ictlsg23
Information and Communications Technology Law and Singapore
25 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
kyliezewolf
Bee is Me
finalgirlyuri
finalgirlyuri >> burimyuu
fatnaturals
hello
fatnaturals
hello
oghotonghoton-potiushi
EID MUBARAK MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
SESSION 12. THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (only for LAW405, inapplicable to COR2226)
READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTER 7
The Domain Name Regime: These days, with the popularity of the Internet as a marketing platform (e.g. viral marketing campaigns), the acquisition and use of a domain name for a movie or an entertainment company is important. Globally, the administration of generic top level (gTLD) domain names is done by ICANN, which has itself evolved since its inception into a global agency catering to international interests. In individual countries, there is also an organization that handles the country-coded top level (ccTLD) domain name. In Singapore, the SGNIC was set up by the then IDA in 1995 to administer Internet domain names that end with .sg in Singapore. SGNIC has since launched Chinese domain names in Singapore in 2009 and internationalised domain names with effect from 4 July 2011. These domain names can be obtained by anyone according to the terms of the national registration policies, procedures and guidelines.
Trademark and Domain Names: Although they are mutually exclusive regimes with a different history and objectives, trademark concerns and influence is apparent in the current issues relating to the future of domain names and its use (or misuse, as the case may be). As online branding, advertising and electronic commerce is now the norm for businesses, and name recognition and association is important for other organisations and even individuals, the concerns of trademark law (and related forms of protection such as the common law action for passing off) extend to the electronic transactional environment. Concepts such as name/mark confusion (and “initial interest confusion” in the United States), that is an important element of such laws are also relevant in domain name dispute resolutions. Such concerns have also manifested in the lobbying at ICANN by such interest groups and in the evolution and expansion of gTLDs as well as certain schemes in ICANN to improve the tools for trademark owners to protect their interests.
What is the relationship between brand (and even reputation) protection laws vis-a-vis the domain name regime? Consider the objective of the Trademark Clearinghouse and look at the registration and dispute requirements under the UDRP and SDRP.
How does one go about acquiring a domain name and what can one do if another has already taken it? The Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) framework, policy and rules are instructive in this regard. What goes into the registration of a domain name?
What is the role of the dispute resolution panel and its relationship with the courts?
What is “reverse domain name hijacking” and is there any effect to such behaviour under the current DN regime? What is its objective and how does it relate to trademark interests and the trademark regime?
Panel Decisions: (resource only)
Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Panel Decisions
NOTE: You are NOT REQUIRED to read all these decisions before the class. However, your team may be assigned a panel decision to present from your seat in class.
Singapore Domain Name Regime documents:
Singapore Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules
NOTE: Familiarise yourselves with the Policy only. Consider how a DN is registered (obtained) and what are the conditions for a challenge (transfer) when reading the Policy.
Background Readings: (if you have not taken any courses on IP)
Sections 5 & 6 of Cap. 12 on IP Law (singaporelaw.sg)
The IPOS infosite on "What is a Trademark?"
0 notes
Text
SESSION 11. LAW ON INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES
PART 1 - INTERNET INTERMEDIARY SAFE HARBOUR
Internet Intermediary Liability: Safe harbour laws provides a measure of protection for Internet intermediaries from liability. The general rationale is that these intermediaries provides a socio-economic benefit and they need these protections in order to function effectively. However, because the definition and coverage of “Internet Intermediary” is potentially very wide, the categorisation of different types of intermediaries will provide greater certainty and clarity as to what types of intermediary gets what form and measure of protection. They are normally determined by their profile (objectives/control based on role/function) with pre-requisites and extent of protection (civil/criminal) set into the relevant legislation. There are different models of general safe harbour protection for intermediaries in different countries/regions. What are the justifications and policy reasons for such protections? What improvements can and should be made to the current regime?
Singapore Law on Internet Intermediaries: What is the scope/breadth of coverage of “network service providers” under section 26 of the Singapore ETA? Does it only cover access service providers or does it’s protection extend to content hosts/providers? How does it relate to the rights and liability of the Internet intermediary under the Copyright regime and the Internet Content Regulation regime? What is the relationship between the Data Intermediary under the Data Protection regime on the one hand and type of intermediary covered by section 26 of the ETA on the other? Other notable exceptions in other statutes and in common law (e.g. defences to an action on defamation) will also be considered.
