Cyber Libel Suit against Google

*Taken from The Guardian
Link : http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/26/google-defamation-libel-australia

Google will have to be quicker to remove defamatory content, at least in Australia, after it lost a $200,000 libel action there. The decision may strengthen Lord McAlpine's hand if the Tory peer, who obtained settlements of £185,000 and £125,000 from the BBC and ITV respectively, decides to target the search engine next.

Google has, until now, been relying on court decisions which absolve it of liability for defamation on the basis that, because it provides search results automatically using algorithms, it is not responsible for online content produced using its search engine. In England the courts have agreed with this analysis so far and in the Tamiz case earlier this year Mr Justice Eady held that Google should not be regarded as a publisher.

However, the tale of Australia's most successful libel litigant may give Google and other search engines pause for thought. Milorad Trkulja, a music promoter, took action against Google over material online, which linked him with criminal figures in Melbourne. Trkulja has never been involved in any criminal activity, but was unfortunate enough to have been shot in a restaurant in 2004.

His lawyers wrote to Google in October 2009 asking for the offending material, which included a number of images, to be removed, but received a reply saying that in line with Google's policies on content removal he should contact the owners of the website concerned instead.

Trkulja sued Google and the jury concluded that the search engine was the publisher of images of Trkjulja and related information which suggested he was involved in crime and that his rivals had hired a hitman to kill him. Google's defence of innocent dissemination succeeded only up until the point that it was put on notice of the defamatory content; the jury awarded Trkulja $200,000 damages. He had already won $225,000 damages against Yahoo, which hosted the site concerned, in March.

After the case the search engine said: "Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web. The sites in Google's search results are controlled by those sites' webmasters, not by Google."

So they are sticking to a defence of their service which failed in the Australian court. The case does not bind a UK court, but it may mark a shift in the way judges look at search engines and platform providers and that may have serious implication for companies like Google and their users.

If the Australian decision is followed by courts elsewhere search engines and platform providers will have to be a lot quicker in dealing with requests to take down material when they are contacted by a potential claimant and they will have to be more responsive to requests to sever links to defamatory content if their "not our responsibility, contact the webmaster" response opens them up to liability.

For those of us who put material online it might mean a more hostile legal landscape. The lesson will be that not only do you have to watch what you say online, search engines will have to do so as well.

The New Section 114A Evidence Act 1950 in Malaysia

Ng Kok Yong, an intern at RWY gives a shot on what he feels about the new 114A

The Evidence Act 1950 operates as conduit to allow any evidence to be tendered into court. The Act operates in an inclusionary method ie. for evidence to be tendered in into court, that evidence must fall within one of the provision in the Evidence Act.

Over and above that, the Evidence Act also provides certain presumption when dealing with evidence and Evidence Act s.114 is one of them.

Recently, Parliament enacted s.114A which reads: -

“Presumption of fact in publication”

114A. (1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) For the purpose of this section—

.                 (a)  “network service” and “network service provider” have the meaning assigned to them in section 6 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [Act 588]; and

.                 (b)  “publication” means a statement or a representation, whether in written, printed, pictorial, film, graphical, acoustic or other form displayed on the screen of a computer.”

‘Hotly-disputed’ and ‘strongly criticised’ are among the phrases used to describe the badly drafted new section 114A of the Evidence Act 2012 and how disastrous the consequences can be. In plain words, the new law raises a presumption that the owner of the websites, networks or computers is the publisher whenever a statement is made and published. Now, how is it detrimental to the society? What kind of impact does the section 114A have on you, me and everyone else within the jurisdiction of Malaysia?

Well, to answer the questions, all individuals are now prone to defamation suits, among other wrongs, when a statement or representation is posted or re-posted out of the genuine expression of concern. With the new law being enforced, everything appears on the screen of a website host could be a potential lawsuit because the onus is on the host to rebut such presumption. In essence, the fundamental rights have been encroached and infringed! Section 114A (1) concerns hosts of website and publishers of any statement or representation, subsection (2) on registered network service providers and subsection (3) on computers owners, which encompasses everyone with a computer and internet connection. To state the obvious, this section restricts our freedom; to state the worst, it may make us liable for wrong committed by others.

