Myanmar: Digital Content Regulation Section 5 is also very problematical. It creates various offences relating to “any person” (i.e. not just officials). Section 5(1), for example, covers any “document or information which relates to or is used in a prohibited place or relates to anything in such a place”. It is clear that this extends very far beyond information which is sensitive on national security grounds. Pursuant to section 5(1)(c), it is an offence simply to retain such information. According to section 5(2), it is an offence voluntarily to receive any information in contravention of the Act. Section 5(3) prohibits the communication of any information relating, among other things, to “munitions of war”, regardless of any impact this might have on national security. These provisions are not only vastly overbroad on their face, covering a large amount of information that has little or nothing to do with national security. They also contravene the principle, noted above, whereby third parties should not be held liable for communicating, let alone just receiving, confidential information. Finally, none of the provisions in the Official Secrets Act are subject to whistleblower protections or even a public interest override. Recommendations: Ø The whole Official Secrets Act should be carefully reviewed and amended to bring it into line with international standards. In particular: o Section 3 should be revised to limit its application to information which is legitimately secret on national security grounds and to provide for individual sanctions only where an individual acts with intent to cause harm and that harm is likely to result. o Section 5 should be revised to limit its scope to officials and, as with section 3, to legitimately secret national security information. o A public interest override should be added to the Act. 5. The Telecommunications Law Like the Electronic Transactions Act, the 2013 Telecommunications Law24 serves a number of important public goals, including to modernise telecommunications, to protect consumers and to promote universal access to services. At the same time, there are a number of problems with the Telecommunications Law. For example, several offences unnecessarily duplicate pre-existing rules. As an example of this, section 66(c) makes it a crime, subject to a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, to engage in “[s]tealing, cheating, misappropriating or mischief of any money and property by using any Telecommunications Network”. As is the case with the Electronic Transactions Law, the existing Penal 8 October 2013. Available at: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs23/2013-10-08Telecommunications_Law-en.pdf. 24 - 12 -