Amman Tech Tuesdays - Latest Comments

Re: CCL Discussions

Amr Hourani — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:00:43 -0000

viva la justice! section 8, cybercrime act 2010 has been dropped :-)

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:19:48 -0000

To be honest, there really is nothing that suggests that this law was motivated by anything related to any recent or ongoing trend in the behavior of electronic media websites. The bulk of the law has to do with crimes of online intrusion, vandalism, theft, abuse of minors, etc.

Re: CCL Discussions

AyoubNamour — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:45:14 -0000

its an emergency i guess....
electronic media is becoming very irresponsible ....so there must be a way of forbidding them from coming out with total lies about people on a daily base ...hearting them and attacking there reputation without anyway those people can deny or get to punish that fake press

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh N. — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:41:28 -0000

Thanks for your response. I really appreciate your engagement in this discussion. If you would allow me a couple of more questions:

1- Is it a matter of opinion or established rule (perhaps by ديوان التشريع?) that we can't use different definitions of the same thing in separate pieces of legislation that apply to isolated scopes (in this case, two separate definitions of libel and slander under two separate laws: the penal code and the CCL)? The reason I ask is that a lawyer I asked said there shouldn't be a problem with it. So I just want to know if it's a matter of opinion or if there is an actual established rule against it in Jordan's legislative framework. What would you do if it were up to you (if there is no rule)?

2- Regarding online publishers and providers' liability, don't you think they would be too burdened for having to deal with every complaint they receive about possible defamation (be it justified or not)? Other countries have adopted rules that explicitly say such online publishers or service providers should NOT be considered liable. This is because:

a) we can't reasonably expect them to be able to handle every single complaint they receive (think about the spam and junk they get with their publicized email addresses), and

b) in order to reduce the chances of becoming liable, these publishers and providers would remove every thing they receive a complaint about (even if it was a truth that deserved to be told), thereby limiting freedom of expression on the internet, and

c) to begin with, once someone complains that defamation has taken place, the party that should decide whether that is true or not should not be an online service, it should be the courts. The damage not doing this creates again is limiting free expression on the internet. If I have something to say, then there will be a chance that some editor will simply hit the delete button because they don't want to get sued even though no law suit had even been filed to that point, and even if had it been filed, it could have been thrown out of court.

The CCL already establishes that removal of the offensive content can be enforced by the court (under article 13 I think). Isn't it better then to have the complaint first pass through the court so that it can decide whether defamation actually took place or not first, and THEN (and only then) require the websites to remove the content?

Re: CCL Discussions

Amr Hourani — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:21:56 -0000

Because Jordan just got a grant (fund) from EU that covers some project related to egov or so, and they must check the boxes in the checklist to be able to take the money.. one of the conditions is having a cybercrime law.

how did i know? simply i live in EU and know where every penny in my tax goes :-)

Re: CCL Discussions

Amr Hourani — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:07:10 -0000

removed due to "no clear answer"

Re: CCL Discussions

Marwan Juma — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:40:30 -0000

Dear Hamzeh,

The law has absolutely nothing to do with online services! Again this law was not put in place for the government to go after people, but to protect networks and data and to cover traditional crimes that are committed electronically! In other words, if someone defames you, you have to go to the DA and present evidence and only then action will be taken and the government has no say here at all!

On your second point, we have to abide by current defeniton of libel and slander as per our penal code, in other words, we cannot have two conflicting definitions. All what we did was ensure that if you defame someone in person the same would apply if you do it online but in our law we required that intent to cause harm must be proven as well.

Re: CCL Discussions

Marwan Juma — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:30:04 -0000

I beg to differ my friend since Article 8 will not hit everyone but only those who choose to slander others. Just stay away from personal attacks, which anyways are the rules on almost all blogs, and everything will be ok! You can definitely say for example that my IT policy is lousy but you cannot call me an idiot!

Re: CCL Discussions

Khalil Wahhab — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:00:43 -0000

شكراً للفرصة في المشاركة وشكراً لمتابعتكم وجهودكم.
سؤالي: بما إن الديمقراطية هي حكم الشعب للشعب، لماذا تصر الحكومة على اصدار هذا القانون في غياب الشعب (مجلس نواب الشعب)؟ ما هي الحاجة لإخراج هذا القانون الآن وليس بعد قليل من الأشهر كقانون من تحت قبة البرلمان

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh N. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:03:01 -0000

Thanks for your reply Mutasem. My main concern when it comes to the breadth of interpretation is not regarding "intent" but the actual meaning of defamation. My intentions might be very clear, but the problem could still be with the courts deciding that what I said is actually defamatory. For example, I could observe certain events that cause me to be concerned about whether a certain person or entity is engaging in illegal behavior (for example: corruption by a governmental official). If I voice my concerns and share the observations that I've made with the public, present my hypothesis that an illegal activity is taking place, and ask if someone can either prove or disprove it, then I could very well be considered liable for defamation under the definition of "ذم." As far as I know, this would not be considered defamatory in places like the US (which I'm most familiar with) because the part which the other party might claim is defamatory did not contain a statement of a fact, it was only a hypothesis (in our code's wording, في معرض شك و استفهام. The best reaction to such situations should be for the concerned party to simply refute the hypothesis with facts.

Also, how does our law define a person's شرف, كرامة, and اعتبار? After all, these are the things that are concerned when it comes to defamation. If I claim that a person is not doing a good job at work and that he wasn't the best choice of person for that job, wouldn't this be considered harmful to the person's اعتبار? If I claim that a certain business is not honest in their dealings based on my personal experience (e.g. on a web site in which users share their experiences about businesses, like epinions.com), would that be considered defamatory under قدح because it questions that business's code of honor? Or if I point the lack of a "code of honor" at a certain business, would that be considered defamatory too? In all these cases, my intent would be clear, and I would mean every word I say, but my concern would be regarding whether these claims would be considered defamatory. Trust me, in most developed and advanced societies, they wouldn't be considered defamatory unless they contained material presented as facts when it's really false.

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh N. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:33:43 -0000

Banning websites is a bad idea. Not only does it not work (technically), but it also gives these websites themselves ammo to use against the government or any opposing (presumably moderate) party.

It's much better to create a medium for free expression and let people debate ideas there. If there are websites that are hate wells as you say, then people should be able to expose them using their freedom of expression.

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #7

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:48:41 -0000

Needs to be better defined.

Re: CCL Discussions

Mutasem Nsair — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:46:31 -0000

Dear Zeidabuodeh

There are many arguments on the law that did not mention the exact clause(s) supporting the argument.

The law is not targeting or mentioning the media at first place.

for answering such arguments (this is not directed to you), I quote H.E. Marwan Jumaa:

"Which part of the law you feel limits your freedom? tell me exactly so I can answer you my friend?"

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #14

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:37:16 -0000

Does this mean publications law?

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #13

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:35:31 -0000

How can something like this be proved in the case of slander for instance? Very subjective and thus dangerous.

Re: CCL Discussions

Mutasem Nsair — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:34:43 -0000

Surely not, this is your opinion and many others' opinion as well.

Adding to the above, promoting "terrorist group ideas" is about supporting these groups’ terror acts targeting Jordan, as we are talking about a local law. The anti terrorism law provides that
العمل الارهابي: كل عمل مقصود يرتكب باي وسيلة كانت يؤدي الى قتل اي شخص او التسبب بايذائه جسديا او ايقاع اضرار في الممتلكات العامة او الخاصة او في وسائط النقل او البيئة او في البنية التحتية او في مرافق الهيئات الدولية او البعثات الدبلوماسية اذا كانت الغاية منه الاخلال بالنظام العام وتعريض سلامة المجتمع وامنه للخطر او تعطيل تطبيق احكام الدستور او القوانين او التأثير على سياسة الدولة او الحكومة او اجبارها على عمل ما او الامتناع عنه او الاخلال بالامن الوطني بواسطة التخويف او الترهيب او العنف .
المادة 3
مع مراعاة احكام قانون العقوبات النافذ المفعول ، تحظر الاعمال الارهابية ويعتبر في حكمها الاعمال التالية :

