I think the more prudent way to regulate the internet in terms of crime is to treat it as if it is not any different than any other medium of transmission, with specific laws only for technology specific differences (hacking vs breaking and entering, e.g.). Most of the internet is in the form of public-serving privately-owned spaces, which is why these kinds of things can be easily handled through terms of service and moderation policies. By treating harassment as harassment no matter how it was conducted, it leaves the freedom for the public-at-large to deal with these issues through social means and for victims to seek redress in court when that fails. In countries that have tried to enact special laws for the internet, I haven't seen any indication that they work better than the more conventional system, except as tools of political oppression, FWIW.

I wasn't aware personal messenging was a particular function of internet law. I thought it was more catagorised as a service feature, and as such would more rightly merit discussions of acceptable use polices, more than law. Anything that pertains to law is likely already covered. And there's no PM functionality *now* but it's pegged in officially to be expecting it - tho have been expecting it for some months. This will not be intended to be publicly accessible(but likley succeptable to similar implimentation flaws as the current citizen database. so very accessible). Due to the ease of editing no sane court takes digital media so screenshots are unlikely to suffice if contested requiring full account access(Provided by systems administrators), of both accounts, to afford LEA reasonable chance to secure prosecution for anything. It's likely the AIRC team to be sidestepped here as they go straight to Hetzner with a warrent and secure physical access to the hardware as they don't appear to list specific contact details for handling by a team that would be able to provide LEA with any actual assistence. Ultimately, there's "harassment" possible that's not actually in convention of law, where the law applies. What actually happens is the responsibility - via action or inaction - of the systems administrator.