Computer law getting politicised too much

Political activists have cried foul over the passage of the computer act by the military-dominated interim legislature, saying the law will give the authorities greater and quicker access to online data, hamper freedom of expression and create a climate of fear. General users have, in return become confused, not knowing what the law will do when it comes to, say, digital transactions which have become increasingly common.
In this new era, what is the most important is for the state to strike a balance between providing online financial security to promote all kinds of business, including small ones that rely heavily on computers and the Internet, and encouraging political participation through the same channels. It isn’t easy, as we can tell from the controversy over America’s Edward Snowden. The man, who has been deemed a traitor, has told the world that if the powers-that-be are determined and sophisticated enough, they can easily find a way to know what people watch late at night, who they interact with online or who plans to do what.
For the majority of users, they may care more about “safety”, an issue that should not be drowned out as the debate gets emotional when “freedom” is concerned. Earlier this year, one revelation reinforced the need for something to really be done to protect the growing number of computer users. According to the Allianz Global Corporate and Speciality (AGCS), Thailand is the world’s number two target for cyber-crime. Last year, almost 20 per cent of cybercrime victims in this country reported a total loss of Bt3 million while four per cent lost between Bt30 million up to Bt3 billion each. The AGCS reported a sharp rise in cyber-crime incidents in Thailand over the past two years, during which the country jumped from the fourth to second place in the unenviable global ranking.
One thing is certain: More and more people are using computers and the Internet now, and many among them are doing it for business purposes. These people matter more than any group as far as judging a computer law is concerned. 
The government owes the public a simple explanation on how exactly the new law is going to help improve the cyber-crime situation. Threats to go after “attackers” of the new law are not helping and they only serve to amplify suspicion that there is a hidden agenda behind the law. General users only want to know simple things such as how the law will make online transactions safer and how the law will make things more difficult for fraudsters.
Critics of the law must also take the issue of general users into account before passing judgement. A politically-motivated uproar can be loud, but it can only go so far when it comes to judging a piece of legislation. It’s best to scrutinise the computer law based on the common interests of the general computer and Internet users.
It’s important to be aware that there are many types of cybercrime at the moment, and a lot of them target individuals who are either unaware or don’t help themselves by using illegal or outdated software and/or devices. Transparent enforcement is needed. Education has to be provided by the state, along with regular campaigns on a national scale. 
The state must show sincerity and the critics must be open-minded. After all, this is an issue in which “good intentions” can bring about bad results.