8/22/22, 10:18 PM Myanmar: Freedom on the Net 2019 Country Report | Freedom House organizations that focus on the Rohingya and the other conflicts Myanmar, as well as the International Criminal Court and other international bodies pushing for accountability for the atrocities against the Rohingya. The SMMT was widely criticized by civil society organizations. 190 Despite the criticism, the SMMT was awarded an initial grant of approximately $4.8 million, 191 which it has reportedly used to purchase surveillance technology. 192 The scale and sophistication of the technology is unclear, 193 and the government has refused to reveal from which country the equipment was purchased, citing security concerns. 194 No information has been shared regarding the SMMT’s powers and responsibilities, relationship with law enforcement and the courts, or any potential safeguards such as independent judicial oversight. Little is known about the body’s operations or whether there is any oversight. 195 The MoTC has announced its intention to build a data center in Naypyidaw, and in December 2018 the ministry requested that the parliament approve a $95 million loan from South Korea to fund the center, 196 which would serve as a secure base for its planned e-government services. 197 The Mandalay regional government launched its data center in January 2019 to provide e-government services. 198 Concerns have been raised that the data centers will lack adequate privacy and security safeguards. 199 C6 0-6 pts Are service providers and other technology companies required to aid the government in monitoring the communications of their users? 1/6 Service providers are increasingly concerned about protecting private data, given the ease with which the government can request it without proper oversight or appeals mechanisms. 200 International companies have also come under pressure; for example, a well-regarded NLD member of parliament has called for WhatsApp to monitor suspicious messages between users. 201 The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, passed in 2017, prohibits the interception of personal communications without a warrant, but contains a vague exception allowing surveillance if permission is granted by the president or a government body. 202 The law does not outline clear procedures to prevent data from being collected and stored, nor does it provide for judicial review. Critics argue that the law’s definition of privacy is inadequate and inconsistent with international human rights standards. 203 Laws demanded by a range of private sector and civil society stakeholders, including a robust data protection law, have not yet been proposed. 204 The Telecommunications Law grants the government the power to direct unspecified persons “to secure any information or communication which may harm security, rule of law, or peace of the state.” 205 The provision stating that any interception should not “hurt the fundamental rights of citizens” is an inadequate safeguard against abuse. 206 The Telecommunications Law also grants the government the power to inspect the premises of telecommunications license holders, as well as to require them to hand over documents, for the ambiguous purposes of defending the “security of the state or for the benefit of the people,” without any safeguards against abuse. 207 A 2018 amendment to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law includes a new provision requiring telecommunications providers to disclose user information without due process. 208 There are no requirements for judicial review. https://freedomhouse.org/country/myanmar/freedom-net/2019 16/20