Thai Government Uses Fake News Law To Lock Up Opposing Party Leaders

from the securing-a-nation-from-the-threat-of-free-and-open-elections dept

Thailand's government continues to make life miserable for its citizens. Pretending mass censorship and broken encryption are just the price citizens have to pay for a "secure" nation, the government has turned the internet into a minefield for critics and political opponents. This is all on top of a lese majeste law that criminalizes badmouthing the king, which would be horrible enough on its own.

Thanks to the leader of the free world, the term "fake news" is now being deployed to put people in real jails for sharing content of dubious origin or not in alignment with the official narrative. Shutting down criticism by deploying anti-fake news laws is a horrendous abuse of government power. But even legitimate uses of these laws are still troubling. Should the sharing of actually fake news be a criminal offense? The Thai government says yes.

A spokeswoman for the Future Forward party said on Tuesday that a representative of the ruling military junta had filed a police complaint accusing Pongsakorn Rodchompoo of violating the Computer Crime Act, which carries a penalty of up to five years in jail.

Pongsakorn has admitted sharing an article that accused a top junta official of buying cups of coffee for 12,000 baht ($377) each, but says he deleted the post within minutes after learning it originated from a website promoting fake news, Future Forward spokeswoman Pannika Wanich said.

Five other people were also arrested for sharing the fake story, but it's definitely a boon for the government in power when the law takes out a political opponent. Literally unbelievable, the government says the fake story -- which detailed government overspending that didn't actually happen -- posed a "threat to national security." Conveniently, the charges target the leaders of a political party current challenging recent election results.

If fake news is the new speech-damaging dodge, "national security" is the trusty standby -- one that's been used to increase censorship and surveillance all over the world, not just in nations run by hypersensitive authoritarians. The Thai government may be saying stuff about fake news and national security, but the real motivation is keeping its opponents quiet. Charges have also been filed against Future Forward party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit for "putting false information online." The Guardian notes that Thanathorn is a "particularly articulate" critic of the Thai government and military.

And, because all of these new laws just aren't enough to keep every critic silent, the nation's criminal defamation law is still being used in particularly petty ways.

Thailand’s army chief, General Apirat Kongsompong, has ordered officials to file defamation charges against a former police chief who is running for prime minister after he made remarks regarding the many decorations on the general’s uniform...

Presumably, keeping the general's chest free from criticism will result in a more secure nation -- one run by some of the most insecure people in the country.

Filed Under: fake news, free speech, oppression, politics, thailand

Thailand Decides To Make Its Terrible Cybersecurity Law Even Worse

from the this-baby-can-hold-so-many-domestic-surveillance-programs dept

More censorship and encryption-breaking is on the way, thanks to the Thai government's broad interpretation of the term "cybersecurity." The government has been leaning heavily on American social media companies to disappear content critical of… you guessed it, the government. To keep the king from being insulted too often (or for too long), the government is also exploring undermining website encryption and holding service providers directly (and criminally) responsible for the words and deeds of their users.

Another round of amendments has made Thailand's cybersecurity law worse. It seems almost impossible, given its history. And yet here we are, watching as the government gives itself everything it wants, leaving citizens with the dubious privilege of generating tons of data the government can access at will.

The bill (available in Thai) was amended late last year following criticism over potential data access, but it passed the country’s parliament with 133 positives votes and no rejections, although there were 16 absentees.

There are concerns around a number of clauses, chiefly the potential for the government — which came to power via a military coup in 2014 — to search and seize data and equipment in cases that are deemed issues of national emergency. That could enable internet traffic monitoring and access to private data, including communications, without a court order.

Naturally, everyone but the government is concerned about these amendments. The Asia Internet Coalition has issued a statement expressing these concerns. All of its concerns are valid. And, considering the history of this law and this government, all are likely to be ignored.

The bugs listed in the AIC's statement are considered features by a government that has a long history of silencing dissent and jailing critics.

Protecting online security is a top priority; however, the Law’s ambiguously defined scope, vague language and lack of safeguards raises serious privacy concerns for both individuals and businesses, especially provisions that allow overreaching authority to search and seize data and electronic equipment without proper legal oversight. This would give the regime sweeping powers to monitor online traffic in the name of an emergency or as a preventive measure, potentially compromising private and corporate data.

Vague language and a lack of safeguards. Overreaching authority and lack of oversight. That's exactly what the Thai government wants. This is deliberate. This is what's wanted by governments all over the world. The US government wants this. So does the Australian government. The UK government has spent most of the past decade refining its overreach and scaling back its oversight.

This isn't just a Thai problem. It's a government problem. But the Thai problem is made worse by its disturbing (and ancient) lese majeste laws, which add some old school twists to its cyber pretensions. But the script is otherwise identical: the same ideas pushed by other governments, using the same "security" pitch to strip citizens of their protections and privacy.

Filed Under: censorship, cybersecurity, encryption, thailand

Elon Musk May Have Talked His Way Into A Pretty Serious Defamation Lawsuit

from the no-slapp-issues-here dept

So many defamation lawsuits that we see are so obviously bogus on their face that often it feels like we should reconsider the rules for defamation in the first place. Over and over again we see defamation lawsuits that are obviously SLAPP suits, in which the powerful seek to silence those who criticize them. This lawsuit is one of the rare cases where it does not appear to be a SLAPP suit at all -- and, Elon Musk almost seemed to force the hand of Vern Unsworth into suing him for defamation. Musk, who is a visionary innovator, but who has been involved in increasingly bizarre behavior of late, kicked a bunch of this off with a tweet back in July calling Vern Unsworth a "pedo guy" after Unsworth criticized his submarine plan.

If you somehow missed all of this, there were 12 children trapped in a cave in Thailand, and Musk got intrigued by the rescue attempts and very quickly worked with his own engineers to design and prototype a small submarine that might be used to help rescue the kids. There were a lot of mixed reports on all of this, from some thanking and appreciating Musk making such an effort (he even flew to Thailand with the sub) to others mocking him for shoving himself into the rescue efforts. Wherever you stand on that debate, it really makes no difference for what came next. While some of those involved in the rescue thanked Musk for trying (even though his sub wasn't needed), Unsworth, who had spent years mapping the caves and was widely credited for both bringing in the more experienced divers and for helping the rescuers find the kids in the first place, was unimpressed by Musk's sub and said so. Specifically, he called it a PR stunt, said it had no chance of working, and said "he can stick his submarine where it hurts."

Musk -- quite understandably -- didn't appreciate those comments. However, his response calling Unsworth a "pedo guy" really seemed to come out of nowhere, followed up by Musk later betting a Twitter follower "a signed dollar" that it was true. However, soon after, Musk semi-apologized saying:

... my words were spoken in anger after Mr. Unsworth said several untruths & suggested I engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub, which had been built as an act of kindness & according to specifications from the dive team leader.

This is still slightly odd, as I don't think anyone thought Unsworth was legitimately suggesting Musk "engage in a sexual act with the mini-sub," but whatever. The issue appeared to be over, but Musk apparently just couldn't let it die. In August, when someone reminded him of his comments, Musk suggested he actually stood by his original comments by implying the lack of a defamation lawsuit suggested the original statements were true:

You don't think it's strange he hasn't sued me? He was offered free legal services.

Ryan Mac, a reporter at Buzzfeed, then wrote about how Unsworth had not only lawyered up (weeks before Musk's tweet) but also sent Musk a letter warning him of the impending lawsuit (again, sent well before Musk's tweet). In response to this Musk engaged in a truly bizarre series of emails with Mac, in which he not only reiterated some of his claims about Unsworth, but went even further, claiming Unsworth had moved to Thailand "for a child bride who was about 12 years old at the time" and also telling Mac to "stop defending child rapists."

Musk didn't supply any evidence to Mac, despite being asked directly if he could back up those claims. Mac's own reporting also failed to turn up evidence to back up those claims, and also debunked the lesser claims by Musk that Unsworth was "banned from the site" of the rescue divers.

And, that takes us to the actual complaint filed against Musk in federal court in California. The complaint is pretty thorough. It lays out the specific statements that it says are false and defamatory and rebuts them. Ken "Popehat" White notes that some of the statements are pretty clearly not defamatory -- as they're either opinion or hyperbole. But the emails to Buzzfeed with the direct statements including claiming Unsworth took a minor bride certainly appear to go over the line. White notes that there are defenses to this -- including a lack of actual malice (i.e., when Musk said those statements he believed them to be true and had no reason to think they were false). That... might actually fly. But, as White also notes, it seems highly unlikely that Musk can get this dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law, as at least a few of these statements involve direct statements of fact and (at least on their face) don't appear to be supported by disclosed facts. White doesn't think the original "pedo guy" claim rises to the level of defamation, but that one could go either way. But, still, it really looks like the totally unnecessary emails to Buzzfeed are what really put Musk in a difficult spot in this lawsuit.

Still, the bigger issue for Musk is that the lawsuit notes Unsworth is also planning to file a similar lawsuit in the UK, where defamation laws are significantly more friendly to the plaintiffs, putting a burden on Musk to support his statements. Musk, of course, has basically all the money in the world to defend himself, and I do wonder if he'll try to file a counter-defamation lawsuit against Unsworth over Unsworth's comments (since Musk kept claiming they were false as well). If he does, it seems like Unsworth would actually have much stronger defenses against Musk, as none of Unsworth's comments appear to rise to defamation no matter how you look at them.

Perhaps Musk will decide to fight these cases out in court, though it wouldn't surprise me to see him just pay up to settle the cases and get them over and done with. But, as far as defamation cases go, this one seems a lot more legit than many of the ones we normally see.

Filed Under: defamation, elon musk, mini-sub, rescue, thailand, think skin, uk, vern unsworth

Thailand Demands More Proxy Censorship From Facebook

from the negotiating-with-censors-rarely-goes-well dept

More foreign censorship is coming to American social media companies. Back in January, Facebook hinted it would be at least partially receptive to the government of Thailand's desire to be free from criticism. Fortunately, the Thailand government has been slightly more rational than, say, Austria's by not demanding offending content be removed everywhere. So far, it seems amenable to Facebook just preventing Thailand's citizens from seeing anything deemed insulting to their rulers (dead or alive).

The problem right now (at least in the minds of Thailand government officials) is that Facebook isn't making with the targeted censorship quickly enough.

The social media giant has been given until next Tuesday to remove more than 130 items from pages viewable in Thailand.

Facebook says it does consider requests from governments to block material, and will comply if it breaks local laws.

The "or else" part of the government's threat seems to be nonexistent at this point, although it probably involves cutting off citizens' access to Facebook entirely. The Thai government insists Facebook has been mostly cooperative, but is dragging its feet on the 100+ posts it has declared illegal under the country's "don't badmouth your authoritarian leaders" law.

It's disappointing to see Facebook agree, even partially, to act as a proxy censor for Thailand's government. While it's generally a good idea for social media companies to be somewhat responsive to local rules and regulations, there's very little to be gained by being an errand boy for a regime where insulting kings results in secret trials and 15-year jail sentences.

It must be noted that Facebook isn't the only US tech company working with the Thailand government to ensure its top officials remain unoffended. Google has also participated in proxy censorship. Last year, it reported it had complied with 85% of requests made under Thailand's lese majeste laws, although it did not explain whether this was location-based blocking or complete removal of the literally-offending posts.

Any form of tolerance for this only encourages further abuse. The country's cybersecurity laws are already being abused by the government, which has declared that merely communicating with foreign critics online violates the Computer Crime Act. Censors' requests for inches quickly stretch into miles. If either of these companies tries to reel in some of the censorious slack they've given Thailand's government, it will most likely be greeted with a complete blockade or ban of their services and sites. If that's going to be the inevitable result, why bother humoring these requests at all?

Filed Under: censorship, lese majeste, social media, thailand
Companies: facebook

Thai Government Forbids Any Online Contact With Three Overseas Critics Of The Monarchy

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

As long-time Techdirt readers will know, Thailand does love it some lèse-majesté punishments. The country's lèse-majesté law -- literally "injured majesty" -- is used to protect Thailand's monarch from any kind of insult, however slight. It's been applied time and again over the years -- we first wrote about it back in 2007. In the past, the Thai government has done all the obvious things like demanding that local ISPs block sites, snooping on its citizens to find out who might be disrespecting the king, and threatening to throw even foreigners in prison for a very long time. But its latest move on the lèse-majesté front is rather a bold one: it has forbidden its citizens from having any online contact with three critics of the Thai monarchy and government. As the Guardian reports:

A letter from the [Thai] digital economy and society ministry warned citizens that engaging on the internet with the Thai academics Somsak Jeamteerasakul and Pavin Chachavalpongpun as well as the journalist Andrew MacGregor Marshall could violate the law.

All three live in outside Thailand but have large online followings in the country for their commentary about the failings of both the junta and the monarchy.

The ministry statement said citizens should not follow, contact or share content from the trio on the internet or social media. The letter added that people who disseminate their information, directly or indirectly, could be violating the country’s Computer Crime Act.

The three people concerned are only able to voice their criticisms of the monarchy and government because they live outside the country -- it would obviously be far too risky to do the same inside it. So this latest move is effectively an attempt to forbid Thai citizens from accessing "forbidden" material that lies beyond the Thai government's direct control, and which has proved impossible to block using technical means. It will doubtless be just as futile.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: andrew macgregor marshall, contact, criticism, free speech, lese majeste, pavin chachavalpongpun, social media, somsak jeamteerasakul, thailand

Thai Government Demands Popular Chat App Reveal Any Time Any User Insults The King

from the encrypted-chats-are-important dept

I spent some time in Asia earlier this year, and while people in the US focus on Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, Google Hangouts and a variety of other chat apps, the chat app of choice over there was Line. Basically everyone used it. A year ago, Line moved towards true end-to-end encryption. Earlier this year, the company made end-to-end encrypted chats the default, rather than as a user option (Thank you Snowden!).

