Last Friday, The ministry of communication and information posted a new content on its website, which people commonly name as RPM Konten. After a few read, I found this RPM Konten as something utterly disgusting. Before I elaborate on, I’ll disclaim that I believe, as a law abiding citizen, there needs to be a regulation on internet, information, and communication. But not the way our beloved minister would think of it.
You could read the full document here. I’ll just point out interesting articles to correct.
First, it’s the definition of /penyelenggara/ - provider.
[Chapter 1, article 1, point 11]
By definition, this includes not only Internet Rentals, but also others who provided Free Wi-Fi Connections, Internet Service Providers, Content Providers, VoIP Providers, and includes up to Web Portals and even Search Engines. In short, this includes every business that has something to do with the internet.
a. Konten pornografi;
b. Konten lain yang menurut hukum tergolong sebagai Konten yang melanggar kesusilaan.
[Chapter 2, article 3]
[Chapter 2, article 4]
Note that it’s the providers who are, by regulation, should ban the distribution, transmission, and access to porn, immoral contents, and gambling-related contents. Just what the hell is the ministry’s thinking? That every providers should monitor their system 24/7 each second, and/or develop an engine that could filter these contents?
[Chapter 2, article 5]
So what should I write if there’s a stupid person doing something stupid? What should I write if my complaints to that malpracticing doctor wasn’t responded? Can’t I shout it out to the internet public? Would there no longer any ears listening to whatever unjustice I had? For the note, there’s Prita, and there’s IndonesiaUnite. And there are other cases where the voice of e-public corrected what’s wrong with the republic.
a. muatan berupa berita bohong dan menyesatkan yang mengakibatkan kerugian konsumen dalam Transaksi Elektronik, yaitu Konten mengenai suatu peristiwa atau hal yang tidak benar atau tidak berdasarkan fakta yang dinyatakan sedemikian rupa sehingga menurut penalaran yang wajar Konten tersebut adalah benar atau autentik, yang secara materil dapat mendorong konsumen untuk melakukan atau tidak melakukan suatu tindakan yang dapat mengakibatkan kerugian pada konsumen;
[Chapter 2, article 6]
Right. And what does this exactly mean? It could be misleading info that leads to financial loss, or just any random misleading info. If this means Scam-Filtering, yeah, I agree. Though, through another reading, I had the idea that this is a multi-interpretive article, which finer details eluded me. However, given my paranoia to indonesian government and all, I’d go paranoia with this one. Then there’s also:
[Chapter 2, article 6]
Insult, Incorrect Information, or Other Informations That’s Not Based On Fact. Now, if there’s a post somewhere that a bunch of trolls just burned a mosque. What should we do about that information? It might lead to hatred and enmity, but it’s factual. And even if it’s factual, when the ‘government approved version’ came out, it will be deemed as non-factual. Then what? Erase the page, or face dire consequence. Another purposefully ambiguous article.
a. membuat aturan penggunaan layanan;
b. melakukan pemeriksaan mengenai kepatuhan Pengguna terhadap aturan penggunaan layanan Penyelenggara;
c. melakukan Penyaringan;
d. menyediakan layanan Pelaporan dan/atau Pengaduan;
e. menganalisa Konten Multimedia yang dilaporkan dan/atau diadukan oleh Pengguna; dan
f. menindaklanjuti hasil analisis atas Laporan dan/atau Pengaduan dari suatu Konten Multimedia.
[Chapter 3, article 8]
Note point b and c. Providers must check your internet access history and filter them. WTF?!!
e. keharusan bagi Pengguna untuk menyetujui ketentuan privasi yang paling sedikit mengenai:
1. kesediaan Pengguna untuk mengizinkan Penyelenggara menyimpan data pribadi dan data penggunaan layanan; dan/atau
2. kesediaan Pengguna untuk mengizinkan Penyelenggara mengungkapkan data pribadi dan data penggunaan layanan kepada aparat penegak hukum dan/atau Menteri apabila ada dugaan mengenai perbuatan melawan hukum terkait pemuatan suatu Konten.
[Chapter 3, article 9, point 1]
So if I cracked my way to a porn site from my personal computer at home [which, by definition, is my private right in a private property, in a private space], the provider has the government-granted right to block my access and log my violation. If the government noticed it, the providers must [under my forced consent] willingly give my identity to the government. Right. Shitass.
(3) Penyelenggara wajib melakukan pemeriksaan secara rutin mengenai kepatuhan Pengguna terhadap aturan penggunaan layanan Penyelenggara.
[Chapter 3, article 9, points 2 and 3]
So yeah, now the providers must take responsibility if someone abused their service, and routinely ensure nobody violated their service agreement. Might as well not posting anything online. Better yet. This might lead to “Only government approved” contents could be posted online.
a. Konten yang dilarang;
b. Konten yang tidak dilarang; atau
c. Konten yang belum jelas dan akan diteruskan ke Tim Konten Multimedia.
[Chapter 3, article 12, point 3]
This means that other contents that’s not an outright violation, nor is it government approved, would be put under scrutinization, and could be flagged as a violation. Yeah. Right.
So here are the problematic articles, for my mind. Other articles are either mostly harmless, or just an implementation of these PITAs. Just remember that, it's the providers that will get the full brunt from this permen pahit. They will comply, because they have business interest in it. In the end, we'll be the victim of both the government and the business circle.
Fight it now, before it's too frakking late. Remember CAFTA. #tolakrpmkonten
Artikel ini memiliki: 6 Komentar • Penting +0