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 20, 2017

New Computer Crimes Act to Tackle Cybercrime amid Public Concerns over Online Freedom

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The Thai government’s attempts to revamp the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) and grant authorities more power to investigate and apprehend perpetrators of increasingly diverse cybercrimes has raised consternation among internet users who fear the new and more stringent law may impinge on human rights and place restrictions on online activity in the country.

Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) passed draft amendments to the 2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA) on December 16, 2016, and it is now awaiting publication in the Government Gazette. The law will come into effect 120 days after its publication date.

According to a report issued by the NLA committee responsible for drafting the CCA, the amendments are intended to:

  • Enhance and update the 2007 CCA, which is outdated due to rapid changes in the nature of cybercrimes;
  • Introduce new committees; and
  • Adjust and rationalize the authority of officials under the new law.

However, the public appears not to share the government’s thinking behind this rationale, and before the law was passed, more than 340,000 people signed a petition objecting to the amendments as they believe the new CCA gives excessively broad authority to government agencies to act against online content containing information that is deemed inappropriate.

The activists fear abuse of the new enhanced powers under the new law could adversely affect the rights of people both inside and outside the country, and particular attention is focused on Sections 14, 18, and 20 of the CCA.

Under the new NLA-approved CCA, Section 14 introduces more offenses and offers more room for interpretation. Under this controversial section, the public are prohibited from entering (or knowingly sharing) a computer system that causes “damage to the public, creates panic, or causes harm to public infrastructure, national security, public security, or economic security.”

The broad scope of the new Section 14 operates as a catch-all for a wide range of offenses, thus compelling online users—including businesses—to be more discrete and mindful of publicly sharing information. Some argue this will force users to be more responsible in disseminating content online, while others contend that it serves to restrict freedoms for internet users.

Section 18 has also been severely criticized, as it broadly empowers officers investigating an offense under the CCA or other laws to enquire, request, access, seize, duplicate, and unlock computer systems to obtain the data in question. However, a court order is specifically required for the access, seizure, duplication, or hacking (unlocking) of computer systems that are not in the possession of the officers.

Although no mechanism is prescribed under the law detailing how the courts should exercise their judicial discretion in granting or declining an order, the wording of this section appears intended to limit questions about whether officers are deliberately or excessively exercising their broad authority over the unpossessed computer data.

But Section 18 does not require officers to obtain a court order if they wish to request Service Providers, such as online access providers or social media platforms, to provide “traffic data” information to facilitate an investigation into an offense under the CCA or other laws. Although the public has questioned why a court order is not required, these new powers will undoubtedly cause businesses and other public users to be more mindful of handling their “traffic data,” which could also be interpreted to include data messages sent through work or personal devices and computers.

Section 20 of the new CCA requires the formation of a new Computer Data Screening Committee to be appointed by the Digital Ministry, wherein three out of nine members must be representatives from the private sector, including human rights, media, and other related fields.

This new committee will have the authority to consider and provide second-tier approval to censor “inappropriate” computer data (i.e., defined as against good morals or public order) before the request to censor the “inappropriate” computer data can be submitted for court approval. The subsequent granting of a court approval will result in such data being censored. However, the public have questioned whether authorities need this type of oversight of all inappropriate computer data.

Public attention is now focused squarely on the Digital Ministry, the authority charged with ensuring the smooth implementation of the new CCA. The NLA drafting committee has recommended that the ministry conduct training and educate officials so they have a better understanding of cybercrime investigations and computer data evidence collection, to ensure enforcement of the CCA complies with their intentions.

It is hoped that correct and efficient enforcement by authorities will ease public concerns over the new Computer Crimes Act, although undoubtedly, concerns will remain as the public continues to debate whether the new act is wholly appropriate for computer and online users in Thailand. All business operators in Thailand will need to closely monitor the CCA’s implementation and enforcement to ensure compliance.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More