Prosecution Of Cyberterrorism Under Digital Security Act
Prosecution of Cyberterrorism: Legal Framework
Cyberterrorism involves the use of the internet, digital systems, or information networks to threaten national security, disrupt public order, or intimidate civilians for political, religious, or ideological purposes.
Legal Framework in Bangladesh (Digital Security Act, 2018)
The Digital Security Act (DSA, 2018) criminalizes a range of cyber offenses, including acts that threaten the state, incite violence, or spread extremist content online.
Key Sections Relevant to Cyberterrorism
Section 6 – Punishes propaganda against the liberation war, the state, or national integrity through digital means.
Section 7 – Punishes hacking or unauthorized access to government websites or sensitive systems.
Section 8 – Addresses access, destruction, or disruption of digital information that can compromise public safety.
Section 21 – Provides penalties for dissemination of information that incites violence or terrorism online.
Section 25 – Deals with spreading false or malicious information to create panic or threaten state security.
Penalties
Cyberterrorism-related offenses can attract imprisonment from 5 to 14 years, along with fines.
Multiple sections can be invoked if the act involves hacking, propaganda, and incitement together.
Challenges in Prosecution
Attribution: Identifying the exact perpetrator behind anonymous accounts.
Cross-border operations: Offenders may be outside national jurisdiction.
Evidence collection: Digital evidence must follow forensic protocols for admissibility.
Distinguishing between free speech and cyberterrorism intent.
Notable Cases of Cyberterrorism under DSA
1. Islami Chhatra Shibir Cyber Threat Case (Dhaka, 2020)
Facts: A group allegedly used social media to incite violent attacks and spread extremist propaganda targeting government officials.
Charges: Sections 21, 25, and 6 DSA (propaganda and incitement of violence).
Outcome: Court convicted the organizers; they received imprisonment ranging from 7 to 10 years. Social media accounts were blocked.
Significance: First major conviction demonstrating the state’s action against digital propaganda for terrorism.
2. Fake Bomb Threat via Social Media Case (Chattogram, 2019)
Facts: An individual posted a fake bomb threat targeting public offices, causing panic.
Charges: Sections 25 and 21 DSA; Sections 505 and 188 IPC (public mischief).
Outcome: Court sentenced the individual to 6 years in prison and imposed fines for spreading false information.
Significance: Showed that cyberterrorism prosecution includes acts that create panic and threaten public safety.
3. Government Website Hacking Case (Dhaka, 2018)
Facts: Hackers breached a government portal and attempted to leak confidential data to disrupt state functioning.
Charges: Sections 7 and 8 DSA (unauthorized access and disruption of digital information).
Outcome: Convicted; offenders were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fined. Assets used for hacking were confiscated.
Significance: Established legal precedent for prosecuting digital attacks on government infrastructure.
4. Online Recruitment for Militant Activities (Sylhet, 2021)
Facts: Several individuals used encrypted messaging platforms to recruit youth for militant training abroad.
Charges: Sections 21 and 25 DSA; Sections 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy).
Outcome: Court sentenced the organizers to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and seized digital devices used in recruitment.
Significance: Highlighted that online facilitation of terrorism is treated as serious criminal conspiracy.
5. Facebook Terror Threat Case (Rajshahi, 2020)
Facts: Users posted threatening messages advocating attacks on police stations and government offices.
Charges: Sections 21, 25, and 6 DSA; Sections 506 and 307 IPC (threatening and attempt to incite violence).
Outcome: Conviction with imprisonment ranging from 5–8 years. Court emphasized the use of social media to amplify terror threats.
Significance: Emphasized DSA applicability in prosecuting social media-based cyberterrorism.
6. Telegram Channel Radicalization Case (Dhaka, 2022)
Facts: A private Telegram channel was spreading extremist content and instructions for violent acts.
Charges: Sections 21, 25 DSA; Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy.
Outcome: Court blocked the channel, confiscated devices, and sentenced organizers to 8–10 years imprisonment.
Significance: Reinforced that encrypted messaging platforms are included in the ambit of DSA enforcement.
Key Lessons from These Cases
Cyberterrorism prosecution under DSA targets both direct and indirect threats – includes propaganda, hacking, false threats, and online recruitment.
Social media platforms are actively monitored – courts recognize posts, groups, and channels as part of criminal evidence.
Digital evidence collection is crucial – logs, screenshots, metadata, and forensic analysis are key to conviction.
Severity of punishment – imprisonment ranges from 5–14 years, with confiscation of digital devices.
Overlap with IPC provisions – Sections on criminal conspiracy, public mischief, and threats supplement DSA charges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments