A Year That Began And Ended Anonymously

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

It’s something of a party game, this time of year, to look back and put together lists. Top ten this, bottom five that; trends that are in or out, predictions about the coming calendar year.

Of course, it is largely that: a party game. Of all the moments of 2011, all the events on which tragedy turned or innovations sprang forward, there’s really no way to boil it down to a simple list. Was the death of Steve Jobs #5 or #4 in significance? Purely a matter of perspective. Which was the more important story, the attempt by Egypt to erase that nation from the Internet (unsuccessful) or efforts by Syria to keep it going, but use tricks to monitor and eavesdrop on social media (still ongoing)? That story hasn’t yet been finished. Has Facebook become everyone’s creepy friend? Depends who you ask.

We’re not even going to play the game, instead leaving it to others for some fun on the New Years. Rather, we have just one nominee in a new category: Top Story That Remains A Mystery.

That story starts and ends with one word: Anonymous.

We’ve written copious items about the antics – some silly, some serious – of the Anonymous hacker hive. The year began with Anonymous trying to shut down MasterCard and PayPal, for their decisions not to process donations to the group Wikileaks. It continued with Anonymous targeting various Arabic governments trying to repress the civic unrest on the streets and online, moved to attacks on the U.S. government for various reasons, then to corporate titans such as Sony, in support of the “Occupy Wall Street” movements around the world, and the bloody Mexican drug cartels. Just days ago, as the year was drawing to a close, Anonymous hacked the private intelligence group Stratfor – of which yours truly is a user – and published the personal details of all those registered with the group to receive its services.

This week the “AntiSec” branch of Anonymous published its handiwork. 50,277 credit card numbers were released, along with 86,594 e-mail addresses, 27,537 phone numbers and 44,188 encrypted passwords.  (If you’re wondering if you’re part of the hack, you can check here.)  Stratfor says it has addressed the problem, but of course, it really hasn’t. Now that all that data is out there, it can’t be erased.

For just about every significant news story this year, some part of Anonymous’ digital shadow hung large. We’ve even heard from Anonymous personally this year; after one of our stories, members of the group (presumably) hacked my personal email account, just to deliver a message. Dear Anonymous: I hear you.

But truth be told, I don’t fully understand you. Nor, I think, does anyone, really. For any given attack, there’s no sure way of knowing if Anonymous was behind it, or just some free-lancers looking for a little Internet mayhem. And then again, who’s to say what Anonymous even is? There’s no board, no director, no organizing structure. Just hundreds, or thousands, of web lurkers stirring up the digital pot. Anonymous is like fog: you can see it, but no matter how hard you try, you just can’t grab it.

So as we look back at what’s happened, and squint hard to try and imagine what the future holds, our money is that Anonymous will be there throughout the new year, whatever the story.

All good things to all our readers in the coming new year.

The Alleged Wikileaks Leaker Is Arraigned

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

For the last year and a half, U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning has sat alone in a prison cell. A variety of prison cells, to be exact.

Pvt. Bradley Manning, shortly before his arrest in Baghdad, 2010

In Spring 2010, the military identified Manning as the source of several high profile leaks on the Wikileaks website. Among the classified leaks Manning is said to have provided: the “Collateral Murder” video of a Army helicopter strike in Iraq in 2007, the “Iraq War Logs” and the massive release of State Department diplomatic cables. (Manning has never confessed to these charges, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has refused to identify his source for the documents.)

The shy, some say troubled, young Army private was first taken into military custody May 26 in Baghdad and held in an undisclosed location, widely reported to be Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. In July of that year, Manning was transferred to a maximum security military brig at the Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, on charges of copying secure documents to his computer and transferring them to unauthorized sources.

For eight months, little happened while Manning sat in solitary confinement in his 6′ by 12′ cell, unable to see anyone including his defense team. Then in March 2011, he was charged with 22 specific crimes, including theft, fraud and “aiding the enemy.” One month later, the group Amnesty International and several legal scholars labeled Manning’s isolation “harsh, punitive,” and in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That same month, the military moved Manning to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he has remained until today when he was brought to Fort Meade, outside Washington DC, for formal arraignment.

It was his first day in public view for 18 months.

Manning, Wikileaks, And The Price of Secrecy

Friday’s hearing,technically an “Article 32 Inquest,” is the military’s equivalent of a preliminary hearing, where the military court determines if there is enough evidence to proceed with a full court martial proceeding. (VOA’s Bill Ide has our report on the proceedings here, and Nico Columbant has this report on Manning’s supporters.) It’s a long and sometimes grueling process, but it’s only the start of Manning’s legal woes. The Justice Department has also brought a case against him in civilian court, and several other governments are considering charging him with national security violations.

And he’s not the only one.

While Bradley Manning has never formally admitted guilt to passing documents to Wikileaks, a series of email chats in 2010 with hacker-journalist Adrian Lam0 seem to be both confession and accusation:

12:15:11 PM Manning: hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time … say, 8-9 months … and you saw incredible things, awful things … things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC … what would you do? …
12:26:09 PM Manning: lets just say *someone* i know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks, mining data like the ones described … and been transferring that data from the classified networks over the “air gap” onto a commercial network computer … sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading it to a crazy white haired aussie who can’t seem to stay in one country very long =L …
12:31:43 PM Manning: crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange …

“Treat this as a confession or an interview,” Lamo wrote. Manning continued to text the next day:

02:22:47 PM, Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
02:23:25 PM, Manning: i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
02:23:36 PM, Lamo: why didn’t you?
02:23:58 PM, Manning: because it’s public data …

Since he launched the Wikileaks website in 2006, Julian Assange – the “crazy white haired dude” – has been giving governments around the world fits. Starting as an international whistle-blower site, Wikileaks published leaked documents on Icelandic banking, Kenyan corruption and celebrity misdeeds. But along the way it became largely focused on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and by extension, the U.S. government.

The Obama administration has been trying to make the case that Assange and others actively assisted Manning in his leaking. The Justice Department has subpoened Twitter records from Wikileaks supporters – including Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir – and Assange’s U.S. attorney, Mark Stephens, has alleged there is a secret grand jury seated to charge Assange with violating the Espionage Act. (U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder neither confirms or denies this, saying only that “significant actions” have been authorized.)

But as Raffi Khatchadourian documented in The New Yorker, such efforts have produced few results. Assange has steadfastly denied any conspiracy with Manning, and despite his own legal troubles with Swedish and British authorities, the U.S. has not been able to get any charges to stick to Assange.

Not that it hasn’t cost him, or Wikileaks. Under pressure from Washington, major credit card companies have suspended all supporter donations to the group. Although it continues to publish, just last week launching the so-called “Spy Files” project, Wikileaks’ leadership has begun to fray. As for Assange, he’s spent over one year largely confined to house arrest in Britain, and in his rare public appearances seems noticeably worn.

A Confined Future

Considering the unprecedented size of the secrecy breach, and the significant embarrassment caused to the U.S. government, it’s a sure bet that Bradley Manning will spend the rest of life behind bars. The larger issues remain untested: who is a journalist, what constitutes a secret, and how can they be stopped once they’re out there on the Internet?

The Pentagon and State Department have tightened access and constricted their use of the SIPRnet computer network Manning used to access military logs and diplomatic cables. And the Defense Department has launched several initiatives, one of them called “PRODIGAL,” to catch would-be snoops and leakers.

But leaks are unavoidable, as the Pentagon well knows. And in the Internet era, plugging the leak once it has begun can be next to impossible.

Bradley Manning’s military trial is expected to begin in earnest sometime in the Spring. Until then, he will make his home back in his prison cell at Fort Leavenworth.

Our complete Wikileaks coverage can be found here.

The Internet and Social Media Snap at Putin

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

There are few things worse for a politician than losing an election. One of those is being mocked.

Just ask Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.  In late November, two weeks before parliamentary elections, Putin decided to appear on live television to introduce a wrestling match. It was just the type of stage-managed, machismo-heavy photo opportunity that had been typical for Putin.  But there was an unexpected problem: the crowd.