Good timing. The company has apparently now refused to obey a Thai government demand that it alert the government to anyone insulting the Thai royal family on the messaging app. For years, we've written about Thailand's ridiculous lese majeste laws, which make it a crime to insult the king. As we've noted, the law is used as a way to censor and crack down on political opponents. And, of course, with the death of the Thai king last month, there's been a sudden uptick in Thai officials going after people for supposed lese majeste violations.

But Line is telling the government that it just can't help out here.

"We do not monitor or block user content. User content is also encrypted, and cannot be viewed by LINE," the statement sent to DPA said.

Of course, there's been some controversy in the past over this. Back in 2014, Thailand announced that it was instituting a broad surveillance program to snoop on basically all internet communications for the sake of seeking out and punishing lese majeste violators. A few months later, Thai government officials flat out claimed that this included monitoring Line messages, something that the company flat out denied (though, that may have also inspired the move to encryption). While Thai officials have, at times, even claimed the ability to read encrypted messages, it seemed like that was just idle boasting, rather than a legitimate revelation of surveillance capabilities.

There is one oddity about Line's response to the Thai government, though:

"We ask the authorities seeking to obtain user data to make official requests through diplomatic channels and have so advised the Thai authorities," LINE added.

So, uh, if the messages are all end-to-end encrypted and there's no way for Line to access them to share with any government, why is it asking the Thai government to use diplomatic channels to make an official request?

Filed Under: chat, encryption, insults, king, lese majeste, messaging, thailand
Companies: line

Thailand Government Wants To Undermine Website Encryption, Hold ISPs Responsible For Third-Party Content

from the and-that's-in-addition-to-the-country's-native-toilet-snakes dept

Thailand's government has never been considered a friend of internet services or users, thanks to its interest in suppressing dissent/ensuring its king remain unoffended. It has often claimed it has no interest in censoring the internet -- sometimes in statements delivered while shutting down livestreams of discussions with ISPs on how to better censor the internet.

Unsurprisingly, it's not a fan of encryption. The Thai government is currently amending its Computer Crimes Act in hopes of updating its censorship abilities. In addition to codifying ISP compliance with government demands, it's also looking to destroy anything standing between it and full control of internet activity.

On Thursday, 26 May 2016, the Thai Netizen Network (TNN) leaked a report, ‘Ministry of Information and Communication Technology,’ which proposes an amendment to Article 20 of the Computer Crime Act. The amendment will provide the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT) with the authority to access, block or delete encrypted content on websites.

“The Minister may issue a regulation for Internet Service Providers to delete or restrain the dissemination of computer data, in accordance with evolving technology,” says the seventh page of the document, leaked by TNN. The document specifically names the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, one of the most common encryption technologies, saying that to delete or stop the dissemination of data under this protocol, the Ministry requires special methods and mechanisms.

The justification for attacking website encryption is the usual: to access evidence of criminal activity or, more vaguely, content that could result in "public disturbance." The latter is nothing more than the government granting itself the power to shut down anything it doesn't like by blocking or deleting the content. SSL makes blocking websites difficult, so naturally it has to go.

And that's not the last of the government's terrible ideas. It's also looking to hold ISPs responsible for content posted by third parties.

“Any provider who either cooperates or conspires in, or permits a violation of Article 14 within their service provision, shall be punishable in the same way as a violator of Article 14,” reads Article 15 of the MICT’s draft amendment.

Here's Section 14 as it reads now:

Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:

- that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public;

- that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;

- that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;

- that involves import to a computer system of any computer data of a pornographic nature that is publicly accessible;

- that involves the dissemination or forwarding of computer data already known to be computer data under (1) (2) (3) or (4).

Section 230 inverted, basically. Whatever is done by the least of ISPs users is done by the ISP (for all intents, purposes, and punishments).

But, hey, on the bright side, the government is looking to torture/kill/disappear fewer dissidents and activists at some undertermined point in the future. (h/t The Grugq)

The human rights community today signaled cautious optimism about the interim cabinet’s move to criminalize torture and enforced disappearance by public officials in Thailand.

Endorsing the bill nine years after its adoption was first urged, the cabinet’s resolution said the law would “enhance the effectiveness” of existing laws and serve “to raise human rights protection in Thailand to the same par with the international standard,” according to an unofficial translation.

