Internet censorship in ireland

draylander

Is this going to be the future in Ireland. With countrys like China and Turkey blocking certain sites on the internet and the UK talking about censoring certain social mediums does this mean that Ireland will follow suit.

Last Thursday, British Prime Minister said that he wanted to “stop people from communicating on social media” whenever that person is using it to instigate violence. A growing majority of observers are interpret this as meaning that he wants to block social media websites altogether whenever civil unrest is suspected.
Blocking social media has certainly caused some debate in many places – especially in the UK. The discussions around possibly censoring the internet has received international attention. This includes China. Chinese state media website Global Times weighed in on the debate suggesting that “Western” countries are coming to realize that free speech cannot go unhindered on the internet. From the report:

Full article

any thoughts?

mackg

first they stop all the downloading now thi....oh wait

Saila

great if that means facebook and twitter et all Im all for it

rockmongrel

First they came for the tweeters,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a tweeter...

Conor108

Tor will keep us tweeting and facebook-ing

yutta

politics.ie and boards.ie are already heavily censored.

MrStuffins

This started with Eircom blocking TPB

Now they're gonna block social networks.

In 10 years from now we'll be back where we were 20 years ago.

The internet is the best technological innovation of all time in my opinion. Enjoy it while you can lads, if things like this go through it's a slippery slope to the death of the internet as we know it!

CramCycle

If they block FB I'll be happy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69RpEBJFAY

I f'in hate FB.

rockmongrel

yutta wrote: »

politics.ie and boards.ie are already heavily censored.

Politics.ie and Boards.ie self-censor, which, as private companies they're perfectly entitled to do to avoid lawsuits/for fun etc.

Government censorship is an entirely different matter.

Scuid Mhór

the internet is the greatest thing ever. and if governments want to take that away i propose we FIGHT THEM FOR IT

Solair

I honestly think that Ireland's best interests are served with a free and open, carrier-is-neutral policy.

We are utterly dependant on things like the internet for our economic development. If we are seen to be pioneers of stifling internet freedom and roll out over the top censorship laws, we will frighten all sorts of investors out of the country.

Let's face it, Ireland has a dark, recent history of some of the most over the top censorship in the Western world.

Book bans, magazine bans, movies censored, banned, cut etc all to suit some kind of theocratic agenda.

We entered a new liberal era in the 1990s and I honestly think we could risk totally destroying any hope of becoming a knowledge economy or a hub for creative online media if we start coming out with anything that is anything other than open, free and fair.

By all means, go after and prosecute people using the internet for illegal purposes, but do not start censoring sites.

Once the state steps in and starts acting like a filter, that's the end of the net as we know it.

Chuck Stone

They shouldn't be allowed to block anything.

Herb Powell

This is ****ing stupid.
All that will happen if they try to block access is people will start using code.

MugMugs

will they censor out those annoying ads on Porn sites? that could be handy.

Misty Chaos

Look at what happened in Egypt when they shut down the Internet in an attempt to censor during their revolution. I would like to assume the same would happen here if the government tried pulling a similar stunt.

Gandalph

Freedom of speech and all that? Because thats mostly what the net is no?

Fremen

draylander wrote: »

any thoughts?

I think the internet follows the whack-a-mole principle. If you shut anything down, something else will pop up in its place. What works faster, legislation or word-of-mouth?

Alter-Ego

MugMugs wrote: »

will they censor out those annoying ads on Porn sites? that could be handy.

Facebook-Of-Sex FTW!

hightower1

I have no problesm wih censorship of the net.

Sure think of it this way if you walked down the street handing out pics of child pornography the cops wouldnt be long locking you up... do the same on the net and the same response happens.

Stand in a street encouraging violence against others and the cops will have none of it so why should the net be any different?

