Thai PM deflects concern over mass surveillance bill

[GinBoy2]

Why he had a Press conference, if he didn´t /couldn´t anwer the reporters?

Oh dear, you really don't understand Junta Speak.

Press Conference = I speak, you dutifully recite my words, no questions asked.

[Thai at Heart]

Appears djjamie, costas and rubl have all slept in today...

This is what happens when you take the position that a coup is necessary for the good of democracy. It tends to put you in absurd positions.

[chotthee]

Why he had a Press conference, if he didn´t /couldn´t anwer the reporters?

Oh dear, you really don't understand Junta Speak.

Press Conference = I speak, you dutifully recite my words, no questions asked.

But this is Thailand, land of the Free.

No Burma or North Korea.

[rubl]

Did you miss me

Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, one of the original founders of The United States of America.

But, I expected you would be along to stick up for the status quo.

A mis-interpretation.

I have no good answer how to balance security and freedom and looking around me neither does the 'World'. Does that mean I 'stick up' with the status-quo? Can or should I alter something in here ? Does my attitude as professed in the post I wrote before make me much different from other posters here?

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?

If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

Othello. Act III Scene I

William Shakespiere

Oh I really must disagree - it's Merchant of Venice Act 3 Scene 1. Shylock says it to Salarino.

After a thorough investigation in which I tried not to be influenced by my natural bias but be as impartial and objective as possible I come to the following conclusion:

1, The official title of the play seems to be "The Merchant of Venice"

2. The writer is allegedly William Shakespeare

3. The scene is with Salerino and Salanio with Shylock just having entered

4. Shylock replies to Salerino

5. The location in the play is in Act 3, Scene I

Furthermore I will inform the PM of my conclusions, although he may already have gotten it reported to him as I write.

PS corrected for errors I never make and no one saw (by order)

PPS anyone with a proper copy of the play, mine seems to have suffered a bit

Edited January 22, 2015 by rubl

[chickenslegs]

Its all getting a bit scary now

Please do not fret, my friend. Costas, rubl & djjamie will be along shortly to explain why these measures are to be applauded and how the west is far worse.

Did you miss me

Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.

But the only example given by the General for the justification for this piece of legislation did not relate to freedom or security, it was this...

He added that if these bills were put into effect, they would provide the authorities better means to stem wrongdoings, such as those related to lese majeste violations.

[KhnomKhnom]

Relax, nothing new here, keep moving................ NSA is also listening.

[rubl]

Please do not fret, my friend. Costas, rubl & djjamie will be along shortly to explain why these measures are to be applauded and how the west is far worse.

Did you miss me

Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.

But the only example given by the General for the justification for this piece of legislation did not relate to freedom or security, it was this...

He added that if these bills were put into effect, they would provide the authorities better means to stem wrongdoings, such as those related to lese majeste violations.

It would help if you provide a link for your quote as the article from KhaoSod doesn't have this quote. The KhaoSod only has

"Thailand already has two draconian pieces of legislation used by authorities to restrict freedom of expression on the internet: the lese majeste law, which criminalizes any criticism of the monarchy, and the Computer Crime Act."

[chickenslegs]

^The quote is from Post #20 of this topic (The Nation).

Edited January 22, 2015 by chickenslegs

[rubl]

In Democratic countries things are done differently of course

"David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html

PS before some start to complain I'm negative on all UK or even USA, please be aware that it's much more easy to find related info on those countries than on other countries apart from the fact that I can't quote and post non-English text.

[NeverSure]

Relax, nothing new here, keep moving................ NSA is also listening.

Another false rumor that won't go away. Do you really think US citizens with their constitutional guarantees against that sort of thing would put up with it if true?

"The appearance of a 'Domestic Surveillance Directorate' of the NSA was soon exposed as a hoax in 2013.

NSA's domestic surveillance activities are limited by the requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for example held in October 2011, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, that the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers."

However, these protections do not apply to non-U.S. persons located outside of U.S. borders, so the NSA's foreign surveillance efforts are subject to far fewer limitations under U.S. law"

LINK

What is being mentioned in Thailand is beyond the scope of anything allowed in a free country including the already implemented restrictions on speech, web sites, etc.

Edited January 22, 2015 by NeverSure

[Tonawatchee]

"why the hell am I the Prime Minister? Why am I the Prime Minister?"

Because you stole it, you fool..................

This man is very dangerous, and people who can't see this, are either really naive or are partisans.... Time for the cheerleaders to wake up to themselves,and realise they are backing the wrong horse.

The PM needs to remember to take his Thainess pill and chill.

[Traveler19491]

In a free society, as the dear PM is wont to have us believe we live in, the primary responsibility of the press is to ask difficult questions that will expose weaknesses or dangers in either proposed or existing legislation. Whenever a political "leader" reacts as Dear Leader did in this instance, it leads one to wonder why; what is so wrong about asking about the "sweeping nature" of the legislation? Seems as if this reporter touched a nerve. As to the PM's response, stating that the Thai people needed to learn about "rules" instead of focusing on the restriction of their rights...perhaps they're getting tired of having their rights restricted? Seems the PM is way too concerned about introducing rules, and not so concerned about restricting rights. And, as has been noted by Caveat Emptor, the a particular word that is restricted on this forum, but it seems that it's only those types of people who shout, "I don't have to answer why! I will pass it!" Actually, Dear Leader, in a free and transparent society, you actually DO have to answer "why". And why, you ask, should you have to answer, "Why"? Because you are responsible for the welfare of your people, and they need to know that they can trust you. But when you start refusing to disclose the "why's", or any other fact/reason/purpose/etc., they just might start thinking that, no, you can't be trusted. Food for thought, Dear Leader.

[heybruce]

In Democratic countries things are done differently of course

"David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html

PS before some start to complain I'm negative on all UK or even USA, please be aware that it's much more easy to find related info on those countries than on other countries apart from the fact that I can't quote and post non-English text.

I don't see how your comparison is valid or relevant. The OP is about:

"Thai junta leader and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has asserted his authority to pass a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

There's no mention of encryption, this is a bill to allow warrant-less monitoring of any communication.

PM Cameron is seeking to ban encryption so communications can be monitored by the government with a warrant. He also qualified his plan by conditioning it upon winning the next election. Presumably he plans on working through Parliament even though he didn't explicitly mentioned--in the UK that is probably assumed.

General Prayuth didn't qualify in any manner:

"I don't have to answer why! I will pass it. You have a problem with that? Otherwise, why the hell am I the Prime Minister? Why am I the Prime Minister?"

[EyesWideOpen]

The wheels are really coming off the bus fast right now.

I am outta here, will see what happens next from afar.

Edited January 23, 2015 by EyesWideOpen

[rubl]

In Democratic countries things are done differently of course

"David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html

PS before some start to complain I'm negative on all UK or even USA, please be aware that it's much more easy to find related info on those countries than on other countries apart from the fact that I can't quote and post non-English text.

I don't see how your comparison is valid or relevant. The OP is about:

"Thai junta leader and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has asserted his authority to pass a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

There's no mention of encryption, this is a bill to allow warrant-less monitoring of any communication.

PM Cameron is seeking to ban encryption so communications can be monitored by the government with a warrant. He also qualified his plan by conditioning it upon winning the next election. Presumably he plans on working through Parliament even though he didn't explicitly mentioned--in the UK that is probably assumed.

General Prayuth didn't qualify in any manner:

"I don't have to answer why! I will pass it. You have a problem with that? Otherwise, why the hell am I the Prime Minister? Why am I the Prime Minister?"

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Did you notice the starting line? "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course"

Did you read the article I quoted from?

"He said: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary."

Or the one linked by it

"Mr Cameron told ITV News: “I think we cannot allow modern forms of communication to be exempt from the ability, in extremis, with a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, to be exempt from being listened to."

Anyway you might have missed the post I wrote earlier in this topic thread, #75:

"Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well."

Edited January 23, 2015 by rubl

[Cpkt8]

It all started because of Osama bin laden and his terrorism plots! Now all the countries have the excuse to pass such bill (for the sake of safeguarding peace).

[heybruce]

In Democratic countries things are done differently of course

"David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html

PS before some start to complain I'm negative on all UK or even USA, please be aware that it's much more easy to find related info on those countries than on other countries apart from the fact that I can't quote and post non-English text.

I don't see how your comparison is valid or relevant. The OP is about:

"Thai junta leader and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has asserted his authority to pass a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

There's no mention of encryption, this is a bill to allow warrant-less monitoring of any communication.

PM Cameron is seeking to ban encryption so communications can be monitored by the government with a warrant. He also qualified his plan by conditioning it upon winning the next election. Presumably he plans on working through Parliament even though he didn't explicitly mentioned--in the UK that is probably assumed.

General Prayuth didn't qualify in any manner:

"I don't have to answer why! I will pass it. You have a problem with that? Otherwise, why the hell am I the Prime Minister? Why am I the Prime Minister?"

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Did you notice the starting line? "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course"

Did you read the article I quoted from?

"He said: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary."

Or the one linked by it

"Mr Cameron told ITV News: “I think we cannot allow modern forms of communication to be exempt from the ability, in extremis, with a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, to be exempt from being listened to."

Anyway you might have missed the post I wrote earlier in this topic thread, #75:

"Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well."

I see, in your view by prefacing your post with "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course" you made your off-topic post acceptable. To others, especially those familiar with your ceaseless efforts to defend the junta, it appears you are attempting to derail discussion of a topic that shows how undemocratic and authoritarian the junta really is.

[rubl]

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Did you notice the starting line? "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course"

Did you read the article I quoted from?

"He said: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary."

Or the one linked by it

"Mr Cameron told ITV News: “I think we cannot allow modern forms of communication to be exempt from the ability, in extremis, with a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, to be exempt from being listened to."

Anyway you might have missed the post I wrote earlier in this topic thread, #75:

"Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well."

I see, in your view by prefacing your post with "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course" you made your off-topic post acceptable. To others, especially those familiar with your ceaseless efforts to defend the junta, it appears you are attempting to derail discussion of a topic that shows how undemocratic and authoritarian the junta really is.

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

[heybruce]

Do you ever read posts before you reply?

Did you notice the starting line? "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course"

Did you read the article I quoted from?

"He said: “In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He made the connection between encrypted communications tools and letters and phone conversations, both of which can be read by security services in extreme situations and with a warrant from the home secretary."

Or the one linked by it

"Mr Cameron told ITV News: “I think we cannot allow modern forms of communication to be exempt from the ability, in extremis, with a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, to be exempt from being listened to."

Anyway you might have missed the post I wrote earlier in this topic thread, #75:

"Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well."

I see, in your view by prefacing your post with "In Democratic countries things are done differently of course" you made your off-topic post acceptable. To others, especially those familiar with your ceaseless efforts to defend the junta, it appears you are attempting to derail discussion of a topic that shows how undemocratic and authoritarian the junta really is.

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Edited January 24, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

[Dah fahrang]

It would appear that after a rather promising start he is starting to lose the plot.

....or, perhaps, the plot thickens?

[heybruce]

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

You accuse me of not reading and then obsess about warrants. Funny. Read the first sentence of the OP again, noting the part about:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

It doesn't matter if you think a warrant should be requested, your beloved General/PM doesn't.

[binjalin]

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

17,500 posts? you are one sad fella... go get a life? jeeze you are so self-obsessed

[rubl]

Off topic? Defend the junta?

Seems more like you don't like my answers.

Somehow my remarks on 'warrants' seems the only real on topic part in all 100++ posts here. Plus the example of how the current British PM seems things show how other countries may handle the 'warrant' part.

So any idea what the Thai equivalent of the British "Home Secretary" is ?

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

You accuse me of not reading and then obsess about warrants. Funny. Read the first sentence of the OP again, noting the part about:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

It doesn't matter if you think a warrant should be requested, your beloved General/PM doesn't.

So, you are picking on me because I wrote my personal opinion

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

Anything constructive to add?

BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you

[rubl]

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

17,500 posts? you are one sad fella... go get a life? jeeze you are so self-obsessed

Are number of posts a reflection of being sad, or happy? Does comparing 17.500 posts since December 2002 with 2800 since July 2011 have any meaning?

BTW are you suggesting I wrote 17.500 posts about myself?

Anyway, I'm wondering how to interpret the increase in attacks on me rather than my posts.

[rockingrobin]

The problem about mass surveillance is not counter terrorism , in fact in this aspect in can be counterproductive , but its unintentional uses.

It is probably proposed with good intentions , but will it be used by nefarious groups and individuals to gain an advantage.

Will a politician spy on his opponent, a business use it for espionage , of course it may be claimed that a subsequent court may claim there actions unlawful but at this point the damage will have already been done

[heybruce]

You think comparing a military junta leader's intention to allow government monitoring of any communication without a warrant to the UK PM's desire to restrict encryption to enable monitoring with a warrant is on-topic? Only in the broad sense of contrasting a d*******ship to a democracy, but that is a general comparison that applies to almost anything that comes from the office of the General/PM.

How is it on-topic to look for a junta equivalent to a Home Secretary? Are you trying to distract attention from this authoritarian, undemocratic bill?

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

You accuse me of not reading and then obsess about warrants. Funny. Read the first sentence of the OP again, noting the part about:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

It doesn't matter if you think a warrant should be requested, your beloved General/PM doesn't.

So, you are picking on me because I wrote my personal opinion

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

Anything constructive to add?

BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you

"Anything constructive to add?"

