An Act Defining Cybercrime,
Providing for the Prevention , Investigation, Suppression and Imposition of
Penalties Therefore And For Other Purposes [ Republic Act 10175]; as against
An Act Establishing a Magna Carta
for Philippines Internet Freedom, Cybercrime Prevention & Law Enforcement,
Cyberdefenses & National Cybersecurity [SBN 3327]
First, it must be clarified that,
before I continue on with my blog, I am inclined to dwell on neither side. My view is from a standpoint
where people see it in black and white, unclouded by personal desires. Just
plain and simple knowledge of the use of the internet.
I have read a running commentary
on the Anti-Cybercrime Law, and they are not pointless to be ignored. Some
articulate of their fight for their online rights before they may even be
peddled, regulated, and scheduled away. It
must be understood that the exercise of power in our physical world is rather a
dangerous act as it entails more of what we
can do rather than what we cannot do.
I have always believed that freedom
comes with great responsibility. We are to be held accountable for what we say
in print as well as online without really being suppressed of our so-called
freedom. The barrier clouding our mentality to ever psych out the need to
demarcate liberty from self-rule has to be deleted.
In other countries such as China, “self-discipline” on the use of the internet
is being rewarded, although it blocks content very directly, so does Iran;
Russia does not directly block websites, as they simply introduce order to
place the weight on the internet site themselves. However, not all regulations
are applicable to all kinds of people. Those of what Russia, China and Iran
implement may not be useful to our kind
of people. But the common denominator of the aforementioned countries and
the Philippines is that citizens ó government. It takes two to
tango. We must admit, we tend to abuse the little power that we are granted,
therefore, a little help from our government to tame us a bit will not hurt. I
love freedom much as anyone else here on earth! So I must not be misquoted for
saying that we need “a little help from
the government.”
The internet, for all its good
purpose, should help the good guys rather than the bad guys. But, for some
reason or another, the bad guys tend
to monopolize such good use and convert it to their glory, the ratiocination
for the effectuation of the now questionable RA 10175 and its maybe replacement SBN 3327. It is
somehow forgotten that the legitimate purpose of technology is to better our
continuance here on earth and not to maneuver or enthrall us human beings. The
government and technology work for the people and not the other way around.
It can be regarded that we are such in a
sullen state because we cannot school ourselves that we need to be reproved by
some law or laws. Discipline emanates from the person within and not from the
castigation our government saddle upon our people.
What motivate people to do things?
Perhaps, the urge to let their feelings flow through; the moment of emptiness
that they so want to be filled with just anything. There is nothing wrong about
going through any of these, in fact, these blogs, twitter or any social media
effects, are one of the great geniuses of our time – where people come
together, comment about anything; there is expansion of brilliant ideas; there
is collective intelligence so to speak. The best part of all these is, it is
for free! The positive side of blogging is that we have the citizen journalism
where there is no need for formal training to be one. However, again, if there
is positive side, there is always the dark side. Some say, it is very easy to
fall in love with the internet. Really?
When I heard this, I could hardly fathom if there is indeed any depth into that
statement. Another is, the paradox of collective intelligence. The more ties we
construct, the thornier it gets, the harder it is to be individualistic. Oh
yeah!
President Noynoy Aquino III
signed the Anti Cybercrime Law or RA 10175 on the 12th of September
2012, however, the Supreme Court discharged a Temporary Restraining Order for
120 days from the 9th of October to grant our Congress an
opportunity to come about a substitute step.
RA 10175 sought to scourge
cybercrime offenses such as spamming, identity theft, online pornography,
hacking, online libel and other similar offenses committed through the use of
the internet. This law has been reviewed, ridiculed and was given a chance but
its objectives were not cogent enough in terms of freedom of expression, and of
speech. People who are adept to the ins and outs of the internet enunciate
their mettlesome sentiment about the provisions of this law.
In this law, the Department of
Justice and not the court who investigates and castigates bad elements;
collection of traffic data without
warrant or court order is another flaw of this law. The other problem
that this law presents is the Take down
clause which is not well defined as there is a take down of computer data alone and taking down of a blog is another thing. The Department of Justice
must secure a court order before the take down takes effect unless there is a
clear and present danger that there could be no more waiting another second.
The legal field employs the terminology “clear and present danger” as a
standard to allow for the constitutional right of freedom of speech and
expression be curbed. Tsk! Tsk!
