News Forum - Amateur crime sleuths warned they could be prosecuted for breaking PDPA

[Thaiger]

Amateur crime sleuths have been warned they could be prosecuted under the Personal Data Protection Act despite their good intentions. Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn, head of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, urged the nation’s unofficial detectives against posting video clips or pictures of others on social media, regardless of their good intentions, as it may violate the PDPA. A new PDPA law was introduced on June 1 which carried the threat of a 1 year jail sentence and 5 million baht fine for anyone breaking it. But there are some grey areas. Chaiwut acknowledged it is legal for people to […]

The story Amateur crime sleuths warned they could be prosecuted for breaking PDPA as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Cabra]

"People can send pictures or videos to the police, but they are not allowed to publish them online. People who appear in the content can file legal charges against the camera user.”

Seems like if you violate the law you should lose all rights against seeking charges against the camera user. I'm really not sure what this law intends to do, unless it's to eliminate the online shaming (even if no laws are broken), and even then if the shame is deserved (which I acknowledge can be subjective) why should the guilty have recourse. Now if the camera owner is posting out of hate, grudge or spite, then they should be help accountable. Very confusing this PDPA law. Seems to have created more confusion than it's solved problems. Thailand trying to apply their saving face principles to the online world. 

[Chatogaster]

3 hours ago, Thaiger said:

(Thaiger quoting someone) “Filming wrongdoing is allowed, but the images cannot be posted online. That is illegal.”

 

No it's not.

However, it is true that you can get sued. It used to be ("cough") simple: section 330 regarding defamation dictates "no punishment" (problem #1: that's not the same as "not guilty") if the cause of defamation can be proved by the defamer to be true (problem #2) and not concerning a personal matter (problem #3). In a clear-cut case with a lawyer worth his fee those problems can be overcome.

Now the PDPA has been overlaid. It doesn't acknowledge that the truth of what was stated matters (see its section 77), thereby eroding the right to free speech further (even if accurate/truthful). Many principles behind the PDPA are a good idea, but it sure looks like the act will be be successfully abused by wrong-doers in  what should be frivolous cases.

So... goodbye to the highly educational "bad driving in TH" YouTube clips (obviously the problem goes deeper, but I like and will miss them).

 

[anarchofarmer]

So all those high profile cases in the states of police officers breaking their own laws and killing black people (sorry, people of colour) would have remained "unsolved" under Thai law!!! Will that be how Joe Ferrari gets out???

[Poolie]

No.

[Rebel]

This country is so backwards in many ways.

Maybe we don't understand thainess.

[astro]

Is "backwards" Thailand the only country with personal data protection laws? 

[RedBirdy]

3 hours ago, anarchofarmer said:

So all those high profile cases in the states of police officers breaking their own laws and killing black people (sorry, people of colour) would have remained "unsolved" under Thai law!!! Will that be how Joe Ferrari gets out???

Or the case of the two english white blokes smashing each other over the head with weights in pattaya! Corruption and injustice is world wide. That being said its obvious they don't want their police or tourism industry exposed by western hypocrites on holiday

[JJJ]

So if someone records say a corrupt act and the police do nothing about it, the person posting a video to expose the corruption becomes the criminal? 

yup there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this law. 

[Vigo]

1 hour ago, JJJ said:

So if someone records say a corrupt act and the police do nothing about it, the person posting a video to expose the corruption becomes the criminal? 

yup there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this law. 

There are  many legal ways in which to publicize obvious criminal acts, none of which Thailand can interfere with. The most common approach is that of publication by a third party website, located outside of Thailand. For example, post with a host in Australia, Canada, EU, UK, or USA and the local laws will protect against Thai retaliation. One can submit to the website direct, or the information can be given to a third party which creates a wall between the third party who the  posts and the provider of the information.  This is already done with many of the Thai car crash videos that are available on speciality websites.

One may say that putting documentation on a foreign website where Thais won't see or read will serve no purpose, but it will if the intent is to create publicity. News and social media  will often pick up on such information.  This was demonstrated during the last coup and multi coloured shirt fights. Much of the  activity was  first posted on foreign websites and then circulated through social media and email giving the link to the website. Try as the Thai administration may try to stop the sharing of information, they can't do it unless they disconnect from world wide web and that won't happen without an outcry.

What the Thai laws does is to discourage the posting of edited videos and false claims of corruption. Accusing someone of corruption doesn't mean the person is corrupt. It may be the result of a grudge or dispute.

 

[Skip]

Amateur crime sleuths have been warned they could be prosecuted under the Personal Data Protection Act despite their good intentions.

Surely there are intelligent Thai's somewhere in this country... but certainly not in government... all the pages and pages printed and not read before something becomes law... sort of like Pelosi saying "you got to pass it before you can read it."

[bvbeyond]

So does this mean if a junior police officer were to witness their police captain, who likes Ferraris perhaps,  tourturing a person to death.  And If they were to release it on line cause they obviously cant give it to their superior.  That they themselves would be finanically destoroyed and/or go to jail.  

Or what if police did not act after someone was killed in a hit and run by a billionaire or off duty police officer.  Anyone posting evidence would be subject to jail?

Certainly things like this would never happen.

[JustAnotherExpat]

The more laws, the less justice. Paraphrasing Mao Tse Tung.

[Maff]

What nonsense is this. Videoing something that may appear to be crime does not mean it is. So this law means what exactly, it is illegal to post any video of anyone doing anything ? Or only if it is an illegal act, which can only be determined by the court. If there are no criminal charges and a conviction then has a crime been commited?. If not, if a man beats up his girlfriend, and is not convicted, then it should be ok to post the video. The subject of the video should only have a case against the person filming, if convicted. If its proved his actions were actually criminal. So if the Girlfriend does not want to press charges, and the Police do not want to press charges then posting the video online should be allowed. 

