KUALA LUMPUR, 7 Mac — The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock was told today that no information on short messaging service (SMS) and calls made, received or missed on the day the political aide was found dead could be retrieved from the handphones belonging to six Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.
An assistant analyst at the computer crime section of the Royal Malaysian Police forensic laboratory, Inspector Mohd Zaidi Abu Hassan, said the information that was available in the telephones were those made and received after July 22, 2009.
The information on the important dates, like July 15, 16 and 17, 2009, could not be detected, due to the limited storage of data in the telephone or because the telephones were new, he added.
Mohd Zaidi was given five handphones belonging to Hairul Ilham Hamzah, Azim Hafiz Jamaluddin, Mohd Asraf Mohd Yunos, Mohd Anuar Ismail and Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim to be analysed on July 23, 2009.
However, he said he was only able to analyse four of the handphones because the one belonging to Mohd Nadzri had a “PIN lock key”.
On August 13, 2009, Mohd Zaidi was given two handphones belonging to Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim to be analysed, but found that they also did not have the information on the dates requested (July 15,16 and 17).
Earlier, Mohd Zaidi told the commission that he used the “XRY” software to detect the information from all the handphones.
Teoh, 30, who was the political aide of Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009, after being questioned overnight at the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on the 14th floor.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak ordered the setting up of the commission on January 25 this year to investigate into Teoh’s death after the Coroner’s Court returned an open verdict on the case.
The commission is chaired by Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen, while the members comprise former Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, former Appeal Court judge Datuk T. Selventhiranathan, Penang Hospital’s forensic pathologist Datuk Dr Bhupinder Singh and the Dean of Cyberjaya Medical Science College University, Professor Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom.
The proceeding continues tomorrow. — Bernama
Lu biar serious..........for real?
Always thought that the Government had the ability to extract historical Call Level Data be it location details, to and from data, SMS contents etc from the Telco companies especially to assist in police investigation or missing person case...
Apparently not I guess...
Terkejut jugak gua....ini macam sampai mampus lu takkan tahu gua sape
Lets take a look at Jolobu Bingai power...
Section 268. Minister may make rules on record-keeping.
The Minister may make rules, to be published in the Gazette, to provide for record-keeping and to require one or more licensees or persons to keep and retain records go here
Not only he has that power he also has "Lawful Intercept Powers"
Section 265. Network interception capability.
(1) The Minister may determine that a licensee or class of licensees shall implement the capability to allow authorised interception of communications.
(2) A determination, under subsection (1), may specify the technical requirements for authorised interception capability.go here
So did Jolobu Bingai made the rules for Record Keeping or Data Retention??
Gua google bagai nak rak....
The only thing I could find is a consultation paper in 2003 and its report a year after...
You wanna know something else....the so called Record Keeping Rules does not even include DETAILED RECORDS
Let us look at some global standards on Record Keeping
The EU Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC) provides an obligation for providers of publicly available electronic communications services and of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for six months up to two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection, and prosecution of serious crime.
There is an on-going debate on Privacy Vs Government Monitoring Capabilities go here to learn about what is at stake.
For more info on data retention guidelines in other jurisdictions go here
OK lets go back to the RCI observation...
Let us assume if we had the necessary infrastructure in place...
The Investigating Officer in consideration of the severity of the event, could have requested via the Inter-Department Information Sharing Mechanism (kalau ada la) to the Minister in charge of MCMC to
- Collect all communications within the last 48 hours of all parties that could have been in contact with TBH
- Initiate Lawful intercept of All Parties connected to TBH including his family members, workmates etc
- Find out what transpired before his death and of how the information of TBH death was communicated among the parties involved...
Start with that.......reconstruct and monitor......everybody leaves a digital trail these days....
There was no need to get the phones.....especially getting it 6 days after or in the case of the Deputy Director's phone on August 13...
Parah siut ..... our law enforcement....kena tech savvy sikit la brader......
So where do we go from here?
Perhaps we should ask the police whether there was any request or order for a Lawful intercept?
What ever it is ....Jolobu bingai must look into his powers under Section 265 and 268 to figure out how best to harness it in the interest of National Security, Anti Terrorism, Serious Crimes Investigation and Government Intelligence and Skodeng activities
That "Consultation Paper" is already 7 years old...kojo la sikit pakcik ekau tu dah la bingai...