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 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
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