You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 23, 2015

IT Law Update (Part 1): The Cybersecurity Bill

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Earlier this month, the cabinet approved a series of bills related to information technology, personal data, cybersecurity, and telecommunications. One such bill would recast the Information and Communication Technology Ministry as the Digital Economy and Information Technology Ministry to reflect the importance of IT in Thailand’s economy—the same rationale behind the entire set of bills. This article focuses on one of these bills, the Cybersecurity Bill. Next week in a follow-up article, we will discuss another one of these bills, the Bill to Amend the Computer Crimes Act.

Given recent events, governments around the world are focusing on threats occurring over the Internet, as well as attacks using computing equipment and networks and how to counteract these threats to improve overall security. Thailand is no different. The Cybersecurity Bill, as approved by the cabinet, would establish a National Cybersecurity Committee and a new state agency, the Office of the National Cybersecurity Committee, to focus on these issues.

The committee would have the responsibility to determine how to respond to serious cyberthreats, effectively to serve as the center of operations in the event of an IT calamity (save for matters of military security) and cooperate with other state bodies and private entities for this purpose, among related responsibilities. The Office of the National Cybersecurity Committee would be responsible for implementing the committee’s policies, as well as related responsibilities specified in law.

The Bill also features a reporting mechanism for state agencies and/or designated persons in each agency to provide information to the secretary of the committee so it could determine what further actions to take in response to particular cyberthreats. Further, where maintaining cybersecurity is necessary—for example, in a case where there may be an effect on financial and commercial stability or national security—the committee may even order a state agency to take particular actions and report as the committee may instruct.

It is envisaged that the minister overseeing the committee would appoint officials to perform certain roles. These officials, in turn, may be authorized by the secretary of the office to request a state agency or any person to give testimony, submit a written explanation, or submit materials for inspection or information—all within the scope of the Act—or request state agencies or private entities to facilitate the committee’s performance of its duties.

The Bill also would empower officials to access communications information, be it in the form of posts, telegrams, telephones, faxes, computers, or any mechanism or device for electronic communication or telecommunications, for the purpose of cybersecurity. However, it also contemplates that the cabinet would specify rules for officials to follow in accessing such information, presumably for the purpose of addressing privacy concerns.

The law also contains provisions to protect such information and to prevent its disclosure, except in cases of prosecution under the Act, abuse of power, or as otherwise authorized by a court.

The most controversial provision of the Bill relates to accessing personal communications content. Indeed, commentators around the world have expressed concerns about access to personal communications by state agencies of various countries. These concerns are understandable and legitimate. Nevertheless, current public discourse seems to reflect that policymakers’ concerns about terrorism and national security are outweighing traditional concerns about personal privacy.

In Thailand, the practical reality is state agencies already have access to communications content under a variety of other laws. Hence, the provisions in the Cybersecurity Bill do not substantially expand the state’s ability to access such information. Rather, in the larger picture, the Bill would seem to envisage the establishment of a framework for such access.

All countries need to focus on cybersecurity, and the Cybersecurity Bill lays out a framework for this in Thailand. The reality is that it is impossible to predict all possible cyberthreats that may arise, which is why the Bill gives effect to plans and policies to be adopted by the National Cybersecurity Committee. In that regard, the success of the Bill will ultimately depend on those plans and policies, which would be expected to undergo continual adjustment and updates to meet current threats.

In next Friday’s article, we will discuss the proposed changes to the Computer Crimes Act—changes that may be a cause for concern for some.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More