Cybercrime law 'a threat to freedom'-Bangkok Post

Cybercrime law ‘a threat to freedom’
Activist: Police wield too much censorship power
Sirikul Bunnag
Bangkok Post: March 28, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/14107/cybercrime-law-a-threat-to-freedom

The Computer Crime Act is a threat to people’s freedom rather than protecting their rights, a seminar has been told.

Supinya Klangnarong, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network, said the group has closely followed the enforcement of the 2007 bill over the past two years and found the legislation was mainly used to threaten people’s freedom rather than to protect their rights of expression.

The legislation, passed by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly, gave police too broad censorship powers to take action against computer and internet users and charge them with posing a threat to national security, said the media-reform campaigner.

Since the legislation came into force, police have arrested five internet users and internet service providers on charges of violating national security by posting remarks deemed to be lese majeste. Most of them were detained for weeks and some for months and had their computers confiscated, she said.

In the case of Cheeranuch Premchaiphorn, webmaster of Prachatai’s political website, the suspect was granted bail shortly after being arrested and her office computers were not seized by police.

The activist was speaking at a seminar on the Computer Crime Act organised by the Thai Journalists Association and the Isara Institute.

“This legislation opens a channel for police to interpret and accuse others of violating national security without giving a definition of what actions constitute a threat to national security. This allows them to arrest suspects and let them fight charges in court later. The legislation creates a climate of fear among people,” said Ms Supinya.

Pirongrong Ramasoota, head of Chulalongkorn University’s journalism department, said the contents of the Computer Crime Act were similar to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, but the difference was the enforcement of the convention took into account law that protected personal information and freedom.

Thailand’s cybercrime law, however, failed to consider such matters, the academic said.

Pol Col Pisit Pao-in, deputy chief of the Royal Thai Police’s Hi-Tech Crime Centre, defended the law, saying it protected good people and was never used to persecute anyone.

The law provided a check and balance of power, he said. Police were required to present evidence and sound reasons if they wanted to seek a court order to take action against people suspected of committing cybercrime, he said.

He said there was clear evidence the five suspects mentioned by the Thai Netizen Network had violated the cybercrime law.

They made remarks deemed offensive to the monarchy and police would take drastic action against them.

Cybercrime law ‘a threat to freedom’-Bangkok Post

Cybercrime law ‘a threat to freedom’
Activist: Police wield too much censorship power
Sirikul Bunnag
Bangkok Post: March 28, 2009

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/14107/cybercrime-law-a-threat-to-freedom

The Computer Crime Act is a threat to people’s freedom rather than protecting their rights, a seminar has been told.

Supinya Klangnarong, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network, said the group has closely followed the enforcement of the 2007 bill over the past two years and found the legislation was mainly used to threaten people’s freedom rather than to protect their rights of expression.

The legislation, passed by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly, gave police too broad censorship powers to take action against computer and internet users and charge them with posing a threat to national security, said the media-reform campaigner.

Since the legislation came into force, police have arrested five internet users and internet service providers on charges of violating national security by posting remarks deemed to be lese majeste. Most of them were detained for weeks and some for months and had their computers confiscated, she said.

In the case of Cheeranuch Premchaiphorn, webmaster of Prachatai’s political website, the suspect was granted bail shortly after being arrested and her office computers were not seized by police.

The activist was speaking at a seminar on the Computer Crime Act organised by the Thai Journalists Association and the Isara Institute.

“This legislation opens a channel for police to interpret and accuse others of violating national security without giving a definition of what actions constitute a threat to national security. This allows them to arrest suspects and let them fight charges in court later. The legislation creates a climate of fear among people,” said Ms Supinya.

Pirongrong Ramasoota, head of Chulalongkorn University’s journalism department, said the contents of the Computer Crime Act were similar to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, but the difference was the enforcement of the convention took into account law that protected personal information and freedom.

Thailand’s cybercrime law, however, failed to consider such matters, the academic said.

Pol Col Pisit Pao-in, deputy chief of the Royal Thai Police’s Hi-Tech Crime Centre, defended the law, saying it protected good people and was never used to persecute anyone.

