Government wants callers’ ID [-Big Brother is watching you!]

Guess whose phone this is?

Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Khouth Sophak Chakrya
The Phnom Penh Post

Interior Minister Sar Kheng and Telecommunications Minister So Khun had issued an inter-ministerial directive that requires telecom service providers to turn over the identity information of their subscribers and users to the Interior Ministry in a bid to aid crime-fighting, Interior Ministry officials said yesterday.

Chhay Sinareth, head of the security department at the ministry, announced the directive, which has equivalent force in law to a prakas, at a national police commission meet.

“The police have made victorious crackdowns in over 2,850 cases of kidnapping and life-threatening crimes in 2011 by using evidence from telecommunications systems including mobile phones and the internet,” he said.

“The number of crimes was remarkably reduced under the good collaboration between the expert ministries and mobile networks and internet companies in searching for, and timely crackdowns on, the criminals.”

Google stops censoring in China [-One down for Big Brother?]

March 22, 2010
By Juan Carlos Perez
IDG

Google has stopped censoring results in China, acting on a decision it made in January.

On Monday, Google stopped censoring Google Search, Google News and Google Images on Google.cn, according to a blog post from Chief Legal Officer David Drummond.

"Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk, where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong," he wrote.

As expected, the Chinese government didn't entertain allowing Google to continue operating an uncensored Google.cn. The Hong Kong work-around is "entirely legal," he said.

"We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services," Drummond wrote.

Google continues research and development work in China and maintains a sales team in the country. "All these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them," Drummond wrote.

On Jan. 12, Google shocked the world when it announced that it would stop censoring results in its China search engine, Google.cn, because the company had been the victim of hacking attacks originating in China.

Through the attacks, hackers stole Google intellectual property and broke into the Gmail accounts of China human rights activists, the company said. At the time, Google said it would seek talks with the Chinese government over ways it could operate Google.cn legally without censoring, although experts said the chances of that happening were at best slim.

If no middle ground was reached, Google said it would be willing to close Google.cn and shutter its offices and operations in China, a drastic move considering China is one of the biggest and fastest growing Internet and telecommunications markets in the world.

Google has declined repeated requests in recent weeks to discuss its China impasse and it is not clear how much present and future revenue the company would forego by exiting China's search market. Analysys International expects China's search market to reach 10 billion yuan (US$1.46 billion) this year.


The impact on Google would be larger if it also stops providing online services like Gmail and Picasa, which it monetizes via online advertising, and its Android mobile operating system, which it licenses to mobile carriers, handset makers and PC vendors.

All along, Chinese government officials have said Google must comply with local laws if it wants to continue doing business in the country. They have also said China's government has never been involved in any cyberattacks against Google or anyone else.

After initial, combative announcement on Jan. 12, Google officials, particularly CEO Erich Schmidt, have sounded more conciliatory regarding the matter.

"We wish to remain in China. We like the Chinese people, we like our Chinese employees, we like the business opportunities there," Schmidt said during the company's earnings conference call on Jan. 21. "We'd like to do that on somewhat different terms than we have, but we remain quite committed to being there."

He also seemed to ease up on Google's original certainty that the hacking originated in China, describing the attacks as "probably emanating from China with the origin details unknown" and adding that the matter was "still under investigation."

After Jan. 12 and until now, Google continued to censor Google.cn, blocking results about topics the Chinese government finds politically sensitive, like the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests and Tibet's exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama.

During the impasse, Google's other operations in China have been largely unaffected, such as its Android mobile business. Despite the row between Google and the government, the country's IT Ministry said the Android operating system wouldn't be affected if it conforms to Chinese regulations. A variety of Chinese carriers and hardware makers, including China Unicom and Lenovo, moved forward with plans to market Android-based phones and laptops.


However, there has been uncertainty regarding Google mobile applications and services, including its search engine, in Android devices in China. Google postponed their availability after its Jan. 12 announcement.

Google is a distant second in China's search engine usage behind leader Baidu. Last year, Google fielded almost 19 percent of China residents' queries to Baidu's 76 percent, according to iResearch. Compared with 2008, Google's share dropped 1.8 percentage points, while Baidu increased its share by 2.8 points.

Still, Google fared much better than Yahoo China, which is controlled by China's Alibaba Group and had a 0.3 percent share, and Microsoft, whose Bing search engine had a 0.4 percent share of queries, according to iResearch.

Baidu finished 2009 with total revenue of 4.45 billion yuan and net income of almost 1.5 billion yuan, up about 40 percent in each case.

According to its government's official figures, China had 384 million Internet users at the end of 2009, making it the country with the largest Internet population.

In addition to requiring censoring of search results, the Chinese government also blocks access to social media sites like Google's YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, monitors individuals' e-mail accounts and patrols Web sites for politically-sensitive or pornographic content. China makes no apology for the way it regulates Internet content and activities, saying its policies are geared towards preventing social ills, such as subversion and unrest.

(Owen Fletcher in Beijing contributed with this article. IDG, the parent company of IDG News Service, is an investor in Baidu.)

Who will be Big Brother?

Ministers differ on Internet controls

Friday, 26 February 2010
Brooke Lewis and Sam Rith
The Phnom Penh Post

SENIOR ministers on Thursday were in apparent disagreement over the extent to which the state-owned company Telecom Cambodia would be able to block access to individual Web sites if it were granted control of the country’s Internet exchange – a move both company and government officials are reportedly looking to implement as soon as possible.

An official from the company on Tuesday said it would seek to block access to Web sites deemed inappropriate for a range of reasons, a statement that drew fresh outcry from representatives of the private telecommunications sector, one of whom said it could be “very dangerous” for the government to filter online content.

However, Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith on Thursday said the government had not told Telecom Cambodia that it could play a role in blocking Web sites.

“I don’t know what authority they’re saying that under,” he said in reference to the Telecom Cambodia official’s comments.

“The government doesn’t have any policy on that.”

Under the centralisation plan, all Internet service providers (ISPs) would be funneled through exchange points run by TC, which has indicated it will charge for the service. Currently, two domestic Internet exchange points are run by private companies free of charge.

Khieu Kanharith added that although the government is capable of blocking access to Web sites, it has no intention of doing so, and that there are unresolved questions about whether censorship policies should be implemented.

“Who should decide what should be filtered?” he said. “We have the technology, but we don’t think it’s appropriate” to filter content.

However, Minister of Posts and Telecommunications So Khun said Thursday that the practice of monitoring and blocking online content would be entirely consistent with TC’s role in supporting the work of his ministry.

Referring to “inappropriate” Web sites, he said, “After we inform those Web site owners and they still don’t close their Web sites, we will tell TC, which [will have] the right to block Web sites,” he said.

A telecommunications industry representative who spoke on condition of anonymity said Thursday that the two officials’ contradictory statements could be taken as evidence that the MPTC was on the verge of overstepping its role, which is supposed to be that of a free market regulator. “The Ministry of Information is stating the law – only a judge has the authority to decide what can be censored, and they are upholding that,” he said.

So Khun did not fully endorse the statements made earlier this week by the TC’s deputy director, Chin Daro, who said the company would aim to block Web sites that featured pornographic content or material that is critical of the government.

“If any Web site attacks the government, or any Web site displays inappropriate images such as pornography, or it’s against the principle of the government, we can block all of them,” Chin Daro said. “If TC plays the role of the exchange point, it will benefit Cambodian society because the government has trust in us, and we can control Internet consumption.”

On Thursday, So Khun denied that TC would have the authority to block access to Web sites that were critical of the government, or that the government would want those Web sites blocked. “The government blocks only pornographic Web sites,” he said.

In any case, rights groups and private telecommunications sector representatives have expressed concern over the plan to funnel traffic through TC’s exchange point, with some painting it as a threat to freedom of information.

MPTC and TC officials have said that the proposal stems from national security interests and a desire to preserve cultural values, but some private sector representatives have countered that the government is attempting to mask an attempt to make money from Internet traffic.

Party insists rights are guaranteed

Top: A family of "haves"
Bottom: A family of "have-nots"

October 7, 2009
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News

Modern-day Cambodia is a land of haves and have-nots. There is prosperity among the first group, but those in the second group suffer deprivation and oppression.

Those who could be counted among the "haves" demonstrate some level of allegiance to Big Brother Hun Sen and are rewarded with employment. He controls the primary employment center in the country, the Cambodian People's Party Inc. Those who are less privileged, the "have-nots," are victimized by uniformed authorities who come to evict them from their property, which is awarded to a favored individual or business entity for development.

The haphazard installations of modern infrastructure, tall buildings and expensive villas stand in stark contrast to the scavengers who roam the city's dumps looking for food and the many who live in the open air in rickety shacks with tin roofs. A third of the population lives below the poverty line.

Human Rights Watch describes the situation this way: "The gap has widened between wealthy city dwellers and impoverished farmers in the countryside, exacerbated by large-scale forced evictions of tens of thousands of urban poor, illegal confiscation of farmers' land, and pillaging of the natural resources on which people in the countryside depend for their livelihood."

