By: Sonny Zulhuda

(This article first appears in the E-Security Bulletin vol. 18 – (Q1-2009), published by CyberSecurity Malaysia in 1st Quarter of Year 2009, under the title ‘The requirement of information availability in the E-Commerce Act 2006′)

One of the key components in information security is the information availability, which seeks to ensure that authorized users have access to information and associated assets whenever required. This availability factor is so important to the extent that its deficiency can adversely affect other aspects of information security, namely the integrity and confidentiality of information.

This significance cannot be seen bigger in the area of electronic commerce. Imagine if the security of an information system used by an e-payment service provider is compromised by a denial-of-service (DOS) attack thus affects the availability of service, not only are the commercial data and the electronic processing thereof being jeopardised, but also the whole supposedly-trusted system can fail miserably.

Given its popularity and inter-dependence in today’s economic and business activities, electronic commerce (e-commerce) is a battlefield worth trying and fighting for. For ordinary people, it is an avenue to intensify their economic power. For business, this is a free channel to more than one billion potential market on the planet.

It is therefore understandable that the Government is strongly interested to see e-commerce succeeds. In a regional workshop in 2005, the Malaysian Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, Datuk Hj Mohd Shafie Apdal (as he then was), was quoted as saying: ‘it is not going to be acceptable or in any national interest to have a growing section of commercial activity operating outside the law. If there is no law then we have to create new laws, for e-commerce is not a transitory phenomenon. E-commerce is here now, it is growing and I see nothing to slow its exponential development.’

The Government is due to provide a legal framework which facilitates, instead of halts, this growth. At the same time, such framework shall ensure that the e-commerce it seeks to promote is resilient, sustainable and secure. In this short article, we will see how the law on e-commerce in Malaysia recognizes the issue of information security, especially the information availability aspect, and makes it an incentive for the e-commerce players.

Electronic Commerce Act 2006

The Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) 2006 (Act 658) provides for legal recognition of electronic messages in commercial transactions, the use of the electronic messages to fulfil legal requirements and to enable and facilitate commercial transactions through the use of electronic means and other related matters. The Act applies to any commercial transaction conducted through electronic means including commercial transactions by the Federal and State Governments. Nevertheless, the use of such means is not made mandatory. From the outlook of this Act, one can see that it is modelled to a great extent on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce (Model Law) 1996. Certain legal principles adopted including the principles of functional equivalence and technology neutrality.

With the passing of ECA 2006, e-commerce in Malaysia is not what or how it was before the existence of this statute. One fundamental task is fulfilled, namely, providing legal certainty as to the validity and legality of electronic transactions. IT users and the owners of information assets ought to get some assurance that their activities are lawful, their communications and transactions valid and their transactions are protected.

Information Security Standards under ECA 2006

It is note-worthy that ECA 2006 sets up certain information security standards to be applied on the e-commerce activities, among others, on legal recognition of electronic message, writing, and originality of document. The effect of this is indirectly making an information security best practice as an incentive for the legality of e-commerce itself.

Many legal concepts are being tied with the requirement of accessibility of the information or the information system. For example, for the purpose of granting legal recognition of an electronic message, section 6(2) of the Act expressly provides that:

‘Any information shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability on the ground that the information is not contained in the electronic message that gives right to such legal effect, but is merely referred to in that electronic message, provided that the information being referred to is accessible to the person against whom the referred information might be used’ [emphasis added].

As a practical illustration, people who are parties to an e-transaction such as online auction are bound by the terms of contract stipulated in an electronic format such as those on the auction provider’s website, as long as that information (i.e. the online terms) are accessible and available for subsequent reference. This requirement of ‘accessibility’, it is submitted, indicates that the purported user of electronic message must make sure that there is in place and under his control a system from which an electronic message at issue can be accessed and provided. This is exactly what the principle of information availability is all about. Therefore in order to achieve the protection under these provisions, efforts must be made to ensure the information system is neither intruded nor compromised so that access not denied whenever it is required.

Similar information availability principle can be found in the provision on the originality of a document, albeit that it also imposes other measures on information integrity and confidentiality. Section 12(1) of ECA 2006 provides that:

‘Where any law requires any document to be in its original form, the requirement of the law is fulfilled by a document in the form of an electronic message, if –

(a)    There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the information contained in the electronic message from the time it is first generated in its final form [emphasis added]; and

(b)    The electronic message is accessible and intelligible so as to be usable for subsequent reference [emphasis added].

Section 12(2) went on saying that the integrity of the information depends very much on whether the information has remained complete and unaltered; and the standard of reliability shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the document was generated and in the light of all other relevant circumstances.

Reading the whole provisions would enable us to suggest that the standard of information security required for ascertaining the originality of an electronic message will vary according to the context of every given communications and can also depend on the nature of harm and threats to any electronic message in any given information system. Thus, the more sensitive communication and information system is, the higher level of measures will be required to achieve a reliable assurance of an information integrity. This particular provision is arguably very central to the idea of setting information security standard for the e-commerce to work effectively.

To conclude, it is noted that ECA 2006 has paid a serious attention to information availability being a central prerequisite for e-commerce players in Malaysia. While the Act may not be a comprehensive ‘masterpiece’, it could arguably play vital role for the information security legal framework in Malaysia.

By: Sonny Zulhuda

The Internet has now taken us to a new dimension of life complete with its new set of lifestyle. The Web 2.0 that famously led its users (Who? Me you and everyone here!) to be the Time Magazine’s 2006 Man of the Year had made us a reader and a writer at the same time; a consumer and a producer at once.

This is the new you. Yourself 2.0 does not only read news or download articles from the Net, but also write blogs or upload creative works online. That is the new you.

This was the ground I see when writing and presenting the topic “Yourself 2.0: A Cool or a Fool?” at the inter-disciplinary discussion forum for Indonesian Students Association in the International Islamic University Malaysia last February.

(to be continued…)

By: Sonny Zulhuda

On Wednesday this week the Indonesian Embassy in KL held a ceremony officiating the upcoming-election committee and its secretariat. The Ambassador attended the ceremony and so did most of the embassy officials. I was invited as a witness for the proceeding as a representative of the community in Malaysia.

What led me to write here was particularly an issue (among so many) that came up in my discussion with several members of election committee and reps from participating political parties after the function: privacy right of the voters.

Political party reps suggested that the election committee (PPLN in Bahasa) should allow them (all the participating parties) to have the full list of registered Indonesian voters in Malaysia. That means, the list that includes the name, addresses, ID/Passport numbers of the voters (like me and over-400 thousand others). The purpose was for the parties to ‘assist’ the committee to inform, socialize, remind and mobilze voters to go to the poll on the election day, given the forseeable limitation of the committee members to cover all these tasks, mainly due to limited human resources and the width of area covered (nine committee people to cover areas throughout Malaysia, basically).

Election committee members, however, do not fancy this idea of disclosing and sharing the full list of the voters, due to privacy concerns ever raised by some quarters. To justify that, they mentioned the new UU-ITE that stipulated something (only one section, actually) on privacy protection.

I was following this discussion with a great interest. I’m also glad that this issue has been in the minds of many people, especially  at times when it really matters, just like this election days.

So, back to the issue at hand: should we or should not we allow the political party reps have the full list of the voters? Would it in anyway infringe the right of privacy?I remember my colleagues from the local election committee (PPLN) here kept arguing on that such protection is afforded by virtue of UU-ITE. to this, I beg to differ, as being explained below.

Article 26 of the Law No. 11/2008 on the Electronic Information and Electronic Transaction (UU-ITE) stipulates that:

(1) Otherwise stipulated by the laws and regulations, the use of any information by means of electronic media relating to someone’s personal data shall be carried out with the approval from the person concerned.

(2) Every person whose privacy right is infringed upon as referred to in clause(1), may file a law-suit [action-added] for the loss incurred based on this Law. (As translated by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology).

What we can draw from this provision is as follows:

First, that the recognition of right to privacy as far as this law is concerned is only limited to that of data/informational privacy, i.e. the right of every person to control what kind of information about him should belong to public domain. (Other aspects of privacy rights include right of anonimity, right of solitude and many more).