Only that you are once again straying from the topic, perhaps because it puts the junta you have consistently defended in its true light. Once again:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

And once again, your opinion on warrants has nothing to do with the OP, clearly the general/PM doesn't think they are necessary.

I am also not aware of any justification of this warrant-less monitoring based on terrorism, but I do recall news articles and quotes that indicate an obsession with catching LM offenses, and some very broad definitions of LM offenses. People have good reasons to believe that this bill isn't designed to prevent terrorist attacks, but to prosecute those who post or publish thoughts that don't conform to the general/PM's ideas about "peace and reconciliation".

Anything on-topic to add?

Edited January 24, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

Oh boy, had a bad night last night?

The only difference between the bill proposed by the NLA and the bill PM Cameron wants to get enacted seems the handling of the warrant. The Brits would have the warrant issued by the "Home Secretary", so I wonder what the Thai equivalent would be because I also think a warrant should be requested even if afterwards. The afterwards would need much more paperwork to explain of course. Now normally I would say a warrant should be requested from a court or dedicated committee in the judicial system. That's why I wonder what the Thai equivalent of "Home Secretary" is.

You accuse me of not reading and then obsess about warrants. Funny. Read the first sentence of the OP again, noting the part about:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

It doesn't matter if you think a warrant should be requested, your beloved General/PM doesn't.

So, you are picking on me because I wrote my personal opinion

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

Anything constructive to add?

BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you

"Anything constructive to add?"

Only that you are once again straying from the topic, perhaps because it puts the junta you have consistently defended in its true light. Once again:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

And once again, your opinion on warrants has nothing to do with the OP, clearly the general/PM doesn't think they are necessary.

I am also not aware of any justification of this warrant-less monitoring based on terrorism, but I do recall news articles and quotes that indicate an obsession with catching LM offenses, and some very broad definitions of LM offenses. People have good reasons to believe that this bill isn't designed to prevent terrorist attacks, but to prosecute those who post or publish thoughts that don't conform to the general/PM's ideas about "peace and reconciliation".

Anything on-topic to add?

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

[heybruce]

You accuse me of not reading and then obsess about warrants. Funny. Read the first sentence of the OP again, noting the part about:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

It doesn't matter if you think a warrant should be requested, your beloved General/PM doesn't.

So, you are picking on me because I wrote my personal opinion

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

Anything constructive to add?

BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you

"Anything constructive to add?"

Only that you are once again straying from the topic, perhaps because it puts the junta you have consistently defended in its true light. Once again:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

And once again, your opinion on warrants has nothing to do with the OP, clearly the general/PM doesn't think they are necessary.

I am also not aware of any justification of this warrant-less monitoring based on terrorism, but I do recall news articles and quotes that indicate an obsession with catching LM offenses, and some very broad definitions of LM offenses. People have good reasons to believe that this bill isn't designed to prevent terrorist attacks, but to prosecute those who post or publish thoughts that don't conform to the general/PM's ideas about "peace and reconciliation".

Anything on-topic to add?

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

How do you think the general/PM would respond if you told him that snooping should not be allowed without a proper warning?

[rubl]

So, you are picking on me because I wrote my personal opinion

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

Anything constructive to add?

BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you

"Anything constructive to add?"

Only that you are once again straying from the topic, perhaps because it puts the junta you have consistently defended in its true light. Once again:

"...a mass surveillance bill that would allow officials to inspect any form of communication without a requesting a court warrant."

And once again, your opinion on warrants has nothing to do with the OP, clearly the general/PM doesn't think they are necessary.

I am also not aware of any justification of this warrant-less monitoring based on terrorism, but I do recall news articles and quotes that indicate an obsession with catching LM offenses, and some very broad definitions of LM offenses. People have good reasons to believe that this bill isn't designed to prevent terrorist attacks, but to prosecute those who post or publish thoughts that don't conform to the general/PM's ideas about "peace and reconciliation".

Anything on-topic to add?

""Actually I'm disappointed that such snooping will be allowed without a proper warrant. On the other hand sometimes time is of utmost importance. With proper justification I would allow warrants to be asked after the snooping event and insist warrants are ALWAYS asked whether before or after.

Snooping is a hot issue for governments. The terrible attack in Paris a week ago puts pressure on governments to prevent such attacks. I'm afraid that at times freedom and security do not mix well.""

How do you think the general/PM would respond if you told him that snooping should not be allowed without a proper warning?

As you can still read in the quoted reply above

"BTW the Thai version of "Home Secretary" would be "Minister of Interior" jayboy told me. I would still recommend some court or special committee in the judicial system. Recommend to both Thailand and the UK. Not that I think they will be better at listening to suggestions than you"