Thread: Computer crime bill still needs work: experts

Thais consider the costs of its three-year-old Computer Crime Act to free expression
2 August 2010

It has been three years since the enactment of Thailand's controversial Computer Crime Act, a law that critics and experts say has had a troubling and detrimental impact on free expression in the country.

The law was introduced in 2007 under the post-coup government of General Surayudh Chulanont. In that context it was immediately assailed as a political weapon by critics who claimed that the legislation was passed to stifle online discussions and criticism of the coup that ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, as well as to head off debates about the roles and influence of the military and the monarchy in the Kingdom's realities.

Beyond the realities and rationale behind its enactment, however, the Computer Crime Act has been criticized for its vague provisions and harsh penalties. The law empowers authorities to block or shut down websites deemed as harmful by the State, and it can also mete out prison terms over disputed news, commentary, and information disseminated online, and thus have a chilling effect on people's behavior and discussions over the Internet.

Computer Crimes

The crimes that this law addresses can be divided along two lines. The first deals with conventional crimes committed online, like illegal access to data, hacking, spamming, and others.

It is the second set of defined crimes that has become controversial. According to a legal analysis report prepared by Thai media lawyer Sinfah Tunsarawuth and international free expression expert Toby Mendel, the Computer Crime Act's Sections 14 and 15, in particular, dealing as they do with matters of national security and lese majeste, are open to broad interpretations, and in any case compound already existing provisions in the Penal Code about the same issues.

Because national security and lese majeste are broadly interpreted and applied, it has become too easy to invoke such accusations under the Computer Crime Act. Section 15, which broadens the definition of who is liable for online content to include Internet Service Providers (ISPs) themselves, also makes it too easy to cast the net of accusation too wide. These points, taken with harsher penalties prescribed by the Act relative to what already exists in the Penal Code, all come together to create an intimidating environment online, an environment that will tend to stifle free expression.

To be sure, Thai Internet advocates say, the ability to categorize "computer crimes" along the two lines above acknowledges how the Computer Crime Act had its genesis long before its passage in 2007. The first bill for such a law was filed years earlier, at a time when computer hacking and online pornography were the main issues associated with the Internet.

Subsequent political developments, including the military coup against the government of Thaksin, however, affected the ultimate passage of the law, the critics contend.

Vast powers

In a seminar held by the Thai Netizens Network on 21 July 2010, representatives from both mainstream and online media, along with media activists, aired their criticisms of the law.

Media lawyer Tunsarawuth noted how authorities tasked to implement the law enjoy vast powers. Section 18 of the Computer Crime Act gives the authorities the power to investigate and gather evidence of an offense committed by or via computer. Data or traffic from any computer system suspected of being used for an offense can be copied, while computer data or computer systems can be accessed to gather evidence. Authorized officials can also demand for passwords and decode any person’s computer data, and seize or attach any computer system for up to 90 days as part of their investigation and gathering of evidence.

One problem, Sinfah said, is that the law does not stipulate how these powers are to be used, thus opening them to abuse. As stated in his and Mendel's report: "The powers under Section 18 are set out in eight sub-sections, but the Act does not indicate how the competent officials should apply them. As a result, officials have the discretion to choose which procedure they wish to use, regardless of the impact this might have on the suspect. Officials, for example, can choose to seize an entire computer system or data storage device, rather than simply copying the data they want and returning the computer." Clearly a case of overkill.

Meanwhile, the law also empowers the authorities to shut down a web site through a court order. But media advocates note that Thailand's Constitution (Article 45) bars the closing down of media outlets. The Constitution clearly intended media outlets to include traditional forms of mass media, such as print and broadcasting. Critics of the Computer Crime Act said web-based outlets, too, should be accorded the same protection. Prasong Lertrattanawisut, president of the Thai Journalists Association (TJA), said there are matters concerning the shutting down of entire websites that must be submitted to the Constitutional Court for resolution.

The Computer Crime Act also provides harsher penalties compared to the Penal Code. For example, a person convicted of defamation under the Computer Crime Act can be meted a prison term of three years, as compared to two years under the Penal Code for the same offense.

Another criticism of the Computer Crime Act is its provision on the liability of Internet service providers or intermediaries. Tunsarawuth said that unlike its counterpart laws in Europe and the US, Thailand's Computer Crime Act assigns a certain degree of liability to intermediaries like Internet service providers (ISPs) and webmasters.

