Jordan’s new cybercrime bill was
released last week. The new bill caused
much
controversy. Human rights monitors, political parties,
trade unions, and journalists all
denounced it.
اضافة اعلان
The government was on the defensive with
several key government figures giving interviews and statements justifying the
law as a necessity for
social protections and safeguarding Jordan from
foreign
malign campaigns.
The rise of AI and social media influence
pushes governments, like Jordan, to centralize power to control these forces.
Sometimes, it is for valid national security
and social protection reasons. However, global practice and research suggest
that decentralization offers greater flexibility and effectiveness in
combating, regulating and helping safeguard communities, not centralization.
The topic is complex enough that the debate is unclear.
Clear definitions ease moderation, prosecution, and defense, providing stability. Unclear definitions of misinformation, hate speech or divisive speech - especially when the hope for increasing political engagement under the recent political party renewals, is a recipe for disaster and confusion
The law aims to address child protection,
reduce online harm, and protect data systems. But it also raises concerns on
privacy, freedom of speech, and political comments.
Three things you
should know:
1. History of Decentralization in Jordan:One of the earliest
attempts at decentralization in Jordan was the
1952 Decentralization Law, which established a system of local councils
in different parts of the country. However, this law did not grant significant
autonomy to these councils, since they remained largely dependent on the
central government for funding and decision-making. Tweaks were made to the
local administration system in 2001, but without a push towards empowering
municipal governments.
Skipping to
2015,
Law No. 49 promoted decentralization with elected governorate and
municipal councils.
In 2017, decentralization came into effect with the
local elections, launching the governorate councils, and local councils - a
neighborhood level council under the municipal council. By 2021, Jordan had
already undergone changes that abolished the local councils, redesigned the
governorate councils, reduced the number of elected seats, and made mayors more
dependent on centralized authorities.
Transferring real
power and resources to local authorities in Jordan has been very gradual, with
Amman retaining control over major policies, budgeting, financing, and
decision-making. The majority of decision-making remains centralized and away
from citizens’ influence or awareness. This has been a missed opportunity, on a
number of fronts.
2. Why a
Decentralized Approach Works Local governments worldwide employ
various best practices to combat misinformation and disinformation
on social media. These practices include promoting media literacy,
collaborating with fact-checking organizations, establishing rapid response
mechanisms, running public awareness campaigns, engaging with social media
platforms, building partnerships with online platforms, creating local
information hubs, engaging with local communities, encouraging responsible
social media use, and considering legislative measures.
Combating
misinformation requires a multi-partner approach involving governments, social
media platforms, fact-checking organizations, educational institutions, and
citizens themselves. Collaboration, education, and a commitment to promoting
accurate information are key elements in the fight against disinformation and
misinformation.
A multi-partner
approach is
only effective at the local level. National institutions are already too far removed
from the context and players, and can get bogged down in cases if burdened with
cybercrimes for the entire nation. A
recent paper by the Aspen Institute provides several decentralized tools for
combating cybercrimes and misinformation, including civic education, investing
in local media, local transparency, and building citizen trust in elections.
False information
increases risks to citizens -
especially in an emergency. In an election or during a political crisis,
it increases risk to the state and state stability. The diffusion of false
information is strongly affected by the lack of timely and verifiable
information, from governments. Several EU states have focused on decentralized
approaches such as
Norway and Finland.
Estonia remains the gold standard for its innovative
measures to enhance cybersecurity and combat cybercrimes, by maintaining a
centralized Cyber Security Council, (a high-level advisory body chaired by the
Prime Minister) while decentralizing the responses across different government
agencies. However, Estonia has a decentralized approach to governance in
general with a focus on individual liberties and a free market.
Lithuania's approach to cybersecurity involves
coordination between various government agencies through the National Cyber
Security Center (NCSC) working closely with the private sector, and
international partners to combat cyber threats. (Both states, however, also get
cybersecurity support through NATO).
Canada has a decentralized approach to addressing
cybercrimes, with law enforcement agencies at the federal, provincial, and
municipal levels working together on cybercrime investigations. The UK has a multi-agency approach to tackling cybercrime, involving
organizations such as the National Crime Agency (NCA), Metropolitan Police
Cyber Crime Unit, and other regional police forces.
Australia had a decentralized approach to combating
cybercrimes, with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and state police agencies
coordinating efforts to address cyber threats.
Germany had a decentralized approach to combating
cybercrimes, with various law enforcement agencies, including the Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) and State Criminal Police Offices (LKA). The
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) plays a crucial role involving
government representatives, civil society, and the private sector. Both Germany
and
Brazil give the judiciary more control over local
issues, letting courts decide issues in their jurisdiction.
