Creative Commons License« Give it up for DJ Slapdash! | Main | See already also headache »
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Next time I dowan to speak to the press liao
Ok, I know A*Star "considers the matter closed" and I am loathe to pound away at this boring topic of a blogger who kena sued. But Miyagi and I got asked our opinions yesterday for a TODAY piece on the incident so we gave it. However the piece that finally came out today in TODAY, was, how do I out it nicely, a bit the one-sided leh.
Frankly, I felt it took our words out of context. Eh, the quote attributed to me was said with regards to people putting Acidflask on a pedestal, and to underscore the fact that the incident will not be striking fear in the hearts of bloggers, since it is only a speed bump.
Sure, as the paper put it, the legal action taken may have "served as a wake-up call for those who think they can hide behind the anonymity of the World Wide Web", but I also recall telling the reporter that it was also a wake-up call for organisations who think they can get hot and heavy with their lawyers and not get unwanted global media attention. I told her that A*Star probably underestimated the speed and force with which the blogosphere spread the news to even international media.
So the wake-cap call applies both ways.
The deepest irony is that in their bid to defend the reputation of their organisation, their esteemed leader, and ahem, Singapore, A*Star's legal letter approach (which they were totally within their legal right to pursue) ended up making Singapore look a little silly and draconian to the rest of the world. Especially since the Gahmen has been telling the world and their own people, how open and tolerant Singapore is becoming here.
You can send out press releases all over the world to declare that you consider "the matter closed", but once the blogosphere gets hold of it, the matter will not close until the blogosphere says it is.
Sheesh. Ok, enough of this boring shite. Now back to talking about cooler stuff like DJ Slapdash.
Excerpt:
Veteran bloggers such as Mr Benjamin Lee (aka Mr Miyagi) and Mr Lee Kin Mun (mr brown) feel that a distinction has to be drawn between free speech and unwarranted attacks on organisations or individuals.
Said "Mr Miyagi": "I am aware that the laws of defamation do apply whether offline or online, and A*Star has a legal right to sue for defamation."
Furthermore, "mr brown" observed that Mr Chen's attacks were of a personal nature: "He was not exactly a freedom fighter. It's not as if he was jailed for fighting for some bigger cause."
Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 11:01 AM in Musings | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2139/2440135
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Next time I dowan to speak to the press liao:
» The Choice of Response for the Acidflask Saga from YC
Thanks a lot. Now, besides the beaten-to-death topic of Singapore's ban on chewing gum*, I have to think of an appropriate response for the blogger lawsuit case when spreading the good name of Singapore to my international friends... [Read More]
Tracked on May 12, 2005 1:47:17 PM
» Another lesson about making your words public: Traditional Media 1, Mr Miyagi 0 from My Very Own Glob {Curiosa Felicitas}
Us 'veteran' bloggers have egg on our faces now. The fuckers. Like that how to be cool anymore? [Read More]
Tracked on May 12, 2005 3:27:54 PM
» Episode V: The Mainstream Media Strikes Back from Jeff's blog
This is so going according to the script... [Read More]
Tracked on May 12, 2005 9:28:12 PM
» The Singaporean mainstream media still doesn’t get it from Wannabe Lawyer
The past 2 weeks have been interesting. First, TodayOnline published a piece about blogging and freedom that clearly set the benchmark for professional journalism. It was again, one of those ‘lectures’ devoid of any useful information or ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 17, 2005 5:55:45 AM
Comments
That makes two of us.
Posted by: Acidflask | May 12, 2005 12:02:17 PM
We'll be ignorant if we believe the press won't take things out of context ...
Posted by: Shion | May 12, 2005 12:23:24 PM
With such press, and such govt organisations, how to convince myself to convert to Singapore citizenship. Very disillusioned man.
Posted by: Anthony | May 12, 2005 12:32:37 PM
Read the article on Today.
[quote]For Ms Wendy Cheng, 21, who runs xiaxue.blogspot.com, it's a matter of common sense.
"I have named and put up pictures of people (for criticism), but that's because I know they won't sue me," she said. "Naming or taking on an organisation would probably be foolhardy."
To be precise: It would be foolhardy if you couldn't back up any of your claims.[/quote]
I've seen a few of xx's posts. Not that I'm particularly enthralled by her writing.
Taking this soundbite from its context, it sounds like what a bully would do. Attack the weak (poor kids who allegedly steal taxis but don't have money to sue), but don't antagonize the strong (i.e. a corporation or other organization with mmoney and lawyers).
If something needs to be said, then say it. Nothing to say then shut up. Don't pick and choose your targets. There's no honor in being a bully.
Posted by: drew | May 12, 2005 12:38:03 PM
My goodness, I've just read the Today article, I think it's remarkably slanted, especially the last sentence; it's supposed to cut both ways!
mrbrown, maybe you can use your right-of-reply, in your own Today column/op-ed! LOL
Posted by: jeffyen | May 12, 2005 12:41:56 PM
This must the nation building-ness and special circumstances-ness of our very own national press at work!
Hurray... ...
With a little bit more work, who knows, maybe next year, we may even beat the North Koreans at the RSF ranking!
Then Singapore will really be unique liao!
Come on, you guys working in all of our mass-media, you guys can do it. Gambate!!
North Korea or BUST!!!!
LONG LIVE THE GREAT LEADER!!!!
Posted by: bleah | May 12, 2005 1:31:30 PM
One of my all-time favourite quotes is most apt here.
"Editing doesn't lie, but it tells a story."
And that's what makes blogs so 'dangerous' isn't it? Because hey, we can tell stories the way we want them to be told, and to a much larger audience than our immediate friends and family. It may be through our personal filters, but at least no one is hijacking our words for their political gains.
Live and learn.
Posted by: cour marly | May 12, 2005 1:55:45 PM
The fourth estate in Singapore is known to support the Gahmen in the building of a strong and vibrant Singapore.
This is Unique Singapore for you.
Posted by: sigh | May 12, 2005 2:14:56 PM
Is it any wonder that more people are reading online reports while yet NOT in a hurry to pay $ to subscribe to local press online?
Posted by: sigh | May 12, 2005 3:49:30 PM
It would be interesting if you podcast your interview. If you made your own recording of the interview, I believe it's within your rights to broadcast it how you see fit, since you own the copyright. And then listeners will know 100% for sure how the interview went (unless you edit your own recording).
But of course, first you need that recording...
Posted by: Yuhui | May 12, 2005 4:34:01 PM
did ST journs go over to Today?
Posted by: jim | May 12, 2005 4:38:29 PM
I can only say... WAH LAU EH!
But seriously, having written for ST I don't think that the reporter can be faulted entirely. mb, I'm sure you know (since you contribute a weekly column to said newspaper) that the reporter is just a frontline person, and that there are many many copywriters, editors, subeditors, and other staff that could go through the same article before it goes to print.
I'm not really surprised this happened but I'm disappointed to hear about this. Getting top bloggers to give a certain slant to the story that they never intended isn't what I would consider accurate reporting.
Posted by: chrischoo | May 12, 2005 4:42:41 PM
I am not surprised that they quoted you out of context.
I have had friends who've spent like one over hour being interviewed only to discover that the f**king journalist doesn't really care to describe things the way they were said at all.
Local journalists rank very very low in my books for integrity. Possibly just a little better than most lawyers and members of parliament.
Posted by: kktan | May 12, 2005 4:53:34 PM
with sympathies i dedicate my next blogpost to you, mr brown.
Posted by: WhiteOut | May 12, 2005 4:56:26 PM
BTW, to even quote the truly infantile xia-xuay shows you how intelligent the journo is.
Posted by: kktan | May 12, 2005 4:57:28 PM
Poor you. Boo Hoo. Heh... At least with blogs we can defend ourselves yah. You get to actually tell us they misquoted you. Heh... Chin up, you'll be just fine. Yeah and dun talk to those nasty reporters. Talk to me better. =P
Posted by: postmaster-general | May 12, 2005 5:06:29 PM
I was surprised at how far out of context everyone's quotes were taken. The only fruitful point of that article was Benjamin Cheong's assertion that blogs are considered publications just like print media. Then again, that might have been out of context too.
Posted by: strangeknight | May 12, 2005 5:18:45 PM
One week ago, the ST sought to interview me about my views about the Acidflask incident, following my decision to close my blog Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified (http://slmjd.blogspot.com).
Over the phone, I gave some oral comments on a strictly off-the-record basis. I then told the journalist Melissa Lwee that if she wished to quote me in her article, she should send me a list of questions in writing, and I would then reply to her in writing.
I preferred to give a written reply because this would allow me to organise my thoughts on the Acidflask incident more precisely and thereby reduce the possibility that I would be misquoted, misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Melissa indeed sent me the list of questions, and I replied in writing via email that very same day (last Friday).
Among other things, I commented on the likely chilling effect of the Acidflask incident, not just on Singapore bloggers, but on Singaporeans generally.
I said that A*STAR's threat of legal action sent a signal to the public which was quite contrary to the Singapore government's recent efforts to encourage Singaporeans to speak up and express their views.
I mentioned that international organisations such as Index for Free Expression and Reporters Without Borders had already noted this case, and that this wasn't good for Singapore's reputation.
I also said that despite being a frequent visitor to Acidflask's blog, I could not recall ever seeing anything on his blog that was defamatory in respect of A*STAR or Philip Yeo.
I further said that my impression of Acidflask, based on his blog, was that he was a mature, responsible and highly intelligent person, just as we would typically expect a PhD student, PSC scholar and Gifted Programme student to be.
I further said that many Singapore bloggers want to engage in constructive discussion of important social issues, but now, despite their best intentions, they may become fearful of doing so.
And I went on to say more.
To date, the Straits Times still hasn't featured my comments.
In view of what the Today newspaper has now done to both you and Mr Miyagi, I can't help but speculate about the possible reasons why.
One of my guesses is that unlike you and Mr Miyagi, I had given my answers in writing. Thus I had the opportunity to state my comments very precisely; and furthermore I had written proof of exactly what I had communicated.
Thus there would have been little opportunity for the Straits Times to put any slant on my comments that I did not intend.
Of course, that may possibly be why they didn't use my comments at all.
I'm not sure who has suffered the worst fate -
you and Mr Miyagi (whose comments were both quoted in a manner and tone that failed utterly to reflect the true spirit of your respective views)
or me (whose comments were in written form, and crystal clear - and therefore not used, as they could not have been misused).
Posted by: Gilbert Koh | May 12, 2005 6:14:37 PM
Bleah- Great Leader? Dear Leader aleady lah.
Posted by: dennis | May 12, 2005 6:21:08 PM
I too was approached by ST for an 'interview'.
I guess my email replies which featured phrases such as "climate of cynicism and fear", "ominous oppressive atmosphere", and "over-stifling self censorship", wasn't too popular with them guys.=)
Anyway the press quoting people completely out of context is utterly without the requisite etiquette, and they have the audacity to preach how we bloggers should ‘write responsibly’. Utter BS.
Posted by: redrown | May 12, 2005 7:25:40 PM
next time make sure i am there with an iTalk to record everything for posterity.
Posted by: caleb | May 12, 2005 8:04:36 PM
The entire thing is one-sided!
It's like turning this:
"YOU ARE THE MOST REPRESSIVE SO-CALLED LIBERAL COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE FREE WORLD AND I AM GLAD THAT I AM LEAVING THE LOT OF YOU BEHIND TO FESTER IN YOUR GILDED CAGES!"
...to this:
"You are the most..." "...liberal country in the whole free world..." "...and I am glad that I am [living] in your gilded cage."
Posted by: Adalmin | May 12, 2005 8:21:04 PM
there has been a LOT of blog-centric articles in the local and regional papers recently, and even in the economist, that prophesy the death of traditional media as a younger generation grows up on a steady diet of internet-fact rather than newspaper-truth.
is the situation we find ourselves in not one where panicked governments and corporations scrabble to buy or bully themselves power in the murky world of the e-pinion?
as long as the gatekeepers of our traditional media continue to manipulate truth in order to maintain the status quo and profit those with power over those who have none, there can be no doubt of the imminent demise of the printed word, when even bloggers and other opinion leaders of the future will migrate into still murkier depths from which to broadcast their thoughts.
for the advocates of a legitimate online press for the people, such freedom must come from roots anonymous, no?
Posted by: dks | May 12, 2005 9:59:20 PM
After reading all this, I can't help but be itching to comment...
Having studied defamation before, & having that knowledge refreshed now that I'm studying journalism, I recall that to prove a statement defamatory, the plaintiff must prove:
1) That the statement is defamatory;
2) That it referred to the plaintiff;
3) AND that it was published to a third party.
From what I gather from the news reports, A*Star didn't want to specify what were the defamatory statements cos that'd be akin to perpetuating the libel. Fair enough. I also recall Chen Jihao once mentioning that he wasn't even clear which part of what he said was defamatory.
I'm wondering how on earth could A*Star jump to step 2 & 3 without even clearing step one? Tell me how this makes sense: you're threatening a libel suite against someone & you're not even telling him what that defamatory statement is. Like that how can the defendant respond appropriately?
-The above is actually part of one of my blogposts =P
Posted by: Supreme Fart | May 12, 2005 10:03:50 PM
Its a taboo bout the freedom of speech in singapore and alot of us know it, but then this kinda of thing you need to have the right mindset, preferably know where you stand and how its applicable by law, before you go around shooting your mouth(fingers) off.. imho of course.
Posted by: fleng | May 12, 2005 10:13:42 PM
Speaking of Anonymous Blogging
Useful article for all you bloggers i digged up on the net
A technical guide to anonymous blogging - a very early draft
Filed under: General ? ezuckerman @ 4:48 pm
The Electronic Frontier Foundation posted an excellent guide to safe
blogging a few days back. While the guide is quite rich in tips to ensure
you don’t reveal too much personal information while blogging, it doesn’t
look very closely at the technical issues associated with keeping a blog
private. I decided to write a quick technical guide to anonymous blogging,
trying to approach the problem from the perspective of a government
whistleblower in a country with a less-than-transparent government. What
follows is a first draft - I’ll be posting it on the wiki as well (in a day
or two) and will be grateful for comments, corrections and input.
Sarah works in a government office as an accountant. She becomes aware that
her boss, the deputy minister, is stealing large amounts of money from the
government. She wants to let the world know that a crime is taking place,
but she’s worried about losing her job. If she reports the matter to the
Minister (if she could ever get an appointment!), she might get fired. She
calls a reporter at the local newspaper, but he says he can’t run a story
without lots more information and documents proving her claims.
So Sarah decides to put up a weblog to tell the world what she knows about
what’s happening in the ministry. To protect herself, she wants to make
sure no one can find out who she is based on her blog posts - she needs to
blog anonymously.
There are two major ways a blogger can get caught when she is trying to
blog anonymously. One is if she reveals her identity through the content
she publishes - for instance, if Sarah says, “I’m the assistant chief
compliance accountant to the Deputy Minister of Mines,” there’s a good
chance that someone reading her blog is going to figure out who she is
pretty quickly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s guide, “How to Blog
Safely”, offers some great advice on how to avoid revealing your identity
with the content of your blog.
The other way Sarah can get caught is if someone can determine her identity
from information provided by their web browsers or email programs. Every
computer attached to the internet has - or shares - an address called an IP
address - it’s a series of four numbers from 0-255, separated by dots - for
instance: 213.24.124.38. When Sarah uses her web browser to make a comment
on the Minister’s blog, the IP address she was using is included on her
post.
With a little work, the Minister’s computer technicians may be able to
trace Sarah’s identity from this IP address. If Sarah is using a computer
in her home, dialing into an Internet Service Provider, the ISP likely has
records of which IP address was assigned to which telephone number at a
specific time. In some countries, the Minister might need a subpoena to
obtain these records; in others (especially ones where the ISP is owned by
the government!), the ISP might give out this information very easily, and
Sarah might find herself in hot water.
There are a number of ways Sarah can hide her identity when using the
Internet. As a general rule, the more secure Sarah wants to be, the more
work she needs to do to hide her identity. Sarah - and anyone else hoping
to blog anonymously - needs to consider just how paranoid she wants to be
before deciding how hard she wants to work to protect her identity. As you
will see, some of the strategies for protecting identity online require a
great deal of technical knowledge and work.
Step one - psuedonyms
One easy way Sarah can hide her identity is to use a free webmail account
and free blog host outside her native country. (Using a paid account for
either email or webhosting is a poor idea, as the payment will link the
account to a credit card, a checking account or paypal account that could
be easily linked to Sarah.) She can create a new identity - a psuedonym -
when she signs up for these accounts, and when the Minister finds her blog,
he’ll discover that it belongs to “A. N. Ymous”, with the email address
anonymous.whistleblower@hotmail.com.
Some providers of free webmail accounts:
Hotmail
Yahoo
Hushmail - free webmail with support for strong cryptography
Some providers of free weblog hosting:
Blogsome - free WordPress blogs
Blogger
Seo Blog
Here’s the problem with this strategy - when Sarah signs up for an email
service or a weblog, the webserver she’s accessing logs her IP address. If
that IP address can be traced to her - if she’s using her computer at home,
or her computer at work - and if the email or weblog company is forced to
release that information, she could be found. It’s not a simple matter to
get most web service companies to reveal this information - to get Hotmail,
for instance, to reveal the IP Sarah used to sign up for her account, the
Minister would likely need to issue a subpoena, probably in cooperation
with a US law enforcement agency. But Sarah may not want to take the risk
that she could be found if her government can persuade her email and weblog
host to reveal her identity.
Step two - public computers
One additional step Sarah could take to hide her identity is to begin using
computers to make her blogposts that are used by lots of other people.
Rather than setting up her webmail and weblog accounts from her home or
work computer, Sarah could set them up from a computer in a cybercafe, a
library, or a university computer lab. When the Minister traces the IP used
to post a comment or a post, he’ll discover that the post was made from a
cybercafe, where any number of people might have been using the computers.
There are flaws in this strategy as well. If the cybercafe or computer lab
keeps track of who is using what computer at what time, Sarah’s identity
could be compromised. She shouldn’t try to post in the middle of the night
when she’s the only person in the computer lab - the geek on duty is likely
to remember who she is. And she should change cybercafes often. If the
Minister discovers that all the whistleblower’s posts are coming from
“Joe’s Beer and Bits” on Main Street, he might stake someone out to watch
the cybercafe and see who’s posting to blogs in the hopes of catching
Sarah.
Step three - anonymous proxies.
