Recent increases in online surveillance by police have reignited Thailand’s ongoing national conversation about internet privacy and freedom of speech. There’s one main question that everyone is asking: “What can we say online?”
Sitthiwa, a 19-year-old university student whose name we’ve withheld, is a typical Thai social media user and has connected with her friends and family through various online platforms over the past five years.
“It’s free and unlimited as long as I have an internet connection, unlike phone calls and text messages,” said Sitthiwa, who listed herself as a heavy user of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, Kakao, Whatsapp and LINE.
But Sitthiwa has become less active on social networks since Thai police publicly declared that they would closely monitor all online activities to maintain law and order, and would jail anyone who violates the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (CCA).
The announcement came as political tensions were running high in Bangkok.
Earlier this month, the government invoked the Internal Security Act from August 1-8 in Bangkok’s Phra Nakhon, Dusit and Pomprab Sattrupai districts in order to prevent violence and handle anti-government protests during the parliamentary debate of the controversial amnesty bill.
Opposition leader @Abhisit_DP ask police to open barriers so protesters can walk to Parliament [via @tanatpong_nna] pic.twitter.com/S4DEutLySe
— Coconuts Bangkok (@CoconutsBangkok) August 7, 2013
Protesters wanted to annul the bill, which they believed could pave the way for the comeback of fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the older brother of current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Thaksin was toppled by the military in 2006 and found guilty of corruption charges.
Two days before the debate, the Technology Crime Suppression Division (TCSD) of the Royal Thai Police summoned four people for questioning for allegedly causing a public panic by spreading military coup rumors on Facebook.
“The words aren’t true, and if they kept circulating online, it could damage the country,” TCSD chief Pol Maj Gen Pisit Paoin reasoned.
Amongst the accused was the journalist Sermsuk Kasitipradit, politics and security editor at the public TV station Thai Public Broadcasting Service (Thai PBS), the first media outlet to report on the investigation.
In a status update on his personal Facebook account, Sermsuk shared an unedited, original copy of the rumor and his own view, which was that it wasn’t that serious.
It seemed, however, that the authorities ignored his analysis. Sermsuk was interrogated on Aug. 9 about the motive behind the posting, despite the original text obviously being written by someone else and only serving as an introduction to his analysis.
The veteran journalist would have been subject to a five-year prison sentence and/or a THB100,000 fine if he had been found guilty of the CCA’s Article 14(2) that prohibits circulating any “false computer data” that could “damage the country’s security or cause a public panic.”
But police eventually let Sermsuk go.
Sitthiwa admitted to stumbling upon and sharing that same false information with her online acquaintances as well.
“My high school friend sent it over a chat group where I am a member of,” said Sitthiwa. “So, I just copied and pasted it to other chat circles. It is just a rumor and we know that it is just a rumor.”
Unlike Sermsuk, Sitthiwa and other ordinary netizens who received and dispersed the same message might not be in the same position to justify and defend themselves of the charges if they were caught.
“It stoked a climate of fear, which is detrimental to the country’s democratic development process,” said Assist Prof Pirongrong Ramasoota, a journalism educator at Chulalongkorn University and director of the Thai Media Policy Center.
According to Pirongrong, the TCSD’s response was probably an overreaction, reflecting the authorities’ lack of understanding about the publish-then-filter nature of Facebook. One post was unlikely to cause total public chaos, as collective interactions among users would help determine the reliability of a post, she emphasized.
After the incident the TCSD pledged to press charges against users who simply “liked” or “shared” political rumors and attempted to monitor personal chat conversations on LINE, the super-trendy instant messaging application developed by Naver Japan.
The TCSD has promised to use LINE chat records to tackle only suspects involved in four major crimes – drug smuggling, arms trading, prostitution and counterfeit product selling. The division vowed to pursue their operation in a legal manner and on a case-by-case basis.
Despite those promises, most netizens still don’t trust the TCSD.
On Twitter, the hashtag #SpyLINE was used to share opposition against the policies. A myriad of satirical memes have also surfaced online criticizing the TCSD’s policies.
A recent poll by the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) also showed significant public disapproval of the excessive online surveillance. Among 1,232 respondents surveyed, 73.54 percent disagreed with the police request for LINE’s user records, and 68.18 percent believed that the government should not limit any “liking” and “sharing” online.
The chairwoman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Amara Pongsapich, stated that the TCSD’s investigation had a high risk of infringing on individual privacy due to the ambiguous inspection framework.
The Thai Journalists Association, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, the Society of Online News Providers and the Information Technology Press Club have also gone so far as to jointly issue an open letter to the TCSD warning them that they are breaching the Criminal Code by abusing their authority. The four professional media groups suggested the TCSD should not to act under political pressure.
The internet freedom activist group, Thai Netizen Network, also released a statement demanding the TCSD stop abusing the CCA to create fear and confusion in the online community.
Clearly, Thai netizens realize they must protect their already limited free speech rights. And with good reason.
In the years (2011-2012) leading up to the TCSD’s most recent moves, the international watchdog organization Freedom House labeled Thailand “not free” in its “Freedom on the Net 2012” report.
Thailand is home to perhaps the world’s most strict lese majeste laws, which punish anyone who defames, insults or threatens the monarchy with up to 15 years in prison. According to the Thai Netizen Network’s “Netizen Report 2012,” last year’s court orders hit a new high, with 161 orders released to block a total of 20,978 URLs, 79.61% of which were websites that contained lese majeste content.
Another insidious legal tool is the CCA, a piece of cyber-crime legislation that was passed by the military junta in 2007 following the September 2006 coup. At that time only a handful of people had signed up for Facebook and Twitter in Thailand, and Instagram, Whatsapp, and Line had not yet even come into existence.
“This law is very broad, easy to use and cruel in punishment,” said Arthit Suriyawongkul, the frontman of the Thai Netizen Network. “You can use the law to sue anyone for anything as long as it is on the net.”
A person who is found convicted of defamation is liable for up to two years in jail under the typical Thai Criminal Code. But the sentence could double to up to five years if that same person is sued under the CCA.
The CCA is typically used as a tool to target offensive online content. One report, “Research on the Impact of the CCA” by the iLaw Project, showed that of all 325 CCA cases filed from 2007 to 2011, only 19% were offenses related to conventional cyber crimes whereas 66.15% dealt with the dissemination of false information. The purported objective of the CCA is curbing actual cyber crimes like hacking and identity theft.
Thanks to vague terms in the law like “the country’s security” or “forwarding of computer data,” the CCA can also be applied in seemingly any situation.
“Many features on social media need exact legal description if they are to be used in prosecutions,” said Arthit, who strongly refused to believe “liking” and “sharing” could be interpreted as “dissemination or forwarding of computer data.”
For the Sermsuk case, Arthit additionally found the TCSD’s enforcement of the CCA was not in accordance with international standards, especially stipulated in the UN’s Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Report reiterated that any limitation of freedom of expression must pass a three-part, cumulative test: Being provided by law, aimed at protecting national security or public order, and being proven necessary.
As the next version of the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2556 (2013) is being drafted, Thai netizens are not optimistic about their future freedom. Information and Communication Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap mentioned last month that the new version of the cyber crime law would enable officials to take immediate actions against suspected offenders.
To Sitthiwa, only two options are available. She either finds a new “legal” way to articulate online or she moves to a new online platform that police have not started monitoring.
“From now on, I might say only things about food and pets,” Sitthiwa quipped.
Reader Interactions