Thailand's draconian cyberlaws tipping towards totalitarian

[jcsmith]

No surprise here. We know what this government is, we just can't speak the words without facing attitude adjustment.

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Looks like Thailand wants to be more totalitarian,than even 

N.Korea,China,and Russia, Thailand wants to be No 1.

regards worgeordie

Maybe a totalitarian hub...I'm sure the TAT or BOI could build a marketing campaign around it.

[jamesbrock]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

These laws, as written, may well criminalize satire

 

uh oh, I may as well log off now... 

[shirtless]

Its so funny to see how desperate uncle Prayut is to keep the good citizens from having a voice or an opinion on his inept governance , The mandate of the Military to maintain peace and order has sadly fallen well short of the mark. They should hold elections , and go back to playing GI joe .

[tbthailand]

6 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

It's a little like:

When US wanted a button that could kill internet.

NSA spying on everyone on internet.

NSA and CIA employing hackers to spy on other countries and then complain that other countries uses hacker to spy on US.

But hey no big fuzz about that because that's the US and not any other country.

ah, another American basher without a clue... 

 

You might have noticed that in Thailand, the Military are the police. You might have noticed in the Lead to the OP the point that there is no judicial oversight in Thailand for wiretapping any longer (there is is the US and other countries, ... oops), and you might have also noticed that the lackey military junta NLA has been changing the already draconian laws and people go to jail for years just for having information on a computer that the junta doesn't like... 

 

So, no, it is not "a little like" at all. Thailand is a police-state. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Not a good thing that they can intercept without court orders. That certainly is a step backwards and the online defamation should be amended. Of course it should be punishable if you try to defame someone based on false information but not when its true. 

 

Totally wrong laws. 

"Of course it should be punishable if you try to defame someone based on false information but not when its true."

 

People are charged with defamation whether the information is true or false.  That's why TV rules ban criticizing a business by name.  That's why only positive restaurant reviews are published.  That's why no person who values his life will take a picture of the expensive house of a modestly paid civil servant, police chief, or general and post it on the internet.

 

Thailand desperately needs a truly free press.  It might eventually get it under democracy.  It will never get it under military rule.

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Of course it should be punishable if you try to defame someone based on false information but not when its true."

 

People are charged with defamation whether the information is true or false.  That's why TV rules ban criticizing a business by name.  That's why only positive restaurant reviews are published.  That's why no person who values his life will take a picture of the expensive house of a modestly paid civil servant, police chief, or general and post it on the internet.

 

Thailand desperately needs a truly free press.  It might eventually get it under democracy.  It will never get it under military rule.

 

It did not get it under all the years of PTP rule either.. so I don't see it happening because the rich and powerful on both sides like it this way.

[jamesbrock]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

It did not get it under all the years of PTP rule either.. so I don't see it happening because the rich and powerful on both sides like it this way.

 

Dare I say the rich and powerful on both sides need it this way.

[robblok]

Just now, jamesbrock said:

 

Dare I say the rich and powerful on both sides need it this way.

 

Even more right.. nobody in power ever wants this gone.. its a good tool to use against the other side. Its stupid to claim its because of the military. We had far longer democratic rule (both sides) and nobody changed this law or even mentioned they wanted to change it. 

[Chang4u]

Pandora's Box is the Best name for the Web.

Give a man enough rope (etc).

 

Having Internet is like you have the keys to all the goodies locked in the kitchen, but are not allowed inside.

 

 

 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Even more right.. nobody in power ever wants this gone.. its a good tool to use against the other side. Its stupid to claim its because of the military. We had far longer democratic rule (both sides) and nobody changed this law or even mentioned they wanted to change it. 

"far longer democratic rule"?  Really?  Are you aware that Thaksin is the only PM that finished a full term in elected office, and that no PM has ever finished two complete terms in elected office in Thailand?

 

I agree that the rich and powerful love defamation laws that allow them to silence all critics.  However elected governments must (eventually) respond to the will of the people.  Increasing the freedom of the press probably won't be the first priority of the voters if and when democracy returns, but at least there is a chance under democratic rule.  There is no hope under military rule.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

"far longer democratic rule"?  Really?  Are you aware that Thaksin is the only PM that finished a full term in elected office, and that no PM has ever finished two complete terms in elected office in Thailand?

 

I agree that the rich and powerful love defamation laws that allow them to silence all critics.  However elected governments must (eventually) respond to the will of the people.  Increasing the freedom of the press probably won't be the first priority of the voters if and when democracy returns, but at least there is a chance under democratic rule.  There is no hope under military rule.

 

I agree that there is less chance under a military government.. but given the history of democratic goverments (who have been in power far longer) there is little hope at all. It just won't happen none of the rich and powerful on either side want it and for the voters there is nothing they can do if both parties dont put it in their election program. Even if one would put it in their election program that alone would not be enough to persuade voters to vote for the other party. I just don't see this happening. I would be of course totally support changes in these laws no matter what side would bring them up.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

I agree that there is less chance under a military government.. but given the history of democratic goverments (who have been in power far longer) there is little hope at all. It just won't happen none of the rich and powerful on either side want it and for the voters there is nothing they can do if both parties dont put it in their election program. Even if one would put it in their election program that alone would not be enough to persuade voters to vote for the other party. I just don't see this happening. I would be of course totally support changes in these laws no matter what side would bring them up.

"but given the history of democratic goverments (who have been in power far longer)"

 

You don't want to acknowledge the obvious.  Elected governments that are not allowed to finish a single term in elected office are not really  in power.  They certainly aren't in power long enough to make meaningful changes.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"but given the history of democratic goverments (who have been in power far longer)"

 

You don't want to acknowledge the obvious.  Elected governments that are not allowed to finish a single term in elected office are not really  in power.  They certainly aren't in power long enough to make meaningful changes.

In a year they can make meaningful changes.. it does not take long to change this. You fail to acknowledge the obvious.. no democratic government has ever said they wanted to change this.. never one had the intention of doing so. If there is no intention then it wont happen.. YL was long enough in power to try to change the constitution.. but did not try this as its far easier. 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

In a year they can make meaningful changes.. it does not take long to change this. You fail to acknowledge the obvious.. no democratic government has ever said they wanted to change this.. never one had the intention of doing so. If there is no intention then it wont happen.. YL was long enough in power to try to change the constitution.. but did not try this as its far easier. 

In a year a military government with Article 44 power can make meaningful changes.  Prayut demonstrated this by greatly increasing censorship immediately after seizing power.

 

Democracies are designed to be deliberative, things don't change quickly, they are implemented slowly with consideration, checks and balances.  However democracy could bring about immediate improvement simply by re-instating the people's right to criticize government.  It could also eliminate this nonsense of allowing the police to monitor the internet without judicial over-site.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In a year a military government with Article 44 power can make meaningful changes.  Prayut demonstrated this by greatly increasing censorship immediately after seizing power.

 

Democracies are designed to be deliberative, things don't change quickly, they are implemented slowly with consideration, checks and balances.  However democracy could bring about immediate improvement simply by re-instating the people's right to criticize government.  It could also eliminate this nonsense of allowing the police to monitor the internet without judicial over-site.

Your ignoring what we are discussing and going on about why there should be a democratic government. That is not what we are discussing you are saying a democratic government would have fixed it. I am saying no it would not because none ever tried or even wanted too. Then you went on about that there was no time. I countered with that YL had time to change a constitution (far harder than changing laws on defamation) 

 

Then you went on japing about democraty vs military... not a good comeback Bruce. Just admit that YL had time and did not do it. The democrats had time.. did not do it.. The junta has time and does not do it. Nobody in power wants this and that is the truth. 

 

So stop japing about it and accept that even your beloved democracy wont fix it. Maybe.. just maybe they will change some things once they are in power.. but I highly doubt it. Whoever is in power loves these laws to use them against their enemies. 

Call me a cynic.. but the fact that nobody changed defamation laws shows that.  YL did go on trying to change a constitution.... far harder and more risky... so don't say she could not.. she just did not want to.. same as the democrats .. same as the army.

[Shaunduhpostman]

"Being overseas or even being a foreigner overseas does not help either, as the new 17(2) says computer “misuse” crimes are an extraditable offense. One can imagine many a foreign judge laughing when the extradition requests start flying.

 

Worse still, the National Legislative Assembly is trying to extend Section 16(2) to cover Section 14. Section 16 is for images, while 14 applies to any information deemed untrue or defamatory. The punishment is incarceration for up to five years.

“So if I grab your phone and write 1+1=3 on it, you can be charged under the new, extended [Computer Crime Act] Section 16(2) if it goes through, couldn’t you?” I asked Arthit.

He laughed and called me silly. Then he paused to consider what he’d just said about presumption of guilt."