أ. القيام باي وسيلة كانت مباشرة او غير مباشرة ، بتقديم او جمع او تدبير الاموال بقصد استخدامها لارتكاب عمل ارهابي او مع العلم انها ستستخدم كليا او جزئيا سواء اوقع او لم يقع العمل المذكور داخل المملكة او ضد مواطنيها او مصالحها في الخارج .

ب. تجنيد اشخاص داخل المملكة او خارجها للالتحاق بالمجموعات التي تهدف الى ارتكاب اعمال ارهابية داخل المملكة او ضد مواطنيها او مصالحها في الخارج .
ج. تأسيس اي جماعة او تنظيم او جمعية او الانتساب اليها بقصد ارتكاب اعمال ارهابية في المملكة او ضد مواطنيها او مصالحها في الخارج .
The above clauses are obviously protecting and related to Jordan only. Who is not targeting Jordan may not be referred to as “terrorist”.

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #5

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:29:31 -0000

Ceiling need to be re-considered. Shouldn't it be related to amount stolen in each case separately.

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #3

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:27:20 -0000

Punishment seems to little for me.

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #2

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:26:00 -0000

Punishment seems too little to me.

Re: Information Systems Crime Law – Page #9

Razan K. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:24:33 -0000

الدعارة مفهومة ولكن الفجور كلمة قد تحوي على عدة مفاهيم .

Re: CCL Discussions

Mutasem Nsair — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:15:59 -0000

Dear Hamzeh

Thank you again

I went back to some sites where you are right in relation to your statement, the laws of the U.S provide that the provider is not a publisher "with some exceptions".
In the U.K, I found a case, Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., 1999 WL 477647 (High Ct. U.K. 1999). Defendant Internet service provider, hosted a newsgroup that contained a posting defamatory of plaintiff. The court held that under the UK Defamation Act of 1996, the ISP was not the publisher of the statement but could still be liable because it knew about the posting but chose not to remove it from its server. The Defamation Act shields ISPs from liability as long as they have exercised “reasonable care” to prevent defamatory publication. The case settled on appeal in 2001, with the ISP agreeing to pay approximately $25,000 in damages plus plaintiff’s costs and fees.

Regarding this law, the provider will not be held liable unless he did send or publish a defaming material through IS with "intent". if the provider is not sending or publishing with intent, there would be no crime at all, for example, if the provider is not censoring or processing any of the published materials , there would be no crime. It is very important to confirm that interpretation under Jordanian law is too limited, i.e. the judge will not be able to broaden the interpretation to sentence someone.
The Court of Cessation provides that:
قرار محكمة التمييز الاردنية (جزائية) رقم 993/2008 (هيئة عامة) تاريخ 27/8/2008
في ضوء المبادئ المقررة قانوناً وفقهاً وقضاء ، فان الشك يفسر لمصلحة المتهم وأنه لا يشترط في أدلة النفي أن تقطع بعدم وقوع الجريمة أو نسبتها إلى الفاعل ، وإنما يكفي أن تثير الشك في ذهن المحكمة حول ما جاء في أدلة الإثبات ، وأن المفروض براءة المتهم حتى تتوافر الأدلة والحجج القطعية الثبوت التي تفيد الجزم واليقين ، وإن حكم الإدانة يصدر عن الاقتناع اليقيني بصحة ما ينتهي إليه من وقائع البينات. ولا يضير العدالة إفلات مجرم من العقاب بقدر ما يضيرها الافتئات على حريات الناس.
So, the broad definition of defamation is to the benefit of the defendant in our case.
I think this principle is not applied in other jurisdictions, especially when reading the U.K court's decision mentioned above.

