Calling down the 16-year-old blogger to the police station..
-
Calling down the 16-year-old blogger to the police station was uncalled for, an abuse of police privilege
SG police curtailing civil liberties, over stepping responsibility?
Civil liberties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties
"the person identified ... is not an SMRT (employee), nor from the other agencies (Land Transport Authority and the police) that have access to the footage,"... "no charges will be pressed"
I think tt the police have gone overboard in this as it seems an internal issue... IMHO: it isn't a criminal offense to post such footage... as such the police investigation should only be within its own staff that none leaked the video. LTA and SMRT should conduct their own investigations amongst its staff members. As such, even calling down the 16-year-old blogger to the police station would be uncalled for, an abuse of police privilege.
The possible pressing of charges is prejudicial to justice and simply unthinkable in this case too... (?? Stealing intellectual rights to copyright??? Huh??- then sue for copyright lor...)
In this case, the police should at most ask the blogger for help, explaining that its an internal investigation if police themselves leaked the footage...., hoping that he can assist. They must explicitly advise him that he has the choice and has no obligation to cooperate.
This is what I think; correct me if I'm mistaken. SGpore gov shouldn't take on totalitarian attitudes in governance (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism )... its just not good for the nation's progress.
=======================================
Source of MRT suicide clip footage a mystery
TODAYonline .Wednesday • April 25, 2007- Derrick A Paulo ([email protected] )
More than two months after clips of two suicides on MRT tracks were posted on the Internet, setting Netizens abuzz, the case of the unauthorised SMRT recording has ended without any conclusive source of the leak.
The police had conducted a probe and submitted their findings to SMRT, but "the person identified ... is not an SMRT (employee), nor from the other agencies (Land Transport Authority and the police) that have access to the footage," said an SMRT spokesperson.
However, Today understands the person used to have a working link with SMRT.
Still, "no criminal offence has been disclosed" based on police investigations, a police spokesperson told Today.
The police, who interviewed the 16-year-old blogger who had put the clips on his website, have also told him that no charges will be pressed.
"They only asked me down (to the police station) because they were curious how I got the videos," wrote the teen in his blog.
The incidents occurred at Yishun and Admiralty stations.
SMRT has been looking into the police findings since the start of March, but now its investigations into the circulation of the closed-circuit television footage (CCTV) are over.
"We have reviewed our processes to control access to such material. This has already been completed and implemented," said the SMRT spokesperson. Now, "access to CCTV footage is only upon authorisation by one designated senior member of the company".
Meanwhile, there will be changes to make areas around MRT and LRT stations barrier-free over the next five years.
The LTA is installing road facilities for the less mobile within a 400-metre radius of all stations, following a successful trial at Simei MRT station late last year.
The entire project will cost $60 million and will be implemented first in mature estates such as Redhill and Commonwealth.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/185048print.asp -
nothing wrong what, ask to help in the investigation is ok.
-
The media always has this agenda in making it seem that everyone who is helping in police investigation look like a criminal.
-
I saw one clip of SingaporeÂ’s MRT suicide. This clip is not a gruesome aftermath scene.
The commuters on the platform could not have seen him. The victim hid under the platform just beside the tracks. He threw himself on the tracks and was run over by the approaching train. -
the police is just asking him some questions. why do people need to think that the police is abusing their powers? its natural for the police to gather evidence to enable them to solve the situation as soon as possible.
-
well i'm not sure what findings the police turned over to smrt but if it was the details of the person then i would guess its abuse or overstepping boundaries to reveal pple's information to a private company for a non-police/criminal matter. that would include who the perrson was or how he got the video too i guess.
callign the person down for questioning, would have to see whats the reason for it. -
The clip I saw is definitely captured from SMRTÂ’s cctv.
ThereÂ’s no mystery if the investigation was indeed carried out properly. ItÂ’s an inside job.
Could be the cheeky son of someone senior that leaked the video to the internet.
Anyway whatÂ’s the charge if the culprit is caught? -
thats the point the footage was from smrt which means its a internal matter. for the police to be involved and providing infor to smrt for this issue, there should be reason.Originally posted by googoomuck:The clip I saw is definitely captured from SMRTÂ’s cctv.
ThereÂ’s no mystery if the investigation was indeed carried out properly. ItÂ’s an inside job.
Could be the cheeky son of someone senior that leaked the video to the internet.
Anyway whatÂ’s the charge if the culprit is caught? -
There's something wrong with this whole case. The Police, LTA and SMRT each has a copy of the video footage when the two suicides happened.
Why is only the police involved in investigating SMRT? There hasn't been any internal checks in LTA and SPF as far as I know of.
It's an insider's job as far as the video footage leakage is concerned. However, only parts of the video footage is leaked out, showing signs that it's a hurried job.
There's also another issue. If it's done by an insider, doesn't SMRT has any sense of shame? To bring in the police and letting them tell the whole of Singapore that some idiot leaked out those info is not what a private company should do if they are really concerned. This shows that the company basically has no security safeguards for confidential files, allowing any employee, perhaps someone faking as an employee to gain access to those files.
The police are too fast and too sure. SMRT is not making any sense in their actions either. If it's ploy, good one. If it's not a ploy, it's another cover up. -
And the question will be - why someone unrelated can have access to the files? Or rather, how come they are able to bring such confidential files home for his/her son to upload (assuming that it's true) to various video sharing websites? It's not just on YouTube, it's on several other sites.Originally posted by googoomuck:Could be the cheeky son of someone senior that leaked the video to the internet. -
well, next time if TS have problems and need police to help, suggest police just dun bother with this TS. Why? bcos, calling down ppl who may be involved with TS problems, to assist in an investigation, is "uncalled for". So let TS be lor......
-
actually if might not even be the actual clip, if you look at this clip, I think you can make out the flickering commonly seen in capture of videos from a screen source.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:And the question will be - why someone unrelated can have access to the files? Or rather, how come they are able to bring such confidential files home for his/her son to upload (assuming that it's true) to various video sharing websites? It's not just on YouTube, it's on several other sites.
The person who copied it probably tried to minimise the screen refresh rate using software.
Personally, I still believe that the aim of getting the Public to learn that SMRT has been lying about not having recordable CCTVs during the Clementi incident outweighs the illegality of the act. -
If it's not the actual clip, nice trick.Originally posted by LazerLordz:actually if might not even be the actual clip, if you look at this clip, I think you can make out the flickering commonly seen in capture of videos from a screen source.
The person who copied it probably tried to minimise the screen refresh rate using software.
Personally, I still believe that the aim of getting the Public to learn that SMRT has been lying about not having recordable CCTVs during the Clementi incident outweighs the illegality of the act.
I'm pretty sure SMRT does have recordable CCTVs, but whether or not it's possible to record a proper video in times of accident is still a question. The camera angle in stations are quite bad. If they are able to record down anything, it has got to be near them. -
But they did record a proper video for those incidents did they not?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:If it's not the actual clip, nice trick.
I'm pretty sure SMRT does have recordable CCTVs, but whether or not it's possible to record a proper video in times of accident is still a question. The camera angle in stations are quite bad. If they are able to record down anything, it has got to be near them.
So why all the "we can't do it" statements? -
Woodlands and Yishun accidents, yes.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:But they did record a proper video for those incidents did they not?
So why all the "we can't do it" statements?
The other 2, supposedly to have, but not very clear. I think Mediacorp showed one of the clips, but too blur to make out anything.
The Yishun one is very clear... if you actually have seen the clip. Woodlands one... not so sure... I have doubts if it's the real one. -
The police will questioned the 16 yrs old boy as to WHERE he got the clips from and once the source has been revealed, the police will then track down the source. This will go on until the main culprit is caught lor.
Of coz, in the police station the questioning will be in a 'no-nonsense' kind of way and if the boy gives the name of the person he got the clips from then he shouldn't have any problems. But if he tried to protect his friend then he would have been treated like a 'criminal' for not co-operating lor. That's the same for anyone who with-holds info from the police. They are serious about their work so the public, if called, should consider it as a civic duty rather than a harassment when being called to the police station to help provide info. -
prob its as simple as that....
or the boy was asked to play the whole issue down...
or smrt will take legal action against him.. -
Is the LTA more interested in establishing its own versions of rights or wrongs over the accidents or incidents taped or claimed to be taped or is the LTA willing to be more accountable to customers and citizens over their efficiency in running the system.
It all depends on the perspective of LTA, If the perspective or objective is wrong and LTA becomes more interested to confronting people over the tape, it will miss another opportunity to re-examine the safety and other connected issues in the running of LTA.