Protecting Citizens Online and Navigating Legal Risks

Papua New Guinea (PNG) enacted its Cybercrime Code Act on August 11, 2016. As Information and Communication Technology continues to evolve rapidly in the country, having regulations in place is essential to protect citizens from issues such as online fraud, harassment, and cyberbullying.

According to research conducted in 2023 by the PNG National Research Institute (NRI) on strategies to combat cybercrime in Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) is responsible for providing law enforcement services related to cybercrime. However, the research pointed out that the cybercrime unit’s capacity needs to be strengthened, as it is a relatively new unit.  

Cybercrime is a broad concept, but it can be broken down into divisions to understand it better. 

First would be offences against confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic data systems and networks. This includes illegal access to electronic systems and networks, illegal access to electronic data, illegal interception of electronic data, illegal system or network interference and illegal obstruction of the use of electronic data. A recent example of this offence is the ransomware attack on the Internal Revenue Commission earlier this year on the 28th of January, as reported by one of the dailies.

The next division is content-related offences. This includes child pornography, SPAM and harassment utilising means of electronic communication. In terms of SPAM or online harassment, cyberbullying – which can be defined as sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false content about someone else, are common examples of this offence.

The third division covers copyright-related offences, and the fourth division encompasses computer-related fraud or forgery, identity-related crimes, and misuse of devices. Using fake Facebook accounts and Catfishing – when someone creates a fake online identity to trick or deceive others, often to build false relationships or commit fraud – are common examples of these types of offences.

Since the Cybercrime Act 2016 was passed, several cybercrime cases have been heard in court. In 2020, several media outlets, including the Post-Courier and Radio New Zealand reported that a cyber threat was made to Prime Minister James Marape by a man using a fake Facebook account. The perpetrator was tracked down and charged accordingly.  

The Cybercrime Code Act 2016 sets clear legal boundaries for safe, respectful, and responsible online behaviour – principles that align closely with good “netiquette”, or online etiquette. This means being polite and considerate in digital communication and avoiding offensive language cyberbullying, and sharing false information. 

Responsible social media use builds on this by encouraging people to think before posting, protect their privacy, and respect others’ opinions. It also involves being aware of how online content can affect mental health and taking steps to avoid harm, including guarding against scams, cyberbullying, and defamation. Using privacy settings wisely and verifying information before sharing are simple but important ways to not only stay safe and be respectful online but also abide by the Cybercrime Code Act 2016.

However, even though the act was meant to deal with online crimes like fraud and harassment, many people – including opposition MPs, journalists, and activists – are worried it could limit free speech. They say parts of the act, especially in relation to defamation and controlling online content, are too broad and could be used to prevent people from speaking out or participating in public debate.

The late Sir Mekere Morouta, who was against the act, stated that “Freedom of speech and a fearless, independent media are the cornerstones of democracy, and must be defended by all sections of society,” arguing that it constitutes an abuse of power, according to a report from the Oxford Business Group.

The PNG Cybercrime Code Act 2016 has faced criticism for potentially undermining freedom of expression and enabling the misuse of law enforcement to silence dissent. Concerns have been raised about its broad definitions of offences, which could lead to the criminalisation of legitimate online criticism of the government. 

Do you think that the Cybercrime Code Act 2016 has been used appropriately in Papua New Guinea to manage cyberspace?