MyanmarElectronic Transactions Law, unauthorized interference and interception offences
In force since .
A computer misuse rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Do not dishonestly hack, modify, alter, destroy, or steal another person's electronic record, electronic data message, or computer programme.
- Do not intercept a communication within a computer network, or give any person access to the contents of a communication, without the permission of both the originator and the addressee.
- Reading a public, unauthenticated page without defeating a technical access control or intercepting a communication has not itself been held to violate this section.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 4.1Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components – including the use of third-party data or software – are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of infringement of a third party’s intellectual property or other rights.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionNo
Criminal exposure note
Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or a fine (amount not specified by the Law), or both, on conviction under s. 34; a more serious tier at s. 33 (acts detrimental to state security or public order using electronic transactions technology) carries imprisonment from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 15 years and a possible fine.
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Section 34 makes it an offence to send, hack, modify, alter, destroy or steal an electronic record or data message or a computer programme dishonestly, to intercept a communication within a computer network without the originator's and addressee's permission, to pass on another person's security number, password or electronic signature without consent, and to create or distribute altered information to the detriment of an organization or person, punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment or a fine or both. It states no record duty and no territorial test, so the hook is empty. The Act's provisions on certification authorities (the accounts and records a certification authority maintains) sit outside section 34 and are not read into this row.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
Section 34 of the Electronic Transactions Law punishes, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or a fine or both, sending, hacking, modifying, altering, destroying or stealing an electronic record, electronic data message or computer programme dishonestly, and separately punishes intercepting a communication within a computer network or giving another person access to a communication's contents without the permission of the originator and the addressee.
The offence's elements turn on dishonesty and interception rather than on defeating a technical access control, so reading a public, unauthenticated page without more falls outside a plain reading of the provision, and no reported case has tested the point.
A more serious tier at section 33 punishes, with imprisonment from 7 to 15 years, acts detrimental to state security or public order committed using electronic transactions technology, and section 38 extends the punishment for any offence to an attempt, conspiracy or abetment of it.
The English text catalogued here carries no personal-data definition, misinformation offence, or virtual private network (VPN)-circumvention provision of the kind secondary reporting attributes to a 2021 amendment (State Administration Council Law No. 7/2021); that amendment's own text is not among the sources cited for this instrument, so this instrument reflects only the law as amended through Law No. 6/2014.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app crawls the web or trains models.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .