Misunderstandings Regarding Article 112 and Defamation Law and Offenses under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550
Disclaimer (ข้อจำกัดความรับผิดชอบ): This post has been created for the purpose of English language learning only. I am not a lawyer. I am an English language teacher. โพสต์นี้จัดทำขึ้นเพื่อการเรียนรู้ภาษาอังกฤษเท่านั้น ฉันไม่ใช่ทนายความหรือนักกฎหมาย ฉันเป็นเพียงครูสอนภาษาอังกฤษ
Misunderstandings Regarding Article 112 and Defamation Law and Offenses under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 “ความเข้าใจผิดเกี่ยวกับ ม.112 และหมิ่นประมาท..ว่าเป็นความผิดตาม พรบ. คอมพิวเตอร์..”
Note:
Article 112 states "whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.
But in the case of insulting people of the general public, such would come under the Criminal Code Articles 326 and 328.
Noted that they come under the same Criminal Code, but different sections.
#Computer-related offenses law...
The 2007 Computer Crime Act, Section 14 (1), stipulates prohibiting the posting or dissemination of fake/distorted information or false information in the computer system.
Liberalists (The Leftists) understand the Internet to be a free land that gives people the right to freedom to express their opinions freely. In some countries, opinions are usually expressed through the Internet. There are some truths Some may not be true. Some are fake and distorted
Hence, it is understood among Internet users to be disciplined and responsible for their opinions or comments, or actions.
And it is understood also that posting a message that is not true teasing or pranking each other for fun, when no one is hurt, is normal. "It's doable - not illegal."
The Issues Related to Section 14 (1):
From many posts or blogs on the Internet, for many Thais, it is a bit scary when one looks closely at the statement of Section 14 (1) under the Computer Crime Act, which may be viewed as "something clearly contradictory to the concept of freedom on the Internet.
Like many others, I believe that most people do not know the origin of this section and what the purpose is. Most of them use a method of reading and interpreting the words according to their own understanding. This may not be enough when it comes to reading legal documents.
So why is this computer law was passed and implemented? Even though it might be contrary to the idea of freedom of expression? One may ask why? The academic answer is this --- when drafting this computer law (the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550). Thailand needed new laws that could prosecute criminals who use technology to commit new crimes and those crimes are not an offense under the Criminal Code. These criminal acts include DOS, Hacking, Spam, Sniff, and Phishing.
DOS attacks:
Denial of service attack (DoS attack), a type of cybercrime in which an Internet site is made unavailable, typically by using multiple computers to repeatedly make requests that tie up the site and prevent it from responding to requests from legitimate users.
การยิงคำสั่งถล่มให้เวปไซต์ล่ม (DOS attack)
การเจาะระบบ (hacking), การส่งข้อมูลที่ไม่ต้องการ (spam).. การดักรับข้อมูล (sniff).. และ การหลอกเอาข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล (phishing)
It must be noted here that before the Computer Crime Act.. those actions are a crime.
What do we mean by Phishing?
What is a phishing attack? Phishing is a type of social engineering attack often used to steal user data, including login credentials and credit card numbers. It occurs when an attacker, masquerading as a trusted entity, dupes a victim into opening an email, instant message, or text message.
“ฟิชชิ่ง” ไม่เป็นความผิดฐานฉ้อโกง เพราะไม่ได้หลอกเอาทรัพย์สิน.. ไม่เป็นความผิดฐานปลอมเอกสาร เพราะเอกสารต้องเป็นวัตถุ ต้องมีต้นฉบับ..จึงต้องร่างกฎหมายใหม่มาลงโทษคนทำฟิชชิ่ง..
“Phishing” is not an offense of fraud. because a doer does not deceive to acquire the property.. It's not an offense for forgery. because the document must be an object and tangible. hence, there must be the original version. Therefore, a new law must be drawn up to punish people who do phishing. Does it make sense?
พรบ. คอมพิวเตอร์.. ได้บัญญัติให้การกระทำต่างๆเหล่านั้น เช่น DoS, sniff, spam, hack เป็นความผิดทั้งหมด.. ในส่วนของความผิดฐานหลอกเอาข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลนั้น.. ตั้งใจจะยกร่างเป็น มาตรา 14 (1)..
#ปัญหาของถ้อยคำในมาตรา14(1)..
ปัญหาคือการใช้ถ้อยคำในตัวบทมาตรา 14 (1) ไม่ตรงกับการกระทำความผิดฐานฟิชชิ่ง..
The actual words in this article in Thai is :
พ.ร.บ.คอมพิวเตอร์ฯ มาตรา 14(1) ระบุว่า “ผู้ใด …. (1) นําเข้าสู่ระบบคอมพิวเตอร์ซึ่งข้อมูลคอมพิวเตอร์ปลอมไม่ว่าท้ังหมดหรือบางส่วน หรือ ข้อมูลคอมพิวเตอร์อันเป็นเท็จ โดยประการที่น่าจะเกิดความเสียหายแก่ผู้อื่นหรือประชาชน”
English translation: Section 14(1) of the Computer Crime Act states that “Whoever …. (1) enters into a computer system which fake computer data, whether in whole or in part, or false computer data in a way that is likely to cause damage to other people or the public.”
It should have been written as:
“ผู้ใดหลอกเอาข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลของผู้อื่น โดยการแสดงข้อความอันเป็นเท็จด้วยวิธีการทางอิเล็คทรอนิกส์..ทำให้ผู้อื่นนั้นหลงเชื่อและส่งมอบข้อมูลให้ ถ้าการกระทำนั้นอาจเป็นเหตุให้บุคคลใดได้รับความเสียหาย ผู้นั้นมีความผิด ต้องระวางโทษ...” or “Whoever deceives the personal information of others By displaying false statements by electronic means.. deceive others and deliver information. if such action may cause damage to any person that person is guilty must be punished..."
This would be a better way to curb or deter phishing.
This is the crux of the matter - the language has been somewhat misused.
The sense communicated is this: “Whoever brings fake information False information enters the computer system.." - “ผู้ใดนำข้อมูลปลอม ข้อมูลเท็จเข้าสู่ระบบคอมพิวเตอร์..”
The big problem is the use of too broad of the terms - too wide. It is the drafting of the law by using the words that do not match the condition of the problem that arises.. It's writing words that have too broad meaning.. and are not concise.. (You can read this Thai too เป็นการยกร่างกฎหมายโดยใช้ถ้อยคำไม่ตรงกับสภาพปัญหาที่เกิดขึ้น.. เป็นการเขียนถ้อยคำที่มีความหมายกว้างเกินไป.. และไม่กระชับรัดกุม.)
Why? Because common people would be interpreted as "fake" or "false", meaning everything that is not true.
This could be extended to other computer use activities. It can be translated from general understanding as Posting an article.. Photos.. audio.. or whatever.. into the computer.... If it's not true.. which may damage others.. People who post and share it will be punished according to the Computer Crime Act in every case. This is what causes misunderstandings and worries.
What's more? Soon after the law came out, there were issues. This is one example:
There was an uncle whose son had died a long time ago.. But before he died, his son had warned him that there will be a disaster in the world.. A lot of people will die..when it's close to the time when the son used to say that it will happen.. So uncle came out to warn people.. When it comes to news, there may be people who believe and don't believe.. (In fact, it doesn't cause society to be troubled and chaotic). But the man (uncle) was arrested and prosecuted accordingly.
This misuse of the Computer Act, I am sorry to say, is more of a problem than a solution. If posting religious beliefs..superstitions, etc. that can't be proven like this..then it must be wrong under the Computer Act, the people in many countries, including Thailand, are probably arrested almost all of them.
This practice is damaging. The result of using 'wrong words in an important law is unfortunate and quite damaging. One result is that until now, we do not have a law that is directly dealing with criminal acts of phishing. Moreover, we also encounter problems interpreting the law according to the text according to our own understanding. This causes the enforcement of Section 14 (1) a challenge, if not problematic. Many scholars note the fact that it is something deviated (if not abused) from the objectives, causing many academic and practical problems to bully or something far worse such as doing so for the benefit of politics. For example, one may accuse another person accusing him or her of breaking a criminal law. for defamation under section 112 or 326 and also violates section 14 (1) of the Computer Crime Act. - "The package"
Is it true that defamation under section 112 and section 326 are the same offense of posting fake or false information under section 14 (1)? The answer is.. it's not true!
แล้วการหมิ่นประมาทตามมาตรา 112 และมาตรา 326 เป็นความผิดฐานโพสต์ข้อมูลปลอมหรือข้อมูลเท็จตามมาตรา 14 (1) จริงหรือไม่?... คำตอบคือ.. ไม่จริงครับ!
หมิ่นประมาทตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา Defamation under the Criminal Code
ความผิดฐานหมิ่นประมาท ตามมาตรา 326 (Article 326) พูดง่ายๆคือการใส่ความคนอื่น ให้อีกคนหนึ่งฟัง.. เป็นการยืนยันข้อเท็จจริงที่อาจทำให้คนอื่นเสียชื่อเสียง ภาษาชาวบ้านเรียกว่า Gossip
The purpose underlying the libel and defamation law is to bar people from gossiping and gossiping about each other in negative manners.
Note: Defamation is an area of law that provides a civil remedy when someone's words end up causing harm to your reputation or your livelihood. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement, while slander is defamation that is spoken by the defendant.
In short, libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation ---- written defamation.
No comments:
Post a Comment