The government's eight bills underpinning its so-called digital economy are likely to infringe on the public's rights, critics say.
Phaibul Amornphinyokiat, an academic and lecturer specialising in computer law, said yesterday he saw several worrisome points in the bills.
The bills would affect the public's rights and media freedom, Mr Phaibul said.
One bill designed to protect people's personal data would in effect give the government more access to their information, he said.
It would give security agencies the right to gain access to personal details which under current law are protected, supposedly in the public interest.
The cabinet recently approved bills that prevented the media from carrying reports of individuals' personal information and disseminating pictures of them in their coverage, Mr Phaibul said.
This, he said, was a violation of media rights.
Two committees will be established to oversee personal information protection and work to regulate electronic transactions.
Mr Phaibul said he was worried there would be not enough qualified people with the necessary expertise to sit on the panels.
The committees will be formed as part of the digital economy policy.
Meanwhile, six civil organisations yesterday joined Mr Phaibul in expressing their concerns over the bills.
They said the bills would be enforced as security laws to control the basic rights of the people.
The six civil organisations are the Thailand Association of the Blind, the Green World Foundation, the FTA Watch, the Foundation for Community Educational Media, the Civic Media Development Institute and the Thai Netizen Network.
They said civic representatives and human rights defenders had not been invited to have their say on the bills.
He said no one was granted an opportunity to sit on the committee to oversee the provisions regarding personal information protection.
Human rights defender Phairoj Pholphet, a member of the Law Reform Commission of Thailand, said there are only two circumstances when the state is justified to draw on personal information − when the owner of the information gives his or her consent, and when it is judged to be in the public interest.
The definition of public interest in this case refers to internal security only, he said.
An individual's rights are important and the state cannot simply breach them without a sound reason, Mr Phairoj said.
Aside from these two conditions, any attempt by the state to gain access to personal information must be supported by the courts and preferably backed by a warrant, he said.
Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, an adviser to Deputy Prime Minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, said MR Pridiyathorn's advisory team has invited drafters of the bills for a meeting next Tuesday.
He said the advisory team had asked the bills' drafters to take out the parts which may breach human rights.