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

February 23, 2021

Myanmar Amends Legislation on the Privacy and Security of Citizens amid State of Emergency

As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism.

However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications.

Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens

The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following:

  • Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation

The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”.

The suspension of this section means that government agents can now enter people’s homes for the purposes of search, seizure, and arrest without civilian witnesses.

  • Section 7: Indefinite detention (habeas corpus)

Section 7 of the Privacy Law states that “No one shall be detained for more than 24 hours without permission from a court unless the detention is in accordance with existing law.”

The suspension of this section means that individuals in Myanmar may now be detained in prison indefinitely without the intervention of court proceedings.

  • Section 8: Wide-ranging individual privacy rights

Section 8 of the Privacy Law is the most wide-ranging and covers arrest, search and seizure of property, interception of telecommunications without proper authority, and various other issues of personal privacy:

“In the absence of an order, permission, or warrant issued in accordance with existing law, or permission from the Union President or the Union Cabinet, a Responsible Authority:

      1. Shall not enter into a citizen’s private residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest.
      2. Shall not surveil, spy upon, or investigate any citizen in a manner which could disturb their privacy and security or affect their dignity.
      3. Shall not intercept or disturb any citizen’s communication with another person or communications equipment in any way.
      4. Shall not demand or obtain personal telephonic and electronic communications data from telecommunication operators.
      5. Shall not open, search, seize or destroy another person’s private correspondence, envelope, package or parcel.
      6. Shall not unlawfully interfere with a citizen’s personal or family matters or act in any way to slander or harm their reputation.
      7. Shall not unlawfully seize the lawfully owned movable or immoveable property of a citizen, or intentionally destroy it either directly or by indirect means.”

Because of the suspension of this section, any of the above actions by governmental authorities now appear to be lawful in Myanmar.

Amendments to the Electronic Transactions Law

On February 15, 2021, the Electronic Transactions Law (2004)—the “ET Law”—was amended to introduce a broad exception allowing government confiscation of personal data, and a prohibition on sharing various types of information online. It is interesting to note that previously—in the draft of the Cyber Security Law—the administration intended to repeal the ET entirely, but this approach appears to have changed, as detailed below.

  • Government access to personal data

The data protection elements of the draft Cyber Security Law have essentially been incorporated into the new Chapter 10 of the amended ET Law. These provisions are brief and not comparable to the standards achieved by personal data protection regimes in other modern legal frameworks.

This chapter provides a new exception (Section 27-C) to the safe management of personal data in the case of “detecting, investigating, organizing of information, verifying the information conducted in accordance with management power on the cyber security and cybercrime matters relating to stability, tranquility, national security of the state.” “Stability,” “tranquility,” and “national security” are not defined in the legislation, but a wide enough interpretation would allow the government sweeping authority to obtain the personal data of any individual in Myanmar whenever it considers it necessary to do so.

  • Internet posts

Posting information on the internet is dealt with in Section 38-C of the amended law: “Whoever, at the cyber space, commits creating false news or fake news with the intention to cause public panic, to lost trust, to lower the dignity by public or to destroy the unity of any association, on conviction shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years or with a fine not exceeding ten million Kyats or with both.”

This legislation does not  define “false news,” “fake news,” “public panic,” “lost trust,” “lower dignity,” or “destroy unity” which leaves room for wide interpretation and use.

The combined effect of these amendments is that government agents may, without court intervention:

  • Arrest and indefinitely detain anybody in Myanmar;
  • Seize or destroy property;
  • Intercept communications whether electronic or postal;
  • Access personal data wherever located;
  • Demand information from telecommunications service providers; and
  • Arrest and detain individuals for online posting of content deemed undesirable.

As these legal developments represent potentially significant shifts in the legal landscape for Myanmar, all individuals and businesses in Myanmar need to be fully aware of the changes.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible