RSS
ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
from the shame-on-netfirms dept
We've been talking a lot about the importance of anonymity online, and are always sad to hear about companies that simply rollover in identifying anonymous users for no good reason. A newly filed lawsuit reveals a particularly ridiculous situation, summarized nicely by Paul Alan Levy:
Anthony Chai, a naturalized US citizen who emigrated from Thailand, runs a computer store in California. Using the store's computers, Chai and his customers posted anonymous comments critical of the king of Thailand on a Thai-language pro-democracy website, Manusaya.com. Thailand forbids criticism of the king – the legal principle of lese majeste – and when the Canadian Internet hosting firm Netfirms (which is incorporated in Delaware and maintains a US office) received a complaint from the Thai government, it not only shut down the web site but provided Chai’s IP address and two e-mail addresses associated with the posts. Thailand has long shown its insistence on applying the principle even to criticism voiced in other countries, when the speakers expose themselves to its authority by, for example, visiting the country.We've pointed out how Thailand has been known to overreact to criticism of its king before, and this is even more crazy, seeing as Chai was mainly criticizing the laws that make criticizing the king illegal. But, the other key issue here is the fact that Netfirms simply handed over Chai's info, without consideration of whether or not that was appropriate or if it violated Chai's rights. It also handed over the info without "requesting that the officials obtain the proper court order, supboena, or warrant as required by the Treaty with Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters." Chai is now suing Netfirms, claiming negligence and violation of California laws, including its constitutional right to privacy. Should be an interesting case to watch.
When Chai was home visiting family in Thailand, he was detained at the airport and subjected to extensive questioning and to threats of violence against his family both in the United States and in Thailand. He was also repeatedly questioned in the United States, with prosecutors using the threat of prosecution, and dangling and threatened with prosecution. The prosecutor also demanded expensive gifts. Chai has been officially charged in the Thai courts with lèse majesté, and consequently he can no longer return to his native land to visit his family. Ironically, most of Chai's posts were directed at the injustice of the lese majeste laws, rather than at the Thai king himself.
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The King and I?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dangling?
I'm guessing this might be a typo or result of the awkward sentence structure, but I read the above as US prosecuters threatened to dangle this guy. Is that even a thing?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
After all, this is the same logic used to shut down the cases against file traders, so why wouldn't it apply here?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The King and I?
Sure, but the distinction is that in the US it's legal and in Thailand it's not. Kind of a big difference, huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The King and I?
Yes its legal here. But if you get punished all the same thats a big difference too. And people do get punished for expressing their opinions in all countries. My point is its human nature to beat up your critics and it crosses international boarders.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dangling?
Yes, and then they will make him sit in the comfy chair...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dangling?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dangling?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Important precident?
Seems like this would be a good case for the EFF and ACLU to weigh in on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Death, Taxes and now Lawsuits. It's a no-win.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
If Mike reviewed his text at all, he might notice flaws of fact and logic that stem from fitting to his bias. That's why even when he's got story and position correct, still likely some error to hoot at, as here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But! You have no concept of what you are talking about.
Lets see now.
To the east lies Cambodia where there was a few years that very sociable politically correct government ran by the most of likable of governing heads called Brother #1, Pole Pot. If you do not remember the movie called the 'Killing Fields' you should definitely view it to understand what a left wing communist government is all about. Two years in power 50% of population killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields
Now to the north is Laos. Lao People's Democratic Republic exterminated 20% of its population at the same time.
Further North is China. During the 50s and 60s at least 100 million were exterminated in Mow's reeducation programs.
Then to the west there is that lovely country once called Burma, now Republic of the Union of Myanmar, with whom the Thais have been at war with for 300 years, and who are so accommodating that the Thais move their capital, Bannock, to its present location so that elephants, the tanks of Asian warfare up till the 19th century, could not be used as attack weapons.
Then of course there is Bhutan where the Chinese backed rebels slandered the complete royal government except for one uncle who just happened not to be at the royal palace at the time.
You might say that instead of over reacting that the Thai government is showing a very high degree of restrain in not applying the same methods of control that its neighbors apply to revolutions and hate criminals.
The problem here appears to be that there is a very large contingency of Americans and others that believe that the world is like their left wing illusions of Utopia. A book which most should read as Utopia had a very dark side to perfection.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The King and I?
Just because people do shitty things doesn't make it excusable. What makes this more unconscionable than what Hoover did is that it's enshrined in law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
... which means Mike got it right, and that Mr Levy needs to edit his article.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
Really... you would think that people would be sure they were literate enough to understand the conventions of the posting before criticizing the writing of others, if for no other reason than to properly direct their snark.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That's merely an observational statement, based on the annoyance of the USA pushing its interests on other nations and forcing them to pass laws it wants. I am sympathetic for him, his situation and his family. I'm not heartless; I hope he is successful and that this raises more awareness about how harmful censorship laws have the potential to be if not properly thought out
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“Every federal court to address this issue has held that subscriber information provided to an internet provider is not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s privacy expectation.” United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161, 164 (4th Cir. 2010).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We run into that problem here in the US, too. We say people need freedom of speech, but don't like it when people say things we don't like and demand that it be taken down, and justify it by saying "it's not as bad as X country!". It's hypocritical when the US does it and is destructive to free speech as a whole. Don't fall into the same trap. Moral relativism is bullshit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This might just break that armor and immunity given to both for putting up with the violation of the 4th Amendment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
"That's why even when he's got story and position correct, still likely some error to hoot at, as here."
Hey kettle, this is the pot, you're black!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That said, you are talking about an US citizen that had a few of the amendments brutally violated. So uh, it is a very real US problem.
And I haven't even started to talk about your notions of bad and utopia. Incidentally, many ppl outside the US would agree with the phrase you quoted. Surprise, surprise! There's life beyond America!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Me: I hit the report button. There is no place here for suggesting someone go kill themselves because you don't like their opinion.
Mike, can you consider action against this user?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Some slandered the entire royal family, thought that was a regular occurence with the press in Great Britain.
Sorry, understood the point of your post, but just couldn't resist.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The way to correct the abuse is to make the penalties for abuse much greater than the penalties for violating the law. This would have the effect of chilling emotion and forcing a real cost/benefit analysis for potential overreach...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Dangling?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The King and I?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
---King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 2005
From the sound of things, one could argue that charging someone with lèse majesté could be construed as an attack on the King, since it is in direct contradiction to his views and desires.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
1. Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
We uphold ‘The Golden Rule’ in everything we do. We put ourselves in other people’s shoes giving us a more complete perspective and ensuring every decision is fair and equitable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Dangling? = Mike's slap-dash, no-edit writing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks to Hulser (and others)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The attitude towards royalty in Thailand being untouchable is something more akin to religion rather than a rational law. It's very heavily ingrained in Thai culture that royalty are something almost at the level of gods. To most Thai people, criticizing the king is something like telling a Christan that god was wrong to create man (or something like that.) But there are always those that disagree.
This is a bit of a circular argument, but I don't think, even if a politician legally could suggest these laws be changed (and they can't) doing so would probably get themselves annihilated by enough voters completely withdrawing support.
But the question very well may be asked - how much help is due and when to uphold the laws of other countries and how much opposition and hindrance should be afforded in polar opposite views such as this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
US Interrogation?
> with prosecutors using the threat of prosecution
Huh? What US officials would haul someone in for questioning for criticizing a foreign king?
That's more disturbing to me than some ISP inappropriately divulging some personal info.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment