Headline June 18, 2019/ '' 'SINGAPORE'S ''OH -MY GOD!'' SIGNATURE' ''



ON BALANCE, SINGAPORE is an ''outstanding, democratic city-state'' of the world. No question on that, whatsoever. But-

But, on the same hand, many countries in the world are coming across, sadly, as insecure, and fear imploding. And in all truth, no one really knows what the hell is happening, and what is likely to  follow; and what the solutions, if any, are. 

On The World Students Society, the readers from Singapore, lead the second row, on Sam Daily Times : ''The Voice Of The Voiceless''.

The World Students Society rises to give the people of Singapore a standing ovation, and assure them of our highest respects for the law, democratic values and honours in the service of Humanity and Mankind.

SINGAPORE LAST MONTH joined the rapidly growing list of countries seeking to shield their citizens from harmful content online by passing anti-fake news legislation.

When critics have focused on the legislation's risks to free speech, there's another, equally grave concern about this law, which is likely to become a model for the region and possibly elsewhere.

Under the law, the government could mandate that service providers tracks the viewing habits of users in ways that dangerously threaten their privacy.

The legislation was promoted as a gentler version of laws like those in Australia, Germany and France that require certain kinds of hate speech to be removed from the Internet.

The Singapore law instead requires websites to post ''correct notices'' alongside speech that the government deems false or misleading.

But when it comes to privacy, the legislation is much bigger threat than any of the fake news or hate speech laws that have come before it. The law could be used to require any company that operates as an ''Internet intermediary'' - including search engines, social media companies, and message services - to keep records of what users view.

But it doesn't stop there. While it's unclear how the new law will be enforced, it even appears to leave room for the government to require encrypted message services like WhatsApp or iMessage to identify who said what to whom.

It's not far-fetched to think that the government could one day demand and abuse that information. even if that never happens, it's a chilling new level of surveillance online.

Under the legislation, any government minister can mandate a correction notice in response to any statement online that the minister decides is false and that undercuts confidence in the government's policies or is contrary to government's policies.

These ministers can also order that such statements can be taken off the Internet outright.

But the government says these more draconian takedown measures will be used as a matter of  second resort and that correction notices will be the primary response.

A moderate alternative to the takedown order. Or so the thinking goes.

With correction notices, the content stays up, supplemented by conspicuous, easy-to-read  explanation that the statement is false, coupled with a corrective statement that, according to the government, is the truth.

Readers can review and assess for themselves.

But enforcement is a potential  privacy nightmare. Correction notices effectively require websites to  track those who post, look at might be influenced by or attracted to a ''false'' statement.

They can be ordered to identify all those who looked at the infringing material before it was labeled troubling. They must send out correction notices to these prior viewers, or risk heft fines and even jail time.

Of course, for many service providers, users tracking is hardly a new thing. That is, after all, how companies like Google know to show you ads about shoes, say, and not diapers.

But there is something particularly insidious, and damaging, about private parties being told by the  government whom to monitor and why. It is, after all, the government, not Goggle, that can put you behind bars.

If such a tracking mandate is in effect, it also becomes significantly harder for companies to resist  government demands for a list of people who viewed a particular piece of content.

Even those companies that collect user viewing history for purposes of targeting don't necessarily compile or store it in the way that the government effectively would be demanding.

The Honor and Serving of the Latest Global Operation Research on Laws, Freedom and Countries, continues. The World Students Society thanks author, associate professor Jennifer Daskal, American University Washington College of Law.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Grandparents, Parents, Students, Professors and Teachers of Singapore, and then the world.

See Ya all on Facebook, prepare and register for Great Global Elections on The World Students  Society : wssciw.blogspot.com - and Twitter- !E-WOW! - the Ecosystem 2011:

''' What Comes After '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless


Post a Comment

Grace A Comment!