Advertisement 87
Advertisement 323
Cyber crime

By Demion McTair

(WEFM) — Prominent local journalist and media and communications specialist, Kenton X. Chance has welcomed the Cybercrime Bill 2016, currently before a select committee of the House of Assembly but has expressed some concerns.

Speaking at the SVG Human Rights Association town hall discussion of the Cybercrime Bill 2016 held on Thursday at the Frenches House, Chance said “the realities of the world in which we live call for legislation to address many of the untoward — criminal even — activities that are taking place online.

“It is in this vein that I welcome, in principle, the efforts of our government and all the other actors involved to enact this legislation,” Chance added.

The proprietor of local online news website iWitness News, remarked that “No one can reasonably quarrel with any effort to protect persons from the sort of unlawful invasion of their privacy as seen with the leak of the nude photographs in Trinidad and Tobago this week.”

Advertisement 21
Journalist and media and communications specialist, Kenton X. Chance.
Journalist and media and communications specialist, Kenton X. Chance.

In his presentation, Chance, however, said he was “extremely concerned and unnerved” by what he sees in the piece of legislation “as avenues for the state to potentially criminalise journalists and their sources — many of whom might be whistle-blowers”.

“Regarding the Cybercrime Bill, I am specifically concerned about the implications of Section 7, which speaks to ‘Illegal acquisition of data’,” Chance stated.

“Much of the information in stories of consequence comes by way of leaked information. (And if I might say, parenthetically, by stories of consequence, I don’t mean the ones that are happily doled out to the media at press conferences.)

“As journalists, we build up, over time, a certain amount of trust in our sources. At times, we take them by their word. But sometimes, the story is such that we need proof,” he added, giving a fictitious scenario about “unauthorised” access to information on a computer system, which could be in the public’s interest.

“Leaked information, often accessed without ‘authorisation, permission or knowledge’ of its custodian, often gives important insights into the inner working of centres of power — be they state, corporate, or otherwise,” Chance stated.

He also raised an observation about criminal defamation, which, according to him, Section 16 of the Cybercrime Bill strengthens.

Acknowledging the injury that can be done to a person’s reputation by certain wilful, untrue statements, Chance, also noted the potential effects of criminal defamation on press freedom.

“Criminal defamation can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, especially in countries like ours, where some of our institutions are not as well developed or independent of centres of powers as they should, or are intended to be.

“Mr. Moderator, I am concerned that Subsection 3 potentially criminalises the publication of the truth. Note that the section said that “a person who intentionally… uses a computer to disseminate any information, statement or imagine; and exposes the private affairs of another person, thereby subjecting that other person to public ridicule, contempt, haters or embarrassment, commits an offence…” Chance added.

A national discussion is currently underway on the Cybercrime Bill 2016, with room made for members of the public to submit suggestions and concerns about the bill to the select committee of the House of Assembly.

(Republished with permission)

4 replies on “Prominent journalist welcomes Cybercrime Bill but expresses concerns”

  1. Watching Hard says:

    If a government has done something illegal or undemocratic then it is in the people’s interest to have it challenged in a court of law. This is something that we do not do enough of. If it is done more often then it can help to keep government on its toes. If parts of this bill is unconstitutional then journalism would best be served if it is challenged in court. You know this government wouldn’t listen any other way.

    1. Vincentians! Best interest simple does not goes hand in hand. The larger majority either has no idea, can’t read or reason as to what is taking place in their Country. These people should be taking this party to Court because they are attempting to take their freedom from them and their children Generation to come. Now! If we put rum, and nice time Vincy knows nuff bout that, but clueless to democracy and you can forget bout these college kids, they have no interest in these matters. Too bad! Cause y’all will be the ones to suffer most from your Papa

  2. Brown Boy USA says:

    This bill is over-reaching and way out of character of what it purports to protect. The bill is too board and leaves too much for freedom to be violated in the so-called interest of cyber security. I do not see why a government will want to proposed a bill that is so far-reaching, other than to give them the power to keep their critics under control. Because it seems that if you anyone published anything the government deems critical of the government that they can be brought up charges. So in others, shout-up and say nothing, even when you see something is going wrong. Therefore, the bill should be made specific to protect individuals and not government, because in no uncertain term such a democratic elected government be immune to criticism. They are employees of the people and not the other way around.

Comments closed.