FWD:What a tangled web they weave

[Palatkik]

Interesting read on current censorship in LOS

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/17/headlines/headlines_30037083.php

 

What a tangled web they weave

 

Internet censorship critics fear new computer-crime laws

 

"Sorry! The website you are accessing has been blocked by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MICT)."

 

The steely eye on the cold green background has become a common sight to Internet-users in Thailand. Appearing at random, it denies access to websites on subjects ranging from car repairs to cooking. It popped up when Canadian CJ Hinke tried to enter one website looking for information on Thai-language books for his children.

 

"I was not very happy," he recalled. Hinke, who has been living in Thailand for the past two decades, later decided to lead an alliance to oppose Internet censorship.

 

"Censorship is a danger to our basic rights and freedoms. I am campaigning against it for the future of my own eight-year-old daughter and two younger grandchildren. I don't want them to come up to a blocked page that tells them 'you are too stupid to look at this'.

 

"I want them to grow up to be thinking people, capable of making their own decisions about right and wrong," Hinke explained. He joined the Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR), opposing the Internet-censorship law, eight months ago when the group Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT), was set up.

 

FACT's campaign has attracted a variety of people, with the latest strategy being the handing out of CD-ROM packs with software to enable access to blocked websites as well as software for webmasters to circumvent the faceless delete key at MICT.

 

The CD-ROMs have been given away at Bangkok's Panthip Plaza and major universities around the country. No doubt these moves are being closely monitored by police.

 

Earlier, FACT also exposed MICT's supposedly confidential block lists, which show 17,793 blocked websites, even though the ministry publicly said only 20 sites had been blocked to date. "ICT Minister Sithichai Phokhaiudom did not tell the truth," said Hinke. The previous government reportedly blocked around 2,400 websites.

 

On May 9 the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) enacted the Cyber Crime Bill, which will come into force within 30 days after His Majesty the King endorses it.

 

Officially called the Computer-Related Offences Commission Act, it defines 12 Internet crimes with punishments ranging from six months' jail and a Bt10,000 fine to 20 years' jail and a Bt300,000 fine. It also defines the authority of state officials and the legal responsibility of Internet service-providers.

 

"Online fraud in our country is following the global trend and increasing day by day in various forms, ranging from stealing domain names at sanook.com, thailand.com and narak.com, to hacking into other people's computer systems," said Police General Yanaphol Yangyuen of the Department of Special Investigation in a report to the NLA.

 

In 2006 the total global damage resulting from all kinds of Internet crime was reported as US$52 billion (Bt1.8 billion), according to Yanaphol.

 

Proponents have suggested that younger people should be protected from "bad" websites, especially those offering pornography or those involving fraud.

 

Those who are too young to make decisions for themselves should be barred from these places, they say. Hinke disagrees, arguing that merely having access to improper content does not always lead to improper behaviour.

 

"The experience could be positive, part of the learning process, if parents give proper advice. Anyway, in practical and economic terms, can we really block online content? Technically, the bitter truth for the ministry is that it is impossible because of the way the Internet was built," he added.

 

CPMR's Suthep Wilailert said his concern about the bill is the excessive authority given to state officials to determine what constitutes a crime. "There is a thin line separating a computer crime from a computer non-crime. You could be accused if, for instance, you electronically touched up a friend's photo for fun. All these decisions are in the hands of state officials," he said.

 

Activist Sombat Boonngarm-anong of the Mirror Foundation and founder of www.bannok.com and www.siamvolunteer.com, said the bill would be a legal weapon in the hands of those with political power.

 

"During April and May this year, 90 websites with political content were blocked in Thailand without any reason. How can we be sure it will not happen again? Who will use this legal tool next time? Certainly the public is losing access to information," he said.

 

Issariya Phaireephairit, a webmaster of blogone.com, agreed with the MICT that some categories of improper content, such as pornography, should be blocked, but not websites with political content.

 

"Ideally, I prefer to have no censorship. In practice, I can accept the blocking of some obviously 'improper' websites," he said.

 

"At least the bill would make the censorship more transparent. Websites are now blocked with no reason given. When the law comes in, it should at least clearly reveal the criteria under which the sites are to be blocked," he said.

 

"Personally, I think computer-related laws are needed. This bill is the second, following the e-commerce law. There are at least four other Internet-related bills needed, like one on privacy, and I heard they are being drafted," Issariya said.

 

CPMR's secretary-general Supinya Klangnarong said Internet censorship was new and a complicated issue for Thai society. The emerging debate is a good sign, a start to the learning process for the public on the issue, she said.

 

"From my previous experience campaigning over media rights, I can say there are many steps in teaching the public to really understand the computer world and how to tackle it properly," she said.

 

Supinya believes that some 70-80 per cent of Internet-users in Thailand reject censorship but this group of people does not include the majority of Thais who know very little about the Internet and don't even use computers.

 

"Ask the public today, and I believe most of them would agree to the censorship. They think it is all about the blocking of porn sites. They fail to understand there are bigger issues and that censorship has negative effects," she explained.

 

"In principle, my organisation and I disagree with any form of censorship. We believe in the public's right to access information," she said.

 

FACT organiser Hinke said he would not compromise by agreeing to any kind of censorship, including books and films.

 

"I am considering filing a lawsuit against MICT and related authorities in the Administrative Court for illegally blocking websites," he said.

 

Kamol Sukin

 

 

 

The Nation