CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

- Public documents
- Sign in
- en
- ar

Previous 1 / 31 Next

‫اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮن رﻗﻢ )‪ (10‬ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ‪2003‬‬
‫اﻟﺼـﺎدر ﻓﻰ ‪ 4‬ﻓﺒـﺮاﯾــﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺻﺪار ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﺗﻨﻈﯿﻢ اﻻﺗﺼﺎﻻت‬

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Uwazi is developed by
in Kenya, Ecuador, Spain, Germany and USA.
CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law
Library
Login

Info
18Connections

Search tips

Search text

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Article 1 (19)
The article includes multiple definitions. The definition of “national security” covers anything related to the army, Ministry of Interior or the Presidency. The overly broad definition creates a possibility that the law will be applied beyond the limitations set by international standards. Combined with article 31 of the constitution, this article provides for a broad interpretation of the matter which is often used to oppress dissent online and elsewhere.
Article 4 (2)
The article lists "protecting national security and interests of the state" among the tasks of NTRA. Noting the definition of national security in Article 1, this article is a threat to freedom of expression. Rather than protecting national security, protecting freedom of exppression should be one of the tasks of NTRA.
Article 5
The article mandates NTRA with setting the rules of granting licenses to service providers. Considering NTRA is not independent of the government, the telecommunication law should at least mention clear criteria for granting or revoking licenses. The article also seeks to require licensing for all sorts of service,s and states that "the licence scheme should be limited to cases where public regulation is justified, as for instance is the case for the regulation of the frequency spectrum or the regulation of public works needed to set up a telecommunication network."
Article 32
The article "creates a right for “persons concerned” to have access to data registered with the NTRA about the licensees authorized to operate networks or provide services. While it is indeed positive that a system exists for making this information available to the public, the right to know ... demands that the information be readily available to any individual." The law should clearly oblige NTRA to be fullly transparent and disclose information.
Article 44
"Article 44 of the Law makes the import, manufacture or assembly of any telecommunication equipment conditional on a license from the NTRA. The NTRA itself needs to obtain prior consent from Armed forces." - Article 19.
Article 46
"Article 46 prohibits the import of equipment for trading. The law defines telecommunication equipment in a broad manner. The capacity to use technological equipment is a constitutive part of freedom of expression. ... Restrictions to the import, manufacture and commerce of communication equipment should be limited to the aim of maintaining technical standards required to ensure an efficient operation of the networks."- Article 19.
Article 64
The article 1) provides that the operators and providers of networks and services should allow armed forces and national security entities to have complete access to their systems in order to allow them “to exercise their powers within the law.” This provision lacks clarity and is not consistent with constitutional and international protections of privacy. In essence, it contributes to equipping the security forces with the capacity to monitor users without prior judicial authorization or a fixed time limit. It is generally understood that there is a strong connection between privacy and freedom of expression and that the invasion of privacy has a chilling effect on the individual’s right to free speech, and the capacity of the media to perform its role as a watchdog of the democratic society. 2) authorizes the providers and operators to collect information about users from “individuals and various entities within the state.” Such a broad authorization does not fit with the requirements of international law regarding the protection of personal data. 3) prohibits the use of encryption equipment in a very general way, extending it to “telecom service operators, providers, their employees and users”, unless authorization is obtained from the NTRA, the Armed Forces and national security entities. - Article 19. So in brief, the article constitutes a major threat to individuals' privacy, freedom of speech, and their right to remain anonymous. It also criminalizes the use of encryption to maintain their privacy and protect their personal data. Punishments are mentioned in article 81.
Article 67
Article 67 gives competent state authorities the power to seize control of any telecommunication service of any operator or provider in the case of natural or environmental disaster, during “declared periods of general mobilization” (in reference to the law no. 87 of 1960) or “any other case concerning national security”. The Law does not even clarify who the “competent authorities” are, thus increasing the likelihood of abuse. It also provides for a complete seizure of control of communication services and networks by the State, which was used as the legal basis to cut all communication services in January 2011.
Article 76
Article 76 penalizes the intentional misuse of telecommunication for disturbing or harassing a third party. Such broad language is incompatible with the requirements of international law (restrictions on freedom of expression be precisely worded, have a legal basis and are proportionate).
Article 81
The article criminalizes encryption. It punishes violation of article 64 with “a penalty of confinement to prison and a fine of (10,000 -100,000 EGP). As e-mail services, social network platforms and online payment services commonly use encryption, this mechanism could result in an ordinary user being imprisoned or fined for using any encryption technology in the course of daily use of Internet. It would amount to an absurd restriction on freedom of expression, as it could be interpreted as stating that an individual should obtain an authorization from various State authorities before creating an account on a social media platform.

قانون تنظيم الاتصالات رقم 10 لسنة 2003ara

Law

Keywords

Telecommunication

Adoption Date: Feb 4, 2003

Type of Law: Primary (this category will be deleted)

Research Category: III Governance of Online and Networked Spaces

Is this the Official Copy?: No

Source Name: Telecommunication Regulation Authority

Source URL: https://goo.gl/nRY88y

Notes: I saved an additional PDF copy of the original law as published in the Egyptian gazette.

Related Law

دستور جمهورية مصر العربية المعدل - 2014
قانون الإجراءات الجنائية (طبقا لاحدث التعديلات بالقانون 95 لسنة (2003) الصادر بالقانون رقم 150 لسنة 1950
قانون العقوبات رقم 58 لسنة 1937
قانون تنظيم الاتصالات رقم 10 لسنة 2003

Related Case Law

Communications Cut During the Egyptian revolution in 2011.
EG_UnnamedCaselaw_01

Related Analysis

Country Legal Framework: Egypt

Document

EG_Ar_Telecommunication Regulation Law_2003.doc.pdf242.33 KB

Attachments

No References

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Original Law Cited4
- Case Law4
No Label4
- Translation1
- Case Law3
Related Translation2
- Translation2
Country2
- Country2
Related Case Law2
- Case Law2
Related Analysis1
- Analysis1
Related Law3
- Law3

Create Reference

Select relationship type

Original Law Cited
Related Translation
Related Media Source
Country
Related Law
Related Regulations
Related Secondary Law
Related Amendments
Related Draft Amendments
Related Case Law
Related Analysis

Search tips