US Citizen Sues Web Hosting Company for Identifying Him to Thai Government
Submitted by prachatai on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 08:25A suit was filed on August 24, 2011 against Netfirms, Inc., a Canadian web hosting company incorporated in the United States, for releasing personal information to the Thai government. Netfirms’ disclosures allowed Thai officials to identify, detain, and interrogate the plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Chai, both in Thailand and on U.S. soil. These disclosures, without which Mr. Chai would have remained anonymous, resulted in the Thai government charging Mr. Chai with violating a Thai law that restricts free speech – ironically, for comments he wrote online criticizing that very law.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the Law Office of Snell & Wilmer, alleges that the company’s conduct violated California state law, as well as Constitutional and international human rights law. "This case lies at the intersection of privacy guarantees, freedom of expression, international human rights law and the Internet. I am honored to work with Human Rights USA on this important case," said M.C. Sungaila, Partner with Snell & Wilmer.
As set out in the complaint, Mr. Chai, owns a computer store in Long Beach, California from which he and his patrons would access and anonymously post comments on a Thai-language pro-democracy website, Manusaya.com, hosted by Netfirms. Many of the anonymous comments expressed concern with Thailand’s lese majesté laws which prohibit any negative statements about the Thai monarchy and provide for severe punishment, including imprisonment for up to fifteen years.
Mr. Chai’s privacy rights were violated when, at the request of Thai government officials, Netfirms suspended Manusaya’s account and provided Mr. Chai's IP address and e-mail address to the Thai officials without notice and without his consent. As a result of this release of Mr. Chai’s confidential personal information to Thai government officials, he was subsequently detained at the Bangkok airport, taken to the Department of Special Investigations, and interrogated about his postings on the website. After finally being released from police custody in Bangkok and returning home to California, Mr. Chai was then interrogated by Thai officials over the course of two days on U.S. soil at a hotel in Hollywood, California. Mr. Chai was later informed by Thai officials that if he returns to Thailand, he will be arrested and charged with violating lese majesté laws.
Theresa Harris, Executive Director of Human Rights USA said, “Internet companies need to take great care before releasing confidential information to investigators, especially when those requests come from foreign governments. Information is power, and these companies have the power to place a person at peril of imprisonment for the equivalent of an anonymous letter to the editor. Companies must be held accountable when they disregard the rights of the people who use their services.”
Mr. Chai's case underscores the need for internet communications corporations, no matter how big or small, to put human rights first in their business dealings. When a company provides tools for international communications as its primary service, human rights are an inherent part of the business model.
Read Anthony Chai's very interesting story in his complaint.
Hopefully this will be the
Submitted by Frank G Anderson (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 14:45.Hopefully this will be the first of many more such cases. Thai authorities need to keep their nose on Thai soil and not abroad where they have no right to censor, and especially to detain or interrogate. This case is one I had earlier written to the US Department of State as well, and I hope that the case gets the illumination it deserves - as well as illuminating this unjust criminal justice system here where you don't even have to be accused before they demand bail!
Of note is the fact that not only is it offensive to criticize the lese majeste statutes, but it is also offensive to criticize people who overdo them for their own interests.
Bring on the suits!
I have many times asked how
Submitted by Robald (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 17:15.I have many times asked how it is, other countries allow Thailand to interfere with their citizens, even in their own countries, when it comes to laws that have been done away with for a century or more in most parts pf the civilized world.
Sincerely...what hold does Thailand have over all of Europe and the USA for example, that these countries bend over for it and allow even their own citizens to be jailed and thrown into a nightmare of the dark Ages?
Imagine a woman has an affair in California. She is from a Muslim country where she could as a consequence be beheaded. Would the company in question still give out such information about her emails written between her and her lover?
The example is only sightly similar but the absurdity of the degree of charges for serious "crimes" in one country that are meaningless in others is not superficial.
But again, I want to ask, what power Thailand has over other countries. How can it impose its laws outside its own borders?
It is as if a woman from Saudi-Arabia driving a car in Kansas can be fined or jailed when she returns to SA. Or a man drinking a glass of whiskey in a bar in London getting arrested when he returns a Muslim country. An Iranian who has a sexual encounter with someone in Amsterdam can be beheaded if he returns to Iran?
These examples are bad enough; worse when our own greedy businesses start to cooperate with the governments in question.
The scariest thing is the zest and determination with which Thai pursue "offenders" all over the world.
I ask again, what power does Thailand have over so much of the rest of the world to be free to abuse a basic human right, that of freedom of speech and expression?
No mystery here. The power
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 18:46.No mystery here. The power the Royal Thai Government has over 'the rest of the world' is simply garden variety greed.
Due to the structure of the Royal Thai Government, every minister is an autocrat in a position to sell out at least a portion of the country for a fistful of dollars, or yuan, or euros, or baht. Leading Thai 'businessmen', like Thaksin Shinawatra, are really just pickpockets on the Thai commons. The Shin Empire was built on corrupt deals with Royal Thai Government ministers that delivered the telecommunications franchise which Thaksin parlayed into his eventual overthrow. That's why Chalerm, like a bad penny, can't be gotten rid of.
The International Corporatocracy know this very well. They want to get on the good side of the Mob in charge of the Royal Thai Government, and if throwing their own citizens and customers under the Royal Thai Government bus does the trick... no problem.
Remember the penultimate incarnation of the Royal Thai Government's push for an amendment that would allow the cabinet to single handedly cut deals with foreign nations without even suffering the scrutiny of the rest of the Mob in parliament? The Bangkok Post, the Vejjajiva Post, pushed that one every chance they got. That was a transparent attempt to deal themselves all the cards, from the bottom of the deck, to enable them to sell any and everything in Thailand, including what's 'nailed down', to the highest bidder among the International Corporatocracy.
That's what they've got on the rest of the world.
The Royal Thai Government has the keys to the kingdom in hand... and on the auction block. You can bet that every International Corporation and all the foreign governments they control, such as the US Government, are 'making nice' to their compradors in charge of the Royal Thai Government. Yellow shirt, Red Shirt, Blue Shirt... they'll wear whatever's the costume de rigueur to the table.
Call them anything you want... but late for dinner.
No mystery, man. Many Western
Submitted by Augustus (not verified) on Tue, 30/08/2011 - 12:00.No mystery, man. Many Western govenrments put the economy before human rights. That's all. The US, for example, turns blind eyes in Saudi Arabia, Thailand and such because of good business. Though in these countries, the conditions are similar to Iran - Iran is not good business, however, so they launch an offensive against it.
Western democracy is carnivorous capitalism. It is not perfect. But since most people do not see beyond their own borders, it is not an issue the West cares much for.
I did a search on Netfirms
Submitted by michael (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 19:10.I did a search on Netfirms Inc., & came up with this, as the core of their Mission Statement: " At Netfirms, we are a diverse group of thinkers that share one common goal: Help people get their ideas online. " (http://www.netfirms.com/company/our-mission/ )
From their blog: "Here are our Five Core Values that guide our behavior:
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.
2. Do more with less.
We keep things simple. We are constantly streamlining and automating wherever we can. And we spend wisely.
3. Delight our Customers.
We will delight our customers with an outstanding experience that they tell their friends about.
4. Pursue Growth and Learning.
We are a company of self starters who are never satisfied with the status-quo. We are always learning and not afraid to try new things.
5. Think Big.
We think, act, and behave with the big picture in mind. We are fearless. We are confident that we can achieve what we set our minds to." ( http://www.netfirms.com/blog/2010/11/19/five-core-values-that-guide-our-behaviour/#idc-container ) n.b. Comments are possible.
