Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Thailand Bans Teen Info On the Net

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the no-myspace-for-you dept.

Censorship 137

Reservoir Hill writes "Internet providers in Thailand have been prohibited from disclosing personal data about anyone under the age of 18 in a way that would allow others to gain access to them — including disclosure of their age, gender, phone number, email address, chat logon name, photo, or name of their school. Violators will face six months in jail of and a fine of $1,900. Web sites have been given one month to come into compliance." The article isn't clear on whether or not the prohibition applies to foreign sites that carry information about Thai kids.

cancel ×

137 comments

did they also ban shit eating? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468025)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Re:did they also ban shit eating? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468409)

Eating a turd or sucking a nigger dick, whats the diff?

Cum swallowing fags.

Re:did they also ban shit eating? (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470671)

Better than this [engrish.com] .

Re:did they also ban shit eating? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468425)

troll? Earlier this year, I spent a couple weeks in thailand on business. teen lady-boys offer to shit in your mouth if you've got the cash. I never got a complete list of what's legal and what's not, but nobody cares if you ride a 9 year old girl bareback in an alley while police watch (for the record, I limited my action to a daily massage/happy ending from a girl [I checked] in her 20s).

Duude u need some new material (0, Offtopic)

yoshi3 (1118623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468793)

You've posted this too many times, you need new material!

Re:Duude u need some new material (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468893)

this no longer turns you on?

Darn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468027)

That ruins my "Wild On Bankok" video.

So what's the problem? (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468037)

I don't see the problem here, I don't see any particular reason why kids should be allowed to put their contact information up on the web.

As far as I can tell, this just applies to ISPs and not necessarily to teens themselves.

Re:So what's the problem? (2, Insightful)

Karl0Erik (1138443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468063)

No, God forbid kids should talk to people.

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468527)

Isn't that what IRC is for? There's no need to plaster a page with your name, address, phone numbers, and everything up to and including your shoe size, if you just want to speak with friends.

Re:So what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468705)

But then everyone doesn't find out how awesome you are!

Re:So what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468133)

Yeah, this is Thailand, you should just buy them from their parents and sell them to a brothel. Like everyone else.

Re:So what's the problem? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468407)

Yeah, this is Thailand, you should just buy them from their parents and sell them to a brothel. Like everyone else.
Don't knock it! Teen pussy can't be beat! These girls aim to please and suck like a brand new Hoover!

Bouncy bouncy!

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468357)

It's not clear to me from the article, whether this prohibits kids from making web pages through their ISP's website hosting, or not.

Re:So what's the problem? (5, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468465)

In many countries people under the age of 18 can have student loans, drive cars, drink, have sex, but now we won't let them put their contact information on the net? Teenagers are people too, and they should have the right to make contact with whomever they choose.

Governments shouldn't muscle in as parents. If you want to reduce the abuse of minors via the Internet educate parents to help them understand the risks, and educate teens to help them understand the risks and how to avoid them. Show them some episodes of Dateline: To Catch A Preditor. Warn them about the lack of privacy on social networking sites and how easy it is to locate someone based on some simple searches. Run a mandatory 4 week annual course for all high schoolers with updated materials reflecting current threats.

Help people understand what they're getting into, but don't start censoring them.

If there is one thing you should understand about tech-literate teenagers, it is that they will find a way if they want to. It's better to educate and let them protect themselves than to try and protect them all with laws like this.

Re:So what's the problem? (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468517)

i don't think that's a good answer either. my faith in education being a tool to prevent things like this is failing. people are just too fucking stupid to be told at times.

I can't see any reason for kids to be giving out their contact details online. if you can justify them giving out phone numbers and address's i'll concede it's a bad ideaa...

Re:So what's the problem? (4, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468715)

people are just too fucking stupid to be told at times

Yes, some people are. And the problem of teen predators will never go away no matter what we do.

Now, do we:
A) Educate people, have a population that largely understands privacy risks, and still have teen predators, or,
B) Put this law into place, have a population that expects their Government to look after all their privacy concerns, and still have teen predators?

Predators aren't going away any time soon. On the other hand, the rights of the people all around the world appear to be.

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470133)

Predators aren't going away any time soon. On the other hand, the rights of the people all around the world appear to be.

Does taking away people's civil rights make it harder for such "predators", make no difference to them or make things easier for them. Given the apparent inability of many politicans to critically evaluate proposed legislation, something which should be a fundermental part of their job, it wouldn't exactly be suprising for laws intended to "protect children" to do the exact opposite.

Re:So what's the problem? (2, Interesting)

Pie-rate (1098693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469045)

Then let the people who are too fucking stupid to learn these things get what's coming to them. It's called natural selection, and it is AWESOME. If you're too fucking stupid to survive, you don't, and you (hopefully) don't make stupid babies.

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

ArmedGeek (562115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469387)

Wow. Based on that logic it should be perfectly okay for me to kill you and take your stuff.

Allowed??? (2, Insightful)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468699)

I don't see any particular reason why kids should be allowed to put their contact information up on the web.
Not to flame the parent author here, but what kind of whack job thinks any person should need explicit permission to do what they will with their contact information?

Re:So what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468749)

Can you think of a realistic way those hosting a website that uses such personal information could ever be able to verify such?

This is unenforceable unless it obstructs adults' rights as well.

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469065)

E-mail address? "Chat login name" (read: AIM/MSN screen name)? That's ridiculous.

Re:So what's the problem? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470695)

There is a problem here. Several actually.

1 - email isn't truly 'contact' information.
2 - no school? Technically that would mean that 2 kids in the same school couldn't tell each other their email addresses to help out with homework or plan the next school party )
3 - why should a kid be 'non contactable' in the first place? Why isolate them? Just monitor the child's email and teach them not to respond to perverts and the real problem is solved.

Want to restrict phone numbers and addresses, well thats more appropriate, but think about #2 above.

Why the hell is this "censorship"? (1)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468057)

Seriously, why? Does disclosing personal information of your clients classify as freedom of speech, too? Don't you think there are other risks involved?

Re:Why the hell is this "censorship"? (1)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468187)

Because it restricts what information someone (this is probably targeted at corporate entities, but individuals as well) can distribute. There is no magic line between information which serves the general good and information which is detrimental to the general good, just as there is no magic line between sedition and patriotism.

actually there is a line (2, Insightful)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468323)

"informational self-determation" - a term coined by the german federal constitutional court - is not censorship. it means that you can decide which informations about yourself is given to other entities. the "right to privacy" is actually a subset of informational self-determination.

of course, the government isn't you and therefore should not decide which information can be (or cannot be) out there.

Re:actually there is a line (2, Interesting)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468647)

I agree for adults, who should be allowed to make their own mistakes. But children aren't adults. There was an interesting article in slate about this in slate -

http://www.slate.com/id/2174841 [slate.com]

He proposes three boundary ages, and has studies to justify each one.

12 - when you can physically have sex - when women reach puberty
16 - when you're intellectually mature - people under 16 score quite badly on intelligence tests
25 - when you have some kind of emotional maturity - people under that age don't have proper self regulatory systems

Which is a bit like a boot sequence when you think of it - I particularly like the way there's ten years between 16 and 25 where you're smart but clueless.

As he puts it -

I'd draw the object line at 12, the cognitive line at 16, and the self-regulatory line at 25. I'd lock up anyone who went after a 5-year-old. I'd come down hard on a 38-year-old who married a 15-year-old. And if I ran a college, I'd discipline professors for sleeping with freshmen. When you're 35, "she's legal" isn't good enough.

What I wouldn't do is slap a mandatory sentence on a 17-year-old, even if his nominal girlfriend were 12.

maturity is not a number (long post inside) (2, Interesting)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469199)

this argumentation is doomed to fail, an arbitrary limit for maturity is stupid. actually, i know a sizeable number of people who would not fit into this scheme - for example, roughly a third of my former classmates.

== first, sexual maturity ==

        i know girls who were sexual before being 12 (even before having their period). not all of them fully knew what they were doing - to hear "you can always put it out" from a slightly stupid girl is probably a huge turn-off for a young boy with some knowledge in biology - but they were able to articulate their sexual needs and act upon them, so they clearly were sexual mature.

        a solution would be more sex ed. really, on what grounds should one forbid two persons who know what they are doing some act, if it is consentual? non-consentual sex is already prohibited (rape, anyone ?). also, teen pregnancy is no argument with proper sex-ed (sorry, radical christfags).

== second, intellectual maturity ==

        i went to a boarding school for "gifted" pupils, so i know quite a number of people who are seen (and see themselves) as "brighter" than the average person. we had to take a test at eigth grade to get there. after some time i came to the conclusion that you usually cannot compare "real-world" intellect at all. nearly all of them were somehow good at tests, yet many lacked "real world" skills and could not solve unusual problems (the real world is not your textbook example) due to lack of imagination.
        on the other side, i know people who can keep up with daily tasks, are definitely not mentally retarded, but just stupid and / or disinterested. my little brother, for example, killed the microwave due to profound lack of skill and didn't even notice it due to watching TV. when my little sister (5 years old at that incident) woke everyone up (smoke + sleeping people => bad) we headed for the garden. my sister wanted to know why that happened, my brother didn't want to know.
        wait, my brother is 16 years old. my sister was 5 and could recall the outlines of "how a microwave works" half a year later (in before shitty explaination). to top that, there is this "gifted" girl i know, nearly the same age as my brother, but indefinitely more intelligent and also, wise - she probably was smarter than him when she was 15. should he have more rights based on age? hint: my brother did apparently not become more intelligent or knowledgeable in the last two years and probably never will.