The law provided a check and balance of power, he said. Police were required to present evidence and sound reasons if they wanted to seek a court order to take action against people suspected of committing cybercrime, he said.

He said there was clear evidence the five suspects mentioned by the Thai Netizen Network had violated the cybercrime law.

They made remarks deemed offensive to the monarchy and police would take drastic action against them.

Obama speech censored in China-BBC

Obama speech censored in China
Michael Bristow
BBC News: January 21, 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_7841000/7841580.stm?ifs=1

China has censored parts of the new US president’s inauguration speech that have appeared on a number of websites.

Live footage of the event on state television also cut away from Barack Obama when communism was mentioned.

China’s leaders appear to have been upset by references to facing down communism and silencing dissent.

English-language versions of the speech have been allowed on the internet, but many of the Chinese translations have omitted sensitive sections.

Selective editing
China keeps a firm grip on the country’s media outlets and censors their news reports as a matter of routine.

Like the rest of the world, it has been keenly following developments in the United States; President Obama’s inauguration was front page news.

But the authorities seem not to want ordinary Chinese people to read the full, unexpurgated version of the president’s speech.

In his inauguration address, President Obama said: “Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.”

That entire passage was retained for an English-language version of the speech that appeared on the website of state-run Xinhua news agency.

But in the Chinese-language version, the word “communism” was taken out.

President Obama’s comments addressed to world leaders who “blame their society’s ills on the West” also fell foul of the censor’s red pen.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history,” the president said.

Once again, Xinhua included the passage in full in its English version, but the sentence was taken out of the Chinese translation.

Similar changes were made to versions of the speech that appeared on other websites based in China.

And websites were not the only media organisations that struggled to report some of the comments made by President Obama.

China Central Television, the country’s main broadcaster, aired the speech live with a simultaneous Chinese translation.

But when the translator got to the part where President Obama talked about facing down communism, her voice suddenly faded away.

The programme suddenly cut back to the studio, where an off-guard presenter had to quickly ask a guest a question.

Censoring sensitive news reports is nothing new in China, where officials go to great lengths to cut critical material.

These officials appear a little nervous about the arrival of a new US President, who might not be as friendly to China as President George W. Bush.

As an editorial in the state-run China Daily put it: “Given the popular American eagerness for a break from the Bush years, many wonder, or worry to be precise, whether the new president would ignore the hard-earned progress in bilateral ties.”

The censored story of Wikileaks-Jonathan Stray

[FACT comments: FACT was the first group to leak documents to Wikileaks in the form of ICT blocklists for censorship. FACT coordinator CJ Hinke sits on Wikileaks’ advisory board.]

The Censored Story of Wikileaks
Jonathan Stray: January 1, 2009

http://jonathanstray.com/the-censored-story-of-wikileaks

Wikileaks is often in the news, but for the wrong reasons. The web site provides a highly public outlet for “classified, censored, or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic, or ethical significance.” It is designed to be a journalistic tool for whistle-blowers and citizens of oppressive government and corporate regimes, a place of first and last resort for sensitive information from sources who need protection. It is a great irony, then, that an organization which specializes in censored information only makes the news when somebody violently objects.

I first stumbled upon Wikileaks about a year ago and have been watching it closely ever since. Despite its mission of openness, the site has a certain mystery about it: nowhere on the site are the principals publicly named. I was delighted, then, to attend a talk by two of the Wikileaks founders at the 25th Annual Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin. The 50-minute presentation was titled Wikileaks vs. The World, or “a talk about some conclusions observing Wikileaks.”

You may have heard about some of the things we’ve done in the media, but what you hear about tends to be what is frequently of greatest salacious interest to the Western media and to people in general. That doesn’t tend to be our everyday work.

A look at the front page of Wikileaks today shows all sorts of topics: The un-redacted report of Abu Grhiab whistleblower Samuel Provence. The German Foreign Secret Service report on Kosovo, 2005. Alperin vs. Vatican Bank, 2008 concerning Nazi assets allegedly laundered in 1946. A Scientology Department of Special Affairs lecture. Documentation showing that Swiss Bank Julius Baer put USD $300 million through the Cayman Islands in 1999. “The secret internet censorship list of Thailand’s Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT).”

Wikileaks posts anything submitted to it complete and unaltered; that is the point. In this policy they represent the purest possible interpretation of the ideals of transparency and freedom of speech. Usually, the documents they post are applauded or at least ignored, but sometimes they draw the ire of those who feel that there is a case for certain secrets. A few weeks ago Wikileaks posted a list of Danish web-sites ostensibly censored for child-pornography; this summer they released a document describing the technical details of the Warlock signal jammers used by American forces in Iraq. They defend both choices, and indeed all of their leaks, with the same argument:

Who’s to judge the relevance, the political relevance? if it’s us who is to judge the relevance, then are we robust enough to judge this for all of society? … This is something for the public to do, and the political groups in the public, and not us.
Fighting censorship is what they’re all about. They believe deeply in the “fourth estate,” the role of the press and public cognizance as a check against tyranny. Like Wikipedia, they place great trust in the intelligence and enthusiasm of the public at large, who are asked to vet, analyze, and publicize the anonymously submitted documents. This ultimately represents a different model of society, an almost ridiculously open and transparent society. I did not hear the Wikileaks speakers ever concede that secrecy sometimes has its purposes, that there are legitimate reasons for knowledge to be hidden; instead, they repeatedly articulated the dangers of censorship.

The question is not what we need to be told. The question is what we need not to be told and who decides. Secret censorship systems are unaccountable and dangerous.
But again we are distracted. The possible mistakes and harm of Wikileaks cannot be judged in a vacuum, but only against the overall activities of the project. And sadly, sometimes it is the successes that draw the least attention.

There are a lot of things we do routinely that are very serious, but still get little attention. For example we have exposed many, many political assassinations. We released only three months ago a very important report on Kenya documenting 500 extra-judicial assassinations that had occurred in the past 18 months. There was some pickup in the Kenyan press, but the rest of the world, nothing. So getting leaked documents out is extremely important, but it’s not the only thing. Sometimes there is no interest group to care to spread the information.

The speakers urged the audience to get involved: to read, to analyze, to disclose. Our collective reality is only information, they said. “Everyone here is what he knows.”

Every decision we make about what to say to someone else or what to write on our blogs defines the future world we live in, and defines what actually happened. It is not an absolute world; it is malleable. And, they claim, it is being changed in all sorts of ways with or without our knowledge or consent. Contrary to popular belief, “no medium is easier to censor than the internet.”

There is a complete eradication of certain parts of history going on. This is much easier than anyone in this crowd here most likely will think. We can see that censorship is being implemented systematically and globally. … George Orwell said that ‘he who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future,’ and this is never more true than with electronic archives. We have seen many, many examples of major newspapers pull material from the archives permanently … For example, this year there were seven stories removed from The Guardian, The Telegraph, and the New Statesman, in response to fear over legal costs.

If you go to the URLs for those stories, you won’t see that this story has been removed by legal action, you will see ‘not found’, and if you search the index you will see ‘not found’. Those stories not only have ceased to exist, they have ceased to have ever existed. So the centralization that is occurring in archive repositories means that censorship is very easy.

Speaking to an audience of hundreds of hackers, researchers, anarchists and artists at the CCC in Berlin, they reminded everyone that Wikileaks is real. At the CCC I learned about the flaws in proposed cryptographic technologies for electronic voting; I even learned that SSL itself has been compromised. But technology is not people.  And this, perhaps, is the key point of the entire lecture, and the entire project:

All these documents are real. It is hard fact that is documented. And all these documents reflect some facets of something that is happening at some point somewhere in the world. This is reality. … These documents pertain to violence that is caused by truth being told, by documents surfacing to the society. So It is important to understand that is not a hypothetical construct, some project that is dealing with something very obscure. We are actually dealing with information that reflects a very important facet of lives all over the world, and that has an influence on the quality, the freedom, and all other aspects of lives, living beings that we all need to have compassion for, and care for. This is very important in the mission that we try to bring across.

The streaming video of the complete talk has been archived in WMV format (859MB) here and here, and in OGG video format (445MB) here and here.

Thai Netizen Network conference-AMF

[FACT comments: Freedom Against Censorship Thailand is a TNN partner.]

Netizens Demand Basic Cyberspace Rights
Lynette Lee Corporal
Asia Media Forum: December 4, 2008

http://www.theasiamediaforum.org/node/949

The ‘broad and unclear’ provisions of Thailand’s cyber crime act continues to baffle Netizens and civil society group, who have formed a group that seeks to amend the said bill.

Dubbed the ‘Thai Netizen Network‘ (TNN), the group is composed of freedom of expression activists, Internet bloggers, owner of Internet service providers, members of the online media, and other dedicated Netizens.   On Dec. 2, the working committees of TNN were introduced to the public and discussed their future plans on how to forward their cause.

“We would like to see basic rights on the Internet — the right to access, right to expression, right to privacy and right to legal action. Authorities implementing laws should be transparent and just,” said writer and blogger Sarinee Achavanuntakul. Her blog at http://www.fringer.org/ is one of the more popular bilingual blogs — Thai and English — in the country.

While Sarinee acknowledges that TNN members do not have the same standards when it comes to certain issues, such as censorship, they nevertheless have a “common ground”.

“We’ll work with society based on these common grounds, instead of taking extreme sides,” she added.
 

The network, she said, are not hardcore liberals. They are against online pornography, cyber bullying and are open to self-regulation to ensure Internet users a safe and healthy online environment. They promote  “freedom coupled with clear responsibility”, Sarinee added.

BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED

The group finds worrisome the ambiguity of the cyber crime law that it says could result in double standards and biases.

 According to media rights advocate Supinya Klangnarong, this is a reflection of the country’s laws and regulations on freedom of expression. “It is very problematic as there are no clear boundaries on the laws about freedom of expression, especially in determining what is right and wrong,” said the vice chair of Thailand’s Campaign for Popular Media Reform.

Supinya added that provisions in the cyber crime act could violate constitutional rights. For instance, the act requires ISP providers to keep records of individual users for 90 days, which NTT campaigners find a clear violation of privacy rights.

 “What are those records actually for and who is going to use them?” wrote a British blogger in his ‘Lost Boy‘ blog.

 According to authorities, these stored data can be gathered as digital evidence when tracking cyber offences, such as pornography and libelous content. Internet cafes also are required to record the identities of Internet users, the time they logged in and out and the sites they visited. Violators will be fined up to 500,000 baht (14,000 U.S. dollars).

But even then, there is still confusion, even among authorities, on the proper procedures in dealing with cyber crime issues, critics said.

“The procedures used by the police in such circumstances are unclear and confusing. There are many cases when the police just took servers and computers, even without a proper court order. The cyber police and departments involved don’t coordinate well with each other,” said Chiranuch Premchaiporn, executive director of independent Thai-language online daily Prachatai.com.

CLUELESS

For instance, police in May 2008 arrested a web board owner after one of the site’s thousands of users posted nude photos of a lady out of spite. Siriporn Suwannapitaka, 212Cafe.com owner, had just gotten back from a vacation when he was picked up by police for a crime he was not even aware of.

“The police couldn’t even tell specifically direct us to the problematic URL. When I asked them what I should do, they told me they didn’t know,” said Siriporn.

Though he offered to ‘freeze’ the offensive site, the police came back a month later and served him a warrant of arrest. They accused him of allowing people to use pornographic materials and make money from it.

“There are 28,000 people — from both public and private sectors — using my web board and it’s difficult to keep track of all of them. What’s more, they didn’t even try to arrest the poster of the said photos,” said Siriporn, who had to come up with 100,000 baht (2,800 dollars) as bail bond.

One of TNN’s goals is to provide legal consultation and support to those in need.

“Internet users don’t have a particular group that can represent them when necessary, unlike the government and other sectors,” said blogger Arthit Suriyawongkul in his blog, ‘Bact’ is a Name‘.

As of October 2008, there are 32 cases on lese majeste being wrapped up by police investigators. Of these cases, 15 involve offensive messages posted online.

Under the lese majeste law in Thailand, anything deemed disrespectful or threatening to the monarchy is punishable by a jail term.

The authorities also need to be educated about the technology they are dealing with, added Arthit.

“The cyber crime law focuses too much on hardware. It’s not right and it makes more sense to take and examine data specific to that case,” he said, referring to the police’s penchant for confiscating all computer hardware. Instead of taking the whole server, for instance, they could just examine the offending link.

“The law is not even clear on who will be held responsible for lost files if the accused is proven innocent. People working on cyber crimes might not even know anything about the technology,” he added.

HOPE OUT THERE

But Chiranuch said that dialogue is now being held between the police, civil society groups and web board owners and ISP providers to try and come up with a framework in the implementation of the cyber crime law. This will include the proper procedures to be followed in instances when cyber crime is suspected.

“We’ve to accept that the Internet is a newcomer in the legal scene. The present Cyber Crime Act is flawed and everyone is afraid of it being misused and abused,” said Kasetsart University professor Dr Jittat Fukjaroenpol.

The question of overlapping laws also came into focus, especially what Netizens described as “fuzzy laws on both libel and lese majeste cases”.

“The country has an existing libel law and it’s redundant to include this to the cyber crime law,” noted Sunit Shrestha, managing director of ChangeFusion, an social venture investment firm that sees the value of online creativity and freedom of expression.

Compounding these problems is the online world’s tricky relationship with traditional, mainstream media.

“It is our wish to work together with traditional media. We want them to understand about the Net community and how they work,” said Siranee.

Unfortunately, she added, bad news sells. In Siriporn’s case, the ‘bad news’ came in the form of sensationalism and a breaking of media ethics. ‘Porno Web Master Arrested’ screamed the headlines the following day.

Other newspapers used photos of adult video websites alongside the story, so that people thought the sites are Siriporn’s.

Thai Netizen Network press conference

You’re warmly invited to join

Press Conference for the opening event of

“Thai Netizen Network” & round-table discussion on

 

“The netizens’ rights and liberty of online  media:

Problems, Challenges and Recommendations”

Organized by Thai Netizen Network

 

At Isra Amantakul seminar room, Thai Journalists Association, Samsen Road

    Tuesday, December, 2, 2008 at 1-5 pm

 

13.00      – Registration

13.30     – Press conference for the opening event of “Thai Netizen network” by the Working Committees on topics;

         –  Who are we?

         –  Stands for netizens’ rights and liberty of online media

         –  Recommendations to the authorities and public on Internet regulation and law enforcement

14.00-15.30   – Round-table discussion on “The netizens’ rights and liberty of online media: Problems, Challenges and recommendations”

1. Netizens’ rights: The Rights to access, Freedom of expression, Rights for privacy and Rights under judicial process.

Presented by Ms.Sarinee Achawanuntakul, Ms.Supinya Klangnarong, Mr.Sunit Shrestha

         2. The Liberty of online media: Free speeches and fair regulation, Net Neutrality, and Social responsibility. 

Presented by Ms.Chiranuch Premchaiyaporn, Dr. Jittat Fakjaroenpol , Mr.Arthit Suriyawongkul

3. Case study: The ramification of Computer Crime Act B.E.2550 on the netizens’ rights. Presented by Mr.Siriporn Suwannapitaka <212 cafe case> and Mrs.Poomjit Srirawongprasert

15.45-17.0        – Open discussion

 

Cyber-Liberty = Access+Expression+Privacy+Responsibility+Common Property

 

Contact 02-6910574                                      Email: freethainetizen@gmail.com

Giles on Bangkok protests

[FACT comments: This analysis of Bangkok’s recent demonstrations by FACT signer Ajarn Giles is the most cogent and intelligent we’ve seen. It is a travesty to the unarmed, nonviolent student October Heroes of 1976 to call these events another Black October. The reason should be obvious why police and military have not been moved to crush the demonstrations is that these protests are not by poor farmers, students or Southerner Muslims but by the Bangkok ‘elite’. It is also significant that the demonstrations are confined to Bangkok and do not affect the rest of the country; indeed, it seems few care except for the core Bangkok group. Violence never works to build a lasting peace. At the very least, PAD should have insisted upon intensive nonviolence training for all participants and PAD’s security should have confiscated all weapons from those entering the demonstrations and barred those carrying such weapons permanently.]

Bangkok: Right-wing mob riots outside parliament
Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Chulalongkorn University
October 7, 2008

Since late evening on the 6th October 2008, the ultra right-wing fascist mob which calls itself the “Peoples Alliance for Democracy” (PAD) laid plans to lay siege to the Thai parliament. They came prepared with iron bars and crash helmets. Their plan, as always, was to create chaos in the hope that the military would stage a coup or that the ruling party would once again be dissolved by the courts. Their claim is that the present government lead, by the Peoples Power Party or PPP (ex-Premier Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai in another name), is “illegitimate”. The party and the previous TRT party have consistently won large majorities in elections, proving that they are popular with the poor, who make up the majority of the population. This support from the poor is not surprising, since the party was the first elite party in 30 years to offer a universal health care scheme and public funds to develop the rural economy.

The PAD’s claim that the government is some how “illegitimate”, is based on the fanatical belief that the poor do not deserve the right to vote because they are “too stupid”. This belief is shared by the opposition Democrat Party which supported the 2006 military coup and is now supporting the actions of the PAD by boycotting parliament. Previously they boycotted the 2006 elections because they knew that the poor would not vote for their monetarist and neo-liberal policies. The Democrats when in office set police dogs on peaceful protestors from the Assemble of the Poor. That protest was nothing like the PAD riots of the past few weeks. The Democrats also used public funds to bail out the banks in the 1997 crisis. The poor were told to fend for themselves.

The PAD is calling for the defence of the military Constitution of 2007, which has already restricted the electorate’s right to vote for the Senate. They want to bring about a Suharto-style “New Order”, where only half the MPs will be elected and the Prime Minister need not be an elected MP.

On the morning of the 7th October, the police cleared one side of parliament using tear gas. This was to allow MPS to enter the building. The police made it clear that the PAD would continue to be allowed to protest outside the other entrance to parliament. However, the PAD responded by attacking the police with sharpened flag polls, home made guns and their own tear gas grenades. In any other parliamentary democracy, the PAD leaders and their rioting supporters would have been arrested. They have been illegally occupying Government House for over a month. Yet the police have been told to “layoff the protestors” by people in high places.

Every public institution and organisation in Thailand is now compromised by this inter-elite conflict and the losers, as usual are the poor: workers and small farmers. The Monarchy has failed to defuse the situation. The Queen has openly sided with the PAD mob. The courts are practicing double standards, attacking Thaksin and TRT/PPP corruption, while ignoring illegal coups, mob violence and corruption by opposition politicians and the military. The military as always is on the side of the Conservative Royalists. The police are unable to act and the government lurches from crisis to crisis. The majority of academia is hopelessly compromised by its support for the coup and their support for decreasing the democratic space. Democratic principles have been thrown out of the window by professors who teach “democratisation” and the need for “the rule of law”.

Even the Peoples’ Movement has shown itself not to be up to the job. Instead of building an independent political position, at the side of the poor and oppressed, sections of the NGO movement supported the coup, the military Constitution and the PAD. Rosana, the so-called NGO Senator, elected from Bangkok, has joined in the ultra-nationalist fanaticism, especially over the ancient Khmer temple on the border with Cambodia. These people must bear responsibility for the recent injuries of both Thai and Cambodian troops in a needless border dispute. Rosana also disrupted parliament today, working with military appointed Senators. She believes that the poor are too stupid to be allowed to vote. Yet all these people bang on about the need for “good governance” and “accountability”. Who are they themselves accountable to?

