Here we go again. This is what I think whenever I walk into the large shopping mall near my home in Bangkok. Instead of free space where shoppers can enjoy roaming and browsing, these days the aisles are clogged by commercial booths, sometimes for car sales, which require a large space of course. What bothers me more is when sales representatives from various stalls approach me to offer free stuff, ask me to test their products or fill out questionnaires.
Most of the time I tell myself that these eager people are just trying to earn a living and to let it slide. But some of them are so persistent, even when I clearly indicate that I'm not interested, or sometimes I'm simply on a tight schedule. A couple of times I've found myself saying, "hey, that's enough" in the hope that they will stop bothering and allow me to have my privacy.
In-person pitches are irritating enough, but telephone solicitation also is endemic in Thailand. I've had countless banks, fitness clubs and beauty salons call my mobile to sell their products. Clearly we know where they get my number, and most of the time they call during work hours. What a pity that our mobile numbers appear to be mere commodities that the operators can sell to others. What about respecting your customers' right to privacy?
I was once in a conference when someone from a bank called and I answered without looking at the number, thinking it might be something urgent. When I learned what the caller wanted, I said politely that I was in a conference, do not call me again, and hung up. A few hours later, another person from the same bank called again. What do I have to do to convince these people to leave me alone?
The right to personal privacy is one of the most basic concepts, but it is being sorely tested in our brave new connected-everywhere world. Of course, there are far more sinister threats to privacy than unwanted sales calls. When your government gets into the act, watch out.
Which brings us to the Philippines, where President Rodrigo Duterte has admitted that he authorised the wiretapping of at least two mayors he accused of being "narcopoliticians".
"But I (made) sure whenever he was talking to anyone, I was listening to him," he said of one case. "Don't ask me how. … It was a whisper from God and I was listening to him. So they were all tapped. I was the one who ordered it."
Mr Duterte and spokesman Ernesto Abella did not say if he had secured a court order, nor is it known who was ordered to conduct the wiretapping, which is illegal. Republic Act 4200, enacted in 1965, prohibits the tapping of any wire or cable or using other devices to record, intercept, or secretly overhear any private communication or spoken word in violation of the constitutional right to privacy of communication.
Frank La Rue, in his capacity as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression back in December 2013, said each country should have laws that clearly describe the conditions under which rights to individual privacy may be limited, with any such attempts to limit those rights requiring a special decision. This decision should be taken by state authorities clearly authorised by law to perform the act.
That brings us to Thailand, where a fierce debate arose last week over a proposal to allow the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to tap the phone calls of politicians and government officials. Thankfully, it was withdrawn on Friday. I agree with Meechai Ruchupan, the head of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), that such authority would be an infringement of rights and could have an adverse effect on legislators.
I also agree with Vicha Mahakhun, a former NACC member and an adviser to the CDC, who warned about the consequences if the information obtained is leaked or misused. In our digital age, information spreads so quickly and easily, and more importantly it cannot be erased.
Everyone has the right to privacy and others should respect it. Even if you are the leader of a country or someone in charge of security, it doesn't mean you have definite power or wide-ranging authority to snoop on individuals. If a special investigation is required, approvals must be on a case-by-case basis, and the would-be snooper must provide some very clear reasons for asking.
