THE NATIONAL Legislative Assembly (NLA) will today proceed with the final reading of amendments to the Computer Crime Act BE 2550, despite 300,000 Internet users having voiced opposition to the bill, described by campaigners as a threat to human rights.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said the bill had nothing to do with the so-called single gateway for Internet connections.

“Those who do not understand have been misled resulting in hundreds of thousands pressing ‘Like’ for the online petition against this bill. The government has no policy to use a single gateway for Internet connections. We cannot do that. We will only block pornographic and other inappropriate content [under the amended law].”

“This undesirable content harms people and your children. The new law is aimed at protecting the public good, not a blanket permit to surveil 70 million Thai people. We have seen many inappropriate and illegal websites and we need the legal tools to tackle them.”

However, the Thai Netizen Network and Amnesty International yesterday submitted a petition, signed by 300,000 Internet users, to the NLA urging lawmakers to reconsider the amendments on the grounds that they threatened human rights. The campaign was launched on the website Change.org.

Opponents said new stipulations infringing on human rights, freedom of expression and privacy still existed in the latest version passed by the NLA in its second reading last Friday.

Although there had been changes in the wording, Thai Netizen Network leader Sarinee Achavanuntakul said the essence of the law, particular Article 14, remained a threat to freedom of expression.

In the latest amendment, Article 14 includes a prohibition of posting “distorted” information on the Internet, which was the same wording used in the referendum law.

The activist said the Article could be used against people attempting to scrutinise authorities because of its vagueness. Many people had already been sued for defamation under Article 14 of the current Computer Crime Act, preventing them from addressing issues of concern, Sarinee said.

The activist expressed concern the amended version would further aggravate the human rights situation.

Another representative from the Thai Netizen Network, Arthit Suriyawongkul, said activist groups would continue their opposition to any laws that violate human rights, including the cybersecurity law recently passed by the National Reform Steering Assembly, even if the new Computer Crime Act is passed.

Piyanuch Kosot, director of Amnesty International Thailand, said the 300,000 Internet users endorsing the petition against the amendment showed that many people both inside and outside Thailand were watching for infringements of human rights.

She said laws should protect people’s rights, not violate them.

The letter and the list of supporters were received by the secretariat of the Senate Office, Wararat Atipat.

Public right to information

Meanwhile, Maj-General Ritt Indaravudh, head of the Army cyberwarfare command, said the NLA needed to heed public concerns regarding the amendments to the act.

He said the public needed more information on the merits of the new law since it was aimed at promoting the digital economy and society while protecting the rights of people from being violated in social and digital media.

However, people who infringe upon the rights of other people and break the law will be punished, he said.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, former PM and leader of Democrat party, said he was worried the new law could be abused by those in power for political benefit.

Paiboon Amonpinyokeat, an adviser to the NLA committee that drafted the amendments, said there were more advantages than disadvantages in the bill because all content, especially on social media, would be better filtered.

Libellous content would be more strictly defined to help to reduce the number of cases that do not meet the criteria, Paiboon said. Also, unsolicited messages and spam would be reduced, he added, saying that would help to reduce the cost of managing undesirable content.

People responsible for creating and promoting deceitful websites would be subjected to heavy criminal and civil penalties while platforms hosting illegal sites would not be legally liable but required to remove the sites immediately upon notice, Paiboon said.

Paiboon said there was concern regarding the blocking of content deemed inappropriate on moral and security grounds since a five-person committee, appointed by the Digital Economy and Society Ministry, would be empowered to remove content from the Internet even if it is not illegal.

However, he said the power to censor inappropriate content would need court approval while people who are negatively affected could got to court.