T

o the relief of Telegram users, the government has unblocked access to the web version of the messaging service. This followed a meeting on Aug. 1 between Communications and Information Minister Rudiantara and Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, who had pledged to block all terrorist-related channels, communicate intensively with Indonesian authorities, especially on terrorism, and form a team of Indonesian-speaking moderators to supervise suspicious terror-related content.

Earlier the government had blocked access to the app following the failure of Telegram to respond to its request since last year to ban terrorist-related content. The Communications and Information Ministry said Telegram had taken down 166 channels promoting radicalism and terrorism as of Aug. 10.

Such an outcome is a really good example of what a regulator in every country should do to regulate cyberspace: impose a detailed regulation on each specific case instead of a blanket ban. However, without the threat of blocking access to their channels, such global tech giants may ignore government warnings.

Telegram was said to be preferred by terrorists because of users’ privacy — as in the once-great messaging app, the original BlackBerry Messenger. Indeed, private companies have rights to protect their users’ privacy as stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy.

Indonesia ratified the covenant in 2005, so all citizens, including private companies as legal entities, are subject to legal protection. However, the right to privacy is not a non-derogable right, unlike the right to life and freedom of thought.

Thus, the right to privacy could be sufficiently regulated by the government if considered necessary.

The internet should therefore be properly regulated. Moreover, technology companies should take on more responsibilities regarding the content on their platforms. For instance, as the owner of Blogger.com, Google should ban any content suspected to contain messages of extreme beliefs or intolerance, and report it to the relevant governments so that the authorities can decide whether the banning is justified and whether they should investigate the person behind the content.

However, a blanket ban whenever something goes wrong on the internet is wrong. The government should not be lazy in reviewing each perceived cybercrime case-by-case. It should build very detailed regulations regarding cyberspace.

It is more like regulating things in the “real world.” Indonesia should take cyberspace regulation more seriously, especially with more complexities such as the “internet of things,” which signals that the impact of unlawful acts in cyberspace, such as hacking, could affect people physically.

For example, when a person hacks a self-driving car, the passenger could be physically injured in a road accident. The government should not ban self-driving cars — that would be hampering efforts of innovation. Rather, authorities need to regulate how often the automobile industry and relevant sectors review their defense system against hackers.

The risk in regulating the internet, however, includes over-regulating. With too much knowledge on what its citizens are doing in cyberspace, the government will grow into an all-knowing-entity, the “Big Brother” of George Orwell’s novel 1984.

Every law school freshman knows that Lord Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When privacy and freedom of speech are oppressed, governments become unchecked and many things go wrong from there. Yet, if people can do anything on the internet, it will become a haven for crimes such as child pornography and the illegal drugs market.

The government should strike a balance between honoring citizens’ privacy and eradicating potentially dangerous content. This could be achieved through detailed regulation on what can be done and what can’t be done in the internet.

The government should also increase engagement with platform providers such as Google and Telegram to cooperate on banning and tracking unlawful content.

The ministry has done the correct thing regarding Telegram, and should continue to regulate cyberspace in such a way.
_________________________________

The writer is a corporate lawyer.