German expert's statement on SMS sender identification in Amphon's case | prachatai.com

German expert's statement on SMS sender identification in Amphon's case | prachatai.com
prachatai.com, August 25, 2012

Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, lawyer for Amphon Tangnoppakul, has published a letter from an expert on telecommunication technology in Germany on her Facebook page.  The letter was intended to be used in the Appeals Court before the appeal was withdrawn.

000

SR Security Research Labs GmbH   Veteranenstr 25   10119 Berlin

Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF)
111 Soi Sitthichon Samsennork Huaykhwang
Bangkok 10310
Thailand
Dr. Karsten Nohl
Chief Scientist
nohl@srlabs.de
+49-3089392996

Berlin, January 30th 2012

Expert statement on SMS sender identification

To whom it may concern:

Security Research Labs is a risk management think tank in Berlin, Germany that advises European telecommunication network operators and governments in mitigating risks arising from cell phone technology.

We were asked to provide a subject matter expert opinion on the reliability of mobile phones identifiers used in determining the sender of an SMS message.

The attached statement was prepared based on extensive knowledge of GSM standard, the operation of GSM networks in general, and measurements of the GSM networks in Bangkok, Thailand in particular. The statement reflects the current state of GSM security research and was prepared to the best of our knowledge.

Best Regards,

Dr. Karsten Nohl

-------------

Expert statement on SMS sender identification

This statement discusses the question of whether a mobile phone sending a text message can be identified reliably based on data records in the phone network. This question is to be investigated for the dtac GSM network in Bangkok, Thailand.

Question 1: Does an SMS identify a phone (IMEI)?

An SMS transaction contains multiple small data packets exchanged between a phone and the radio network. These packets negotiate encryption, establish the transaction type, and exchange data. One example SMS transition on the dtac network included 107 packets.
Phones are identified by their IMEI numbers, which act as serial numbers.
One packet, called the “Cipher Mode Command”, can ask the phone to send its IMEI number in the next packet. However, the dtac network does not use this option in SMS transactions as shown in Figure 1. This was verified at multiple locations in Thailand.
No other message in an SMS transaction can include the IMEI number.

Answer 1: An SMS transaction on the dtac network does not identify a phone (IMEI).
[See images below]

Figure 1. Partial trace of an SMS transaction on the dtac network in Bangkok, Thailand. The “Ciphering Mode Command” message does not ask the phone to send its IMEI number.


Question 2: How does the dtac network assign an IMEI to an SMS transaction?
The mobile network and phones execute different types of transactions including SMS messages and voice calls. The only type of transaction on the dtac network that include the IMEI number are “Location Update” transactions. These transactions are done when the phone is switched on, when it changes location significantly (ie, to a different part of a city), and also periodically.
The phone identity included in a dtac SMS record most likely is copied from the most recent “Location Update” the network observed for a given subscriber account.

Answer 2: The IMEI is most likely copied from an older transaction into the dtac SMS record.

Question 3: How does the dtac network assign a location to an SMS transaction?

Answer 3: The possibility exists that the location is copied from an older transaction into the dtac SMS record. Further information from dtac is needed for a conclusive answer.

Question 4:  Can an SMS message be sent without a phone?

Answer 4: SMS messages can be sent from the Internet with arbitrary spoofed sender numbers. If the dtac network creates delivery records for such transactions, it would likely include the IMEI number of the most recent “Location Update” message from the spoofed phone number. Further information from dtac is needed for a conclusive answer.


Question 5: Can individuals observe IMEI numbers on the GSM network?
“Location Update” transactions that include a phone’s IMEI number are sent encrypted over the air. The GSM standard uses outdated security that can be broken within seconds.
Software that has been available on the Internet since 2008 can be used to break the encryption of a “Location Update” message in less than one minute on a standard computer.
Since the release of the software, it has been installed in hundreds of locations around the world. Engineering students take less than one week to create a functioning intercept and decryption setup.

Answer 5: Technologically-savy individuals can extract IMEI numbers from GSM messages.


Question 6: Can SMS be sent from a phone using somebody else’s identify?
The IMEI number on almost all phones can be changed using widely available software.
Answer 6: An individual can easily change the IMEI of his/her phone to the IMEI of somebody else’s phone.


Conclusion

The dtac SMS transaction records are not reliable in identifying a phone as the emitter of an SMS message. At least two possibilities exits where the data diverts from reality:

• SMS injected into the phone network from the Internet or SS7 network may be falsely linked to a “Location Update” message of somebody else’s phone
• Phone identities can be changed to the phone of somebody else in the same part of a city after observing a transaction of the other phone with the GSM network which requires only readily available hardware and software

Former Judge’s Views on the Case of Ah Kong | prachatai.com

Former Judge’s Views on the Case of Ah Kong | prachatai.com
prachatai.com,  August 24, 2012

Originally published on the Facebook page of Poonsuk Poonsukcharoen, lawyer for Amphon (Ah Kong); Republished on Prachatai


The below is from a lecture given by Professor Satit Phairoh, a former judge, during the 65th session of the Thai Bar Association. A senior colleague sent me a recording of the lecture and I have transcribed it so that other people can read it. Doing this case, I learned a lot of lessons. These included the difficulties with temporary release, detention, the demonstration of evidence, and the admissibility of evidence. I do not want to make excuses for myself as a lawyer, but what I want is for the judicial process to progress in a noble fashion.

The cremation of Ah Kong will be on 26 August at Wat Lad Phrao. All are invited to come bid Ah Kong farewell.

------------------------------------------------------
A question was raised about Ah Kong’s case:

Article 39 of the Constitution says that everyone is presumed innocent. It is a general principle that when a person is innocent, bail must be granted. This is simple, there is nothing profound about it. According to this principle, at the time one is charged, the court has not yet delivered a verdict of whether or not the law has been broken, and so bail must be granted. If bail is denied, a rationale for why not must be provided. And, the rationale must be a logical one. When I was assigned to dispose of case dossiers, I encountered illogical rationales.  When you dispose of dossiers, you have to read every one of them. I found many quite odd cases.  In one case, the defendant was charged with stealing an elephant. The Court ruled that “This is major theft. Bail can’t be granted.” This rationale is not in line with the Criminal Procedure Code. This is not how it is written in the law.  In another case, the defendant was accused of stealing a needle and thread. A minor theft from a house. The court ruled that, “Bail is not granted for petty theft.” It is not written in the law that bail is not granted for petty theft. There is no basis for this. 

In the case of Ah Kong, on the issue of bail, the court ruled that, “The facts concerning the offence as described in the plaint gravely impact public sentiment and national security.” They wrote in this fashion before there had been any investigation, at all. This indicates that the Court already believed that the accusation was true. If you already believe the charges when you read them, how can you be a judge? You have to listen to evidence before you can write that, “The facts of the alleged offence gravely impact public sentiment and national security.” Having only read the charges, without having heard evidence in the case, how can the judge talk about the impact? You have to investigate first. Making a decision without listening to the evidence is a definitive characteristic of how a judge should not act. No matter how terrible the indictment sounds, it is an allegation only. The facts have not yet shown whether it is true or false.

They guessed further that, “If the examination of evidence results in solid proof, the defendant may flee.”  The Court began by surmising that if the proof advanced was solid, then the defendant might flee. And if they surmised incorrectly, then who would be held responsible? Would they be jailed (instead of the defendant)? No. This decision was based on a guess. How do you know if the proof will be solid or not? By guessing. This conjecture had a disastrous effect for their defendant. An order like this is not characteristic of a Court that is supposed to be impartial.  The order violated the Constitution. The Constitution is procedural law, if you ask me.

The Court made another incorrect conjecture. Why is this? It is written in the judgment itself that, “Although the plaintiff is unable to present indisputable proof that the defendant is the person who sent the messages as charged.”  This indicates that the Court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s adduction of evidence was not indisputable.  This indicates that the ruling about bail was incorrect. But the Court committed a double fault by convicting the defendant. If the evidence is not indisputable, how can you convict a defendant?  This is a breach to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code which clearly stipulates that in weighing the evidence, the Court must not render a judgment to convict until it is certain that the offence was committed and the defendant was the perpetrator. The word “certain” means indisputable.  When you say it is not indisputable, how are you able to render a conviction?

At the end of the judgment, they wrote even more incorrectly: “But it was difficult for the plaintiff to find eyewitness evidence.” Where in the law does it say that if it is difficult, then you can convict on speculation? There is only one principle here: the plaintiff must have evidence that the defendant committed the offence beyond doubt, whether it is eyewitness or circumstantial evidence. It cannot be that there is circumstantial evidence and so you can then convict on speculation.  This judgment will eternally stand and cannot be subjected to correction since Ah Kong is dead. This judgment will be eternally criticized because the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court have no chance to amend it.  I presume if this case went to a higher court, the higher court would not allow the decision to stand because it was unlawful. This decision contradicts Section 227 completely. It is a contradiction on the order of saying that the sun rises in the west. Jurists must have principles, and must not write arbitrarily. If you are a judge, do not do this. Don’t think you are powerful and can do anything at will. We are not the only ones who read the law. Professor Nidhi Eoseewong has written that the Court acts arbitrarily. He is correct.

-- Professor Satit Phairoh, lecture on criminal law, 65th session of the Thai Bar Association, 8 June 2012.

Translated by Tyrell Haberkorn and Pipob Udomittipong.

Red shirts at each other's throats over 'Uncle SMS' saga | Bangkok Post

Red shirts at each other's throats over 'Uncle SMS' saga | Bangkok Post
Kamol Hengkietisak, May 19, 2012

The death in prison of Ampol Tangnoppakul or "Uncle SMS" from cancer ignited a fierce debate between red shirt academics and red shirt politicians who work for the Pheu Thai Party, noted Post Today.

A group of red shirt United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship followers take the body of Ampon Tangnoppakul, who died in prison after being convicted of lese majeste, to a temple in Samut Prakan. (Inset) Bongkoj Kongmalai

The red shirt academics accused the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) leaders of neglecting to help those red shirt political prisoners who are languishing in jail, especially those facing lese majeste charges under Criminal Code Section 112. The UDD leaders working for Pheu Thai were accused of reconciling with the amataya, or elite, to protect their political interests rather than working for the benefit of the grass roots.
Somsak Jiamthirasakul, a Thammasat University academic, ridiculed UDD politicians now in power.

"The death of Ah Kong may open the eyes of those leaders whose hearts are black but think of themselves as democracy fighters," he said. "Section 112 is problematic and must be amended. This will not lead to the toppling of the government. Don't cite any excuse. It is not fair to ask the grass roots to risk losing their lives while those claiming to love democracy, having been elected, do nothing. You are elected to serve the people, not to enjoy political power and cling to your posts."

Another Thammasat academic, Sudsa-nguan Suthisorn, noted that several red shirt groups are angry that the Pheu Thai-led government is not taking care of red shirt prisoners.

"Even though the government cannot order the court to release Section 112 prisoners, at least the government should work hard to secure bail for those still languishing in jail so that the Ah Kong case is not repeated."

Suda Rangkupan of Chulalongkorn University voiced a similar opinion. She said the grass roots were now beginning to move independently from the UDD and that the ruling party's insistence on not amending Section 112 revealed its true colours, that it has chosen to side with a dictator.

"If a government elected by the people fails to solve the people's problems, its legitimacy will diminish day by day. We are beginning to see that this government has adopted a different goal. The people must be brave and come out to fight for their rights themselves," she said.

Post Today quoted several UDD leaders including Kwanchai Praipana from Udon Thani who criticised certain red shirts who brought out Ah Kong's dead body to perform a bathing rite in front of the Criminal Court on Ratchadapisek Road as creating distress for Ah Kong's family.

This was akin to not respecting the dead. The red shirts should have held a traditional Buddhist funeral service with a mass of red shirts attending to show Thai society that his death was caused by the previous government's substandard administration.

"Ah Kong is like a puppet being used to benefit someone. Ah Kong's case involves only a few individuals.

"In fact, I used to visit Ah Kong when he was arrested and confined. He was a pitiful old man and seemed not to be harmful to anyone. When he was charged with lese majeste, it warranted reform of the judicial system," he said.

Korkaew Pikulthong, a Pheu Thai list MP and UDD core leader, said UDD leaders have yet to hold a meeting to discuss how to help Ah Kong's family. He insisted not all UDD core leaders have abandoned the imprisoned red shirts as they have been accused of.

"We tried several times before his death to bail him out but we could do nothing as it was the prerogative of the court. I would like all sides to learn a lesson from Ah Kong's death in prison," he said.

Post Today concluded that the "UDD leaders abandoning the red shirt grassroots" issue will not go away, but will intensify as time goes on.

Ah Kong verdict revisited

Here is an excerpt of the criminal case verdict No. 4726/2554 between the state attorney (prosecutor) and Ampol Tangnoppakul (defendant) on his lese majeste and Computer Crime Act offences given on 23 Nov 2011 as reported by Post Today.

The prosecutor stated that Ampol, 61, had sent four SMS messages to the mobile phone of Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, personal secretary of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The messages were stored at the Short Message Service Centre computer system before being transmitted. Every message expressed libel and harmful intent towards the King, the Queen and the heir apparent.

The police found all four messages were sent on a mobile phone with IMEI (International Mobile Station Equipment Identity) 3589060000230110. It was found that this mobile phone made calls to mobile phones belonging to Parawan Tangnoppakul and Piyamas Tangnoppakul, Ampol's daughters. It was found that the mobile phone was owned by Ampol.

Ampol claimed the number, 08-1349-3615, allegedly used to send the messages, was not his. In April 2011, the defendant had his mobile phone repaired and did not use another SIM card on the phone.

The defence stated it was possible to change a mobile phone's IMEI and that about 10% of IMEIs in circulation are not unique. The defendant loved His Majesty the King and was loyal to the monarchy.

The prosecutor stated the SIM card 08-1349-3615 was a Dtac pre-paid card and was used with Ampol's mobile phone as well as another True Move pre-paid SIM card 08-5838-4627. Prosecution witnesses stated that a mobile phone's IMEI is unique and there is no duplicate.
The staff of the two mobile phone operators stated that a user's mobile phone traffic is stored in a computer database as required under the Computer Crime Act 2007. Thus the mobile traffic information from the two mobile phone operators is valid as well as the witnesses' statements that a mobile phone's IMEI cannot be altered.

The defence stated that an IMEI could be altered, but when considering the place and time that SMSs were sent by the SIM card number 08-5838-4627 and SIM card number 08-1349-3615 at sub-station Soi Dan Samrong 12, it was the same area of the defendant's residence and the two SIM card numbers were interchanged 12 times that day.
The defendant admitted the mobile was used solely by him. The phone was used to send four SMS messages with each number interchanging for about 10 minutes, time enough to change a SIM card.

The defence stated the phone was damaged and sent for repair and it was possible that someone else used it during the time of the offences or the repair shop changed or stole the phone's IMEI. However, the police stated that the defendant could not remember where the repair shop was. If the defendant had actually taken the phone in for repairs, he should have remembered the shop, otherwise how could he have retrieved it?

The defendant stated he did not know how to send an SMS and did not know the mobile phone number of Mr Somkiat and he had never used any other SIM card on his phone. The court deemed that only the defendant could verify these claims. Furthermore, witnesses showed the defendant's mobile was used to send a lot of messages and thus the defendant's claim was not credible.

Even though no witness could prove the defendant sent the messages, it was within reason as anyone who committed such a serious crime would try to hide the actions. For this reason, circumstantial evidence must be used and the prosecutor's evidence was strong.

'Tak' deletes Facebook comments on Ampon

Movie star Bongkoj "Tak" Kongmalai has deleted her Facebook comments on Ah Kong after being advised to do so by her close friends, reported Thai Rath.

Asked by Thai Rath whether she regretted her comments and therefore decided to delete them, Bongkoj said: "My friends phoned to scold me. 'What were you thinking? Why should you meddle?' Thus I decided to delete them."

Earlier, Bongkoj told Thai Rath she felt afraid when her car was mobbed by red shirts in Pattaya while filming on the night of May 13.

She said she could accept the mob's actions and would not report them to the police. However, she will go to Pattaya to film again and has asked Pattaya police to provide protection for her.

Amphon's death challenges both red shirts and the govt - prachatai.com

Amphon's death challenges both red shirts and the govt - prachatai.com
Pravit Rojanaphruk, The Nation

The death of lese majeste detainee Amphon "Akong" Tangnoppakul, also known as "Uncle SMS", inside Bangkok Remand Prison Hospital on Monday has re-ignited hopes of amending the draconian lese majeste law.

Some 300 people attended the controversial placing of his body in front of the Bangkok Criminal Court on Wednesday and vented their anger against the law they perceived as an obstacle preventing them from attaining a basic right to freedom of expression.
Well-known red-shirt writer Wat Wayangoon asked the gathering if Thais were not being treated like humans when it came to freedom of expression about anything critical of the monarchy.

At the same venue, red-shirt Pheu Thai MP Jaruphan Kuldiloke talked about legally protected rights in England and how Thailand has yet to achieve anything similar. And political scientist Paungthong Pawakapan, a key member of the Public Campaign Committee to Amend the lese majeste law, announced in front of Amphon's body that enough signatures had been collected to push the proposed amendment before Parliament.

It must not be forgotten, however, that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has insisted repeatedly her administration will not touch the lese majeste law.

Even Jaruphan was soft, almost apologetic on Wednesday, in front of the crowd of angry mourners wondering why this government was not doing anything - meekly suggesting they should try again to convince government MPs.

It's no secret a large percentage of the red-shirt movement is opposed to the draconian law, ever since the military coup on September 19, 2006, which ousted Thaksin Shinawatra. Many Thaksin supporters who subsequently became red shirts question the role of Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanond in the coup, and more.

In private conversations, some-red shirt leaders try to defend Yingluck's position that the government won't touch the law - saying the government can't start a war on too many fronts, or by saying the government doesn't really have the power to push for such change and it could risk a military coup by insisting on it.

In public,however, there's a visible attempt to forge a truce between the old and new elites as well.

Nevertheless, yesterday, the red-shirt movement, the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, sponsored the first night of the funeral rite for Amphon at Wat Dan Samrong in Samut Prakarn province. And at least two key red-shirt members, Somyos Prueksakasemsuk and Surachai Sae-Dan, remain in prison under the lese majeste law.

The continued vocal opposition to the law by a small but significant and active section of the red-shirt movement could be used by the Yingluck administration to remind the established elites that some form of accommodation might be needed.

But if the government will not touch the law, the loyalty of progressive red shirts to Yingluck (and Thaksin) - and the loyalty of Yingluck and Thaksin to these red shirts - will be severely tested.

The government cannot indefinitely buy time and expect no backlash or a meltdown in trust and expectation among the so-called progressive reds who oppose the law.

If no progress is seen in the near future, the time will come when these progressive red shirts must choose whether to continue to accommodate a government which does nothing to make the law less draconian.

Many reds will face the question whether they continue to support a government that allowed to Amphon die under their watch, a government privately telling them it would have loved to do more but just simply couldn't afford to.

With prisoners of conscience like Somyos and Surachai still in jail and the Public Campaign to Amend the law seemingly ready, that time is approaching sooner than later. And if the death of Amphon cannot make a difference, nothing will.

Source: 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amphons-death-challenges-both-r...

THAILAND: Death in custody of 61-year old grandfather jailed for allegedly sending four SMS messages | prachatai.com

THAILAND: Death in custody of 61-year old grandfather jailed for allegedly sending four SMS messages | prachatai.com
Asian Human Rights Commission, May 9, 2012

The Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to express our grief and extend our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Amphon Tangnoppakul, who was found dead in prison custody on 8 May 2012. Amphon (also known to his family as "Ah Kong" or "grandfather," and to the public at "Uncle SMS"), a 61-year-old man, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on 23 November 2011 in Black Case No. 311/2554. The Criminal Court convicted him of four violations under section 112 of the Criminal Code and under the 2007 Computer Crimes Act for allegedly sending four SMS messages to Mr. Somkiat Klongwattanasak, personal secretary of the former prime minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva. These four SMS messages allegedly contained vulgar language defaming the Thai queen and insulting the honour of the monarchy.

As the AHRC noted at the time of Amphon's conviction (AHRC-STM-180-2011), the prosecution's actions raised serious questions about the validity of evidence in cases of this sort, and pointed to lacunae in the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, which is in fact broad enough to cover all forms of electronic communication; not only those on computer. The prosecution argument rested on the assertion that the mobile phone that sent the four allegedly criminal SMS messages had the same IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifying) number as the mobile phone which Amphon had used to call his children. Despite Amphon's assertion that he did not send the SMS messages in question, and did not even know how to send an SMS message, the court sentenced him to a lengthy term in prison.

Yet Amphon Tangnoppakul's death in custody raises an additional layer of questions and concerns about the Thai justice system. Amphon had been in detention since being formally charged on 18 January 2011. At the time he was charged, he was already suffering from oral cancer for which he had already been receiving regular treatment, and his counsel immediately requested bail while awaiting trial on this basis. The court denied this request, as it did seven subsequent requests made before his trial, at the time of his conviction, and up until several months before his death.

The repeated denial of Amphon's requests for bail itself raises serious questions about the obscure process by which a prisoner awaiting trial--or awaiting the consideration of a Court of First Instance decision by the Appeal Court--is granted or denied bail in Thailand. At the time of Amphon's last request for bail, in February 2012, the Appeal Court ruled that his illness, which constituted one of the grounds for the request, did "not appear to be life-threatening". On the same reasoning, the courts in Thailand have denied bail in other cases where it would seem to be justified on medical grounds, such as the case of Ms. Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul who suffers from severe jaw disease. Coupled with known deficiencies in the prison healthcare system in Thailand, the repeated refusal of bail to Amphon seems to reflect a manifest disregard among members of the judiciary for the wellbeing of detainees in the country's jails.

Given that the tragic death of Amphon in prison has followed repeated refusals of bail while his appeal was under consideration, and in view of the custodial responsibility for him that the state undertook in denying bail, including responsibility to provide him with the necessary healthcare, the Asian Human Rights Commission calls on the government of Thailand to ensure that an autopsy and post-mortem inquest in line with the Criminal Procedure Code are carried out fully and transparently. Preliminary information in this case indicates that Amphon entered the prison hospital on Friday, but that unavailability of laboratory services meant that he could not be treated over the weekend. We also call for the government to provide much more open and complete accounting of the prison healthcare system in Thailand than what is currently available publicly, and to do so with reference to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. With regards to the death of Amphon we wish in particular to highlight and call on the government to respond in detail to section 22(2) of the rules, that:

"Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment, furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners, and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers"; and, to section 25(2), that:

"The medical officer shall report to the director whenever he considers that a prisoner's physical or mental health has been or will be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment."

Finally, the AHRC wishes to underscore its insistence, set out in previous public statements, that the government of Thailand repeal section 112 of the Criminal Code--which provides penalties of three to fifteen years for any alleged insult, defamation, or threat against the king, queen, heir-apparent, and regent; and thereby demands unquestioned allegiance to the monarchy in Thailand--and release all remaining individuals facing charges or convicted of violating the section, and related provisions of the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. In the years since the 19 September 2006 coup, many people have paid a high price for alleged disloyalty to the monarchy, with sentences whose length is comparable to those for persons convicted of drug trafficking and murder. The death in custody of Amphon Tangnoppakul indicates that the price of loyalty is too high: a man has paid for four SMS messages with his life, and his family has paid with the loss of their husband, father and grandfather.
Read this statement online

Thai Man Jailed for Insulting King Dies in Detention | The New York Times

Thai Man Jailed for Insulting King Dies in Detention | The New York Times
THOMAS FULLER, May 8, 2012

A retired truck driver who was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for sending text messages deemed insulting to Thailand’s monarchy died in prison on Tuesday, his lawyer said.

The man, Ampon Tangnoppakul, 61, was sentenced in November to five years for each of four text messages sent from his mobile phone. The court did not reveal the content of the messages but said they went against the “evident” fact that King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit “are full of mercy and concerned about the entire population” and could incite hatred of the rulers. 

Mr. Ampon’s death is likely to sharpen the debate over Thailand’s harsh lèse-majesté laws, which forbid defaming, insulting or threatening leading members of the royal family. Offenses can be punished with up to 15 years for each count. There are also related laws against “computer crimes.” 

The laws are being used with greater frequency in the twilight of the reign of King Bhumibol, 84, and critics say they are antiquated and being abused for political purposes.Widely referred to as Uncle SMS, Mr. Ampon was repeatedly denied bail despite a history of cancer. The court ruled last year that he was a flight risk and that his condition “did not appear to be fatal.” His lawyer, Anon Numpa, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that prison may have worsened his condition. 

Mr. Ampon complained of stomach pains last week and was sent to a prison hospital, where he died. An autopsy was being performed Tuesday, Mr. Anon said. “His condition would have been better had he been on the outside,” he said.

Mr. Anon said his client maintained that he had not sent the messages and had been in the process of applying for a royal pardon. 

In a handwritten note to his lawyer from prison last month, Mr. Ampon said he was “often disheartened,” and missed his wife and grandchildren. “I’m trying to be patient,” he said. “I have high hopes that I will get freedom soon.” 

The text messages were received by a senior government official in May 2010, a time of high political passions in Thailand when troops were clashing with protesters on the streets of Bangkok. Mr. Ampon told the court that he did not know how to send text messages.

Articles published in the Thai press discussed the possibility that his mobile phone’s identity may have been pirated. The court, however, said it was convinced beyond a doubt that the defendant “was the person who sent those four messages.”

Thai Court speaks out on Uncle SMS case

Thai Court speaks out on Uncle SMS case
Bangkok post, December 17, 2011

Some criticism of the Ah Kong lese majeste case is based on personal opinions only and has no basis in fact, says a spokesman for the Court of Justice.

Some critics have expressed concern about the judiciary's judgement, says Court of Justice spokesman Sitthisak Vanachakij, writing for Post Today newspaper.

Criticism of the Criminal Court verdict "came like a flood that overwhelmed the court and the Thai justice system", and the court could no longer remain silent.

The court last month sentenced 61-year-old Ampon Tangnoppakul to 20 years in jail after finding him guilty of lese majeste and computer crimes.

The court found him guilty on four counts under two laws - Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, widely known as the lese majeste law, and Section 14 of the Computer Crime Act. He was sentenced to five years in prison on each count.

Ampon, a Samut Prakan resident, is popularly known as "Uncle SMS" due to his case, or as "Ah Kong" - or grandpa - among acquaintances.

He was charged with sending four text messages with offensive content in May last year to the personal secretary of then-prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Mr Sitthisak said the court does not forbid people expressing honest opinions of its decisions as long as they are based on academic principle, legal basis, reason or even on personal beliefs as long as those people have access to the full information and evidence.

However, in the case of Uncle SMS, some negative comments were not based on access to full information and it would not be good for society if the court kept silent.

The public had raised the following points about the case:

- Ampon did not commit any crime. Why should he be jailed?

- Ampon's 20-year jail sentence is too severe.

- Ampon is a senior citizen and thus should have received leniency with a commuted jail term.

- The judiciary does not conform to international standards of freedom of expression.

Mr Sitthisak said those who believed Ampon did not commit any crime were merely expressing personal opinions with no justification or evidence to back their beliefs.

This case underwent the usual process starting with a police investigation. The police case was vetted by the public prosecutor, who decided to file charges with the court.

The trial conformed to international standards of justice, which allowed the accused to present evidence in court to back up his innocence, he said.

The court, after careful consideration of evidence presented by the public prosecutor and the accused, judged the accused did commit the crime.

If Ampon is not satisfied with the decision, he can appeal his case to the Appeals Court and after that to the Supreme Court.

It was not unheard of for the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court to disagree with the lower court's decision. In fact, Ampon may be presumed to be innocent until the case is closed.

In ordinary libel cases that cause severe loss of reputation, the Criminal Code prescribes a jail term, and the court occasionally issues a jail sentence without showing leniency.

In this case, harsh and vulgar words were used to express hostility towards Their Majesties the King and Queen. Under the constitution, the monarchy "is a revered institution that nobody can transgress".

As to whether Ampon's 20-year jail sentence is too severe, Mr Sitthisak said a prison term is prescribed for severe libel cases.

The offence was committed not once, but four times on different occasions, Ampon ridiculed the monarchy in the texts and expressed vengeance themes, which indicated disregard for the law without any moral compunction.

Since Ampon denied the charge, there was no reason for the judge to show mercy.

The Criminal Code's section 112 prescribes a jail term ranging from three to 15 years. The Computer Crime Act prescribes a jail term not more than five years.

The court's sentence of five years in jail for each offence was higher than the minimum three years jail term by two years, but still less than the maximum of 15 years by 10 years.

Since there are four instances of crimes, the accumulated sentence is 20 years. Those who know the evidence and the provision of the law may consider the Uncle SMS case as justified or even "light" when considering the nature of the crime, he said.

Mr Sitthisak argued that at 61, Ampon is not so old that he needs care, nor too old to understand and use modern technology.

He believed most people would not like such a person to walk free in society as others could fall victim to his actions.

The appropriate measure is to mete out punishment which sends a message to other malcontents not to emulate his behaviour.

For this reason, "age" cannot always be cited as a factor in favour of leniency.

The compelling factor for leniency is dependent on the nature of the crime and must be considered on a case by case basis.

Mr Sittisak said Thai law conforms to international standards on human rights but under a different political system.

Everyone has his own culture, loves his country and has faith in his religious leader, he said, adding that civilised people must not express contempt or ridicule towards other people's leaders, as that may escalate into national conflicts.

If Thais love the motherland, they should maintain its essential pillars, continued Mr Sitthisak.

Freedom of expression and criticism without prejudice are permissible as long as exercising such rights do not trespass on other people's rights, he told the newspaper.

Court faulted in Thaksin assets case

The Constitution Court's judgement in the Thaksin Shinawatra asset concealment case is one of the main causes of Thailand's bitter political conflict, says the Truth for Reconciliation Commission.

Its latest report found the primary cause of political division was the court's 2004 judgement in the asset concealment case in which Thaksin was accused of acting against Section 259 of the 1997 constitution, says Post Today.

The newspaper believes the commission's report is likely to carry weight, as the commission is widely accepted on both sides of the red and yellow shirt political divide. The commission is headed by former Attorney General Khanit na Nakorn.

Even though the commission was appointed by the Abhisit government, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra declared after winning the July 3 election that it could carry on with its work.

The commission had proposed recommendations that benefit both the red shirts and the yellow shirts, including backing bail for red shirt leaders.

This resulted in the court granting bail to prominent leaders such as Natthawut Saikua and Weng Tojirakarn.

In its report, the commission says the court's decision led to serious ambiguity regarding the rule of law.

"Law enforcement procedures were weak and inefficient, leading to the use of power outside the system to solve problems. Such solutions resulted in even more problems," said the report.

Seven judges found former prime minister Thaksin guilty, six found him innocent and two decided the case was not under the court's jurisdiction, so refrained from ruling.

But the court counted the two abstentions as not-guilty decisions. That took the number of not-guilty votes to eight, resulting in an eight to seven decision in favour of Thaksin.

The panel, which was set up after the April-May 2010 crackdowns, proposed the government examine the Thaksin asset concealment case according to the rule of law.

The panel also echoed previous recommendations that conventional criminal punishment not be applied to cases stemming from political violence.

The newspaper said that if the tribunal's ruling was truly the root of many social and political conflicts, the Pheu Thai-led government should think twice about pushing for an amnesty bill which includes Thaksin.