Re: CCL Discussions

Amr Hourani — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:44:08 -0000

removed due to "no clear answer"

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh N. — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:18:36 -0000

Thanks for your reply Mutasem. I understand that there are laws against defamation in all parts of the world. My objection to defamation laws in Jordan is that they define the act very broadly and are vague and too limiting of a person's freedom of expression.

There are big and important differences between what can be considered defamation in Jordan and the US. Just as an example, the issue of a web site owning company becoming liable for defamation if it receives a complaint from someone and doesn't remove the offensive material (posted by a 3rd party). Our CCL law clearly makes the service provider liable, whereas in the US, the provider is immune from liability for 3rd party content EVEN if they receive complaints about it.

Re: CCL Discussions

Mutasem Nsair — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:43:16 -0000

Dear Hamzeh

Regarding the "tham, qade7, ta7qeer" "crimes, they are penalized under all jurisdictions including the United States and Europe
I also note the following:

1-there will be no legal procedures without being brought by the injured party.
2- The plaintiff "injured party" should prove the "intent" of the defendant “actor”, so defendant is always in a better position than the plaintiff.
3- there should be a claim for personal right (ادعاء بالحق الشخصي), which means that the plaintiff should pay fees, appoint a lawyer, etc.
Therefore, if the above are met and verified, then the fine (that is 100-2000 JDs) is a fair penalty for defaming others intentionally.
.

Thanks

Re: CCL Discussions

Hamzeh N. — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:52:00 -0000

Your Excellency Mr. Juma,

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I hope you at least answer the second part of it.

I would like to ask two questions, the first one is a technical one, and the second is about something you said in response to other people's comments.

First:

Will this law limit online services that guarantee privacy, and even anonymity for their users? For example, the whole BlackBerry fiasco, how can you enforce this law without making the same demands that the UAE and other countries have made from RIM? Same applies to any online service that acts as an anonymizing tool? Will you have to block such services because you can't see their content or know where it originates from or goes to?

Second:

A couple of people expressed concerns about the law and you asked for pointers. I personally would like to express my concern and follow it up with a question. My concern starts with the original Jordanian penal code regarding defamation. The definitions of defamatory acts in Jordanian law (ذم، قدح و تحقير) are both vague and too restrictive of a people's freedom of expression (this is something that probably only some Jordanian officials will deny but everybody else will agree about). The definitions are vague because they relate defamation to concepts like "honor" (الشرف) and "pride" or "status" (or whatever اعتبار is supposed to mean), but they don't define what these concepts are, and we in Jordan of all countries know how skewed our sense of honor is (remember the whole issue of dishonor crimes). Worst of all, we have long established practices by our courts of endorsing these skewed definitions of honor, evidenced by the numerous applications of article 98 (العذر المخفف). Another example of vagueness in our penal code is the definition of "ta7qeer" which contains recursive logic, it says "ta7qeer is any ta7qeer or verbal insult ..." Notice the recursion? Second, the definitions are very restrictive of people's freedom of speech. For example, US law (which I believe is one of the best when it comes to freedom of expression, which should be a goal in Jordan), limits acts of defamation to claims in which the defamation takes the form of stating a fact that is wrong, whereas in Jordan even an inquiry (what our penal code calls معرض استفهام) can make someone liable for defamation. Also and more importantly, TRUTH is explicitly treated as an absolute defense against defamation accusations in many countries, but no such defense can be used in Jordan, at least according to the wording of the penal code. Another thing that US laws do is throw out any defamation case if the claims are so ridiculous that no one will believe them.

My question regarding this is: you were in the position of decision making and had the chance to use different language and wording to define what can be considered acts of defamation in the cyber space and under the CCL. You could have used this opportunity to set a precedent for progressiveness in our laws regarding free speech. You could have set the tone for the future of Jordan's ICT sector as a beacon of progressiveness, but you chose not to. You chose to endorse the old vague and restrictive language, WHY? Did you not think about this opportunity at all? Was it impossible for you to do this? Please answer these questions.

Thanks