In Thailand, AI is a tool for surveillance and stifling dissent

Jean Linis-Dinco is the Digital Rights Advisor of Manushya Foundation. She leverages data science and cybersecurity to safeguard human rights.

The burgeoning global obsession with artificial intelligence (AI) is apparent in how governments have deployed AI as a tool for unprecedented control.

With each data point, the machine learns, relearns and eventually empowers governments to ensnare citizens in a web of surveillance and manipulation. Thailand epitomises this scenario, wherein the integration of AI into surveillance practices has created a formidable lever to stifle dissent and reinforce state power.

Surveillance is nothing new. What sets the current era of surveillance apart is not the intent but the efficiency and depth of surveillance that AI facilitates. This technological advancement has enabled the Thai government to enhance its surveillance capabilities significantly through the marriage of AI and state surveillance laws.

In Southern Border Provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat and the districts of Na Thawee, Jana, Tepa and Sabayoi of Songkla, advanced technologies such as facial recognition systems and predictive policing tools were deployed to monitor and scrutinize the activities of the local Malay Muslim populations.

A significant expansion of this surveillance effort was marked by requiring individuals to provide facial scans to different mobile service providers such as AIS, TrueMove H, and DTAC. In October 2020, the military's focus on these areas was further underscored by the deployment of approximately 8,200 surveillance cameras which could be equipped with AI, aiming to bolster security and surveillance capabilities.

Against this backdrop, AI transforms into another tool of oppression that enables the government to tighten its grip on the people, stifling any form of dissent at its core.

The legal landscape in Thailand, particularly the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) of 2019, does little to mitigate these risks. Given that PDPA was conceived before the mainstream adoption of large language models (LLMs), it fails to distinguish between automated and non-automated data processing.

The PDPA's insufficient provisions have proven inadequate in addressing illegal data collection through automated means, which has become increasingly prevalent with the rise of AI technologies. In a notable admission in 2022, the Thai Minister of Digital Economy and Society, Chaiwut Thanakamanusorn, disclosed in parliament that surveillance software was used for matters involving national security or drugs. His admission followed a joint investigation by iLaw, Digital Reach and Citizen Lab which revealed the use of Pegasus spyware on at least 30 government critics, with rights groups alleging that such actions are part of a systematic effort by Thai authorities to suppress political dissent and silence critical voices.

Such incidents highlight the urgent need for reforming the PDPA to close loopholes that currently allow for the misuse of data under the guise of national security. This will help ensure that protections are in place to prevent government overreach and protect human rights.

More problematically, the PDPA includes provisions such as Section 4(2), which outlines exceptions for data handling under the guise of 'state security.' By exempting government agencies’ data processing for security and ‘public safety’, PDPA essentially gives a free pass to unchecked surveillance which leaves Thai people utterly defenseless against government snooping.

As AI technology continues to evolve and permeate various facets of everyday life, the urgency for establishing robust legal protections and regulatory measures grows, demanding immediate attention to prevent irreversible impacts on societal norms and individual freedoms.

In the face of rampant surveillance expansion in Thailand, it is crucial for the government to be held accountable and implement a stringent, transparent regulatory framework to counteract these overreaches. The unchecked deployment of AI-driven surveillance tools, especially concerning facial recognition and mobile data monitoring, screams for an urgent overhaul of the Thai legal system.

It could start by taking the initial step of overhauling the PDPA to close the egregious loopholes that allow data exploitation under the convenient pretext of "national security" as currently permitted in Section 4. Without such reforms, AI technology risks becoming a modern Prometheus unleashing consequences as unforeseen and potentially destructive as those faced by Victor Frankenstein with his ill-fated creation.