Internet Intermediaries and Criminal/Civil Liability: What is the level/depth of protection offered by section 26 of the ETA? In this context, consider the rationale and extent of the statutory exceptions under subsection (2). What are the conditions for such protection and what are the factors that our courts are likely to consider when determining whether an intermediary is liable (under criminal or civil law) for “third party material”? What is the meaning of “merely provides access” and the lack of “effective control” over the said “third party”.
Comparison of the EU-Wide Approach and the US Approach: A general comparison will be made on the approaches in the EU and the US in relation to intermediaries in the context of trademark infringement through keyword advertising. The focus will be on the scope and application of the safe harbour protection and not on trademark law. This example is used because of the line of ECJ trademark infringement cases on the legality of keyword advertising and the allocation of responsibility between the intermediary (search engines or online auction/retail operator) and the advertiser/business.
Statutes: (relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)
Section 26 of the Electronic Transactions Act
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Section 4 of the EU E-Commerce Directive
Cases: (inapplicable to COR2226, general principles will be explained to you in class)
Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08 Google France and Google Inc. et al. v Louis Vuitton Malletier et al. (2010)(only in relation to the extent of intermediary safe harbour protection)
PART 2 - LIABILITY FOR ‘PUBLICATION’ IN DEFAMATION LAW (NOT APPLICABLE TO COR2226)
Defamation Laws: The law on defamation pre-dates the age of new media and the objectives were set in defined limits, both jurisdictional and societal. The tort of defamation is less consistently applied across jurisdictions, given the potential conflict with the freedom of speech and expression as well as journalistic interests. The extra-territorial reach and ease of dissemination through the electronic medium, and the rise of blogs, social media, citizen journalism and other platforms which allow individual and groups of people to share their views and opinions that can relate to the character and reputation of another gives rise to new issues that the old rules on defamation do not easily address. Courts, and the legislature in certain jurisdictions, have had to provide some guidance and answers, taking into consideration the original purpose of the law and the new context and age in which it now operates.
New Media, New Context: Publications now can take the form of websites such as blogs, electronic mail and other forms of communication, social media such as twitter and Facebook and so on. From these, new practices and forms of sharing have emerged. These can also take the form of text and pictures, and video and audio messages. We are now familiar with terms and phrases like “Internet trolling”, the “viral” process of Internet sharing, “cyber-vigilantism”, and the use of “hyperlinking”; all of which bring forth new problems and issues for the application of the law on defamation. Consider the new media and new context, where relevant, when answering the below questions.
What is “publication” in the context of social media platforms?
What is “publication” in relation to a conduit or intermediary such as a search engine?
Do/Should defamation law allow non-legal entities to be both the defamer and the defamed, in relation to private and public entities?
Should a distinction be made for some intermediaries such as by way of specific exceptions or defences?
Cases: (inapplicable to COR2226)
Qingbao Bohai v Goh Teck Beng [2016] SGHC 142
Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another [2015] 2 SLR 751; [2015] SGHC 38
Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Private Limited [2013] SGHC 37
Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd [2010] SLR 860; [2010] SGHC 47
McGrath v Dawkins, Amazon and others [2012] EWHC B3 (QB) (issue of publication, parties)
Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] QB 201 (issue of publication, parties)
Statutes: (for reference in class only)
Defamation Act
References: (optional)
Gary Chan, Reputation and Defamatory Meaning on the Internet: Communications, Contexts and Communities (2015) 27 SAcLJ 694
Gary Chan, Defamation Via Hyperlinks: More Than Meets The Eye (2012) Law Quarterly Review
1 note
·
View note
Text
0 notes
Text
SESSION 10. COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN ICT INNOVATIONS
READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTERS 9 & 10 (LAW405 only)
OPTIONAL REFERENCES: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 16 (COR2226 & LAW405)
Overview of Copyright and New Technology: What were the amendments to bring the Act into the digital age, and to make the copyright regime relevant to digital media and the electronic medium? What are the effects of the amendments specifically on Internet functionality (e.g. hyperlinking, imbedding, user/system caching, etc.) as well as storage/delivery platforms/devices and formats, generally? Consider the amendments that take into account electronic content in digital and electronic form (are they also considered in “material form”), the inclusion and treatment of computer programs, caching, etc.
Protectionism versus the Sharing Culture for UGC: The sharing culture and open access to information and all forms of content online is increasing the tension between copyright objectives and other societal interests. The original balance set by the copyright regime may not be suitable to the age of new media and some form of recalibration may be required.
Types of Infringement: What is the difference between direct and authorising of infringement under the CA? What is the effect of the scope of authorising infringement liability set down by Ong Seow Pheng v. Lotus on the case of RecordTV v. Mediacorp TV? What is the significance of the latter case on the policy and legal treatment of innovators of information and communications technology? How is the treatment of secondary infringers in Singapore (and Australia, from which the provision is derived) different from the U.S.? Also, what is the reason for legislating criminal liability for copyright infringement (e.g. personal liability for wilful infringement in the Act)?
Critically examine the court’s ruling and opinion in RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2010] SGCA 43 (CA) (Singapore Court of Appeal). What did the court say about primary and authorising infringement liability?
User Infringement as a Crime: How can Internet users infringe copyrighted works? What type of online behaviour can give rise to cvil liability for copyright infringement under Singapore law? Also, what is the reason for legislating criminal liability for copyright infringement by individuals under the Singapore Copyright Act (i.e. personal liability for wilful infringement in of the Act) and what types of behaviour does it cover? Is it a fair allocation of liability to ICT users?
Fair Use and Users Generated Content: What is the relevance of the Singapore fair use (equivalent to the US fair use) doctrine to the manner in which user generated content can be produced? Is there a private use exception and what does it cover? Does fair use protect various forms of speech (e.g. parody and satire) and the adaptation of works? For example, does it allow mash-ups, the use of background music, choreography, etc. without permission from the copyright owner/licensee? What are the doctrines that have emerged from this concept that are applicable to the online environment? We will examine the significance of the open ended fair use exception in US Copyright law and how the US courts have developed “transformative use” as a ‘new’ factor in the fair use analysis.
Safe Harbour from Copyright and the Legality of Multimedia Sharing Platforms: What is the safe harbour protection for intermediaries for the copyright regime and how does it relate to the general protection for intermediaries under section 26 of the ETA? Note the similarity of the categorisations of the intermediaries by function with the approach taken in the E-Commerce Directive. Also, note that the provisions were derived from the U.S.’ DMCA safe harbour provisions. What are the ‘conditions’ for safe harbour, including the notice-and-take down process? Do the statutory safe harbour provisions protect the likes of YouTube and its streaming/sharing services?
Tensions between Fair Use/Dealing and Take Down Notices/Anti-Circumvention Technology and Laws: Consider how the matter was dealt with under the US fair use provision in Lenz v Universal Music Corp. (9 Cir. Mar. 17, 2016). How have fair use been strengthened under the Singapore Copyright Act?
Cases: (for reference in class only)(for LAW405 see Chapter 10)
Broadcasting Cos v Aereo Inc. [2014] USSC (United States Supreme Court)
Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 34; [2012] FCAFC 59 (Full Federal Court of Australia)
ITV Broadcasting Ltd & Ors v TV Catchup Ltd [2011] FSR 40, [2011] EWHC 1874/2977 (Pat); ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TVCatchup Ltd (Case C-607/11) (European Court of Justice)
RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2009] SGHC 287 (HC); [2010] SGCA 43 (CA)
Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008)
Ong Seow Pheng v Lotus Development Corporation [1997] 3 SLR 137
Viacom International Inc v YouTube Inc., 676 F 3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012)
Statutes:
Copyright Act (reference will be made during lesson only to the relevant provisions)
Additional References: (optional)
CL Saw & WB Chik, Whither the Future of Internet Streaming and Time-Shifting? Revisiting the Rights of Reproduction and Communication to the Public in Copyright Law After Aereo (2015) 23(1) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 53.
CL Saw & WB Chik, Authorisation of Copyright Infringement in Singapore, (2012) 24 SAcLJ 698-744 (available free online).
CL Saw & WB Chik, Where Copyright Law and Technology Once Again Cross Paths - The Continuing Saga: RecordTV Pte Ltd v Mediacorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 830 (2011) 23 SAcLJ 653-681 (available free online).
