Increasingly,
social media platforms such as Facebook have become platforms for anonymous
groups in Singapore to target and attack popular social media influences such
as bloggers. While what these groups post on their social media pages may seem
harmless and even taken as a joke to some, there have been instances where
lines have been crossed. For instance, the home address of Singapore blogger
Wendy Cheng, also known as “Xiaxue” was exposed online by a follower of the
anonymous Facebook group “SMRT Ltd Feedback” in 2014. The follower had used an
online tool that SMRTfeedback had posted on its Facebook page to find out
Wendy’s address. (Cheng, 2015) The
reason for this being, they simply did not like her. With thousands of followers
on SMRTFeedbacks Facebook page, exposing their victim’s home address online
puts their lives in danger. While there are laws, such as the Protection from
Harassment Act to protect an individual against cyber harassments like these,
the solution is not full proof and still leaves many victims of cyber
harassment unprotected.
In
2014, Singapore full time blogger Wendy Cheng filed for a Protection Order
against the anonymous vigilante group SMRT Ltd (Feedback). According to Wendy,
the anonymous group had been harassing her via social media platforms like
twitter and Facebook. The group has allegedly posted insulting and derogatory
comments about her looks, her character and even accused her of rigging her
blog’s statistic counter. This could have potentially affected her blogging
career. (Koh, 2015)
When her home address was posted online for virtually anyone to see, Wendy
filed for the Protection Order for fear of the safety of her 2 year old son and
elderly mother. This is not the first time that the anonymous group has exposed
the home address of a person online. In 2014, following an incident where a Sim
Lim Square shop owner Jover Chew swindled a Vietnamese tourist into paying a
highly exorbitant price for an IPhone. The self-proclaimed vigilante group took
justice into their own hands by exposing the home address of Jover Chew online
so that online users could play pranks on him in punishment for his misdeed. While
these may all seem like harmless pranks, it actually poses danger to victim’s
lives as well as their careers and businesses.
The
Protection Order was put in place in 2014. Unlike any other acts, the
Protection Order is extended to the anonymous on social media. The act helps to
“protect persons against harassment, unlawful stalking and provide civil
remedies in relation to false states of fact.” (Yam, 2014)
This means that cyber harassers will no longer be able to make untrue or
derogatory and abusive statements about their victims under the Protection
Order. Harassers are liable to punishments if they fail to obey the order.
While the act may be effective in punishing harassers, it fails to take into
consideration certain issues, as such making the solution to the problem of
cyber harassment a non-full proof one.
The
Protection Order does not require anonymous entities to expose their identities. This means that anonymous groups like SMRTFeedback
can actually take on another social media persona to attack its victims without
breaking the rules of the Protection Order. Also, with a large number of
followers and fans of, stopping the group itself from cyber harassing its
victims does not stop their followers from continuing to do so. As such, the
Protection Order does not entirely protect cyber victims from harassments
online.
In
order to make the Protection Harassment Act a more effective one, the Act needs
to require anonymous persons to expose their identities to the law. This is to
ensure that harassers do not set up different accounts in order to continue
their acts online without getting caught for it. Also, the Protection Order could extent its
watch not just to owners of the social media page but to their followers as
well. If a Protection Order is taken on a particular social media account,
anyone who posts abusive or false statements about the victim on the page should
also face a penalty. This is to deter users from cyber-harassing fellow online
users. This ensures that cyber harassment does not continue to carry on through
the harasser’s followers and fans.
Aside
from the Protection Harassment Act that has been implemented, Singapore has
also put in place “Cybercrime Command”, an act within the Criminal
investigation Department (CID) in order to combat cybercrimes. (Lim, 2015)
The cybercrime command aims to create a platform whereby young Singaporeans who
use the Internet often are able to work hand in hand with the police in
investigating cyber-harassers. The Internet is a huge network; it is nearly
impossible for the police to track down every single activity. As such, the
platform will be an effective measure to take towards cyber-harassment as it
allows the online community to give “tip-offs” to the CID whenever they witness
an online harassment taking place, the CID will then look into the issue and
take necessary actions on the harassers. (Liang, 2015) .
While
Cybercrime command may be effective in locating and punishing cyber-harassers,
like the Protection Harassment Act, it is not a preventive measure towards
cyber-harassment. Both measures only solve the issue as it arises. In order to
combat cyber-harassment, actions need to be taken at the root of the problem.
To prevent these anonymous groups from harassing their victims. A preventive
measure would be stating rules that harmful or derogatory comments are not
allowed to be posted on social media platform pages. Social media platform
administrators should ensure that popular social media accounts with over a
certain number of followers are monitored closely with routine checks. Should
there be any form of cyber-harassment detected, the social media page will then
be forced to shut down after a warning. Should there be a need, the
administrators can then report the issue to the police for further action to be
taken.
As the
saying goes “prevention is better than cure.”
Attempting to solve the issue of cyber harassment through laws such as
the Protection act order and the Cybercrime command may be effective in certain
ways as mentioned above. However in order to prevent cyber harassment from
taking place, cooperation between both social media platform administrators and
the police force is necessary.
References:
Koh, V. (2015, February 6). Channelnewsasia. Retrieved
from
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/xiaxue-takes-out/1641824.html
Liang, L. Y. (2015, March 6). the staits time singapore.
Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/new-cybercrime-unit-within-the-cid-be-set-20150306
Lim, Y. (2015, March 06). channelnewsasia. Retrieved
from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-to-set-up-new/1698876.html
Cheng, W. (2015, February 6). xiaxue. Retrieved from
www.xiaxue.blogspot.com.sg
Yam, P. T. (2014, September 19). Singapore Statuses
Online. Retrieved from http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%2207275b05-417a-4de5-a316-4c15606a2b8d%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0
No comments:
Post a Comment