3. The new bill and
its implications:
The new law focuses on
regulating various activities related to the use of information systems,
information networks, and information technology in the Kingdom. It addresses
offenses such as unauthorized access to information systems, creating fake
websites or accounts, committing crimes using electronic means, intercepting
data transmission, sexual exploitation and pornography, defamation and
dissemination of false news, invasion of privacy, promotion of violence and
hatred, and other related offenses.
In many areas the law
focuses on citizen protection and limiting online harm. But there are also some
worrisome areas, not for what they say but what they don’t say. Vague areas in
laws allow unpredictable use, and unpredictability increases citizen distrust
and anxiety.
Some provisions of the
law, such as those related to defamation, dissemination of false news, and
undermining national unity, might raise concerns about potential restrictions
on freedom of expression and speech. There is an expansive definition of what
is criminal behavior online. Finally there are some harsh penalties - which
includes imprisonment - and are much stricter than international practice.
Also, the law would allow for wide interception and capture of data
transmission raising concerns about citizen privacy and due process rights.
However, violating another citizen’s privacy is mentioned as a crime -
including sharing private images taken of them.
The law blends several
cyber threats together and some which don’t fit - like defamation. It is
important to remember that this law is occurring in parallel with political
modernization - which actually encourages more political engagement and
discussion.
My Take: Most Jordanians define
democracy as primarily freedom of speech (then followed by a social safety net
provided by the state). This makes any change to online regulation sensitive -
especially since the majority of Jordanians under 56 get their news from social
media. However, the threats are real, and even more so with AI advances. It is not just cybercrimes that
threatened hacking, but also blackmail, hate speech, fake news, and
misinformation.
The question is how to
balance freedoms with the need for security and how to battle these threats
effectively. The answer to the first is clarity - clear definitions so that the
public understands the red lines. Clear definitions ease moderation,
prosecution, and defense, providing stability. Unclear definitions of
misinformation, hate speech or divisive speech - especially when the hope for
increasing political engagement under the recent political party
renewals, is a recipe for disaster and confusion.
The answer to the
second is decentralization. Decentralized approaches work globally for
combating extremism, decentralized approaches work in battling COVID-19, and
decentralized approaches work globally in fighting cybercrime. Decentralization
is not just about democracy or increasing citizen influence - it is about
efficiency. Local leadership knows more about their communities than centralized
bureaucracies. They just need the resources, training, and staff to get the job
done. As globalization shifts from the idea of liberal capitalism to increasing
global threats (besides extremism, pandemics, and cybercrimes there are also
traditional criminal networks, climate change crises, human trafficking and
many other threats). Ironically the solutions have to be local.
A multi-partner
approach is vital. First, citizens have to be a part of the solution (and not
the victim of it). Civil society can be a partner in civic education, the
Ministry of Education will need to provide Universities with media literacy
curriculum, (In the US the state of Washington introduced a bill in 2019 to
implement media literacy education in schools.) and local governments can
provide civic education through public meetings and messages (just like they
did with public health messaging early in the pandemic). In the state of Vermont, also in the US, the Front Porch initiative
uses community meetings and town halls - offline - to discuss events online.
Several local governments in the United States have initiated media literacy
programs in schools and communities to educate citizens about identifying and
combating fake news. This can even be done by professional associations -
starting this month New York requires lawyers to take a course on media literacy as
a part of renewing their law license.
In many areas the law focuses on citizen protection and limiting online harm. But there are also some worrisome areas, not for what they say but what they don’t say. Vague areas in laws allow unpredictable use, and unpredictability increases citizen distrust and anxiety.
However, with this new
cybercrime law, civil society, media, professional associations, trade unions,
and political parties should be partners, but instead they’re protesting
because they feel they are the target. The concern here isn’t negative
criticism but the loss of a valuable partnership. By including their concerns,
and including their resources, the efforts can be multiplied.
There are a lot of
issues with fact-checking, which is often too little, too late. Pre-bunking is
more effective. But there are times where false information must be corrected
so that accurate information is safeguarded. Singapore launched the "Factually" website, which is managed by the
government's Public Communications Division. The website serves as a dedicated
platform to debunk misinformation and provide factual information on various
issues. It addresses myths and false claims, offering credible sources to back
up its statements. Brazil's fact-checking organization, Agência Lupa, took a more decentralized approach by
collaborating with local governments to debunk false claims during elections
and major events. South Korea established the "Fact-checking
Center" in 2017, a government-led initiative to counter fake news during
elections, which cooperated with journalists and civil society. Jordan
should consider civic education and pre-bunking but also a trained and funded
fact checking body.
Finally, a cybercrime
law should fit under an overarching Cyber Security Strategy which brings
together multiple partners. We need to integrate citizens, civil society, and
journalists into the battle against cyber crimes and connect them with local
governments instead of leaving them out of the conversation, making them view
themselves as the target of such harsh penalties.
This article was originally published on the SubStack Full Spectrum Jordan.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