Second, be that as it may, the right to information privacy here is further restricted to the ‘use’ of such data. This is overwhelmingly restrictive bearing in mind that the international standard of data privacy covers so many dimension including the collection, processing, use, retention and disclosure of personal data. Here, on the other hand, restricts the matter only to the ‘use’ of personal information.

Third, more restriction was put in place that such rule on the use of personal data is only applicable as long as it is a use ‘by means of electronic media’. Therefore, any use of people’s personal data by which are documented not in electronic media, such as the usual paper archives, will not be subject of this law.

Fourth, the law mentions about the need to get the approval of a person whose personal data was to be used (by means of electronic media). This is never explained as to how such approval can be obtained. Is it sufficient to have it on the basis of ‘opt-iout’ principle, or does it require a more protective ”opt-in’ principle? There is a big gap between the two in terms of requirements, efforts and consequences. The more protective it is (i.e. with ‘opt-in’ principle), the better for the data subjects, i.e. people whose data is being used.

Fifth, with all these exceptions (a ‘data privacy’ in ‘electronic media’ to be ‘used’ with an ‘approval’).. it is foudn that the legal redress is also not very attractive. It allows civil suit for damages but is silent about criinal penalties. Thus, while compensation might be aimed at, a deterrence could be significantly absent.

Therefore, this Law (UU-ITE) with due respect, is not the best answer for protecting people’s privacy right be it in electronic and conventional media. Nevertheless, this law is perhaps a little solution for a huge problem. Do we require further law?

Discussion will proceed later on…

By Sonny Zulhuda

This week attending the OIC-CERT Seminar 2008 held in one hotel in KL between13-15 January 2009 organized by Cyber Security Malaysia. Series of lectures, workshops and discussions in which talks on information security and cyber terrorism issues were held. The theme is as reflected in the tile above.

From legal points of view, Datuk Abdul Raman Saad, among others, gave his views on legal aspects of cyber-terrorism and cyber crimes (‘Bad Economy Fuels Cyber Crime’). He noted one report from the Star on 6th January 2009 quoting the Minister of Water, Energy and Communications saying that the ministry had sobmitted more than 30 cyber crime cases to the Attorney Chambers in the last three years (the same was reported by Bernama).

This fact alone is quite alarming. Do we then need a specific ‘cyber court’? This is what the speaker is arguing for, echoing the suggestion from the Minister in the report. This kind of specilized court is deemed timely and appropriate. However no discussion as to what is meant by the word ‘cyber court’ here.

Perhaps we are looking at a special tribunal-like mechanism where judges and skilled experts can sit to address issues on cyber-crimes.

earlier in the morning session, Datuk Raman also commented on the need to have an internationally-uniform cyberlaw codes. That is perhaps unthinkable, just yet. The most interesting part is the argument put up by him. He said that there should be no difficulty to have a uniform cyberlaw codes because the norms in this field are not based on long standing community traditional and historical values – unlike other conventional laws that are influenced heavily by local norms, ethics, etc. Rather, cyberlaw is supposed to be international and common in nature, because it a new breed of laws, based on the norms of computing community and rather new digital environment, which is commonly shared by any community in the world.

In other words, using this argument, we should be able to say that a crime of hacking, for example, sould be recognized as a crime in any community in the world. So, cyberlaw ought to be an international norm.

That is absolutely an exciting point of view!

In my view, this is a very good ground to start with for the purpose of unifying cyberlaw in the world. noting that there is so far EU-promoted Cybercrime Convention 2001 which is regarded as the only multilateral treaty on cybercrime issues. This also remind me to what I wrote several years ago (in my Master’s dissertation in 2002) that cyber crimes and data abuse should be addressed in a more international manner.

Nevertheless, I noted that the same argument cannot be used in one area of  cybercrime: offensive content issue! what is offensive to me may not be the case to you. What people here deems offensive may be okayed in other coutnry. This is very true because, in fact, such sorms and standards are based on the long-standing norms and values exist in any given society. Therefore, a cybercrime law on offensive content would, i believe, still stand very differently from one country to another.

Oleh: Sonny Zulhuda

Bagaimana penanganan ‘co-regulatory’ bagi isu pemuatan konten pelecehan di Indonesia? 

