KUALA LUMPUR: Timely access to communications metadata is vital in tackling serious crimes like cyber fraud, child exploitation, and terrorism, according to a criminologist.
Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid, a senior lecturer at Universiti Malaya’s Faculty of Law, stressed that delays in obtaining such data could compromise investigations and public safety.
“From a legal perspective, this access ensures evidence is lawfully obtained, preserved and admissible in court, while meeting due process requirements and enabling urgent investigative action before critical data is lost,“ she said.
She added that quick metadata access helps identify suspects rapidly and disrupt criminal networks, especially in fast-moving, technology-driven offences.
A standardised framework for data retention across service providers would address inconsistencies and ensure uniform compliance with legal obligations.
“Legally, this would reduce disputes over admissibility and jurisdiction,“ she explained.
Haezreena Begum cited international examples like the EU’s former Data Retention Directive and Australia’s Data Retention Act 2015 as models for harmonised frameworks.
She supported the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission’s proposal for a similar system but warned that inconsistent policies could harm public safety.
“Legally, it can lead to uneven compliance among service providers, resulting in the deletion of critical evidence before lawful access is possible,“ she said.
She noted that inconsistent retention policies could delay investigations and allow offenders to exploit gaps in data storage.
Privacy concerns must be addressed through safeguards like judicial oversight and metadata-only retention policies, she emphasised.
“From a criminological perspective, retaining only metadata while requiring formal authorisation preserves investigative utility while protecting privacy,“ she added.
A clear statutory framework is needed to define preservable data, such as call logs and IP addresses, and set retention periods for service providers.
“Timely preservation orders prevent the loss of ephemeral evidence, while a secure chain of custody ensures integrity and admissibility in court,“ she said.
She urged public participation in the MCMC’s consultation to refine the framework and balance crime prevention with civil liberties.