Davedub

I find it interesting that these regulations came in just around the time the law was changed regarding cannabis. It occured to the cynic in me that the loss of side revenue from busting people for cannabis related offences would be offset by the increase in side revenue from traffic related offences. But then I thought surely not; this would require the coordination of systematic, endemic corruption from the bottom to the top - unthinkable. It must just be a coincidence these traffic laws were so hastily pushed through at that time and as a result were found to be unlawful at a later date.

Read: Police take measures to protect the Thai tobacco monoploy, reducing the harm inflicted on their profits. Protecting and serving the public? Reducing people's access to a nicotine delivery system that has been proven time and again, without doubt to be far less harmful than smoking is neither protecting or serving anyone except those reaping vast profits from the legal sale of traditional cancer sticks. This is a national disgrace. From the policy makers to the boots on the ground, they should be ashamed of themselves - total loss of face.

This guy was imprisoned in a holding cell, awaiting justice. I believe the ethos of the law is 'innocent until proven guilty' Also, human rights are important and most likely being broken all the time in Thai prisons. That is not acceptable, regardless of someone's crime. Two wrongs do not make a right. 'Punishment' does not lower rates of re-offending. Rehabilitation does. Rehabilitation has been proven beyond doubt (by the Scandanavians for example) to be far more beneficial for society as a whole (as well as the offender, their family etc) Draconian measures, hang-em-high, hit them hard attitudes come over as knee jerk reactions - if the evidence and history on the subject is studied it becomes abundantly clear such attitudes are not conducive to the formation a safer society. Let's hope you never get falsly accused of a crime here eh? All it takes is one spurned ex-girlfriend...

I wonder why preventing such 'offences' is such a big priority for the powers that be? From my point of view, there are far more pressing matters for the Police to spend everyone's tax dollars on if they are to actually perform the role of serving and protecting people. I'm guessing somebody far up the food chain who is so far removed from reality that they actualy think they are protecting the image and morals of the Kingdom. After the higher ups had the audacity to pronounce Pataya free of prostitution after a staged walk down the street a couple of years ago, I doubt they have any idea of how ridiculous this kind rhetoric sounds.

Like last year. And the year before. And the year before that. Etc. But it's ok, repeating the same action, over and over, always yeilds different results. I'm sure it will work this time.

Is it just me that sees screwed up priorities here - the fact that the women were unaware and that they were posted online SHOULD be (by far and away) the most important element in this story. All this waffle about the morals and reputation of the Kingdom is quite frankly laughable, a complete joke. The fact this woman was filmed and it was posted online without her knowledge or permission should have been highlighted in the headline. As per usual, the perceived 'loss of face' is prioritised over the actual issue under discussion. From my Western mindset, it is a challenge to not judge this obsession with saving face as an immature reaction that distracts from what is really important.

Funny how they're short on resources when it comes to real crime, yet seem to have bottomless pockets for fighting the 'war on drugs' and turning otherwise peaceful protests violent using techniques like kettling. I'd argue they are not short on resources, they are simply missmanaging the ones they have. Their bosses are more interested in cowtoeing to politicians self-serving agendas than protecting the public from criminals.

So many numbers and stats - with zero context! These numbers would hold far more meaning if they were compared against accident rates outside the festive period

This legal concept really ought be revisited in this context. As I have pointed out, it's impossible for many people to spend literally days reading through every T&C that applies to them. Moreover, not having a digital presence is increasingly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury. So I think it's fair to say that people are increasingly pressured to click the 'I agree' checkbox when, in fact: a) They may not agree with the entirety of the T&Cs and b) They simply do not have the time to read through pages and pages of legalise and, given that legalise is actualy quite hard to understand and can be quite misleading if interpreted as regular English, they may not understand it anyway. Caveat emptor harks from a far, far simpler time in history. It is an outmoded concept in the digital age on account of impractability and potential corporate abuse.

Yep, good point. Whilst reading this thread it occured to me to try pasting T&Cs into an LLM and ask for analysis with a focus on anything that is not standard / boilerplate. That said, these LLMs do have a limit as to how much text they will accept as a prompt - and T&Cs are extraordinaly long, so it may not be possible.

I'm not sure you got the point - the point was that there are not enough hours in the day to read all the T&Cs we're subjected to if we want to function like everyone else in modern society. Consumer indolence is not always the cause, the sheer volume and opaqueness of T&Cs present consumers with real, insurmountable issues, especially for people in full time employment or raising kids. The abuse of this situation by companies sneaking unfair practices into their T&Cs is the issue here.

I'd say it's more a case of there are not enough hours in the day to read all the T&Cs we're all subjected to. I once saw a youtube documentary where this guy did an experiment. He tried to do his normal working week, but would not use any software or services until he'd read the T&C. By Wednesday, he was completely swamped and had more reading than he'd be able to do in a month. In short, it is pretty much impossible for anyone to read all of the T&Cs they agree to - and that's assuming they're able to read and understand what can often be quite opaque legalese. We are essentially forced to blindly digitally sign these T&Cs if we are to function in society like everyone else. These companies of course know this and some (like Lazada on this occasion) take advantage of the situation by sneaking in unfair terms like our money mysteriously 'expiring' if stored in a Lazada wallet, then shifting responsibility onto us for not having the time to read the T&C. That's on them, not us.

A good few years ago ordered a laser printer from Lazada for 15k. The order got cancelled after it wasn't shipped in time. The refund went to my Lazada wallet, where I left it thinking it was safe. A number of months later I went to use it and found my money had 'expired', apparently as per Lazada's terms and conditions. This I consider theft, regardless of it being technically legal because it was set forth in the terms and conditons. I have avoided using Lazada ever since.

There is a Thai Cyber Crime Investigation Division (https://ccid4.ccib.go.th/) Why did the police not refer the case to them? Are they unaware of the cyber crime division? Or was it more a case of apathy? Whatever the reason, this response by the police is an absolute disgrace. I sincerely hope there is significant public outrage and backlash against them.

If I had a penny for every time I've heard a Thai authority figure express those sentiments over the past 16 years... I wonder if anybody actually takes these sorts of announcements seriously?