Jeffrey C.J. Lee, Authorizing Copyright Infringement and the Control Requirement: A Look at P2P File-Sharing and Distribution of New Technology in the U.K., Australia, Canada and Singapore (2007) Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 83-98, available via this link
Beatrice Martinet Farano, Internet Intermediaries’ Liability for Copyright and Trademark Infringement: Reconciling the EU and U.S. Approaches (2012) TTLF Working Paper No. 14, available via this link
Lilian Edwards, Role and Responsibility of the Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright (2010) WIPO Survey, available via this link
Daniel Seng, Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries (Preliminary Version) (2010) WIPO Survey, available via this link
David Tan & Benjamin Foo, The Unbearable Lightness of Fair Dealing: Towards an Autochtonous Approach in Singapore (2016) 28 SAcLJ 124
HLR Case Brief, Lenz v Universal Music Corp.: Ninth Circuit Requires Analysis of Fair Use Before Issuing of Takedown Notices, 129 Harv. L. Rev. (2016)
Saw Cheng Lim & Susanna Leong, Defining Criminal Liability for Primary Acts of Copyright Infringement: The Singapore Experience Journal of Business Law (2008) (4) 304-315
Saw Cheng Lim & Susanna Leong, Criminalising Primary Copyright Infringement in Singapore: Who are the Real Online Culprits? EIPR (2007) 29 (3) 108-114
Susanna Leong & Saw Cheng Lim, Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World” Does Territoriality Matter? IJITL (2007) 15 (1) 38-53
Background Readings: (for COR2226 and those who have not taken an IP law course)
Section 1 of Cap. 12 on IP Law (singaporelaw.sg)
The IPOS infosite on “What is Copyright”
1 note
·
View note
Text
SESSION 9. COMPUTER CRIME
READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTER 4 (COR2226 & LAW405)
OPTIONAL REFERENCE: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 19 (COR2226 & LAW405)
‘Computer Crime’ v. ‘Cybercrime’: Computer and internet usage is on the rise due to lower costs and easier accessibility. As it is another mode of transaction and one that is heavily dependent on the interaction through computers and automatic agents rather than face-to-face meetings, it is another avenue for crimes to perpetuate. What we call “cybercrime” largely consists of common crime, the commission of which involves the use of computer technology, and for which penalties already exists under the Penal Code. Substantively, there is no difference between generic individual crimes such as fraud, theft, extortion, harassment, forgery, impersonation, etc. and their cyber-analogues. Only those that relate specifically to computer usage and materials, etc. are specialized offences for which the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) was specifically enacted to tackle. What is the difference between “Computer Crime” and “Cybercrime” and how are they treated under Singapore’s criminal law?
The Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act: The original Computer Misuse Act (CMA) arose directly out of the increased usage of computers and the internet as well as to protect certain features from objectionable activities. We will be generally considering the Act, its coverage and effect, and some cases illustrating the offences committed thereunder. To deal with new potential abuses of computer systems, the Computer Misuse Act entered into force in 1993. Thereafter, the CMA was amended from time to time to keep up with the changes in technology and to addresses new potential computer abuses such as denial or interruption of computer services and unauthorised disclosure of access codes. The Act was renamed in 2013 as the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (Cap 50A, 2013 Rev Ed) (CMCA), and provided for penalties proportionate to the different levels of potential and actual harm that may be caused by an offence. For example, it defines a class of critical computer systems (“protected computers”) and provides them with enhanced punishment in case of an offence. This applies to computers used by important institutions including the police, civil defence force, the military, national utilities companies, telecommunications companies, transportation services, major banks, and various emergency services. The CMCA also sought to enhance security, deter computer criminals with harsh penalties, and broaden the powers of the police to investigate such misdeeds. The CMCA was amended in 2017 with additional provisions to deal more with cybersecurity concerns; however, in 2018, after the enactment of the Cybersecurity Act (CA), the CMCA reverted to CMA with the security provisions moved to the CA.
Computer Crime Offences: The offences under the CMA are found in Part II of the Act, from sections 3 to 10. All the provisions provide for enhanced penalties when damage is caused, but the question is damage to what, and in what form? Also, under section 11, there is further enhanced punishment if the computer concerned is a “protected computer” (e.g. computers used for public safety, national defence, hospitals, etc.). The abetment and attempt of any of the CMA offences also constitutes the offence abetted or attempted and is punishable as that offence under section 12. The extra-territorial scope of the CMA is provided for under section 13. What is its effect and how effective can it be in the cyberspace where many actors can be sited, and acts can be committed, in other countries?
