Thai Police Seize Internet Chat Logs

[Bagwan]

He has also violated his bail on the charge of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Police have urged Pornwat to turn himself in to prove his innocence.

:D

Worthy of a Darwin Award.

[animatic]

Oh sure giving up freedom of speech to rid the world of the "bad guys" is always OK isnt it? Other people on here argue that the big brother analogy is a knee jerk reaction..... stop and think seriously about it. There are a few things you should consider first-

How do you define who the "good guys" are. Well in a practical context that is easy - the Legitimate Authorities - but no wait wasn't the the Thaksin government a legitimate authority? - how would you argue his right to have done the same thing and have maybe prevented the "coup"?

Serious criminals employ people to keep their identities hidden - there are 15 year olds in internet cafes who could tell you how easy it is to sit behind an anonymous proxy if you know how - in fact many would be using different interenet cafes for each session to make things even more untracable.

Remember too that in Thailand there are laws and protocols, some of which cannot be discussed in this forum, which many people would like to see changed - with these records in police hands who is to say they they wont take the opportunity to go on a cyber shopping expedition to find out who disagrees with certain things

Individual freedom is also at risk in countries where certain basic human rights are breaches of the law - when a civilised society accepts censorship and snooping as acceptable practice then they give legitimacy to China and other counties where it is used for political control. A good example is the recently proposed anti gay legislation in Uganda, no doubt records of who has accessed gay chat rooms will play its part in aiding he government to persecute these people.

It is one thing to seek records in respect of a particualr individual where there is sufficient evidence to suspect a crime, in the same way that phone taps should never be used randomly, and quite another to sieze bul records and sift through them to find if there is a crime.

In the face of things like child abuse, bombings, international terrorism and even cyber bullying - it is tempting to agree to give up freedoms for the greater good - but always remember that it is far more difficult to gain freedoms than it is to give them up.

As with any national security program, the intent may be noble but fail in the hands of those who are unscrupulous or have other agendas. What is the acceptable trade-off between freedom and security? Here's a lesson from the US:

After 9/11, the US lost many personal freedoms under the "Patriot Act", which increased "the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records, eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering, expands the authority to regulate financial transactions, and broadens the discretion of law enforcement in detaining and deporting immigrants ..." (Wikipedia) The Patriot Act was to sunset after four years, but was renewed indefinitely by Congress, making the loss of those freedoms permanent.

There should always be checks and balances to insure some level of privacy and freedom. For instance, the Patriot Act basically bypassed the whole review process (search warrants requiring probabable cause under the Fourth Amendment). So basically the US has fallen into the same trap that allowed abuses of power like J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon... The terrorists have surreptitiously achieved their goals by undermining the whole democractic underpinnings of America's political system...

Thailand must also reconcile how laws that allow the control /eradication of southern terrorists and anti-government groups may ultimately be used to maintain government power undemocratically (such as our neighbors to the west). Another example is how the law designed to protect the monachy have be abused for politically motivated purposes.

Certainly protecting the common good by pursuing threats to public security is worthwhile. However, care should be taken that these laws are not used to silence political opposition in a healthy democracy...

Your post sounds very high and lofty, pontificating high ideals and taking the moral high ground.

However, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. The U.K. and the U.S.A. were under a fortress mentality during the second World War, and MANY freedoms were curtailed to support the war effort. I think we have a parallel situation in the modern world (bigger than just Thailand's problems), facing a terrorist threat which is set on destroying western culture and its way of life--preferably to take us back to the middle ages of the Muslim domination in the Middle East. Those who think we can just blithely carry on with weak, toothless responses, underestimate this relatively new threat which has ramped up to a high crescendo in the last 10-15 years.

Must agree with Toptuan.

Freedoms are not always lost forever, and as times change so do threats.

if the system of defense doesn't move with the changing threats then

we also get the acts and not just the threats.

I was booked on the Paris/NYC flight where Richard Reed tried to ignite his exploding shoes...

I was also 1 block from the WTC when it was hit the 1st time, by Abdel Rahmens boys,

and also got my paper in Paris 15 minutes before the 1st 1995 "Canister Bomb" blew up my

morning news stand. So I have had several times that I wished to have increased surveillances

and slightly decreased freedoms as a viable and welcome exchange. Because I have

personally come too close, too often, not to see the benefit loss ratio clearly.

Not to mention my ex-wife being missed just barely by bombing and 2 members of

her family being injured by TWO other bombings. All 10 years earlier.

If you are not saying anything of interest to security apparatus,

then you don't get flagged in emails, if you don't make yourself a target, you don't become one.

But I KNOW I am too close too often to being a target by the enemy, so I prefer they be watched and stopped.

I am pretty sure some few posters on TVF would like me silenced, if not topped to do it.

Edited March 5, 2010 by animatic

[Brewsta]

and you'll be quite happy when they close down Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Twitter

Do those sites host videos from mad bombers, too?

Certainly do - public executions also (KSaudiArabia - sadly)......... AQ BLadan vidz...... make your own nuke from kitchen oddments,etc.

It's all out here for Good or Evil.

I suggest that you Change that password, not alpha-numeric or random enough, eh?

rgdz,

Brewsta

[Brewsta]

oh...and wireless IPod, Nano WebBots and other Trojans cant wait to enslave and exploit your 'connected' devices....Yum,Yum.....

Be careful out Here.

CMBrewsta

[geriatrickid]

and you'll be quite happy when they close down Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Twitter

Do those sites host videos from mad bombers, too?

Yes.

If such a video appeared on YouTube aimed at UK government and civilians, you can be pretty sure the UK police will be knocking on the doors of a fair few ISP's attempting to trace the source.

I disagree with censorship, but that isn't happening in this case. Nothing going on here you wouldn't expect to happen back home.

You tube regularly has some violently offensive material. The suicide bombing attacks often appear on various bulletin boards and websites around the world and people don't do much to take that crap down.

The laws are not as strict in Thailand when it comes to seizures. The government can do pretty much as it so chooses. And that's the concern of a lot of people. I can understand the need to go after someone threatening violence or disrupting financial markets, however, it will be the extra snooping that will occur along the way that concerns me. The investigation should be overseen by a judicial body as is the case in the developed world. I'd have more confidence if the people seizing servers had to justify their actions before the review committee or a judge.

[toptuan]

Oh sure giving up freedom of speech to rid the world of the "bad guys" is always OK isnt it? Other people on here argue that the big brother analogy is a knee jerk reaction..... stop and think seriously about it. There are a few things you should consider first-

How do you define who the "good guys" are. Well in a practical context that is easy - the Legitimate Authorities - but no wait wasn't the the Thaksin government a legitimate authority? - how would you argue his right to have done the same thing and have maybe prevented the "coup"?

Serious criminals employ people to keep their identities hidden - there are 15 year olds in internet cafes who could tell you how easy it is to sit behind an anonymous proxy if you know how - in fact many would be using different interenet cafes for each session to make things even more untracable.

Remember too that in Thailand there are laws and protocols, some of which cannot be discussed in this forum, which many people would like to see changed - with these records in police hands who is to say they they wont take the opportunity to go on a cyber shopping expedition to find out who disagrees with certain things

Individual freedom is also at risk in countries where certain basic human rights are breaches of the law - when a civilised society accepts censorship and snooping as acceptable practice then they give legitimacy to China and other counties where it is used for political control. A good example is the recently proposed anti gay legislation in Uganda, no doubt records of who has accessed gay chat rooms will play its part in aiding he government to persecute these people.

It is one thing to seek records in respect of a particualr individual where there is sufficient evidence to suspect a crime, in the same way that phone taps should never be used randomly, and quite another to sieze bul records and sift through them to find if there is a crime.

In the face of things like child abuse, bombings, international terrorism and even cyber bullying - it is tempting to agree to give up freedoms for the greater good - but always remember that it is far more difficult to gain freedoms than it is to give them up.

As with any national security program, the intent may be noble but fail in the hands of those who are unscrupulous or have other agendas. What is the acceptable trade-off between freedom and security? Here's a lesson from the US:

After 9/11, the US lost many personal freedoms under the "Patriot Act", which increased "the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records, eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering, expands the authority to regulate financial transactions, and broadens the discretion of law enforcement in detaining and deporting immigrants ..." (Wikipedia) The Patriot Act was to sunset after four years, but was renewed indefinitely by Congress, making the loss of those freedoms permanent.

There should always be checks and balances to insure some level of privacy and freedom. For instance, the Patriot Act basically bypassed the whole review process (search warrants requiring probabable cause under the Fourth Amendment). So basically the US has fallen into the same trap that allowed abuses of power like J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon... The terrorists have surreptitiously achieved their goals by undermining the whole democractic underpinnings of America's political system...

Thailand must also reconcile how laws that allow the control /eradication of southern terrorists and anti-government groups may ultimately be used to maintain government power undemocratically (such as our neighbors to the west). Another example is how the law designed to protect the monachy have be abused for politically motivated purposes.

Certainly protecting the common good by pursuing threats to public security is worthwhile. However, care should be taken that these laws are not used to silence political opposition in a healthy democracy...

Your post sounds very high and lofty, pontificating high ideals and taking the moral high ground.

However, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. The U.K. and the U.S.A. were under a fortress mentality during the second World War, and MANY freedoms were curtailed to support the war effort. I think we have a parallel situation in the modern world (bigger than just Thailand's problems), facing a terrorist threat which is set on destroying western culture and its way of life--preferably to take us back to the middle ages of the Muslim domination in the Middle East. Those who think we can just blithely carry on with weak, toothless responses, underestimate this relatively new threat which has ramped up to a high crescendo in the last 10-15 years.

Must agree with Toptuan.

Freedoms are not always lost forever, and as times change so do threats.

if the system of defense doesn't move with the changing threats then

we also get the acts and not just the threats.

I was booked on the Paris/NYC flight where Richard Reed tried to ignite his exploding shoes...

I was also 1 block from the WTC when it was hit the 1st time, by Abdel Rahmens boys,

and also got my paper in Paris 15 minutes before the 1st 1995 "Canister Bomb" blew up my

morning news stand. So I have had several times that I wished to have increased surveillances

and slightly decreased freedoms as a viable and welcome exchange. Because I have

personally come too close, too often, not to see the benefit loss ratio clearly.

Not to mention my ex-wife being missed just barely by bombing and 2 members of

her family being injured by TWO other bombings. All 10 years earlier.

If you are not saying anything of interest to security apparatus,

then you don't get flagged in emails, if you don't make yourself a target, you don't become one.

But I KNOW I am too close too often to being a target by the enemy, so I prefer they be watched and stopped.

I am pretty sure some few posters on TVF would like me silenced, if not topped to do it.

You just helped me gain some perspective on my own comments.

Similar to the previous poster's experience, I was at the World Trade Center just three days before the 9/11 attack. It hit me hard, emotionally, remembering how I had interfaced with God-knows how many people who perished that day. I was also in the Tokyo subways the day of the sarin poison gas attacks. Perhaps we who've had such a close brush with the murderous results of terrorism see more clearly the need for the protection of society to be more than just talk and theory--but strong and effective enough to really preserve life and property.

Edited March 5, 2010 by toptuan

[jackspratt]

It is is after all no surprise that Thailand has dropped to spots just behind Zimbabwe and Burma on the press freedom lists since the last putsch.

Thailand 130

(Malaysia) 131

(Singapore) 133

Zimbabwe 136

Burma 171

According the the Reporters Without Borders Index. Just google <press freedom index>, and look at the wikipedia entry.

mythBuster busted as a maker of myths

Thanks for that, Jack

You are most unkind, stephen.

Perhaps (as usual) he was just mythstaken.

[mca]

The closest I got was someone calling herself Atom Bomb on Hi5.

which, while she may be considered to have dangerous curves, doesn't seem to pose any immediate hazard.

Dunno about that. Looks like she could have someone's eye out if she's not careful.

[TonyH]

Yes great idea... sick of hearing noncence,boring trivial chit chat from "twits" it all take up serious bandwidth

and you'll be quite happy when they close down Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Twitter etc etc like they have in Iran and China will you?

[TonyH]

Looks to me like she is hiding a couple of bombs under her shirt.

and you'll be quite happy when they close down Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Twitter

Do those sites host videos from mad bombers, too?

Yes.

I'm having difficulty finding any bomb threats on those websites.

The closest I got was someone calling herself Atom Bomb on Hi5.

which, while she may be considered to have dangerous curves, doesn't seem to pose any immediate hazard.

Is there some special hidden section on those social network websites that I'm unaware of where they post videos of people threatening death and destruction?

I do know that that sort of thing is available elsewhere on the Net, but I have never seen any on the websites mentioned that even vaguely resembles what the Thai bomber threateningly said in his video.

[animatic]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin.

Have fun in the Police state....

How does quoting a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin manage to fit the political scenario of Thailand? A classical shallow statement which fails to quantify what is "essential liberty" and what is "a little temporary safety". Taking statements out of context does not make then right, apart from which, if Franklin lived in these times of rampant terrorism, I am sure he would have had the intellect not to use that statement in this context.

Spoken like a Brit

Sorry feat,

but as I understand this quote it is in context.

And those 2 quotes you pulled out really don't need more elucidation to make the point clear.

Some on the Tory side in those days actually thought Franklin a terrorist himself.

Franklin made this statement during even more disrupted and divisive times that Thailand has now.

[animatic]

Given the context I'm not sure how I feel about it - something tells me they would do the same thing in America, though it would probably not be a raid, but instead a court order that would be complied with.

What I don't get is two-fold:

a) why does Thai Visa not make it clear this was Thai on Thai and related to Thaksin (well, I know the answer, but thanks for the fear mongering TV! Always great to have my heart sink at least once a week from your emails!)

Why do the police need to 'raid' a state owned company? Can't they just walk in calmly through the front door and do whatever they want?

Who knows? may be they did just walk in and ask for the server but that wouldn't have made a good news would it?

"Police walk into state owned CAT telecom requesting access to there own server which was handed over with a smile"

Just don't sound the same some how.

The problem is, nobody know exactly how far Thaksin's tentacles reach. A polite request would give an engineer plenty of time to erase or doctor the information so as to be useless to an investigator. The seizure, while appearing dramatic, is also much more likely to be accurate and admissible in a court of law.

Just because these are state owned enterprises, does not mean there are not duplicitous engineers inside them.

Oh yes quite so.

Remember his FIRST business was Shin Computer Corp.

He may personally be a technical ludite, but for his kind of pocket money,

he has personally bought 2-3 high end, and now totally indoctrinated hackers,

and they jump through his hoops on command.

Seizing the hardware quick fast was quite prudent.

[animatic]

Must agree with Toptuan.

Freedoms are not always lost forever, and as times change so do threats.

if the system of defense doesn't move with the changing threats then

we also get the acts and not just the threats.

I was booked on the Paris/NYC flight where Richard Reed tried to ignite his exploding shoes...

I was also 1 block from the WTC when it was hit the 1st time, by Abdel Rahmens boys,

and also got my paper in Paris 15 minutes before the 1st 1995 "Canister Bomb" blew up my

morning news stand. So I have had several times that I wished to have increased surveillances

and slightly decreased freedoms as a viable and welcome exchange. Because I have

personally come too close, too often, not to see the benefit loss ratio clearly.

Not to mention my ex-wife being missed just barely by bombing and 2 members of

her family being injured by TWO other bombings. All 10 years earlier.

If you are not saying anything of interest to security apparatus,

then you don't get flagged in emails, if you don't make yourself a target, you don't become one.

But I KNOW I am too close too often to being a target by the enemy, so I prefer they be watched and stopped.

I am pretty sure some few posters on TVF would like me silenced, if not topped to do it.

You just helped me gain some perspective on my own comments.

Similar to the previous poster's experience, I was at the World Trade Center just three days before the 9/11 attack. It hit me hard, emotionally, remembering how I had interfaced with God-knows how many people who perished that day. I was also in the Tokyo subways the day of the sarin poison gas attacks. Perhaps we who've had such a close brush with the murderous results of terrorism see more clearly the need for the protection of society to be more than just talk and theory--but strong and effective enough to really preserve life and property.

I hear you Brother T.

I felt the WTC I explosion in my dentists chair.

And watched the public mentality pall come over the city during the following few days. Not pretty.

I was up the WTC 3 months before hand myself, but I also lived 12 blocks north and watched people

running through falling debre past my friends apartment building farther south.

So i REALLY had a sense of time and place turning on end at that time too.

Another friend was up there a day or so before you too.

It didn't take me long to appreciate the soldiers with automatic weapons at French train stations

the summer of 1995, opening large packages and checking fo0r bombs. Similar to Thailands underground

bag look sees, but MUCH more heavily armed. That was because a week or so after I missed getting blown up

a train was decimated and several killed and that wasn't the only time that year. No one ever begrudged

the French police their investigative techniques to stop this carnage.

[animatic]

I think the FBI hacker request is a red herring. Possibly a fishing trip for insider info at most.

I am sure the NSA could crack Skype in-house with little trouble if it wanted to.

To crack security doesn't just take a good programing job, but also serious number crunching,

NSA has that more than most anyone.

[ballpoint]

You tube regularly has some violently offensive material. The suicide bombing attacks often appear on various bulletin boards and websites around the world and people don't do much to take that crap down.

The laws are not as strict in Thailand when it comes to seizures. The government can do pretty much as it so chooses. And that's the concern of a lot of people. I can understand the need to go after someone threatening violence or disrupting financial markets, however, it will be the extra snooping that will occur along the way that concerns me. The investigation should be overseen by a judicial body as is the case in the developed world. I'd have more confidence if the people seizing servers had to justify their actions before the review committee or a judge.

There is some difference between posting footage of a bombing that has taken place and posting footage of someone threatening to carry one out. I can guarantee that, should a video be posted showing someone claiming to be about to carry out an attack in London, Paris, New York, Sydney, or wherever, that country's authorities would be taking every possible step to identify and arrest the poster, whether real or "joke", and wouldn't be pussy footing about with civil liberties while doing so.

[hammered]

You tube regularly has some violently offensive material. The suicide bombing attacks often appear on various bulletin boards and websites around the world and people don't do much to take that crap down.

The laws are not as strict in Thailand when it comes to seizures. The government can do pretty much as it so chooses. And that's the concern of a lot of people. I can understand the need to go after someone threatening violence or disrupting financial markets, however, it will be the extra snooping that will occur along the way that concerns me. The investigation should be overseen by a judicial body as is the case in the developed world. I'd have more confidence if the people seizing servers had to justify their actions before the review committee or a judge.

There is some difference between posting footage of a bombing that has taken place and posting footage of someone threatening to carry one out. I can guarantee that, should a video be posted showing someone claiming to be about to carry out an attack in London, Paris, New York, Sydney, or wherever, that country's authorities would be taking every possible step to identify and arrest the poster, whether real or "joke", and wouldn't be pussy footing about with civil liberties while doing so.

That is the reality of it and with a fair chance of terrorism charges. What I dont understand about this one is as the reds are pro-democracy and peaceful why dont they just hand this dude over at least denunce him. His actions are neither peaceful nor democratic so he must be an extreme emabarrassment to them

[Grumbles]

If such a video appeared on YouTube aimed at UK government and civilians, you can be pretty sure the UK police will be knocking on the doors of a fair few ISP's attempting to trace the source.

I disagree with censorship, but that isn't happening in this case. Nothing going on here you wouldn't expect to happen back home.wwwwww

Well said! I dislike censorship / big brother tactics also, but when bombs become involved then screw the culprits. Go get 'em.

[Spee]

My understanding is that the servers and logs have been taken as evidence in the investigation of an alleged crime - incitement to make and use bombs.

Given the numerous ways to make these kinds of online statements anonymously, there are relatively few possibilities of what actually took place.

- The people who did it are unsophisticated idiots.

- The people who did it specifically wanted someone to know who did it.

- Or it was a deliberate plant to discredit someone.

This isn't a case of "big brother." Big brother is having your phone illegally tapped or your home illegally invaded. Big brother is having men in black overcoats follow you around. This is political gamesmanship, nothing more.

[ThaksinKharma]

mythBuster busted as a maker of myths

Thanks for that, Jack

You are most unkind, stephen.

Perhaps (as usual) he was just mythstaken.

As you noted, I also picked up recently that this particular poster writes a whole lot of myths (some would call them deceptions or worse).

[ThaksinKharma]

There is some difference between posting footage of a bombing that has taken place and posting footage of someone threatening to carry one out. I can guarantee that, should a video be posted showing someone claiming to be about to carry out an attack in London, Paris, New York, Sydney, or wherever, that country's authorities would be taking every possible step to identify and arrest the poster, whether real or "joke", and wouldn't be pussy footing about with civil liberties while doing so.

Very well said, ballpoint.

That's how I see the actions in this case here.

That is the reality of it and with a fair chance of terrorism charges. What I dont understand about this one is as the reds are pro-democracy and peaceful why dont they just hand this dude over at least denounce him. His actions are neither peaceful nor democratic so he must be an extreme emabarrassment to them

The list of Red Shirts that need to be denounced in order to achieve even a tiny shred of legitimacy is lengthy... and ever-growing.

Just a beginning partial includes:

K. Thong

Issan Rambo

Giles

Love Chiang Mai Group

Jakrapob

Udon Thani Lovers

and of course, the looniest of the bunch, Seh Daeng

Edited March 6, 2010 by ThaksinKharma

[NamSod]

Thoughtless, ignorant (knee)-jerk response.

It does seem like rather a longshot to pickup someone's own home IP address when I can take this little laptop in its bag on my shoulder and walk up to Tesco Lotus and sit there on their free wifi doing fairly much anything anonymously.

If someone is foolish enough to start inciting a civil war from their home ADSL, it's probably in their best interests that they get arrested and thrown in jail where they won't have ADSL to harm themselves anymore.

Not to mention the use of SSH (secure shell) and a Tunnel connection as your proxy and/or to use OpenDNS for name resolution. Nothing but an encrypted data stream for all web browsing. All web pages display just fine and nothing logged.