| 
						Thailand seeks to tighten 
						cyber security, raising questions about privacy 
						protection 
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [November 22, 2016] 
		By Patpicha Tanakasempipat 
 BANGKOK 
		(Reuters) - Thailand's military government, which has cracked down on 
		online dissent since seizing power in 2014, is pushing ahead with cyber 
		security bills that rights groups say could mean more extensive online 
		monitoring, raising concerns over privacy protection.
 
 Amendments to Thailand's 2007 Computer Crime Act to be considered by 
		parliament next month have come under fire from critics who say the bill 
		could give state officials sweeping powers to spy on internet users and 
		restrict online speech.
 
 Critics say parliament is likely to approve the amendments because 
		lawmakers voted unanimously to pass the bill in its first reading.
 
 The amendments come as the military government has ramped up online 
		censorship since the May 2014 coup, particularly perceived insults to 
		the royal family, as it tries to ensure a smooth transition following 
		the death of revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej on Oct. 13 and ahead of a 
		2017 general election.
 
 Since the coup, the government has shut down or blocked thousands of 
		websites it has deemed offensive or inappropriate.
 
		 
		The amendments to the cyber law, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, have 
		pro-democracy activists worried that they could lead to arbitrary 
		invasion of privacy without a court warrant.
 Sam Zarifi, Asia Director at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 
		a Geneva-based non-governmental organization, said the amendments would 
		strengthen the government's ability to silence speech that it deems 
		violates Thailand's lese-majeste law, a crime that is punishable by up 
		to 15 years in prison.
 
 "This absolutely curbs free expression," Zarifi told Reuters.
 
 In the amendments, Articles 18 and 19 of the Computer Crime Act say 
		state officials can obtain user and traffic data from service providers 
		without court approval and can seize a computer device within an 
		unspecified time period.
 
 Article 20 says a website that could threaten national security or 
		"offend people's good morals" can be removed or suspended. A committee 
		would be in charge of flagging suspicious content.
 
 The current law says officials need court approval to remove content.
 
 In a statement last month, the ICJ and four other rights groups called 
		for Thailand's parliament, or National Legislative Assembly, to reject 
		the draft. The National Human Rights Commission has also opposed the 
		amendments.
 
 Members of the National Legislative Assembly declined to comment on the 
		cyber security bills when contacted by Reuters.
 
			
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
            
			An employee works inside a server room at a company in Bangkok, 
			Thailand, November 22, 2016. REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha 
            
			
 
		
		The amendments will be followed by the Cyber Security Act and the 
		Personal Data Protection Act, which the government has approved in 
		principle and aims to pass through parliament by March.
 Experts say the Computer Crime Act is a benchwarmer for the more 
		dangerous Cyber Security Act, which would allow the state to wiretap 
		phones and computers without judicial approval.
 
		
		"These laws are aimed at controlling online media, accessing personal 
		data, and when the Cyber Security bill is passed, mass surveillance is a 
		real threat," said Kanathip Thongraweewong, a data privacy expert at 
		Saint John's University in Bangkok.
 Under the act, a National Cyber Security Committee will have the power 
		to order any state or private agency to do anything without judicial 
		oversight.
 
 The committee could take down whatever it wants, said Arthit 
		Suriyawongkul of the Thai Netizen Network group, which has campaigned 
		against the bills.
 
 Drafts of the bills show the committee's secretary will also serve as 
		secretary in the Personal Data Protection Committee, raising conflict of 
		interest questions.
 
 "A committee that protects people's rights and freedom should be 
		independent from the state, especially when the state is a potential 
		violator," said Arthit.
 
 (Editing by Amy Sawitta Lefevre and Nick Macfie)
 
				 
			[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
			
			 |