 

[TWS60]

I think the underlying intent is reasonable, subject to case by case review.

Reasonable in the sense that if you witness, and happen to video, a crime-in-progress, you first report it to police, not breathlessly post it on social media.   The 'professional' media quacks are bad enough as it is without everyone and their dog with a phone camera playing amateur reporter, posting videos straight to social media - and like the MSM, they want to be 'FIRST', often without full or proper context, or follow up. 

People these days are far too emotional and reactive, not stopping to think things through, potential ramifications, risk/reward, etc.    Mobs have been kicked off over partial video clips and cities in Murica have been burned to the ground, for example.   And then people stand around in the rubble later, hats in hand, wishing they hadn't acted so irrationally.

Here in Thailand, obviously there's not a whole lot of trust and confidence in the RTP to do the right thing, or anything at all, and that cynicism has plenty of precedent.  That said, should still make the attempt to run it up the flag pole first, and if the BiB fails to act, and the incident is really significant enough to warrant action,  then by all means....

Hopefully this law will serve as a firewall to stupid social media posting and force people to Stop, Take A Breath And Think It Through. Aka: STAB A TIT.

[JJJ]

44 minutes ago, TWS60 said:

I think the underlying intent is reasonable, subject to case by case review.

Reasonable in the sense that if you witness, and happen to video, a crime-in-progress, you first report it to police, not breathlessly post it on social media.   The 'professional' media quacks are bad enough as it is without everyone and their dog with a phone camera playing amateur reporter, posting videos straight to social media - and like the MSM, they want to be 'FIRST', often without full or proper context, or follow up. 

People these days are far too emotional and reactive, not stopping to think things through, potential ramifications, risk/reward, etc.    Mobs have been kicked off over partial video clips and cities in Murica have been burned to the ground, for example.   And then people stand around in the rubble later, hats in hand, wishing they hadn't acted so irrationally.

Here in Thailand, obviously there's not a whole lot of trust and confidence in the RTP to do the right thing, or anything at all, and that cynicism has plenty of precedent.  That said, should still make the attempt to run it up the flag pole first, and if the BiB fails to act, and the incident is really significant enough to warrant action,  then by all means....

Hopefully this law will serve as a firewall to stupid social media posting and force people to Stop, Take A Breath And Think It Through. Aka: STAB A TIT.

There already laws and remedies for making a false statement, I.e. defamation or things like nudity without consent. But this criminalizes posting a video taken in a public place. Whether it’s a crime or it’s just uncouth behavior that shouldn’t be a crime. 

By the way doesn’t this criminalize the work of all photographers covering public events? 

[Viggen840]

19 hours ago, Cabra said:

"People can send pictures or videos to the police, but they are not allowed to publish them online. People who appear in the content can file legal charges against the camera user.”

Seems like if you violate the law you should lose all rights against seeking charges against the camera user. I'm really not sure what this law intends to do, unless it's to eliminate the online shaming (even if no laws are broken), and even then if the shame is deserved (which I acknowledge can be subjective) why should the guilty have recourse. Now if the camera owner is posting out of hate, grudge or spite, then they should be help accountable. Very confusing this PDPA law. Seems to have created more confusion than it's solved problems. Thailand trying to apply their saving face principles to the online world. 

Seems more like protecting the guilty. I wonder if it is the likes of Joe Ferrari who are worried about being filmed receiving their brown paper bag per month more than the 'person in the street'...

[TWS60]

8 minutes ago, JJJ said:

There already laws and remedies for making a false statement, I.e. defamation or things like nudity without consent. But this criminalizes posting a video taken in a public place. Whether it’s a crime or it’s just uncouth behavior that shouldn’t be a crime. 

By the way doesn’t this criminalize the work of all photographers covering public events? 

Yeah, we can 'what if' and do cynical 'whataboutism' to death; another area social media is useful and unproductive, at the same time.

The social media psychosis nightmare is still a relatively new thing, and the social systems are playing catch up, often takes a few rounds to tweak and amend.  

Regulating behavior is necessary, and been around a long time, using various carrots and sticks.  Poor old Moses was sick to the back teeth with all the BS and drama, so he went up a mountain, smashed out some rules on stone tablets then came back, held a town hall meeting where he essentially said, "OK, look here you pack of morons, here's duh rules from now on, mkay?!".  Enforced by you know who somewhere up in the sky.  A lot of the rabble self-regulated their behavior.   Some didn't, thus breaking the 'law', punished by a trip straight to the Lake o' Fire.

That's how us humans tumble along day to day here.

 

[Poolie]

I doubt it. So might you.

[perceblue]

Absolutely agree.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Photos or videos that appear to show a person or people committing a criminal act can be misinterpreted, because what appears to be obvious is not always the fact and can damage people`s reputations or being falsely accused of perpetrating a crime.

Trial by the legal system, not by the media, that`s how it`s done in the civilised world.

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by perceblue

[Giltee]

20 hours ago, Cabra said:

"People can send pictures or videos to the police, but they are not allowed to publish them online. People who appear in the content can file legal charges against the camera user.”

Seems like if you violate the law you should lose all rights against seeking charges against the camera user. I'm really not sure what this law intends to do, unless it's to eliminate the online shaming (even if no laws are broken), and even then if the shame is deserved (which I acknowledge can be subjective) why should the guilty have recourse. Now if the camera owner is posting out of hate, grudge or spite, then they should be help accountable. Very confusing this PDPA law. Seems to have created more confusion than it's solved problems. Thailand trying to apply their saving face principles to the online world. 

If videos of criminal acts are put online then the police are under pressure to prosecute the perpetrators and show the public they’ve done so. 

[HiuMak]

Brownies must be loosing a lot of brown envelopes opportunities due to others sharing in social media.