The result of a widely publicised court case last week has made me conclude, not for the first time, that the implementation of our cybercrimes legislation could benefit from some review. Some of the cases that come to court – or, at least, the way in which they are reported – do neither the country, nor the law, nor the individuals involved any credit.
Last week’s case involved an argument between two brothers. One had posted a picture of the other on social media, with an insulting caption. The brother whose picture was posted made an official complaint, and the law then took its course, with his sibling receiving a prison sentence and a fine.
Was it really necessary for this to go to court? What efforts were made to persuade the offended brother to drop the idea of pursuing his complaint through the courts?
Not long ago there was another court case, widely reported overseas, involving a complaint by a husband that his wife had accessed the data on his mobile phone without permission. She was found guilty. She may well have been – and I am in no way questioning the nature of the judgment reached on the basis of the facts presented to the court. But are the courts the right place for this kind of marital dispute?
There are many other incidents in which the use or misuse of social media has led to court cases between members of the same family.
A year ago today in this newspaper, the head of the family prosecution service in Abu Dhabi noted that an increasing number of people were being ordered to leave the country because they had insulted their spouse on messaging platforms such as WhatsApp.
I am not privy to the details of the cases, or to the nature of the insults used. But were all possible efforts to reach a resolution of the arguments between husband and wife made before their personal disagreements were brought to court?
Another social media case last year involved an expatriate who had taken a picture of a car parked across two disabled parking spots and, obscuring the number plate, had posted it on Facebook with an insulting caption.
The car’s owner, also an expatriate, had complained to the police. Once that had been done, the law has to take its course, even if the complaint is withdrawn. Following her conviction, deportation of the guilty party was automatic. Was the punishment disproportionate?
Over the last few years, information technology, in all its various forms, has developed at an incredible speed. That has been of benefit in many ways – and we certainly would find it hard to live today without it. At the same time, new ways of engaging in criminal activity, such as identity theft or money laundering, have emerged, while offences such as defamation and libel have become not only easier, but more damaging, given the speed with which they can spread.
It was right to introduce new legislation to cover the misuse of IT, and the 2012 Federal Anti-Information Technology Crimes Law has much within it to be commended.
I do wonder, though, whether the way in which it is being used to rule upon what are, in essence, private and personal arguments is in need of review. Cases such as those I have mentioned divert attention away from the key issues, of real criminality, that the law was designed to address.
As time passes, people will learn to be more careful about what they post on social media – and that would certainly be a good idea. Statements designed to promote hatred and extremism will attract severe punishment, and that is right.
But prison sentences, heavy fines and deportation are perhaps not the most suitable method for dealing with personal arguments and a few ill-chosen words, whether between brother and brother, or between husband and wife, or between strangers. There is, surely, a better way.
Peter Hellyer is a consultant specialising in the UAE’s history and culture
