×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Malaysian Cyber Cafe Owners Liable For Patron Behavior

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the killing-an-industry dept.

Censorship 119

An anonymous reader writes "Malaysia's new internet law maybe simply the toughest on the planet. According to the new law which was amended because of protesters the originators of content are those who own, administer, and/or edit websites, blogs, and online forums. This means that a blogger or forum moderator who allows nasty comments against the government on their site can be held liable. An internet café manager is accountable if one of his or her customers sends illegal content online through the store's WiFi. A mobile phone user is the perpetrator if defamatory content is traced back to his or her electronic device. Critics of the new law contend also that a person is considered guilty until proven innocent."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

first! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171313)

what does Malaysia have to do with Hollywood? I thought these kinds of laws were restricted to countries that are in control of high profile lobbyiest groups..

And start the trolls, 3.. 2.. 1

Malaysia and Islamic Terrorism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175525)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LI11Ae01.html [atimes.com]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3126241.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Bonus info:

Mr. Yazid Sufaat, the guy who organized the "Kuala Lumpur Summit", which led to the bombing of World Trade Center in New York City, is a FREE MAN in Malaysia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_Sufaat [wikipedia.org]

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/12/al_qaedas_anthrax_sc.php [longwarjournal.org]

Malaysia is hopeless... (2)

dryriver (1010635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171355)

One of many backward countries around the world that don't see any benefit in having a free internet. Sad but true...

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171475)

One of many backward countries around the world that don't see any benefit in having a free internet. Sad but true...

Well, what did you expect from a predominantly Muslim country? Progressive politics?

Seriously, these people are being told that god expected them to live in the stone age, and they accept that.

I can't see how anything else could have happened there.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41172307)

Well said - it's the sick, evil, totalitarian nightmare known as 'Islam' - where free thought and free speech are punished with DEATH - i.e. Islam IS terrorism, as simple as that. The ONLY reason that the piece of shit 'religion' Islam EXISTS is because it is terrorism - who would voluntarily join such a sick cult? (Apart from a handful of stupid white women...)
Islam is the greatest threat facing the planet - aided and abetted by LEFT wingers, stupid idiots who hate free speech (because they know they can't defend their insane, Marxist ideology) and who seek to silence any dissent - hence they LOVE Islam, and they also love brown people, no matter how psychopathic they are - that is the main reason that white Lefties support muslims, no matter how blatantly anti-Left wing their insane ideology is.

Thick people - destroying the world since 10,000 BC.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41172775)

You want to believe that. But you don't.

You can only prove me right.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173165)

It sounds exactly the same as Christianity or any religion, really. The fact is, you have to be out of your mind to believe in magical sky daddies.

Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173355)

No it doesn't ... Christianity guarded science when it was normal for mobs to come and try to destroy it (and lost quite a few priests and monks to those mobs) ... islam WAS the mobs coming to destroy science (example: one of the biggest blows against science ever [wikipedia.org] ). Besides, one only needs to walk in a muslim suburb for 5 minutes to remove all doubt as to how the vast majority of muslims think about science, irrespective of where they come from.

We wouldn't have had science if it wasn't for the church stubbornly going against the wishes of society for centuries ... but of course going against wider society is still considered criminal, dirty, "backwards" and dishonorable today.

Furthermore, only 1% of people would know about science if it wasn't for the church building more schools than churches and starting the massive crime of attempting to educate everyone (crime ? Yes, literally, this is one thing the church was convicted of by the government that is now called the "enlightenment" government. The crime of educating everyone. Hundreds of monks and priests were executed for that, and *still* they didn't stop).

Re:Obviously (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174443)

You're a fucking idiot. Christianity cowers before science because it proves religious nutjobs are full of shit. The only "education" any church has ever provided was false information and indoctrination.

Take your religious bullshit out of here, pusher.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174937)

One of many backward countries around the world that don't see any benefit in having a free internet. Sad but true...

Well, what did you expect from a predominantly Muslim country? Progressive politics?

Seriously, these people are being told that god expected them to live in the stone age, and they accept that.

I can't see how anything else could have happened there.

dear poster, what do u mean by live in stone age.. when god give u a brain, think wisely.. its your nature ( country now ) who choose to go back to stone age.. have u ever see how stoneage ppl dress up? its like u guys now.. but islam teach them to cover their body.

Islam teach them to cover their body?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175081)

have u ever see how stoneage ppl dress up? its like u guys now.. but islam teach them to cover their body.

 
Are you sure it was ISLAM which taught human beings to cover up their body?
 
[citation please]
 

Re:Islam teach them to cover their body?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175669)

I bet the sun taught human beings to cover up any sensitive spots way before 600AD...

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41175311)

I know it's cynical, but right now, the US gov't has begun creating a treaty with Malaysia, the requires the two countries harmonize their IP laws, so that whichever country has the stricter law in a specific area, the other must match or exceed it.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175567)

US threaten internet freedom = Corrupted idiot politician/leader
China threaten internet freedom = Corrupted idiot politician/leader
European country threaten internet freedom = Corrupted idiot politician/leader
Arab country threaten internet freedom = Muslim
Malaysia threaten internet freedom = Muslim

nice logic you got there

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (3, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41175727)

Well, what did you expect from a predominantly Muslim country? Progressive politics?

Perhaps you should go to Malaysia some day. It's improving fast, has some of the best roads and infrastructure in the region as well as high levels of education. Food prices are kept low, and so is fuel and electricity, so most people have at least an opportunity to live well.

Nor is it uniformly Islamic. Even on the east coast, where the religion dominates, it's still easy enough to do as you choose, and in places like Penang, it's barely visible.

Most of this stuff is posturing, and has less affect on real people than idiocy like the *IAA pogroms being run out of the US.

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171567)

What the hell is it with Malasians? Have you ever been to an IRC network with a #kampung? WTF?

Re:Malaysia is hopeless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171637)

Islam.

That's what the hell it is with Malasians.

I don't get it... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171365)

What is the point of this kind of shit? Money? The richest countries in the world tend to be the freest. Power? Over what? You are the government, you already have a monopoly on legal force and coercion. The only thing this is going to do is get a lot of people sent to jail that didn't do shit. It makes no sense.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171409)

What is the point of this kind of shit?

Ego.

It's not enough to silence your dissenters. You must crush them, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.

Re:I don't get it... (3, Insightful)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171421)

What is the point of this kind of shit? Money? The richest countries in the world tend to be the freest. Power? Over what? You are the government, you already have a monopoly on legal force and coercion. The only thing this is going to do is get a lot of people sent to jail that didn't do shit. It makes no sense.

Think about all the silly laws we have that create an air of uncertainty about the law and opportunities for a timely arrest or fine. It really pisses off the police when they want to slap the bracelets on someone, but there isn't a handy law available that many people break with regularity.

So this makes it easy to imprison anyone running a cyber cafe whenever they want, because chances are that someone posted something illegal in their cafe in the week or two prior.

Or its just to put a chill into people who feel relatively anonymous at a cyber cafe.

The really funny part of this is that in order to remain in compliance, the owner would have to monitor every user or all of their traffic and neither of those is feasible. Thats what I'm sure most are looking for, a cyber cafe reading all the data packets, including breaking encryption, looking for someone bad mouthing a politician. Then they'll be safe...

It's sadly simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173451)

Imho all states have the same problem. They try to force an ideological viewpoint onto reality, which obviously never works, forces people into a destructive spiral and ...

In America, the cracks are limited (though of course, viewed in this light national health care is very bad indeed, so the argument could be made it's getting worse), and Americans live in an environment that most other countries would see as "the law of the jungle", and America is not yet completely out of touch with reality.

In malaysia, the government has an islam-inspired view of reality. That living in 6th century conditions (frankly in conditions that were considered disgustingly backward in the 6th century) is the best way to live. And everybody who disagrees with that must be violently convinced otherwise. And for "strange" reasons the people that do best are people with ... a different religion. Those people, needless to say, become a very visible testament to the disgusting nature of islam, and islam's hopeless backwardness, just like muslim ratholes in New York, only the other way round. Malaysia as a whole is the rathole, Christian neighborhoods in Kuala Lumpur, by contrast, look like modern cities where it's pleasant to live. And of course, islam tells muslim that they can violently take that from the infidels ... "strangely" that has never worked.

Misery, death, violence and jealousy is what propagates islam. Desperate people see everyone with a different religion succeeding, yet fail to accomplish anything. So they attack and attempt to take the wealth. Of course the only wealth those other religions provide is a different, more effective and better religion, a better way of life. So those massacring muslims immediately fall back into desperate hopelessness. "goto 10".

Re:I don't get it... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171431)

What if governments realize that the most productive countries are the one's with the highest incarceration rates. They are just doing what they see as a way to catch up to the other productive countries.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41172553)

What if governments realize that the most productive countries are the one's with the highest incarceration rates...

They'll see a very cheap and "willing" labor force they can control. That's what they'll see.

And anyone who doesn't see that writing on the wall is having a hard time breathing sand.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171481)

If North Korea shows one thing, you don't have to have the richest country in the world to be stinking rich yourself. The only thing that being a rich country gets you is, *maybe* a happier population, and perhaps the ability to avoid foreign intervention via a modern and well funded military and economy.

However, if you can convince your population to not rebel in other ways, and you live in a world where a superpower is willing to go to war to keep your shitty system from being challenged externally, then the rest of the population being rich is not needed. A free internet would be an impediment to your control of the population in that case, not an advantage.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171719)

A free internet would be an impediment to your control of the population in that case, not an advantage.

Conceptually I unfortunately get that some people just want to dominate and oppress. But, and I may be thinking too highly of myself here, I'd like to believe that if I was the "supreme dictator" somewhere that my country would be awesome. As long as nobody was physically hurting anybody else or perpetrating some fraudulent scheme I'd just let them do whatever they want. "Soft" drugs? Legal. Prostitution? Legal. Want to talk shit about the government? Go ahead, I'll take it as constructive criticism. Anonymity would not only be legal, it would be encouraged. Hell, I'd use Bitcoin as the national currency if I could make it work. I just think my country would be great and I don't understand why none of the small-time dictators, not even once, have seen it my way.

Re:I don't get it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171771)

Unfortunately, without some element of thought control, propaganda, speech-stifling, etc., someone corrupt, power-hungry, and sufficiently powerful will turn the people against you by using thought control and propaganda.

This is why there are no leaders like you speak of.

Re:I don't get it... (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171797)

I just think my country would be great and I don't understand why none of the small-time dictators, not even once, have seen it my way.

They have, precisely once. [wikipedia.org]

Re:I don't get it... (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#41173995)

I don't know much about the subject, but that link doesn't really seem to back what you're saying. It doesn't mention anything about his stance on crime, or censorship, or anonymity. The closest I could find was: "While his presidency has been criticized as authoritarian,[6][7][8] due to his successful economic and diplomatic policies, Tito was seen by most as a benevolent dictator,[9] and was a popular public figure both in Yugoslavia and abroad." which doesn't seem to describe the anarchic utopia the GP was describing.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171835)

Conceptually I unfortunately get that some people just want to dominate and oppress. But, and I may be thinking too highly of myself here, I'd like to believe that if I was the "supreme dictator" somewhere that my country would be awesome.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

History has surprisingly few benevolent dictators, unfortunately.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#41173761)

The only thing this is going to do is get a lot of people sent to jail that didn't do shit.

Don't Panic. The government will be selective, only a few people will go to jail.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41175381)

Its called a chilling effect [wikipedia.org] and is designed to make everyone too damned scared to say shit about those in power. If you don't think it can happen here I urge you to watch this video [youtube.com] by author Naomi Wolf pointing out how many of the moves those in power have done in the past decade are right out of the playbooks of repressive countries. As she notes in the video she herself is now on the watchlist, her crime? Speaking out about the constitution and the rights we have.

What about the ISP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171381)

Should the ISP be liable also?

Re:What about the ISP? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41174669)

ALL ISP in Malaysia are government-linked
 
Or to see it from another angle -- Internet is under total governmental control in Malaysia. This new draconian law is only the icing on the cake
 

whereas... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171423)

Whereas in the usa if you post something that makes them look bad they just lock you up in solitary confinement without trial. [wikipedia.org]

Re:whereas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171591)

Nice try.

Re:whereas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171611)

That's different. Right or wrong, Manning swore an oath to the effect that he would not do what he did.

Your use of moral relativism undercuts whatever obscure argument you were really trying to make.

Re:whereas... (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171697)

Members of Congress took oaths not to do what they do and I do not see any of them getting locked up.

Re:whereas... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171849)

That's different. Right or wrong, Manning swore an oath to the effect that he would not do what he did.

Manning swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the federal government. In fact, here's the oath he took, verbatim:

"I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Emphasis mine. Now, taking said oath into account (with the knowledge that it is an ordered list, i.e. the first item is the most important), how exactly did he violate it?

Re:whereas... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172049)

Do you really think that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has nothing to say about leaking classified information?

Re:whereas... (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172161)

Do you really think that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has nothing to say about leaking classified information?

As I stated, the oath is an ordered list, and that particular item is the last one - after defending the Constitution and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.

So the real question here is, were Manning's actions in accordance with defense of the Constitution? I say yes, as outing corrupt and illegal activity engaged in by federal bureaucrats (A.K.A. treason) is tantamount to ensuring the Constitution's validity on the world stage.

Re:whereas... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172243)

I agree with you that this should be the outcome of the trial. But the fact that he was charged still makes sense - he violated one rule to uphold another. The fact that he's not had a trial yet is the only real issue.

Re:whereas... (2, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172371)

I agree with you that this should be the outcome of the trial. But the fact that he was charged still makes sense - he violated one rule to uphold another. The fact that he's not had a trial yet is the only real issue.

Yes, this sort of thing is exactly what the justice system was (allegedly) designed for.

IMO, every government official should be tried for treason at some point. The innocent will be exonerated, the guilty will be punished accordingly, and so long as the proceedings are carried out in accordance with the Constitution, everybody is a winner (well, everybody but the traitors).

Re:whereas... (2, Informative)

howlingfrog (211151) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171985)

He faced a situation where he judged the consequences of breaking his oath to be less onerous than the consequences of keeping it. That's not relativism (as opposed to absolutism), it's act utilitarianism (as opposed to rule utilitarianism).

If you are defending rule utilitarianism, you are defending the Nazi soldiers who were just following orders when they murdered six million Jewish civilians.

If you are defending rule utilitarianism, you are condemning every whistleblower who has ever broken an oath, violated an NDA, or betrayed the trust of a personal friend to blow the whistle--which is all of them.

Wait... (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171439)

How is it that the owner of an internet cafe is responsible for what a user posts, but the cell phone company isn't responsible for subversive use of a mobile phone? This law sounds so knee jerk I'm surprised they didn't dislocate several bones.

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171471)

The cell phone company is a government monopoly and/or owned by members of the ruling class. Of course they are exempt.

Re:Wait... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171535)

They want to be sure they have someone to punish or even just intimidate business owners for providing Internet access. With the cell phone company, the individual user is already tracked by device - unique IP tied to time of day tied to paid account. In this case, they see that Internet cafes have become havens for these types of dissenters to post with impunity.

Re:Wait... (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171689)

This is completely different. The government can go to the phone company and ask them who was using the IP 1.2.3.4 at 8:40PM on friday. Hence, the phone company can default its responsability on the person responsible.

I doubt the cyber cafe owner can say who was using which PC at any given time. And even if (s)he did, they all share the same IP and likely the same user agent so there really isn't a way for the government to get to the poster.

Remember that free doesn't necessarily mean anonymous.

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171711)

Making owners of internet choke points responsible for censorship is a very effective proposition for a government that wants maximum effectiveness with minimum resource utilization. If someone used your computers to cause a problem, the government doesn't need to identify that person, all they need to do is come get you if your cafe allowed that on to the internet. That or you can preemptively filter, monitor and control content for the government on your own dime.

Remember, there are only political/economic reasons to not hold an owner of a cafe responsible. In reality, the banned content is on the owner's computers and being sent from his networks and it is there because he allowed someone to put it there in return for money. If it was a gun of his that was used to shoot someone, I don't think even we would argue that a gun shop owner who failed to do a proper background check could escape liability.

It's not a very business friendly proposition, and will probably have a serious chilling effect on internet cafes, but if the government cares more about tight control than it does about profits of these businesses, they have just managed to recruit some free and very effective censorship agents.

Re:Wait... (3, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171865)

Making owners of internet choke points responsible for censorship is a very effective proposition for a government that wants maximum effectiveness with minimum resource utilization. If someone used your computers to cause a problem, the government doesn't need to identify that person, all they need to do is come get you if your cafe allowed that on to the internet. That or you can preemptively filter, monitor and control content for the government on your own dime.

Provided it was legal, if I owned an internet cafe in Malaysia I'd just pay for access to an out of the country proxy service and point the router at it. Put Firefox on all of the computers with the "https anywhere" extension and put some kind of macro program on the computers that automatically rewrites any establishment identifying information like IP address, street address or whatever so hapless users don't accidentally give up their identity despite the encryption. I don't know how well tor works in Malaysia but that could be an option too.

I'm not saying my plan is fool-proof as it's just off the top of my head but I wouldn't take this law lying down if I didn't have to.

Re:Wait... (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172215)

Obviously, depending on the law, you could get away with that. Of course, many countries do outlaw things like TOR, so you can be sure that cafe owners in those countries may be very picky about what you can do on their machines, up to and including only letting you run programs that they have installed.

Point being, it's pretty easy to control internet access as long as you rely on a few intermediaries. That's why the Internet in certain areas will always be imperiled while it has to make use of infrastructure that isn't as distributed as possible. I'm hoping we can get working more wide area wireless sorts of networking which would help with that. Turned into a mesh network based on cheap, easy to distribute devices, you could really start seeing more independence from centralized meddling.

most easily influenced by corporate cash (1)

RichMan (8097) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171457)

Legislation of this type is a measure of how easy the political process is to buy in a nation.

Congrats to Malaysia on being number one.

Re:most easily influenced by corporate cash (1)

CubicleZombie (2590497) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171525)

I blame the G.O.P.

Re:most easily influenced by corporate cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171595)

That kind of attitude is exactly what lets this kind of thing go on. Oh well, keep blaming a party if that's what it takes to sleep at night. Just remember that we've tried every combination of Rs and Ds and we're still eating shit sandwiches and talking about better times just around the next bend. Don't think that it's going to change anytime soon anyhow.
 
What did Einstein claim the definition of insanity was?

Re:most easily influenced by corporate cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171633)

Whoosh.

Re:most easily influenced by corporate cash (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171881)

Considering the majority of the country is islamic, with an increasing swing in islamic extremists? Hardly. I'll bet $20 that if you look at the chief architects of the bill, much like the ones in Thailand(who were directly linked to the monarchy--and have a similar law), these ones have deep links to the extremists. These types of laws exist to stifle dissent, nothing more nothing less, and there have been exceptionally brutal crackdowns in Malaysia on people being critical of muslims and islam.

I am glad... (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171521)

I am glad I do not own an internet cafe in Malaysia!!!
Well, that's what you get with a federal constitutional elective monarchy, or whatever they want to call it.

Re:I am glad... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#41173171)

I am glad I do not own an internet cafe in Malaysia!!!

So am I. In my case, I'd have closed the doors permanently the moment the law went into effect. Then I'd have sold what was left to whoever was foolish enough to want it and gone into a different line of work.

Re:I am glad... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41173721)

First they came for the Malaysian Internet Café owners,
and I did not speak out because I was not a Malaysian Internet Café owner...

...

Then they came for the Anonymous Cowards,
and I did not speak out because I was not an Anonymous Coward.

Then they came for the posters with Seven digit UIDs,
and I did not speak out because I did not have a Seven digit UID.

Then they came for me,
but everyone only posted responses such as this.

Then they came for you,
and the issue was TL and everyone DR.

Then they simply came,
thinking of the children.

Easy fixed.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171537)

Every Malaysian should blog under the pseudonym of the PM of Malaysia.
He would then be guilty until proven otherwise.

This type of law isn't unique. (3, Informative)

ChumpusRex2003 (726306) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171599)

It's not much different in a number of other countries, notably the UK.

If a crime is committed over your internet connection, you are liable - unless you can provide proof of identity of the perpetrator. For a commercial ISP, this isn't too hard - they can tie a communication to an account, and the name of the account holder is good enough.

If you are offering wi-fi as part of a business (e.g. a coffee shop), then unless you keep some form of record of customer IDs, which allow you to match a communication to a customer, then you are on shaky ground. A common business practice is to outsource Wi-fi provision to an ISP, where the customer has to provide their account credentials for that ISP, or otherwise provide some evidence of their identity (e.g. by providing valid credit card details, or less invasively, by sending an SMS containing an activation code to a phone number provided by the customer).

An alternative, and increasingly common is to heavily filter wifi traffic - it's increasingly common to see free wifi locked down like a corporate network with all manner of block lists, and increasingly more so blocked ports (I've come across a few public wifi services where only ports 80 and 443 are available - every other port is blocked - such networks severely disturb smartphones, as it breaks their e-mail, iMessage/facetime, etc. connectivity).

Re:This type of law isn't unique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41171795)

So why aren't people hacking into police/judge/legislator's wifi and doing all kinds of things to get the authorities in jail.

That would get it changed real fast.

Re:This type of law isn't unique. (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172641)

Because the authorities answer to a different set of laws. Any further questions?

Re:This type of law isn't unique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173157)

Politicians/Govt. persons and facilities are always magically on the laws exemption list.

Re:This type of law isn't unique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173385)

I guess it's obvious that the UK doesn't have the US Constitution, where one of the foundations is that "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a good thing, so this could never happen. Oh wait...

But, let me guess... (1)

John Napkintosh (140126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171619)

A cell phone carrier is somehow NOT liable or subject to the same punishments if a user of their 3G cell services posts defamatory content via their mobile browser.

No Internet (2)

jjp9999 (2180664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171685)

It will be interesting to see what effects this has. I'd imagine that at least a few people will avoid having connections at all, given the risks. I could also see people hacking other people's WiFi networks, or trying to frame people by posting things through their connections.

Re:No Internet (1)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171799)

...or trying to frame people by posting things through their connections.

What's interesting is that in the context of this law, that wouldn't strictly be framing. That would ACTUALLY make the target victim 100% guilty of the "crime".

Surely (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171727)

Is the internet cafe manager is liable for messages sent by a customer, then the phone company is liable for such messages sent from a mobile phone?

Re:Surely (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172095)

There used to be something called "common carrier status" at least in the US. These days, I have no idea.

Wow. That's almost as bad as... (3, Interesting)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41171807)

...Germany. Seriously. There's a particular term in German Legalese, "Mitstörerhaftung" (don't expect me to translate that) which in simple words means: if it's tracked back to your account or found on your site, you're held liable. This applies to open (or not "decently" secure) access points, internet forums, blogs and frequently leads to website owners being sued and -of course- to any account found to be guilty of file-sharing. Any effort to get rid of this anachronism (said jurisdiction is mostly a relic from the analog age) has proven to be in vain: there's way too much easy cash for way too many lawyers in it and our parliament (as pretty much any parliament in the western world) consists mostly from lawyers...

Re:Wow. That's almost as bad as... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41173371)

--> PIRATEN. Just talked to the Piraten Partei and have them include it in their reforms.

Cool (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172029)

Sounds like a great way to punish someone/business that you don't like. Just connect to their wi-fi and start posting.

So, no more internet. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172057)

I don't know about you, but if I was a small business owner in Malaysia, the first thing I do would be shut down any internet service such as free wifi.
So businesses that revolves around the net, such as cyber cafes, better install a damn good filter or anonymizer or some such.

Well, cool.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172073)

My understanding from this is that if I break into someone's wifi, or "borrow" someone's mobile phone, and perform some kind of illegal transaction, the owner of that access point or device is liable? Besides being a great way to avoid legal consequences, it occurs to me that this could be used as a weapon against anyone who owns a wireless device or any company that maintains a wireless network.

Oh, this is too good not to use in a movie. I want to see; perp picks bystander's pocket, makes illegal call, puts phone back in pocket, then walks away as the police tackle bystander.

How to edit a summary (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172101)

Malaysia's new internet law maybe simply

No - "may simply be", or just "may be". The "simply" is gratuitous.

The next bit needs some more punctuation to make it easier to read:

According to the new law - which was amended because of protesters - the originators of content are those who own, administer, and/or edit websites, blogs, and online forums.

Not to mention the fact that there's nothing about protestors in the article, so that bit seems to have been slipped in by the submitter.

This means that a blogger or forum moderator who allows nasty comments against the government on their site can be held liable. An internet café manager is accountable if one of his or her customers sends illegal content online through the store's WiFi.

These two sentences seem a bit non-sequitur to me - on reading the article it turns out that the summary has missed out the fact that the internet cafe liability bit is down to a different (part of the?) amendment.

Critics of the new law contend also that a person is considered guilty until proven innocent.

This is ambiguous - do the critics contend that considering someone guilty should be the normal order of things, or do they mean that is what the new amendments are implying? The article is much clearer:

Critics of the amendment contend that under section 114A, a person is considered guilty until proven innocent.

Today, Malaysia has no internet access. (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172143)

Every cyber cafe and ISP in the country simply stopped operating rather than risk being arrested and presumed guilty for someone else's expression. They wouldn't inform their customers because that could be considered criticism of the government. So everyone's access just suddenly ended. Be careful what you ask for!!!!

Innocent until proven guilty (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41172577)

I don't understand why "presumed guilty" is a problem. We do it every day, and nobody cares. If you were truly presumed innocent, the cops wouldn't beat you before taking you into custody. They wouldn't fingerprint you when they booked you if they didn't presume you guilty. No, you are presumed guilty for all purposes, so long as you are not standing in front of a jury. And that's how the system is "supposed to" work. You are presumed innocent in court, and the prosecutor must prove guilt. But for arrest, booking, charging, you are presumed guilty. That's how it is, and has always been in the US.

So I always get confused when people talk about it in that manner, especially Americans getting on the high horse about other countries and their rules. The US is worse. Just having cash on you gets you presumed guilty of drug crime, and your money taken unless (and sometimes even if) proven innocent.

That is one way (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41173561)

To kill off cybercafes and free wifi. ( oh, and anonymity of its citizens who want to protest their government )

Not specific to Malaysia (1)

jschrod (172610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41174085)

I'm from Germany, and the same situation is seen here as well.

It's called "Störerhaftung", roughly translated as "liability for disturbance" according to LEO dictionary. You are responsible for the stuff posted over your connection, if you didn't take adequate precautions to prohibit it. Hamburg's court is famous to cater for all who seek vengeance in online space, and can usually be called upon.

Who gives a rat's ass... (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about a year and a half ago | (#41174149)

.. It's Malaysia.

Re:Who gives a rat's ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174325)

I do. I wasn't going to vote before this law was passed. I am now. Screw Rais Yatim.

Re:Who gives a rat's ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175411)

I do. I wasn't going to vote before this law was passed. I am now. Screw Rais Yatim.

Rais Yatim is just a puppet doing all the dirty work for the despicable UMNO
 

That's not the best part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174427)

In the federal capital, it's mandatory for open air cafes to have public wifi. At the same time, the owner of that cafe is liable for what their patrons do on their wifi. They're screwed either way.

thought of this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174537)

So a point that I'm not sure has been brought up... does this mean when I post to a blog etc with my smartphone, AT&T, Verizon etc are held liable? After all they are providing the internet.

some more facts (1)

ooocmyooo (1426937) | about a year and a half ago | (#41174675)

1) US maintains a list of blacklisted countries accused of facilitating online piracy by not implementing surveillance and copyright enforcement.
Malaysia just promised to comply and thus got off the list. The OP topic may be a result of this.
http://www.zdnet.com/malaysia-dropped-from-us-piracy-watch-list-2062304676/ [zdnet.com]

2) Malaysia's biggest ISP TM introduced for it's "fastest" internet service UNIFI (a max. 20MBit SDSL connection) blocking of port 6667. This started some weeks ago (August/2012). No official statement so far. Other ports work fine though (e.g. 6666).
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2477506/all [lowyat.net]

Terrorist states.. just another brick in the wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174769)

What do you expect from a country which is the launching ground for terrorism? Unfortunately since they are trading partners for the States they are not labelled such

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LI11Ae01.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3126241.stm

In Malaysia, Terrorists run free (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41175453)

For your information -

No matter how many blood is in his hand, in Malaysia, as long as you are a Malay, you can get away of any crime you commit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_Sufaat [wikipedia.org]

Mr. Yazid Sufaat, the person who organized the "Kuala Lumpur Summit" which led to the bombing of World Trade Center in New York City, is a _FREE_ MAN_ in Malaysia
 

WHo cares about the law in Malaysia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174863)

This is a country which promotes peodeophiles

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/father-seeks-justice-after-young-daughters-rapist-escapes-jail/

Re:WHo cares about the law in Malaysia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41174887)

and terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3126241.stm

and
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LI11Ae01.html

Good for the goose, good for the gander? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41175463)

So if someone sends a seditious email from a Malaysian government computer, is the government guilty of a crime?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...