- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 15,441
- Points
- 113
A proposed law that will compel platforms to disclose the identities of perpetrators of online harms will have built-in safeguards to prevent misuse, said Law Minister Edwin Tong on Nov. 5.
For instance, authorities may impose conditions restricting the use of that information, and those who misuse the information to dox perpetrators may themselves face legal consequences.
Speaking in Parliament at the second reading of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, Tong said,
"Anonymity can serve good purposes. It allows users to speak freely, and obtain assistance, and sometimes allows marginalised groups to speak up."
"But it must not shield wrongdoing."
What is the bill about?
The suite of laws under the bill covers 13 types of online harms, including online harassment, doxxing, online stalking, non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sharing of child abuse material.
It will be complemented by existing laws, including the POHA (Protection against Online Harms Act), anti-defamation laws and racial and religious harmony laws.
Once the bill passes into law, an Online Safety Commission (OSC) will be set up by the first half of 2026 and will be equipped with a range of powers to provide remedies to victims.
These powers include issuing directions to take down the harmful content, restricting the perpetrator's online account or allowing a victim to post a reply.
The OSC can also require platforms to provide identity information of end-users suspected of causing online harm, where such information is already in the platforms' possession.
In circumstances where the perpetrators have deliberately withheld their identity information, certain platforms with greater reach can also be asked to take further steps to collect additional identity information from communicators of online harms.
A victim who has submitted a report to the OSC may apply for the disclosure of a perpetrator's identity information for specified purposes, such as bringing a claim against them in court.
In what cases will perps be identified?
Tong said he recognised that some had concerns about whether these measures intrude on users' privacy.
However, Tong clarified that it is not the case as the measures are "aimed squarely at those who hide behind anonymity to cause online harms" and are not meant to affect responsible users.
Tong noted the OSC will be empowered to require platforms to take reasonable steps to obtain end-user information in cases where it "reasonably suspects a user of committing an online harm".
This information can include the user’s name or verified phone numbers or credit card information, which can then be used to make further inquiries with telcos or banks.
This will allow the bill to address cases where victims are unable to commence legal proceedings or enforce court judgments against perpetrators due to their anonymity.
"The obligation to collect information is carefully scoped to target those users who are suspected of carrying out online harms. This is akin to how law enforcement agencies are empowered to obtain such information for investigative purposes," said Tong.
He added that the bill was crafted through close consultations with industry partners who expressed difficulty with a general obligation for platforms to collect information of all their Singapore users.
Safeguards against misuse
At the initial stage, disclosure of the end-user information will be limited to the purpose of enabling victims to bring a claim, Tong said.
"We intend to eventually extend this for other purposes as well, such as allowing victims to safeguard themselves from the perpetrator," said Tong.
Tong also emphasised that when OSC discloses a perpetrator's identity to a victim, there will be safeguards to prevent misuse of that information.
For example, the OSC may impose strict conditions on how that information can be used – such as limiting the use of the information to seeking protection or pursuing legal remedies — and the breach of these conditions will constitute a criminal offence.
Tong added that the misuse of the information, such as using it to doxx the perpetrator, may itself be considered an offence under the POHA or an online harm under the bill.
"In short, the bill has in-built safeguards. They balance and protect both the victim’s right to know, and the perpetrator’s right against misuse," Tong said.
Statutory torts
To complement the OSC, the bill will also introduce statutory torts to clarify the duties and liabilities of three key stakeholders in the online ecosystem: communicators, administrators and platforms.
What are statutory torts? A tort is a private cause of action created by statute, which imposes liability for recognised injuries caused either by a statutorily prohibited course of action, or by the breach of a statutorily defined duty.
For communicators, the torts require them not to make or share any communication which constitutes an online harm.
Tong added that the misuse of the information, such as using it to doxx the perpetrator, may itself be considered an offence under the POHA or an online harm under the bill.
"In short, the bill has in-built safeguards. They balance and protect both the victim’s right to know, and the perpetrator’s right against misuse," Tong said.
Statutory torts
To complement the OSC, the bill will also introduce statutory torts to clarify the duties and liabilities of three key stakeholders in the online ecosystem: communicators, administrators and platforms.
What are statutory torts? A tort is a private cause of action created by statute, which imposes liability for recognised injuries caused either by a statutorily prohibited course of action, or by the breach of a statutorily defined duty.
For communicators, the torts require them not to make or share any communication which constitutes an online harm.
When perpetrators could profit from the harm, such as when putting intimate images up for sale online, an account of profits may be ordered so the wrong-doers cannot retain the benefits.
Under the bill, the court can grant enhanced damages to the victim when a communicator or administrator persists with their conduct despite notice.
The bill also empowers the court to issue short-term or permanent injunctions to stop harm swiftly, independently of the OSC's direction, said Tong.
Referencing how the first motor safety laws in the 1960s were met with fear and resistance in the U.S., Tong noted that "history proved these laws right".
Tong shared his hope that the bill can similarly set the right tone for online behaviour amongst users and platforms, and define what is acceptable and what is not.
"They will guide conduct not only through monetary damages, but through shared expectations made explicit."