As an example: Chiranuch Premchaiporn, executive director of the Prachatai.com website has been charged with 10 counts of violating Sections 14 and 15 of the Computer Crime Act, each one carrying a penalty of five years. Her supposed offense: Nothing she did or said or wrote herself. Instead, Chiranuch is accused of failing—as Prachatai webmaster—to take down from the Prachatai web board comments which the government deemed as insulting to the monarchy.

Chiranuch and Tunsarawuth say Section 15, which holds ISPs and webmasters accountable for every single comment posted on their sites, is problematic as it places unrealistic burdens on webmasters, ISPs, and non-editorial gatekeepers who have to contend with potentially hundreds if not thousands of lines of commentary daily, and ultimately would encourage censorship and self-censorship on many levels. Chiranuch's Prachatai.com site, for example, has "voluntarily" decided to take down its online forums, in a surrender to the impossibility of policing every single item that passes through its boards.

To be sure, in Thailand the debate about free expression online comes with urgency as well as complications when seen against a backdrop of its on-going political conflicts.

The Red vs Yellow protests that have rocked Thailand over the past three years have created harsh, painful, and fiery rhetoric, propaganda, innuendo online, so much that they have often seemed to overwhelm genuine attempts by citizens, officials, and government critics to facilitate more sober, responsible debates.

In the middle of this tense atmosphere, the Thai government—invoking the Computer Crime Act as well as an emergency decree that has lasted for months—has shut down community radio stations, anti-government satellite TV operations, and, by the government's own reckoning, more than 2,200 websites since May alone.

"Impossible to control"

Beyond the legal and political considerations, Sarinee Achavanuntakul, committee member of the Thai Netizen Network, says the Computer Crime Act and attempts to stifle discussion and debates online will only exacerbate a social crisis in Thailand.

Political analyst Suranan Vejjajiva likened attempts to block websites to book burnings of a bygone era. "But the world has changed," he said. "The Internet is impossible [for the government] to control."

The Internet is "an open system," Sarinee added. "If it is blocked, the system will always find ways to get through."

Kan Yuenyong, director of the Siam Intelligence Unit, a Bangkok-based think-tank, illustrated how users of a banned web board—and online forum—migrated over months to various other Internet forums.

SEAPA Executive Director Roby Alampay said that Kan's illustrated migration shows how censorship and online suppression can be impossible to fully enforce, but it also showed how such enforcement needn't be 100-percent efficient to damage society.

Alampay warned that depriving people of venues for legitimate debates and expression of public opinion would eventually cause "only the determined and technologically savvy ones" to persist in their discussions. Worse, suppression in the media—whether mainstream or online—might only engender radicalization and polarization of opinions, with each strain of political discourse being diverted to their own narrow and intolerant channels of discussion.

Sarinee said that by censoring the Internet, through laws like the Computer Crime Act and through methods like the blocking of web sites, the government will only cause large-scale damage in the future.

seapabkk.org

Originally Posted by William

the ICT Ministry

An awful group of piranhas akin to ISOC/CRES and set up by the same folk for the same reason: control of the masses by a tiny, but well armed, 'elite' group...

see also : https://teakdoor.com/thailand-the-roy...n-charged.html (Prachathai admin charged)

this has most likely been posted elsewhere , however I'm putting it up here also .

An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act
Tue, 24/07/2007

On 18 July 2007, the Computer Crime Act B.E.2550 (2007) came into force. It took 9 years from the initial draft to the successful passage by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), appointed by the Council for National Security(CNS). An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act follows.

Computer Crime Act

B.E 2550 (2007)

_____________

Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rex.

Given on this 10th day of June B.E. 2550 (2007)Being the 62nd year if the present reign.

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has been pleasantly pleased to proclaim that as it is deemed appropriate to enact a law governing the commission of a computer-related offence.

His Majesty, therefore, granted His Royal assent for the promulgation of the Computer Crime Act in accord with the recommendation and consent of the National Legislative Assembly as follows:

Section 1 This Act shall be called the "Computer Crime Act B.E 2550 (2007)".

Section 2 This Act will come into force 30 days following the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

Section 3 In this Act,

"Computer System" means a piece of equipment or sets of equipment units, whose function is integrated together, for which sets of instructions and working principles enable it or them to perform the duty of processing data automatically.

"Computer Data" means data, statements, or sets of instructions contained in a computer system, the output of which may be processed by a computer system including electronic data, according to the Law of Electronic Transactions.

"Computer Traffic Data" means data related to computer system-based communications showing sources of origin, starting points, destinations, routes, time, dates, volumes, time periods, types of services or others related to that computer system's communications.

"Service Provider" shall mean:

(1) A person who provides service to the public with respect to access to the Internet or other mutual communication via a computer system, whether on their own behalf, or in the name of, or for the benefit of, another person

(2) A person who provides services with respect to the storage of computer data for the benefit of the other person
"Service User" means a person who uses the services provided by a service provider, with or without fee
"Competent Official" means a person appointed by a Minister to perform duties under this Act.
"Minister" means a Minister who has responsibility and control for the execution of this Act.
Section 4. The Minister of Information and Communications Technology shall have responsibility and control for the execution of this Act and shall have the authority to issue a Ministerial Rule for the purpose of the execution of this Act.
A Ministerial Rule shall be enforceable upon its publication in the Government Gazette.

Chapter 1

Computer-Related Offences

Section 5. Any person illegally accessing a computer system for which a specific access prevention measure that is not intended for their own use is available shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than six months or a fine of not more than ten thousand baht or both.

Section 6. If any person knowing of a measure to prevent access to a computer system specifically created by a third party illegally discloses that measure in a manner that is likely to cause damage to the third party, then they shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht or both.

Section 7. If any person illegally accesses computer data, for which there is a specific access prevention measure not intended for their own use available, then he or she shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than two years or a fine of not more than forty thousand baht or both.

Section 8. Any person who illegally commits any act by electronic means to eavesdrop a third party's computer data in process of being sent in a computer system and not intended for the public interest or general people's use shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht or both.

Section 9. Any person who illegally damages, destroys, corrects, changes or amends a third party's computer data, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both.

Section 10. Any person who illegally commits any act that causes the working of a third party's computer system to be suspended, delayed, hindered or disrupted to the extent that the computer system fails to operate normally shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both.

Section 11 Any person sending computer data or electronic mail to another person and covering up the source of such aforementioned data in a manner that disturbs the other person's normal operation of their computer system shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht.

Section 12. The perpetration of an offence under Section 9 or Section 10 that:
(1) causes damage, whether it be immediate or subsequent and whether it be synchronous to the public shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than ten years or a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht.
(2) is an act that is likely to damage computer data or a computer system related to the country's security, public security and economic security or public services or is an act against computer data or a computer system available for public use shall be subject to imprisonment from three years up to fifteen years and a fine of sixty thousand baht up to three hundred thousand baht.
The commission of an offence under (2) that causes death to another person shall be subject to imprisonment from ten years up to twenty years.

Section 13. Any person who sells or disseminates sets of instructions developed as a tool used in committing an offence under Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10 and Section 11 shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both.

Section 14. If any person commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:
(1) that involves import to a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public;
(2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic;
(3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code;
(4) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data of a pornographic nature that is publicly accessible;
(5) that involves the dissemination or forwarding of computer data already known to be computer data under (1) (2) (3) or (4);

Section 15. Any service provider intentionally supporting or consenting to an offence under Section 14 within a computer system under their control shall be subject to the same penalty as that imposed upon a person committing an offence under Section 14.

Section 16. Any person, who imports to a computer system that is publicly accessible, computer data where a third party's picture appears either created, edited, added or adapted by electronic means or otherwise in a manner that is likely to impair that third party's reputation or cause that third party to be isolated, disgusted or embarrassed, shall be subject to imprisonment for not longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht, or both.
If the commission under paragraph one is a trustworthy action the perpetrator is not guilty.
An offence under paragraph one shall be a compoundable offence.
If a party injured by an offence under paragraph one has died before filing a complaint, then their parents, spouse or children may file a complaint and shall be deemed to be the injured party.

Section 17. Any person committing an offence against this Act outside the Kingdom and;
(1) the offender is Thai and the government of the country where the offence has occurred or the injured party is required to be punished or;
(2) the offender is a non-citizen and the Thai government or Thai person who is an injured party or the injured party is required to be punished;
shall be penalized within the Kingdom.