Reference: (optional)
Gregor Urbas, An Overview of Cybercrime Legislation and Cases in Singapore, ASLI Working Paper Series No. 001, December 2008
Cases: (inapplicable to COR2226)
Lim Siong Khee v Public Prosecutor [2001] 2 SLR 342; [2001] SGHC 69 [ss 2(2), (5), 3(1), 8(1)]
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nuzaihan bin Kamal Luddin [2000] 1 SLR 34; [1999] SGHC 275 [ss 3(1), 5(1), 6(1)(a)]
Statutes: (for reference in class, relevant provisions will be highlighted)
Computer Misuse Act (2020 Rev. Ed.)
CoE Cybercrime Convention
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
0 notes
Text
SESSION 6. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS AND CONTRACTING
READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTER 3 (COR2226* & LAW405)
OPTIONAL REFERENCE: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 9 (COR2226* & LAW405)
Electronic Contracting: In Singapore, contract law is largely based on the English common law and has developed on that basis, as judge-made law. Contract law is supplemented by some statutes and provisions in a series of legislations. The Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 2011 Rev Ed) (ETA), which entered into force on 1 July 2010 and replaced the original Act that was first enacted in July 1998, specifically addresses issues relating to electronic commerce. The first enactment contained provisions drawn from the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce of 1996 (MLEC) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures of 2001 (MLES). The re-enactment contains some amendments, including provisions drawn from the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracting of 2005 (CUECIC) as well as a re-ordering of the provisions.
The Electronic Transactions Act: What are the objectives and the effect of the UNCITRAL Model Laws on E-Commerce and Signatures as well as the CUECIC? What is their relationship with the ETA? What are the potential problems of modern electronic forms of communication (and electronic forms of documents and signatures) for contract law? To what extent have the revised ETA of 2010 resolved the outstanding issues relating to electronic transactions in general, and electronic contracting in particular? What are the types of matters or transactions that fall outside the scope of the Act? The IMDA and AGC spent several years reviewing the scope of the ETA, specifically relating to the adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. The model law aims to promote functional equivalence to electronic ETRs such as cheques, promissory notes, bills of exchange, bills of lading, etc. and give them full legal recognition under substantive law. These amendments entered into force on 19 March 2021.
Consider the various online business models. What are the various modern forms of electronic contract formation and communications, and to what extent are electronic notices legally binding or acceptable (e.g. as sufficient notification of purpose under the PDPA).
What is the purpose and effect of section 14 of the ETA? What are browsewrap and clickwrap contracts and, in your opinion, are they legally binding?
Compare and contrast the doctrine of unilateral mistake that is applied to the electronic contracting context for the vitiation of a contract to section 16 of the ETA. What was the purpose of the new provision and what are the potential problems that may arise in relation to it? Examine the Digilandmall and Quoine decisions on the doctrine of unilateral mistake.
What is the reason and basis for the use of automated message systems for contract formation and what are some examples of modern transactions that involves the use of such systems in transactions. Is there a necessity for such a provision (section 15 of the ETA) and does existing contract law not provide a legal basis for such contracts? and the issue of legal responsibility, rights and liability.
What is the law on electronic signatures (and records)? What are the challenges of electronic signatures as compared to physical ones? What is the objectives and purpose of the relevant provisions under the ETA (Parts II & III and 2nd & 3rd Schedules only) in relation to them? What is the difference, if any, between an “electronic”, a “secured electronic” and a “digital” signature?