Sarah’s getting sick of walking to Joe’s cybercafe every time she wants to
post to her blog. With some help from the neighborhood geek, she sets up
her computer to access the web through an anonymous proxy. Now, when she
uses her webmail and weblog services, she’ll leave behind the IP address of
the proxy server, not the address of her home machine… which will make it
very hard for the Minister to find her.
First, she finds a list of proxy servers online, by searching for “proxy
server” on Google. She picks a proxy server from the publicproxyservers.com
list, choosing a site marked “high anonymity”. She writes down the IP
address of the proxy and the port listed on the proxy list.
Some reliable lists of public proxies:
publicproxyservers.com - lists anonymous and non-anonymous proxies
Samair - only lists anonymous proxies, and includes information on
proxies that support SSL
rosinstrument proxy database - searchable database of proxy servers
Then she opens the “preferences” section of her webbrowser. Under
“general”, “network” or “security” (usually), she finds an option to set up
a proxy to access the Internet. (On the Firefox browser, which I use, this
option is found under Preferences - General - Connection Settings.)
She turns on “manual proxy configuration”, enters the IP address of the
proxy server and port into the fields for HTTP proxy and SSL proxy and
saves her settings. She restarts her browser and starts surfing the web.
She notices that her connection to the web seems to be a bit slower. That’s
because every page she requests from a webserver takes a detour. Instead of
connecting directly to Hotmail.com, she connects to the proxy, which then
connects to Hotmail. When Hotmail sends a page to her, it goes to the proxy
first, then to her. She also notices that she has some difficulty accessing
websites, especially sites that want her to log in. But at least her IP
isn’t being recorded by her weblog provider!
A fun experiment with proxies:
Visit noreply.org, a popular remailer website. The site will greet
you by telling you what IP address you’re coming from: “Hello
pool-151-203-182-212.wma.east.verizon.net [151.203.182.212], pleased
to meet you.”
Now go to anonymizer.com, a web service that allows you to view
(some) webpages through an anonymous proxy. In the box on the top
right of the anonymizer page, enter the URL for
http://www.noreply.org (or just click this link.) You’ll note that
noreply.org now thinks you’re coming from vortex.anonymizer.com.
(Anonymizer is a nice way to test proxies without needing to change
your browser settings, but it won’t work with most sophisticated web
services, like webmail or weblogging servers.)
Finally, follow the instruction above to set up your webbrowser to
use an anonymous proxy and then visit noreply.org to see where it
thinks you’re coming from.
Alas, proxies aren’t perfect either. If the nation Sarah lives in has
restrictive internet laws, many websurfers may be using proxies to access
sites blocked by the government. The government may respond by ordering
certain popular proxies to be blocked. Surfers move to new proxies, the
government blocks those proxies, and so the circle of life continues. All
of this can become very time consuming.
Sarah has another problem if she’s one of very few people in the country
using a proxy. If the comments on her blog can be traced to a single proxy
server, and if the Minister can access logs from all the ISPs within a
country, he might be able to discover that Sarah’s computer was one of the
very few that accessed a specific proxy server. He can’t demonstrate that
Sarah used the proxy to post to a weblog server, but he might conclude that
the fact that the proxy was used to make a weblog post and that she was one
of the few people in the nation to use that proxy constituted evidence that
she made the post. Sarah would do well to use proxies that are popular
locally and to switch proxies often.
Step four - MixMaster, Invisiblog and GPG
Sarah starts to wonder what happens if the proxy servers she’s using get
compromised? What if the Minister convinces the operator of a proxy server
- either through legal means or through bribery - to keep records and see
whether anyone from his country is using the proxy, and what sites they’re
using. She’s relying on the proxy administrator to protect her, and she
doesn’t even know who the administrator is!
Spending quite a long time with the local geek this time, she explores a
new option: Invisiblog. Run by an anonymous group of Australians called
vigilant.tv, Invisiblog is a site designed for and by the truly paranoid.
You can’t post to Invisiblog via the web, as you do with most blog servers.
You post to it using specially formatted email, sent through the MixMaster
remailer system, signed cryptographically.
It took Sarah a few tries to understand that last sentence. Eventually, she
set up GPG - the GNU implementation of Pretty Good Privacy, a public-key
encryption system. (In two sentences: Public-key encryption is a technique
that allows you to send messages to a person that only she can read,
without her needing to share a secret key with you that would let you read
messages other people send to her. Public key encryption also allows people
to “sign” documents with a digital signature that is almost impossible to
forge.) She generates a keypair that she will use to post to the blog - by
signing a post with her “private key”, the blog server will be able to use
her “public key” to check that a post is coming from her, and then put it
on the blog.
She then sets up MixMaster, a mailing system designed to obscure the
origins of an email message. MixMaster uses a chain of anonymous remailers
- computer programs that strip all identifying information off an email and
send it to its destination - to send email messages with a high degree of
anonymity. By using a chain of 2 to 20 remailers, the message is very
difficult to trace, even if one or more of the remailers is “compromised”
and is recording sender information. She has to “build” MixMaster by
compiling its source code, a project that requires a great deal of geek
assistance.
She sends a first MixMaster message to Invisiblog, which includes her
public key. Invisiblog uses this to set up a new blog, with the catchy name
“invisiblog.com/ac4589d7001ac238″ - the long string is the last 16 bytes of
her GPG key. Then she sends future posts to invisiblog, by writing a text
message, signing it with her public key and sending it via MixMaster.
It’s not nearly as fast as her old style of blogging. The misdirection of
MixMaster mailers means that it takes anywhere from two hours to two days
for her message to reach the servers. And she has to be very careful about
looking at the blog - if she looks at it too often, her IP address will
appear in the blog’s log frequently, signalling that she’l likely to be the
blog author. But she’s reassured by the fact that the owners of invisiblog
have no idea who she is… and she now knows more about open-source software
than she’d ever wanted to know.
The main problem with the Invisiblog system is the fact that it’s
incredibly difficult for mere mortals to use. Most people find GPG a
challenge to set up, and have difficulty understanding the complexities of
public and private keys. More userfriendly crypto tools, like Ciphire, have
been set up to help the less geeky of us, but even they can be tricky to
use. As a result, very few people - including people who might really need
it - use encryption for most of their email.
MixMaster is a true technical challenge for most users. Windows users can
use an early DOS version of the program by just downloading it. I
downloaded and tested it yesterday, and it doesn’t appear to work… or
perhaps my email is still being remailed back and forth between remailers.
Anyone wanting to use the newer version, or wanting to use the program on
Linux or Mac, needs to be able to compile the program themselves, a task
beyond many expert users. It’s possible that Invisiblog would become more
useful if it accepted messages from web-accessible remailers, like
riot.eu.org - for now, I can’t see it as being particularly helpful for the
people who need it most.
There’s an additional set of problems with strong encryption in repressive
nations. If Sarah’s computer is seized by the government and her private
key is found, it would constitute strong evidence that Sarah had authored
the controversial blog posts. And, in countries where encryption is not
widely used, simply sending out MixMaster messages - mail messages wrapped
in strong encryption - might be enough to cause Sarah’s internet usage to
be watched closely.
Is Sarah’s solution - learning enough about cryptography and software to
use MixMaster - your solution? Or is some combination of steps 1,2 and 3
sufficient to let you blog anonymously? There’s no one answer - any path
towards anonymity needs to consider local conditions, your own technical
competence and your level of paranoia. If you have reason to be worried
that what you’re posting could endanger your safety, a combination of steps
1, 2 and 3 is probably not a bad idea.
Oh, and remember not to sign your blog posts with your real name!
Posted by: Spammer | May 12, 2005 10:28:14 PM
Let's hope we are never driven to that level of paranoia for merely expressing our opinions. Online anonymity should be driven by a desire to maintain one's privacy (there be stalkers out there you know), and not out of a fear of prosecution.
Posted by: cour marly | May 12, 2005 10:53:15 PM
mb, when I read the article, I knew you must have been somehow "misquoted". I am glad you cleared the air now. Its a pity they didn't dare to put in your full quote. A real pity.
Posted by: Ruok | May 12, 2005 11:04:25 PM
hmm judging from the responses, it seems like interviews that clear state one view are either ignored or misquoted while views from the other side are clearly included.
I dont buy the excuse that many people edit an article and who knows who changed what. THE EDITOR ultimately should take the responsibility. What is the likelihood of Philip Yeo getting quoted out of context to say the opposite of what he meant?
Posted by: Mystery Tan Lines | May 13, 2005 12:17:35 AM
what is the likelihood of facing a lawsuit from PY as opposed to MrBrown et al?
Posted by: redrown | May 13, 2005 12:22:51 AM
true but let me put it this way, what is the likelihood of a minister getting quoted out of context or misquoted. I mean if reporters really want to do a good job, they'd be able to do it and get the quote right. I therefore have to conclude that they either cant be bothered or they are incompetant.
Posted by: Mystery Tan Lines | May 13, 2005 1:22:15 AM
actually i was just using your point to elucidate my own point. your point stands. there is no likelihood of PY being misquoted unless it is has an enhancing value.
however, i am not too sure about the 'cant be bothered' or 'incompetent' part.
They know what they are doing. Their intents are precise.
Posted by: redrown | May 13, 2005 1:29:22 AM
this reminds me of that ad on tv with the tennis coach feedbacking back to the dad what he really thinks about his kid's sporting potential and the dad hearing only what he wants to hear.
"tony...i'll be honest with you...your son...he hits the ball...like agassi...one day...he may be number one..."
the whole event seems to be something out of 1984, "who controls the past controls the future and who controls the present controls the past".years from now, after all the objective bloggers have been crushed by litigation, imagined or not, that's going to be the only record of what the gd 'ol blogging community had to say about the acidflask affair.
Posted by: nightdescends | May 13, 2005 5:28:16 AM
I'm not a fan of the man but I remember what George Bush said in the wake of the 911 attacks. He said, go on and live your lives as they were. Go ahead and travel, live, have fun. Something like that.
And there's no need for people to close down their blogs (unless these happen to be excessively critical and hence targets for suits) or tone down their content after this ASTARgate. Actually there's not even a need to pretend that these people are more important to us bloggers than they really are. We might raise a hue and cry about it for a month or 2, and then life will go on as before, those who were criticising the gahment will carry on as before, nothing will change.
Everything PY and co have done so far would have been in vain.
Posted by: sieteocho | May 13, 2005 8:04:52 AM
I hardly read the papers nowadays (i surf for my news), and now I wont even bother picking up this free paper.
Posted by: Mystery Tan Lines | May 13, 2005 8:45:31 AM
"And there's no need for people to close down their blogs (unless these happen to be excessively critical and hence targets for suits) or tone down their content after this ASTARgate."
If I had not seen Acidflask's blog for myself, I would probably have agreed with you.
I don't think anyone at that time would have described his blog as "excessively critical". If Singabloodypore (singabloodypore.blogspot.com) ranks 8 out of 10 for amount of criticism, I would have ranked Caustic Soda around 2 out of 10.
Many of his posts didn't even touch Singapore at all. He wrote instead about new scientific discoveries and so on (he's a chemical physics student, remember?)
And yet he got hit by A*STAR.
If you ain't paranoid yet, you must be delusional.
There is one lesson that one can draw from Acidflask's blog. You do run some real risks if you do not blog anonymously.
And by "Anonymous", I don't of course mean that you use a pseudonym like "Acidflask". You must also hide details about your personal profile, never reveal your name in your posts, never give away clues about where you work etc.
Of course, alternatively you can protect yourself by writing only on trivial topics of absolutely no real significance to the rest of the world. That's a bit sad, though.
Posted by: Gilbert Koh | May 13, 2005 9:13:32 AM
I'm looking it from another POV. I don't think it's really about the 2 out of 10 blog, per se. The real story is probably another thing altogether, and a lot of bloggers don't share the same parameters, so there's no need to get paranoid yet, I hope! :)
Posted by: jeffyen | May 13, 2005 10:37:01 AM
"And by "Anonymous", I don't of course mean that you use a pseudonym like "Acidflask". You must also hide details about your personal profile, never reveal your name in your posts, never give away clues about where you work etc.
Of course, alternatively you can protect yourself by writing only on trivial topics of absolutely no real significance to the rest of the world. That's a bit sad, though."
Actually I'm not paranoid because I've done both with my blog. Kinda sad isn't it?
It's the game theory mentality. They can sue 2 or 3 people, but to sue 100 bloggers is just too much for them. I don't know why you closed down your blog, or why Nilsinelabore closed his. Yes, there is the problem that once you provide insider information you can get gunned down. But for the rest of us, there are just too many of us for them to handle.
We'll keep on saying what we want to say. Nobody is going to stop us. The onus is not upon them to stop being autocratic, since that power is not vested upon us. The onus is on us to keep on fighting, and to realise that the fight will never end.
And truth be told we all know what PY is like. PY is PY, he is special. Acidflask was unlucky enough to be up against PY. But acidflask is only 1 blog among hundreds or even thousands of blogs. We are the mushrooms (see the Sylvia Plath poem) and by morning we will inherit the earth.
Posted by: sieteocho | May 13, 2005 10:57:33 AM
I agree with gilbert, whether we like it or not, there is a struggle ongoing now on the local internet scene. Not all inhabitants are combantants but the outcome of which will determine the future of how the local blogosphere.
The enemy we face does not abide by the rules of morality, civility or reason. He will not hesitate to bring about an overwhelming amount of force in order to achieve total domination.
As individuals, we are helpless in the face of such an overpowering force and our one and only defense lie in the anonymity of the internet. It's security by obscurity and our hidden indentity is our only weapon.
We will be taunted and rediculed for not revealing ourselves, however to do so, will only bring about a bristling reprisal that many of us cannot withstand.
Acid Flask is the perfect example of this.
For all his valid reasoning and well argued ideas came to naught and his site was shut down entirely by the threat of a law suit. No debate nor rebuttals against his articles took place.
HE WAS SHUTDOWNED NOT BECAUSE HE IS WRONG BUT BECAUSE HE IS A THREAT.
Believe me when i say paranoia is our friend
Posted by: HaHaHa | May 13, 2005 11:22:58 AM
Gilbert,
So what are you really saying? Are you saying that you are certain Acidflask did not make any defamatory remarks on his blog? Or are you saying that it should be okay to make the occasional defamatory remark?
You are very well respected amongst the "non-infantile" bloggers, so please clarify what you are saying.
Posted by: Guofeng | May 13, 2005 12:35:03 PM
Guofeng,
Its very clear what he had said.
If you want to blog about anything vaguely critical of the local govt, be prepared to be paranoid.
There is no need for the govt to go after every blogger that strays, only a few good examples are required before everyone else gets 2nd thoughts and self-censors.
Posted by: Spammer | May 13, 2005 1:52:33 PM
Spammer,
With all due respect, I would like to hear it from Gilbert himself.
Posted by: Guofeng | May 13, 2005 2:27:40 PM
I think you guys have to wrong idea about civil liberties. These are not handed to you on a platter. You sorda got to fight for them, you know? Go out, get a few bloody noses. Like they said, "give me liberty or give me death" during the American revolutionary war, like the US soldiers who died in Korea.
Which is sorda different from making your blog private just because somebody *threatened* to sue. That's the way they want it: scare one of us and 10 or 100 start shutting their blogs. Why are you making things so easy for them? They should have to come up to us one by one.
Posted by: sieteocho | May 13, 2005 4:59:58 PM
What else is there to say?
If any statement on Acidflask's blog had really been so obviously defamatory, do you think that A*STAR would hesitate to:
- publicise it
- refute it; and
- prove to the world that Acidflask is an evil-tongued, double-headed snake?
Use your own judgment on this, lah.
Posted by: Gilbert Koh | May 13, 2005 5:08:20 PM
MTL: I don't deny that ultimately the editor is responsible, but I believe that because of the number of people each article passes through along the way, fault is distributed so much so that no single person can be faulted entirely. I think Gilbert mentioned something similar when blogging about who ultimately tosses down the death penalty to a convict - that each person is involved in a small part of the process and are collectively responsible, although each in a small way only.
As bloggers or those engaged in the blogging scene, it is up to us to shape the social landscape and craft the environment that we want for our views to be heard online. Yes, we ought to be responsible and stand up for what we believe in, and this might get some of us shot down, fortunately not literally like in the Philippines. However, at the same time we should not be afraid to stand up to situations which we perceive to be unjust.
I truly respect Gilbert for his very insightful opinions on the law and such, but I'm somewhat disappointed that he has decided to shut it down in order to make an anonymous comeback. Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi weren't anonymous were they?
Perhaps I am being foolhardy to think this way, but if we believe that we have a stake in this country then we should do what we can, both in our personal capacity and collectively, to lobby for change.
Posted by: chrischoo | May 13, 2005 6:53:35 PM
Spoken like a true idealist. Unfortunately, when reality sinks in, its not as simple as that. Yes, one may be willing to be a die-hard, a sacrificial martyr. However, one still has to think about the repercussions for family and friends. Accountability is the key drawback which holds us back, accountability is the vulnerability which is exploited to make us sucuumb.
In Singapore's social circumstances, simple cause and effect warrants individuals to value anonimity and privacy [and tact] over foolhardy bravado. When in Singapore, do as the Singaporeans do (That is, don't do a CSJ- despite his good intentions, thats where you end up if you don't adopt the proper tact- i would say his valiant attempts to better Singapore have failed spectacularly, furthermore at a great cost to his personal life)
Of course Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi weren't anonymous - they were in 'real-space', where anonymity is impossible or at best improbable.
The nature of cyberspace is different. It is possible to remain anonymous in cyberspace. The value of anonimity and privacy are especially important in the context of Singapore. We have already seen how a mere student with a few inane remarks has been treated. What more, if you step up one gear? What do you think would have happened to Steve (of Singabloodypore) if he had revealed his identity while he was still in Singapore?
Why not make use of a feature of cyberspace that is not possible in real-space when we can? (ie, anonimity)
It IS possible to contribute to the country behind anonimity. Anonimity does not automatically mean non-credibility. Ultimately, it is what the person says that deems his credibility in the eyes of others.
In fact, anonimity is further beneficial - as without knowledge of his/her occupation/age/race/etc, a reader can truly make an unbiased picture of the individual, without prior preconceptions based on occupation/age/race/sex/etc.
We must just remember that behind an anonymous is an individual-an individual who can in their personal capacity and collectively lobby for change.
And in our situation, especially exemplified by the AF saga, this may just be the prudent choice.
This is by no means condoning unwarranted libel under the veil of anonimity.
This is for the situation where one unwittingly treads on the toes of the powers-that-be (eg AF). We are all uncertain of our boundaries. It didn't help that PY and AStar refused to state conclusively what words were deemed defamatory. If they truly wanted to exemplify the boundaries, they would not have withheld this information.
We know how it is like in Singapore. You don't get a 2nd chance. Once u fall, u fall hard, especially if pushed down by a powerful force. One u fall, u don't recover, especially if pegged down by a powerful force.
The nature of internet gives us breathing space. Anonimity gives us a 2nd chance. One where one wrong step doesn't lead to repercussions for yourself, your family and your friends.
Posted by: redrown | May 13, 2005 8:24:44 PM
Well said. redrown
How many are prepared to sacrifice and lay down their lives like nelson mandela did for his country.
Lets not all forget that he was imprisoned for over 30 years for his uprising.
Are you prepared to be imprisoned in a gulag for 30 years for this country???
I will confess that I'm not.
It easy to talk about self-sacrifice and maytrdom when it is the others who are doing it...
Furthermore, for every Nelson Mandala, there are a million other fallen unnamed revolutionaries. This is a war and you will not get just a "blardy nose".
Maybe its a case of me wanting to have my cake and eat it too, but I sick and tired of living with a thumb down my neck and being told lies and half truth. Tired of having the truth concealed from me by an increasing incompetant authority for their own benefits.
Call me a quitter if you want, if this country cannot be changed for the better, I will leave. I'll not spend 30 years of my life in a gulag for this country while subjecting my entire family to the brutal treatment of this country's security apparatus.
If anonymity on the internet can provide us a channel to bring about changes to this country, then pardon me if I embrace it.
Posted by: Spammer | May 13, 2005 8:58:38 PM
Pls note that I didn't say, "be a hero". I said, "keep on fighting". You don't have to stand out and be special. You just have to do your part, maybe not write wholesale exposes on what you don't like about the gahment, but if something irks you jot it down.
We no longer live in an age of heroes, like Mandela or Gandhi. Those people were giants, because there was no entrenched system, no bureaucracy of the state, to the extent that there is today.
Today we all exist as a smaller part of extremely big communities, communities which inevitably dwarf the capacity of any individual to make substantial changes to it. The community will drift like a glacier, inexorably on its own course, but it is beyond any of its constituent ice particles to shape this course.
People say that the "government" is evil, but is the government a person? Or is it a bunch of people? If you want to "stick it to the man", who is the man? If you say, "they" can crush us easily, who is doing the crushing?
We can no longer think of ourselves as individuals. For many of us who have been brought up on an intellectual tradition which champions the sanctity of the individual, and who have an inherent distrust of communities, this is heretical. But things are different now. We are ants, and we will fight like ants from now on. We will lurk in the shadows, hide in the crevices. One or two of them is not really a match for all of us.
The rules have changed. This is not Martin Luther King booming out from Washington DC, "I have a dream". This is a horde of people showering the stage with ripe fruit. This is the glare of the media publicity turned into the sniper's crosshairs.
And things are even more complicated than that. There is no fine line dividing "them" and "us" anymore. We are, after all, part of the system, and through the way we talk and communicate, we help shape the system. We could even say this is not a war but a dialogue, where PY doesn't know where the boundary is because we have a vital role in establishing that boundary too.
I don't completely see that they have won. Let the people register their displeasure. They have ceded some ground in the last few years, let them cede a little bit more.
We have become like Sisyphus, pushing the boulder up bit by bit. This is not a heroic invasion where everything gets sewn up in a few months or so. This is a long drawn battle of attrition.
We (most of us) are Chinese, and we should always remember that the mandate of heaven rests upon the welfare of the people. Now that's real asian values for you.
Posted by: sieteocho | May 13, 2005 9:58:14 PM
Chris Choo said:
"I truly respect Gilbert for his very insightful opinions on the law and such, but I'm somewhat disappointed that he has decided to shut it down in order to make an anonymous comeback. Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi weren't anonymous were they?"
This is a memorable day. It will probably be the first and last time that my name is mentioned in the same breath as Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. :)
Of course there is no comparison. If Singapore ever sinks to that sad level where a great hero like Mandela or Gandhi is needed, I don't think there is a 0.0001% chance that I would be that hero. More likely I would long packed my bags and departed for greener pastures.
It's interesting to note, however, that for a good part of his early career, Mandela did many things secretly and covertly. In today's language, we might even have called him a "terrorist". In other words, anonymity was a key part of his modus operandi. He became known as the 'Black Pimpernel', or something like that. Read his autobiography.
Nothing that dramatic is happening in Singapore, or in Singapore blogosphere. On the other hand, we CAN draw some lessons from Mandela's behaviour. Anonymity has its definite advantages.
I am not advocating irresponsible writing by bloggers. (If you had read SLMJD, I think you will agree that irresponsibility is not my style). On the other hand, non-anonymity does limit you, especially:
(a) if you wish to tackle controversial & difficult topics in your blogging; and
(b) powerful entities in Singapore will move quickly to threaten you with legal action, if they perceive (correctly or otherwise) that your views as harmful to their own interests.
The average Singaporean (and even the above-average Singapore) cannot afford to have to face these threats. If Acidflask had been the grandson of billionaire Khoo Teck Puat, he might well have coolly said:
"Mr Philip Yeo, I don't think I've said anything defamatory about you at all. I've already consulted my lawyer Davinder Singh and he tells me that since you yourself cannot even point out clearly to the press what statements on the blog you think were defamatory, you yourself probably know that you have a very weak case."
"So sue me if you like, my lawyers will see your lawyers in court. Meanwhile, I will NOT remove my blog, I will leave it up there for the whole world to read, AND I will continue to blog on whatever topic I please, and if I feel like writing another 1000 posts about A*STAR, I jolly well will."
"Oh, and you had better be careful what you tell reporters about me, otherwise I may very well decide to COUNTER-SUE you for defamation. And when I win, I will post the full details on my blog and announce it to the whole world."
Unfortunately, Acidflask's grandfather is not Khoo Teck Puat. Acidflask is an orphan and a university student with very shallow pockets. He cannot afford the services of Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and he cannot afford the costs of prolonged litigation against a state agency.
Thus Acidflask did the smartest thing possible in his own circumstances - he surrendered, threw his hands up, apologised unreservedly, unreservedly, unreservedly, using the exact words of apology that A*STAR had typed out and told him to use.
Not the most heroic thing to do, but definitely the smartest.
But remember, all this could have been avoided, if Acidflask had never been known to be CHEN JIA HAO.
Posted by: GK | May 14, 2005 9:44:04 AM
Which brings us to some interesting qns. acidflask didn't bother to keep his identity a secret. Did he intend that in the beginning? It could be that he wanted himself to be anonymous, but ended up posting more and more on the details of his life, until... well it's not as though there's a super long list of Singaporean grad students at any given department of UIUC.
The other interesting qn is if PY had gone ahead and sued AF, what would the court have been like? Knowing our censorious press, it would have been possible that the public will still be kept in the dark about the "defamatory" remarks. But it's not likely. If acidflask's criticisms of A*STAR have substance to them, we might have ended up seeing the gory details strung out for the world to see, and that would undermine Singapore's ascension towards being a research hub. PY would not have wanted that. Possible, then, that the lawsuit was nothing but a bluff that worked?
Seems now that the onus is on acidflask to go out, make some important discovery, and come back home to put the egg on ASTAR's face. At least then, we can claim to have our own Sakharov / Fang Lizhi. Yaay!
Posted by: sieteocho | May 14, 2005 11:52:01 AM
"He that fights and runs away, May turn and fight another day; But he that is in battle slain, Will never rise to fight again." - Cornelius Tacitus
Posted by: Agagooga | May 14, 2005 1:07:32 PM
mr Brown in sunday times today - again a one sided article in my opinion.
Posted by: Mystery Tan Lines | May 15, 2005 9:17:29 AM
I agree with what drew @ May 12, 2005 12:38 PM posted above:
Basically, to me, it all boils down to this:
If you're a S'porean female, you can basically write whatever you want & get away with it.
If you're a S'porean male, you may write the most innocious of things, based on ACTUAL FACTS, and you'll still be hunted down & accused of being a whiner or a wimp.
So much for "equality".
Posted by: GroovyMarvin | May 15, 2005 2:32:47 PM
hmm is whining about whining considered whining too? ;P
Posted by: Mystery Tan Lines | May 15, 2005 7:37:20 PM
As if PY hasn't done enough trash talking, one of 'his' scholars decided to make a ridiculous remark in today's papers, in an apparent attempt to sing to his tune:
"He's (Philip Yeo) right, says this scholarship holder. 'The local boys are Ok until they enter National Service. Once they enter NS, they complain a lot. I didn't know that guys could talk about the most minute things. Perhaps they're not used to the physical training or regimentation.' - Ms Chng Zhenzhi, 23, A*STAR scholarship holder."
The Sunday Times
Urgh!
Posted by: crap de la crap | May 15, 2005 9:52:31 PM
Everyone knows that the biggest whiners are the local women...I mean girls (they haven't grown up yet):
SG girls whine about:
1. about giving birth
2. Staying home to take care of kids
3. Getting paid less than men (when they don't do dangerous jobs than men do)
4. wanting an Ang Moh becos Singapore men must call NS Line to report that he is going on holiday
5. getting more maternity leave before getting pregnant
6. getting more money from govt before getting pregnant
7. not having enough women MPs
8. not enough rights
9. not recognising motherhood as NS
10. getting S$750 NSmen tax relief only
11. having China/Viet brides as competition
12. staying with in-laws
13. teachers not teaching sex in schools
14. chinese dicks not being long enuff
15. not being able to afford a car
16. not getting diamonds from husbands
17. not having enuff meals at top class restaurants
18. having sex and having to be responsible for it (ask shankar)
19. staying single/spinster and yet want a bigger flat
20. not being able to find a husband with big long hard dicks, with lots of cash in bank and hand, owns a beemer, can go for long european holidays, go for adventures, climb mountains, be romantic dining at expensive restaurants, give gems at every meeting and still find time to take care of the children, placate the in-laws and still hold on to a job.
I pity the mothers of sons who died in the service of their country during NS. Their names have been tarnished by a callous comment.
Posted by: GroovyMarvin | May 15, 2005 10:42:57 PM
Look, don't be so mean to that Ms Chng Zhenzhi.
Don't forget that she is an A*STAR scholar. She was probably arm-twisted into saying those things.
This is obviously A*STAR's PR Department's feeble attempt to put a spin on the Acidflask incident and distract people from the REAL issues.
Furthermore, knowing what we now know about the press, it's a fair guess that the media further twisted her words and made her look more like a pathetic, sycophant bimbo than she really is.
So she's a victim too. She got twisted, and arm-twisted. Must be feeling bruised. Now her male colleagues and boyfriends all detest her and she'll probably die a virgin spinster.
Posted by: haha | May 16, 2005 2:25:40 PM
I have another view as in why Acidflask was singled out. He was a 'bond-breaker', I bet you PY was trying to make him an 'example' to other 'bond-breakers' that if you do that you'll be watched and don't have as much 'freedom' (so called anyway) as the others.
Posted by: Desmond Lim | May 16, 2005 2:58:10 PM
GF just send me this:
Standard diversionary tactics.
To stop everyone talking about how some poor blogger was gonna be sued, divert the attention to something that would spark everyone's attention: Bash S'porean males.
So now everyone's talking about Sg men & NS.....instead of talking about the fact that David vs Goliath issue of an entire organisation ganging up on one blogger.
To take the heat off himself.....divert the heat towards local males.
Standard media manipulation & diversionary tactics.......with S'porean men, once again, being made the scapegoats.
Posted by: GroovyMarvin | May 16, 2005 8:00:51 PM
can i change sex..??..to a female...
Posted by: ChangeSex | May 17, 2005 5:45:16 PM
I think Philips Yeo is making a mountain out of a molehill.
The Acid Flask affair is a rather trivial issue. I don't think it's wrong for him to complain about A*Star. Everybody grumbles about something once in a while. Philips Yeo is being too sensitive to his comments. It's not as if Acid Flask has a lot of authority so he may cause A*star to close down or something like that.
And to generalise that all NS scholars are wimpy because of AcidFlask issue is simply not fair.
I think AcidFlask shouldn't close down his site. Every user of the Internet has an equal right to share what he likes to say.
Posted by: kiasugirl | May 18, 2005 12:16:52 AM