But, if the law says you can be charged for any untrue information found on your internet device, it does indeed mean just that, anything that isn't true including 1+1=3.  It is the law that would be silly if it weren't so sinister, not the the guy questioning Arthit. If the new laws are sincerely meant to be put in place to protect people, there is nothing stopping anyone from clarifying what is meant by "untrue." But you can bet that won't happen and it will, as usual be left open and unclear to be interpreted in whatever way by whoever needs to. Millions of innocent people are at least in theory put in danger of being put in a Thai prison  by such a travesty as this law is. So, it seems the real objective is to make it convenient and easy to destroy anyone at anytime, not just the political opposition and not to protect people from cyber crime. Not that human rights seem to matter anywhere in the world anymore, but Thailand has probably signed agreements that would say this new law is a violation of the terms, not that any international body will care unless, once again, ironically, unless they need to selectively go after Thailand and need an excuse to put sanctions on them.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Shaunduhpostman

[Wilsonandson]

If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can call on the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD)
"Oye, who touched the remote!"

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

Your ignoring what we are discussing and going on about why there should be a democratic government. That is not what we are discussing you are saying a democratic government would have fixed it. I am saying no it would not because none ever tried or even wanted too. Then you went on about that there was no time. I countered with that YL had time to change a constitution (far harder than changing laws on defamation) 

 

Then you went on japing about democraty vs military... not a good comeback Bruce. Just admit that YL had time and did not do it. The democrats had time.. did not do it.. The junta has time and does not do it. Nobody in power wants this and that is the truth. 

 

So stop japing about it and accept that even your beloved democracy wont fix it. Maybe.. just maybe they will change some things once they are in power.. but I highly doubt it. Whoever is in power loves these laws to use them against their enemies. 

Call me a cynic.. but the fact that nobody changed defamation laws shows that.  YL did go on trying to change a constitution.... far harder and more risky... so don't say she could not.. she just did not want to.. same as the democrats .. same as the army.

The PTP tried to change the constitution to make the Senate 100% elected.  They couldn't get it done.  Things don't happen quickly in a democracy, especially in a pseudo-democracy trying to function  under a constitution written for a military government (both the 2006 and the even worse 2016 constitutions).  Since making the Senate fully elected was one of the campaign promises that got the PTP elected it's appropriate that doing so was a higher priority.

 

At least the elected governments didn't immediately implement broader censorship and start aggressive enforcement immediately after coming to power.  The junta did. 

 

In Thailand no laws that the military wants in place can be changed until the military stops staging coups and stays out of politics.  Military government will never end censorship.  Democratic government might, but only after it is securely in power.  That means many elections without intervening coups and many PM's finishing their elected terms.  Had the PTP government attempted to change the censorship law that can't be named, the military (self-proclaimed "defenders of the monarchy") would have used that as a pretext to stage a coup.

[Grubster]

If you think you ever could or ever will be able to communicate using an electronic device without big brother having access when he wants, you are very naive. Thats any country.

[joeyg]

Obama is try to push Congress to handle the internet in the US the same way!  I give up.

[Stradavarius37]

I can still stream porn...im good.

[tbthailand]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

It did not get it under all the years of PTP rule either.. so I don't see it happening because the rich and powerful on both sides like it this way.

False equivalence.

[Kasset Tak]

On 2016-09-15 at 7:31 AM, baboon said:

So you don't have a problem with this new law?

I don't like the law but its following patterns already established by US, China, North Korea, Russia, Sweden, France, UK, Germany and most other countries on this planet!

Do you support this report?!

For me its hilarious that US sees Snowden as a traitor while the rest of the world sees him as a whistle blower. For me personally he is clearly a whistle blower as he told the world how US are treating its citizens and its allies by spying on them all, from the farmer in Iowa to Angela Merkel in Germany and François Hollande in France!

[smutcakes]

20 hours ago, robblok said:

In a year they can make meaningful changes.. it does not take long to change this. You fail to acknowledge the obvious.. no democratic government has ever said they wanted to change this.. never one had the intention of doing so. If there is no intention then it wont happen.. YL was long enough in power to try to change the constitution.. but did not try this as its far easier. 

 

No elected Govt will try to do anything draconian when they have the military involved and looking over their shoulder.

 

An attempt by any Govt to reform civil service, police and particularly the military would see them ejected from power quick smart. Until the military are put in their box and Governments can operate without being afraid of stepping on revenue sources of the military then unfortunetly no Govt will even try to do anything.

