The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has raised concerns over several provisions of the proposed Cyber Security (Amendment) Act 2026, saying unclear and overly broad clauses could undermine freedom of expression, press freedom, privacy and other fundamental rights.
In a statement, the rights organisation said effective laws are necessary to combat cybercrime, online harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography, digital child abuse, identity theft, fraud and unauthorised access.
However, it warned that measures aimed at ensuring cyber security should not be used to limit constitutional rights or suppress disagreement.
HRSS said the proposed amendments contain some positive provisions but also include several “ambiguous, overly broad and repressive” provisions that could create new human rights concerns.
If enacted in their current form, the provisions could be used to regulate expression, harass journalists and restrict dissent, the organisation said.
Concerns over rumours and misinformation
HRSS particularly criticised the proposed provisions on rumours and misinformation.
Under the draft amendment, disseminating rumours or misinformation could carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to Tk40 lakh, or both.
The draft reportedly defines rumours as “unsubstantiated or unverified information” and misinformation as “false, distorted or misleading information”.
HRSS said the definitions lack clear criteria and could be subject to broad interpretation.
The organisation said that “unverified” information is not always false. It explained that journalists, investigative reporters, human rights workers and eyewitnesses may sometimes need to share early information before it can be fully checked and confirmed.
Criminalising the publication of unverified information could therefore hamper responsible journalism and human rights monitoring, it said.
The organisation also raised concerns about provisions involving the “image of the state”, national security, public order and the reputation of individuals or institutions.
It said such broad terms could create scope for arbitrary cases and arrests.
Defamation provision raises concern
HRSS also questioned the proposed expansion of Section 25, which currently addresses serious offences including sexual harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography and digital child abuse.
The amendment would reportedly bring defamation, humiliation and bullying under the same section and increase the maximum punishment to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of Tk 20 lakh.
According to HRSS, combining defamation and political expression with provisions designed to protect women and children could create opportunities for misuse.
Political criticism, satire, cartoons, protest slogans and criticism of the government could potentially be treated as “humiliating” or “defamatory”, it said.
The organisation also criticised the proposed definition of “humiliation”, saying it could cover words, conduct, publications, gestures or other acts interpreted as diminishing someone’s dignity, honour, reputation or social standing.
Sharing content and AI-generated material
HRSS said the proposed Section 27 would treat sharing content as dissemination and could impose the same punishment for aiding an offence as for committing the offence itself.
This, it said, fails to distinguish between the roles and levels of culpability of content creators and those who share material. The organisation called for clear safeguards for memes, satire, parody, cartoons and AI-generated or digitally altered content.
Without such safeguards, journalists, artists and ordinary social media users could face criminal liability for legitimate expression, HRSS warned.
Questions over content-blocking powers
The proposed amendments would give law-enforcement agencies, the Ministry of Information and other unspecified authorities powers to block content, according to HRSS.
The organisation said content should not be blocked without judicial authorisation and argued that allowing an appeal to the same authority that ordered the blocking would undermine principles of natural justice.
HRSS also expressed concern over proposed powers to cancel a company’s registration or licence, or suspend its operations, for violations of the law.
Such powers could place additional administrative pressure on news organisations and digital platforms, it said.
The organisation called for written reasons, prior notice, independent judicial review and an effective right of appeal in such cases.
HRSS questions council’s independence
The proposed National Cyber Security Council also came under scrutiny.
Under the draft, the prime minister would chair the council, with several ministers and government officials serving as members. Private-sector experts would also be included, but they would be nominated by the government.
HRSS said this could raise questions about the council’s independence, impartiality and potential conflicts of interest.
It called for independent experts in cyber rights, information technology, journalism, human rights and law to be selected through a transparent process.
The organisation also said the draft appears to lack adequate provisions for compensation and effective remedies for citizens subjected to unlawful arrest, content blocking or abuse of authority.
HRSS’s demands
HRSS urged the government to reconsider or withdraw provisions regarding rumours and misinformation, calling for unclear language to be replaced with precise definitions.”
It also called for defamation, bullying and humiliation to be separated from provisions concerning the protection of women and children.
The organisation demanded explicit legal safeguards for journalism, satire, cartoons, parody, political criticism and public-interest expression.
It further called for judicial approval before content is blocked or removed, with an independent court or tribunal available to hear appeals.
HRSS also urged the government to distinguish liability for creating and sharing content based on intent, knowledge, the extent of harm and an individual’s role in an alleged offence.
The organisation called for the Cyber Security Council to be made independent, inclusive and politically impartial, and for compensation and effective remedies to be provided to victims of unlawful state action.”
It also urged the government to hold meaningful consultations with journalists’ organisations, human rights groups, bar associations, technology experts, academics and civil society before finalising the legislation.
“Cyber security should be a means of protecting citizens’ rights, not a pretext for controlling expression,” HRSS said.
The organisation called for the proposed amendments to be brought into line with Article 39 of the Constitution, principles of due process and international human rights standards.