Chapter 2

Competent Officials

Section 18. Within the power of Section 19 and for the benefit of an investigation, if there is reasonable cause to believethat there is the perpetration of an offence under this Act, then a relevant competent official shall have any of the following authorities only as necessary to identify a person who has committed an offence in order to:
(1) issue an inquiry letter to any person related to the commission of an offence under this Act or summon them to give statements, forward written explanations or any other documents, data or evidence in an understandable form.
(2) call for computer traffic data related to communications from a service user via a computer system or from other relevant persons.
(3) instruct a service provider to deliver to a relevant competent official service users-related data that must be stored under Section 26 or that is in the possession or under the control of a service provider;
(4) copy computer data, computer traffic data from a computer system, in which there is a reasonable cause to believethat offences under this Act have been committed if that computer is not yet in the possession of the competent official;
(5) instruct a person who possesses or controls computer data or computer data storage equipment to deliver to the relevant competent official the computer data or the equipment pieces;
(6) inspect or access a computer system, computer data, computer traffic data or computer data storage equipment belonging to any person that is evidence of, or may be used as evidence related to, the commission of an offence or used in identifying a person who has committed an offence, and instruct that person to send the relevant computer data to all necessary extent as well;
(7) decode any person's computer data or instruct any person related to the encryption of computer data to decode the computer data or cooperate with a relevant competent official in such decoding;
(8) seize or attach the suspect computer system for the purpose of obtaining details of an offence and the person who has committed an offence under this Act;

Section 19. The power of authority of the relevant competent official under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), is given when that competent official files a petition to a court with jurisdiction for an instruction to allow the relevant competent official to take action. However, the petition must identify a reasonable ground to believe that the offender is committing or going to commit an offence under the Act as well as the reason of requesting the authority, including the characteristics of the alleged offense, a description of the equipment used to commit the alleged offensive action and details of the offender, as much as this can be identified. The court should adjudicate urgently such aforementioned petition.
When the court approves permission, and before taking any action according to the court's instruction, the relevant competent official shall submit a copy of the reasonable ground memorandum to show that an authorization under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), must be employed against the owner or possessor of the computer system, as evidence thereof. If there is no owner of such computer thereby, the relevant competent official should submit a copy of said memorandum as soon as possible.
In order to take action under Section 18 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), the senior officer of the relevant competent official shall submit a copy of the memorandum about the description and rationale of the operation to a court with jurisdiction within forty eight (48) hours after the action has been taken as evidence thereof.
When copying computer data under Section 18 (4), and given that it may be done only when there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is an offence against the Act, such action must not excessively interfere or obstruct the business operation of the computer data's owner or possessor.
Regarding seizure or attachment under Section 18 (8), a relevant competent official must issue a letter of seizure or attachment to the person who owns or possesses that computer system as evidence. This is provided, however, that the seizure or attachment shall not last longer than thirty days. If seizure or attachment requires a longer time period, a petition shall be filed at a court with jurisdiction for the extension of the seizure or attachment time period. The court may allow only one or several time extensions, however altogether for no longer than sixty days. When that seizure or attachment is no longer necessary, or upon its expiry date, the competent official must immediately return the computer system that was seized or withdraw the attachment.
The letter of seizure or attachment under paragraph one shall be in accordance with a Ministerial Rule.

Section 20. If an offence under this Act is to disseminate computer data that might have an impact on the Kingdom's security as stipulated in Division 2 type 1 or type 1/1 of the Criminal Code, or that it might be contradictory to the peace and concord or good morals of the people, the competent official appointed by the Minister may file a petition together with the evidence to a court with jurisdiction to restrain the dissemination of such computer data.
If the court gives an instruction to restrain the dissemination of computer data according to paragraph one, the relevant competent official shall conduct the restraint either by himself or instruct the Service Provider to restrain the dissemination of such computer data.

Section 21. If a relevant competent official found that any computer data contains undesirable sets of instructions, a relevant competent official with the authority to prohibit the sale or dissemination of such, may instruct the person who owns or possesses the computer data to suspend the use of, destroy or correct the computer data therein, or to impose a condition with respect to the use, possession or dissemination of the undesirable sets of instructions.
The undesirable sets of instructions under paragraph one shall mean to include sets of instructions that cause computer data, a computer system or other instruction sets to be damaged, destroyed, corrected, changed, added, interrupted or, fail to perform according to pre-determined instructions or otherwise as required by a relevant Ministerial Rule, with the exception of sets of instructions aimed at preventing or correcting the foregoing sets of instructions as required by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.

Section 22. A relevant competent official shall not disclose or deliver computer data, computer traffic data or service users' data acquired under Section 18 to any person.
The provisions under paragraph one shall not apply to any actions performed for the benefit of lodging a lawsuit against a person who has committed an offence under this Act or for the benefit of lodging a lawsuit against a relevant competent official on the grounds of their abuse of authority or for action taken according to a court's instruction or permission.
Any competent official who violates paragraph one must be subject to imprisonment for no longer than three years or a fine of not more than sixty thousand baht, or both.