Among the implications of the enforcement of the section are:

(1)         Freedom of expression and freedom of speech have been crippled.

(2)         Freedom to information has been infringed. Users now see only what they are ALLOWED to see.

(3)         Presumption of culpability instead of presumption of innocence.

(4)         A great challenge to democracy.

Loose ends the Parliament forgot to tie?

(1)         Hyperlink – hyperlinks connect users from websites to websites. For instance, A, who hosts a website, hyperlinks the website to another website hosted B who makes defamatory remarks of C. Is A liable for the defamatory statement published by a website beyond his control? No to some of the jurisdictions but probably yes if this section is strictly applied!

(2)     Thefts and Hackings – it is not uncommon to have our property stolen every now and then, which includes hacking. Hypothetical scenario, if A’s laptop being unknowingly used by B to post a sensitive comment, A will be presumed to have published the comment himself even though the real culprit is B. Turn to another scenario, if B hacks into A’s network and publishes another compromising statement, A will be presumed to be liable since A is the registered network provider with unique IP address

(3)       Impersonation­ – another extreme yet probable situation would be having A being impersonated by B to publish some defamatory comments. A would simply be liable just because his picture and particulars appear on the screen. Simple trick to sabotage somebody else without getting caught!

Conclusion

If it is apparent to the writer to see these, it will not be difficult for others to realise how vulnerable the new law is to allow one to commit a crime at somebody else’s expense. Unless and until the authority has absolute capability to eradicate the abovementioned weaknesses, section 114A should not be enforced at all. Whether section 114A is a creation of politics or public interest, our wise readers, please decide it yourselves.

Ng Kok Yong

August 2012

Armed to fight piracy (The Star)

Armed to fight piracy

By HARIATI AZIZAN

Come this time next year, the Government may be taking action against anyone who owns even one pirated DVD, VCD or CD.

WHILE her friends – and throngs of other young girls nationwide – swamped the local cinema over the past week to catch the vampire blockbuster hit they have been waiting for, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, media student Misha Ahmad, 19, was rushing to her neighbourhood VCD* shop to get the vampire film she’d been coveting for months –Thirst.

The South Korean thriller, which won the Jury Prize at the Cannes International Film Festival last May, is one film that will never hit the Malaysian cinema circuit, says Misha.

“It is critically acclaimed but you don’t get to watch movies like this in the cinema here because it may be too risqué for our censorship board. You can’t even buy the original DVD here because of the censors,” she says.

And that is why she buys a lot of pirated discs, she shares, adding that she spends around RM100 a month on them.

Massive swoop: The Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Ministry’s enforcement division seized more than RM300mil worth of pirated discs from 2004 to 2008.

“I love foreign and art films and the only way I can get them is from overseas, Amazon.com or the (pirated DVD) store. And when you can spend RM15 down the road instead of RM150 plus travel or delivery expenses, which one will you choose?” she argues.

For bank clerk Amin Saad, 36, buying pirated discs is more of a necessity.

“I have three children, so one family outing to the cinema would cost me at least RM50, and that does not include meals or even snacks. If we buy a DVD, it will only cost RM10, no transport, and we can make the food ourselves. And we can still enjoy watching a movie together,” he says.

Whatever the reason, watching movies on pirated discs is one of the most popular Malaysian pastimes.

Similarly, pirated music discs are also a hit with many Malaysians.

It is no wonder that the recent news of the Government’s plan to prosecute anyone caught with even one pirated optical disc (DVD, VCD or music CD) – regardless of whether it is for personal use –has created a big stir.

As Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob who mooted the measure warned, owning pirated discs, even if only one, is an offence.

“If we are to protect the creativity of film producers, music composers and the like, we must not only educate people but also mete out stiff penalties,” he said.

The advent of technology, which has made it easier to pirate material, and the huge demand, has boosted the local pirated disc market, he said.

The ministry’s Enforcement Division seized more than RM300mil worth of pirated discs from 2004 to 2008. Last year alone, the ministry seized more than RM20mil worth of pirated discs. As of September this year, up to 618, 618 pirated discs have been confiscated.

According to director-general for enforcement Roslan Mahyuddin, however, the number of pirated optical disc operators has decreased or gone underground, making them difficult to trace.

As of Sept 2009, only 177 “pirates” were arrested compared to 532 for the whole of last year. Hence, cutting demand is an important enforcement measure.

The Police reportedly have long mulled over hauling up those who buy or are in possession of pirated discs to put an end to such syndicates in the country.

For instance, in Penang where piracy is rampant, the state police chief has revealed publicly that their operations against pirated disc retailers have not been effective, and it is seriously deliberating such a drastic action.

For this aim, the Government said that it will propose amendments to the Copyright Act next year.

Richard Wee, chair of the Kuala Lumpur Bar’s Information Technology Committee, lauds the Government’s proposed move, describing it as a positive step that will ensure less leakage to piracy.

Currently, he explains, there are provisions in the Copyright Act that allow the authorities to conduct search and other action but any amendment must take into account the Presumption of Innocence and the rights guaranteed in our Federal Constitution. “There must be safeguards in the amendments (which I presume will be in that Copyright Act).”

Wee adds that there are other measures that need to be taken for a tougher action against piracy and illegal downloading.

“The usual way is to impose an extremely high penalty. Also, the law may allow the authorities wider power of seizure and search, but with the public perception of not trusting the authorities, I would not recommend this at all.

“Instead, the authorities should embark on a ‘persuasion’ approach: not by producing sub-standard campaign via Filem Negara but by showing (for example) the ‘making’ of the movies’ – show people how difficult it is to produce a movie. The usual education thingy – go back to school; tell our kids to buy original. They must also persuade the DVD producers to lower the price of the original.

“I think my views here are not new but I will say something extra. I would prefer to stamp out illegal DVD but if all else fails, please consider legalising the illegal DVD producers. Collect tax from them and use that tax to pay the movie makers.

“I know this is a simplistic way and I know many will attack this plan. But think about it and see how we can make it work (if we do agree to do this). The mechanism and other details can be worked out,” says Wee, who believes that both the suppliers and consumers are to be blamed.

“If the consumer respects the concept of creativity and originality, then we will not be in this mess. But at the same time, original DVDs/CDs are outrageously priced. I cannot understand how a show which can be seen at a cinema for RM10 can be sold in DVD form for as high as RM100.

“While I understand that a DVD can be watched anytime (hence the higher price), the cost of making a DVD is so low it does not make sense to charge so high. So, this high price obviously drives the demand (for pirated versions) up.”

While pirated DVDs/CDs is an urgent problem, the Internet is also a massive issue to combat, he adds.

“In my view, bodies like the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) etc must take steps to ensure movies and songs are not illegally available to be downloaded on the net to ensure this proposed crackdown will work. There is no use imposing a stiff penalty when an ordinary Malaysian can go to a website and download a movie.”

Not surprisingly, most industry players laud the move.

Monteiro: 'The question is, how do we sustain the creative industry in the country.'

As Universal Music Group International senior vice-president for Asean Sandy Monteiro puts it, piracy has decimated the creative industry in Malaysia for the last 15 years.

The Malaysian music industry, for instance, has been recording an annual reduction in its revenue in the last decade – from the high average annual sales of RM200mil in the late 1990s to the current average of RM80mil a year.

“It is not the question of how we get rid of pirated discs. The question is how do we sustain the creative industry in the country. The industry needs to get the support of the public, and if they cannot do it out of the goodness of their heart, maybe the Government needs to be more aggressive,” Monteiro says.

“If the proposed move creates a disincentive or discourages people from buying pirated products which will help our creative industry survive, then I say why not?”

Calling the move a “bold step”, he adds that the message is more important than the action.

“The primary objective of the proposal is to instil fear in people that if they buy pirated products there is a chance they will be prosecuted. In most cases, the situation can be described as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted but if it creates the atmosphere where there is a flowback to legalised products then this is good.”

Norman Abdul Halim, chief executive officer and president of KRU Group concurs.

“I think taking action is a fair thing to do. Malaysian users are aware that the content is illegal in the first place but they still partake in it,” he says.

“It is a crime. For example, if you knowingly buy stolen goods, you are breaking the law. So, I believe that what the government is trying to do is good.”

Norman says that when the law is enforced or passed in parliament, it will only take action against those who break the law. “It will help stop people from buying pirated materials,” he stresses.

There are also many in the industry who feel that the Government needs to eliminate the supply first.

“But I think the supply is driven by the demand,” says Norman. “The big issue is the demand, so that is why it is equally important to take action against those who break the law by buying pirated stuff.”

Malaysian Film Producers Association president Ahmad Puad Onah stresses that pirated goods should not be in the market at all.

“The authorities should make sure that they are not available, not chase after the people who buy them. As long as people see them in the market they will not think that they are illegal and will buy it.”

* “VCD, DVD and CD” is used interchangeably to refer to optical discs with video or audio data.

IT Law : Godfather of Spam in prison

"Godfather of Spam" goes to prison for four year

Alan Ralsky, the so-called "Godfather of spam" was yesterday sentenced by a federal judge in Detroit to spend the next 51 months of his life in prison for wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the CAN-SPAM act.

Not content simply to move boxes of pills or to sign people up for new mortgages, Ralsky's operation instead pulled in millions of dollars through "pump and dump" schemes of thinly traded stocks in companies you've never heard of. Millions of e-mails would announce some hot new "Internet IPO!!!!!" just about to drop, and—amazingly—some people would want in on the action. Since the stocks in question were low-volume "pink sheets" stocks, even low levels of activity could boost the stock price, at which point the owners would sell and forward tens of thousands of dollars from Hong Kong to the Standard Federal Bank in Troy, Michigan.

This might not sound like a good way to get rich, but the government's court documents showed just how lucrative the practice could be. Consider the list of following payments that arrived from Hong Kong in just one month, July 2005:

• July 5: $180,826.61
• July 11: $211,595.76
• July 14: $13,532
• July 22: $780,295.98
• July 26: $65,590.71
• July 27: $424,963.73
• July 27: $23,702

A scheme like this required a certain amount of sophistication, and Ralsky appears to have run it like a real business. He was the chief executive, and his son-in-law, Scott Bradley, was the chief financial officer. John Bown, CEO of network administration company GDC Layer One, was the "chief technology officer and network systems manager" for the spammers. William Neil served as the chief operating officer and registered many of the hundreds of bogus domain names used by the group.

The conspiracy was global. Although Ralsky and Bradley both lived in West Bloomfield, Michigan, members of their team operated from New York, Brazil, California, Hong Kong, and Dayton, Ohio, and included coders, a stockbroker, a Chinese CEO, and network admins.

Ralsky has been at his tricks for years, and eventually acquired a reputation as one of the world's top spammers. Court documents show that when the spammers recruited someone who claimed he could get 20 million e-mails a day into AOL and Hotmail, the man was awestruck to find out that he was joining Ralsky's operation. "King of spam wants to rent me," he wrote in an instant message. "Cool." (The man eventually made several hundred thousand dollars from his work for Ralsky.)

The Spamhaus description of Ralsky says that "he has grown from a small time operator, under the 'Additional Benefits' moniker, to one of the bigger spam houses on the Internet with a gang of fellow morally challenged types working with him to pump out every type of sleazy deal and scam offer into millions of internet users' mailboxes."

Ralsky wasn't always careful. He would recruit coders from sites like "special ham" (spam) using the "amr777" handle, and his team tried to cloak its e-mail discussions about proxies by using the fairly transparent replacement "p's," "peas," "proximate," and "p s."

Ralsky and company earned more than $2.6 million between May 1 and December 1, 2005 alone, but the feds were closing in. A three-year investigation by the FBI, the US Postal Inspection Service, and the Internal Revenue Service (with a little help from the SEC) untangled the conspiracy. In 2007, the government moved to indict the entire conspiracy.

Yesterday, the lead defendants were finally sentenced after pleading guilty in June 2009. Ralsky and his son-in-law got 51 months and 40 months in jail, respectively, and had to forfeit the cash associated with the spamming scheme. They will be on probation after their release. How Wai John Hui, the Chinese/Canadian CEO who helped arrange the stocks for use in the scheme, also got 51 months. John Bown got 32 months for setting up a botnet used to send the e-mails. A handful of others will be sentenced today.

(to see original article, please click the title above)

IT Law : Apple beats Psystar

Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar

By AppleInsider Staff

Published: 04:05 PM EST

In a crushing defeat for the clone Mac maker, Psystar was on the losing end of a crucial court decision in the company's ongoing legal battle with Apple.

Judge William Alsup ruled this week in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the Florida corporation. In addition, Psystar was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware.

"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Alsup also denied Psystar's own motion for summary judgment, in which the company attempted to prove that Apple engaged in copyright misuse. The judge ruled that Apple's End User License Agreement only attempts to control use of Apple's own software, which is within its rights.

The summary judgment does not mean that the trial is concluded, however. A number of issues remain to be resolved. Apple has alleged that Psystar has engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among other activities.

The ruling was issued Nov. 13 in a San Francisco court. Another hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14, and trial between the two companies is due to start in January 2010.

The decision came after both companies requested summary judgments, which turned into a positive for Apple and a significant defeat for Psystar.

It's just the latest of many setbacks for Psystar as it has attempted to defend itself from Apple's suit. In September, a member of the Psystar defense teamwithdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.

The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- in October began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.

Cyber Law : Powers of MCMC

The primary body governing the internet in Malaysia is the Malaysian Communication & Multimedia Commission (MCMC), governed by the Communication & Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA 98).

The MCMC has many powers under the CMA 98. Today we will focus on one such power.

In Section 51 of the CMA, the Director of MCMC may issue directions in writing to any person regarding the compliance or non-compliance of any licence conditions. Of course the licence holder shall be given time to reply and explain for non-compliance.

This powers would relevant to licence holders to provide network facilities in Malaysia. Granting of licences are referred to in Section 27 to 31 CMA 98.

Failure to comply with the Direction(s) may lead to a conviction with punishment of a fine of maximum RM300,000 or imprisonment fo 3 years, or both. This can be found at Section 53 CMA 98.

Cyber Crime : Offending posting on websites/blogs

S211 of the Communication & Multimedia 1988 (CMA) prohibits the postings of indecent or offensive postings on Blogs/website. A look at S211 states:-

211. Prohibition on provision of offensive content.

(1) No content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both and shall also be liable to a further fine of one thousand ringgit for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

Recently a news update from Bernama reported a case where a Bank officer was charged for posting an obscene blog title. He was charged under S233 of the CMA, a provision which we had blogged back in March 2009. The Malaysian Body regulating the Multimedia Industry is the Malaysian Communication & Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and has useful comments on the said S233. Please see link where S233is referred as part of Laws against Spamming.

For extra reading, you may visit this Blog, www.xes.cx; where the author is a Malaysian Lawyer who is well versed in Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology Law. 

We would encourage you to apply your mind and thoughts to these provisions before you make any postings on any website and/or blog.

