376
Thailand
education and campaigns against the government ’ s Internet control have also been
carried out, mostly by the so-called Thai Netizen Network (TNN), a relatively new local
nongovernmental organization (NGO) that advocates for Internet freedom. Increasingly, TNN has become allied with several international NGOs concerned with media
freedom, including Freedom House and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Surveillance
Without an explicit privacy law in place, several data surveillance schemes have been
administered since at least 1981 in Thailand without adequate legal safeguards, including the computerized and online civil registration system, a microchip national ID
card system, a computerized criminal records database system, and surveillance
cameras in public areas.
37 However, the public generally views these systems as part
of the long-standing civil registration system and data infrastructure and not as surveillance schemes. For online surveillance, state-controlled IIGs and ISPs have been
instructed to look into interactive communication in online forums hosted under their
networks, focusing on l è se-majest é speech, and to give a 30-minute time frame for
taking down such content. While the new surveillance scheme is not public knowledge, members of the public are unlikely to object to it, since fi ltering is rationalized
on the grounds of l è se-majest é . More technologically savvy dissidents and civic workers
have evaded the surveillance by relocating to host services overseas and by using
circumvention software.
In a recent example of cybercrime law enforcement, local Internet advocates and
media for the fi rst time posited privacy rights as being undermined by law enforcers ’
zeal to track and crack down on sources of rumors surrounding the king ’ s ailing condition.
38 This development followed the arrest of two suspects who posted the “ problematic information (about the king) ” in two popular online forums.
39 Prompted by
this incident, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) reportedly sought court
orders to look into the e-mail communication of all the people who had posted on
related topics on the two forums.
40
Many Internet users also participate in online surveillance of l è se-majest é . For
instance, a fan page called Social Sanction was developed for reporting l è se-majest é
comments posted on Facebook.
41 A teenage girl was socially reprimanded after her
damaging posts on the king were publicized on the Social Sanction page. Her admission to a prestigious university was denied on grounds of social misconduct, stemming
from her “ problematic ” online speech.
42
Although there is no comprehensive national law that addresses privacy in Thailand, there is a constitutional guarantee for the right to privacy in the section on
protection of rights and liberties of citizens in the current constitution of 2007. Existing laws contain no direct stipulations about violation of “ privacy ” per se.
43 There is
Thailand
education and campaigns against the government ’ s Internet control have also been
carried out, mostly by the so-called Thai Netizen Network (TNN), a relatively new local
nongovernmental organization (NGO) that advocates for Internet freedom. Increasingly, TNN has become allied with several international NGOs concerned with media
freedom, including Freedom House and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Surveillance
Without an explicit privacy law in place, several data surveillance schemes have been
administered since at least 1981 in Thailand without adequate legal safeguards, including the computerized and online civil registration system, a microchip national ID
card system, a computerized criminal records database system, and surveillance
cameras in public areas.
37 However, the public generally views these systems as part
of the long-standing civil registration system and data infrastructure and not as surveillance schemes. For online surveillance, state-controlled IIGs and ISPs have been
instructed to look into interactive communication in online forums hosted under their
networks, focusing on l è se-majest é speech, and to give a 30-minute time frame for
taking down such content. While the new surveillance scheme is not public knowledge, members of the public are unlikely to object to it, since fi ltering is rationalized
on the grounds of l è se-majest é . More technologically savvy dissidents and civic workers
have evaded the surveillance by relocating to host services overseas and by using
circumvention software.
In a recent example of cybercrime law enforcement, local Internet advocates and
media for the fi rst time posited privacy rights as being undermined by law enforcers ’
zeal to track and crack down on sources of rumors surrounding the king ’ s ailing condition.
38 This development followed the arrest of two suspects who posted the “ problematic information (about the king) ” in two popular online forums.
39 Prompted by
this incident, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) reportedly sought court
orders to look into the e-mail communication of all the people who had posted on
related topics on the two forums.
40
Many Internet users also participate in online surveillance of l è se-majest é . For
instance, a fan page called Social Sanction was developed for reporting l è se-majest é
comments posted on Facebook.
41 A teenage girl was socially reprimanded after her
damaging posts on the king were publicized on the Social Sanction page. Her admission to a prestigious university was denied on grounds of social misconduct, stemming
from her “ problematic ” online speech.
42
Although there is no comprehensive national law that addresses privacy in Thailand, there is a constitutional guarantee for the right to privacy in the section on
protection of rights and liberties of citizens in the current constitution of 2007. Existing laws contain no direct stipulations about violation of “ privacy ” per se.
43 There is