This law that avow
to protect us Filipinos against those who do us injustice though the internet
is also threatening to march away our constitutional rights of freedom of
speech and of expression. Tsk! Tsk!
On the Libel clause, it imposes a
higher penalty which amended the Revised Penal Code because of the harmful
nature of the internet if on the hands of a debauched internet user. One
statement that is considered libelous and is posted, it becomes obtainable
forthwith to everyone without obstruction and charge. A complainant who is
libeled need be advanced as the new agency will not be capable of monitoring
all the tweets, blogs or shout-outs in all networking sites. The good thing
about this law, as they claim, is that when the person who commits cybercrime
is outside the Philippines, he can still be held answerable since the person
libeled may still file a case against its oppressor – and can still be arrested
so long as there is a warrant against that person. As skeptical as I am, I wonder if this will
be implemented as smoothly as it portrays to be easy.
Why it is a summon to all internet users to
overrun too much use of the net in order to project selfish desires. Amen to
that!
Here
comes the SBN 3327.
One of the lady senators filed a
bill crafting a Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom that would take a
crack supplanting the recently enacted but very controversial RA10175. It was
argued that RA 10175 was unconstitutional because of its over breadth and
vagueness to the effect of making some internet undertaking punishable. The
bill filed seems to be more extensive providing not just disallowed acts and stern
chastisement but more importantly, it assures the rights and protection of our
netizens. This bill promises castigating internet libel and hate speech while
it engenders freedom of speech and expression on the internet. On this
proposal, the lady senator vouches for citizen’s rights against illegal search
and seizure through letting the warrantless real-time collection of traffic
data. It also warrants due process by catering meticulous guidelines for any
data collection including the securing of warrants, obligating notification and
limiting seizure to data while excluding the physical property. This bill
likewise commands government agencies to procure security for the data they
collect from netizens to ensure their rights to privacy. Also, there is no
provision for ”take down clause” (which has raised a lot of questions in
RA10175), instead, it provides for court proceedings in cases where websites or
networks are to be taken down. There is also a provision wherein it prohibits
censorship of content without first securing a court order. Said bill bars
double jeopardy. On the Cybercrime law, it does not provide blockade for double
jeopardy through prosecution of offenses committed against its provisions as
well as those against the Revised Penal Code, Special Laws, considering the
offenses are from a single act.
This bill grooms the propounded
Department of Information and Communications Technology, law enforcement
agencies, as well as the military with provisions for taking care of
cybercrimes. It ensures that the country has suitable defenses against
cyber-attacks by terrorists, violent non-state actors and rogue or enemy
nations. The Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of
Investigation are likewise directed to antagonize cyber-terrorism. There is a
spadework for exploiting ICT for national development by assuring that
government agencies hold fast with realities and advances in information
technology like the copyright and consumer welfare laws.
SBN 3327 not only aspires to
pitch into the protection of but also the institution of the rights of the
internet users in our country. It is worthwhile noting that this bill claims to
be escorted by the proficient, qualified knowledge in the IT and legal
expertise. This bill is the first to be created through “crowdsourcing.” It
says that in its drafting, a group of IT Specialist, software designers,
bloggers, academics, engineers, human rights advocates, and lawyers were
involved. They also claim that such draft was formulated through discussions in
an open facebook group, email, google hangout teleconferences and twitter. It
somehow pacifies the fear growing inside of me that my utilization of the
internet will not land me into detention or be inflicted of hefty fines for
simply letting out my sentiments unto the government, some public officials or
some circumstances that are likely to happen to vocal people like me. Its quest
is to implant a sensible, fact -oriented and stable environment that defends
Philippine nationals against cybercrimes and cyber-attacks. It pursues to
benefit netizens as they meet threats and challenges of piloting cyberspace.
For journalists, this could be
favorable because it does away with imprisonment for libel through the internet
as there only arise civil liability. Moreover, malice is not a presumption in
internet libel in comparison with that
punishable under the Revised Penal Code wherein such is presumed with every
defamatory imputation if no good intention
and justifiable motive is shown. As may have been raised by critical thinkers –
a reporter being sued under both the Revised Penal Code and the Magna Carta if
his article in print is also posted on
the net and end up with two separate crimes. But it seems that SBN 3327 has
foreseen this possibility of indicting a blogger with two charges in a single
act. One of the lawyers behind Magna Carta said, that no journalist who has
disputatious article published online and on a print is at risk of separate
indictment.
