Hacking rules -- 6th President of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has finally opened up about the alleged pressure he gave to the Chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council Ma'ruf Amin, related fatwa for alleged blasphemy case conducted Basuki Purnama Tjahaja alias Ahok.
This was revealed by the attorney Ahok, Humphrey pointed Djemat MUI chairman Ma'ruf Amin got a call from SBY asking about the MUI issued a fatwa saying Ahok citing a letter Al Maidah verse 51. The fatwa was issued in October 2016.
Furthermore SBY stated, when tapping a political motive would be dangerous. He warned that dropping the watergate scandal US President Nixon.
"I highlight the issue. If true conversation I had with Ma'ruf or with anyone bugged without any justified law, that's illegal wiretapping, "Yudhoyono said at Wisma Proclamation, Jakarta, Wednesday (1/3).
And what about the wiretapping rules that apply in Indonesia?
Tapping is set in the Telecommunications Act in Article 40 which reads "Every person is prohibited from conducting eavesdropping on information transmitted over telecommunications networks in any form."
The prohibition is meant to install an additional device or the telecommunication network to obtain information by illegal means. 15 years so the threat of imprisonment for a maximum of wiretapping case.
While tapping under Law No. 11/2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) tapping into the terms interception.
Interception or eavesdropping by UU ITE is an activity to listen, record, divert, alter, inhibit, and / or record the transmission of electronic information and / or electronic documents that are not public, either use a wired network communications and wireless networks, such as the emission of electromagnetic or radio frequency.
But of course elements of tapping should be fulfilled, as stated in Article 31 paragraph (1) and (2) UU ITE:
(1) Every person knowingly and without authority or unlawfully intercepting or eavesdropping on Electronic Information and / or Electronic Documents in a computer and / or certain Electronic Systems belongs to someone else.
(2) Any person knowingly and without authority or unlawfully intercepting on the transmission of electronic information and / or electronic documents that are not public from, to, and within a computer and / or Electronic Systems of certain property of other people, both of which are not cause any changes and that causes the change, removal, and / or termination of the Electronic Information and / or Electronic Document being transmitted.
In UU ITE threat of imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rp800 million.
Exceptions wiretapping or interception rules given in the context of law enforcement at the request of law enforcement, police, judiciary and Pemnerantasan Corruption Commission.
Devoted again, to the Commission as stipulated in Article 12 of Law Commission stated if the antirasuah institution authorized to conduct wiretapping and recording the conversation to carry out the task of investigation, investigation, and prosecution. However, there were no rules about wiretapping procedures.
It should be emphasized also, if penyedapan different from the recording (camera, recorder, tape). Because the record does not fall into the category of the interception eyebrows no transmission of electronic information that is intercepted.
Wiretapping and Law Enforcement
From the pages of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), wiretapping explained that the provisions of Article 31 of Law ITE has a purpose:
First, law enforcement has the authority to conduct wiretaps conducted within the framework of law enforcement.
Second, tapping is done should be based on the request in the context of law enforcement.
Third, the authority tapping and tapping demand in the context of law enforcement should be established under the Act.
Viewed from the formulation of Article 31 UU ITE on the prohibition of wiretapping or interception of the above, this indicates that in addition to the authorities in the context of law enforcement, prohibited conduct wiretaps. If wiretapping conducted in violation of the law, would not be used as evidence in the trial.
Judge Constitution through Constitutional Court Decision No. 5 / PUU-VIII / 2010 which canceled Article 31 paragraph (4) UU ITE found no standard arrangements regarding interception, making it possible irregularities in its implementation.
Court argued tapping is a violation of the right to privacy which is contrary to the Constitution of 1945
Post a Comment