Most of the country's wealth is generated from trade with countries willing to do business with Hun Sen's government -- the legitimacy of which is very much in question -- to acquire Cambodia's natural resources. Cambodians who don't benefit from these international arrangements rely on NGOs and human rights groups to advocate for them domestically and internationally.

A day before the Sept. 10 public hearing of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission by the U.S. Congress on the violations of human rights and the rule of law in Cambodia, the royal embassy of Cambodia in Washington circulated a statement declaring Cambodia's "democracy and human rights are fully guaranteed by its 1993 Constitution (which) recognizes the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights."

At the hearing, Cambodian lawmaker Mu Sochua told the Commission she was "stripped of my parliamentary immunity and given a criminal conviction for openly criticizing Prime Minister Hun Sen." Sochua affirmed, "My situation is not unique," and warned, democracy in Cambodia "is experiencing an alarming freefall."

But the Embassy noted the existence in Cambodia of 600 newspapers, journals and magazines, 40 radio stations and seven TV stations, and "thousands of civil society organizations, as well as free press and trade unions" -- what more does anyone need to prove Cambodia's commitment to freedom?

A testimony by Human Rights Watch provided to the Lantos Commission: "The U.S. has provided training, material assistance and even awards to military, police, counter-terror units or related individuals with track records of serious human rights abuses."

Eight congressmen wrote a letter on Sept. 18 to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, requesting a response to charges of "serious abuses by members of the Prime Minister's Bodyguard Unit, Brigade 70, Special Airborne Brigade 911 and Brigade 31 of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces."

Three days later, Gates met at the Pentagon with Sen's defense minister, Gen. Tea Banh, who was on a four-day visit "to strengthen cooperation" between the two militaries.

Banh brushed off accusations of rights violations and told reporters of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America that the congressmens' letter to Gates has "false" information. Yet Banh slipped, saying, "Truthfully, right now, there are a number of (Cambodian army) officers who are refused entry to the U.S."

The Sept. 24 Phnom Penh Post reported Banh as saying that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg "addressed concerns about human rights issues in Cambodia," but that Banh "clarified that while some concerns are valid, each country has its own law."

Does Cambodia's law differ from the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights?

University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner's "Think Again: International Law" in the Sept. 17 Foreign Policy Online states: "Governments respect international law only when it suits their national interests. Don't expect that to change any time soon."

Posner writes: "Academic research suggests that international human rights treaties have had little or no impact on the actual practices of states. States that already respect human rights join human rights treaties because doing so is costless for them. States that do not respect human rights simply ignore their treaty obligations."

On Sept. 23, the Voice of America broadcast opposition leader Sam Rainsy's told the Bangkok press club: "Grassroots activists, politicians and village leaders have been killed, jailed, and forced into hiding for disagreeing with the ruling party."

Sen's Council of Ministers' fired back and said Rainsy has no "dignity as a politician." The hundreds of press media and thousands of NGOs working "freely in the kingdom" are in contrast to "accusations by a group of immoral people."

Abraham Lincoln's words are worth recalling: "You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

A Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Beware! Big Brother Hun Sen and his henchmen are watching what you are saying

Ministry To Tighten Broadcast Control

By Pich Samnang, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
20 March 2009

The Ministry of Information will strengthen controls on broadcasting in 2009, officials said Thursday.

In 2009, the ministry plans to continue to monitor and control the publishing of newspapers and the broadcasting of radio and television to ensure media outlets follow ministry guidelines and the Cambodian Press Law, officials said at an annual ministry assessment for 2008.

“The arrests of journalists and rising complaints against journalists has occurred so far, because some journalists did not follow a journalistic codes of conduct,” Information Minister Khieu Kanharith, who is also the spokesman for the Cambodian government, said on the sidelines of the meeting.

According to its 2008 report, the Information Ministry called in editors in 27 cases of print and three cases of broadcasting to advise them to follow ministry guidelines and not to publish or broadcast stories against the good culture and tradition of the nation.

The ministry also ordered the permanent closure of Angkor Ratha FM105.25, in Kratie province, shortly after the station leased air time to four political parties (and not the ruling Cambodian People’s Party) in the run-up to 2008 elections.

The closure of the station, together with the arrest of an opposition editor, Dam Sith, and the murder of one of his journalists, Khim Sambo, drew much criticism from national and international press freedom defenders last year.

Um Sarin, president of the Cambodian Association for the Protection of Journalists, said monitoring and control of broadcasts did not affect freedom of expression in Cambodia. However, he said, the ministry should better control its media passes and licenses to ensure quality journalism.

“The problems arising so far come from the ministry itself, which just issues press cards to those who are not professional journalists,” he said, adding that there are hundreds of newspapers in Cambodia, but only a few that regularly appear in newsstands.

According to the ministry’s 2008 report, nearly 600 print media outlets exist nationwide. Among those, national newspapers and magazines account for more than 500; the rest are bulletins and foreign papers and magazines. Of more than 200 broadcast media, more than 80 are live and relay radio stations; the rest comprise local and cable television.

Big Brother state of Cambodia: You may demonstrate only if ...

A draft law for the right to demonstrate under study

05-10-2007
By Leang Delux
Cambodge Soir
Translated from French by Luc Sâr

The government has concocted as draft law “clarifying the procedures for the organization of demonstrations.”

The Council of Ministers adopted on Friday 05 October the draft law on non-violent demonstrations. The draft law which contains 30 articles was written by the Ministry of interior, as a consequence of the Cambodian Constitution which assures the right to strike, the right to non-violent demonstrations, the freedom of expression and assembly by the citizens. According to Khieu Kanharith, government spokesman, the “new draft law is better than the old one. All the procedure is detailed.” Therefore, according to the law, the demonstrators must submit a request for authorization from the authorities involved in view of the organization of a demonstration. To this request, the authorities must give the green light before the demonstration is allowed to take place. The demonstrations are systematically prohibited on holydays, such as the birthday of the king, the National Independence day, the water festivals, etc… Furthermore, demonstrations will not be authorized if the authorities believe that, clearly, the assembly planned could be a source for public unrests. “Six months after the adoption of the law, the cities and provinces must set aside a specific location for these potentials demonstrations. If less than 200 people must assemble, there will be no need to ask for an authorization,” Khieu Kanharith explained.

THE EROSION OF PRIVACY: Big Brother is Watching

Phnom Penh Post, Issue 16 / 12, June 15 - 28, 200

The current government has been known to monitor and record individuals' phone conversations in order to discredit or imprison political opponents ... We cannot allow Cambodia to retreat back into the time of Pol Pot

Each one of us occasionally has been under the scrutiny and judging gaze of another; we feel uneasy, uncomfortable, inhibited, stifled, and drained of energy, unable to be much else but awkwardly self-conscious.

Now, imagine a society where you could be monitored and watched at every second of the day or night, every day of the week, every week of the year - possibly all the time. Imagine a society in which those with power theoretically can always listen in, watch, monitor your every move, no matter how private and intimate the occasion, and then use the exchange as evidence against you legally and publicly.

Imagine no private space, no private conversation, because everything could eventually be made known - when you talk politics with your friends; when you speak intimately with a lover; when you go to work; when you take a shower. Such intrusion and surveillance by the State has devastating effects on the self and the nation. Under the relentless chilling gaze of the State, people live in fear of being judged and even persecuted for mistakes, which would otherwise be lessons in growth and self-development. When individuals are no longer afforded the private space to try and make mistakes, and learn from their mistakes under the shade of trust and confidence and away from outside scrutiny, personal development is stunted.

Self censorship takes hold and individuals become increasingly afraid to share their opinions. They live in constant fear of slipping up; they become suffocated by the continuous pressure of maintaining this façade.

Distrust and suspicion become widespread as individuals wonder who may be helping to monitor them. Is it their neighbor? Their boss? Their best friend? Their spouse? Their child? They learn to see others only as potential enemies, not as fellow human beings. They themselves cease to be fully human. Eventually they grow so accustomed to smothering their own characteristics and opinions that their individuality is extinguished. Rather, they become mechanical, automated, slavish, unable to truly live as vibrant and free individuals. It is as if they cannot even breathe by their own will; they are only robotic extensions of the State.

A monitored life is an imprisoned, inhibited life that stifles all creativity, imagination, growth, genuineness, trust, everything that is of any worth and meaning in daily life. Unfortunately, the society described above is a reality in some places in the world, and is nearing reality here in present-day Cambodia as the right to privacy is increasingly diminished. Under the newly-adopted Criminal Procedure Code and the envisioned draft law against terrorism, broad measures of intrusion into private lives are permitted in the pursuit of combating crimes and terrorism.

The Right to Privacy under the Khmer Rouge

The erosion of privacy in Cambodia takes on a more sinister implication in light of our current history when the Khmer Rouge completely abolished all privacy, individual rights where we lived in constant fear and distrust, and where even children eavesdropped and reported on their own parents.

The Right to Privacy Today: Danger Zone

Thirty years later, the kind of Orwellian society that Cambodians witnessed in the late 1970s threatens to return. The current government has been known to monitor and record individuals' phone conversations in order to discredit or imprison political opponents. Indeed, Prince Norodom Sirivudh was stripped of his political immunity in 1995 based on a phone conversation that was secretly recorded. Police searches of private homes without a warrant are a routine occurrence. These problems will be exacerbated under the new Criminal Procedure Code which allows for phone tapping, and the envisioned Anti-Terrorism bill, which allows for nearly limitless governmental surveillance of individuals in the name of national and international security. Even if it could be argued that privacy rights must be occasionally infringed upon in the name of security, such invasions must be infrequent, and only in the most extreme cases, and the secretly tapped exchange should not be used as evidence, but only a lead to other more substantive evidence. We must not become a society in which, as Herbert Packer put it, "all are safe but none are free".

We cannot allow Cambodia to retreat back into the time of Pol Pot, in which the threat of constant surveillance forced us to literally shut our mouths and stand by while corruption and human rights abuses abound. Tragically, the world described in the beginning of this column is all too easy to imagine because we have already lived through these circumstances once, and the residue of fear is still a reality.

Though privacy rights are currently under attack all over the world, Cambodia is particularly vulnerable. While many other nations have institutions and concrete statutory protections that can counter a government's overzealous monitoring of its population, Cambodia still lacks many such measures. For example, in Canada, a federal Privacy Commissioner exists to investigate complaints around and challenge excessive intrusions into the privacy of individuals. Japan passed the Interception Law in 1999, authorizing wiretapping in the investigation but restricting its use to prosecutors and police officers of a certain rank. Additionally, these officials are required to obtain a warrant before monitoring, and to notify those monitored after the investigation.

In countries like Canada, Japan and the United States, an extremely high threshold exists before an intrusive measure is even raised for debate. Moreover, these countries have counter-balancing power of strong institutions and sophisticated technology to test and challenge the legitimacy and genuineness of wiretapping, computer tampering etc. to prevent potential abuse. These protective measures are lacking in Cambodia.

Unfortunately, while the right to privacy is more difficult to protect in Cambodia, there is also a much greater need for it. Cambodia remains a very fragile society which is still rebuilding itself. We, Khmers, remain distrustful of each other, of foreigners; we lack confidence in our ability to control the happenings in our lives. Such distrust and lack of confidence will only be worsened by the constant pressure that comes with extensive governmental surveillance. Without the ability to feel comfortable taking risks, making mistakes, and asking questions, we Khmers will find it more difficult to develop the insight and vision required to undertake the re-building our individual selves and society.

Privacy Rights are Universal and Must Be Realized

To be human is to be free. We are not free and it is mental imprisonment when we live under the constant, eerie gaze of the State. Hence, the right to privacy is so sacred to human existence. The intrusions strip us of our individuality, examining and prodding at our thoughts until such thoughts are "acceptable" in the eyes of those in power. Freedom of religion means little if we cannot pray in solitude or gather in private for religious worship. Freedom to marry the person of one's choice is diminished if partners cannot share intimate moments and expressions of their feelings away from prying eyes. A right to actively participate in political life does not truly exist when individuals are forced to fall silent and not debate. Privacy is not a privilege, it is a right, universally desired and recognized.

This right to privacy is the very heart of human dignity. It is the foundation upon which we build our personality and aspirations, make relationships, and think creatively and critically. Who, being watched, can give in to their emotions with abandon, can jump for joy or howl in sorrow? Who, being listened in on, can express their deepest desire or their greatest fear, can share their most intimate secret, or can challenge injustices perpetrated by the powers-that-be? Who, under the threat of constant public scrutiny, can cast convention aside and "think outside the box"?

Intrusions into our privacy force the creative, the wise, the dreamers, and the critics to fall in line out of fear. Without privacy there can be no true passion, intimacy, or uniqueness - thus without privacy there is no self.

The new Criminal Procedure Code which allows for phone tapping, and the draft Anti-Terrorism Law which permits broad intrusive measures dangerously restrict our constitutional right to personal freedom. These are insidious developments for our fragile society and people who are already traumatized by the fears instilled by the Khmer Rouge and who continue to live within a culture of fear.

We must preserve our privacy and thus preserve our ability to think, to be, to act, to breathe freely.

Erin Pulaski
Legal Intern, UC Berkeley

Theary C. Seng
Executive Director