[PP.Skane] Fwd: FW: Your internet blocking article

[John Nilsson]

Ngah?

Bör juh tilläggas också att den blockerade listan visats spärra sidor utan
branpornografi vilket vidare ifrågasätter om de 50 000 träffarna ö.h.t. har
med barnpornografi att göra.

Mvh,
John

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes at gmail.com>wrote:

> ngaaaaaah
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joe  McNamee <joe at mcnamee.eu>
> Date: 27 March 2010 19:02
> Subject: FW: Your internet blocking article
> To: christian.engstroem at europarl.europa.eu, teirdes at gmail.com
>
>
> I’m sure you guys are better at communicating with Swedish media than I am
> L
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Joe McNamee [mailto:joe at mcnamee.eu]
> Sent: 27 March 2010 16:08
> To: 'tobias.olsson at svd.se'
> Subject: Your internet blocking article
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Olsson,
>
>
>
> The statement made by Mr Lagerloef in your article that the 50,000
> figure (
> http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/malmstrom-vill-blockera-barnporrsajter_4479111.svd
> )
> is a ‘good indication’ is simply untrue. As well as the web bots and
> other automatic devices that cause the page to be downloaded, it
> should be obvious that a steady 50,000 per day every day of every week
> of every year for years either suggests an automated process – it is
> hardly the same 50,000 Swedes who do not spend five minutes learning
> about how to avoid the technically very limited blocking system.
>
>
>
> It is also worth noting that the Swedish figure is almost double, per
> capita, the Norwegian figure (15,000 per day). Is this due to the
> “fact” that there are twice as many paedophiles in Sweden or perhaps
> it is due to the statistics being entirely unreliable?
>
>
>
> By the way, I find it strange that your article (based on the Google
> translation that I read) says that Commissioner Reding wrote a letter
> to Commissioner Malmstroem opposing the blocking proposal AND that all
> Commissioners supported it.
>
>
>
> Finally, with regard to the “voluntary” system in Sweden, I draw your
> attention to the European Commission’s own “impact assessment” on this
> issue which states – “Such measures must indeed be subject to law, or
> they are illegal”. The Swedish system, being “voluntary” does not
> appear to be subject to law and, according to the Commission is
> therefore illegal.
>
>
>
> I would be happy to provide input on any further work you may do on this
> issue.
>
>
>
> With best regards,
>
>
>
> Joe McNamee
>
> European Digital Rights
>
> Rue Montoyer 39
>
> B-1000 Brussels
>
> Tel: +32 497 046114
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Amelia Andersdotter
> Lissabon-MEP
> +46 722063698
> _______________________________________________
> PP.Skane mailing list
> PP.Skane at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.skane
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.skane/attachments/20100327/1998e57e/attachment.htm>