Re: The Great Firewall of Norway

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Simen E. Sandberg" <senilix () gallerbyen net>
Date: February 13, 2007 11:34:56 AM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] The Great Firewall of Norway

Dr. Farber,

this article requires an answer, as it includes a lot of factual errors.

The proposal is not at all sensible, as one of the members in the study
group says (in my translation): “[If we pass this as law], we will send
a signal that Norway want to be outside the information society, and not
take part in the Internet economy.”

After a lot of public debate in Norway yesterday and today, the
politicans will probably not accept the proposal anyway.

That said, the proposal is not as bad as Hansen gives the impression of.
I will try to clarify some points:

Norwegian readers should read the actuall proposal in NOU-2007-2 here:
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/NOUer/2007/NOU-2007-2/6/13.html
(Not available in English.)

Gunnar Hansen wrote at February 13, 2007 2:31:08 AM EST:
> If this proposal were to become law, Norway would have stricter
> Internet censorship than China.

No. The difference is that the Norwegian solution will be supported by
the legal system, so every domain or computer to be filtered will have a
fair trial in a public court. Norway has ratified the Convention of
Human Rights, so the courts will not be able to block political sites in
violation with free speech.

> ISPs are already mandated by law to filter sites offering child
> pornography.

No, they are not. This is a volunteer solution that some of the large
ISPs are using. This filter is maintained by the police (Kripos) and is
mainly targeted at sites that accept money for material that shows
maltreatment of children.

The proposal will actually make this filter less intrusive, as the
courts, not the police, will decide what to filter. That will probably
make the filter less effective, too, as a trial will take a lot of time.

> At this point it should be noted that the majority of the Panel (4
> out of 6 members) instead want the courts to block sites on a case-by-
> case basis.

Not true. That is the minority's proposal. The majority's proposal is to
not require any filtering by law.

The majority's view is actually thoroughfully described in the proposal,
where arguments about lack of effectiveness, conflict with free speech
and the principle that ISPs should not take the cost for filtering is
included. The member Willassen has a special remark where he looks at
the principal problems with sensoring foreign content, where I found the
quote mentioned at the start of this post.

> However, the minority have insisted that their proposal
> be forwarded to the Justice Department for eventual debate in
> Parliament.

This is the usual practice for cases like this. Politicans should decide
what should become law, not the majority in study groups.

> Even the majority’s proposal is unacceptable, in my opinion. Not to
> mention the fact that it’s almost impossible to implement
> successfully. The people who want to view these sites will find a
> way. If nothing else, they can use the many tools developed in the
> West to help people in China get past their Great Firewall.

As the NOU says (in my translation):

“The minority agrees with the majority that a measure of this type will
not give 100 percent effect, as there exists technical by-passing
possibilities. Still, at the same time, this is the case for most
measures in the struggle against computer ciminality. Even if the effect
will not be 100 percent with a filter, it can be considerable. If one
can stop most of the illegal traffic with a filter, a lot will be
achieved.”

--
Simen E. Sandberg, student
http://www.simensandberg.no/


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com