Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation Some degree of protection should also be extended to those who leak public interest information, even if they are officials. Leaks serve as an important information safety value in society, often ensuring that information of vital public interest is disclosed, and this is recognised in whistleblowing laws. To ensure that information about wrongdoing, both by public officials and by those working in the private sector, is exposed, there is broad international recognition of the need to offer formal legal protection to whistleblowers, namely those who release information about persons or organisations engaging in illegal, irregular, dangerous, unethical or harmful practices. 18 Whistleblowers require legal protection against reprisals because they often work within the very power structures which are responsible for the problematic behaviour. At a minimum, section 33(b) should include a public interest override, so that those who leak information would be protected where this was in the overall public interest. Perhaps the most problematical provision in the Electronic Transactions Law is Section 34 which punishes, with a prison term of up to 5 years, anyone who engages in: (a) sending, hacking, modifying, altering, destroying, stealing, or causing loss and damage to the electronic record, electronic data message, or the whole or part of the computer programme dishonestly; (b) intercepting of any communication within the computer network, using or giving access to any person of any fact in any communication without permission of the originator and the addressee; (c) communicating to any other person directly or indirectly with a security number, password or electronic signature of any person without permission or consent of such person; (d) creating, modifying or altering of information or distributing of information created, modified or altered by electronic technology to be detrimental to the interest of or to lower the dignity of any organization or any person. Section 34(a) criminalises a number of actions (sending, hacking, modifying, altering, destroying, stealing and so on) undertaken in relation to “electronic records”, “electronic data” and “computer programmes”. A “computer programme” is not defined, while electronic data or records are defined as records or information generated, sent, received or stored by means of electronic, optical or other similar technologies. This essentially encompasses all digital content and is, as a result, very widely applicable. Section 34(a) is problematical because the key word defining the criminal intent – namely ‘dishonestly’ – is not defined. This could capture a lot of routine online behaviour that is not harmful in any way. For example, if an individual modifies Thus, Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption calls on States to consider incorporating protections into their legal system for people who disclose information about corruption “in good faith and on reasonable grounds.” General Assembly Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003, entered into force 14 December 2005, available at: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/. 18 -8-