On May 21 the government spokesman and Minister of
Communication, Faisal Al-Shboul announced that Jordan will introduce another
update on its cybercrime law.
اضافة اعلان
While the revised law is not yet public, we can at the
previous record of the law as well as how the government defines cybercrime.
Cybercrime is not exclusive just to the Kingdom, the
majority of countries are dealing with issues such as misinformation,
disinformation, digital fraud, online child predation, online hacking and
theft, impersonation, and libel.
Additionally, with the emergence of AI we may be looking at
falsified images, audio, and stories that can be used for mass
confusion or individual blackmail.
The Kingdom is a cork floating on the stormy wave of these
global challenges.
A small fish in a big tech pond
As a small state Jordan has less leverage and influence
against big tech companies or global online threats.
How to define a cybercrime is less a technical issue than a
political one.
This involves definitions of hate speech and online harm,
deciding if libel should be a criminal issue, and the definition of freedom of
speech.
The current cybercrime law in Jordan has met
with great controversy. Political activists say the definition is too
broad and can be used for limiting partisan
activity, journalists believe it curtails freedom of media and adds
unwritten red lines, thus increasing self-censorship.
Cybercrime is not exclusive just to the Kingdom, the majority of countries are dealing with issues such as misinformation, disinformation, digital fraud, online child predation, online hacking and theft, impersonation, and libel.
Finally, freedom of speech activists have stated
it unfairly puts responsibility on users rather than platforms or providers.
There is no one solution because there is no one definition.
Approaches to fraud, for instance, are standard because this is a known crime
with a generally agreed upon definition. But online harm? Hate speech? Speech
against the state?
Definitions differ
It will be impossible to get standardized definitions
because tolerance for freedom of speech and definitions of hate speech differ.
The definitions can differ from state to state but they should not be vague -
that would be a disservice against the people.
For Jordan, a clear distinction must be made between their
approach to universal and well-defined cybercrimes and social media regulations
according to well defined and clear definitions of any matter that pertains to
it, such as hate speech, libel, harassment, and bullying.
Once these definitions are set, Jordan can start creating
regulations for social media. For example,
Germany and Brazil put the solution in the hands of the
judiciary. The US is large enough to hold big tech
responsible. Turkey requires social media providers to appoint a
social media representative to handle and manage any complaints and violations
brought up by the authorities.
Instead of my usual ‘Things You Should Know,’ I asked
several questions to Katie Harbath who spent 10 years at Facebook as
the Director of Public Policy, where she built and led global teams that
managed elections and helped government and political figures use the social
network to connect with their constituents. She's now the head of Anchor
Change and is a global leader at the intersection of elections, democracy,
and technology.
Q: Several countries use the term cybercrime, but in your
definition, what is a cybercrime?
A: To me a cybercrime is using digital means in which to
break the law.
Q: What's the difference between a cybercrime and
inflammatory online rhetoric?
A: Cybercrime to me means that someone has done something
against the law. Depending on the country you are in and the laws they have
inflammatory online rhetoric - while terrible - is likely not against the law.
Q: In your experience, what are some best practices
from around the world in addressing cybercrime on social media platforms?
A: I'll be honest I'm less familiar with actual cybercrime.
In terms of inflammatory online rhetoric some things that are showing promise
are:
— Improved AI tools to detect problematic content.
— Getting counter-narratives out to pre-bunk potential
narratives that people might see around events such as the Russian invasion of
Ukraine or ahead of elections.
— Transparency and oversight into what are happening on
platforms.
Q: Small states like Jordan are not large markets to social
media platforms. How can smaller countries successfully get the attention of
social media platforms?
A: To be honest this is going to be even harder now that so
many companies are either going through layoffs or are already incredibly
small. One thing smaller country might think about doing is banding together
and/or working with larger nations or the United Nations to help get their
concerns communicated.
Q: In your experience, do social media platforms have both
the linguistic context and the cultural context to address the concerns outside
of the US and Europe?
A: It depends by platform. Your legacy platforms like
Facebook and Google likely do have people with this context. Now, the question
is how willing they are to do things on a country-by-country basis versus
global. The recent Oversight Board decision on Meta's COVID misinformation
policies discusses how the company generally wants to keep things on a
global level. This can make having nuanced decisions harder.Smaller platforms
are much less likely to have any of this context and also like to take a global
approach to content moderation and other issues.
The Kingdom is a cork floating on the stormy wave of these global challenges.
Q: A citizen goes to the Facebook page of a local television
channel and uses racist speech. Looking at best practices globally, would it be
the user, the television channel that moderates the page, or Facebook that
should be held accountable (or should the rhetoric be allowed)?
A: This honestly is an issue up for debate right now. In the
United States there's a lot of discussion about changing Section 230 which
gives platforms immunity. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the
platforms in two cases that could have changed this. The Supreme Court
now will be taking up two cases looking at if government officials can ban
and/or delete content from their social media accounts. In Europe a
new landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) says
freedom of expression does not immunize public officials from criminal
liability if they fail to promptly remove manifestly illegal content (such as
“hate speech”) posted on their accounts by followers. Other countries have
different rules. I frankly think there's a role for all three - user, page
owner and platform - to play and be held accountable for the rhetoric.
Q: If you were to advise smaller states outside of the US
and Europe, such as Jordan, on how to work on big tech platforms. What would
your counsel be?
A: I'd say three main things. First, develop pragmatic
suggestions that they can actually implement; second, develop incentives for
them to take on this work; and third, work together with other countries which
will make it much more likely that they might listen.
Here is my take
The new law is not yet public, and multiple countries are
still figuring out how to catch up to where social media and technology are
taking the issue.
However, based on global experience a few things are clear.
First, the definition of a cybercrime must be absolutely clear and
understandable.
Beyond that, parameters for other offenses like hate speech,
criminal libel, child predation, and fraud must also be unequivocally
delineated. Individual users cannot be the only ones held responsible -
platforms and providers also carry a burden of responsibility.
Whether through negligence, calculated permission, or even
exploitation of a post’s sensationalism to boost engagement, they should not be
able to evade culpability.
Finally, Jordan is a small state and does not represent a
big market concern for big tech providers, as has been proven by
the Facebook Files leaks.
The only way countries like Jordan will be able to protect
themselves is by banding together with other states as Harbath recommended to
jointly deal with platforms and providers. Recently Jordan put forward
a social media regulation draft to the Arab League in an attempt to build
regional solidarity towards social media providers.
States like Jordan have the responsibility to follow up with
big tech companies since often they don’t have the local cultural context to
make informed judgments themselves.
Ideally, such a clear and specific cybercrime law will also
have an education component.
From an early age, children and their parents and teachers
need to learn safe practices of online behaviors to avoid online harm, threats,
and predation.
After all, this is the security of our citizens. We don't
need to teach our kids buzzwords or to be tech savvy, we need to teach them the
fundamentals of online personal data privacy.
It is difficult to raise awareness of online harm or
safeguard against it if you don't know or understand how your personal
data is collected and used.
We should not only make citizens aware of how to protect
themselves but also how to protect others.
There's a dangerous trend of thinking that we should be
polite and tolerant in society but then we can go online and freely air all of
our prejudices, grievances, and annoyances.
Our social media space is a reflection of our
society. Cyber bullying of women
politicians, intolerance, divisive speech all are signs of an
alarming Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde approach to our society. (Remember that Dr.
Hyde and his dark habits take over completely by the end of the story.)
Katrina Sammour was first published on Full Spectrum Jordan,
a weekly newsletter on SubStack.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
