Thailand: Computer Crime Act, 2017 expression that States are required to prohibit under international law are child pornography, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, hate speech and incitement to terrorism. He further made clear that even legislation criminalizing these types of expression must be sufficiently precise, and there must be adequate and effective safeguards against abuse or misuse, including oversight and review by an independent and impartial tribunal or regulatory body.28 In other words, these laws must also comply with the three-part test outlined above. For example, legislation prohibiting the dissemination of child pornography over the Internet through the use of blocking and filtering technologies is not immune from those requirements. Surveillance of communications The right to privacy complements and reinforces the right to freedom of expression. The right to privacy is essential for ensuring that individuals are able to freely express themselves, including anonymously,29 should they so choose. The mass-surveillance of online communications therefore poses significant concerns for both the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. The right to private communications is strongly protected in international law through Article 17 of the ICCPR30 that inter alia, states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family or correspondence. In General Comment no. 16 on the right to privacy,31 the interference can take place except in cases envisaged by the law. Interference authorised by States can only take place on the basis of law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives the ICCPR. It further stated that: [E]ven with regard to interferences that conform to the Covenant, relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted. A decision to make use of such authorised interference must be made only by that authority designated under the law, and on a case-by-case basis.32 The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has argued that like restrictions on the right to freedom of expression under Article 19, restrictions of the right to privacy under Article 17 of the ICCPR should be interpreted as subject to the three-part test: Article 17 of the Covenant should also be interpreted as containing the said elements of a meaning of article 17, and restrictions that fall short of being necessary or do not serve a 33 legitimate aim constitu 28 29 Ibid, para. 22. Ibid, para. 84. 30 Article 17 states: 1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 31 HR Committee, General Comment 16, 23rd session, 1988, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 21 (1994). 32 Ibid., para 8. 33 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, para 17. ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Rd, London EC1R 3GA Page 10 of 24 www.article19.org +44 20 7324 2500