Di Indonesia, tindakan pemuatan informasi yang menimbulkan permusuhan/kebencian, misalnya, berdasarkan agama, dapat dikenakan sanksi berlapis di bawah Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) dan UU No. 11/2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU-ITE) dengan ancaman denda maksimal satu milyar rupiah dan/atau penjara enam tahun.

Selain itu, UU-ITE juga melarang muatan pencelaan berdasarkan SARA, pencemaran nama baik, asusila, perjudian dan pelanggaran norma HAKI dan data pribadi.

Namun peraturan perundang-undangan ini hanya merupakan sebagian dari solusi. Untuk mencapai masyarakat yang ‘berbudaya dan taat hukum’, kita perlu mencapai prasyarat ‘sadar hukum’.

Prasyarat ini perlu menjadi prioritas kita sambil mengedepankan aspek ‘co-regulatory’ atau penataan bersama yang perlu didukung oleh pihak industri yang terkait dengan pemuatan informasi di Internet, pihak pengguna, keluarga, komunitas dan juga masyarakat secara umumnya.

Kerjasama antara pemerintah dan penyelenggara jasa Internet (PJI) perlu dibina sebaik mungkin agar tidak terjadi lagi kekalutan seperti ketika pemerintah menginstruksikan pemblokiran situs-situs Internet yang memuat film Fitna yang lalu.

Kekalutan timbul seperti kerancuan target pemblokiran sehingga menimbulkan ketidakseragaman situs yang diblokir, keluhan pengguna, dan beban teknis serta finansial yang ditanggung akibat pemblokiran mendadak tanpa dukungan sistem yang sepatutnya.

Pemblokiran Internet dapat dijadikan solusi kuratif yang perlu didukung dengan pemberdayaan teknologi, dukungan dana, sumberdaya manusia dan yang lebih penting kesadaran sosial para pengguna Internet.

Untuk itu, mari sama-sama kita tata kembali muatan Internet kita sambil melanjutkan inovasi konten kreatif menuju masyarakat informasi Indonesia yang cerdas, adil dan beradab.

Oleh: Sonny Zulhuda

Pada bagian lain kita singgung tentang munculnya persinggungan antara masyarakat informasi dan etika yang hidup dalam masyarakat itu sendiri (lihat posting ‘Masyarakat Internet dan Etika Sosial’). Pada kenyataannya, masih sering terjadi dimana-mana gejolak dan perselisihan yang melibatkan pemuatan konten yang dianggap melecehkan, baik itu dilihat dari aspek sosial, agama, budaya, politik, dan lain-lain. Isu-isu seperti ini datang silih berganti. Apakah gejolak ini merupakan kutukan bagi masyarakat informasi?

Tentu bukan, tapi lebih tepatnya, inilah tantangan masyarakat informasi dimana hak berpendapat dan memperoleh informasi menjadi elemen inti. Meminjam istilah Guru Besar Cyberlaw dari Universiti Malaya, Profesor Abu Bakar Munir dalam karya terbarunya State, Information and the Internet, informasi adalah ‘oksigen’ bagi kehidupan demokrasi di dunia teknologi sekarang ini.

Di Indonesia hal ini sudah direfleksikan dalam UU No. 14/2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik. Namun, kebebasan ini tentunya diletakkan di dalam koridor kepentingan umum.  Hal ini jelas dinyatakan dalam ketentuan perundangan mengenai hak asasi manusia (HAM) di Indonesia seperti UUD 1945 dan UU No. 39/1999 tentang HAM, maupun di dalam traktat internasional seperti Deklarasi HAM PBB dan Konvensi Eropa tentang HAM.

Di semua dokumen itu tersurat dan tersirat bahwa hak berpendapat dan memperoleh informasi dibatasi oleh eksistensi hak orang lain dan kepentingan publik seperti pemeliharaan ketertiban masyarakat, kesusilaan dan kepentingan bangsa.

Pemuatan informasi yang dianggap anti-sosial akan terus tumbuh di Internet. Bagaimana kita menyikapinya? Untuk insiden yang telah terjadi, kita berharap aparat berwenang meneruskan usaha penyidikan dan penyelidikan sepatutnya sekaligus membuktikan efektivitas UU cyberlaw kita.

Namun perlu dipahami bahwa tantangan yang bersifat kontinyu perlu ditangani dengan solusi yang berkesinambungan pula. Perangkat hukum memang penting, namun bukan satu-satunya jalan untuk memecahkan permasalahan. Perangkat hukum yang tidak dibarengi dengan perangkat teknologi dan solusi sosial hanya akan berfungsi seperti ‘pain killer’ atau obat penahan sakit. Sesudah pengaruh obatnya habis, maka permasalahan yang ada akan kembali lagi.

Selain perangkat hukum ada perangkat lain yaitu perangkat teknologi dan rekayasa sosial. Perangkat hukum dan perundangan berfungsi memberikan kepastian hukum dengan menjelaskan hak dan kewajiban tiap orang yang terlibat. Perangkat teknologi berfungsi mengembalikan Internet ke khittahnya, yaitu teknologi yang membantu kehidupan manusia untuk penyebaran informasi, media komunikasi dan kesejahteraan ekonomi manusia.

Perangkat sosial juga tidak kalah penting. Faktor-faktor seperti kesadaran masyarakat, pengamanan sosial (kontrol keluarga, sekolah, lingkungan kerja, komunitas),  kerjasama pemangku kepentingan (pemerintah, industri dan pasar), dan pemberdayaan pengguna untuk pemanfaatan teknologi, semuanya merupakan mata rantai penting dalam proses penataan bersama muatan di Internet.

Dalam trend dan norma kerangka pengaturan, metode penataan bersama ini dikenal sebagai mekanisme pengaturan bersama (co-regulatory mechanism). Dalam sebuah konferensi tentang konten Internet di Oxford, Peter Coroneos, ketua Asosiasi Industri Internet Australia, mengaku bahwa metode ‘co-regulatory’ ini merupakan pilihan yang paling strategis dan produktif dalam mengatur muatan Internet.

Oleh: Sonny Zulhuda

Beberapa waktu lalu perhatian kita tertuju kepada haru biru Internet di Indonesia. Belum selesai pihak Kepolisian Republik Indonesia menangani kasus prostitusi dan perjudian via Internet, masyarakat dikejutkan dengan terbitnya sebuah komik elektronik berbahasa Indonesia yang menistakan Nabi Muhammad Saw dan menyakitkan hati umat Islam di negara berpenduduk Muslim terbanyak di dunia ini.

Figur suci yang menjadi panutan ummat sedunia digambarkan begitu rendah, amoral, angkuh dan sembrono. Tentu saja ini merupakan tindakan provokatif dan sudah tidak dapat disembunyikan lagi di balik kedok kebebasan bersuara.

Yang menjadi perhatian kita adalah bahwa kasus ini terjadi di Internet, yaitu media lintas teritorial dengan ekologi tersendiri.  Tidak seperti media-media massa konvensional seperti media penyiaran (TV, Radio) atau pers cetak, pemuatan informasi di Internet dapat dilakukan oleh siapa saja yang tersambung ke jaringan Internet, bahkan tanpa harus memiliki perangkat komputer sendiri atau berlangganan koneksi secara langsung.

Konsekuensinya, informasi yang dimuat di Internet biasanya tanpa melalui proses editorial sehingga tidak terkontrol dari segi kualitas, format, substansi, sensitivitas informasi ataupun dari segi keabsahan sumber informasi tersebut.

Fenomena pemuatan komik penghinaan di blog ini bukan yang pertama kali terjadi, dan hampir pasti bukan yang terakhir.  Jika kita telusuri, masih banyak situs di Internet yang mengandung pencelaan terhadap Islam, baik yang berupa gambar, animasi, teks, audio maupun video. Sebagiannya menyajikan diskusi dan bantahan dari umat Islam sendiri yang merespon secara langsung.

Terlepas dari perbedaan motif yang melatarbelakanginya, pemuatan informasi yang bersifat non-etis, asusila dan anti sosial ini juga bukan fenomena Indonesia saja. Hampir setiap negara yang memilih untuk membuka masyarakatnya ke era informasi terpaksa berhadapan dengan tantangan seperti ini. Bedanya adalah, nilai sosial yang tidak sama membedakan materi apa yang dianggap tidak sesuai atau perlu dibatasi.

Di Amerika Serikat, misalnya, pembatasan muatan informasi Internet diarahkan terhadap muatan yang bersifat eksploitasi seksual terhadap anak. Di Australia dan Singapura pembatasan mencakup muatan kekerasan. Ketika Cina membatasi muatan pornografis dan anti-komunisme, Thailand lebih bermasalah dengan muatan yang mencela raja mereka.

Di banyak negara Eropa daratan seperti Jerman dan Perancis, muatan yang bersifat anti-semitisme dan pemujaan nazisme merupakan hal yang tabu bahkan dilarang. Sampai-sampai dua perusahaan mesin pencarian raksasa Google dan Yahoo! pernah dipermasalahkan karena menyajikan entry berbau nazisme dan anti-semitis bagi komunitas Internet disana. Di negara-negara Muslim, logis saja, muatan yang menistakan ajaran Islam –seperti pelecehan terhadap Nabi Muhammad dan Al-Qur’an– tidak akan bisa ditolerir.

Benang merah yang bisa ditarik disini, di kehidupan masayarakat manapun di dunia ini, nilai etika (dan hukum)  yang dianut tidak akan hilang begitu saja hanya karena mereka sudah mengadopsi Internet dan menjadi bagian dari masyarakat informasi dunia.

 By: Sonny Zulhuda

UU Pornografi melarang pemuatan dan penyebarluasan Pornografi di berbagai media termasuk Internet. Masalahnya, seringkali pembuat atau pemasok pornografi di Internet adalah anonim alias tidak bernama atau beridentitas.

Hal ini sangat dimungkinkan mengingat fasilitas Internet seperti situs, blog, atau email pada umumnya tersedia secara gratis dan tidak memerlukan identitas asli pendaftar. Sementara data mutakhir di Indonesia menunjukkan mayoritas pengguna Internet memakai fasilitas umum seperti warnet, atau fasilitas kantor atau sekolah yang tidak diatur sistem aksesnya. Keadaan ini bisa mengaburkan identifikasi orang yang memproduksi, memuat atau meyebarkan pornografi di Internet.

Walhasil, dalam keadaan dimana pelaku asal pemuat pornografi tidak teridentifikasi, perhatian penegakan hukum hanya dapat difokuskan kepada penyedia akses terhadap muatan itu, yaitu para penyedia jasa internet (PJI) dan penyedia hosting.

Secara teknis, PJI yang fungsinya menyediakan koneksi Internet kepada pelanggan beresiko dianggap ‘menyebarluaskan’ atau ‘menyediakan’ pornografi seperti yang dilarang oleh UUP; atau ‘mentransmisikan’ atau ‘membuat dapat diaksesnya’ pornogafi sebagaimana dilarang di UU Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE). Padahal, mengharapkan PJI melakukan kontrol editorial terhadap muatan yang masuk setiap hari sama saja seperti mengharapkan kematian industri tersebut.

PJI tidak bisa disamakan dengan editor koran atau majalah yang mengontrol muatan yang dapat dan tidak dapat masuk ke kolom media mereka. Dalam bahasa the European Directives on Electronic Commerce, fungsi PJI adalah hanya sekedar pipa saluran (‘conduit’). Prinsip ini juga diadopsi oleh berbagai negara dalam hal pengaturan muatan konten Internet. Ini dikarenakan PJI tidak tahu menahu isi dari muatan informasi yang disalurkan olehnya kepada pelanggan, persis seperti posisi penyelenggara telekomunikasi telepon.

Jadi, sejauh mana pertanggungjawaban PJI dalam hal ini? Dapatkah mereka dianggap ‘menyebarkan’, ‘menyiarkan’ atau ‘membuat dapat diaksesnya’ pornografi di Internet dan diancam pasal pidana? Ketidakpastian hukum ini perlu dijawab dengan peraturan turunan dari UU Pornografi sendiri atau dari UU ITE, baik melalui Peraturan Pemerintah, Peraturan Menteri atau lainnya.

