 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 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
Hmmm, blog much, Warp? <scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escribió:
>> 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? ;-)
Onion is decentralized. You could install your own server, relaying
encrypted traffic from others. I doubt it would be possible for them to
block *all* the onion relays...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 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.
So it comes down to whether the courts will hold the police to the law.
Bets?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hymyly wrote:
> 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.)
First rule of security: Never trust any claim that states something is
untraceable and uncensorable.
Tor completely anonymous?
I hope the following will convince you never to have such sentiments
about *any* system:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/12/1194766589522.html
He didn't really try too hard, IIRC (I didn't reread the article).
--
All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
(Welcome to the US)
--
All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> 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.
Granted.
But then there should be a procedure by which a citizen can challenge
the blocking (blockage?) of a certain web site, and have that decided by
a committee (which could ultimately be taken to a court of law).
--
All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
"The Finnish police have added Finnish hacker Matti Nikki's website
lapsiporno.info criticizing Internet censorship to Finland’s new
national child porn filter"
OK, If I were Finnish and if the law is going to do illegal stuff like
this coz is convenient and start dictatorship bull shit, I'd stick to
Judas Priest song: Breaking The Law.
Isn't illegal to say lies about some person's reputation? I think it is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:06:19 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> 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
Tcch it's the government - they give you something then take it away from
you.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:13 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>Tcch it's the government - they give you something then take it away from
>you.
And they will expect you to pay for the privilege :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:37:53 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:13 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>> Tcch it's the government - they give you something then take it away
>> from you.
>
> And they will expect you to pay for the privilege :)
Well duh :-) 'Here's £5 now that'll incur a £6 handling charge'
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But then there should be a procedure by which a citizen can challenge
> the blocking (blockage?) of a certain web site, and have that decided by
> a committee (which could ultimately be taken to a court of law).
Yep, there should be, but again in practise it's not really going to work.
It could take weeks or months to go through that process, and websites can
change their content continuously. By the time some review comes up, the
content could have changed, which un-blocks it anyway, or after some ruling
the content could change again which then blocks it again.
Better to just fine-tune the blocking policies as time goes on and live with
a few border-line sites that are classified incorrectly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "The Finnish police have added Finnish hacker Matti Nikki's website
> lapsiporno.info criticizing Internet censorship to Finland’s new national
> child porn filter"
>
> OK, If I were Finnish and if the law is going to do illegal stuff like
> this coz is convenient and start dictatorship bull shit, I'd stick to
> Judas Priest song: Breaking The Law.
I don't think many people would link blocking a website called "childporn"
to starting a dictatorship - get some perspective!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:45:26 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>> Tcch it's the government - they give you something then take it away
>>> from you.
>>
>> And they will expect you to pay for the privilege :)
>
>Well duh :-) 'Here's £5 now that'll incur a £6 handling charge'
Are you training for bank work? :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:02:33 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> But then there should be a procedure by which a citizen can challenge
>> the blocking (blockage?) of a certain web site, and have that decided by
>> a committee (which could ultimately be taken to a court of law).
>
> Yep, there should be, but again in practise it's not really going to
> work. It could take weeks or months to go through that process, and
> websites can change their content continuously. By the time some review
> comes up, the content could have changed, which un-blocks it anyway, or
> after some ruling the content could change again which then blocks it
> again.
>
> Better to just fine-tune the blocking policies as time goes on and live
> with a few border-line sites that are classified incorrectly.
Had a site blocked quite some time ago. Apparently someone with
foo-bar.co.uk was up to no good and got blocked, and for good measure they
blocked us at foobar.co.uk. This despite the fact the names were
registered under different identities, in different parts of the country,
by different ISPs, several years apart; all of which was shown quite
clearly via a WHOIS. They didn't bother to send us a notification, they
didn't bother to send our hosting ISP a notification they just blocked it.
We all wondered why we were getting bounced. Took about a month to sort
out IIRC.
--
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 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:14:16 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:45:26 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Tcch it's the government - they give you something then take it away
>>>> from you.
>>>
>>> And they will expect you to pay for the privilege :)
>>
>> Well duh :-) 'Here's £5 now that'll incur a £6 handling charge'
>
> Are you training for bank work? :)
Nah that'd be 'We'll give you £5 next week, but in the meantime we'll
deduct a £3 handling charge and a £3 transaction charge from your account
for it; followed by a £25 letter because we've just put you over your
limit' :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:23:52 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Nah that'd be 'We'll give you £5 next week, but in the meantime we'll
>deduct a £3 handling charge and a £3 transaction charge from your account
>for it; followed by a £25 letter because we've just put you over your
>limit' :-)
Now you know why they won't let me work in a bank. Well one of the reasons :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, yeah, the end justifies the means.
The police having free control over what gets censored and what doesn't,
independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and without
anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can break
the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
Nobody.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
> (Welcome to the US)
I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a
set of suggested recommendations.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2008 06:37:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
>
>> (Welcome to the US)
>
> I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
>constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
>officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a
>set of suggested recommendations.
At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written one.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > 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
> Hmmm, blog much, Warp? <scnr>
I consider this to be a concerning global phenomenon (as Finland is
certainly not the only country which is planning on increasing censorship),
not an event in my personal life.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> I don't think many people would link blocking a website called "childporn"
> to starting a dictatorship - get some perspective!
This is the perspective: The site contains nothing illegal ("childporn"
is not an illegal word), and moreover, it contains heavy criticism of
internet censorship in Finland.
Now, what does it tell us that a website criticizing internet censorship
in Findland gets censored?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written one.
They are free to pass laws which break basic human rights? Who controls
that they don't (besides, perhaps, international pressure)?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:41:06 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On 14 Feb 2008 06:37:57 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>> > The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the
>>> means.
>>
>>> (Welcome to the US)
>>
>> I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
>> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
>> officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a
>> set of suggested recommendations.
>
> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written
> one.
Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written down
officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
--
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 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:48:54 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> At least you have a constitution in the UK we don't, well not a written
>> one.
>
> They are free to pass laws which break basic human rights? Who controls
> that they don't (besides, perhaps, international pressure)?
EU law has been integrated (partially) into English Law so there's an
appeal procedure there. Likewise any law requires the police to enforce
it, which they may choose not to; and for judges to pass sentence, which
they might choose not to (or sentence a slap-on-the-wrist, or pass the
buck upwards to the higher courts). This all goes hand-in-hand with the
fact that Parliament can make any laws it wants to, repeal any laws it
wants to, and that no Acts it produces can be questioned by a court.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The police having free control over what gets censored and what doesn't,
> independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and without
> anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can break
> the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
>
> Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
> Nobody.
Don't you have law-makers there who tell the police what to do? If the
police start doing stupid stuff (like blocking all sites outside of finland)
then surely the law-makers would intervene?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't think many people would link blocking a website called
>> "childporn"
>> to starting a dictatorship - get some perspective!
>
> This is the perspective: The site contains nothing illegal ("childporn"
> is not an illegal word),
No, but anything involving child porn is likely to get blocked in a lot of
places, so it can't be a surprise that a site with that name is blocked,
regardless of the content.
> and moreover, it contains heavy criticism of
> internet censorship in Finland.
I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's blocked. I
mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be blocked, the
officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of the pile and
generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47b43264$1@news.povray.org...
>> The police having free control over what gets censored and what doesn't,
>> independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and without
>> anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can break
>> the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
>>
>> Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
>> Nobody.
>
> Don't you have law-makers there who tell the police what to do? If the
> police start doing stupid stuff (like blocking all sites outside of
> finland) then surely the law-makers would intervene?
How does that help? It's already well into damage by the time it gets to
that stage. And governments tend to strongly favour listening to their
police commissioners than to the protests of people about their police.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
> contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
> organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's blocked. I
> mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be blocked, the
> officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of the pile and
> generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
Welcome to a totalitarian police state?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:56 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
>or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written down
>officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
Thanks for answering Warp.
AFAIK we don't have one document that is our constitution and things are
complicated by England, Wales and NI using Common law whilst Scotland uses civil
law.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:26:18 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:01:56 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well we do it just exists spread over multiple documents, can be changed
>> or overruled at any time, and indeed some parts aren't really written
>> down
>> officially; nevertheless we do have a constitution.
>
> Thanks for answering Warp.
> AFAIK we don't have one document that is our constitution and things are
> complicated by England, Wales and NI using Common law whilst Scotland
> uses civil law.
Bloody Scotland making things complicated ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:52:26 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>Bloody Scotland making things complicated ;-)
Welcome to your gory bed
Chains or victory
:)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:vr86r3t17t1rlrcg6cdu0925vca1p4ni5t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:57:52 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >>
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
Are you suggesting that piracy is the only reason, let alone a good reason,
to have internet access?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:50:11 -0700, "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>Are you suggesting that piracy is the only reason, let alone a good reason,
>to have internet access?
>
Should I LOL?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:41:24 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > 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
>
>> Hmmm, blog much, Warp? <scnr>
>
> I consider this to be a concerning global phenomenon (as Finland is
> certainly not the only country which is planning on increasing
> censorship), not an event in my personal life.
Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political things
here in the US as well as personal things.
But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
course. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political things
> here in the US as well as personal things.
> But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
> course. ;)
IMO if it's something you could expect to see in a site like slashdot
or digg, it's definitely not blog-only material...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:03:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political
>> things here in the US as well as personal things.
>
>> But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
>> course. ;)
>
> IMO if it's something you could expect to see in a site like slashdot
> or digg, it's definitely not blog-only material...
Different strokes....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
> contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
> organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's
> blocked.
The site has been well-known for several months. It got to the blocking
list couple of days ago, after writing the possibility for this and
creating links from the URL's it had already contained.
> I mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be
> blocked, the officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of
> the pile and generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
He does protest - and he's clever enough to make it out loud. He writes
his letters as open ones and publishes them on the web (on unblocked
site), so basically everyone can read them.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
>
>> (Welcome to the US)
>
> I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
> officials *must* obey.
It would be more precise to say that officials must obey the form of the
Constitution that the courts believe to exist. Our federal government
has done and continues to do many things that contradict what the US
constitution says, and often the courts (whose members have political
leanings just like everyone else), permit those violations that are in
line with their own political notions.
And before anyone jumps in with a snide comment about Bush, I should
point out that many of these violations consist of programs and policies
that Europeans in general favor.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
> contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
> organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's
> blocked. I mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be
> blocked, the officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of
> the pile and generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
Exactly, in practice that is would any human being with power would to
to the rest, the "childporn" guy just gave them the perfect excuse to
sensor him, there are several Parental control software, even modern
antiviruses comes with it, let The Net FREE! (you fukuing hypocrites
purists)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was referring to the censurers not you scott
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