The Thai economy faces the full force of the global economic melt-down. We need measures to protect the poor. We need income redistribution and a Welfare State and we to bring peace to the three Southern provinces. Thaksin and his top military men should have been clapped in prison long ago over human rights abuses in the South and the War on Drugs. Yet, this is never mentioned and he and his wife are seeking asylum in Britain while poor people from all over the world are sent home to die by the British government.

We need to reform society to bring about progressive changes. This means expanding democracy, not allowing Thailand to slide back into the dark ages of dictatorship. But the task will only take place by forces in the Peoples’ Movement – the Left, the NGO networks, social movements and trade unions coming together to outline our own reform strategy. We cannot rely on the corrupt human-rights abusers in the government, nor the fascists of the PAD and their allies to achieve these aims.

Bangkok film fest bans film on child trafficking-FCCT

[FACT comments: The Tourism Authority of Thailand, already the subject of alleged corruption over past film festivals, wants to hide the darker side. Do they really think they can keep this Thailand’s big secret?]

Press Conference
Bangkok Film Festival Keeps “Children in the Dark”?

Wednesday, September 24, at 2:00 pm
Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, Ploenchit Center

Trailer: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFUmPvVjE4

Bangkok Film Festival 2008 has invited a Thai-Japan joint- produced film, “Children in the Dark”,  to show during the film fest. Suddenly, it has been cancelled last minute with no reason Why ?.

This film features the social problem, children’s trafficking and internal organs buying and selling. And also children who encounter injury, violence, damage and Pedophiles’ realities in Asia.

We want to appeal as follows;
1.    This film must be shown all of the world especially in Thailand for the Children’s future.
2.    The fact can’t expressible in the documentary film so that we produced by feature film that
Bangkok film festival understand this point.
3.    The future in the world in the Children’s future
4.    To stop this film is the same as shutting children’s futures, also shutting the future in the country.

Panelist;   Mr. JYUNJI SAKAMOTO, Film Director
Ms. YUKIKO SHIII, Producer for Japanese production
Mr. MASAOMI KARASAKI, Producer for Thai production

[seminar-9 July] Personal Data and Risks in the Age of e-Government

Center for Ethics of Science and Technology, Chulalongkorn University, will held an open seminar on personal data and risks in the age of e-government on Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 13:00-16:30 @ Room 105, Maha Chulalongkorn building, Chulalongkorn University (near MBK).
For more info, please contact Soraj Hongladarom +66-2218-4756

ใครสนใจเรื่อง ข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล (personal data) และความเป็นส่วนตัว (privacy)
และร่างพ.ร.บ.คุ้มครองข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลที่ยังไม่ได้เกิดสักที ก็เชิญนะครับ

สัมมนา “ข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลกับความเสี่ยงในยุครัฐบาลอิเล็กทรอนิกส์”
พุธ 9 ก.ค. 2551 13:00-16:30 น.
ห้อง 105 อาคารมหาจุฬาลงกรณ์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย

Threats from Manager to public forum-Prachatai

[FACT comments: Strange that the audio files have been deleted from the independent download sites.]

Chotisak no show at forum due to threats from Manager Radio
Prachatai: May 5, 2008

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=623

On May 2, a public forum was held at Thammasat University to address the controversial issue of the refusal of Chotisak Onsoong and his girlfriend to stand for the royal anthem. The panelists included social critic Sulak Sivarak, historian Suthachai Yimprasert, and reporter Pravit Rojanaphruk, with Thammasat lecturer Kasem Penpinan as the moderator.

The organizers, including the Santi Pracha Dharma Institute and Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) magazine, started the forum with an audio clip recorded from a radio programme ‘Metro Life’ which belongs to the Manager Group, the driving force of the anti-Thaksin, royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The radio programme was broadcast on the night of April 30 at FM 97.75, or Manager Radio, during which the hosts incited listeners to come to the forum to attack Chotisak and disrupt the event.

(Note: since the evening of May 2, the audio files of the programme for April 29 and 30 have been removed from http://www.managerradio.com, but can be downloaded here (29) and here (30).)

The organizers therefore informed participants that Chotisak would not join the panel at the forum for safety reasons.