No shields from abuse of Cybercrime Bill

It is fair to suggest that Barbadians have become more socially and politically engaged, but the form of that engagement is shifting away from the traditional indicators such as mass meetings and face-to-face interaction.

People are making greater use of digital platforms to interact with those in power and among themselves. Just a few years ago, the Arab Spring which led to major political changes in places like Egypt occurred online, with organisers using smartphones to reach their audiences and plan demonstrations.

In recent weeks, attention has been focused on the Cybercrime Bill 2024 and the companion amendment, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The administration has tried to redirect the public’s attention to the parts of the bill for which affirmation is unlikely to be rejected. Protecting young people against pornography, grooming, as well as unlawful access to computer systems with the intention of doing harm are all areas for which most right-thinking Barbadians would agree need to be codified in law.

There is no support for bad actors at home and abroad who use their knowledge of and access to cyber space to disrupt the lives of people by disabling the functioning of banks, credit unions or healthcare institutions.

At the same time, there are some areas of the bill that have justifiably come under heavy criticism from those who operate in the media, and who want the liberty to use the online spaces to share their views, criticisms, and support for the things and situations about which they feel strongly.

Parts of the bill that are highly problematic include Section 19 (1) which makes criminal “a person who intentionally or recklessly uses a computer system to publish, broadcast or transmit computer data that intimidates a person”. Intimidation within the legislation means to cause “in the mind of a reasonable person, injury to himself, any member of his family or any of his dependents”.

To “disseminate any image or words, not caring whether they are true or false, and causes or is likely to cause or subject a person to ridicule, contempt or embarrassment. . .” would be a criminal offence.

It would be a crime to use a computer for “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, embarrassment, insult, injury, humiliation, intimidation, hatred, anxiety or substantial emotional distress to that person”.

Some of these areas highlighted may seem innocuous but they have the effect of frightening people into self censorship and worry that criticism of the powerful could land you before the courts with a criminal charge hanging over you for possibly a decade before the case is heard.

We are not suggesting that the cyber space should be the Wild West, but using police officers as a tool to manage insults and hurt feelings is not what Barbadians expect. The civil court system is there to address such issues, not Dodds Prison.

Under Part III of the bill relating to search and seizure, police will have sweeping powers which open a new realm of authority that Barbadians have never experienced.

While one can understand the need for such powers when seeking to investigate matters like child pornography, computer-related forgery, and sophisticated cyber crimes like attacks on institutions and critical national assets, one finds it difficult and highly unreasonable to include in that cause  words and images in online postings that may serve to insult, annoy, inconvenience, obstruct, embarrass, insult, humiliate, intimidate or cause anxiety to another person.

Most important, there remains nothing in the current legislation that provides protection for individuals against abuse of the legislative power.

Where are the built-in protections for privacy of those being investigated? When police seize computers, laptops, smartphones, and devices of people they are investigating, what are the limits to what they can do with other confidential information, photos, passwords, banking and financial information, other important data that may be stored on those devices?

Where are the protections against how long police can hold on to seized devices, which a person may be using in their business operations?

One can understand why some groups, including those operating in the media, regard parts of the Cybercrime Bill as tools to hinder free speech.

Given the current concerns being expressed, one would expect that Barbadians will take part in the Joint Select Committee’s reviews of the bill and ensure their concerns are reflected.