Cases: (not necessary reading for COR2226)
Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] SGCA(I) 02
Joseph Mathew and another v Singh Chiranjeev and another [2009] SGCA 51; [2010] 1 SLR 338 (CA)
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee and another [2005] 4 SLR 367 (HC); 2 SLR 370 (CA)
SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v. Schenker Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2005] 2 SLR (R) 651
Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR (R) 594
Statutes and Standards: (for reference in class, relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)
Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2010
References: (optional)
Rosemary Lee, Annotated Statutes of Singapore: Electronic Transactions Act LexisNexis (2012) (available in SMU Course Reserves)
*BACKGROUND READING FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO RELEVANT ASPECTS OF CONTRACT LAW FOR COR2226:
Chapter 8 The Law of Contract, Sections 1, 2 & 9 only (by Singapore Law Watch). (<<< CLICK FOR LINK)
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
0 notes
Text
SESSION 5. ANTI-HARASSMENT AND CYBERSTALKING LEGISLATION
OPTIONAL REFERENCE: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 10
Anti-Harassment and Cyberstalking Laws: The Protection from Harassment Act was passed in Parliament on 14 March 2014. The purpose and effects of the Act will be examined. In particular, the effects of (anti-)social behaviour online and the objectives of the PHA in dealing with such acts will be considered. For example, trolling, cyber-bullying and cyber-vigilantism (involving doxxing) will be considered. What is the ambit of coverage of the provisions for non-direct and secondary subjects of harassment? For example, close emotional connection or physical proximity? What should be the extent of the scope?
What were the significant changes to the PHA in the latest amendments? Do the scope of the PHA extend “person” to include non-legal entities, private and/or public; both as perpetrator and victim?
False Statements of Fact (Part 3 Div. 2 [previously section 15 only]): Consider the series of appeals in the Ting Choon Meng case. What is the purpose and effect of this part of the Act? Compare and contrast it to POFMA and its progeny. (not required for COR2226)
Cases: (for general reference only, not required for COR2226)
Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and Another [2017] SGCA 06 (harassment, parties)
Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General and Another [2015] SGHC 315 (harassment, parties)
Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard, et al [2015] SGDC 114 (harassment, parties)
Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta[2001] SGHC 308 (harassment)
Required Readings:
Goh Yihan, Yip Man, The Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2014] 26 SAcLJ 700
Chan Wing Cheong, The New Offence of ‘Unlawful Stalking’ in Singapore (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 333 – 353
Statutes: (relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)
Protection from Harassment Act
Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill of 2019
References: (optional)
Restricting Publication of False Statements Using Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Law Gazette, May 2016)
Ravi Chandran, Workplace Harassment: Persons Liable and Damages Payable under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2015] 27 SAcLJ 286
Goh Yihan, The Case for Legislating Harassment in Singapore [2014] 26 SAcLJ 68
Gregory Vijayendran, Lester Chua, Harassment Act: An Act to End All Acts of Harassment? (Law Gazette, June 2014(4))
Choo Zheng Xi, Fong Wei Li, When Citizen Journalism Crosses the Line: Does the Harassment Act Have An Online Bite? (Law Gazette, June 2014(2))
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
SESSION 4. DIGITAL MARKETING PRACTICES
READ: ICTL TEXTBOOK CHAPTER 6 (COR2226 & LAW405)
‘Right’ to be Left Alone: The PDPA consists of a data protection regime as well as a do not call regime. The second part of the Act relates more to personal privacy and the right not to be disturbed. It supplements the existing Spam Control Act in regulating the distribution of information from commercial entities to private individuals generally - although there are some exceptions, particular on the treatment of the different formats and channels of distribution.
Thousands of organisations and individuals have been issued notifications and warnings for contravening the DNC rules within two years of its entry into force. We will consider the following questions in class:
What are the circumstances leading to the need for a Do Not Call List and how does it function? How does it compare to other anti-spam or spam-control models abroad?
What is the role of the Personal Data Protection Commissioner? Find reported cases on the enforcement of the DNC regime. Is it an audited or complaint based process?
What is the scope and effects of the Spam Control Act (Cap. 311A) of 2007? How does it function and what are the good and bad aspects of the regime?
Consider the treatment of unsolicited text messages and how it differs from voice messages, as well as the differential treatment accorded to different methods of electronic communication.
What is the relationship between the SCA and the PDPA? Are they complementary or is there a better way forward? How have they changed with the 2021 Amendments to the PDPA and the SCA?
Statutes: (For class reference only, relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)
Personal Data Protection Act
Spam Control Act
References: (optional only)
Warren B. Chik, Singapore's Do Not Call Register and the Text and Fax Exemption Order (Law Gazette, March 2014(1))
Warren B. Chik, Proposed Anti-Spam Legislation Model in Singapore: Are We Losing the Way Before Even Starting the Battle? [2005] 17 SAcLJ 747
1 note
·
View note
Text
0 notes