More concern over Computer Crimes Act

Controversy has arisen once more about amendments to the Computer Crimes Act, with academics urging the government to remove content regulations from the Act and let it deal solely with “pure” computer crime.

A law lecturer revealed problems with a draft of new computer-crime legislation that is currently in the hands of the Information and Communications Technology Ministry, and called on the government to revise it transparently.

Law lecturer Sawatree Suksir, who studied the draft legislation, said at Thammasat University that the draft contained a lot of vague terms and, in some articles, the purposes of law enforcement were unclear. Punishments were also increased.

“There are two main changes in the new draft [amendments to the Computer Crimes Act]. Existing term definitions have been changed and some have been added. Overall, the new draft is more vague and unclear in term definitions and the levels of punishment are increased,” Sawatree said.

She listed eight topics in the new draft that she believes need revision. First, it should have clearer definitions of specific terms, especially “computer system” and “service provider”. At present, the meanings are so vague and unclear that they might cause problems in law enforcement.

Second, the new definitions of terms and punishments proposed in the draft might have a negative impact on the ICT industry in terms of development and business. For example, in Article 6 of the draft, which defines a wider scope for actions defined as illegal, instead of it being illegal for people to know the “preventive measures” employed by another person or company in order to secure their computer systems, the new draft defines as illegal simply knowing “procedures” or “how to” access another party’s computer system.

Third, Sawatree said the new draft was unclear about the objectives of law enforcement in many matters. These issues were so vaguely stated that regulators were left with too much power to identify illegal behaviour.

Fourth, there are many points in the new draft that duplicate existing laws and acts, and some cases, these conflict and could create confusion in law enforcement.

Fifth, punishments in the new draft are unclear; sixth, the draft has many unclear terms; and seventh, increased punishments are proposed for “service providers” as middlemen, while the term itself has an unclear definition.

In Sawatree’s eighth point, she asks what interests will be represented on a new committee proposed under the draft, and how its members will be selected.

She said she agreed with other critics that the existing Computer Crimes Act 2007 had many problems. However, if a new Act is to be drafted to replace it, the government should conduct the process with transparency, and in full public view.

Moreover, the government should revise the real objectives of the Act and make it clearer in terms of definition and law enforcement. It should not give too much power to law enforcers and regulators to interpret the meaning of the Act.

“We want the government to balance law enforcement and people’s rights,” she said.
Meanwhile, Electronic Transactions Agency director Surangkana Wayuparb, who is a member of the team drafting the new computer-crime legislation, said she accepted that Articles 14 and 24 of the new draft should be adjusted. She is trying to “push the digital-content regulations” with the aim of developing and promoting the concept of self-regulation among users and providers.

Thailand Development Research Institute vice president Somkiat Tangkitvanich said the Computer Crimes Act should legislate solely for purely computer crime. Issues related to content on computer systems should be separate, and perhaps form an “electronic part” of criminal procedure law.

Pantip.com’s owner Wanchat Padungrat said he agreed with the concept of making the Computer Crimes Act pertain only to purely computer crime, without regulations concerning content.

However, he said there was no conclusion yet to the issue of amending the existing legislation. The new draft of the Computer Crimes Act is still with the ICT Ministry and there has been no mention of it going to the Cabinet for approval.