As soon as Putin stepped into the ring, a chorus of boos rose from the crowd. Putin continued, but as video of the event shows, every time he tried to speak louder, the audience raised the volume of raucous hoots.

Embarrassing, but manageable. After all, the Kremlin has effectively been censoring stories on Russian radio and TV for years. But there was another unexpected problem; this time, it was the Internet.

The “Putin boo” clip went viral online, popping up and spreading via social networks faster than the Kremlin could swat it down. Satirists stepped forward and began to mock the Prime Minister as a frightened little boy, while critics seemed to lose fear of the heavy-handed Putin.

And things would only get worse for Mr. Putin from there, due in large measure to the Internet.

Putin’s “Power Vertical” Challenged

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev (AP)

When he first won office last decade, Putin spoke of creating a “power vertical” – meaning integrated and functional control of all of the tools of modern politics, including political parties, finances, the courts and the media. Coming on the heels of the chaotic Yeltsin years, it was neither surprising nor unwelcome.

In the years since, Putin and his associates have worked to consolidate power within the Kremlin by punishing opponents, muting dissent and tightly controlling the message. So complete was his power vertical that few analysts predicted his United Russia party would actually earn less than 50% of the vote on December 4. Fewer still predicted the swelling outrage over the questionable vote and the resulting mass protests across Russia, and nobody foresaw the entry of billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov as challenger to Putin in next March’s presidential election. Very suddenly, things appear to be unraveling.

Of course, appearances can be deceiving. Discontent has been growing in Russia for several years, sharpening its focus with President Dmitri Medvedev’s recent decision seemingly to hand power back to Putin. And it’s hard to imagine any way that Putin will not win election against the untested and unpopular Prokhorov. Still, there’s no doubting it’s a different world for Putin and United Russia, and that’s due in some measure to the web.

The “Power Horizontal” Speaks Up

The day after last weekend’s massive street protests, President Medvedev posted this on his Facebook page:

“Under the Constitution, citizens of Russia have freedom of speech and freedom of Assembly. People have a right to express their position that they did yesterday. Well, that all took place within the framework of the law. I do not agree with any slogans or statements made at rallies. Nevertheless, I have been instructed to check all messages with polling stations regarding compliance with the legislation on elections.”

A fairly bland comment, but one nonetheless that prompted an outpouring of bile and anger at the President. Over 16,000 comments have been left so far, very few of them positive. In fact, it appears Medvedev’s effort to reach out online has bitten him on the hand, re-energizing those who mistrust their government. As a social media tactic, it was flat footed…just like much of the Kremlin’s dealing with the web. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t consider it a serious threat.

Russian blogger Aleksei Navalny (Photo: Alexey Yushenkov/wikipedia)

Among the most influential protest leaders to emerge isn’t a politician, but jailed blogger Aleksei Navalny, whose LiveJournal blog attracts upward of a million hits a day. As VOA’s James Brooke notes in “Russia Watch“ Navalny has remained a powerful mouthpiece for the growing discontent, first describing United Russia as “the party of crooks and thieves” in a phrase that has become a rallying cry (all this while he has been sitting in prison). Our colleague Brian Whitmore, of RFE/RL’s “The Power Vertical” blog writes:

“Putin famously created Russia’s power vertical, the rigid top-down power structure that brought a semblance of order at the expense of the democratic process. But he also, unwittingly perhaps, created a ‘power horizontal’ — a highly educated, prosperous, and wired middle class that is now clamoring for its rights. This Other Russia has shown its face to the world — and it isn’t going away any time soon.”

The BBC, among others, reports of a flood of fake Twitter traffic aimed at drowning out Russians tweeting with each other about past and future protests, traffic that seems to be coming from a Russian botnet. And on Wednesday this week, the head of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said that the Internet must be subject to “reasonable regulation” – a clear signal that Moscow is tiring of criticism coming from the web and intends to crack down.

Free Speech of Slacktivism?

It’s unlikely a blogger can bring down a government, or that social networks like Facebook or VKontakte can uproot entrenched power structures by themselves. That didn’t happen in the so-called Arab Spring, and it won’t happen in Russia.

But what they did accomplish in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere was to help organize protest and dissent into a more coherent, focused effort. Egypt’s largest mass protests happened only after authorities shut down access to the Internet, but they wouldn’t have taken that step if the web didn’t present a clear challenge to their authority. “Slacktivism” – the casual use of the web to register displeasure but accomplish little else – may make a discontented voter feel better momentarily, but it won’t change the cause of the discontent.

Nobody – or nobody here at least – is predicting what may happen in Russia. But as we’ve noted before, the web takes as much as it gives, and autocrats can use it just as effectively as protesters.

Luke Allnutt, over at RFE/RL’s must-read “Tangled Web” blog, writes that the Kremlin is growing increasingly savvy about how to deal with the Internet, turning what appears to be free speech it to its own advantage:

“For a regime under pressure, addressing some of your key constituents (many of them middle-class and tech-savvy) on one of their key platforms, Facebook, and allowing them to vent seems to be a savvy way of tweaking the release valves. It presents the impression at least that the Russian authorities are listening to the people’s concerns. The Kremlin has always been as concerned with narrative-shaping as it has been with crude censorship.”

Vladimir Putin has learned the hard way that the Internet isn’t always your friend. He may also be learning how to make it an ally.

The Full Truth Is Hard To Know

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

Five times a year, in cities as diverse as Prague, Washington, Brasilia, Dubai and Kuala Lumpur, thousands of buyers and sellers of electronic gear gather for a series of events that have come to be known as “The Wiretapper’s Ball.”  On display are some of the most sophisticated electronic products available that allow for practically any kind of electronic surveillance, from monitoring and intercepting mobile phone calls to recording user’s web traffic and physically locating individuals to within a meter. The manufacturers are ready to sell, and the thousands of governments and other organizations that attend are eager to buy.

While many of the products are not for public discussion, their existence is hardly a secret. Writing in the Washington Post recently, reporters Sari Horwitz, Shyamantha Asokan and Julie Tate found over 35 U.S. government agencies registered to attend the Washington surveillance conference. They were only outnumbered by those peddling their high-tech wares:

“One German company, DigiTask, offers a suitcase-size device capable of monitoring Web use on public WiFi networks, such as those at cafes, airports and hotels. A lawyer representing the company, Winfried Seibert, declined to elaborate on its products. ‘They won’t answer questions about what is offered,’ he said. ‘That’s a secret. That’s a secret between the company and the customer.’”

But just who are those customers, and what kind of technology is being made available to governments around the world? Wiretapper Ball coordinator Jerry Lucas says clearly repressive governments such as Syria, Iran and North Korea are not allowed at the events, but that’s no guarantee these advanced technologies don’t wind up in those places.

There are no solid estimates for the size of the international surveillance industry.  However it involves hundreds of firms – many based in the United States, Germany, Britain and Israel – and thousands of clients, including corporations, police forces and governments. Tracking where all that technology flows is tricky, and that’s raising alarms among human rights organizations. For example, following the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments, rebels documented advanced surveillance equipment used by those governments to monitor and track rebels’ online activities.

More recently, Internet monitors have learned that surveillance equipment from two U.S. firms, NetApp and Blue Coat Systems, have been installed and are being used by Syrian officials to unknown ends; U.S. Senators Robert Casey and Mark Kirk have requested an investigation. And last month the Italian tech firm Area SpA announced it was halting development of a surveillance project in Syria that, if finished, would have given Damascus “…the power to intercept, scan and catalog virtually every e-mail that flows through the country.”

In a new document release this week, the group Wikileaks has compiled a public database it calls “The Spy Files.” Sorted by factors such as manufacturer, year of contract and products offered, the “Spy Files” document what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange calls the unregulated spread of the “mass surveillance industry”:

“International surveillance companies are based in the more technologically sophisticated countries, and they sell their technology on to every country of the world. This industry is, in practice, unregulated. Intelligence agencies, military forces and police authorities are able to silently, and on mass [sic] .. secretly intercept calls and take over computers without the help or knowledge of the telecommunication providers. Users’ physical location can be tracked if they are carrying a mobile phone, even if it is only on standby.”

160 firms in all are listed in the “Spy Files,” along with brief specs of their products and details of some of their customers. There’s also a searchable map for further research.

And while it is illegal to sell high-tech equipment to those nations hit with sanctions, such as Iran or Burma, those sanctions are often a nation-by-nation patchwork, and no guarantee that some middleman won’t legally buy surveillance equipment from one firm, and then transfer it to a banned nation.

But privacy advocates want more, including a comprehensive global agreement that would heavily regulate who can buy what sort of equipment. Until then, however, the global surveillance market will likely remain healthy, if shadowy.

You can read more on the Wikileaks “Spy Files” here at Technorati, and here at Forbes.  Also, the French media company OWNI has this deeper look at how Western-made surveillance equipment was used by the Gaddhafi government to spy on and track rebel activities.  It’s well worth the read.

Finally, although you can’t attend, you can view the “Wiretapper’s Ball” ISS Mideast conference agenda online here.

Thailand’s Expanding Crackdown on Free Speech and Lese Majeste

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

UPDATE, December 7, 2011: A Thai court has sentenced American citizen Joe Gordon to 2 1/2 years in Thai prison for admitting to posting weblinks to a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej which was found to violate lese majeste. The 55-year-old American of Thai descent originally pleaded not guilty, but following years of delay and time spent in a dank Thai prison, Gordon agreed to a guilty plea for a reduced sentence. He may leave earlier, if the King grants him a royal pardon.

The offending book? “The King Never Smiles,” by Paul Harvey, available here and booksellers worldwide.

Due to the sensitive nature of this story and current Thai law, readers in Thailand are advised to use anonymizing programs such as Tor before clicking on any links.

(AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, FILE)

Clicking “Like” on Facebook has never been so risky. At least, that’s what Thailand’s Ministry of Information and Communication would have you believe.

In an odd warning issued to Facebook users around the globe, Information Minister Anudith Nakornthap said last week that clicking “Share” or “Like” on any item deemed insulting to the Thai royal family would open up that user to criminal prosecution. And that means anyone using Facebook, wherever they may be in the world. Except, Anudith admitted to the Associated Press, those charged would have to voluntarily come to Thailand first:

“If a foreigner abroad clicks ‘share’ or clicks ‘like,’ then the Thai law has no jurisdiction over that. But if there is a lawsuit filed and that person then comes into Thailand, then that person will be prosecuted.”

It may seem like a joke to some, but this was just the latest salvo in a very serious and expanding battle between the Thai government and the Internet.

Last week, 61-year-old Thai truck driver Ampon Tangnoppakul was sentenced to 20 years in prison for allegedly sending four SMS text messages to the personal secretary of then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. A Thai court ruled the messages were offensive to Thailand’s Queen Sirikit and Ampon was convicted, even though he denied knowing how to send an SMS. A week earlier, Thai Facebook user “Suraphak” was charged with making defamatory statements about King Bhumibol Adulyadej online, and is now being held in jail awaiting trial. Said the prosecutor of Suraphak in court:

“The defendant, apart from not recognizing His Majesty’s graciousness towards the inhabitants, has the audacity to express great malice with the intent of overthrowing the institution of the monarchy, which is worshiped by the Thai people.”

And this February, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, editor of the news website Prachatai, will learn whether she will spend the next 15 years in prison when a Thai court rules on charges that she offended the “majesty” of the monarch. Her crime? Allowing readers to post their opinions online.

All of these cases, and many more, are raising growing alarm about free expression in Thailand. The European Union expressed “deep concern” about Apmon’s sentence, and the Asian Human Rights Commission issued a blistering condemnation of lese majeste, the crime of violating majesty. But for the moment, Thai authorities are continuing their aggressive pursuit of incorrect speech, armed with an unusual combination of a very old law and a very new one.

Lese Majeste Goes High Tech

“All Thais, I believe, love and respect the King,” says Bangkok Post political commentator and TV host Voranai Vanijaka. “But when people manipulate and abuse the law, and play with the emotions of the people, it can easily sway the sentiment of the people to one side or another.”

Voranai has written extensively about lese majeste, and most recently the case of Ampon and his 20-year sentence. In Thailand’s bitterly divided politics, lese majeste is what you might call a wedge issue – one that affects practically nobody yet stirs strong emotions in people. Accusing a political opponent of lese majeste, he says, is a surefire way to get attention:

“Pretty much all the key leaders of both sides of the political struggle have been accused by the other of lese majeste, so it’s something that’s used by both sides. Some sides may do it more effectively than others. It’s definitely being used as a tool, and for the normal average Thai person, they can be easily swayed by it because it is a deeply sensitive and emotional issue for us.”

Since the 2006 military coup, the organization ThaiPoliticalPrisoners estimates more than 300 cases of lese majeste have been brought in Thailand, and untold tens of thousands of websites shut down, using two laws. Critics say those laws are being abused by those in power to silence opponents and critics. “To make an example of people,” says Voranai.

Ampon Tangnoppakul, at his arrest for violating lese majeste with SMS messages

Officially the old law is “Article 112,” but it’s more widely known by its centuries-old name, lèse majesté, or, quite literally, “injured majesty.”  Lese majeste laws forbid criticism, insults or other derogatory statements about a monarch; in Thailand the law is strict and its interpretation is broad. Anyone convicted of making statements, illustrations, or even silent physical movements deemed lese majeste faces lengthy prison sentences in dingy Thai jails. And Article 112 applies to everyone in Thailand: citizens and foreigners alike have been prosecuted and jailed for “crimes” such as making comments that never even refer to the monarchy, or simply for not standing during the playing of the Royal Anthem in movie houses.

Then, in 2007, the government added a new weapon to its arsenal – the “Computer Crimes Act” (CCA) – and with it the ability to take prosecutions to online activities.

The CCA gives the government wide latitude in determining whether online content represents a threat to national stability or image. It also provides courts with potent tools to punish site owners and ISPs with harsh fines and jail time. Since its passage, Thailand has assertively pursued writers, website owners, filmmakers and even international firms like YouTube and Yahoo! for allowing material deemed lese majeste on their sites. It’s estimated that at least 50 people, and perhaps more, at present are serving prison time or under investigation for violating some combination of Article 112 and the CCA.

In another free speech twist, Thai law also forbids public criticism of any court ruling, making any discussion about lese majeste or its misuse challenging.  Still, discussion appears to be growing.  Television talk shows tolerate some debate, and a recent Bangkok Post editorial took Information Minister Anudith to task for his Facebook warning:

“The constant war on Internet sites is futile and actually self-defeating. The more attention Capt. Anudith puts on it, the more it encourages the ill-intentioned to try to defy him. The idea that discussion of the lese majeste law is somehow disloyal to the monarchy is emotionally loaded, but empty. The law cannot affect love of the monarch. It was His Majesty the King who declared six years ago in the most straightforward way that, ”The King can do wrong,” and ”Actually, I must also be criticised.”’

But talk is just that. Actions are an altogether different matter.

The Monarchy as Political Battleground

The divisions in Thai politics are as raw now as at the time of the 2006 military coup that pushed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power. Since then, the pro-Thaksin, anti-military groups – roughly the “Red Shirts” – have been in a standoff with pro-military, Democrat party-led loyalists – roughly the “Yellow Shirts.” The Democrat party has recently accused Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s of going soft on disloyal comments, even urging that all social networking sites be blocked. Caught in the middle is the monarchy, and curiously those who seek political reform.

“Thailand is involved in a historic struggle,” says ‘PP,’ an activist with the group “Political Prisoners in Thailand.” We recently reached ‘PP,’ a pseudonyn, in a secured online connection to discuss that group’s goals and activities. Asked specifically about the organization, ‘PP’ declined to give specifics, citing security concerns, but did say the group has members in Thailand and elsewhere in southeast Asia, and seeks reform of lese majeste and expanded freedom of speech in Thailand.  A representative of the Thai government in Washington declined our requests for an interview.

As ‘PP’ sees it, Article 112 and the CCA are being abused by those in power – and those seeking it – to silence critics, while hiding behind the national appeal of the monarchy to do so:

“The use of LM [lese majeste] is a conservative reaction to this societal-level change. At present, the Yingluck government’s opponents appear to have decided that the monarchy is to be THE political battleground. Hence, they attack the government, implying a lack of loyalty. They appear to believe that pushing the Yingluck government will either reveal this disloyalty (and bring it down) or that the government will do its bidding in the repression of disloyal elements. They seem to believe that they have hit on a win-win strategy. It could all get much messier.”

Chiranuch Premchaiporn, editor of Prachatai, at work

One for whom things have already become messy is Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the Prachatai editor now awaiting sentencing. Chiranuch, ‘Jiew’ to her friends, is actually facing two sets of charges; one for an article published on Prachatai, and another for comments left by an anonymous reader. The government says the comments violated lese majeste, and that under the CCA, Chiranuch had an obligation to remove them immediately. (The comments, as with any items accused of being insensitive to the royal family, have been removed and are not publicly visible. In fact, anyone citing any of those items – even a journalist – would be similarly guilty of violating the laws.)

“The Internet is a means of communication…Authorities are trying to silence [people],” says Chiranuch. Her verdict delayed by the Thai flooding, she waits for a court to decide her fate in February. In the meantime, she continues working at Prachatai:

“We decided to close down the web forum discussions, but we will continue our news and articles, and we’re still open for people to come and read and learn. Thai authorities believe they can control the electronic media. There was a law, the computer crimes act, only three or four years old. They’re trying to show the people they’re serious about these things.  [But] if people are suppressed, they’ll find another way around. And people who’ve never done that before will probably start to get angry, and do something to show they’re against efforts to control.”

In other words, shutting down the Internet – as Egyptian officials learned – doesn’t always give the government control.

“Pretty Hopeless”

Along with the EU and the Asian Human Rights Commission, the United States also expressed dismay at Ampon’s sentence of 20 years in prison. But will that make any difference?

Unlikely, says ‘PP’ with Political Prisoners in Thailand. “Human rights organizations and major Western governments have generally been pretty hopeless in dealing with lese majeste and with the human rights challenges [they] pose.” That said, the future for Ampon – and dozens others convicted of lese majeste – is dim. Thai prisons are notoriously brutal and squalid, and for those who never admitted guilt but, like Amphon and Chiranuch, pleaded not guilty, there is little to no chance of a royal pardon.

Yet things may be changing, if slowly and with some pain. A recent ad campaign has been launched to promote debate about Article 112 within Thailand. Consistently simply of a hand, a yellow ball, and some very artfully worded copy, the ad asks if, in fact, people aren’t genuinely interested in asking questions.

As a political statement, it’s pretty tame; in the U.S., where political ads are delivered by the rhetorical equivalent of dynamite, it would most likely just leave people confused. But the issue of lese majeste is one of the most explosive  in Thailand, and proponents of all sorts of positions are grabbing at it to build support for their cause – or intimidate their enemies. Says Voranai Vanijaka:

“There are improvements in terms of civic groups, more improvements to champion the cause of freedom of speech. Of course, at the same time, there is more censorship right now in Thailand than, say, in the past 20 years. That has to do with the political situation more than anything else…and censorship is an important tool one can use to silence your opponents. So the lese majeste and Computer Crime Act are being used to shut your opponents up and also make examples out of people.”

And more people are paying attention. Andrew Spooner, writing in Asian Corresondent, recently wrote of Ampon – or “Ar Kong,” meaning grandfather, as some call him:

“What is certain is that the savagery of Ampon’s sentence is pushing the situation to breaking point. As I sit and write a 61-year-old grandfather is rotting in a Thai prison – the message is stark; this could happen to anyone. We are all Ar Kong now.”

Whatever the outcome, Chiranuch Premchaiporn says the online site Prachatai will continue, as will the struggle for expanded freedom of expression.

Just something to consider before “Liking” this story.

*Correction: December 8, 2011. I mistakenly identified current Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra as being no relation to ousted P.M. Thaksin Shinawatra.  This is obviously incorrect; Yingluck is Thaksin’s sister.

New Questions About Mobile Phone Privacy

Doug Bernard | Washington DC

Trevor Eckhart, by his own account, is a 25-year-old “average Joe.” A digital developer based in Connecticut, Eckhart’s been quietly exploring the privacy and security aspects of the Android mobile operating system.

This week, the quiet ended.

Screen-grab from Eckhardt's video documenting IQAgent keystroke logging

First posted on his website “Android Security Test” a while back, Eckhart began exploring what applications developed by the firm Carrier IQ were doing while he was on his Android phone. Carrier IQ, based in Mountain View, California, markets a variety of mobile applications, or apps, that monitor and track mobile phone use, and then provide that information back to service providers and developers. Carrier IQ says this information is limited and protected, and is only used to improve mobile service and use. “We are counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or providing tracking tools,” reads in part a statement on the company website.

But Eckhart says his research suggests that’s not the case, and in documents on his site – and visually in a 17 minute video – he lays out the case that Carrier IQ products are doing much more than they say, all out of sight of the average user.

Using his own HTC Evo mobile phone, Eckhart demonstrates how apps such as “HTC IQAgent” run in near-hidden mode on his phone; even once he finds them, he’s unable to turn them off. He then runs his phone through its paces – turning it on and off, dialing numbers, sending SMS text messages and browsing websites. Alarmingly, it appears that the IQAgent app logs and transmits every keystroke he makes, all hidden from view. Eckhart dials a number, and IQAgent duly records and transmits every digit. He sends a text, and it notes who, how, when, and of course what the message actually said. There’s even a complete log of every website he visits and what he does there, even while using the security-enhanced “https” format. Remember – this is all in addition to the actual functions his phone is performing with the actual service provider.

Eckhart called IQAgent a “rootkit”, which in tech terms is a bit of software that is considered critical to function, loads and runs automatically, and is largely (or entirely) outside of the user’s control. That, apparently, was fighting words for the Carrier IQ. They responded swiftly, denying the claim, demanding he remove information about the company and threatening Eckhart with legal action. Late last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, stepped in to provide Eckhart assistance and legal help, and Carrier IQ pulled back.

The kerfuffle only drew more attention to Eckhart’s work, and to the largely un-noticed Carrier IQ firm.

Reporters started digging, and it quickly became clear how little was known about the company, its products and who uses them. How many apps are there, what are its clients, and just who are they transmitting all those keystrokes to?

Here’s what’s known. It’s estimated that Carrier IQ’s tracking apps run on 150 million hand-held devices, an astonishingly large number. This week AT&T, Apple, Sprint and T-Mobile all admitted to using Carrier IQ software on at least some of its devices. Sprint and AT&T also acknowledged they receive some transmitted data, but both firms insisted it was all anonymous, and for network diagnostics only.

For its part, Carrier IQ continues to state that its products don’t actually “record” all those keystrokes, meaning that its software may detect a large amount of keystrokes (or all of them) but that most of that information is not communicated back to the service providers. CNNMoney spoke with security analyst Dan Rosenberg, who said “People need to recognize that there’s a big difference between recording events like keystrokes … and actually collecting, storing, and transmitting this data to carriers, which doesn’t happen.”

But that’s cold comfort for digital privacy proponents, who note the firm originally denied even detecting all those keystrokes – a claim it has gingerly inched back  from since Eckhart posted his video. And the timing for Carrier IQ could hardly be worse, coming just a week after a flurry of reports – and Congressional denunciations – of mobile apps that track a shopper’s movements through stores and shopping centers. (The British firm, Path Intelligence, has backed off those plans, for now.)

For the moment, with a little help from the EFF, Trevor Eckhart says he’ll do what he can to continue his work. Only now, it’s likely he won’t be the only one.

Eckhart’s demonstration video:

Carrier IQ’s response: