Legal Framework for Balancing Security and Freedom of Communication via Computer Systems

Abstract

This academic article aims to analyze the legal framework in balancing security and freedom of communication via computer systems by using the legal frameworks, namely the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2560, the Computer-Related Crime Act (No. 2) B.E. 2560, the Criminal Code, the declaration of emergency decree on public administration in emergency situation B.E. 2548, ICCPR, OHCHR, and the legal frameworks of the Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei as the framework for the analysis in order to improve and amend relevant Thai laws to achieve a balance between security and freedom of communication via computer systems. Findings are as follows: Thailand should improve and amend relevant Thai laws to achieve a balance between security and freedom of communication via computer systems as follows: (1)Examine international human rights law, as Thailand is still a party to the ICCPR, which stipulates that restrictions on people’s freedom must be based on the principles of necessity and proportionality. (2) Use conclusions and lessons learned from foreign laws that are stronger legal systems to set standards for use in Thailand. (3) Clearly stipulate which cases are offenses that are contrary to public order and good morals, which give the Computer Data Screening Committee the power to consider and block websites, so that there will be a process of checking and balancing to some extent, without giving the power to the court and making it a burden for the court to decide, because the court’s decision must be based on the ideology, ideas, and values of the judge in that case. In addition, the constitution is the highest law. If there is any blocking of people’s freedom, it must be prohibited by a law that comes from the highest law, can be clearly examined, and does not violate the constitution. (4) Increase the role of independent organizations, such as the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), to be able to perform the duty of examining the use of laws that limit freedom, because it should not be under the supervision of the state alone.