146 Dictating the Internet: generally failed to provide clear legal justifications which assessed the legality, proportionality or necessity of a shutdown against these concerns, in line with their obligations to protect human rights. The shutdowns exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, safety and security concerns of the public, and in Myanmar and Vietnam, potentially facilitated the commission of more human rights violations by removing internet access from rights monitoring groups, human rights defenders and activists. In Myanmar, in particular, the shutdown had the effect of preventing documentation and information about human rights violations from being reported. ii. Vague, overbroad provisions The second commonality between the laws is that they have vague, overbroad provisions which confer wide, overbroad powers on State authorities and allow implementation of the laws to be dictated by the inclinations of the person or authority body enforcing such laws, thus preventing individuals – and indeed government officials themselves and the judiciary – from being able to discern clearly which kinds of expression or information might be subject to restrictions. Thus, Myanmar’s Telecommunications Law, which was brought into force to “enable the supervision” of telecommunications services, network facilities and equipment “for national peace and tranquility and for public security”, does not define clearly what “national peace and tranquility” entails, and on their face, these categories are not legitimate bases for restricting rights.575 Section 77 of the law also fails to set out preconditions to determine an “emergency situation” – allowing for authorities to be able to impose blanket internet shutdowns on entire regions of the country. Similarly Thailand’s Computer-related Crimes Act offers no clear direction on acts “likely to cause damage to the protection of national security, public safety… or cause panic to the public”.576 Overbroad provisions which do not clarify what raising “unrest” or “disaffection” mean have been highlighted in the sedition laws of Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Brunei and Philippines, and “propaganda against the state”, “causing disorder”, “disruption of security” and “being useful to an enemy” are terms left vaguely defined in the laws of Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar to cover a wide range of acts, including legitimate expression of opinion, that can fall under espionage-like 575 Myanmar Penal Code, section 4(e). 576 See Section III (i).