Section 23. Any competent official who commits an act of negligence that causes a third party to know of computer data, computer traffic data or a service user's data acquired under Section 18 must be subject to imprisonment for no more than one year or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both.

Section 24. Any person knowing of computer data, computer traffic data or a service user's data acquired by a relevant competent official under Section 18 and disclosing it to any person shall be subject to imprisonment for no longer than two years or a fine of not more than forty thousand baht, or both.

Section 25. Data, computer data or computer traffic data that the competent official acquired under this Act shall be admissible as evidence under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code or other relevant law related to the investigation, however, it must not be in the way of influencing, promising, deceiving or other wrongful ways.

Section 26. A service provider must store computer traffic data for at least ninety days from the date on which the data is input into a computer system. However, if necessary, a relevant competent official may instruct a service provider to store data for a period of longer than ninety days but not exceeding one year on a special case by case basis or on a temporary basis.
The service provider must keep the necessary information of the service user in order to be able to identify the service user from the beginning of the service provision, and such information must be kept for a further period not exceeding ninety days after the service agreement has been terminated.
The types of service provider to whom the provisions under paragraph one shall apply and the timing of this application shall be established by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.
A service provider who fails to comply with this Section must be subject to a fine of not more than five hundred thousand baht.

Section 27. If any person fails to comply with the instructions of court or relevant competent official under Section 18 or Section 20 or fails to comply with the court's instruction under Section 21 shall be subject to a fine of not more than two hundred thousand baht and a further daily fine of not more than five thousand baht until the relevant corrective action has been taken.

Section 28. Regarding the appointment of a competent official under this Act, the Minister shall appoint persons with knowledge of, and expertise in, computer systems and having the qualifications as required by the Minister.
Section 29. In performance of the duties under this Act, the competent official appointed by the Minister shall be an administrative officer or a senior police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code competent to receive a petition or accusation and be authorized to investigate only on an offence under this Act.
In arresting, controlling, searching, investigating, and filing a lawsuit against a person who commits an offence under this Act, and for what is within the authority of an administrative officer or a senior police officer, such competent officer shall coordinate with the relevant investigating officer in charge to take action within their authorized duties.
The Prime Minister is in charge of the Royal Thai Police Headquarters and with a Minister shall have a joint authority to establish a regulation with respect to the means and action-related procedures under paragraph two.

Section 30. In the performance of duties, a relevant competent official must produce an identity card to a relevant person.
The identity card shall be as per the form required by a Minister and published in the Government Gazette.


Countersigned

General Surayud Chulanont
Prime Minister




Remark:- The rationale for the issue of this Act as of today is that a computer system is essential to business operations and the human way of life, as such, if any person commits an act that disables the working of a computer system according to the pre-determined instructions or that causes a working error - a deviation from that required by the pre-determined instructions or that resorts to any means to illegally know of, correct or destroy a third party's data contained in a computer system or that uses a computer system to disseminate false or pornographic computer data, then that act will damage and affect the country's economy, society and security including people's peace and good morals. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to stipulate measures aimed at preventing and suppressing such acts. Hence the enactment of this Act.

An unofficial translation of the Computer Crime Act made by the Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR)
Download Computre Criam Act PDF format.

prachatai.com

Governemts are always playing catch up.

Defamation and the Computer-Related Crime Act
Harrison George
Sun, 14/10/2012

Thailand, against the advice of the UN and, many argue, in contravention of its obligations under international law to respect the right to freedom of expression, has a criminal defamation law on its books. It is Section 326 of the Criminal Code:

‘Whoever, imputes anything to another person before a third person in a manner likely to impair the reputation of such other person or to expose such other person to be hated or scorned, is said to commit defamation, and shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both.’

For the moment, note this language about ‘impairing the reputation’ and ‘causing to be hated or scorned’.

Section 327 outlines what happens if the defamed party is dead and Section 328 lists the many ways in which the term of imprisonment can be doubled and the fine increased one hundredfold if the defamation is committed through some form of publication.

Notably the law, written yonks ago, makes no specific mention of computer-assisted defamation. There is just a catch-all final phrase: ‘propagation by any other means’.

Sections 328 and 329 set out the exemptions. If your allegedly defamatory comment is made in self-defence, constitutes fair comment, reports court proceedings or results from your official duties, then you are not guilty. Nor are you guilty if what you say is true, unless it concerns private matters.

