backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by maugrimtr.. on Apr 20 at 8:39 AM


Ireland is considering adopting a China-like web filter.
The luck of the Irish is not with the internet, it seems

In the U.S. and foreign countries, many internet service providers (ISPs) filter out a select handful of material; child pornography sites are one frequently blocked example.  However, copyright protection organizations and governments are pushing worldwide to adopt broader filtering to protect citizens against everything from filesharing sites to cybercrime and terrorism.

In Ireland, a group called Digital Rights Ireland has used a freedom of information (FOI) request to obtained select passages from government emails detailing government plans to enact a nation-wide web filter.  The Department of Justice has previously refused the public access to the key documents.

In one email government officials chat with mobile service provider Vodafone about "introduction of internet filtering in Ireland".  And another email is titled "re proposed introduction of blocking technology".  Other emails discuss international use of blocking and proposed European legislation.

An email on the filtering was forwarded to Department of Justice in charge of casino gaming regulation, indicating the country might use the filter to try to ban web gambling (another "amoral" activity, which is currently banned in the U.S. as well).

Proponents of filtering say its essential for modern nations to filter out objectionable or amoral content.  However, its opponents say that it is far too blunt a tool and often damages legitimate businesses.  Describes TJ McIntyre, a barrister, UCD law lecturer and chairman of Digital Rights Ireland, "Blocking involves censorship taken on no legal basis. There is no judge, no jury and no right to be heard if you are blocked.  The chances are it also will be used in unaccountable ways by unaccountable organizations."

Ireland is hardly alone in wanting to filter the internet.  There's pending French and Australian legislation to roll out a nation-wide filters.  In China web filters have long been a standard.  And in the U.S. some members of Congress have advocated using a nation-wide ISP-implemented filter to remove infringed copyrighted content.

Ireland is hardly a progressive voice when it comes to censorship.  The nation recently enacted a law prohibiting "blasphemy" (offensive religious remarks or content).  The law is based on the Irish constitution, which allows free speech, but prohibits speech on any "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter".  Under the new law, individuals found guilty of violations can be fined up to €25,000 ($33,835 USD).  And it gives authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorizing the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’ 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Do we need protection?
By Gungel on 4/16/2010 10:45:52 AM , Rating: 5
Quote "to protect citizens against everything from filesharing sites to cybercrime and terrorism."
Who are those citizens that need protection from file sharing sites?




RE: Do we need protection?
By reader1 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Do we need protection?
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 10:58:16 AM , Rating: 5
I say, lets enact a reader1 filter!


RE: Do we need protection?
By heffeque on 4/16/2010 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 4
Porn sites killed my mother and raped my dog. Down with porn!
Oh, and P2P sharing made my bunny blind too!


RE: Do we need protection?
By noxipoo on 4/16/2010 12:09:34 PM , Rating: 3
but you still look don't you? DON'T YOU?


RE: Do we need protection?
By Kurz on 4/16/2010 11:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
So lets block off everything on the internet except for Email. Thats the only way to create that pure environment.

Sorry mate the world can't be resitricted like that.
People will fight and get around such protections.

The internet is like the world.
There are plenty of legal transactions.
Then there are also the black market.

To block one and not the other is not fesible without putting great resistrictions on the legitmate uses of the internet.


RE: Do we need protection?
By reader1 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Do we need protection?
By Kurz on 4/16/2010 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
However... the scope of the law is much broader than you want to accomplish. Why not install a Government chip in all computers?

(Note I am being scarstic with the last line)


RE: Do we need protection?
By Bonesdad on 4/16/2010 12:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
you actually think your email is private?


RE: Do we need protection?
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 1:46:00 PM , Rating: 4
You actually think that is air you are breathing? Hmm...


RE: Do we need protection?
By RandallMoore on 4/16/2010 3:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
+6


RE: Do we need protection?
By Hyperion1400 on 4/16/2010 10:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, the real question is: do you help your land lady take out the garbage?


RE: Do we need protection?
By ClownPuncher on 4/16/2010 12:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Shut yer (Mao)th!


