Sunday, December 03, 2006
I decided to put this up since it's on a local case...
Having read the article on Garyl Tan Jia Luo, who was charged for leeching onto a neighbour’s wireless Internet, I can’t help but think, could he have been on the front page of the newspaper for the wrong reasons? He had hardly other choice but to plead guilty under circumstantial evidence, without a defence lawyer.
While I do agree that he should be punished for his offence under present circumstances and current law, did Garyl deserve the front page? Perhaps he is just being used as an example to push through the Computers’ Misuse Act by the authorities. If similar computer offences like this do not get on the front page of newspapers, why is Garyl’s case an exception?
Another case in point, many public areas in Singapore will be equipped with wireless-fidelity (WiFi) very soon. In such a situation, the Computers’ Misuse Act would become ambiguous until adjustments are made. With wireless everywhere in public areas, and laptops latching onto any available signal, users will not be able to know whose wireless Internet they would be utilizing. If Garyl had committed this offence then, would this case have been considered differently? After all, the Internet service was left unprotected and anyone, not just Garyl, could have accessed it, whether on purpose or not. With rampant wireless Internet, wouldn’t many people be committing offences?
Charged as such, Garyl faces a fine of S$10, 000 and a jail term of three years, not to mention his present bail of S$6000. Should such a young boy be forced to plead guilty to charges made on assumptions? Hardly any inconvenience was caused to the owner, there was no hacking of personal information or surfing of pornography or prohibited sites. To seventeen-year-old Garyl Tan, however, he will need to give up his studies, pay the fine that would cover his whole polytechnic education and expenses, and forever be marked as an ex-offender. Is this fair to a young adolescent with potential for a bright future?
Should the owner of the wireless Internet be held responsible instead? He had not protected his account with a password, and now that the mouse has come to play while the cat’s away, he blames Garyl. It is like leaving your belongings unattended, knowing the possibility of it being stolen, then pushing the blame fully on the thief for stealing it. While the thief has committed an outright offence, didn’t the owner play a part by leaving the object (WiFi) in the thief’s path for the taking?
If Garyl had piggybacked on the Internet to surf adult content and steal personal information, shouldn’t the disseminator of such content and information be held responsible too, just like illegal VCD vendors? While Garyl was possibly protected from such content at home and at school, the content he surfs while piggybacking cannot be controlled by parents or school administrators.
Therefore, loopholes in the law, compassion, and common logic far weighs out the grounds on which Garyl Tan Jia Luo was charged.
Having read the article on Garyl Tan Jia Luo, who was charged for leeching onto a neighbour’s wireless Internet, I can’t help but think, could he have been on the front page of the newspaper for the wrong reasons? He had hardly other choice but to plead guilty under circumstantial evidence, without a defence lawyer.
While I do agree that he should be punished for his offence under present circumstances and current law, did Garyl deserve the front page? Perhaps he is just being used as an example to push through the Computers’ Misuse Act by the authorities. If similar computer offences like this do not get on the front page of newspapers, why is Garyl’s case an exception?
Another case in point, many public areas in Singapore will be equipped with wireless-fidelity (WiFi) very soon. In such a situation, the Computers’ Misuse Act would become ambiguous until adjustments are made. With wireless everywhere in public areas, and laptops latching onto any available signal, users will not be able to know whose wireless Internet they would be utilizing. If Garyl had committed this offence then, would this case have been considered differently? After all, the Internet service was left unprotected and anyone, not just Garyl, could have accessed it, whether on purpose or not. With rampant wireless Internet, wouldn’t many people be committing offences?
Charged as such, Garyl faces a fine of S$10, 000 and a jail term of three years, not to mention his present bail of S$6000. Should such a young boy be forced to plead guilty to charges made on assumptions? Hardly any inconvenience was caused to the owner, there was no hacking of personal information or surfing of pornography or prohibited sites. To seventeen-year-old Garyl Tan, however, he will need to give up his studies, pay the fine that would cover his whole polytechnic education and expenses, and forever be marked as an ex-offender. Is this fair to a young adolescent with potential for a bright future?
Should the owner of the wireless Internet be held responsible instead? He had not protected his account with a password, and now that the mouse has come to play while the cat’s away, he blames Garyl. It is like leaving your belongings unattended, knowing the possibility of it being stolen, then pushing the blame fully on the thief for stealing it. While the thief has committed an outright offence, didn’t the owner play a part by leaving the object (WiFi) in the thief’s path for the taking?
If Garyl had piggybacked on the Internet to surf adult content and steal personal information, shouldn’t the disseminator of such content and information be held responsible too, just like illegal VCD vendors? While Garyl was possibly protected from such content at home and at school, the content he surfs while piggybacking cannot be controlled by parents or school administrators.
Therefore, loopholes in the law, compassion, and common logic far weighs out the grounds on which Garyl Tan Jia Luo was charged.
what we could have been, 12/03/2006 12:54:00 AM.
