The Government is trying to pass a Cybercrime bill to repeal the Computer Misuse Act (2007). Both documents are similar. However, the Cybercrime bill makes it much easier to (i) find innocent persons guilty of new crimes and (ii) punish them severely.
My main concern with the Cybercrime bill is Section 20 (1) which states: “A person who intentionally uses a computer system to publish … data that is offensive … for the purpose of causing annoyance … [or] embarrassment … is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $70 000 or to imprisonment for a term of 7 years or to both.”
DESTROYING OLD HURDLES.
The corresponding section in the Computer Misuse Act (Section 14) states: “Where a person uses a computer to send a message … that (a) is indecent or obscene; (b) is or constitutes a threat; or (c) is menacing in character, and he intends to cause or is reckless as to whether he causes annoyance, inconvenience, distress or anxiety to the recipient … is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10 000 or to imprisonment for a term of 12 months or to both.”
In the Computer Misuse Act, the hurdles to be cleared to be found guilty are:
1. use a computer to send a message;
2. the message had to be indecent, obscene, threatening, or menacing; and
3. the messenger intended to cause or was reckless as to whether he caused annoyance, inconvenience, distress or anxiety to the recipient.
A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
In the Cybercrime Bill, any offensive data that is published for the purpose of causing annoyance or embarrassment is guilty of an offense. The data does not have to be a message. It could include statistical information like inflation, unemployment or debt that may offend, embarrass or annoy the Party.
Who determines what is offensive? The Computer Misuse Act defines the scope of what is offensive for the judge. The Cybercrime Bill gives no such scope and gives the judge wide and subjective discretion – which will be very dangerous for accused persons.
BILL OF INTIMIDATION.
We should encourage each-other to be better, which may include telling those behaving irresponsibly to change their ways. We may use computer systems to communicate such messages. Some of the messages may initially seem offensive to those addicted to irresponsible behaviours and will certainly annoy and embarrass them on first reading. This will automatically make the messenger liable “to a fine of $70 000 or to imprisonment for a term of 7 years or to both.”
The intent of this bill appears to be to stop Barbadians from commenting publicly on social media. It seems specifically designed to intimidate Barbadians into silence through fear. The bill is therefore in violation of its own Section 19.1, which reads.
“A person who intentionally or recklessly uses a computer system to publish, broadcast or transmit computer data that intimidates a person … is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $70 000 or to imprisonment for a term of 7 years or to both.”
BLAME THE ENSLAVERS.
We were told that this bill was not a home-grown initiative but was modelled from a Council of Europe treaty called “Convention on Cybercrime”. If this is true, then the former European enslavers seem determined to enslave us by making us all guilty, and then keeping us under their control by keeping us in perpetual fear. However, given the Age we are in, we must verify everything.
In Barbados, we started in an Age of Enslavement that was designed to keep our fore-parents in perpetual bondage. In 1938 we entered an Age of Colonialism that was designed to keep our fore-parents in perpetual poverty. In 1966, we entered an Age of Independence and had our golden decade. In 1976 we entered an Age of Unsustainable Debt and returned to being exploited. We are now concurrently in the Age of ‘The End Justifies the Means’, where truth and reason have lost their value.
HOMEGROWN FOLLY.
I read the European convention and did not find any of these ridiculous offenses and unconscionable punishments. Instead, Article 13 requires each Party to adopt proportionate sanctions. How is $70,000 and/or 7 years imprisonment just for causing someone “annoyance” even remotely proportionate? Who increased it from $10 000 and/or 1 year imprisonment in the Computer Misuse Act? It seems that we are doing this to ourselves.
Article 15 of the European convention requires each Party to provide safeguards that “shall provide for the adequate protection of human rights and liberties … , including rights arising pursuant to obligations it has undertaken under the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other applicable international human rights instruments, and which shall incorporate the principle of proportionality.”
GUILTY OF NOT CONFESSING GUILT.
Article 14, Section 3 (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.”
In the Cybercrime Bill (Section 24. (1) and (2)), if you do not help the police obtain evidence to convict you, including providing passwords and decryption information, then you are guilty of an offence. If you tell your employee not to help the police, then you are also guilty of an offence and are liable “to a fine of $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of 2 years or to both.” Shut-up and embrace your New Republic.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.