Investigation of DSA

3. Digital tools can be used as a blessing for both general masses and the media in
Bangladesh alike. However it also came up with different scopes of misapplication
with high undue exposure and abuse. It is a weapon or tool that can be used to
prosecute the guilty if used wisely but at the same time the platform in the wrong
hands with power can abuse it. To minimize the offences, the government approved
Digital Security Act (DSA) 2018.

4. The Digital Security Act-2018 provides punishment for:
Illegal access to any critical information infrastructure, under section 17
Illegal access to computer, digital device, computer system, under section 18
“Propaganda or campaign against the Liberation War, the Father of the Nation"
according to section 21
Identity fraud or personation, under section 24
Cyber-terrorism and defamation, under section 27
Posting offensive content against religious values to create social unrest and
destroying “communal harmony”, under section 28 and 31

5. Briefly explaining DSA
Analysis of the Intended Role of DSA-2018
Analysis of The Troublesome Parts

6. Data Collection:
Necessary data for the research is collected from secondary data sources like
several research reports and other sources like texts, research monographs, cases
and various published and unpublished materials & different news portals.
Data Analysis:
Systematically arranging and applying logical techniques to describe and illustrate,
condense and recap, and evaluate data with accurate and appropriate analysis.
Presenting the analysis of collected data is undertaken MS Word, case by case of
relevant sections that are supposed to be contradicted with freedom of speech and
so on.

8. The Intended Role of DSA-2018

9. Section 8:
Power to remove or block information and data:
If the Director General is satisfied that something that is published or
disseminated in the digital platform falling within his domain may poses threat to
digital security, he may request Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory
Commission (BTRC) to remove such information or data or, in specific cases block
the platform.
If it is evident to the law enforcing agencies that something published and
disseminated through any digital device or digital medium can create disunity in
the country, disrupt economic activities and security, defence, hurt religious
values, create communal hatred or bad feelings, create turbulence in law and
order situation then the law enforcing agencies can request the BTRC to remove
such content or block it.

10. Section 25:
The offences regarding defaming, humiliating and embarrassing a person,
damaging the image and reputation of state and so one are addressed as crime.
This section may be very fruitful against crime mostly against women. We have
seen that women are the main victim of such cases where some men intentionally
spread out private contents through social medium. Many sociologists and experts
opine their positive opinion that this section will ensure those victim women to get
fair justice against the culprit.

11. Section 28:
Publication, broadcast, etc. of information in website or in any electronic format
that hurts the religious values or sentiment. If any person or group willingly or
knowingly publishes or broadcasts or causes to publish or broadcast anything in
website or any electronic format which hurts religious sentiment or values, with an
intention to hurt or provoke the religious values or sentiments, then such act of the
person shall be an offence.

13. Analysis of the Troublesome Parts &
Their Negative Impacts

14. Section 8:
Section 8 of the DSA bestows on the Director-General of the Digital Security Agency
the power to decide if any information published or disseminated through digital
media constitutes a threat to the digital security of the nation. If the Director-
General finds a threat, then he can request that the Bangladesh
Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) remove or block such
information. Similarly, Section 8(2) of the DSA authorizes law enforcement agencies
to request the BTRC, through the Director-General of the Digital Security Agency,
to remove or block any information published or disseminated through digital
media on various grounds, such as disruption of the unity in the country, disruption
of its economic activity, its security, defense, or public order, or causing racial hatred
and hurting religious sentiments. Thus, both of these Sections of the DSA permit
the removal of content from digital platforms on vague and nebulous grounds.

15. Section 21:
Section 21 of the DSA makes it an offense to use digital platforms to spread
propaganda against Bangladesh’s liberation war, the spirit of the liberation war, the
“Father of the Nation” Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—also the father of the current
Prime Minister and the national anthem, or the national flag. It stipulates a
maximum punishment of ten years in prison, a hefty fine of Tk. one crore or both for
the commission of such an offense.

16. Section 25:
Section 25 of the DSA prescribes a punishment of three years’ imprisonment or Tk.
three lakhs or both for the use of digital platforms for sending, publishing, or
broadcasting any offensive, false or intimidating information, which annoys,
insults, humiliates or denigrates a person or which tarnishes “the image of the
nation. The use of vague words, such as “annoy,” “insult,” and “humiliate” as
grounds for criminalizing the dissemination of information online makes the
provisions of Section 25 susceptible to abuse

18. Sections 28 and 31:
Sections 28 and 31 of the DSA read together prohibit the publication or circulation
via digital platforms any information which hurts religious values or creates
“hostility, hatred or animosity among different classes or communities of people,”
destroys “communal harmony,” creates “instability or chaos,” or deteriorates “law
and order.” While the state is well within its right to make laws that promote
religious and communal harmony by minimizing the scope for conflict, such an
objective must not unduly interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of speech
and expression

19. Section 32:
Arguably, one of the most dangerous provisions of the DSA is Section 32, which
prescribes a maximum jail term of fourteen years or a fine not exceeding Tk.
twenty-five lakhs or both for the commission or assisting the commission of an
offense under the Official Secrets Act. The Official Secrets Act —which is based on
the colonial-era legislation of the same name—is aimed at protecting state secrets,
using a computer, digital device, computer network or digital network.

20. Section 43:
Section 43 empowers law enforcement agencies to search, seize, and arrest without
seeking warrants from courts. The conferral of such wide power on law enforcement
agencies gives rise to the fear that it would be used to indiscriminately detain
critics exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression. This fear is bolstered in light of the past experiences.

22. Section 53:
Section 53 describe about the segments of the law which are cognizable or not and bailable
or not. According to it, 14 offences are non-bailable and cognizable offences out of 20 or so
more provisions.
The lowest punishment under the DSA is one year in prison, but on average the punishment
ranges from four to seven years. Strikingly, the Road Transport Act, passed on the same day
as the DSA and following mass student protests demanding stricter laws for regulating the
chaotic roads of the country, provides for a maximum punishment of five years in prison for
killing people in road accidents, whereas a journalist under the DSA can be sentenced to
fourteen years in prison for investigative journalism. The prescription of a fourteen year jail
term under the DSA is harsher than the imprisonment term of ten years that had been fixed
by the former Section 57 of the ICTA. Furthermore, the offenses specified in fourteen
different Sections of the DSA have been made non-bailable.

23.  After scrutinizing some events & reports it can be said that journalists, right workers, civil
society members are being restrained from doing what is right because of these draconian laws.
Various UN human rights bodies have long raised concerns about the ill-defined, overly broad
provisions of the DSA that have been used to punish criticism of the government.
 To conclude it can be said that freedom of speech is an essential human right and should not be
compromised by security legislation. Freedom of expression is essential for institutionalizing a
culture of democracy. However free expression must be reasonable, and are to be subjected to
judicial review. Also comparative constitutional law standards of freedom of expression can be of
aid in guiding a proper evaluation of the legislation.

25. The recommendations of the study are:
The government should be more flexible to discover the concern of the journalists
and acquire positive changes the law as well as ensure the free environment to
practice free journalism.
On the other hand, the journalists should put more concentration on their unity,
professional honesty and good will to work for the voiceless, so that they will get
more public acceptance which will ultimately safeguard their freedom.
The whole Digital Security Act 2018 should be looked into and carried into full
compliance with international human rights standards.

26. The following areas of the Digital Security Act should be canceled specifically:
Section 8, Chapter 3 which grants sweeping powers to DSA, an executive body, to
block information online and restrict freedom of expression beyond what is
permissible under international freedom of expression standards.
Sections 21, 25, 28, 29, 31 of Chapter 6 which include speech offences,
characterized in vague and overbroad terms.
Section 38 which deals with service provider’s liability. At the very least, it ought
to be changed to require 'real' information of illegality and the taking of
‘reasonable’ steps before liability can be imposed.
Section 56, 59 and 60 of Chapter 9, which respectively set out various powers to
delegate, to ‘remove difficulties’ and to make rules. Or, at the very least, these
Sections should be drastically limited in their scope.

27. Several definitions in Chapter 2 must be clarified, including data storage, critical
information infrastructure, digital security, illegal entrance, cognition of
Liberation War and service provide.
Computer- related offences in sections 17-20, 33 and 34 should be reviewed and
brought more closely in line with relevant international standards in this area,
such as the Cybercrime Convention 2001.
If sections 21,25,28,29 and 31 are revoked, section 35 should only be revised to
include a requirement of intent.