        a solution to this problem could be mandatory tests for everyone to get certain "dangerous" rights. nearly every country has this for driving a car - you must proove you understood the rules, regardless of age. so ... why are people allowed to vote even if they don't know shit about the voting system ? clearly, this has something to do with abuse of power - maybe you could cut that out if this kind of knowledge would be teached free of cost and you could apply for the "voting maturity" test an infinite amount of times.
        here in Germany, we have the "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" (translate as something like "federal central for political education"), which has the job to teach citizens on how the state works (it certainly isn't government propaganda) - you can order the German Constitution and many informational texts on local and global political issues at low cost (like shipping only), for example. in my opinion, every citizen should know how stuff works(TM); is imperative for a society with the goal of its citizens being free individuals.

== third, emotional maturity ==

        this is by far the easiest to answer. i know people who were emotionally stable in a very young age. also i know people who are absolutely not stable. when i talked to emotionally unstable persons, many of them (6 or so), cried at one point, all without me being rude or something (or at least everyone said it wasn't my fault). older persons - so it seems to me - are no different; i have witnessed a number of individuals over 30 who got angry about minor things - they probably never will be "emotionally mature".

to conclude, the author of the article says it himself [1], but then he fails to explain why he would choose other limits - or why there should be limits at all.

[1] "Age-span" provisions, which currently allow for sex with somebody near your own age, are a good start, but they're not objectively grounded.

Re:maturity is not a number (long post inside) (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469469)

So the jist of your objection is that because there is variation between people we should have no limits?

Presumably there is some sort of normal distribution [wikipedia.org] of the age people reach each milestone - i.e. most of them reach it in +- one standard deviation. The people my brother and I went to school with matured at a very similar pace - so the standard deviation should be much less than one year. And this is despite the fact we went to very different types of school because I passed an exam and he failed it. So you could set an age +1 standard deviation and it would be 'safe' in the sense that most people would be mature by the time they reached that age. Early developers would need to wait for a year to have a sexual relationship unless they wanted their partner to go to break the law but I don't see a problem with that. The age of consent is 16 in the UK anyway, and probably it is set conservatively in the sense that most 15 year olds are probably mature enough to have a relationship with someone of a similar age. On the other hand the police in the UK are probably sensible enough to not prosecute teenagers for having sex with each other. Old guys that date 15 year old girls would probably be prosecuted though - that's why the law is there.

And I don't think I'd want to date anyone under 25 either (I'm 36), so the limits in the article do seem plausible to me.

Re:maturity is not a number (long post inside) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469603)

I am 18 and would argue that I am both as smart and as emotionally capable as you are. I would describe myself as a rational humanist and I act according to the logic of my actions, weighing the negative and positive consequences of each. To say I am "an exception" would be to admit that exceptions exist - thus rendering the point of a set line untenable. I would instead argue that people below 18, who I would agree are still developing as children (and scientific studies support this), would comprise one devision, while those over would comprise the second. Why 18? It is the draft age in most western countries. If you're old enough to die you're old enough to be afforded all the rights of a citizen. 18 would not be a hard line, though, it would simply be the preferred precedent in civil rights cases. Laws should still be considered on a case-to-case basis (obviously a driving age of 16 is strongly supported and thus people between 16 and 18 might merit certain differentiations in treatment.)
P.S. Ages of consent have no concern with the age of the other person beyond their eligibility to consent. To say otherwise is to redefine the nature of the law and impose your own baseless moral values on others.

Re:maturity is not a number (long post inside) (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469705)

So the jist of your objection is that because there is variation between people we should have no limits?

certainly arbitrary limits based on age are bullshit. limits based on actual skill (driver's license) are perfectly acceptable.

Early developers would need to wait for a year to have a sexual relationship unless they wanted their partner to go to break the law but I don't see a problem with that.

but i see one. you are arguing that because the law is unjust only to "few", it is acceptable.
while this may sound appealing to many, it is wrong, for laws should not be intentionally unjust.
with the same reasoning ("only bad for a minority") one could defend "extraordinary renditions".

also, if the police needs to be "sensible", the law is made of crap and fail.

you didn't provide an answer for why "old guys" shouldn't date 15 year olds.
you and i certainly know that some wise 15 year olds are out there.
and we know for sure that some very dumb 30 year olds are out there.

i live in a state where homosexuals can marry and joe sixpack is free to fuck jane doe into the ass if she is okay with it.
all of this because my sex-life is no bizness of the state or any one else as long as it's consentual. you seem to think otherwise. why ?

Re:Why the hell is this "censorship"? (2, Interesting)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468241)

Does disclosing personal information of your clients classify as freedom of speech, too? Don't you think there are other risks involved?

Yes, it is a form of free speech. However, freedom is not absolute. We commonly recognize that you cannot yell fire in a theater, use certain "fighting words", or perjure yourself, all acts of free speech that we consider unreasonable. Many people (although not many people on slashdot) believe that freedom of speech can be limited by intellectual property laws. So, the interesting question is not whether it is an act of free speech, but whether whether it is justified or not to restrict it. And censorship is the word used to describe an unjustified restriction on free speech. I think in this case there are sufficent societal benefits for the restriction, but reasonable people can disagree.

Re:Why the hell is this "censorship"? (1)

yoshi3 (1118623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469213)

We commonly recognize that you cannot yell fire in a theater
Why not?

Re:Why the hell is this "censorship"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469413)

"We commonly recognize that you cannot yell fire in a theater, use certain "fighting words", or perjure yourself, all acts of free speech that we consider unreasonable."

CLICHE Alert!!! Someone can't understand philosophy. Presumably you would also consider lying to be by definition unreasonable, and therefore appropriate to be limiteded?

Re:Why the hell is this "censorship"? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470203)

While there is also a "information wants to be free" brigade on slashdot that truly desire abolishing all the restrictions, I also think there's a lot of general resentment in the tech community over "restrictions on free speech" proposals because they involve technical and practical impossibilities or that would otherwise require massive and intrusive surveilance, centralized and totalitarian infrastructure and so on. I can within five minutes whip up an application that'll share bits and bytes with absolutely no regards to their content. Every protocol starts from http to ftp to smtp to bittorrent start out that way. Then they come along and say "Freedom of speech is not absolute, your application can't transfer X, Y and Z and if you sell an application that does we'll slam you in court." Particularly if some of those bytes pass through you like Napster or YouTube. And I'd go "Uhh... so how the fuck do you expect me to know that?" And the answer is invariably "that's your problem", because they sure don't have an answer.

Same goes with access to the Internet, registration on websites and whatever. Either you have an open network, where people connect ad hoc through webcafes, libraries, McDonalds, Starbucks, gas stations, public WiFi networks, guest networks and so on where we connect to all sort of anonymous services like free webmail and for that matter slashdot. That is very simple, and indeed pretty close to how the world works. Or you try to create a closed network where you can't access anything until your government mandated ID is verified and stored so that anything you access can be logged and tracked back to you. And as usually they roll this on over on us, using rethoric like "Think of the children" and ignore how practically unfeasible it is.

Enforcement of restrictions have their own price. Let's say you're against gay sex (not because I mind but because the example is good), to the point where it should be illegal. Do you honestly want the government to sneak into your bedroom and lift the covers to make sure you're fucking the opposite sex, you and everybody else? To me it comes down to much the same "Do you want horrible things X, Y and Z to happen on the Internet?" "No." "So then you wouldn't mind to bending over and let us track anything and everything you're doing?" Actually, I do mind because it's none of your fucking business, not anymore than random searches of my home because someone else might be doing something bad in their home. It's a strawman argument to do away with all forms of privacy and anonymity, and the results just don't justify the means.

I got an idea (3, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468061)

Sorry, couldn't help it, I'm a programmer. What they need to do to encourage kids to not find ways around this is design the filter so when it senses under 18 related form data leaving the computer, it re-routes the kid to another page with a flash file of Michael Jackson saying "You're an idiot!" and kissing the screen. Now that would send em a message.

Re:I got an idea (2, Interesting)

weighn (578357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468505)

What they need to do to encourage kids to not find ways around this...
I first read this as

encourage kids to find ways around this

which I think is just as funny, but consider for a sec. Society benefits when the kids are encouraged to participate in official-type stuff like this. Something about feeling included. More governments should try it. I can't remember where I read - and a couple of searches aren't bringing it up - but one section of (from memory) a state government in Australia has recruited the teen "hacker" who took a few minutes to bypass the bajillion dollar government-issue "net nanny" filter. This teenager is helping to draft government tech policy. Cool AND daggy!

Re:I got an idea (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468791)

The sad part is, Michael would do it as he hasn't gotten a gig in years.

Actually, the article is clear (1)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468073)

The article isn't clear on whether or not the prohibition applies to foreign sites tht carry information about Thai kids.
From TFA, "Local website operators will be given a one-month deadline to ensure the privacy of people under the age of 18 on the internet or face legal action."

Re:Actually, the article is clear (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468737)

And of course, with the magic ESP chronometer, they'll be able to do just that.

What I'd like is a law where every politician that votes for idiotic and impossible to enforce legislation is forced to eat a lit stick of dynamite. I think that would solve a great many more problems.

Re:Actually, the article is clear (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470355)

From what I can tell, the law isnt saying that users under 18 cannot reveal their information themselves.
Its just the companies/websites which cannot reveal the information. MySpace pages are still fine.

WTH, KDawson? (1, Interesting)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468083)

What's with the negative spin? This sounds like a good thing; They're stopping ISPs from giving out the personal information of minors to everyone on the internet. This isn't an increase in Censorship, it's an increase in Privacy.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468111)

Look... let's just say it's not a coincidence that Thailand has a reputation for underage sex slaves.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468175)

That was my reaction too. Actually, I had two reactions: 1) this won't work, and 2) something like this (a more nuanced version) needs to be discussed, including here in the US. Otherwise we'll wait until some high profile crime occurs against some celebrity's or rich businessman's kid, and there will be a rush to legislate heavy-handed policies.

Making the internet safe for kids doesn't have to be all or nothing. By analogy, think of Gore-Tex (tm) - a jacket doesn't have to be 100 pct waterproof to offer protection against rain.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468305)

So, when the government tries to limit adults rights, it's bloody murder, but if it's a kid, then that's fine? I fail to see how that works

Re:WTH, KDawson? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468553)

So, when the government tries to limit adults rights, it's bloody murder, but if it's a kid, then that's fine? I fail to see how that works RTFA.

Prohibited information includes age, sex, phone number, email address, logon name for chat lines, photos and names of their schools.
right now the law is protecting privacy although future changes may be something to worry about but that is nothing more than speculation at this point.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468703)

If you ever have kids of your own, you'll understand.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (1)

AySz88 (1151141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468353)

They're stopping ISPs from...
It's not just ISPs, but all websites. (The summary probably shouldn't have said "internet providers".) From TFA:

Local website operators will be given a one-month deadline to ensure the privacy of people under the age of 18 on the internet or face legal action. Deputy Prime Minister Paiboon Wattanasiritham said they must make sure that their websites displayed no personal information about under-18s in a way that would allow others to search the data to gain access to them.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (2, Interesting)

AySz88 (1151141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468461)

...in case my meaning wasn't clear, "all websites" means all Thai websites, presumably including those sites that publish user-submitted data (i.e. social networking sites?), for some definition of "Thai website".

So the interesting questions I can think of are: is this retroactive to information already published, such that a site might have to verify the ages of existing users? Is the site responsible moderating content and users before potentially publishing personal info, or only remove things that they later find are personal info posted by minors? And will these sites be able to comply within a month?

Re:WTH, KDawson? (0, Offtopic)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468801)

It's also an Increase in seemingly Random capitalization of Words that are usually not Capitalized in written English.

Re:WTH, KDawson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469891)

I have to agree with Eddi3.
This is a good idea!

The 'biz (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468089)

In America and other countries, we have laws that mandate that sex-offenders have to register as such, effectively ruining them for life. I wonder if that's the case in Thailand? There are plenty of sick bastards who would be willing to deal with the temporary consequences as long as they could continue to satisfy themselves in the future.

An interesting side note: The biz has crept into American pop culture [mtv.com] .

Marketing Stratagy? (0, Troll)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468101)

Seems weird for a country who's major import is pedophiles. Maybe this is some kind of marketing strategy.

Re:Marketing Stratagy? (2, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468153)

hay boyz! lol come over to my house i have a sister too Profile for hotgirl8989 Name: Chrisy Hansen State: NY Address: 30 Rockefeller Plz

Re:Marketing Stratagy? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468237)

Good grief, learn to spell. You're still allowed to use the internet to check your spelling and grammar. Oh, and "who's" = WHO IS or WHO HAS. The possessive is WHOSE. I know, I know, so difficult...

Re:Marketing Stratagy? / Thai women (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468653)

Who gives a shit about pervs. Thai women are beautiful and exotic. I think the cutest in Asia. Hell the ones 40 years old look like they are 30. And they love older Western men. So I would say the major import is Western men looking for a woman >18 years old.

Re:Marketing Stratagy? / Thai women (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468897)

Hahaha! Chinese? Ok. Japanese? mm, usually OK. Korean? Sure. Thai? You're smokin' crack.

Re:Marketing Stratagy? / Thai women (2, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469103)

Parts of Thailand's economy is fairly reliant on Western (Primarily Australian and European) and Asian tourist dollars. The tourist industry is eager to get rid of the paedophile stigmata which mostly seems to come from North America these days, as I said earlier Thailand is a popular tourist destination for families, couples and singles alike in Australia mainly due to the fact that a two week holiday in Thailand is cheaper than most one week holidays in Australia.

Having recently been to Phuket I can say that the place family friendly, well most of it. The sex industry is based around the town of Patong (most of the family resorts are in Kata and Karon) more specifically Bangla Road. There are also several pre-existing laws to discourage paedophiles, for example the minimum legal age to work in bars is 20 (the legal drinking age is also 20 so under-age girls cant get into nightclubs to solicit). I wouldn't be surprised if their tourist industry had a hand in this, Thai's are not over-reactionary "think of the children" type people, they are a kind, easy going people who are very difficult to offend due to a majority Buddhist population, heck even the Thai Muslims are difficult to offend (losing your temper is considered a sign of a poor upbringing in Thailand so it is very rarely that a Thai will lose their temper) so US style "think of the children" scare politics very rarely work.

The regular tourist industry is Thailand's main import, although there is still a large sex industry which does attract a lot of single western (as well as Asian) men (when I was there the majority of western men were under 40). If you walk around during the day, even down bangla road you wont find many sex workers, just restaurants, shops and stalls only a few bars are open and these only cater to those who are looking for a drink.

From personal experience I can tell you that it is fairly difficult for a westerner (farang) to judge a Thai girls age and this tends to go in both directions, some Thai's who look 20 may only be 16 but a lot of Thai's who look about 20-22 will be 26-28.

Jesus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21469987)

And they love older Western men
Yeah, the hot, young Thai girls marry old, fat, bald western men because they "love" them. It's also why those hot, young Thai girls always hit the road as soon as they get their residency in the old, fat, bald western man's home country: it's because their love for the old, fat, bald western man they married is so strong, it frightens them and they need to live with that young, slim wealthy guy to distract such fears.

Fucking losers and your dial-a-bride mentality. If you want a maid you can fuck, at least hire a hooker from your own country. If you pay her enough she'll take your shit and pretend to like it. She'll only ditch you like a bad smell when the money stops.

Re:Marketing Stratagy? (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470169)

Not a marketing strategy. I'm sure it has to do with the recent case where a pedophile fled South Korea and was arrested while trying to hide out in Thailand.

By the way, saying Thailand's major import is pedophiles is really obnoxious. I'm sure there's no child molestation going on in your country, eh? No sex slavery, either. Don't be a racist.

Positively Victorian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468141)

Now children should not be seen and not heard.

Re:Positively Victorian (1)

kaiynne (181440) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468769)

Sounds like the Milford School to me...

No pictures of my kids? (1)

em.a18 (31142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468335)

Does this mean that I can't put pictures of my kids on a website hosted by an ISP? I understand the privacy implications of last names and addresses, but kids pictures by themselves seems like it is going too far.

- Malcolm

Outlawed the Olsen twins (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468847)

Seriously. They just made the olsen twins website, Disney, and any other website containing a picture of a child illegal.

Morons.

So does that mean (1)

Cafe Alpha (891670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468337)

they just outlawed facebook - or the thai equivalent to facebook?

I remember reading that something like 2/3 of Koreans have the equivalent to a facebook page, and I bet social networking sites are popular in thailand too.

Re:So does that mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468759)

On what basis do you draw conclusions about Thailand from Korea? It is just as valid to say "I remember reading that something like 2/3 of Britons have the equivalent to a facebook page, and I bet social networking sites are popular in Iraq too." The distances involved are about the same. All you are doing is lumping everyone outside your world into a "foreign" category.

Re:So does that mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468821)

Feel free to FOAD, thanks.

Re:So does that mean (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469119)

Thailand is not as rich a Korea, the majority of Thai's (especially the youth) would not have regular access to the Internet.

Re:So does that mean (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469473)

Thailand is richer (by a good ways) than Vietnam, and at least in the cities, pretty much any one who wants regular Internet access has it. Internet cafes are dirt cheap, and computer ownership is not unusual among the growing middle class, either. Computer shops are all over the place in Saigon. I expect that most urban teens in Thailand have regular Internet access if they want it.

What I dont understand is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468341)

Why laws like this need to cover an email address or a chat handle.
I can understand not wanting age, phone number, address or photo to be disclosed (because those can be used to identify someone) but how does collecting, using, storing or disclosing an email address or a chat handle violate someones privacy? (most forums I know of collect but do not display email addresses)

no surprises here (4, Insightful)

weighn (578357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468423)

So, once again legislators completely fail to grasp the simplest of concepts relating to this communications medium. It's easy to single out Thailand due to the bizarre [slashdot.org] laws [slashdot.org] that apply to the King/YouTube/Open Source [slashdot.org] . However, this seems to happen under all governments - regressive/conservative/progressive. My own country does it [slashdot.org] . Or, hopefully the correct phrase is did it [wsj.com] now that the election was won by a party that promises tax rebates for parents buying tech for their schoolkids.

Is it really a surprise, when you look at who the people are that draft these laws? Is it fair of us to expect them to be in touch? Perhaps what democratic governments need is a non-political, not-for-profit group that can propose some framework for national government tech policy? They could even propose different flavours for governments with either progressive or conservative agendas. At least then we may have some body of tech legislature that is based on informed analysis of what is being regulated. Easy to say, I guess...

Re:no surprises here (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468753)

What are you talking about? Of course this technology is possible, have you ever used Facebook or Myspace? I can't say whether the practice empirically lead to a decrease in crime/abuse, but the law is definitely technologically possible, and at first glance would seem to make it more difficult for strangers to get in contact with minors.

Your attitude shows why technological people have so little influence in politics - you're unconcerned with the realities of the situation, or the actual technology, and more concerned with getting on a high horse and making your unqualified opinions out to be fact. Stop being so self-righteous and start making sense.

Re:no surprises here (1)

weighn (578357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468839)

I can't say whether the practice empirically lead to a decrease in crime/abuse, but the law is definitely technologically possible, and at first glance would seem to make it more difficult for strangers to get in contact with minors.
To make a simple analogy, anyone can pick up a phone and dial numbers at random until a kid answers. Don't confuse "technologically possible" laws with necessary ones.

Your attitude shows why technological people have so little influence in politics - you're unconcerned with the realities of the situation, or the actual technology, and more concerned with getting on a high horse and making your unqualified opinions out to be fact.
I take it you mean "unqualified as politicians"? Otherwise there is a contradiction there.

Contrary to your point, tech people only urge a little less knee-jerk, fud-ite legislature and some informed debate.

Please make some examples out of the many, IMHO, dumb laws that are discussed here from time to time. Explain how they are actually based in the greater-reality rather than some sky-is-falling fantasy.

Re:no surprises here (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470473)

Your information on "ICT minister slamming open source" is REALLY old.

Here is the update [localfoss.org] which is also REALLY old.

[I want to] explain a bit that I did not intend and it was misunderstanding. I am proud and glad that such activities exist. And I will seriously, tangibly, and financially support through SIPA [Software Industry Promotion Agency (Public Organization)] as soon as possible to encourage the activities.

censorship tag (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468459)

Considering this protects underaged people in many ways, why not tag this "finallyprivacy" or something?

I find it amusing... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468481)

legislation like this is coming from a country known for it's underage sex industry.

Why don't you guys work on breaking up the "tourism" that goes on in your country (which exists due to local police corruption in many cases) before you start passing unenforceable edicts on cyberspace? Kthnxbai.

Because it affects the rich kids (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468563)

The poor are the ones in the sex industry, not the wealthy and middle class who are the relative few with net access. This is an effort to protect those middle and upper class kids. As the Roman Senate said in History of the World, Part I, "**** the poor!" Actually, that was how it was said in the censored for TV version. It really confused my friend until he saw the original, several years later.

Re:I find it amusing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21470455)

Kthnxbai.

Wow, that's obnoxious.

So..... (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468493)

You can have sex with their children, you just can't post their name?

Or Maybe times have changed, I don't keep up to date on the pedophile scene.

forced anonymous ... pedophiles ... 4chan ?! (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468607)

this was only the first display of anonymous' power, i suggest.

my prediction: in a few years moot & the anonymous army of /b/ take will have taken over several other countries. and then those who break rules 1 and 2 will be the first to the wa- OH SHIT.

Control (1)

Defectuous (1097475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468501)

As this is in the news, I'm pretty sure it's been filtered and cleaned up to make it look good. My hope is that it does just this and makes every effort to protect children and doesn't have some attached agenda in it. Otherwise this sounds like a solid law to help protect the children.

On another note, does anyone have access to the wording of the complete law, I am very interested in reading all it has to say.

George Washington (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468525)

How would a modern-day George Washington advertise his new surveying business [kenmore.org] following his father's early demise?

George Washington began surveying at about age 15. His father's probate inventory included a set of surveyor's instruments.

Re:George Washington (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468597)

How would a modern-day George Washington advertise his new surveying business [kenmore.org] following his father's early demise?
He would wait until age 18. Life expectancies are much longer now than then.

Re:George Washington (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468641)

He would wait until age 18. Life expectancies are much longer now than then.
The urge to procreate has not changed. The endless schooling that people are now subjected to in the U.S. leads to pre-marital sex, which leads to weaker marriages, abuse of women, neglect of children, and decay of society.

This is great. (2, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468813)

My little sister listed her age on Myspace as 17 when she was 14. Need I say more? After seeing that, I'm all for this legislation. I'd even like to see the children themselves held responsible: they don't seem to be held accountable for their own actions at all these days.

God I feel old saying that. I'm only 30, I swear!

you fail at basic logic, mods fail at modding. (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469261)

My little sister listed her age on Myspace as 17 when she was 14. Need I say more? After seeing that, I'm all for this legislation. I'd even like to see the children themselves held responsible: they don't seem to be held accountable for their own actions at all these days. God I feel old saying that. I'm only 30, I swear!
so let me recount: because an underage person may give false information to look somehow more "adult", "underage information" should be banned ? and people should be held accountable when they lie - big deal. tell that to bush, blair [1] and "comical ali" [1].

also, why is this modded "insightful" and not "funny" or "troll" ?

[1] http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+blair+lies+iraq+war&btnG=Search [google.com]
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comical_ali [wikipedia.org]

Re:you fail at basic logic, mods fail at modding. (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469441)

The reason is because I don't want anyone coming around trying to fuck my 14 year old sister. 17 is kinda-sorta soon-to-be legal. 14 is not.

you fail regardless. (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21469467)

first, here in germany, 14 would be legal - it's the age of consent.
second, you sister's sex life is none of your bizness, srsly.
third, you, kind sir, are probably a control freak.

Re:you fail regardless. (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470323)

First, Stop calling me sir. What is this, a Nigerian 409 scam?

Second, my sister's sex life is my responsibility as she is my SISTER. I care for her well being. Even (and especially) when she is unable to do it herself. You come down here and try to fuck her. I'll have your own dick wandering about in your own intestines, traveling through them the wrong way. I might shove it so far up there it'll bulge in your throat.

Third, if 14 is the age of consent in Germany, then, well, what part of the country in nice to visit this time of year? I'm heading over to Myspace.de right now.

The King is tech savvy (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468823)

For gods sake, he is a ham radio operator, HS1A. But I think other people actually control the country and make the laws. But he is revered by most all in Thailand as he put much effort into helping his people.

Internet censorship (2, Interesting)

FRiC (416091) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468857)

The Internet censorship in Thailand is back in full force too, and all this happened right after Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia criticized the Thai government for Internet censorship during his keynote speech at the ICT Expo in Thailand earlier this month.

Re:Internet censorship (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470399)

Rubbish it has been happening MUCH longer then that.

It all started when the new emergency military government came in and overthrew the corrupt prime minster Taksin. The new ICT minister that replaced the old one started blocking websites [slashdot.org] . Before that happened there were only 3000 websites blocked, now there are over 15,000.

That all happened in 2006 [wikipedia.org] .

Mail-order brides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21468925)

If this is used as a way to crack down on myspace, it seems pretty silly. If it's used to crack down on mail-order bride operations and online sex activities involving girls under 18, it makes a lot of sense. A brothel offering underage girls for sale--or video sessions with online clients--might fall under the category.

Just as my company takes off In Thailand (1)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 6 years ago | (#21468973)

My company is in the top 50 sites in Thailand, and we're popular with teens....

I guess that means extra work for us, sorry kids, but I can't get home for christmas

It's about one thing, Child Prostitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21470265)

This is an obvious and needed effort on the government's part to crack down on child prostituion and sex slavery. You can market your kids online with these new networking groups, which are breeding grounds for pedophiles even in this country. This is the first move in beginning to get things under control in the Asian child sex trade.

Makes sense (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470343)

A lot of people in Thailand get raped and even people in their 25s can be really naive about the realities of life. The first thing you have to understand about a country like Thailand is that they are a lot more stricter then a western country when it comes to their children.

They're very protective over their children compared to the west where they can do what they want. Most children in their 25+ still live with their parents and are home before 9 pm. You live with your parents until you're married. If your girlfriend visits she sleeps with your mother while you sleep with your father, just to make sure nothing happens.

A child's actions reflect on the parent. If a child behaves badly it is because they have bad parents. If someone in your family were to argue outside your house in Thailand the whole neighbourhood will be talking about the incident and judging you. If you were to make your parents cry it's the worse thing that you could do and you will go to Buddhist hell.

It's not wrong, it's just different. I'd compare it to the 40's or 50's in western countries I guess.

the article (1)

rpillala (583965) | more than 6 years ago | (#21470415)

The article is so short that I can't help but be confused by the OP subject line. Does this law restrict ISPs from selling teens' demographic information to advertisers, or does it restrict all websites from hosting (and displaying) any personal information about teens? If it's a restriction on ISPs, then don't we have some similar child protection laws in the US with the age being 13? I don't see the problem with a law that limits marketing to children, or marketing of children. If it's a restriction on the kids themselves posting their information, I think that's a bad idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...