 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So finally Finland is going down the same route as China.
Let's see how it escalates in the future.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-en.html
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
> http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-en.html
This censorship is actually very questionable legally.
By law, the Finnish police has no authority on declaring something legal
or illegal. The legality of something has to be decided by a court of law.
The problem: The Finnish police is tagging some sites as illegal, based
solely on their own judgement. More than one site in their censorship list
contain absolutely nothing illegal. By including these legal sites in their
censorship list they are judging them to be illegal, past any legal court
procedures. This in itself is against the law, and an abuse of authority.
Teleoperators are the entities which put this censorship list in practice.
The problem is: They are censoring websites without a court order, which is
illegal. Teleoperators, by law, cannot censor websites at will because that's
against the Finnish law against disturbing telecommunications (which is a law
based on the Finnish constitution).
The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> By law, the Finnish police has no authority on declaring something legal
> or illegal. The legality of something has to be decided by a court of law.
But they can't do that for every website out there - *some* of the decision
making needs to be made by the police (or even a computer), not a court. In
the same way the police (or even some automatic camera) decide if someone is
driving dangerously or not.
And then of course in the process, some sites are going to get blocked which
shouldn't have been, but that's life. Especially if you name your site
"childporn.com" I would expect it to get blocked - no matter what the actual
content.
Anyway, why is it illegal for ISPs to only allow traffic from certain sites
that they choose (or are told by some other organisation)? AIUI there is no
law that says all ISPs must allow access to the whole internet uncensored.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And then of course in the process, some sites are going to get blocked which
> shouldn't have been, but that's life. Especially if you name your site
> "childporn.com" I would expect it to get blocked - no matter what the actual
> content.
But the law only allows blocking because of illegal content. Having a
provocative host name is not illegal. Censoring such a site is illegal.
> Anyway, why is it illegal for ISPs to only allow traffic from certain sites
> that they choose (or are told by some other organisation)?
If I'm not mistaken, it's ultimately because of the Finnish constitution,
which says:
"Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the
right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other
communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions
on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act."
What this means is that nobody has the right to stop anyone from getting
some information unless that information has been specifically stated
illegal by law.
The law about purposeful disturbance of telecommunications is probably
based on this.
Teleoperators have no right to censor legal information from the internet
because it would constitute a breach of both of these laws. If they censor
some legal material, they are willingly and on purpose stopping their
users from getting that material, which is against the constitution.
> AIUI there is no
> law that says all ISPs must allow access to the whole internet uncensored.
I suppose it has never been tested in court, but censoring individual
websites which only contain legal material would seem to quite clearly
be against the law.
If some small ISP only provided access to a small intranet (because of
monetary reasons or whatever), that would be quite understandable and
probably completely legal. If a big ISP blocked access to all webpages
containing information eg. about communism, while providing access to
everything else in the internet, that would probably be very illegal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If some small ISP only provided access to a small intranet (because of
> monetary reasons or whatever), that would be quite understandable and
> probably completely legal. If a big ISP blocked access to all webpages
> containing information eg. about communism, while providing access to
> everything else in the internet, that would probably be very illegal.
If an ISP ended up blocking a few legal websites, through their process of
blocking thousands of illegal ones, I'm sure that would be ok too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, such censorship will never work. Ever heard of "The Onion Router" network?
Basically you connect to an Onion-server using an encrypted connection, and this
server then forwards your request to the intended site. Everything is completely
anonymous, untraceable and uncensurable. (And in Firefox you can switch between
TOR-mode and normal mode with the click of a button.)
This network is, among other things, used by Amnesty workers in China to
penetrate the Great Firewall. Freeware. Good stuff.
Protip: TOR is slow. Very slow. Slower than Ingmar Bergman films.
Hymyly.
And there was light.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:02:17 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
>
And that just proves the point :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:04:15 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> So finally Finland is going down the same route as China.
> Let's see how it escalates in the future.
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
> http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-en.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, such censorship will never work. Ever heard of "The Onion Router"
> network?
> Basically you connect to an Onion-server using an encrypted connection,
What happens if they block the onion-server(s)? Or encrypted traffic? ;-)
Anyway, I guess the hardcore geeks can always get through, but it still
"protects" the majority.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:57:52 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:04:15 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
>spake, saying:
>
>> So finally Finland is going down the same route as China.
>> Let's see how it escalates in the future.
>>
>> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
>> http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-en.html
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
>
How will that tie in with "plan to give every child internet access at home"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/04/publicservices.uk
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