Also, http://www.facebook.com/netfirmsfans?sk=wall and http://twitter.com/#!/netfirms
I suggest that everyone who reads this lets them know they are hypocritical & grossly unethical, and protests against their entirely unnecessary & probably illegal action. [email protected]
[email protected].. Please
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 19:19.[email protected]..
Please Michael... what you're quoting is advertising. Everyone should know that. No one pays any attention to a 'mission statement' from a corporation. Advertising is lying. Everyone knows that. It's a symptom of the disease known as neoliberal, 'free-market', capitalism. You're taking the struggle into Never Never Land.
Thank you for sharing that
Submitted by michael (not verified) on Sat, 27/08/2011 - 23:58.Thank you for sharing that piece of typical JFL erudition. I nevertheless still recommend sending as many emails as possible to Netfirms, and bombarding their F/B & Twitter sites.
BTW, the F/B site is full of complaints about Netfirm's bad service. Well worth a look, with or without JFL's approval.
Sorry for twitting you,
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Sun, 28/08/2011 - 07:19.Sorry for twitting you, Michael. Sometimes you seem such a lamb. Certainly it is good to raise your voice whenever and wherever you can without anyone's, least of all this bozo's, permission.
Very patronising of you, JFL,
Submitted by michael (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 02:33.Very patronising of you, JFL, so let me point out 2 things where you're mistaken. Firstly, statements like the 2 which I've quoted are not advertising; they are Public Relations, which has as its objective the setting of an attractive image. Secondly, people, both within & outside of companies, do read such statements (if they didn't, corporations would not spend such a lot of time & money composing & publicising them).
Consumer & other pressure-groups know very well that an effective way of undermining a corporation which is behaving unethically can be to throw such statements back in their face, accompanied by evidence that shows they are bullshit.
Facebook & Twitter are 2 very contemporary media which present themselves to be used for corporate PR. However, as many companies are discovering, they can backfire if the company is insincere or unethical, because they also present open & immediate opportunities for dissatisfied customers to publicise their dissatisfaction very widely.
I give up. Hammer away at the
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 07:19.I give up. Hammer away at the social media. It can't hurt... unless twitter and facebook turn over the ip addresses and email accounts of any Thais who might respond to the Thai DSI, as Netfirms.com has done.
The distinction between PR and advertising is lost on me.
Thanks very much for drawing our attention to the full complaint available at Human Rights site. Reading about Royal Thai Police Colonel Yanaphon Youngyuen's trip to the US and subsequent interrogation of Chai there is very instructive...
...seems that even when (especially when?) defending the honor of the Institution the opportunity for a shakedown is never passed by.
I hope Chai gets his jury trial. I hope my fellow Americans can see and understand and grant redress to the full extent possible to Chai for the injuries he's suffered at the hands of the Royal Thai Police.
I hope that via levying the highest possible punitive damages against Netfirms.com Inc. they can serve notice on corporations that work hand in glove with repressive governments around the world that they will suffer financial consequences for their betrayals. The bottom line is the only thing of any concern at all to corporations.
Good for Chai, good for the World Organization for Human Rights, and good for Snell & Wilmer.
No problem. I don't want you
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 09:02.No problem. I don't want you to suffer a knock on the door. But the link, which Michael very astutely provided is to the actual complaint filed with the California court (pdf).
Of course if you feel that providing a link to a public document filed with a California court is 'illegal' in Thailand... you might be right. They do make it up as they go along... and our Phuea Thai Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm seems intent on imprisoning as many "redshirts" as he can to appease the Royalists... so you may well be right to delete this post also.
The noose is tightening here in Thailand.
I see that a link to a page
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 20:20.I see that a link to a page which in turn links to a publicly available document is "ok", but a link to an actual , publicly available document ist Verboten!
Do they send you guidelines now? or just rely upon your own, ever increasing paranoia to shut down the exchange of information? I imagine the second route is both more destructive of public morale and more effective.
So a doubly indirect link to Anthony Chai's complaint as filed against Netfirms.com, Inc for negligence, unfair business practices, and violation of constitutional privacy rights : click on my name, and then click on the 'Blogroll' entitled 'Anthony Chai's Complaint filed against Netfirms.com, Inc. in California'.
I am reminded of when I was
Submitted by Robald (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 17:45.I am reminded of when I was young and started out with Jim Click automobiles as a salesman before moving "up", as it is referred to. He had dozens of lots and was pretty wealthy. We went through a training program and one of the required readings books was something like "the greatest salesman in the world".
Anyway the salesman in question was Jesus Christ.
We were expected to convince ourselves we could imitate him and become the world's greatest, or second greatest salesmen and women. Of course we were also quickly ushered into the world of "remember the buyer has your rent in his wallet" and a good sale was referred as "ripping his neck off" (Later I realized Click and his clique were ripping my head head off, too)
The last part of the training course lived up to the title of the course: CONTROL.
So...become Christ-like, seek greatness, get the other guy's money out of his wallet, rip his neck off. All you have to d is use CONTROL.
Sound familiar?
PS I did make a move to GM but although the training course was different the objective was the same. At least from the lot, to closer, to finance you can bamboozle yourself more easily into thinking you really are in control.
Five-part test on anonymity
Submitted by Frank G Anderson (not verified) on Sun, 28/08/2011 - 14:39.Five-part test on anonymity and issues of privacy...
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/IP_AnonymousInternetPosts_LF_10mar09.pdf
US-incorporated company, Canadian server location
Thanks for the link Frank.
Submitted by john francis lee (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 08:45.Thanks for the link Frank. Morgan Lewis seems to be in the position of counsel to the Royal Thai Police in this case.
I missed the fifth part. The host service seeking to quash the subpoena (was there even a subpoena in this case?) would be Netfirms.com. The party seeking the information would be the Royal Thai Police. The anonymous poster would be Chai et al. So
These are the steps to get a subpoena... as far as I can see the courts were not involved at all. The Royal Thai Police simply contacted Netfirms.com directly, asked them to jump, and Neftirms.com replied 'How high, Sir?'
I hope that Chai gets his jury trial... a jury is a panel of ordinary citizens who sit and hear a civil or criminal case and then decide it. It's not a perfect system, but it beats 'secret trials' and 'secret evidence' and 'sentence first - verdict afterwards'.
In this case Netfirms.com certainly seems to have egregiously betrayed a customer with no legal cover whatsoever for having done so.
I hope that the jury not only awards Chai whatever monetary damages he seeks, that being all they can do to help him after the fact, but also that it socks Netfirms.com with the maximum in punitive damages possible.
Good for Chai, good for the World Organization for Human Rights, and good for Snell & Wilmer.
That's an interesting
Submitted by michael (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 01:51.That's an interesting document, Frank. It appears that they may have a good case. I don't think the location of the server out of U.S. jurisdiction would have much bearing on the case, since the decision would have to have been made in U.S. - or at least, the responsibility for it would lie with U.S management.
The thing that I find most intriguing is that the victim " was then interrogated by Thai officials over the course of two days on U.S. soil at a hotel in Hollywood, California. " I would be interested to know the circumstances of this. "Thai officials" would normally have no legal standing in U.S. in regard to detention & interrogation. The legal consequences could be very embarrassing to the Thais, and enriching to Mr Chai.
Thai law is unfortunately rather primitive by comparison, otherwise Kh. Chiranuch would have relatively little to worry about...
The World Organisation for
Submitted by michael (not verified) on Mon, 29/08/2011 - 03:32.The World Organisation for Human Rights has provided a PDF download of the complaint, which is much more detailed than the article. It contains some fairly extraordinary allegations, including bribery attempts and the identity of a person who was present at the interrogation in U.S. It can be accessed from the link at the bottom of this page:
http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&Itemid=189