Deaths, imprisonments and harassment: The controversial history of the Digital Security Act

Is it the same product in a brand new, pretty package?

That's the question that surrounds the government's decision to "rebrand" the Digital Security Act, christening it the Cyber Security Act.

But this comes with the caveat of murkiness – the details of the new act are not yet known. What the sections the new act will scrap and which it will keep has not yet been divulged.

Journalists can be placated with Law Minister Anisul Huq saying they won't have to face jail times anymore, only fines. But how much would the fines range to? Would they be debilitating, a life sentence of financial woes instead of time behind bars?

Past replacements, as seen in the case of the Digital Security Act (DSA), haven't always borne the expected fruits.

The Digital Security Act (DSA) was enacted in the year 2018, aimed at replacing the controversial  Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006 (as amended in 2013). 

Section 57 of the ICT Act made it illegal to post material online that was provocative, defamatory or "hurt religious sentimentality". It was criticised as being a tool to repress dissent. In four months of 2017, around 21 journalists were sued under the act, necessitating a change.

That's when the DSA came into play. The new law, however, was deemed even more restrictive, owing to vague wordings and arbitrary applications. 

It came full of such controversial provisions that the US State Department in a press briefing in April this year called it "one of the world's most draconian laws for journalists".

For instance, Section 25 of the DSA criminalises the transmission and publication of any offensive, false or threatening information with an intention to affect the image or reputation of the country or to spread confusion. 

Section 8 empowers the Director General of the Digital Security Agency and law enforcement agencies to block or remove information in digital media if it threatens 'digital security'.

Additionally, Section 31 again criminalises the intentional publishing or broadcasting of any digital format, which will destroy 'communal harmony'. These vague and wide terms bring a chilling effect on the freedom of expression on matters of public concern.

Worryingly, Section 53 states that offences specified in sections 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

How these sections, alongside others, were interpreted was also often left to the imagination.

The DSA, which was meant to protect individuals, was soon rife with complaints of being a tool for harassment.

Furthermore, Article 19, an international human rights organisation that works to defend and promote freedom of expression and freedom of information worldwide, said the DSA contravenes the existing international instruments on human rights signed by Bangladesh.

A spree of cases

Speaking at a parliamentary session in June, Law minister Anisul Huq said some 7,001 cases were filed across the country as of 31 January of this year under the Digital Security Act.

The Centre for Governance Studies (CGS), in their findings in January, revealed that only 2% sued under the DSA came close to court. 

Of the 1,109 cases they studied, 60% were over Facebook activities. 

The findings further showed that the ruling party affiliates were the largest groups persecuting journalists, with most cases involving defamation.  

"Ruling party activists have filed 4.21 cases every month, and each had an average of 2.4 persons accused; or in simple words, every week a case has been filed by an Awami League activist against more than two persons for almost four years under one law," Dr Ali Riaz, distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University, USA, and lead author of the research, said in the report. 

The ire of the law fell mostly on politicians and journalists, the research found. 

Experts have said the law wasn't only used to muzzle journalists, but it was also used to harass rival politicians.

Peculiar, picky

The DSA, while used by some to find reprieve, has too often been used harshly. 

Author and social activist Mushtaq Ahmed died in a Bangladeshi jail on 25 February 2021, after being detained and allegedly tortured for social media posts critical of the government. 

On 8 November 2021, a tribunal framed charges against journalist Shafiqul Islam Kajol for circulating "objectionable" information about ruling party leaders. 

Then there are people from all walks of life falling foul of the law.

A female student of Jagannath University was arrested under DSA for conducting a webinar, when she was only 17 years of age. 

A 17-year-old girl was sent to a juvenile correction centre for a year because of a Facebook post that she allegedly made demeaning the Quran and hurting religious sentiment. Dipti Rani Das, a tenth grader from Dinajpur's Parbatipur upazila, was reportedly dragged off a train and charged under the Digital Security Act 2018.

Since being booked, her bail was denied four times. 

For now, the decision to change the law hasn't made the land awash with relief. What the new law brings is what everyone is waiting for the most.