The government's recent release of the drafts of three digital-economy bills has stirred the masses, and Thai internet users the country over are united in their concern over unrestricted government surveillance of their digital data.
The last time the bill made headlines was early last year, when the first draft of the cyber bills came under fire. Instead of promoting digital economy, as the government claims is its top agenda, the bills were largely perceived by experts and other observers as a monitoring tool that would curb cyber-freedom. And this was all before the latest hullabaloo over the politicised "cyber crimes" of late.
With the revised draft, critics both on-and-offline wasted no time in illuminating its cracks and vulnerabilities, with particular attention paid to section 35(3), which gives government agents the authority to access "any kind of communicative media, from mail, telegrams [seriously?], phones, faxes, computers and any kind of electronic communications device for the benefit of Thailand's digital stability", all without a warrant or court order, as long as it "may be relevant to the upholding of the country's digital and military stability".
Kanin Srimaneekulroj is a feature writer for the Life section of the Bangkok Post.
But what exactly does "relevant to the upholding of the country's digital and military stability" mean? How do we determine if something "may be" relevant?
Since it's never clearly defined in the bill, are we to assume that this covers pretty much anything the government has taken issue with in the past?
Is a strongly worded Facebook status criticising the government considered to be relevant, thus warranting the unfettered surveillance of government officials?
Is shedding light on the cruel treatment of conscripts in military camps considered harmful to military stability?
Who's to say the government won't use these surveillance resources on their rivals/opponents -- who have so often been blamed for "inciting conflict" (surely something that "may be relevant") in the public by just expressing their opinions -- in a bid to find dirt on them?
Which brings me to my point: How do we know the government -- or its many individual agents -- won't abuse this power once they have it?
Frankly speaking, this government's track record with regard to respecting people's privacy -- and rights -- isn't exactly a positive one.
Don't forget, this is the same government that tried to block Facebook in an attempt to silence its critics, denying claims that they were behind it when faced with public uproar, only to be disputed when service provider Telenor -- the parent company of Dtac -- came out to admit they had received orders from the government to do so.
The same government that -- as reported by the Thai Netizens Network group in June of 2014 -- went around Facebook's back by incorporating a Facebook app into their landing page for blocked sites, collecting the name and email address of anyone who clicked on those links. Having dismissed the government's demands for private information on Thai users multiple times, Facebook promptly removed the app -- twice, as the government didn't get the message the first time -- which also fails to inform users what information of theirs is taken, where it is sent or how it will be used, a clear violation of the site's privacy agreements.
The same government that - despite its stated hopes for establishing Thailand as the region's dominant "digital economy" - does not understand that, as is true with many things involving the internet, trust is a crucial factor when it comes to any kind of interaction.
When I buy a shirt or a backpack from a Facebook store, I trust them to mail me my purchases after I've wired them the money. When I key in my credit card number to PayPal, I trust that they will keep that information safe to the best of their ability.
Simply put, I do not trust the government to gain access to my personal information. After all, it's entirely possible that some of the offhand jokes and discussions I've had with friends are something a random government agent may deem as "relevant".