FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AS-177-2007
July 25, 2007
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
THAILAND: Unintelligible computer “law” passed under junta’s watch
On 10 June 2007 the military-appointed interim prime minister of Thailand signed into effect a new law on computer-related offences. The Computer Crime Act BE 2550 (2007), which was published in the government gazette just over a week later, is ostensibly intended to prevent violations of computer privacy and block the spread of pornography through the Internet.
These objectives are well and good; however, as has been pointed out by the advocacy groups Campaign for Popular Media Reform and Freedom Against Censorship-Thailand, the act grants enormous powers to persons designated as “competent officials” to obtain, search and copy computer data, and seize hardware. It also obliges Internet service providers to preserve all user records for 90 days, in the event that the said officials wish to access them.
The Asian Human Rights Commission has additional concerns. Section 14 of the act imposes a maximum of five years’ imprisonment on anyone found to have imported data that might “damage national security or cause public alarm”. Section 20 allows that where data are disseminated that “might be contradictory to the peace and concord or good morals of the people” a competent official can seek a court injunction to stop this activity. Nowhere in the act is there any description of what exactly–or even broadly–might cause damage national security or contradict peace and morality. By contrast, section 21, on the restriction or destruction of data containing “undesirable instructions” stipulates what these constitute or may be found to constitute.
The passing of this so-called “act” again raises questions about the notion of law in Thailand, not least of all under the present military dictatorship. One of the key features of law, as it is properly understood, is certainty. This is a reason for its written codification: so that everyone may be informed of its contents and features, and so that the average person may be able to guide their behaviour accordingly. Where an act is so vague as to ensure that anything that the state deems threatening to its interests can fall within its ambit, upon what grounds can a person decide what to do or what not to do to stay within the confines of the law? Can it properly be called a law at all? This is the same feature of the emergency regulations over the southern provinces of Thailand, and the proposed new national security legislation, that have caused so many difficulties and so much anxiety.
Another basic principle of law is its enforceability. An act that cannot be enforced is good for nothing; in fact, it may have the opposite effect of what it intended, reducing the credibility of law-enforcement agencies and respect among the public for the notion of law itself. In this regard, section 17 of the new computer-related crimes act is particularly problematic, as it prescribes that persons not residing in Thailand responsible for offences under its other parts may also be “penalised within the Kingdom”. How they would be investigated and penalised remains a mystery; however, in including this section the drafters are perhaps hoping to take aim at the international supporters of the former government, who have been running circles around it throughout cyberspace and getting their version of events through to people in Thailand via their computers at a time that the broadcast media–which is for the most part under the control of the armed forces and bureaucracy–is telling nothing, and the print media is telling only part.
In the Computer Crime Act the military regime and its underlings are showing their weaknesses, not strengths. The government of Thailand has no real capacity to control and delimit what goes in and out of the computers that are now spread from Bangkok to small towns and villages in every part of the country. Instead, through a deliberately unintelligible document passed off as law it is apparently hoping to bring down some of the persons most likely to cause offence to its interests, now and in the future, and frighten everyone else away in the process. Irrespective of whether or not it has any success, the Asian Human Rights Commission– an organisation relying heavily on the use of the Internet for the defence of human rights and basic freedoms–objects to the spirit, contents and real intentions of this act, and strongly supports calls for its withdrawal or amendment. The act should be kept in abeyance until such a time as an elected government is in place and able to conduct a proper debate on its contents and implications for the millions of computer users in Thailand.