Cyber Crime - Identity Theft

Identity Theft can be described as one pretending to be someone else and misusing that identity. It is a crime to do so, but it is not a new crime. What is new however, if the way one's identity is stolen, and where the identity is misused.

Historically people would pretend to be someone else and (for example) walk into a shop to purchase an item using the credit of another. But now, the new place to steal one's identity is in the Internet.

The Internet in recent times have seen many cases of Identity Thefts. People receiving e-mails asking for your name and bank account no is a common way to steal your identity. These e-mails are hoax and one must be wary when receiving such a request.

Another recent problem is phising. When surfing and "reaching" a website, be more careful as that website may not be the website you think it is. Classic cases are website phising for your e-mail address.

As e-commerce grows, and Internet quickly turning into the main method of registration etc, registering one's identity on the Internet will be the conduit for people to register oneself for more and more things. Things like buying stuff, confirming air tickets etc etc, can all be done through the internet.

The current laws in Malaysia to stem out Identity theft, in our view is still lacking. TheCommunication & Multimedia Act does not have specific provisions to deal with this problems, though in some of my personal meetings with Officers from Malaysian Communication & Multimedia Commission (MCMC) & Cyber Security; the people in charge of policing the Internet in Malaysia; are well aware of this problem and are looking into this.

In the interim, we share some interesting website for your knowledge and further reading on this area of Information Technology Law.

- News of an Ivy League Graduate who was seduced by money stolen from using other people's identity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451944,00.html

- An American view on Identity Theft

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/BankingInsuranceFinancialServices/IdentityTheftStateStatutes/tabid/12538/Default.aspx

- A specific website for Identity Theft from UK

https://www.identitytheft.org.uk/

- A Malaysian Context

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/LearningCurve/20080419163016/Article/index_html

Cyber Crime - Computer Crimes Act 1997

The Computer Crimes Act 1997, is amongst the few Statutes on Cyber Crime.

Under Section 3 CCA 1997, any person who secures access (hacking) without authority can be liable for an offence, which carries the punishment of :-

a. Fine not more than RM50,000, or;

b. Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or;

c. both.

Section 4 CCA makes it an offence if a person commits an offence under S3 above; but this time with intention to commit fraud or act dishonestly (hacking with intent to commit fraud etc). The penalty?

a. Fine not more than RM150,000;

b. Imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or

c. both.

Section 5 CCA relates to offences of carrying out an act which will lead to the modification of computer contents. Basically this can be described as the Computer Virus offence. If you send a virus to someone else, you may be guilty of this offence.

S5 carries the penalty of:-

a. Fine not more than RM100,000

b. imprisonment of not more than 7 years or both

If a person causes the modification as per S5 above but with intent to commit an offence(s ) under Penal Code; the penalty is enhanced to:-

a. Fine not more than RM150,000

b. Imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both.

Section 6 CCA makes it an offence to pass on a code or password to a Computer, to an unauthorised person. You can be imposed a fine of RM25,000 or imprisonment of not more than 3 years.

Look out for more blogging on these offences.

Cyber Crime

Cyber Crimes would probably be the new frontier in policing crime, in the near future. For over 15 years now, Lawyers have mention that Cyber Space will be the new battle ground to stamp out criminal activities, and that comment is still not out of line, after all these years.

With internet becoming the new 'necessity' in modern life, the need to police and stamp out criminal activities in cyber space becomes more acute by the day.

In Malaysia, there are a few Statutes which deals with cyber crime. The traditional Statutes would be the Penal Code and Computer Crimes Act 1997 (CCA 1997).

However the Communications & Mulitimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998) has many provisions which criminalizes certain activities in the internet.

The CCA 1997 basically deals with Computer Hacking, whilst the CMA 1998 deals not only with criminal activities in the internet; but is a far reaching Statute governing the organisations dealing with internet, the operation of the internet etc etc.

We would be blogging on this area, zooming on specific provisions for discussion.

Thank you.

Richard Wee