WITH EFFECT TODAY ,
Internet users cry foul over amendment to Evidence Act
PETALING JAYA (May 20, 2012): The recently passed Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012, whereby internet users are held liable for any content posted through their registered networks or data processing device, is both unfair and an attempt to put fear in people, says civil society.
The amended law will have serious repercussions on internet use as the owner of the site or device is presumed guilty and has to fight to prove his innocence, they say.
What this means is, if an anonymous person posts content said to be offensive on your Facebook wall, or if someone piggybacks your WiFi account and uploads a controversial document, you will be immediately deemed the publisher of the content and subject to prosecution under the relevant laws such as the Sedition Act.
Not only that, if a person starts a blog in your name and publishes content that is red-flagged, you will be considered the publisher unless you can prove otherwise.
All of this is provided for through the insertion of Section 114A into the Act which was recently bulldozed through both houses of Parliament in its last meeting with no debate.
Section 114A, which explains presumption of fact in publication, states:
– a person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.
– a person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.
– Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved. (Computer here means any data processing device, including tablets, laptops and mobile phones.)
Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong told theSun these amendments would put fear in people.
“We shouldn’t even be discussing this law because it is based on the idea that one is presumed being guilty until proven innocent.
“Why does the owner of a site, or Facebook account, have to take the rap and prove his innocence while being subject to investigation and seizure of property?” he asked.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, while winding up the Bill in Parliament on April 18, had said the use of pseudonyms and anonymity by any party to commit cyber crimes made it difficult for action to be taken against them.
Hence, he said the Evidence Act 1950 had to be amended to address the issue of internet anonymity.
However, Internet Society Malaysian Chapter chairman Julian Vincent told theSun such amendments could be open to abuse by the investigators and force an innocent party to rebut the presumption of guilt at serious risk of wrongful prosecution and injustice.
“In the internet environment where the websites even of the largest organisations are susceptible to hacking and manipulation, it is dangerous to have this presumption in place.
“The society expresses its hope that the cabinet will revise the current text and work to address privacy considerations and protect citizens’ rights and civil liberties in any future cyber security legislation,” he said.
Centre for Independent Journalism executive officer Masjaliza Hamzah said the amendments were a definite threat to freedom of expression and media freedom.
“The amendments are clearly an indirect way to control online content as it makes online sites responsible for comments posted by readers; forget about disclaimers on the comment section.
“This may force some sites to stop the comment feature because having to vet comments themselves may become untenable, and if this happens, it has a huge impact on the interactive nature of online media favoured by readers,” she said when contacted.
A blogger known as Obefiend added such amendments would make it difficult for people to prove their innocence because everything is hackable when dealing with the online world.
“There always is ambiguous evidence when dealing with electronic presence, which makes proving you are indeed not the publisher very tough,” said the blogger, who writes on Blog Serius.
“It’s very scary and distressing to know that if somebody uses my name, I am automatically presumed guilty and have to prove my innocence,” he said.
Internet users cry foul over amendment to Evidence Act
PETALING JAYA (May 20, 2012): The recently passed Evidence (Amendment) (No 2) Act 2012, whereby internet users are held liable for any content posted through their registered networks or data processing device, is both unfair and an attempt to put fear in people, says civil society.
The amended law will have serious repercussions on internet use as the owner of the site or device is presumed guilty and has to fight to prove his innocence, they say.
What this means is, if an anonymous person posts content said to be offensive on your Facebook wall, or if someone piggybacks your WiFi account and uploads a controversial document, you will be immediately deemed the publisher of the content and subject to prosecution under the relevant laws such as the Sedition Act.
Not only that, if a person starts a blog in your name and publishes content that is red-flagged, you will be considered the publisher unless you can prove otherwise.
All of this is provided for through the insertion of Section 114A into the Act which was recently bulldozed through both houses of Parliament in its last meeting with no debate.
Section 114A, which explains presumption of fact in publication, states:
– a person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host, administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved.
– a person who is registered with a network service provider as a subscriber of a network service on which any publication originates from is presumed to be the person who published or re-published the publication unless the contrary is proved.
– Any person who has in his custody or control any computer on which any publication originates from is presumed to have published or re-published the content of the publication unless the contrary is proved. (Computer here means any data processing device, including tablets, laptops and mobile phones.)
Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong told theSun these amendments would put fear in people.
“We shouldn’t even be discussing this law because it is based on the idea that one is presumed being guilty until proven innocent.
“Why does the owner of a site, or Facebook account, have to take the rap and prove his innocence while being subject to investigation and seizure of property?” he asked.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, while winding up the Bill in Parliament on April 18, had said the use of pseudonyms and anonymity by any party to commit cyber crimes made it difficult for action to be taken against them.
Hence, he said the Evidence Act 1950 had to be amended to address the issue of internet anonymity.
However, Internet Society Malaysian Chapter chairman Julian Vincent told theSun such amendments could be open to abuse by the investigators and force an innocent party to rebut the presumption of guilt at serious risk of wrongful prosecution and injustice.
“In the internet environment where the websites even of the largest organisations are susceptible to hacking and manipulation, it is dangerous to have this presumption in place.
“The society expresses its hope that the cabinet will revise the current text and work to address privacy considerations and protect citizens’ rights and civil liberties in any future cyber security legislation,” he said.
Centre for Independent Journalism executive officer Masjaliza Hamzah said the amendments were a definite threat to freedom of expression and media freedom.
“The amendments are clearly an indirect way to control online content as it makes online sites responsible for comments posted by readers; forget about disclaimers on the comment section.
“This may force some sites to stop the comment feature because having to vet comments themselves may become untenable, and if this happens, it has a huge impact on the interactive nature of online media favoured by readers,” she said when contacted.
A blogger known as Obefiend added such amendments would make it difficult for people to prove their innocence because everything is hackable when dealing with the online world.
“There always is ambiguous evidence when dealing with electronic presence, which makes proving you are indeed not the publisher very tough,” said the blogger, who writes on Blog Serius.
“It’s very scary and distressing to know that if somebody uses my name, I am automatically presumed guilty and have to prove my innocence,” he said.
Last edited:
