[pp.int.general] EU block filter

[Reinier Bakels]

> On 31.03.2010 07:53, Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> One argument is to question the legitimacy and legality of filter 
>> measures, and the bove arguments are excellent. Introducing limited 
>> censorship brings us on the slippery slope of more censorship.
> Well it's exactly this "slippery slope" argument which I don't buy, 
> because if applied with enough creativity it can be used to question each 
> and every sort of law and law enforcement. After all, arrest,

Firstly, the "freedom of speech" human right (art. 10 European Convention on 
Human Rights) includes the right to *receive* information. Art. 10 
subsection 2 ECHR contains a lust of exceptions: they must a) be prescribed 
by law b) serve one of the listed purposes c) be subject to "pressing need 
in a democratic society".

Afaik there is no *advance* checking of any publication at all. Of course, 
one is subject to all kinds of liability *afther the fact*, but advance 
checking by authorities is NOT allowed! So introducing a just *little bit* 
of censorship means that an important boundary is transgressed.

Experience meanwhile has shown that this is *not* an innocent thing. 
Countries where filtering is applied show that often sites are blocked with 
adult porn, no child porn. And the lists are secret, which violates basic 
government transparency principles. A site owner should be able to appeal 
the decision to be blacklisted in court. (Adult) porn sites may often be 
disgusting, but it is a legitimate business. If enforcement measures are 
believed only to work in secrecy (ACTA!), they are akin to "state 
terrorism". Yes, governments pretending to fight terrorism are becoming 
terrorists themselves. Remember that the (legal) defintion of terrorism is 
"inducing fear at major groups of the population". Yes, all criminal law is 
supposed to have some deterrent effect, but criminal measures always used to 
be open, and subject to a strict legality principle.

Like with ACTA, governments may decide that democratic control is an 
obstacle to effective enforcement. This is basically the logic of dictators. 
Oh yes, an enlightened dictatorship is the reason whu Singapore is so 
prosperous now. Politicians used to be not interested in copyright. Now that 
they are becoming more interested, they must be avoided - in order to 
protect shareholder value. Logical, isn't it?

Blocking sites with chemistry information may be the next thing. Because 
making bombs is a matter of chemistry. If you are not allowed to bring 
fluids onto airplanes, you understand that authorities are so nervous that 
they are likely to adopt unreasonable measures. Anyway, such measures are 
very attractive for politicians, because it gives them a pro-active image, 
while the cost (for the government!) is zero.

Anyway, I repeat the argument that blocking does not *remove* child porn 
from the Internet, and that smart pedophiles have all kinds of 
circumventions. Like sending CDROMS by snail mail. Or using the telephone 
network (dial-up, how old-fashioned!)

Because of these reasons, I sincerey doubt whether mrs. Malmström was 
honest. I guesss it is a political "law and order" move which has nothing to 
do with a true concern with children. And I would not be surprise if shady 
"sponsors" are involved. Like router manufactureres who want to expand their 
filtering product market beyond China ... BUT MOST LIKELY, IT IS THE 
COPYRIGHT MAFIA THAT STRIKES AGAIN. As soon as pervasive filtering is in 
place, blocking "illegal" download sites seems a "logical" next step. 
Old-fashioned copyright in the modern world of broadband internet can only 
be enforced by violating basic human rights, if the shareholder value of 
record companies is the ultimate goal.

reinier


And I repeat: