This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Law No. 11 of 2008 (Information and Electronic Transactions) | |
|---|---|
| Name | Law No. 11 of 2008 (Information and Electronic Transactions) |
| Long title | Undang-Undang tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik |
| Enacted by | People's Representative Council of Indonesia |
| Enacted | 2008 |
| Status | in force (amended) |
Law No. 11 of 2008 (Information and Electronic Transactions) is an Indonesian statute enacted in 2008 that regulates electronic information, electronic transactions, and related criminal provisions within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia, interfacing with digital communications, financial services, and telecommunications infrastructures. The law was promulgated amid debates involving stakeholders such as the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Indonesia), the People's Representative Council of Indonesia, and civil society organizations including Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia and KontraS. It has been the subject of high-profile legal challenges before the Constitutional Court of Indonesia and influenced regulatory actions by institutions like the Indonesian National Police and the Financial Services Authority (Indonesia).
The legislative genesis involved policymakers from the Cabinet of Indonesia and drafters from the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Indonesia) responding to incidents touching Bank Mandiri, Bank Central Asia, and cross-border platforms such as Yahoo! and Google LLC amid concerns raised after events linked to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami information flows and the rise of Facebook and Twitter. Parliamentary debates in the People's Representative Council of Indonesia engaged committee members from parties like the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and Golkar and referenced comparative models like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the European Union's regulatory discourse. Civil society actors including Palang Merah Indonesia and Index on Censorship participated in consultations that culminated in the law’s promulgation and later judicial review petitions lodged with the Constitutional Court of Indonesia.
The statute provides definitions for terms such as "electronic information", "electronic documents", and "electronic signature", aligning with technical practices in organizations like International Organization for Standardization and standards discussed at the Internet Engineering Task Force. It delineates applicability over activities conducted within the Republic of Indonesia and cross-border communications involving entities such as PayPal Holdings, Inc., Visa Inc., and telecommunications operators like Telkomsel. Definitions reference technologies used by services from Microsoft and Apple Inc. and address electronic storage modalities associated with providers such as Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud Platform.
Key articles criminalize the dissemination of electronic information deemed defamatory or pornographic, with provisions impacting online platforms including YouTube and Instagram (service), and address electronic fraud schemes affecting institutions like Bank Rakyat Indonesia and PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia. The law contains clauses directed at unauthorized access and computer-related offenses analogous to statutes enforced in jurisdictions exemplified by the United States and Japan, and contemplates takedown and blocking authorities exercised against intermediaries comparable to Cloudflare and Akamai Technologies. Provisions intersect with consumer protections overseen by the Indonesia Consumer Protection Agency and intellectual property concerns akin to disputes seen with WIPO-administered treaties.
Enforcement mechanisms empower agencies such as the Indonesian National Police and regulatory bodies like the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Indonesia) and the Financial Services Authority (Indonesia) to investigate and prosecute infractions, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment invoked against individuals or corporate officers at entities like PT Kereta Api Indonesia or digital intermediaries. The law authorizes provisional measures including content removal and blocking orders similar to administrative actions executed by regulators in the United Kingdom and Australia, and has prompted coordination with international law enforcement partners such as Interpol for transnational cybercrime matters.
The statute’s criminalization and takedown powers have spurred critiques from organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for potential chilling effects on journalists from outlets like Kompas and activists affiliated with Aliansi Jurnalis Independen. Litigation before the Constitutional Court of Indonesia raised constitutional questions referencing rights in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and prompted commentary from academics at institutions like Universitas Indonesia and Gadjah Mada University regarding implications for data protection regimes akin to the General Data Protection Regulation. Cases implicating bloggers hosted on platforms like WordPress.com and contributors to Wikipedia have illustrated tensions between enforcement and protections for speech.
Subsequent amendments and interpretive rulings by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia and appellate panels have narrowed or clarified certain provisions following petitions by parties including Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia and media coalitions, influencing revisions proposed by the Ministry of Communications and Informatics (Indonesia) and debated in the People's Representative Council of Indonesia. Judicial decisions referenced precedent from regional bodies such as the ASEAN and comparative jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, reshaping enforcement practices affecting actors from Tokopedia to global platforms like Facebook and prompting ongoing legislative initiatives to reconcile the law with data protection efforts exemplified by proposals resembling the Personal Data Protection Act model.
Category:Law of Indonesia