On account of libel, it treats
such only as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, as can be gleaned
from my view, this is a step forward in the instigation to de-criminalize
libel. However, it is not congruent with the libel punishable under the Revised
Penal Code. This will become subject to questions later on as what should have
been done first is to harmonize the two laws.
This bill, as the proponent sees
fit, is anchored on rights, governance, development, and security upon which, qualms
will arise, for sure!
Despite all the fears any netizen
is facing with the enactment of the RA 10175 and the possible enactment of the
Magna Carta, Philippine cyberspace is still unregulated and the need for one is
calling louder. Yes, there are more priorities that our lawmakers should attend
to, but this may become one of them if not given publicity right now.
In a country with more than thirty million internet users, how can
cybercrime law be enforced in the Philippines? The enacted law and the proposed
law are good push to resist cybercrimes, but, there is an exigency to take up any
ambiguity or omission in a text through which its intent may be evaded. There
are internet crimes which are vaguely covered or not at all, and this dilemma,
for all we know, will not only create bigger problems that an amendment or
repeal or imposition of another law may be needed, AGAIN!
Bloggers are beholden to what
they say, comment, post, publish or whatever a social media user does. Yes,
these SMU are not journalists as they are not trained as one, but when they nab
the poncho of publicizing, they should be regarded and be burdened of the duty
and responsibility of a journalist. They cannot excuse themselves simply
because they are not licensed journalist thus leaving them unaccountable for
the mess they created. Bloggers who are not in favor of being regulated by any
outside law aside from their clout to their own morality, ascertain that even
absent of any defining rules, a devious blogger may still be castigated by the
community of bloggers through their comments online. But of course, there is no
certainty as to the reprimand that an errant blogger is to be subject to if
without any clear law that all social media users should abide. I see no reason
to be uncomfortable about bloggers being regulated.
As what the government claims,
the information and communications technology and the internet are drivers of
economic growth, thus the country is all the more in need of a really adequate,
competent and efficacious cyberlaw that will put to reality such a claim. Safeguarding our nation against cyber-attacks
has become one of the nation’s topmost priority. To effectuate this
objective, trained operations team
must ardently protect against internal
and external threats. And for those consummated attacks on our cyberspace, our defense
must be adequate of kicking off follow-on attacks on internal networkers.
Knowledge of actual attacks that have conciliated systems engenders the
cardinal armature on which to erect sufficient defenses because our government
agencies tasked to supervise such condition are not unlimited in budget, and
the only sensible way to conform with these requisites is to entrench a
baseline of information security device and controls that may be monitored
without ceasing through automated mechanisms. It shall be understood that cyber
attacks milk on the vulnerable areas in a project or program to procure entrée
to other enterprise facility. The government agencies will surely continue to
explore interconnectivity across agencies to improve its support upon its
netizens and own operations. Defenses should center on addressing the most
prevalent damaging attacks transpiring nowadays as well as those that likely to
occur in the future. The government agencies assigned with this job must
warrant congruous controls to effectively negative any attack. In short, a
multiplicity of explicit technical activities must be assumed to bring forth a
more consistent defense.
Another inconsistency I have
encountered is on the government’s assumption of internet security when and
well in fact, it cannot even secure its websites. Cyberspace has become the
soapbox of the best and the unpleasant whatever that any person can think of.
It should have a been a place at an opportune time to exchange ideas and
artistic expressions if not for the cyberbullies that make it such an unhealthy
environment to even bother visit.
I must admit that although I
support a competent, efficient and unbiased cybercrime law, I am scared of what
is laid before us after any of the two (RA 10175 and the Magna Carta) is in
implementation. Until they are tested, I will not breathe in relief yet, if,
after I have published and told the truth online, I won’t be damned. Most of
the social media users are the young people and I bet they are not cognizant about
the cybercrime laws so much so about its implications. These juveniles could be
charged of libel even before they would even know its meaning.
As I have earlier stated, I do
not promote the law and the bill. Until it is on testing ground, and has not in
any way infringed my bill of rights granted by the constitution, then I will
take side and succumb to whichever has preserved my freedom of speech and
expression through the internet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------adengocampo---------dec.27/2012------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment