The Joint Commission, in line with the approval of the Seventh Development Plan, has entrusted the responsibility of filtering and refining platforms to the National Virtual Space Center.

Information technology experts believe that the Seventh Development Plan should not address such issues, and the topic of filtering is not compatible with the spirit of developmental laws. According to their view, transparency and reforming the structure are much more important than who is in charge, and this should be addressed in an independent law.

According to IDEA, the Joint Commission, in the process of reviewing and approving the Seventh Development Plan, added a clause that entrusts the regulation and management of the virtual space to the National Virtual Space Center. Mohsen Zanganeh, the spokesperson of the Joint Commission, announced that the National Virtual Space Center is required to prepare a document of policies and regulations for regulating virtual platforms and the digital economy. This document must be approved by the Supreme Council of the Virtual Space, and all regulators in the field and virtual platforms must comply with this document. Any blocking and refining of platforms are the responsibility of the National Virtual Space Center, so we won’t see various institutions making decisions contrary to this document.

This is while, according to the Computer Crimes Law, the Computer Crimes Identification Workgroup and the judiciary have the authority to filter platforms. The National Security Council also claims this right for itself. On the other hand, it must be noted that there are far more authorities involved in filtering in the country; in some cases, like Telegram groups, it’s not even clear which entity has issued the filtering order.

Apart from this issue, mentioning the subject of filtering in a document that bears the name “development” is thought-provoking. Do the officials believe that filtering platforms will ultimately lead to the country’s development?

In September of last year, the Supreme Council of Cyberspace restructured and conferred authorities of the Supreme Commission for the Regulation of Regulations; a commission that plays the role of regulator for regulators, and many believe such a commission signifies a slow move towards the Protection Plan. Now, some see the recent decision of the Joint Commission as aligned with the 1401 (2022) resolution of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, and another complementary piece of the Protection Plan puzzle.

The Law Amending the Administrative Justice Procedure is another issue that, after the Joint Commission’s decision, has raised concerns among digital activists. According to their beliefs, the approval of the document regulating the virtual space by the Supreme Council of Cyberspace means that one can no longer complain to any institution about filtering a platform, and the hope for reform is fading.

The exact text and details of the Joint Commission’s resolution have not been officially published yet, and its implementation also requires approval from the parliament and confirmation by the Guardian Council. In essence, the opinion provided by the Joint Commission is neither definite nor finalized, and its approval is a lengthy process. Nevertheless, we have put the fate of Sohrab and Nush-daruiee, which reached Rustam’s hands after their deaths, at the forefront, and before it’s too late for everything, we sought the opinions of legal and information technology experts about the raised concerns.

The decision of the Conciliation Commission is not compatible with the spirit of development laws.

Reza Ayazi, a technology law expert and researcher, emphasized that we are not yet familiar with the details of this news. He said: According to the duties and powers of the Supreme Commission for Regulating Cyberspace, which was revised by the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, the regulation of platforms and filtering is under the authority of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace. Since the decisions of this council are legally binding, they are also legally enforceable.

According to him, in order to give a legal form and effect to the subject, it has been proposed to include it in the seventh development plan. However, Ayazi believes that given the current conditions, the National Cyberspace Center is practically the decision-maker in this area, and such a law practically doesn’t make a difference in its implementation.

The issue Ayazi referred to is in paragraph 3 of the “Description of the duties, powers, and composition of the members of the Supreme Commission for Regulating the Cyberspace of the country”: Cases related to blocking services provided by cyberspace providers with more than 3 million users must be reported to the National Cyberspace Center of the country before taking action.

Ayazi also believes that discussing penalties and filtering in the seventh development plan is not compatible with the spirit of development laws. Anti-development regulations in a development plan? If such a clause is to be included in this plan, there should also be a justification for how filtering a platform over a five-year period contributes to the country’s development. Additionally, this is a five-year plan; is it intended for this law to be experimental and enforced for five years?

Apart from these statements, this technology law researcher believes that the mentioned decision will not be approved by the parliament because it has legal issues. The Supreme Council of Cyberspace has been formed by the leadership, and the legislature cannot assign tasks to this council. The leadership authority must carry out this task. The issue of conflicting duties will be taken from this part of the seventh development plan. It is true that the National Cyberspace Center is mentioned, but the parliament cannot assign a task to this center either, because in this case, it would need to oversee it. When it can’t oversee, it can’t assign a task. In this regard, even if this proposal is approved by the parliament, it will be rejected by the Guardian Council.

Ayazi further mentioned another issue with the proposed paragraph of the Conciliation Commission and said: Laws that are presented to the parliament for approval, if their foundation is legal and their nature is criminal, they must be introduced by the judiciary. Then it should be handed over to the Minister of Justice, approved by the Council of Ministers, and ultimately sent to the parliament to become law.

According to him, now that criminal penalties and filtering have been mentioned in this draft, it must be under the authority of the judiciary, and the parliament alone does not have the right to do this. Therefore, formally and substantively, this decision of the Conciliation Commission has issues.

Ayazi also criticized recent conditions in platform filtering: According to the Computer Crimes Law, content should be refined, not websites or platforms blocked. This law has designated two authorities for dealing with content: the judiciary, through judges and investigators, and the committee determining instances of criminal content. However, the question arises: do the sites that are consecutively filtered get approval from the committee? For example, in the case of the Telegram filtering, when did the committee convene to decide on filtering? They say they have created an online system where committee members vote online in real-time. For instance, they claim that a certain site is to be blocked, and a committee member is sitting in a taxi and voting for filtering on their mobile.

The overall decision of the Conciliation Commission is challenging

Mohammad Keshvari, CEO of the “Ta’sisat” group and an IT and communications technology expert, emphasizes that the exact text of the decision needs to be seen as words are crucial. Nevertheless, he finds the overall recent decision of the Conciliation Commission somewhat challenging. He believes that the act of assigning responsibilities without clarifying their relation to previous regulations can be problematic. Currently, we have the Computer Crimes Law that has granted the authority of filtering to both the judiciary and the committee determining instances of criminal content. Now, the responsibility lies with both of them and is also assigned to the National Cyberspace Center, further complicating the existing situation.

Keshvari believes that if you want to assign responsibility to a new institution or agency in the text of a law, you should first clarify the duties of previous institutions and explicitly state that a provision or clause of a law is being repealed or amended. Otherwise, you will still see a judicial authority issuing filtering orders based on the previous law. Essentially, this kind of legislation, which adds a new entity to the existing ones, is not beneficial.

He considers this the most significant issue and problem with the recent decision of the Conciliation Commission and stressed that when it is felt that the current mechanism is problematic and leads to inefficiency, the previous routes should be closed.

The overarching challenge of the filtering issue: Lack of transparency

This IT and communications technology expert believes that another issue with filtering is the lack of transparency: when a platform, a significant business, website, or social network, whether domestic or foreign, is filtered, the reasons for it, along with the legal basis and the responsible entity, must be precisely stated. However, before filtering, a warning must also be given, and they never filter a platform for minor issues.

Keshvari believes that the lack of transparency has given officials in various governments the opportunity to exploit existing ambiguity and take both for and against stances: when we are dealing with people’s rights, especially concerning a platform or website that is significant for society and has an audience, the transparency of filtering or unblocking is crucial. If someone believes in filtering, they should stand by their opinion and say it should be filtered based on a certain clause and law. One cannot be in favor of filtering or against unblocking but not bear the cost. Anyone who wants to take a stance, whether in favor or against, should have the same view, and this can only be achieved through transparency.

He referred to the Minister of Communications’ agreement to unblock Google Play and said: The Ministry of Communications is the highest relevant authority in this matter. When the Minister of Communications agrees, then who and why are opposed?

Keshvari emphasized that this ambiguous environment in the 13 or 14 years since the implementation of the Computer Crimes Law has continuously caused harm and expenses to the decision-making system: these are issues that need to be addressed in the seventh development plan or the Computer Crimes Law.

However, another concern about the cyberspace regulation document is that it is supposed to be approved by the Supreme Council of Cyberspace. Some believe that due to the recent parliament decision, there is no possibility to complain about the decisions of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace to the Administrative Justice Court. Keshvari said to Digitao: The recent parliamentary decision regarding the Administrative Justice Court applies to the subordinates of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, not the council itself.

In response to the question of whether the traces of the “Safeguarding Plan” can be seen in the recent decision of the Conciliation Commission, Keshvari said:

Conceptually, it is close to the Safeguarding Plan, but it is not a central part of it. There might be traces of it, but it is not a challenge. The development plan law is structured in a way that it is uncertain whether it is feasible or not, and its mechanism is not very serious. In fact, the mechanism of the development plan law has the problem of being vague in different places. If you look at the previous development plan law, you’ll see that many of its sections have not been realized.

According to him, a development plan should be just that: a development plan. It should outline the areas where the country should allocate its budget, within the limits of the available funds, in about two pages. This current draft has turned into a 70 or 80-page program, where any ministry that faces an issue or cannot pass an ordinary law inserts its desired matter into the development plan, which is not the right approach.

Keshvari concluded by emphasizing that any idea related to managing cyberspace must be presented as an independent law, not merely mentioned in the seventh development plan. To address the issues, amend the existing Computer Crimes Law from 2009, modify the structure of the committee determining instances of criminal content, and improve its transparency.