 

The military, now in absolute control for 2 years, with section 44 at their disposal is not able to make any meaningful reform, what hope does an elected Govt have.

 

There is an NLA vote at the moment to impeach or whatever some ex PTP official for sticking his nose in the election of new military positions. I mean really, are they serious? Because in no way have Prawit and Prayuth been involved in the new appointments? It would make you laugh if the sheer hypocrisy of these people was not so dangerous.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

No elected Govt will try to do anything draconian when they have the military involved and looking over their shoulder.

 

An attempt by any Govt to reform civil service, police and particularly the military would see them ejected from power quick smart. Until the military are put in their box and Governments can operate without being afraid of stepping on revenue sources of the military then unfortunetly no Govt will even try to do anything.

 

The military, now in absolute control for 2 years, with section 44 at their disposal is not able to make any meaningful reform, what hope does an elected Govt have.

 

There is an NLA vote at the moment to impeach or whatever some ex PTP official for sticking his nose in the election of new military positions. I mean really, are they serious? Because in no way have Prawit and Prayuth been involved in the new appointments? It would make you laugh if the sheer hypocrisy of these people was not so dangerous.

 

There have been plenty of changes to change the defamation laws.. NOBDOY ever did anything but they did try something far riskier.. changing the constitution an action that would certainly irk the army.  Democrats, PTP nobody ever touched the defamation laws. It is not a special army law so it could be changed if any government wanted it. They did not.. it just shows that nobody of the rich (yes PTP is rich too) want this law gone. Now go on and try to deny the facts. 

[smutcakes]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

 

There have been plenty of changes to change the defamation laws.. NOBDOY ever did anything but they did try something far riskier.. changing the constitution an action that would certainly irk the army.  Democrats, PTP nobody ever touched the defamation laws. It is not a special army law so it could be changed if any government wanted it. They did not.. it just shows that nobody of the rich (yes PTP is rich too) want this law gone. Now go on and try to deny the facts. 

 

I have no idea why you are talking about defamation laws, or not amending them. There are plenty of laws out there that need to be amended, but as per my post elected Governments are to scared to do anything for fear of stepping on peoples toes. Obviously the defamation laws are convenient for all Governments. I am not really sure what you are trying to imply, or what facts you are trying to make me argue, that the defamation law needs to be amended is not something i argue with.

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I have no idea why you are talking about defamation laws, or not amending them. There are plenty of laws out there that need to be amended, but as per my post elected Governments are to scared to do anything for fear of stepping on peoples toes. Obviously the defamation laws are convenient for all Governments. I am not really sure what you are trying to imply, or what facts you are trying to make me argue, that the defamation law needs to be amended is not something i argue with.

I talked about these laws because you quoted a post of mine that was about this in a response to HEYBRUCE

 

My point with him was that these laws should be amended but that NO government ever tried it because the ALL liked it and that this is not an army law.

YL was brave enough to modify the constitution but the defamation law was not touched by her and is far less dangerous to touch then the constitution. For me that was proof that even YL and her group wanted the defamation laws (same goes for Democrats)

 

And yes I agree there are certain laws the elected governments are afraid to touch because of the army. Anything reigning the army in would be dangerous (unfortunately). I am against all corruption also army corruption and with the power of the army its hard to go after it.

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

I talked about these laws because you quoted a post of mine that was about this in a response to HEYBRUCE

 

My point with him was that these laws should be amended but that NO government ever tried it because the ALL liked it and that this is not an army law.

YL was brave enough to modify the constitution but the defamation law was not touched by her and is far less dangerous to touch then the constitution. For me that was proof that even YL and her group wanted the defamation laws (same goes for Democrats)

 

And yes I agree there are certain laws the elected governments are afraid to touch because of the army. Anything reigning the army in would be dangerous (unfortunately). I am against all corruption also army corruption and with the power of the army its hard to go after it.

 

Unfortunetly we seem to nearly agree, which is unusual. 

 

Whereas i feel that the militaries power and unaccountability is one of the main issues holding the country back from development, you seem to believe that they are going to take the country forward. History in Thailand and the rest of the world has shown us that this is never the case.

[JayBeeee]

I think that TVF 'commenters' will be looking forward to their doors being kicked in when these powers give the 'authorities' unrestricted access to their IP addresses.

Edited September 16, 2016 by JayBeeee