标签

夏后算账篇

kirsten作者:克莉丝玎.韩莉颖KirstenHan

转载自:https://spuddings.net/in-which-im-blocked-from-facebook-for-what-37e6608c38c6#.3j1vs3j0y

为啥,我的脸书被蔽网……?

当我正在把清理身边的盒子和垃圾袋时,这件事发生了。我停了下来查看自己的手机,我的脸书应用程序软件(Facebook app)突然通知我的脸书户头已经受到限制,我必须重新登录上网。

呵呵!奇怪!但是无论如何……

当我看到这个信息后,我就输入自己如下的户头密码。

韩莉颖-page-001

64日,一名社会活动者和前政治拘留者张素兰在自己的网页上写了一份帖子。这份帖子。这份帖子是详细的叙述有关自己文章:新加坡警察最近刷新情况(most recent brush with the Singapore police.)。他们审讯了她数小时。他们在她的家抄家后拿走了她的死丫头电子设备。这一切仅仅是为了她在武吉巴督补选前的冷静日在自己的脸书个人网页发表帖子。选举局因此向警方投诉她破坏了选举冷静日法令(confusing Cooling-Off Day rules)。还有啥呢?这起事件揭露了,破坏冷静日选举法令是一项视为“触犯了可被逮捕”的法令。这就意味着警方不需要任何的授权令就可以为所欲为。

对于这个时间段过程,张素兰感到失望是极其正常的。她认为这是对她个人进行骚扰。

在同一天,她收到如下的信息:

韩莉颖-page-002

不知道是什么原因,有关张素兰叙述自己经历警察骚扰和感触的帖子被视为是触犯了脸书社交媒体网页的条例规定。这是毫无意义的——张素兰的帖子并没有虐待或欺凌任何人。它只是传递了一个重要的信息有关警方使用的权力和审讯程序;这分帖子是在提醒和呼吁全体新加坡人民必须进行探讨这个问题。

我认为,脸书删除张素兰的帖子的是极其滑稽的。我怀疑。这起事件是在了脸书网页里面某些别人士的干的。因为一些推算,这已经触犯了一些人所进行集体的投诉行为。很多人都感觉这是执政党人民行动的“网军”(Internet Brigade)。这是一个群体。他们的任务是恶搞任何反对行动党的异议分子或者反对者。

接着,我在自己的脸书个人网页上写了一份帖子。我详细地叙述了张素兰的帖子被删除前已经复制了她的帖子全文。我鼓励其他人也同时这样做。把张素兰的帖子进行复制和粘贴在自己的脸书网页上,这样它们就无法删除这份帖子的传播了。

因此今天下午我的个人脸书网页收到这个通知。我估计,苦难就是这份帖子被 人投诉的关系。这是“审查”。或许,删除我个人帖子是由于与张素兰的帖子有关。

但是 ,它们不是仅仅删除我的帖子,而是禁止仅我进入脸书24小时(即从我发表那份帖子之时计算起。但是 ,到目前为之,我还是无法进入我脸书户头)

韩莉颖-page-003

谢了。我也无法进入其他的脸书户头,如Spotify, Goodreads

事情却是那么的怪异。

在晚餐时间,我借用了我的丈夫的手机进入他的网页户头检查我的个人网页时,让惊讶的是,我所写的有关删除张素兰的帖子还继续出现在我个人网页里。

韩莉颖-page-004

我再一次查看了自己的脸书个人网页的通知:

韩莉颖-page-005

在仔细的查看下,这并不是因我的帖子被脸书采取行动禁止我的使用24小时的决定,这是因为我分享了张素兰的帖子原文。这确实就是奇怪了,因为:

  • 张素兰的帖子是在76日被删除的,这就可能意味着,张素兰的帖子的消失就是在大家分享的时候。为什么在77日找茬?

  • 为什么我的个人网页被脸书禁止使用,当时身上就不是(张素兰)帖子的作者呢?是不是仅仅是因为 某些人分享的原因?(事实上,我根本就未曾想过张素兰本省也被脸书禁止使用上网24小时。)

  • 我并不是唯一个人分享张素兰的帖子的人;我所知道的朋友也分享她的帖子。但是, 我并没有听到他们当中任何人和我一样被禁止上脸书网站。

这就是说,我和张素兰不是唯一遇上这件事的人了。最近,博客Andrew Loh也一样有一份帖子——评论冷静日条例被删除。(在Andrew Loh向脸书提出质问后,脸书重新上载了他的帖子,并向他道歉说这无意间删除的。)

被脸书禁止上网卡纳莉是一件愚蠢的行为;它似乎是一种琐碎的行为。但是,假设这可能是仅仅为了一份帖子的分享,是一个群体进行集体投诉一份帖子而删除这份帖子,这就意味着脸书是参与了压制不同意见的行为了。连这一块给予公民社会或组织发表意见的空间也受到压制。这新加坡不是一样了吗。

这个问题仍然是存在着:为什么这些帖子会被删除呢?它是不是自动程序的?还是某些人在脸书网站里是真正决定(谁是)违反了网站的条例。假设这是后来拟定的条例,那是那些条例?是不是脸书现在也参与了网上在线压制了行为!

以下是我重新上载张素兰的帖子。

张素兰:   《新加坡,我们是个警察国家吗?》

那幾天,我姊姊不斷地打電話確認我是否被警方逮捕,我的朋友時而打電話來確認我是否仍然「自由」。我待在我的老同學Ivy Singh-Lim的農場躲避警方,她向我保證,如果警方來逮捕我,她肯定會放狗咬警察。

懼又再一次侵襲新加坡。1987521日,16個人莫名消失(詳見紀錄片:1987: Untracing the Marxist Conspiracy,公庫:參見上方影片,該影片講述新加坡「光普行動」,多位推動工人權益遭逮被的是勞動社工、文藝界人士、法律界人士、工人黨員、天 主教社工的經歷);如今,恐懼再度蔓延。

不知道誰在背後負責此事。我只知道我並沒有犯任何罪,即便奪取電腦與手機是他們所謂的標準作業程序(SOP),警方也沒有權利沒收我的財產。許多 人有被奪取電子設備的經驗,包括多位社會改革者。例如:電影製作人李成琳、漫畫家周平易、余澎杉、Ravi, Kumaran、鄞義林、蔡振成、林顯洋,除此之外,還有很相同經驗的受害者媒體沒有報導。

雖然在網路上發表言論也許不會被判任何罪,但仍必須小心。因為他們監控著你的電腦或手機,有一天警察可能會去你家,或傳喚你到警局作筆錄。他們會把你抓進警車裡,也會直接到你家,要求你開門徹底搜查你的家。我不是在開玩笑,這些真的發生在我與鄞義林身上,這一切也可能會發生在你身上。

531日,我前往警察局應訊,因為直接隸屬新加坡總理公署的選舉局,針對我進行毫無根據指控。我不確定這個控訴是否是來自總理的指令,唯一能確定的是,一定有人通知他,這讓人感到相當可怕。

5 28日禮拜六晚上955分,警察到我住的公寓,要我隔週一(5/30)早上930分到警局「談談」。禮拜天早上930分,警察又來威脅 我。他們按鈴,我害怕他們會逮捕我,所以沒有開門。我問他們到底想幹嘛?一位男子回應說,有一封信要給我,我回答這封信我已經收過。他說,想要確認我是否 會赴約,還給我一個電話號碼方便連繫。

530日,我前往警察局。我對選舉局質疑的4個網路貼文,表明了我的想法。我承認我該為那些貼文負責,但我是基於憲法的保障,在「冷靜日」表達意見 我並沒有觸法。直到今天,他們並沒有因為認為我觸法而判我有罪,反而是威脅我,奪取我的手機與電腦。當我拒絕交出我的手機時,45名警察威脅將我戴上手 銬、逮捕我,其餘的警察則在走廊上徘徊。我為我們的警察感到羞恥。為何要威脅我?為何要有這麼多的警力?但更荒唐的是,之前還曾有4名警察到學校逮捕林俊輝,一名14歲的孩子,法醫目前正在調查他自殺的死因。

8名警察來到我家,其中4位是「電腦罪案鑒證組」成員。我並沒有犯下謀殺或擁有槍枝等罪刑,為什麼需要8名警察來奪取我的電腦與行動電話?幸運的是,我的朋友比警察早一點來到我家,他們親眼目睹警察奪取我的財產。

方奪取了我的財產,包含我的資料,他們讀了我所有的私人文件,也知道誰是我的朋友。警察犯了罪,侵犯了我的隱私權。我非常生氣,但求助無門。我們 沒有國家人權部門,但馬來西亞、印尼、泰國與緬甸,這些被我們認為發展比新加坡落後的國家都有這樣的機構。我要到哪裡申訴呢?到總理的「與民有約」的會議 嗎?我能夠到總理管轄的部門去控告總理嗎?

這是我的新加坡,也是你們的新加坡。我們是個警察國家。新加坡人會因為一些輕微但惱人的事向警方控訴,但,當警察們有錯的時候,我們該向誰控訴?

相关链接:

文章网址:http://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/50181

视频网址:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhQWHpxFRSU&feature=youtu.be

秉公处理

In which I’m blocked from Facebook for… what?

Kirsten Han

https://spuddings.net/in-which-im-blocked-from-facebook-for-what-37e6608c38c6#.3j1vs3j0y

I was in the middle of unpacking, surrounded by boxes and garbage bags, when it happened. I stopped to check my phone, and my Facebook app suddenly declared that my session had timed out and that I would be required to log in again.

Huh, weird. But whatever.

The first thing I saw after I keyed in my password was this:

韩莉颖-page-001

On 4 July, activist and former political detainee Teo Soh Lung wrote a post on her personal Facebook page detailing her most recent brush with the Singapore police. They had interrogated her for hours, then raided her home and seized all her electronic devices, simply because the Elections Department had complained that her Facebook posts on the eve of a by-election was in breach of Singapore’s confusing Cooling-Off Day rules. What’s more, the incident revealed that breaching Cooling-Off Day rules is an “arrestable offence”, which meant that the police didn’t even need warrants to do what they did.

Soh Lung was understandably upset by the whole episode, and was vocal about what she felt was police harassment.

That same day, she received this:

韩莉颖-page-002

For some reason, Soh Lung’s post about her experience and opinion of the police was deemed in breach of Facebook’s Community Standards. It made no sense – it wasn’t abusive or bullying. It was an important message about police powers and due process; something that all Singaporeans should be aware of and discuss.

I found it ridiculous that her post would be removed. It was suspected that the post had been removed not by an individual at Facebook, but because some algorithm had been triggered by people reporting it en masse. Many felt that it could be the ruling People’s Action Party’s ‘Internet Brigade’: a coordinated group whose job is to troll dissenters and opponents.

I then wrote a Facebook post of my own, detailing how Soh Lung’s post had been removed before reproducing the text in full. I encouraged others to do the same; to copy and paste Soh Lung’s message and republish it on their own Facebook pages so it would be harder for trolls to remove it from circulation.

So when I received my own Facebook takedown notification this afternoon, I assumed that this was the post that had been reported. It was “censorception”, perhaps: the removal of my post about the removal of Soh Lung’s post.

But not only was my post removed, I was also banned from logging into Facebook for 24 hours (at the time of writing, I still have no access):

韩莉颖-page-003

Thanks to this, I also have no access to other accounts that use Facebook to login: Spotify, Goodreads, etc.

Then things got stranger.

Over dinner, I borrowed my husband’s phone and used his Facebook account to check my page. Surprisingly, the post I had written about the removal of Soh Lung’s post was still available on my page:。

韩莉颖-page-004

I took a look at my Facebook notification again:

韩莉颖-page-005

Upon closer examination, it was not my post that Facebook had taken issue with. It was the fact that I had shared Soh Lung’s original post. Which is absolutely bizarre, because:

  • Soh Lung’s post had been taken down by Facebook on 4 July, which presumably means it disappeared from the feeds of all who shared it. Why find fault with me today, 7 July?

  • Why am I being blocked from Facebook when I wasn’t even the actual author of the post; merely someone who shared it? (I don’t even think Soh Lung herself was banned for 24 hours!)

  • I was not the only other person who shared Soh Lung’s post; I know other friends did too. Yet I haven’t heard from any of them that they were similarly banned.

That said, Soh Lung and I are by no means the only people this has happened to. Recently, blogger Andrew Loh also had a post – comments he made regarding the Cooling-Off Day rules – removed. Facebook later reinstated the post and apologised, saying it was an accident.

Being blocked from Facebook is a silly thing; seemingly trivial in the scheme of things. But if it is indeed possible for a coordinated group to mass report a post just to remove it from circulation it means that Facebook algorithms can be gamed to silence dissent; a serious thing in a country like Singapore, where there is already so little space for civil society or organising.

The questions remain: how did these posts get removed? Was it an automatic process, or did someone at Facebook really decide they breached the standards? If the latter, what standards were breached? Is Facebook now complicit in online repression?

I reproduce Teo Soh Lung’s original post below:

Police Terror by Teo Soh Lung

These days, my sister calls me every morning just to make sure that I have not been arrested by the police. And my friends call me occasionally to ensure that I am still “free”. My old classmate, Ivy Singh-Lim of Bollywood Veggies, a loyal and vocal Singaporean offered me a safe haven at her farm, assuring me that she would set her dogs on the police if they dare go there to arrest me.

Terror has once again struck Singapore. On 21 May 1987, 16 people disappeared at dawn and no one knew where they were till a few days later. You can watch the documentary film “1987: Untracing the Marxist Conspiracy by Jason Soo at the Projector. Today, this fear is again widespread.

I do not know who is in charge of our police. And I do not know who instructed them to terrorise me. All I know is that I have not committed any crime and that the police have no right to seize my properties even though the seizure of computers and mobile phones are their SOP or standard operating procedures. Seizure of electronic equipment has happened to many people, several of them activists. We have Lynn Lee, the filmmaker, Leslie Chew, the cartoonist, Amos Yee, the attention seeking kid who badmouth both friends and foes, Ravi, Kumaran, Roy Ngerng, Jason Chua, the famous PAP IB, Bryan Lim, the hot-head and probably countless others who have not been reported in the press. BEWARE law abiding people. You may not have committed any crime. But if the police are after your computers and mobile phones, they may one day go to your house or call you up for an innocuous interview at the police station. And when you are there, they can grab you to their police vehicle, drive you home and order you to open your door for them to enter and ransack your house. I am not kidding you. It happened to me and Roy Ngerng. And it can happen to you.

I went to the police station on 31 May, having received a notice to answer the baseless complaints of the Election Department. This department is exceedingly powerful for it is controlled by our prime minister. I am not sure the complaints were lodged at his command but whoever did that must, I assume, must have informed him. The manner in which the notice was delivered to me was to say the least, purposefully intimidating. The police came to my flat at about 9.55 pm on Saturday, 28 May. They left the notice half in and half out of my door. The notice required me to attend an “interview” at 9.30am on Monday. They came to check if I took in the letter two hours later. They loitered in my estate till well past midnight, perhaps to make sure that I did not leave my house.

The police came to intimidate me again at 9.30 am the next day, a Sunday. They rang my door bell but I did not open the door because I was afraid that they would arrest me. I asked what they wanted and a male voice said they wanted to deliver a letter. It was the same letter that I received and I told him so. He wanted to make sure that I attend the “interview” and was helpful in giving me another telephone number.

Dutifully, I turned up at the police station on 31 May. I gave my statement regarding the four postings which the Election Department complained about. I admitted that I was the one responsible for the postings. I denied that I had committed any offence and told them it was my constitutional right to express my opinion on Cooling Off Day. What more do the police want? Charge me in court if they think I have committed an offence. But they did not do that, at least until now. Instead of allowing me to go home, they threatened to seize my mobile phone and then my computer. When I refused to give them my mobile phone, 4 or 5 police officers entered the room and threatened to handcuff me and arrest me while several others patrolled the corridor. I could see them because the wall partition was glass.

I am amazed and ashamed at the kind of police force we have today. Why threaten me, a pioneer citizen, 5 feet tall at most and weighing about 40 kg? Why so many police officers? But then, I should not have been shocked. The coroner’s inquiry of the cause of death of 14 year old Benjamin Lim who committed suicide is ongoing. Four police officers went to his school to arrest him, a 14 year old boy.

Eight police officers, 4 of whom were from the forensic department, came to my house. Why do they need 8 police officers to seize my computers and mobile phone? I did not commit a murder or possess guns. If this is not intimidation by sheer numbers, then what is? Fortunately, my friends were earlier than the police and they could enter my house at the same time as the police. And best of all, they could witness the police seizing my properties.

The police have robbed me of my properties and gravely inconvenienced me. They have mined my data. They have seen and read all my private documents and know who are my friends. They have invaded my privacy. They have committed a crime. I am angry. But where is my recourse? We do not have a national human rights institution which our so called less developed neighbours have – Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar. Where do I complain about my grievances? To the prime minister at his “Meet the People” session? At the 2nd hearing of Singapore’s human rights record at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review, the Singapore government said I could do that. But what is the point of complaining to the prime minister about something that he authorised?

This is my Singapore. This is your Singapore. We are a police state. For the slightest irritation, Singaporeans run to the police. But when the police commit a wrong, where do we run to?

百里挑一

 

Advertisements