By Andrew Loh – 

How much are you willing to trust the Government with private information about yourself, or information which belongs to you?

It has been reported in recent weeks that the Singapore government had asked for – and obtained – private information of individuals from major technology companies, such as Facebook, Yahoo, and Google.

This revelation comes on the back of new Internet regulations introduced by the Media Development Authority (MDA) in June, to curb free speech and effect censorship online. The Government claimed that the regulations were not meant to stifle free speech but to bring rules on new media in line with traditional media.

The Minister for Communications and Information (MCI), Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, defended the new regulations and asked, basically, for the public to trust the government to be “judicious” in enforcing the regulations.

yaccob_mda

“I hope that the activists who are today making this far-fetched claim (of the Government clamping down on online criticisms) will be honest enough to admit it when the time comes,” he said.

Still, the latest incidents of the Singapore Government asking and being given access to the private information of individuals require a closer look.

The main broadsheet, the Straits Times, had an article on this on 19 September. Written by its “technology journalist and digital producer”, Derrick Ho, the piece was titled, “Fear Big Brother… or firms’ abuse of Big Data?”

ST_mda

Mr Ho wrote:

Ho_ST

Ho then reported that Yahoo had said that it had revealed to the S’pore government “extracts of e-mail messages, contents of messenger chats and even entries in address books and calendars.”

ho_st2

When the Ministry of Home Affairs was asked about “the nature of the requests”, it apparently said little and gave nothing more than a standard reply.

ho_st3

Ho then mentions how Singapore Telecommunications (Singtel), a government-linked company, was reportedly “aiding a highly secretive intelligence unit of the Ministry of Defence and its Australian counterparts in harvesting communications…”

ho_st4

Both Mindef and Singtel declined to comment when asked about the matter, Ho said.

ho_st5

Ho then concluded that there was no such thing as data privacy in Singapore.

ho_st6

Ho then says, basically, that the Singapore Government has “wide access to data and communications such as SMSes, e-mail, call logs and websites you have accessed.”

“It does not need a court order as laws allow it to directly obtain such information from firms,” Ho writes.

He describes the Singapore Government as an “outlier in the wide powers it holds.”

ho_st7

In short:

ho_st8

Ho then did a rather strange thing – he defended all these.

He threw in a red herring, hoping that it will swim in the murky waters he wades into.

ho_st9

The Singapore Government doesn’t need a warrant? But “the same can be said of companies and even individuals,” Ho tries to convince.

[We’re not sure if an individual or a company can get a warrant, though.]

After laying out such a reality, which is rather scary indeed, Ho then says that there is really no need to be alarmed.

He says it is all about “the politics of trust”.

ho_st10

“For now… there is no evidence that the Singapore Government is collecting data for anything other than bona fide purposes.”

Ho quickly admits and recognises, however, that “citizens don’t know this for sure.”

But he is just as quick to add:

“Until proven otherwise, citizens can only rely on trust and the State’s goodwill.”

It is about the “politics of trust” and “the State’s goodwill”.

If that isn’t enough to convince or persuade you, Ho raises another red herring, and cites a Pew Research Centre study which “found that while the American public is concerned about Internet privacy, they are far less worried about government snooping than they are about their online activity being monitored by hackers and advertisers.”

There.

Be like the Americans. They “are far less worried about government snooping…”

So you should too.

ho_st11

The message: worry more about private companies than Big Brother.

Sounding a lot like Dr Yaacob, Ho then concludes his piece:

ho_st12

And then, the punchline:

ho_st13

I am not saying that Ho is not right in raising concerns about what private companies and individuals (including criminals) can do with the data or information they collect about you.

But to write a piece which plays down the serious implications of one, and point the finger at the other, is quite misleading and, pardon me, irresponsible.

If the Government and companies have access to data and information of individuals without their knowing, then we should be equally concerned about both.

And instead of asking Singaporeans to simply “trust” the Government to only use such information for “bona fide” reasons, what Ho should do is to perhaps ask for more legal protection for Singaporeans and more accountability from the Government when it requests for such information.

When the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the government-linked Singtel all refuse to disclose more, or decline to comment or explain when asked about their dealings, for Ho to then ask the public to simply “trust” the government seems rather…. naive.

Indeed, Ho’s article fails to convince Singaporeans why they should trust the Government with their personal and private information.

The “politics of trust” and “the State’s goodwill” are not good enough.

In fact, depending on these is the surest way to lose whatever little right to privacy Singaporeans may presently have – especially when the Government is one which introduces legislations it can hardly defend or explain (like the MDA regulations), and also one which has a penchant for behaving in the same way it accuses others of doing, such as being anonymous online:

counter insurgency

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin delivers governance speech on his first official visit to Malaysia

Tan Chuan-Jin flew in from Singapore to Malaysia yesterday (18 March 2019)…

TOC Exclusive: Why an opposition team missed deadline

By Ko Siew Huey In an exclusive interview with The Online Citizen,…

港929“全球反极权大游行” 印尼记者采访中右眼疑中布袋弹受伤

香港上周日(29日)发起“全球反极权大游行”,期间爆发激烈警民冲突,场面火爆,甚至一名印尼籍女记者在湾仔采访期间,在告示打道天桥上疑被警员以布袋弹射伤眼睛,事后有警察公共关系科探员要求见该名受伤的记者被拒。 据《立场新闻》报道,“全球反极权大游行”原订当天 2点半在港岛区举行,而在中午12  点铜锣湾区一带设封锁线,并截查多名人士,但不阻止示威者游行。 抗争期间,警方多次发射催泪弹与出动水炮车清场,而 示威者投掷汽油弹。 下午4点左右,警方在湾仔来往港铁站至入境事务大楼的天桥上设立封锁线,附近也有大批媒体, 期间示威者与警方正在对峙,现场疑似发射布袋弹,导致一名印尼记者右眼受伤,随即倒地,而受伤记者在清醒的状态下被送上救护车。 现场场面火爆,数十人被捕,多名记者被水泡射中 此外,冲突期间,至少数十人被警方压制以及以警棍殴打,此外,警方在金钟道施放多枚催泪弹,并以水炮车在添华道及夏悫道上射水及蓝色水剂,多名记者被水炮射中。 大批示威者于冲突期间被捕,其中在金钟夏悫道及金钟道上有至少数十人被捕,多人被警方压在地上制服,有人被捕后仍被警员以警棍殴打,受伤头破血流、亦有人疑似受伤昏迷,需由担架抬上救护车。 入夜后,警方在铜锣湾多处设防线截查市民,拘捕多人。不少市民与警方对峙,指骂警员。…

灯柱上贴纸破例留下 为何范国瀚却因地铁窗贴纸被控

教育部长王乙康于周四(8日)在脸书上发文表示,经与陆路交通管理局和裕廊集团商议后,决定将大士一带,在一支灯柱上的满布贴纸灯柱保留下来。 “据坊间反映,骑脚踏车环岛的人会在这里停留,和灯柱拍照,并留下他们最喜欢的贴纸。因此,许多人得知承包商将要把灯柱上的贴纸清除时,许多人也相当伤心。” 为此,王乙康表示,他们决定为该灯柱破例,因为那是帮助骑车人是找到路的特殊地点。 王乙康道,“这是少有的例外,因为这并不会引起公众混乱或危害公共安全,从而照亮新加坡的生活。” 然而王乙康的发言,也引起社运人士范国瀚的注意,他对此也有话要说。他引述王乙康的贴文,直指当遇到类似的情况时,为何他则在自己的艺术表演结束后仍被提控故意破坏的行为。他当时甚至连贴纸胶痕都未留下。 他曾在2017年6月时,为了纪念光谱行动(Spectrum)30周年,与另八人在地铁上举行无声抗议。 当时他将两张写着“马克思主义阴谋?”、以及“为光谱行动受害者争取正义”,贴在地铁窗口上。而他与其余人手上则举起,“1987:新加坡马克思主义阴谋30年”(1987: Singapore’s Marxist Conspiracy 30 Years…