Data Protection in the Bahamas

Online privacy in the Bahamas

Outside of the current provisions of DPA and legislation governing law enforcement access to one’s computing devices and encrypted data (e.g. the Interception of Communications Act, Computer Misuse Act, National Crime Intelligence Agency Act etc.), online privacy is largely unregulated and there are no specific laws aimed at the use of cookies or the collection of location data. 

Under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (‘ECTA’), however, Section 20 provides for online intermediary a procedure for ‘dealing with unlawful, defamatory, etc. information’. An intermediary is defined under Section 2 ECTA as, in the context of an electronic communication, a person including a host on behalf of another person who sends, receives or stores either temporary or permanently that electronic communication or provides related services with respect to that electronic communication. Section 20(1) states that where an intermediary has actual knowledge that information in an electronic communication gives rise to civil or criminal liability, then as soon as possible the intermediary should remove the information from any information processing system within the intermediary’s control and cease to provide or offer services in respect of that information and notify the police of the any relevant facts and of the identity of the person from whom the intermediary was supplying services in respect of the information, if the identity of that person is known to the intermediary. Similarly, Section 20(2) states that if an intermediary is aware of facts or circumstances from which the likelihood of civil or criminal liability in respect of the information in an electronic communication ought reasonably to have been known should, as soon as practicable, follow any relevant procedure set out in any code of conduct that may be applicable to the intermediary under the Act or notify the police and relevant Minister responsible for electronic communications. The Minister may then direct the intermediary to remove the electronic communication from any information processing system within the control of the intermediary and cease to provide services to the person to whom the intermediary was supplying services in respect of that electronic communication. It can be argued that these provisions give intermediaries (e.g. telecommunications providers) facilitating communications between end users’ communications broad powers to potentially cease services or effectively censor electronic communications they deem objectionable on the grounds that civil or criminal liability could likely arise without any liability arising provided the action is made in good faith.

Continue reading

  • no results

Previous topic
Back to top