The ‘Mudwata’ case in Guyana has been gaining considerable attention, as it puts up for debate what is a cybercrime, and whether cybercrime laws are hindering our rights and freedoms online.

 

We are all guilty of it. When we think of cybercrimes, we tend to focus on computer and network breaches that involve computer viruses, malware, ransomware, phishing, computer or network hacking, denial-of-service attacks, among other threats. Moreover, these are the incidents that tend to be reported in the news, and which when targeted at large organisations can result in considerable reputational damage and/or the theft or loss of significant sums of money.

Increasingly, countries have enacted cybercrime legislation, in order to provide recourse and punitive measures for the breaching of computer devices and networks, and for the theft, or the loss or damage that have resulted. However, and in this week’s news roundup, we were reminded of the fact that the activities that are considered a cyber-related offence is considerably broader than what we might have assumed.

In Guyana, the local newspapers reported that earlier in April, a photographer, Keron Bruce, was accused of cyberbullying a journalist, Leroy Smith, and had been granted bail. Under the guise of a cartoon character, called “Mudwata”, it is alleged that the photographer would cyberbully citizens.

Regarding the incident with Mr. Smith, which occurred in January 2021, the accused was alleged to have posted a video to disseminate information aggressively attacking the victim, “knowing same to be false, causing Smith public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment” (Source: Kaiteur News). Mr. Bruce has been since charged with “using a computer system to subject another person to public ridicule, contempt, hatred or embarrassment, Contrary to Section 19 (5) (a) of the Cyber Crime Act No. 16 of 2018” (Source: Kaiteur News).

 

Activities that may be considered cybercrimes

In our digital and social media-driven world, we all know situations and incidents – some of which we might even have done, and of which we are not proud – that might be considered an offence under section 19 of the Guyana Cyber Crime Act. In the case outlined above, the accused is alleged to have disseminated information meant to ridicule, show contempt or hatred for, or to embarrass the victim. However, how many of us have either done something similar or know someone who has, or have forwarded content of that nature, thus perpetuating harm to the victim?

In the rest of this section, we highlight activities that you might not have realised could be considered offences. Generally, these types of activities are included in computer misuse and/or cybercrime legislation, particularly those that have been recently promulgated or amended.

It is emphasised that the actual offences, and the activities that would be construed as offences tend to vary by country, and the information provided below is for illustrative purposes only, and is not to serve as legal advice. In order to know what activities are considered offences in your home country, you ought to review the relevant laws in your jurisdiction, and secure legal counsel, as appropriate.

  • Sending offensive messages through a computer.
    • Information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character
    • Information the sender knows to be false, but its purpose is to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.
  • Defamation.
    • Defaming another person using a computer or other electronic device.
  • Electronic fraud.
    • Interfering with data or a computer with the intention of deceiving a person in a manner that is likely to cause damage or harm to that person or another person.
  • Electronic stalking.
    • Intending to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person
    • Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or
    • Threatening  to inflict injury on the person or property of the person communicated with or any member of his or her family or household.
  • Violation of privacy.
    • Capturing, publishing or transmitting an image of a private area of another person, without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person.

To be clear the above are just a few of the activities that increasingly, are being classified as a cybercrime. More importantly, and into the foreseeable future, the list of offences is likely to increase, as new ways to inflict discomfort or harm on others emerge, and/or there is an upsurge in unsavoury activities for which punitive measures are needed to deter such behaviour.

 

Cybercrime potentially infringing on rights and freedoms

Generally, there is a sense in the Caribbean region that many activities that could be construed as a cybercrime go unreported for a broad range of reasons, and so many of the provisions that are in computer misuse and/or cybercrime legislation across the region have been untested. An offence that has been the source of great contention, which is also likely to be a point of debate in the ‘Mudwata case’, is defamation.

It is already being argued in the court of public opinion in Guyana that the cybercrime laws are curtailing people’s freedom of speech and expression online. In recent comments attributed to Shadow Minister of Home Affairs in Guyana, Geeta Chandan-Edmond, she argued, “We cannot even post on Facebook in peace, the government cyber security teams are scouting the pages of ordinary Guyanese to abuse the cybercrime act” (Source:  Kaiteur News). She was of the view that the law was intended to clamp down on child pornography and the sharing of nudes and other inappropriate content without permission, along with “the use of electronic devices for terrorist activities”.

However, many cybercrime and/or computer misuse laws across the region have included defamation as an offence. However, similar to defamation in common law, the courts will need to determine where the boundaries of freedom of speech or of expression, and the intention to defame someone, lie.

 

 

Image credit:  Ramdlon (Pixabay)