(Tulisan merupakan bagian dari artikel penulis yang dimuat di Harian Republika pada 11/11/2008 berjudul ‘Pengaturan Pornografi di Internet’)

By: Sonny Zulhuda

Bangsa Indonesia sekali lagi mencatat peristiwa penting dengan lahirnya Undang-undang Pornografi (UUP) yang bertujuan menciptakan kepastian hukum atas penggunaan, penyediaan dan penyebaran produk dan jasa pornografi di tengah-tengah masyarakat Indonesia. Coretan kecil ini mencoba melihat beberapa tantangan implementasinya di ruang maya.

Perlu diingat bahwa UUP ini bukan satu-satunya UU di Indonesia yang mengatur muatan Internet. UU No. 11/2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UUITE) diantaranya melarang siapa saja mendistribusikan, mentransmisikan dan/atau membuat dapat diaksesnya muatan elektronik yang melanggar kesusilaan. Ancamannya adalah penjara maksimal 6 tahun atau denda maksimal satu miliar rupiah. Hukuman sepertiga lebih berat dapat dikenakan jika perbuatan itu menyangkut eksploitasi anak.

Sementara itu, UUP mengancam orang yang memproduksi, menyebarluaskan, menyiarkan atau menyediakan pornografi di Internet dengan pidana penjara antara 1 hingga 12 tahun atau denda antara setengah hingga enam miliar rupiah. Selain itu, mengunduh pornografi melalui sistem teknologi informasi dan komunikasi dapat dipidana maksimal 4 tahun penjara atau denda dua miliar rupiah. Dan jika melibatkan anak, ancaman pidananya akan menjadi sepertiga lebih berat.

Persinggungan antara dua produk UU kadang terjadi karena adanya perbedaan konteks dan tujuan perundangan. Untuk itu perlu dilihat keberadaan dua UU ini bukan merupakan kontradiksi tapi justru ‘compelementary’ yaitu saling melengkapi. Dalam konteks ini, UUP terlihat lebih keras karena secara khusus bertujuan menekan pornografi dan melindungi generasi muda. Sementara UUITE bertujuan memberikan kepastian hukum dalam penggunaan teknologi informasi seperti transaksi elektronik.

Keadaan ini memberikan pilihan lebih luas kepada penegak hukum dalam upaya menindak pelaku pidana terkait. Keduanya juga saling melengkapi misalnya untuk hukum penggunaan alat bukti elektronik. Konsolidasi untuk menentukan aturan turunan menjadi mutlak diperlukan antara berbagai instansi pemerintah yang terkait dengan kedua UU ini.

(Tulisan merupakan bagian dari artikel penulis yang dimuat di Harian Republika pada 11/11/2008 berjudul ‘Pengaturan Pornografi di Internet’)

Ketentuan Undang-undang Pornografi* yang terkait dengan media Internet dan perbuatan hukum pengguna Internet – Draft Matriks

Disusun oleh: Sonny Zulhuda

Media Internet merupakan salah satu obyek pengaturan UUP yang mencakup pasal-pasal pidana bagi siapa saja yang menyebarluaskan atau mengunduh pornografi melalui media informasi dan komunikasi itu.

Selain itu ada juga pasal-pasal yang terkait pencegahan, pembuktian dan pnyidikan. Pasal-pasal ini dilihat melengkapi peraturan perundangan yang sebelumnya juga baru disahkan oleh DPR pada bulan maret lalu, yaitu Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UUITE).

Dengan adanya kepastian hukum ini, kita berharap citra negatif Internet dapat dipebaiki dan dengan demikian dapat menumbuhkan masyarakat informasi Indonesia yang kreatif, produktif dan beretika tinggi. 

Lantas, sejauh mana keterkaitan pasal-pasal di UU Pornografi terhadap Media Internet? Ini bisa disimak di matriks yang tersusun dibawah. Dalam kolom keterangan, nantinya akan kita analisa lebih jauh implikasi dan penjelasannya. 

*Berdasarkan draft akhir RUU Pornografi bulan September 2008 dari http://apadong.com