and neither "freedom" or the "internet" are complex issues, but try this explanation from the US Department of State:

"Internet freedom is a foreign policy priority for the United States, and has been for many years. Our goal is to ensure that any child, born anywhere in the world, has access to the global Internet as an open platform on which to innovate, learn, organize, and express herself free from undue interference or censorship."

I think that sums it up quite nicely, and a quick Google search found that for me.

So, Mr "Reporter", why didn't YOU use the "freedom" you have (mostly) and do this for yourself or is freedom and the internet too "complex" for you to understand and therefore you can't write coherently about it?

I'm wondering 'who his father is' ...

[Thai at Heart]

Well there is either freedom or relative degrees of freedom below it.

Impinging on what people can read is a fundamental impingement on their freedom. This is all about gearing up for the day when it happens and trying to make sure the whole thing doesn't lead to big problems. Fact is, they don't like or understand the Internet and it's ability to spread information. They would love to go back to the days of everyone listening to the pooyai ban on the loud speakers.

I think they got that idea straight from China.... Bing bong bing, and the news from Beijing today.