Thai Gov't Accused Of Instituting Mass Internet Surveillance... To See If You're Reading Anything The King Doesn't Like
from the big-brother-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder dept
There's been lots of talk about internet surveillance lately, for obvious reasons. Authoritarian regimes, like China and Iran, have been using it to stifle dissent. Western countries have been using it by claiming that it's to "stop terrorism" (though, the evidence shows that's mostly just a convenient excuse). So, really, it shouldn't be any surprise to see governments embracing internet surveillance for more and more ridiculous ideas. Over in Thailand, we've written about the country's ridiculous "lèse majesté" laws that make it a crime to "insult" the king. This has resulted in some crazy situations in Thailand, including having all of YouTube banned because of a single parody video, an entire chat site shut down because some people said some stuff the king didn't like, and a US citizen threatened with 15 years in jail over merely linking to an unauthorized biography of the king.So, perhaps it shouldn't be that surprising that a Thai news organization is reporting that the government is now planning on using mass internet surveillance to make sure that no one is even reading anything that the king doesn't like, which would violate those lèse majesté laws.
Thai authorities reportedly planned to implement a surveillance device starting from 15 September to sniff out Thai Internet users, specifically targeting those producing and reading lèse majesté content, a report says.... One said the device targets keywords related to lèse majesté and that it is relatively powerful and could access all kinds of communication traffic on the internet. Another source said it could even monitor communications using secured protocols.That last bit seems highly questionable. If done right, encryption would make that kind of surveillance nearly impossible, so the idea that whatever system they're using could actually do that should be taken skeptically. Of course, it could just be that the government is leaking these claims to lead people to self-censor in the belief that they are being watched, even if it's not true. And if that's the plan, it appears to already be working.
After learning about this, a national level Thai-language newspaper editorial team has reluctantly resorted to a policy of greater self-censorship. Its editor warned editorial staff not to browse any lèse majesté website at work and think twice before reporting any story related to lèse majesté.Of course, as we noted earlier this year, the leaders of the recent Thai coup have already been big on censoring the internet, and a law passed back in May lets the government "monitor and access the computer traffic, the use of websites, social media, photos, text, video and audio... which are deemed unlawful" and further to "stop the dissemination" of any such website. It appears these latest rumors are just taking it up a notch.
Of course, the chilling effects and impact on free speech of even rumors of such a system should be frightening to anyone who believes in free speech and an open internet where people can discuss things freely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, free speech, internet surveillance, lese majeste, surveillance, thailand
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government know nothing of restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to think that during the initial "snowden revelations" (aka: "giant head-fuck from the DOJ"). Now, knowing better, I do what I want, when I want to, without regard to the DOJ, or the "five eyes coalition". It's become patently obvious, over time, that these "revelations" were an attempt to control the masses via a self-fulfilling-prophecy of fear. Didn't work.
Mr. Holder, you can go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
given the way they are acting, i wonder how long before the UK is added to this list of Authoritarian regimes'? it has just blocked more sites and proxies, all at the insistence of an industry that relies on make believe to exist but pays next to nothing into the UK kitty, just like it does(n't) in the USA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking advantage of jurisdiction
Seriously, if someone is that touchy to words, they need to go home, and let the adults handle things. Maybe they can pass the time watching some nice harmless cartoons or something, goodness knows anything more mentally taxing would probably be beyond their capacity to handle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More man-in-the-middle attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
Personally, though, I don't worry enough about this particular issue to do this level of checking. On the other hand, I also don't do anything that's really sensitive over the web.
Those sorts of tradeoffs are at the core of all security: high security means inconvenience. It's unavoidable (in the physical world as well as online).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
Should I be worried about Mike doing MITM attacks on me? =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
However, if they're just scooping up random crap, just because they can, then any little bit of extra work they have to go through to read what they grab is valuable, because it makes them that much more likely to focus on things that are actually useful to them.
