• 
• 

Published on July 21, 2007

Democracy and rights advocates, both here and abroad, have greeted the Computer-related Crimes Act that went into effect this week with considerable alarm, and understandably so. Since the bill was enacted at a time when the country is under the rule of a military junta, it was a foregone conclusion that it would be subjected to intense scrutiny. But that is no excuse for its shortcomings. For all of its measures designed to combat increasingly sophisticated digital crimes, critics have correctly pointed out one glaring flaw that overshadows the rest of the act's content: the lack of respect it shows for liberty, freedom and privacy.

Will the law be effective? Yes, very likely. However, legal and democratic principles demand that laws not only be effective, but that they are also not repressive. In the case of the Computer-related Crimes Act, there are clauses that could be abused and used as tools to suppress political freedom. And those clauses are damaging not only to the law itself, but also to the already questionable reputation of the interim Parliament, as well as the closely watched political process in Thailand overall. The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) did not do the military junta any favours with those controversial clauses. In fact, nobody was helped by the introduction of these highly sensitive measures that affect all Internet users at a time when laws are being passed with extremely limited public input and when Thailand is being closely watched by the world following controversial incidents involving the junta and cyberspace.

To be fair, the strong points of the law are clear. It will help electronic commerce and national security and should as a result encourage online transactions through a safer cyber-environment. Law-enforcement agencies will be able to more effectively deal with crimes committed via computers or the Internet, such as hacking, unlawfully accessing computers or network resources, and the unauthorised interception of e-mails or data transmission with the aim of committing theft or doing harm to others. Without this law, law-enforcement officials would be unable to apply the Criminal Code and initiate criminal proceedings in order to go after cyber-criminals.

Critics counter with a strong and simple argument: The military rulers have passed a law that will also allow authorities to peek into users' Internet lives - the websites they visit, the political comments they leave on Web boards, their e-mail contacts, and so on. Of course, such intrusions are only possible - whether they will happen or not depends on how responsible law-enforcement officials are in applying the law. However, that a law has created the fear of such intrusions and possible persecution as a result is enough to make it deplorable.

The law will require ISPs to back up user information, which will increase their cost of doing business. While this should improve security on all sides and create a more conducive business environment,  this information storage could be a double-edged sword. Repressive leaders could use that information to suppress political dissent.

Can we have the best of both worlds? Can Thailand enforce a good law to combat digital crimes without infringing on democratic freedoms? How can we measure the greater feeling of security we have conducting online business against the knowledge that the government might be spying on our e-mails? Would we prefer a "cleaner" cyberspace, knowing that senders of filthy-emails or porn Web operators might somehow be hindered by the prospect of legal punishment, or would we never trade our present Net liberties for that?

There are no easy answers, but critics are right in pointing out that many of the issues should have been tackled by a democratic Parliament. It's up to elected politicians to amend the controversial parts of this act to suit the true spirit of democracy.

The outcry over the Computer-related Crimes Act will hopefully serve as a warning to the junta and the NLA and, if they are reasonable enough, the backlash against the act could be a blessing in disguise as far as a more controversial bill is concerned. The Internal Security Bill has a greater potential to show how "security" and "freedom" can clash and lead to volatile politics. If it is forwarded to the NLA, instead of being shelved pending an elected Parliament, the interim leadership can expect a civil uproar that will make the criticism against the computer bill sound like music to their ears.