Then after more minor issues, Section 333 says: ‘The offences in this Chapter are compoundable offences.’

So what’s a compoundable offence? This means that unless the victim makes a complaint, there is no prosecution. In crimes such as defamation and fraud, this allows the opportunity for a settlement between perpetrator and victim without the expense and trouble of a criminal trial (which would allow reporters to repeat the defamation). In sexual crimes, it allows the victim to escape the unwelcome publicity of a trial.

But it now turns out that Thailand has a second defamation law. The majority of prosecutions under Section 14 (1) of the Computer-related Crime Act (CCA) concern allegations that X defamed Y on the internet.

Now the language of the CCA is quite different:

‘Whoever commits any offence of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both:

(1) that involves import into a computer system of forged computer data, either in whole or in part, or false computer data, in a manner that is likely to cause damage to that third party or the public; …

Note there is nothing about impairing reputations, hatred or scorn.

This law, to the reasonable person, appears to be dealing with forgery and counterfeiting, not defamation. And this interpretation is supported by the fact that the pre-computer era Criminal Code deals with counterfeiting purely in terms of ‘documents’. This was in fact the issue raised when the CCA was being drafted. Computers opened up a gaping new loophole for fraudsters and 14 (1) was to be the plug.

However, ignoring the record of the legislative process, ignoring the view of the reasonable person and ignoring any sense of justice, freedom and rights, the minions of the Ministry of Internet Censorship Technology prosecute case after case under this law rather than under the defamation law in the Criminal Code.

But so what if the law allows 2 ways of nabbing miscreants? Does it matter as long as criminals are caught?

Yes it most certainly does.

First, the alert reader will already have spotted that the maximum penalty under the CCA is 5 years, whereas under the Criminal Code it is only 2.

Second, because Section 14 (1) contains the words ‘or the public’, the victim can be all of us and the law becomes non-compoundable. No chance of an out-of-court settlement.

Third, the Criminal Code allows certain kinds of statement to be exempt from the defamation law. The CCA has no exemptions. All that has to be proved is whether the data is false.

And even there the boys from MICT take a sweepingly broad view. Far broader than the Juridical Council who sent a witness to one trial to tell the court that if a document is faithfully copied onto the internet, then it is not ‘false’ as far as the CCA is concerned and if the aggrieved party thinks it is, then the original also was, and they should go after whoever produced the original. This would remove the case from the purview of the CCA and out of the clutches of MICT.

The Computer-related Crime Act is a sorry piece of legislation, one of many abominations passed by the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly after the 2006 coup. But respect for the rule of law, rights and freedoms is not helped by the wilfully ignorant and vindictive way it is being enforced.

prachatai.com

Is this what you mean by the Computer Crime bill?

City of London Police - ECD Home

Or

City of London Police - Computer security

Netizens warned against 'liking' photo
19/10/2012

Thai web users have been warned against sharing or "liking" the controversial picture of a Thai reporter standing near a photo of the late Cambodian king visible in a newspaper placed on the ground.

Information and communication technology (ICT) permanent secretary Chaiyan Peungkiatpairote warned that anyone doing so may be in breach of the computer crimes law.

At a press conference on Friday he appealed to the Thai social network users not to forward or click “like” on the photo or messages associated with it, saying doing so may lead to conflict between the two countries.

It may also violate the Computer Crimes Act 2007, which prohibits the dissemination of content deemed threatening to national security. The law provides for a maximum five-year jail sentence, he said.

Mr Chaiyan also urged the general public to refrain from disseminating or otherwise circulating the image to help maintain good bilateral ties between Thailand and Cambodia.

Cambodia's social media network was abuzz on Wednesday over a photo of Thapanee Eadsrichai, a well-known reporter from Channel 3, in which it appeared she was standing over newspaper photos of King Sihanouk placed on the ground.

The photo drew extensive criticism from both Cambodians and Thais.

The journalist and her Channel 3 bosses quickly apologised. Ms Thapanee said she had no intention of showing disrespect to king Sihanouk and the newspaper wasn't actrually near her, it just appeared so from the angle the photo was taken. The Thai Foreign Ministry also stepped in to clear the air over the issue.

The Cambodian government said in a statement released on Thursday that all Cambodian people should avoid ill-intentioned attempts by some political groups to use the case to stir instability in the country and cause problems with neighbouring countries.

bangkokpost.com