Like any group, they don't like wasting time and money, and while it's (relatively) easy and cheap to scoop up unencrypted communications, properly encrypted stuff takes real work on their part, so they're much less likely to just grab and store it as an after-thought, and only do it when they believe they'll get something valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
Incidentally, encryption is also like locking your car...it doesn't necessarily mean your car is full of heroine, it could just mean you don't want someone taking your glasses. I've never understood why people seem to assume if you are trying to be secure online it means you must be "hiding something."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
To counter them, anytime someone tries that line, or anything similar to them, demand that they hand over some personal information, like name, address, email credentials, stuff like that, and if they refuse(when they refuse), ask them what they have to hide, and if that seems to be getting through, use their previous refusal as an example as to how a desire for privacy does not automatically translate to wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More man-in-the-middle attacks
I have to disagree with you there. IMO they're grabbing and storing EVERYTHING (including encrypted streams) with a view to one day being able to easily access the data within (ie. when quantum computers soon eventuate). For them storing 20, 30 or more years of your life is not an issue and provides them with massive troves of information to get you on some level or other
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tails, Tor, Encrypted hard drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Looking down on those that don't 'respect' those that deserve it(who exactly deserves respect being an argument for another time, though my personal opinion is that no-one automatically deserves respect, no matter what position they may hold) is one thing, having a social stigma attached to that would be taking it a little farther, but to throw someone in jail, or threaten them with criminal charges for 'dis-respect' is taking it to ridiculous levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the usual attempt at stifling anything that might remotely look like it's challenging the ruling status quo. Sometimes I wonder if the king doesn't just facepalm to himself on the throne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re
And yet, it's still a considered a criminal offense to insult him, so if he really doesn't care, he might want to reign in the overzealous idiots who are making him look like an intolerant child by 'defending' him against comments he apparently 'doesn't care about'.
When you insult the King you insult the Thai people as a whole.
Ah the 'joys' of 'patriotism', where calling out the stupidity/foolishness of a law/individual is seen as insulting an entire country(which would only be true if the entire country agreed with the particular idiocy/foolishness being called out).
Just to clarify my position a bit, when I say a law is ridiculous, the only way that accusation would also apply to the king(or the ruler of any country with ridiculous laws) was if:
A) He was the one who created it.
and/or
B) He didn't create it, but he agrees with it, and refuses to repeal it(if possible) when it's brought up.
'Apparently it's legal in the US to burn the US flag, but anyone doing so would take a serious risk of being shot dead.
...
If you did it on the street in Bangkok you'd be lucky to be arrested before a mob formed.'
Which does little more than show that there are bloodthirsty 'patriots' everywhere, always looking for an excuse to crack some skulls over any slight or imagined insult to their country/leader.
The irony that their actions do more to damage and hurt the reputation of said country/leader apparently never occurs to them.
(Unrelated to the conversation, you might want to switch to 'Threaded' mode if you're not already using it, and use the 'Reply to this' link when replying to a comment, makes things much easier to keep track of for all involved.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re
What's ridiculous is when people don't see this and simply assume that since someone is being accused of lese majeste, off with his head. People act plenty ridiculous about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Re Re
Incidentally, the King was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, making him technically a US citizen. He got his degree in Political Science at the Lausanne University of Switzerland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re Re Re
When you've got a situation of 'Show respect to X or else', whether that 'or else' is an angry mob or the threat of jail time, that is not a society built on respect, and the simple fact that the demand for 'respect' is backed with a threat, of any kind, makes any 'respect' shown worthless, because much like you should never trust someone who insists that they are trustworthy, if someone/something is truly worthy of respect, there would be no need for threats against those that didn't show it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re Re Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re Re Re
They don't demand respect "or else."
The Queen/King may not, but the law absolutely does. When showing disrespect is treated as a criminal offense, that is most certainly an 'or else' situation.
They can't control what the people do if they perceive the king has been disrespected.
If they really are more figurehead than leader, then no, they probably can't do anything directly on that front. On the other hand, if people do really respect them so much, they'd probably listen if the King told them to maybe be a little less zealous against those that don't share their level of respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re Re Re
Don't know if he's ever done that, but that would be a better thing to do than let mob mentality take over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]