Informer
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 29, 2006
- 1,606
- 6,672
The central theme of the bill is to regulate how online content is produced and disseminated (Article 7). It provides unchecked powers to both the minister responsible (Art. 39) as well as the police force to unlawfully search a suspects data and/or source of information. Not only does it pose a serious risk to citizen journalism, but threatens to punish very strongly whistle blowers (Article 15) who are important actors in building government transparency.
Some of the offences punishable under the proposed law include pornography, provision of false information (inaccurate data), cyber bullying, racism and xenophobia.
The provision of inaccurate information is made unlawful under this proposed law (Art. 16) punishable by up to Tshs. 3, 000,000. Despite the serious flaw in that precedence itself, the bill does not concisely provide the authority responsible for the verification of such data.
According to Article 20, both the sources as well as the recipients are liable in the transmission of unlawful online data. The proposed law requires that service providers (Art 32) are liable to provide information on their clients upon demand let alone the unlimited powers provided to the police force (Art. 31) to search users of online data in the absence of a court order (more like in the sense of an unlawful stop and search).
The provision on cyber bulling is left blurred which opens up room for the prosecution of immaterial suspicion of cyber bullying as the proposed law itself does not clearly define cyber bullying (Art 23).
All in all the proposed law definitely provides for potential state brutality against online users and providers of internet services not to mention serious violation of Freedom of information. Unchecked powers of both the police force and the responsible minister make it highly unlawful and incompatible any regional or international standards on right to information and cyber security.
Some articles interpret the burden of responsibility for transmitted data in a rather controversial way
Article 7 (2)b: A person who receives unauthorised computer data commits an offence..
Without any recognition of the fact that receiving data. E.g. in the form of emails, viruses, etc is often beyond your control.
Article 20 (1): a person shall not (a) initiate the transmission of unsolicited messages; (b) relay or retransmit unsolicited messages... where unsolicited messages means any electronic message which is not solicited by the recipient.
- Parts of the Act are (purposefully?) vague and open to very broad and possibly problematic interpretations
Article 18 (1): a person shall not insult another person through a computer system on the basis of race, colour descent, nationality, ethnic origin or religion.
Article 23 (1): a person shall not initiate or send any electronic communication using a computer system to another person with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause emotional distress
No parameters set out as to what insult or emotional distress, etc, means and no reference to another set of laws or mother law that would set such parameters.
- Disclosure of data, article 32- potentially negative consequences for whistleblowers, journalist sources, etc.
Articles 32-35
These articles force service provider to give out data of their clients to the police without any court order (subpoena), The police with such unbridled authority are defined as police officer in-charge of a police station or a law enforcement officer of a similar rank. It gives this authority even on terms of suspicion.
Articles 39-45
Service providers are said to be protected but under certain conditions. In article 39 the minister is given too much power to decide, regulate and to remove information about given issue.
Some of the offences punishable under the proposed law include pornography, provision of false information (inaccurate data), cyber bullying, racism and xenophobia.
The provision of inaccurate information is made unlawful under this proposed law (Art. 16) punishable by up to Tshs. 3, 000,000. Despite the serious flaw in that precedence itself, the bill does not concisely provide the authority responsible for the verification of such data.
According to Article 20, both the sources as well as the recipients are liable in the transmission of unlawful online data. The proposed law requires that service providers (Art 32) are liable to provide information on their clients upon demand let alone the unlimited powers provided to the police force (Art. 31) to search users of online data in the absence of a court order (more like in the sense of an unlawful stop and search).
The provision on cyber bulling is left blurred which opens up room for the prosecution of immaterial suspicion of cyber bullying as the proposed law itself does not clearly define cyber bullying (Art 23).
All in all the proposed law definitely provides for potential state brutality against online users and providers of internet services not to mention serious violation of Freedom of information. Unchecked powers of both the police force and the responsible minister make it highly unlawful and incompatible any regional or international standards on right to information and cyber security.
Some articles interpret the burden of responsibility for transmitted data in a rather controversial way
Article 7 (2)b: A person who receives unauthorised computer data commits an offence..
Without any recognition of the fact that receiving data. E.g. in the form of emails, viruses, etc is often beyond your control.
Article 20 (1): a person shall not (a) initiate the transmission of unsolicited messages; (b) relay or retransmit unsolicited messages... where unsolicited messages means any electronic message which is not solicited by the recipient.
- Parts of the Act are (purposefully?) vague and open to very broad and possibly problematic interpretations
Article 18 (1): a person shall not insult another person through a computer system on the basis of race, colour descent, nationality, ethnic origin or religion.
Article 23 (1): a person shall not initiate or send any electronic communication using a computer system to another person with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass or cause emotional distress
No parameters set out as to what insult or emotional distress, etc, means and no reference to another set of laws or mother law that would set such parameters.
- Disclosure of data, article 32- potentially negative consequences for whistleblowers, journalist sources, etc.
Articles 32-35
These articles force service provider to give out data of their clients to the police without any court order (subpoena), The police with such unbridled authority are defined as police officer in-charge of a police station or a law enforcement officer of a similar rank. It gives this authority even on terms of suspicion.
Articles 39-45
Service providers are said to be protected but under certain conditions. In article 39 the minister is given too much power to decide, regulate and to remove information about given issue.