RE: Do we need protection?
By FaceMaster on 4/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Do we need protection?
By Earthmonger on 4/16/2010 10:55:24 AM , Rating: 5
I predict a drastic increase in sheep-related crimes with this proposed loss of a digital alternative.


RE: Do we need protection?
By Anoxanmore on 4/16/2010 10:59:37 AM , Rating: 3
Nah the irish prefer them a bit more frisky, poor goats. :(


RE: Do we need protection?
By BladeVenom on 4/16/2010 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 5
We need a filter to stop politicians from enacting stupid and expensive laws.


RE: Do we need protection?
By carniver on 4/16/2010 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
They're "protecting" people from file sharing so that they themselves won't have to sue billions out of people's pockets after

These terms work similarly to decorate many questionable government acts: liberation, public safety, protection; whereas these terms work similarly to induce guilt on many activities: terrorism, public threat, piracy (that it's not sharing)


RE: Do we need protection?
By kroker on 4/16/2010 8:16:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I also like how they throw in "terrorism" in there just to follow the current fear mongering fashion. Because terrorism is such a big problem on the Internet for the average person... and as if blocking some sites will really stop any terrorist from communicating.

Isn't terrorism wonderful? The creative possibilities to use it as a fear mongering tool to further your own agenda are endless. It doesn't even have to make sense.


RE: Do we need protection?
By MadMan007 on 4/18/2010 12:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism is the ultimate 1984-style enemy.


RE: Do we need protection?
By Patrick Canney on 4/16/2010 8:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
I lived in the republic of Ireland for long enough. The government there is one of the most corrupt. I don't know why they are still in power.

They continually pushed for a referendum to integrate with the EU, even after previous public denials, which has (as of 2009)placed a federal like hold over the nation from EU parliament.

They [government] have sold off natural resources to corporations, such as the the oil field discovered on the west coast to Shell (without any proceeds going back into their failing economy).

Eircom, the countries leading provider of telecommunications has already started filtering internet delivery. The Politicians have more than likely been accepting brown envelopes and are now pushing for complete ISP filtering.

The country's people have allowed a shamble of a Government siphon off any potential it had in turning itself into a leading EU nation, which it was 5 years ago, for their own selfish fulfillment.

I am proud to be Irish, living away from home.

If anything, their citizens need protecting from their leaders.


Priorities
By amanojaku on 4/16/2010 12:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
I love it when governments considering expensive, and retarded, measures like this when the economy is in a shambles. I think the 11%+ unemployment rate and the declining GDP and GNP are more important than costly, dubious filters.




RE: Priorities
By reader1 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Priorities
By ClownPuncher on 4/16/2010 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think that is by far the most crazy thing I have read from you.


RE: Priorities
By inighthawki on 4/16/2010 1:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Originally he was a decent troll but now he just spews out garbage that makes no sense...


RE: Priorities
By Kurz on 4/16/2010 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... awesome deduction you got there!

(Sacrasm again)


RE: Priorities
By lycium on 4/18/2010 5:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
that's the most mind-blowingly retarded thing i've read in a looong time... if you knew what irony is, you'd notice that you're posting on an open platform right now, on the internet, on your pc (presumably).

practice what you preach: STFU, GTFO and magically become rich!


RE: Priorities
By gorehound on 4/16/2010 4:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should be looking at their perverted church and all the abuse they caused in that country.
it is just sickening to hear the stories that come from Ireland of Abuse that went on for probably 100's of years.

Put up your filters cause the more who do the more of us who will want a revolution.


USA Can't Get Too High And Mighty
By DtTall on 4/16/2010 11:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
Just a reminder that while we love our freedoms in the USA and look down upon other nations that would engage in this sort of ambiguous-logic censorship, using language such as "objectionable or amoral content", we have similarly arbitrary obscenity laws on the books.

Lets keep fighting for all types of freedoms, not just the ones we agree with.




RE: USA Can't Get Too High And Mighty
By Kurz on 4/16/2010 11:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly...

Don't forget about this poem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Everyone should have a right.


free web filter
By kmmatney on 4/16/2010 1:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I have 3 kids (ages 11, 9 and 6) with computers, and wanted a simple web filter. I found this free one to work really well, and is very easy to manage:

http://www1.k9webprotection.com/

I even installed it on my computer and it hasn't hindered the web at all. Its easy to temporarily bypass with a password, when you want to. My wife has had it one her computer for over a year, and never knew it was there.




RE: free web filter
By Cr0nJ0b on 4/19/2010 11:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
I use and recommend openDNS. It's free,easy and protects at a DNS level so wi-fi is protected as well.


I'm Irish and...
By DonkeyRhubarb on 4/16/2010 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly, the blasphemy law is a complete and utter joke. It really is like an idea that the church though of 30 years ago and then had the power to bring in. Nowadays, it honestly boggles my mind how it even came to be.

As far as this filtering talk goes, I'm generally passive as far as laws go here, but if freedom of the internet is at risk, f**k I'll be onto every bloody TD in the country with strongly worded mails, letters etc. Put simply, Ireland has been going forward for a long time, let's not start going backwards again!




Why, Winners and Losers
By Zuul on 4/16/2010 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of the country, I always take a look at the motives, winners and losers for something like this. The implications of something are important too, but the root cause of legislation is the most interesting aspect to me (especially for knee-jerk, reactionary legislation).




By dark matter on 4/17/2010 4:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
So, they are free to walk around after all the child abuse cases but their citizens are not allowed to make blasphemous remarks about a fictional character (is this blasphemous?)

You really couldn't make this up.




Hardly progressive?
By maugrimtr on 4/20/2010 8:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, your descent into your last paragraph is uncalled for, poorly considered, and does NOT reflect people here. It's borderline insulting. Being from Ireland, I can honestly say the anti-Blasphemy law is unenforceable - laughably so. God damn you - oops! :P The only reason it was added is because our (I'm Irish) Constitution unfortunately requires it in order for the law it's attached to be passed through the Senate for signing by the President. Otherwise, the law would be illegal. It's the lesser of two evils.

That the Constitution is obviously flawed on this point is above argument - nobody disagrees on that (well, except maybe those asshats from the Catholic Church). But the Constitution may only be altered via a public referendum requiring the majority vote of the people - and we try to reserve that for important areas we don't actually laugh about. If you're looking for the real lack of "progressive" spirit in Ireland - you picked people from the wrong decade. Try the 1930s when it was drafted by Éamon de Valera, who was...an American Citizen ;). Not many people from the USA remember that Ireland's first President was American born. Ever wonder why you Americans have such an incredibly good reputation in Ireland? ;) We love you guys to bits for your contributions to Irish freedom and peace over the years.

As for the filtering. It's not even proposed as a law...yet. I don't expect to see it turn up either. Our government at the moment has the popularity of a...can't think of anything good. Let's just say it's really bad.

On another point about existing filtering someone mentioned. This is NOT a legal obligation. Our version of the media goons threatened to sue Eircom (our monopolistic telecom provider) if they did not block access to The Pirate Bay torrent index. Eircom buckled without a single court hearing to argue their case. That was the failing of a free enterprise company - not the government or people of Ireland who have not a single law forbidding access in such a manner. Eircom are a disgrace in my opinion for this. No other ISP in the country has followed them - most have invited the media goons to try suing them in court.




Porn Domain
By Uncle on 4/16/10, Rating: 0
The solution is simple: public data must be screened.
By reader1 on 4/16/10, Rating: -1
By spread on 4/16/2010 10:47:23 AM , Rating: 5
Great. So have you paid your monthly subscription to DailyTech so they can filter out your frivolous comments?


By smackababy on 4/16/2010 11:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
You know, at like $3 a month, it might be worth it.


By Murloc on 4/16/2010 12:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
you'd pay just to post a comment on AT?

that would kill the comment section.


By Kurz on 4/16/2010 12:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
He hates differing opinion so for him it'll be worth it.


By themaster08 on 4/18/2010 7:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
He hates opinions full stop. The fundamental human ability to deliberate is non-existent in his world. We should all act like robots whilst our Lord Jobs commands us.

His opinions are not worth the time of day.


By geddarkstorm on 4/16/2010 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 1
I think the Patriots are hiring. Got any experience with Metal Gears?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki