Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Section 114a according to Fatimah Zuhri

While some folks were gone on a self-imposed internet blackout to protest Section 114a of the Evidence Act, blogger Fatimah Zuhri sheds light on the blackness, and reassures us that there's absolutely nothing to fear ... if you haven't done nothing wrong ...

Amendment to the Evidence Act 1950  
by Fatimah Zuhri 
1. Are you sick and tired of the constant fitnah/lies being thrown forth and back? 
2. Are you sick of the shitty politickings that have engulfed our nation since 2008? 
3. Are you repulsed by the constant "baling batu sembunyi tangan" type of people? 
4. Well, look no further folks; soon we will have an updated version of Evidence Act 1950. 
5. Parliament is discussing to improve the old Evidence Act 1950 by introducing the 3 things:
  1. To update the name of the act to Evidence Act 2012
  1.  New definition of computer
  1.  Presumption of guilt
6. Amendment No.1 is not controversial - it is just changing the name. 
7. Amendment No.2 is needed because the definition of computer in 1950 or even 1998 is very different compared to today. Today the line between what can be considered as a computer is almost non-existent - even a mobile phone can be considered computer!
Currently, the definition in the old Act about computer is:
“computer” means any device for recording, storing, processing, retrieving or producing any information or other matter, or for performing any one or more of those functions, by whatever name or description such device is called; and where two or more computers carry out any one or more of those functions in combination or in succession or otherwise howsoever conjointly, they shall be treated as a single computer;
Parliament would like to update it to:
“computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other data processing device, or a group of such interconnected or related devices, performing logical, arithmetic, storage and display functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device or group of such interconnected or related devices, but does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, or a portable hand held calculator or other similar device which is on-programmable or which does not contain any data storage facility;’. 
8. We are a developing nation in a modern world. Do we want to have a 50s Act for 2012? So no problem right for No.2? Good! 
9. Now, we come to the controversial part of the amendment - No.3.Parliment would like to add 3 additional information. If you do not understand, read my summary in bold.
*** Publication here refers to photos/article/tweet/posting/chat/etc.
114A. (1) A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.

Meaning: You are accused if your real name or your internet nickname is being used as the owner of an article, which is under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.
Scenario:There is an article titled "Azmin makan duit rakyat Selangor". The author wrote her name as Nazmi. Azmin brings Nazmi to court. Nazmi in her defense said "it was not me Min, sumpah! Bukan I Min! Percayalah...".
Since the article was written in blogger.com (owned by Google), the police can request the IP of the "mysterious writer" from Google. Every time you log in to your blogger or Goggle account, your IP will be stored in Google system. From the police investigation, they found that the IP does not belong to Nazmi's account.Turn out the actual writer is: Faekah. 
(2) A person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.
Meaning: You are accused if your account (UNIFI/STREAMYX/MAXIS/DIGI/etc) was used to publish an article under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.Scenario:There is photo of Izzah painted with the words "Izzah Penipu dan Gila Kuasa". The account was under the name Chua. Izzah brought Chuato court. Chua in his defense said : "Zah..bukan abang sayang...abang sayang Izzah..takkan la abang nak sabotage syg. Abg ni suka gigit...gigit telinga...sabotage ni tak main".
Every computer/phone/laptop/Xbox/etc has a MAC address. When you connect to the Internet your ISP can see this. The police check asked Chua whether he has any electronic devices and Chua replied "Only my phone sir" while looking at the officer's ear. Upon checking the MAC address of the phone, the MAC address did not match.
Turn out the actual writer is: Azmin. 
(3)Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved.
Meaning: You will get accused if your electronic devices have publications which is under investigation. HOWEVER if you can provide proof that you were framed and somebody else used your name to write that article, you should not be worry.Scenario:A tweet goes like this: "@anwaribrahim, you penipu kaum India! You promise macam2 sebelum GTX12 tapi skrg habuk pun tarak ada. @#$%@#%". The account was tweeted under the account psurendram. In anger, Anwar brought Surendran to court and in Surendran's defense he said: "Boss...sampai hati boss tuduh saya macam ini...lupakah janji2 kita dahulu? Sebangsa, Sejiwa, Sehidup, Semati? Cuma tak selubang sahaja...tu ka sebab boss marah?"
When a tweet is posted, all our tweets are stored in Twitter's many servers. Just like Facebook and Google, they also save for each tweet, info associated with that tweet e.g. time, date, location, IP, device name etc. The police can get these associated details of the tweet from Tweeter. Upon investigation, it was found that actually Surendran is innocent.
Turn out the culprit was someone who got jealous with Anwar's attention towards Surendran. He got so jealous that he took Surendran's phone while Surendran was busy entertaining Anwar and made that tweet. That person was Azizah! 
10. If you are innocent then there is nothing to be worried. It is just an amendment to update the Act so that it is relevant according to our time. 
11. Don't believe the hype that you can no longer FBooking or Tweeting. You can but post/tweet only truth! If you want to expose about the latest corruption involving Ministers or Agencies, please do so BUT provide evidence.
No Evidence = Fitnah. Simple no? 
12. Freedom of speech and expression is upheld. Freedom of spreading malicious FITNAH is not!

Old Evidence Act 1950 - www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%202/Act%2056.pdf The New amendment - www.parlimen.gov.my/files/billindex/pdf/2012/DR162012E.pdf
It's one of the most re-tweeted links on the subject, so make sure you leave your comments h e r e.


Probe the security company, not just the guard

Bangsar, 17 May: Good to hear that the Kuala Lumpur CID will now investigate a skirmish involving a security guard and journalists from The ...