Draft Cyber Protection Ordinance still contains 'repressive' provisions: TIB

Highlights

• TIB warns of misuse of Cyber Protection Ordinance
• Ordinance risks undermining its objectives due to lack of consultation 
• The watchdog calls for revisions based on expert and stakeholder feedback
• Expert says defamation claims could lead to arrests without warrants

There is room for misuse of the proposed Cybersecurity Ordinance as the recently formulated draft contains some "repressive" provisions similar to those in the controversial Cybersecurity Act, according to the Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB).

In a press conference at its office today (31 December), the watchdog stated that the hasty finalisation of the draft, without consulting experts and stakeholders, has led to the inclusion of such provisions.

Therefore, it is crucial to quickly revise the draft based on discussions with experts and stakeholders, incorporating their feedback, it said.

On 24 December, the draft of the Cyber Protection Ordinance, 2024 was approved in a meeting of the interim government's advisory council. The government says it aims to make cyberspace safe for all the vulnerable, ensuring media freedom at the same time.

However, TIB believes that the ordinance's objectives could be undermined due to the lack of consultations with all stakeholders before approving the draft, the organisation's executive director, Dr Iftekharuzzaman said at the press briefing.

He said, "Our country has a Law Commission, so why was it not involved in drafting the ordinance? These are the questions that remain. We are concerned about this issue.

"We did not expect this, at least, from the interim government. If they believe this is applicable only during the interim period, even then, risks will remain. It is essential to consider how much scope for misuse this could create for those who come to power afterward."

The TIB boss said, "While digital rights are mentioned in the draft, we see no reflection of rights-based principles throughout the ordinance. Instead, we see concepts, processes, or opportunities that infringe upon rights, which is unacceptable.

"The proposed law uses many terms that lack clear definitions, creating opportunities for misuse due to their vagueness."

He further stated that the authority granted to the director general of the proposed National Cybersecurity Agency and the police to regulate freedom of speech, expression, and association aligns with the provisions of the previous Cyber Security Act. 

"We find this quite complex. Many terms in the law lack clear definitions, creating opportunities for misuse due to ambiguity."

At the press briefing, "Cyber Protection Ordinance, 2024: TIB's Review" was presented virtually by Dr Muhammad Ershadul Karim, associate professor in the Department of Law and Emerging Technologies at the University of Malaya, Malaysia.

He stated that the proposed ordinance grants excessive powers to the director general of the National Cybersecurity Agency. Under Section 8 of the ordinance, the director general may request the relevant authority to remove or block any information posing "cybersecurity risks".

He explained that if such powers are granted without judicial oversight, there is a risk that these provisions could be misused. This provision could therefore pose an obstacle to achieving the ordinance's objectives.

Ershadul Karim mentioned that section 25A of the ordinance defines cyberbullying as intimidating, threatening, or harassing individuals or groups online, along with spreading harmful information, defamatory content, or abusive language that damages a person's reputation or mental health.

"The way cyberbullying is defined in the ordinance could lead to the misuse of the provision." 

He stated that people will be hesitant to speak for fear of offending others, and the space for criticism will shrink. Journalists will also have to report with this provision in mind.

If someone feels defamed, insulted, or mentally harmed, they could file a case, and the police might arrest them without a warrant, he said.

Ershadul Karim further pointed out that the provision includes the dissemination of information lacking artistic or educational value. The question arises, however, about the false information that circulates on social media – such content has no artistic or educational merit, yet now there's a risk of lawsuits for spreading it. This opens the door to multiple interpretations in legal cases.

He also noted that cybercrime, cybersecurity, and speech offenses have been conflated in the ordinance, which is problematic as such issues cannot be addressed under a single law.