making it difficult to know what information is prohibited. The government should remove these provisions from the law.30 Finally, the draft law establishes obligations for licensees to cooperate with requests for surveillance in sections 73 and 75 for “security” purposes, and allows authorities to suspend telecommunications services in cases of public emergency in section 74. However, the draft does not provide any protections for privacy or freedom of expression. For example, the draft law fails to require a warrant for interception of communications or any other safeguard that would prevent arbitrary interference with the right to privacy. The draft law also does not give adequate guidance as to what constitutes a legitimate “security” or “public interest” justification that would allow government access to user information. This raises the serious risk that Internet or phone companies could effectively become agents of law enforcement by reporting on user activities or by suspending communications across their networks arbitrarily and without valid justification, in response to or in anticipation of government expectations. The government should enact protections for the rights to freedom of expression and privacy to prevent abuse of surveillance, national security, and emergency powers. It should also ensure a valid and credible means to contest any requests to censor content or monitor individuals who are exercising their rights to free expression and information. In April 2013, Human Rights Watch directly communicated concerns about the draft law to Burmese officials involved in the telecommunications reform process. Those officials informed Human Rights Watch that a more recent draft of the telecommunications bill addresses many of our concerns and that the law will meet international standards. However, the Burmese government has not released a new draft of the law and Human Rights Watch is unable to confirm stated improvements or other revisions to the draft law. Because the legislative process has not been fully open or transparent, it remains difficult to assess whether the proposed law will adequately protect the rights of Internet and mobile users in Burma.31 The Burmese government should hold public, inclusive, and 30 The government should also remove provisions dealing with cybercrime, data protection, and intellectual property (Sections 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, and 68 in Chapter XVIII). If regulation of these matters is required, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology should instead address such issues through separate legislation instead of the Telecommunications Law. 31 An early draft of the bill was made public in November 2012. See “Myanmar Bans Social Media Use Under Telecoms Bill,” Eleven Myanmar, November 12, 2012, http://elevenmyanmar.com/politics/1280-myanmar-bans-social-media-use-undertelecoms-bill. 13 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | MAY 2013