WELCOME !

THANK YOU FOR VISITING THIS SITE. I HAVE BEEN USING BOTH SWAHILI AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS ISSUES - I HAVE ATTACHED ENGLISH VERSION TO SOME OF THE SWAHILI NEWS/STORY AT THE END.

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

BRAZIL'S CYBERCRIME BILL FALLS TO AMENDMENTS

Cybercrime is gaining popularity across borders as it has become more sophisticated, border-less nature and with tremendous destructive power. Cybercrime Law is among those key elements to fight cybercrimes in any Country, Yet the law itself is not enough. It must be accompanied by effective cybersecurity awareness programs, Capacity building (Enhancing knowledge to those dealing with cybercrimes) and collaborations (Internally and externally – Across borders).

Brazil like many other countries become among those with cybercrimes law in place. As of many countries, Pressure to amend its cyberlaw rise for the past few months.  After much pressure from Internet rights advocates, proponents of new cybercrime legislation in Brazil removed some of the most controversial elements of the bill on April 11. Critics of the draft amendments also managed to secure a postponing of the preliminary vote to the end of the month.

-------------------------------------------
NEWS UPDATES: Online messaging service, WhatsApp is now fully encrypted on all platforms. The end-to-end encryption means that WhatsApp cannot access the contents of communications, and would therefore be unable to comply with court orders demanding access to that information.
-------------------------------------------

The amendments form an integral part of a report from the parliamentary Inquiry Commission on Cybercrimes (CPI dos Crimes Cibern├ęticos), released on March 31, that would modify key aspects of Marco Civil, Brazil's globally celebrated ‘bill of rights’ for the Internet.


The Commission was established in August last year with the objective of proposing legislation to better tackle online crimes.

Following criticism, federal deputy Espiridiao Amin, who is the rapporteur of the commission, released on April 11 a new version of the report, with slight changes to the most controversial elements of the legislation.

The new text of Marco Civil's article 21 read as follows:

“Internet providers will have to take the technical measures, within the limits of their capabilities, to assure that the infringing content, subject of a court order or notification referenced in this Section, remains unavailable in case is has been copied, eliminating the need for a new court order or notification to remove those [reproductions] of said content.”

In its justification, the report states that the current stipulations in Marco Civil make it difficult to remove criminal content when they are replicated — Marco Civil expressly mentions the “undeniable location of the material” when referring to the removal of a content. According to the report, the current system is “unfair to the victim, who is obligated to request a new court order against each occurrence of said content.”

Article 10 of the Marco Civil, which treats of the protection of user data, will gain the following amendment:

“The police authority or the public prosecutor could request to the Internet access provider or the Internet application provider, regardless of judicial authorization, the IP address used for the generation of specific content object of criminal investigation.”

The rationale for the proposal, the report says, is that “It's important to reinforce that what is being proposed is not to liberate access of police forces to the data of any internet users…Internet users that haven't committed any crime will have the guarantee of the preservation of its intimacy. But those that make use of the internet to practice crimes will be identified quickly.”

Finally, the report also maintained that the judicial system could demand that ISPs block entire Internet applications and websites. Language is vague on what circumstances such blocking could be used — it merely says that applications ‘related’ to criminal conduct could be subjected to censorship.


It also says that the practice is current in the European Union, United States and Chile, which is contested by some Internet advocates. It is also unclear whether such a disposition could trigger the blocking of applications that do not provide an illegal service, but could be used for criminal practices — this is what prompted the blockade of WhatsApp last year in Brazil.