Cybercrime | Bill to empower police computer searches still contains ambiguities

The police authority has proposed amendments to the cybercrime bill, having suggested giving itself access to more computer information. Now facing scrutiny at the Legislative Assembly (AL), lawmakers say there are still ambiguities that need to be resolved.

Yesterday, the First Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly discussed in detail the cybercrime bill amendment. Ho Ion Sang, chairman of the committee, highlighted the government’s amendment to the article concerning giving the police authority access to more computer systems.

The government has proposed that either certain parts of a computer system, or a specific computer could be accessed, provided it was in accordance with the cybercrime bill currently in force.

Regarding this specific article, the committee will invite government representatives to explain and give detailed examples related to the police authority’s operation procedure in the next committee meeting.

According to the bill, the criminal investigation authority can search a computer before it gains approval from the court but a court search warrant must be acquired within 72 hours after the search is initiated.

The government will also be asked to explain whether the police authority will be able to require relevant people to give them access to their computer when the police authority holds a search warrant issued by a court.

Regarding whether the article will become a tool for the government to specifically target the media, Ho said that the committee will question the government about this later.

In addition to expanding access to computer information, the detailed amendment allegedly also gives additional protection to other parties, especially operators of infrastructure, both public and private.

Previously, the cybercrime bill was intended to protect public organizations. The amendment uses the term “key infrastructure operators”, which includes both public and private operators, such as the AL and the Macao Water Supply Company. The committee wants further explanation regarding the definition of key infrastructure facilities.

Further explanations are wanted from the AL regarding the specific crime of fraudulent mobile stations. Clarifications on terms such as “profit return” and “spreading pornography” are required by the lawmakers due to the terms’ ambiguity.

According to Macau’s regulations, the AL committee must ask the opinion of the Macau Lawyers Association (AAM) on the bill’s amendment. Ho claimed that the committee will ask the association’s opinion if necessary. According to Ho, 10 years ago in 2009, the AL asked the AAM’s opinion on the cybercrime bill, however, the lawyers’ body did not respond.

Besides the ambiguity in abovementioned articles, amendments related to the central government’s organizations in Macau are also considered ambiguous and the government’s explanation is sought on this as well.

The cybercrime bill, which has already been approved in general terms at the legislature, has been proposed to take effect from December 22. Ho said that the committee will expedite discussion with the government and may require a postponement to a later date.

JZ