Its a public domain just like real life but just because something is public doesnt mean that you have the right to breach leagal and moral standards.
Boards.ie is a prime example of this, mods arent censors they are here to keep the peace and up keep a certain standard of conduct. Boards is public to access to anyone but that doesnt give you the right to encourage violence or break the law here. The www is no different.

draylander

Misty Chaos wrote: »

Look at what happened in Egypt when they shut down the Internet in an attempt to censor during their revolution. I would like to assume the same would happen here if the government tried pulling a similar stunt.

Not likely. we usually just roll over and ask for more in this country. that or we'll blame somebody else.

"They took ar internet!"

tricky D

Alter-Ego wrote: »

Facebook-Of-Sex FTW!

facetitsandarsebook.com

Misty Chaos

draylander wrote: »

Not likely. we usually just roll over and ask for more in this country. that or we'll blame somebody else.

"They took ar internet!"

Hmm.... if that turns out to be the case in such a scenario, I'll just up and leave the country then.

Buceph

hightower1 wrote: »

I have no problesm wih censorship of the net.

Sure think of it this way if you walked down the street handing out pics of child pornography the cops wouldnt be long locking you up... do the same on the net and the same response happens.

Stand in a street encouraging violence against others and the cops will have none of it so why should the net be any different?

Yeah, but this is the equivalent of banning HP and Canon because they made the printer you printed your pictures of child porn on. Or banning megaphone manufacturers because you're using one to incite violence.

Edit: To use a better analogy, it'd be like shutting down Vodafone because people are calling each other up to go burglarise somewhere. There are already means available to the police to intercept those messages. Shutting them down completely wouldn't be right or proportionate.

mossyc123

Misty Chaos wrote: »

Look at what happened in Egypt when they shut down the Internet in an attempt to censor during their revolution. I would like to assume the same would happen here if the government tried pulling a similar stunt.

The Internet, Social networks, etc had a negligable impact on the Arab Spring uprisings.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19225_5-reasons-twitter-isnt-actually-overthrowing-governments.html

This article explains it better then I can.

Chuck Stone

Buceph wrote: »

Edit: To use a better analogy, it'd be like shutting down Vodafone because people are calling each other up to go burglarise somewhere. There are already means available to the police to intercept those messages. Shutting them down completely wouldn't be right or proportionate.

Or like closing the postal service because someone sent you a picture of their bum*

*I do not advocate the sending of bum pictures by post or indeed by any other media.

mackg

Apologies this is long

The question is how would this be carried out? Would the government try and block certain individuals from accessing social media or would this be suggesting that the government intends to block out social media altogether? If that is uncertain, which possibility would be feasible?
If the government intends to block specific individuals instead, that would mean that everyone on different web services would have to be monitored. For that, there would essentially be a need for a massive amount of man power to monitor every communication on a given network. If it can be broken down to one person monitoring ten people’s communication, the number of people needed for such a task would be completely unfeasible just on wages, working space and training alone. The next logical step, in that case, would be to somehow automate the process. The only logical method to do so, that I can see, is have a system that monitors certain keywords. Such a method would be easily circumvented. For example, if the keyword being looked for is “riot”, then all people would have to do is use the word “ri0t” instead and a simple word search would not be able to find it. If there’s some Boolean involved where the word is “ri*t” (where the “*” can be anything) then the word can be changed again to “rio7″. If multiple variations are in place, then one can simply use services like upsidedowntext.com and use “ʇoıɹ”. What’s more, messages can be further encoded by other means including Morse Code where “riot” would become “.-. .. — -”. There’s really hundreds of ways to send a message in text to another party in the first place that don’t include any of these ideas. No automated process would ever be bullet proof.
The only other way is to track down individuals spreading such messages via other means. Really, if the government or industry interests has enough information on someone to censor them on the internet via alternate means, they might as well bust down his or her door and pick them up instead of wasting their time trying to keep them off of social networking sites in the first place. In any event, this possibility just doesn’t seem one bit feasible. Forget whether it’s right or wrong, I’m not convinced that it’s even possible in the first place.
That really leaves the other option, an option that Thinq is concerned about, blocking out social networking entirely during times of civil unrest. Some people say that Cameron didn’t directly say that he wants to censor social networking entirely, but given what he did say and how implausible the other possibility is in the first, it’s not a fear without merit in my view.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that Cameron did mean to say that he wants social networks censored during times of civil unrest. So Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry instant messaging is switched off. Then what? Well, people can simply use private IRC channels as an alternative. What if all IRC servers where somehow successfully switched off? Then people can use serverless chatrooms instead. What if the protocol is blocked at the ISP level in that case? Then the data stream can be encrypted. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it working. The only way it would work is if the entire internet was shut down completely. No service for anyone period. That could reduce things down to a localized level at worst given the possibility of creating home-brew radio services among other possibilities. Ultimately, a solution like killing off all internet access in the country would really cause more problems then it would solve – both politically and legally. So even that, while more feasible then censoring individuals, is not all that feasible either.
Since this is a political statement, I can honestly say that the most that can come from this at this time is simply the prime minister trying to portray an image of control over the situation. His comments with regards to social media, I think, can be taken as little more than hot air because it doesn’t sound like he is able to wield power. In practice, it’s very doubtful he would have that much power.

That is the same article and basically says there is no possible way they could do what they are saying they want to do, banning social networks would not stop it and that this is just the PM trying to make it look like he has a handle on the situation. this is what I immediately thought when I read OP, to quote Joe Rogan "You can't stop the internet"

kowloon

Ireland doesn't have freedom of speech, we still have banned books and movies. Granted, most of it is porn, but there's nothing enshrined in our legislation stopping the censorship of media for political purposes.

I'm completely against censorship on principle, even if someone occassionally uses this to their advantage to cause trouble. I don't need a moral guardian.

I'd rather let people have their facebook accounts than have it censored just because I don't use it. It sets a precedent and some day down the line it might come back to bite me.

There are already laws against the incitement of violence. They apply just as much to anything put up on the net as put down in print or shouted from a balcony.

kowloon

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Or like closing the postal service because someone sent you a picture of their bum*

[SIZE=1]*I do not advocate the sending of bum pictures by post or indeed by any other media.[/SIZE]

Too late, already sent

Chuck Stone

hightower1 wrote: »

Its a public domain just like real life but just because something is public doesnt mean that you have the right to breach leagal and moral standards.

The thing about that though is who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't?

Wasn't long ago in this country when stuff was higly censored to protect the delicate catholic predisposition to bared ankles.

Also, any measures to censor the net will be misused to censor whistle blower sites such a wikileaks.

Let's just hope hackers people power will prevent the censoring of the web.

cruiser178

What about the porn, wont somebody please think of the porn.

Buceph

kowloon wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have freedom of speech

You mean Ireland doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. I doubt anywhere has absolute freedom of speech unless you live in North Korea and are related to Kim Jong Il.

For all intents and purposes we do have freedom of speech, at least in how free speech was intended. As a means to effectively and critically debate and to direct changes in how we are governed. After that everything else is golden.

Biggins

cruiser178 wrote: »

What about the porn, wont somebody please think of the porn.

I am ...Constantly!

hightower1

Buceph wrote: »

Yeah, but this is the equivalent of banning HP and Canon because they made the printer you printed your pictures of child porn on. Or banning megaphone manufacturers because you're using one to incite violence.

Edit: To use a better analogy, it'd be like shutting down Vodafone because people are calling each other up to go burglarise somewhere. There are already means available to the police to intercept those messages. Shutting them down completely wouldn't be right or proportionate.

Thats not rally the same at all? Their not propoing to completely stop FB (Vodfaone) simply censor people that encourgae violence.

Every single media and social outlet in the land is sbject to ether the law or censorship... tv, radio, print media, even being in public ... its all subject to rules.

Just because your behind a computer screen , mostaly annonamus to the rest of the world may feel like it gives you the right to do what you want but the fact is .... it doesnt.

The law is the law, end of. Be it in the street or online. We can be outraged at child porn on the net one day as its wrong and illegal but then the next day whinge that pirate bay is being blocked? Both are wrong and illegal - (While we understand PB CAN delivery legit content we also know its use IS mostly in copyright infringement). Simply becuase one has no use to average Joe and the othr site DOES have a use for averge joe doesnt give us the right to proclaim one legal or morally right while condeming the other.

If something is illegal... its illegal even if it benefits you or not the law doesnt care.

We arent talking about shutting down the internet , just censoring parts that are wrong or illegal. We stop shops trading that done have licences all the time ... no one is closing down whole streets due to it though.

Craebear

It's inevitable. Liberties exist so that they can be taken away when it's convenient.

Then again this is Ireland, an internet killswitch here would probably end up blowing a few lightbulbs at worst.

Irish Guitarist

People in China aren't allowed to access information about certain things. There's a massive difference between that and inciting people to commit acts of vandalism or violence.

Also freedom of speech is part of the American constitution. I don't know why Irish people think they're guaranteed freedom of speech. Even if they did have that right, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you like. There are limits to what you can say even in America.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.

Buceph

hightower1 wrote: »

Thats not rally the same at all? Their not propoing to completely stop FB (Vodfaone) simply censor people that encourgae violence.

That's fine, but it has to be limited and targetted and under the supervision of a judge and as the result of legal proceedings. You can't just take some guys phone away from him because you want to. You have to have a reason to do so and follow the laws of the land.

Every single media and social outlet in the land is sbject to ether the law or censorship... tv, radio, print media, even being in public ... its all subject to rules.

Yes, those are traditional media, and are set up in such a way that there are editors and people responsible for the content. And if The Irish Times censors someone the police shouldn't be able to march in a shut down the printing presses. Someone needs to take a case against them and make the argument for in such a case recompense and an injunction against printing further libel. Those are the rules.

Just because your behind a computer screen , mostaly annonamus to the rest of the world may feel like it gives you the right to do what you want but the fact is .... it doesnt.

No, it doesn't give me the right to do what I want. I am subject to the same laws as anyone else for what I say or do on the internet.

The law is the law, end of. Be it in the street or online. We can be outraged at child porn on the net one day as its wrong and illegal but then the next day whinge that pirate bay is being blocked? Both are wrong and illegal - (While we understand PB CAN delivery legit content we also know its use IS mostly in copyright infringement). Simply becuase one has no use to average Joe and the othr site DOES have a use for averge joe doesnt give us the right to proclaim one legal or morally right while condeming the other.

Child pornography sites are illegal because of the images on the site, they breach legislation in Ireland, although to my knowledge neither the Gardia, the DPP nor the State have taken a case requesting these sites be blocked. The Pirate Bay has never been found to be illegal in an Irish court, and is not illegal by Irish legislation. Eircom chose not to defend a case taken against them by IRMA. They settled the private action taken against them, and the courts simple ensure that settlement is met. There has been no precedential decision on the responsibilities of an ISP and whether or not they are legally responsible for what is communicated over there networks (I'd imagine they wouldn't be due to the "mere conduit" test.) In fact European law looks like it's going to deny the responsibility of any ISP in filtering the internet to protect copyright in absence of national legislation.

If something is illegal... its illegal even if it benefits you or not the law doesnt care.

The act may be illegal, but it's not up to my ISP to do anything about that. That would be like saying it's the responsibility of the government to ensure no-one is driving on the road in an illegal manner and that they are at fault if anyone does.

We arent talking about shutting down the internet , just censoring parts that are wrong or illegal. We stop shops trading that done have licences all the time ... no one is closing down whole streets due to it though.

Yes, stopping access to parts that are illegal is fine. But the proper mechanisms must be gone through first. And the result must end up with a clear, targeted solution to do so. At the moment it is not the responsibility of an ISP to stop things, and they shouldn't acquiesce to anyone infringing on my rights to the internet.

And I can guarantee you if broad denials of internet services and sites are put in place, there will be a case in the Irish supreme court about it and there will be a case in the ECJ about it.

kowloon

Buceph wrote: »

You mean Ireland doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. I doubt anywhere has absolute freedom of speech unless you live in North Korea and are related to Kim Jong Il.

For all intents and purposes we do have freedom of speech, at least in how free speech was intended. As a means to effectively and critically debate and to direct changes in how we are governed. After that everything else is golden.

My point is we don't have anything in our constitution like the USA.
There isn't the same right of appeal because of this. Censoring the internet in Ireland wouldn't be unconstitutional.

You are right of course, nowhere will there be completely unrestrained freedom of speech, inciting violence being my example, and the example relevant to what just happened in the UK. You don't need to ban social networking, just enforce existing laws and procecute those who start the trouble.

7sr2z3fely84g5

This was an famous moment,rte cut it as quick but BBC and Sky showed it-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E-VYHtmj4

Buceph

kowloon wrote: »

My point is we don't have anything in our constitution like the USA.
There isn't the same right of appeal because of this. Censoring the internet in Ireland wouldn't be unconstitutional.

America's speech freedoms are some of the greatest in the world, but that includes the right to hate speech and the like. Also, America is a fan of the corporate person, and the expenditure of money is considered a speech issue, so business can donate billions of dollars, basically buying off politicians, as it's considered free speech. Not something I'm a fan of.

I don't know what you mean by there not being the same right of appeal. I never looked that deeply into it, so I'd appreciate your opinion on it.

And the internet could probably be censored, but it'd take specific legislation to do so. The same is happening in Britain. It's the lack of access to due process that I'm complaining about. I have no problem with access to child porn being denied, as long as its afforded the same judicial protection rights as any other website.

Mike 1972

kowloon wrote: »

My point is we don't have anything in our constitution like the USA.

Ireland does but it s only for "convictions and opinions" and has get out clauses for "public order and morality"

theneed2rock

CramCycle wrote: »

If they block FB I'll be happy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69RpEBJFAY

I f'in hate FB.

lol

Victor

Incitement (to violence, etc.) is an action and can't be protected by free speech rights.

LaBaguette

Err, no it's not. That's exactly where the difference between word and deed is. If I say "We should burn the Poles", it's very, very different from me actually setting fire on people.

It could become action if I was saying to someone "Go burn this guy and I'll give you a fiver", or "Go burn this guy or I'll cut your balls".

Back on topic, I'm almost sure I've heard some senior UK police dude suggesting that Twitter should be banned during riot periods. The stupidity of it is beyond me. "We are at war, let's ban paper."

I really hope it's not coming to Ireland. When I found out that TPB was banned here, I was a bit surprised. I believe it's a isolated ban (in the field of file-sharing), so it does not make much sense.

And compared to France, it's still a pretty sweet situation around here.

Chorcai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8x3V-sUgU

kowloon

LaBaguette wrote: »

Back on topic, I'm almost sure I've heard some senior UK police dude suggesting that Twitter should be banned during riot periods. The stupidity of it is beyond me. "We are at war, let's ban paper."

And eventually that gets extended to periods where there is an 'increased risk of riots' and in much the same way as there is a permanent level of terror alert the ban becomes, in practice, permanent.

Mike 1972

hightower1 wrote: »

While we understand PB CAN delivery legit content we also know its use IS mostly in copyright infringement

Back in the day it was perfectly legal to sell blank (video and audio) tapes even though it was blindingly obvious that the overwhelming majority were being used for copyright infringment*. How is Pirate Bay etc any different ?

* Yes timeshifting and backup copies do infringe copyright under Irish law