Costa Rica and the debate over its computer crime law

A few days ago, I wrote about the protest that exists in Peru against its proposed cybercrime law . For this article, the attorney Erick Iriarte Twitter contacted me to tell me about other similar cases in Latin America. One that caught my attention was that of Costa Rica , which was signed in July a series of reforms to the Criminal Code that restricts Internet freedom.

Costa Rica is one of the American countries where Internet access is considered a fundamental right . For this reason, it is surprising that these measures have been endorsed by PresidentLaura Chinchilla . Among the reforms that were made ​​to the Criminal Code, highlights an amendment which has been regarded as "an anti-WikiLeaks". The scholar Andrew Guadamuz -project leader of Creative Commons in that country-reform states:

The previous Criminal Code espionage defined in Article 288 as follows:

"Espionage. Shall be punished with imprisonment from four to eight years to seek or take unfair secret information policies or national police or security concerning the means of defense or foreign relations of the nation. "

The new law amended article thus:

"Espionage. Shall be punished with imprisonment from four to eight years to seek or take unfair secret information policies or national police or security concerning the means of defense or foreign relations of the nation, or affect the fight against drug trafficking or organized crime. The penalty is five to ten years in prisonwhen the conduct is carried out by computer manipulation , malicious software or use of information technologies and communication. "

As stated Guadamuz, there is no reason why the mere fact that a leak is made ​​by technological means receive a greater punishment than that stipulated by analog means. The scholar said that this point of law was discussed just as the WikiLeaks revelations were in full swing , so it is not surprising that their inclusion has been taken to avoid similar leaks of government information. This, of course, is also a threat to freedom of expression to media and citizens whodisclose this information , as it is not only punishes whoever obtains the information, but to whom the public do-even if you have received a informant.

Another criticism of the law is in terms of anonymity in the network . The article mentions:

Article 230. - Impersonation
shall be punished with imprisonment of three to six years who impersonates a person on any social network, website, electronic or information technology. The same penalty shall be imposed upon persons who, using a false identity or no prejudicial to a third party. The penalty shall be four to eight years in prison if the previous behavior is detrimental to a minor or incompetent. "

Basically, what the law mentioned is that any type of theft is punished . What happens, for example, with an account of parody? Moreover, suppose that makes an uncomfortable revelation a politician or public figure, usually under a pseudonym to protect the identity and safeguard the informant. This act becomes illegal, because the law does not specify what constitutes "cause harm". The issue is not better when it comes to "spreading false information":

Article 236. - Dissemination of false information

Shall be punished by imprisonment for three to six years' imprisonmentwho, through electronic, computer, or via a telecommunications system, or disseminates news or spreading false facts capable of distorting or detrimental to the security and stability of the financial system or of its users.

Where else I read that? Will have inspired Duarte Law in Mexico ?

"Whoever by any means, falsely claiming the existence of explosives or other devices; attacks with guns or chemical, biological or toxic substances that may cause damage to health, causing public nuisance , shall be punished imprisonment one to four years and a fine of five hundred to one thousand days of minimum wage, based on the alarm or disturbance of the peace actually produced. "

For now, the Association of Journalists of Costa Rica has already initiated talks with the government to change the law , especially the paragraph talking political secret, since it has already been approved. It remains to its publication in the Official Gazette, so the discussion continues to see if the wording of the legislation can be more clear and specific and abolishing some of the most uncomfortable.

Updated: Jose Medrano , founder of Ticoblogger, I was contacted by Twitter to share me the position of the blogosphere of Costa Rica on the law, specifically, the article on phishing .Share the piece I find most relevant:

Phishing should be reformed, and this has been requested by Ticoblogger since the project was in the Whole, and on the record as legislator clarifies that the "spirit of the law" does not affect Internet users who use " nicknames ". However, it is important to emphasize that it is a known bug in the law, is a mistake that has been noted previously by Colper, so consider presenting a bill to correct "errors" in the law and ignore the only known bug since the project is in committee, which affects freedom of expression, can be interpreted as tacit support for this.

Citizens deserve to know what the media who pass offense unchanged interpretation and jaw.

Citizens have a right to know which seek to monopolize media reporting and freedom of expression.

Citizens demand that is made public the list of media that have given back to the Internet and our democracy.

Similarly remind the government and deputies in their hands to legislate according to the fundamental rights of freedom of thought and express