Junayed Habib
Middlesex University, UK
A recent opinion piece in The Daily Star argues that any reform of Bangladesh’s cyber law must uphold digital rights rather than undermine them. It warns that proposed amendments to the Cyber Protection Act, 2026 revive vague offences, harsh penalties and broad executive powers reminiscent of earlier laws. The argument is persuasive and grounded in human rights principles.
The purpose of this article is to examine the piece critically, identify the gaps that remain in its analysis, and explain how legal reform should address them so that the law protects both freedom and security in cyberspace.
What the Article Establishes
The author traces a pattern in which past cyber laws widened the criminalization of dissent, fostered self-censorship and put the government’s image ahead of free expression. The interim government’s Cyber Protection Ordinance, 2025 dropped several controversial provisions, but the proposed amendment is said to criminalize defamation, humiliation and bullying, raise maximum prison terms to five years, and extend them to ten years for rumors and disinformation. It also grants broad blocking powers to executive bodies, removes safeguards such as public disclosure of blocked content and tribunal permission within three days, and drops the National Human Rights Commission chairperson from the National Cyber Protection Council.
The recommendations follow logically: remove criminal defamation from the amendment, define offences precisely with a good faith truth exemption, reduce penalties, limit blocking to clear legal grounds decided by an independent body, require written reasons, restore transparency, and enact a journalist protection law.
Protecting Victims of Genuine Online Harm
The article notes that the government justified the amendment by pointing to disinformation, rumors, AI-generated deceptive content and online harassment. Yet it offers little on how genuine victims of such harm should be protected. Online harassment and deceptive synthetic media can cause real damage, particularly to women and vulnerable groups.
A reform agenda that only strips away provisions risks looking one-sided. The law should instead offer targeted remedies, such as civil claims, takedown requests supervised by an independent body, and clearly defined offences for conduct like impersonation or threats, rather than broad speech categories.
Regulating AI-Generated Content with Precision
Although AI-generated deceptive content is mentioned as a justification, the article does not examine how the law should treat it. Reform should define such content narrowly, focus on demonstrable intent to deceive and cause concrete harm, and consider disclosure or labelling duties as less restrictive alternatives to criminal penalties.
Strengthening Enforcement Capacity and Oversight
The article criticizes executive overreach but says little about the practical competence of the cyber protection agency and law enforcement. Even a well drafted law fails if investigators lack training in digital evidence and rights standards. Legal reform should include mandatory training, internal complaint mechanisms, and periodic public reporting on cases filed, content blocked and outcomes reached. Parliament should also have a clear role in reviewing how the law operates.
Redress for Those Already Affected
The author recalls arrests of activists, journalists and human rights defenders under earlier laws, but proposes no remedy for them. Reform should consider reviewing pending cases brought under repealed or vague provisions, withdrawing those that fail the test of precision and proportionality, and creating accessible compensation or redress for wrongful prosecution.
Extending Safeguards Beyond Journalists
The closing recommendation focuses on a journalism rights protection law, which is valuable. However, ordinary social media users, students, researchers and civil society workers face similar risks yet fall outside that proposal. A general safeguard within the cyber law itself, such as a public interest and good faith defense available to every speaker, would extend protection more evenly.
Safeguarding Privacy and Personal Data
The piece lists privacy among its concerns but does not elaborate. Powers to remove or block data raise questions about surveillance, data access and retention. Reform should set strict limits on data collection, require judicial authorization for access to personal data, and ensure that any information obtained is used only for the stated purpose.
Opening the Drafting Process to the Public
The article does not discuss how the amendment is being drafted. Because earlier laws lost public trust, reform should be developed through open consultation with media bodies, technologists, lawyers and civil society, with draft texts published and time allowed for comment before parliamentary debate.
Closing Assessment
The article succeeds as a rights-based critique and offers a sound set of corrections. Its limitation is that it concentrates on restraining state power while saying less about protecting victims of online abuse, regulating new technologies, building institutional capacity and repairing past harm.
A durable reform would combine both aims. Precise definitions, proportionate penalties and independent oversight should sit alongside practical remedies for victims, clear treatment of AI-generated content, strong privacy safeguards and inclusive consultation. Only then can the law earn public trust and protect both security and freedom in cyberspace.
Reference:
