The proposed Cyber Security Act 2015 has triggered a sense of alarm. Now at its draft stage, the law has provisions that are considered contentious, even intimidating. What has surfaced so far, it contains sections that may be used to stifle privacy of individuals in their day-to-day activities on the Internet. But more than anything, it poses a potential threat to freedom of expression, especially in the vastly diverse array of interactions in the social media.
The new law is not just an extension of the existing Information and Communication Technology Act-2006, in that its scope is much wider and the content more specifically spelt out. The notable parts of the law include prohibitive measures on cyber-related crimes especially those relating to pornography and visual representation of a person (especially of a woman), its publication or sharing without consent. The law contains some sections similar to those of the existing ICT Act that criminalises defamatory and anti-state writings, but the offences are defined on a wider scale and carry longer prison sentences and fines as punishment. The draft also focuses on how government agencies should deal with cyber-related anti-state activities of any person/group traced in hacking sensitive information database from abroad. Such offence committed anywhere in the world, according to the draft law, will be considered to have taken place in Bangladesh and the punishment may be 14-year imprisonment or fine of Tk 10 million or both. Computer-related forgery has also been defined in the law and the offence entails a punishment of maximum five-year imprisonment or fine of Tk three hundred thousand or both.
One of the Sections in the draft that has sparked criticism is the prohibition of what has been described as harmful for the state as well as any other friendly countries by using the Internet. The law will authorise law enforcers to prosecute any individual found guilty in the aforementioned 'crime'. Article 24 of the Act provides for what many consider undue government authority on censorship, including blocking or removing online content if it is considered "necessary in the interest of state or the integrity, security or defence of Bangladesh or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court or commission of or incitement to an offence under this Act."
Framing cyber laws in many countries, even in the most developed, has often been fraught with public outrage. There is indeed an element of conflict in the way criminality is perceived, and much of the problem lies in failing to address and reconcile it in a fairly objective manner. While citizens' privacy concerns must be addressed by legislation on the one hand, there is, on the other, the urgency of preventing serious cyber crimes against the state, business and infrastructure by criminals. The problem is how to strike the right balance in addressing these two needs fairly and effectively at the same time.
The draft cyber law appears to have handed the government both overt and covert tools to virtually flush out anything it does not endorse. Application of the afore-mentioned Article 24 may result in gross abuse by interested quarters in many forms. There may be the looming risk of criminalising an otherwise benign or innocuous content under the purview of the Act-interpreted 'suitably'. There is thus the strong probability that an anti-government content in any form may be construed as an anti-state activity. The fact that the state and the government are completely different entities might get blurred in the process to the misfortune of the citizens and institutions meant to espouse citizens' rights in a democracy. In other words, the danger that such a provision may invite would be difficult to contain under any pretext of national security. In this context, the statement made by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) may not sound too inappropriate. The ALRC said the new law would authorise the police to break into a house suspected to hide a 'cyber terror.'
One need not emphasise that in a country like Bangladesh, transparency in enforcement of law has been a routine casualty. Those in charge of enforcing laws are rarely faced with the legitimacy of many of their actions. In case of cyber crimes such as those referred to in the cyber law, the onus is thus on the government to ensure as much transparency as possible, not only in clearly defining the legal provisions of law but also in explaining the intent and purpose for invoking such provisions.
There will be wrangling in the coming days over the details of the draft Law. The pressure from civil society should be to strike a balance in ensuring that while the state is rendered secure, the citizens are also left sufficiently at ease. The pressure must stay on to get it right. As for the government, it must not rush. To rush through such key issues would be to get things badly wrong.
wasiahmed.bd@hotmail.com
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
