Could the new gambling law threaten citizens’ privacy?

The enactment of the Gambling Prevention Act, 2026, can be a major step towards curbing the economic drain arising from online gambling. Replacing the colonial and backdated Public Gambling Act, 1867, was a necessity. However, the enforcement mechanisms in the new anti-gambling law have drawn controversy in terms of whether it threatens the fundamental rights of citizens.

The legal system in Bangladesh is rooted in its constitution, which is the foundation of all laws. Section 44 of the Gambling Prevention Act, 2026, allows the government to use AI-based monitoring systems, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), Risk Scoring System, Transaction Monitoring System, data analytics, and other technology to identify and prevent online gambling and online betting. Using advanced technology to deter a crime is expected, but one must also consider the accompanying demerits as using DPI to monitor citizens’ online activity carries the potential to violate the right to privacy of internet users.

Tap Here to Add The Daily Star As A Trusted Source

Read more

Pull the plug on online gambling

So how does DPI work? DPI inspects the actual data content being transmitted through a network checkpoint, rather than just examining the information at the source or IP address. Simply put, DPI is like if a post office opened envelopes to read and analyse every letter. It’s a method that can scan a digital casino token as well as one’s email unless it’s encrypted. The allowance to use DPI means the government can inspect the actual data content, which could amount to every internet user in Bangladesh being subjected to surveillance. Most people access the internet to send and receive money, pay bills via Mobile Financial Services (MFS), use social media platforms, and more. They do not know how to hide their data or encrypt it. Thus, by using DPI, the state is allowing many people’s sensitive data to be exposed.

This may also be said to be in contradiction to Article 43(b) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which states that every citizen shall have the right to the privacy of their correspondence and other means of communication—although subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of  state security, public morality, or public health. Without clear rules and judicial oversight, DPI use under the new law could be misused beyond preventing online gambling and betting.

In Article 18(2) of our constitution, there is a mandate for adopting effective measures to prevent gambling. But this cannot mean employing measures which have the potential to threaten the constitutional rights of citizens. Tracking tools such as DPI make the data of all citizens vulnerable, not just of those who gamble online.

Concerningly, Section 36(1) and (2) of the act allow police officers to obtain a warrant from the Cyber Tribunal to seize and search digital devices and to even make arrests without warrants if they believe that evidence may be damaged before obtaining the court’s approval. However, by asserting that digital evidence is volatile, this section could create opportunity for citizens’ constitutional rights to be threatened. The section may eventually be misused under the guise of police privilege and every citizen using a smartphone could be one police officer’s suspicion away from being arrested without warrant.

The constitutional right to privacy is subject to reasonable restrictions. But essentially permitting a police officer to seize, search, and arrest largely based on suspicion and without a review of the suspicion by a judge does not seem a reasonable restriction.

In the case of Oali Ahad v Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1974), the High Court Division stated that a restriction is only reasonable when there is a direct link between the restriction and the particular threat the state wants to prevent. Moreover, Article 39(2) of the constitution provides citizens the right to freedom of speech, expression, and the press. At present, digital devices and the internet are crucial mediums for exercising these rights. So, when a law such as the Gambling Prevention Act allows warrantless search, seizure, and arrest, it threatens these rights directly. Therefore, the fear of warrantless seizure and arrest, and by extension the state, could be said to control these mediums of free speech and the press.

In Article 18(2) of our constitution, there is a mandate for adopting effective measures to prevent gambling. But this cannot mean employing measures which have the potential to threaten the constitutional rights of citizens. Tracking tools such as DPI make the data of all citizens vulnerable, not just of those who gamble online. Ultimately, using technology and extensive police power to prevent gambling should never come at the cost of our constitutional rights.

Dewan Afra Anjum Aysharja is an LLM graduate from the University of Essex in the UK.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.