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  • Enhance and update the 2007 CCA, which is outdated due to rapid changes in the nature of cybercrimes;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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More