The provision that allows blockade of website (i.e. pornographic materials, offence against national security, fraud) has been expanded to cover offences against other applicable laws as well, should the offences be committed with the use of computer. For example, if an IP officer or an officer of the Food and Drug Administration comes across any posting of computer data to sell illegal merchandise, they may ask the CCA competent officer to block access to the websites as well.  

In other word, the draft law seems to cover offences, both a direct abuse of computer system and with the aid of computer. It does not specify every reason that will allow the blockade.

The current draft addresses a flaw of the existing CCA since it provides for permanent blockade and gives very little chance to have the blockade reviewed. The draft law adds a phrase that goes that restraint of the computer data shall remain “until the circumstance changes”.  

As for the issue of judicial review, it has been criticised that insofar the Court has failed to review the exercise of power seriously. It acts more like a rubber stamp to justify the use of power instead. No amendment has clearly been made in the current draft to address the issue. It simply states that more amendments shall be made later.  

Nevertheless, website blockade is grave suppression of media freedom. If the law provides for too extensive power, it might have made constructional rights meaningless. The drafting committee should realize that in modern world, website blockade cannot effectively prevent people to know. Instead of waging their blocking power too recklessly, they should specify specific grounds based on which the access can be blocked such as when the information posted in an infringement on personal rights, etc.