Considering the UN and the European Court of Human Rights both consider internet access to be a basic human right, it appears Thailand is still several years away from reaching the lower rungs of international humans rights standards. And by granting itself increased control of the internet, the government is guaranteeing it will soon be encroaching on the limited amount of human rights turf it has ceded.

Filed Under: censorship, encryption, intermediary liability, safe harbors, thailand

Thailand Might Be Required To Sacrifice Plant And Seed Sovereignty For The Sake Of Trade Agreement With EU

from the bad-deals dept

Techdirt wrote recently about African nations agreeing to a new plant variety treaty that will benefit Western seed companies at the expense of local farmers. Not surprisingly, those corporations want similar powers elsewhere, and a post on the biothai.org site from earlier this year reveals that the European Union is trying to use a so-called "free trade" agreement currently being discussed with Thailand to give it to them:

If Thailand accepts the intellectual property law in the course of the negotiations for the Free Trade Agreement of EU-Thai, Thailand would have to amend its 1999 Plant Varieties Protection Act to make Thai law consistent with the 1991 UPOV Convention.

The biothai.org post goes on to spell out how such a move is likely to affect Thai agriculture:

Thailand would have to amend its laws. It would have to abandon the principles of requesting prior authorization and benefits sharing in relation to the development of new plant varieties. This would mean that the seed companies, multinational bio-tech companies, and the big agri-businesses would not need to make a request nor share benefits when they exploit wild plants or widely available plants and local plants to develop new varieties.

That's a classic case of exploiting the plant commons without sharing any of the benefits that flow from doing so. Extended monopoly rights will make things even worse, and undermine traditional farming traditions:

Thailand would have to extend the period of corporate monopoly rights over new varieties from 12 years in most cases, to 20 years. In addition, it would open up a loophole in the law for private companies to prevent farmers from collecting seeds of the new varieties for planting in the next season, as well as preventing them from distributing and exchanging seeds with neighbours both inside and outside their community, which is a common cultural practice of farming communities.

Biothai.org believes that these changes would mean local farmers paying three times the current price for seeds, and that corporations would soon gain complete control of the seed business. Those are all depressingly familiar consequences of giving up plant and seed sovereignty, but the biothai.org story contains the following novel aspect:

Compliance with demands of the European Union or hasty government amendments to domestic laws allows the government to claim that Thailand did not amend any laws on account of the EU-Thai FTA negotiations.

That's noteworthy, because there's evidence that the European Commission is aiming to implement key US demands for TAFTA/TTIP before negotiations are completed so that it too can claim that it did not amend any laws on account of it. If the biothai.org post is correct, it's a sneaky trick that seems to be spreading.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: plant, seeds, sovereignty, thailand, trade agreements

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.

Filed Under: chilling effects, free speech, internet surveillance, lese majeste, surveillance, thailand

Tropico 5 Game Hits A Little Too Close To Home For Newly-Minted Thai Military Junta

from the their-version-of-the-sims? dept

As you may or may not be aware, Thailand changes governments like we change the oil in our cars: every couple of months or three to five thousand miles, whichever comes first. As we previously covered, the latest in Thai military juntas are (surprise!) huge fans of censoring the internet while claiming they don't and taking down social media sites while claiming that they don't. The picture being drawn for the rest of the world is one of an unsteady military government whose primary unifying factor is that it really likes censoring stuff.

But I didn't realize just how insecure these folks also are. That insecurity appears to be on display as the Thai dictatorial government has banned a video game about running a dictatorial government.

Thailand, which has been ruled by a military dictatorship for the past few months, has banned the video game Tropico 5 from appearing in stores, saying "some contents of the game are not appropriate for the current situation," according to publisher Kalypso Media. Tropico 5, of course, is a video game in which you can play as a military dictator, building and running your very own country in as sadistic a fashion as you'd like.

And, as we all know, subjugating millions of citizens as you laugh maniacally is for real life, not video games. The game, it would appear, hits a little too close to home for the Thai junta. After all, if citizens are allowed to play out what is essentially their government's own role, they may come to see how horrifically they're being treated and rebel. You don't want to remind those under your rule that they're under your rule, I guess.

The irony is not lost on Kalypso, the company that makes the Tropico series.

And here's Kalypso's Stefan Marcinek, also via press release: "Our distributor has been working hard to gain approval for the release, but it seems that the Board of Film and Video Censors deem some of the content too controversial for their consumers. This does sound like it could have come from one of El Presidente's own edicts from the game."

You have to think that a game mechanic was just born for Tropico 6, in which your dictatorial rule is furthered by banning video games.

Filed Under: dictatorship, games, thailand, video games