Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Gov’t TV station invites me to anti-cybercrime law forum

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

PTV Station 4 asked me to join a TV forum today.

I decided to say yes because I feel very strongly about this new law and I had recovered from the onset of a cold and cough.

UPDATE as of 10:54 AM, Sept. 29, 2012: Replay of forum on PTV4 at 3:30 PM today Sept 29. Or you can now watch it on YouTube video link provided at the bottom of this piece.

 

Unlike during the time of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the government station was very open to airing views that were contrary to those of the present government.

The forum had guests from all sides of the controversy and I was glad to meet three from the law enforcement sector:

♦ Louis Casambre, Department of Science and Technology undersecretary and Executive Director of the department’s Info & Communications Technology Office;

♦ Senior Inspector Kimberly Molitas-Gonzales, spokesperson of the Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); and

♦ Joey Narciso of the National Bureau of Investigation Cyber Crime Unit.

I also met two private lawyers active on Internet law, both nicknamed “J.J.” – lawyer Jennifer Atienza and Jose Jesus Disini Jr., director of the University of the Philippines Law Internet Society Program.  And of course fellow blogger Jane Uymatiao of Blogwatch Philippines was there.

Unfortunately, I was unable to meet in person afterward two of the guests from the Business Process Outsourcing Association of the Philippines – Genny Marcial, executive director for external affairs and lawyer Raul Cortez, also of the BPAP.

Questions from the floor and from those outside the studio showed me that the youth are very much aware of the controversy. But they were unsure, like me and many netizens, what its full implications were.

The three hosts – Kathy San Gabriel, Atty. Marc Castrodes and Gio Tingson – kept the ball rolling.  

Here is the link to the 3-part YouTube videos.  The other two parts can be accessed from the same link:

To watch the U-Stream video, please click on the link below:

Philippine government TV station hosts forum on anti-cybercrime law

‘

Comments

  1. I am all for stomping out the exploitation of children, and that is a primary goal of the Cybercrime bill. Also stopping malicious use of the internet, like for hacking or scams. Go for it.

    But this passion for legislating morality, like with the libel provisions, is a little much. I see also that there is a related drive to make the Philippines the “Prude of the Orient” by banning the sale of sex toys in Manila. What’s next, banning bananas and cucumbers?

    Give me a break.

    I’m gonna go smoke a joint now. This place has too many religious robes flapping about.

    • May I join you Joe? sheesh, now I am worried my cell phone may be considered a sex toy, and I can no longer stand in the washroom while my washing machine is in the spin cycle, due to true or false accusations, my gosh, what’s next.

  2. thank you ma’m raissa! and through your blog, i also would like to thank each and everyone who have filed and will file cases against the said online libel in the cbyercrime act of 2012 in the supreme court.

    i am also one of those people who hopes that the supreme court will give TRO before the said bill, the online libel, will be repealed.

    through your blog also, raissa, i would like to ask our Good President Benigno S. Aquino III to please re read the said cybercrime act of 2012 especifically the online libel where the whole RPC Art. 355 as you, raissa, have mentioned.

    Mahal na Pangulo Benigno S. Aquino III,
    Nagpapasalamat po ako sa inyong magandang pamamalakad ng ating bansa. Dahil po sa inyo, nabawasan po ang mga kurakot, nagigi na pong tapat ang mga tagapagsilbi sa bayan. at unti unti na po nilang natututunan ang tamang halaga ng magandang pag uugali at pagsisilbi ng tapat. Natututunan na po nila ang totoong kahulugan ng Public Sevice is a Public Trust. Sa huli po ninyong binuksan na daanan ay pati po ang bidder naging maaga ang pagtatapos ng “deadline” at malaki pa ang natipid ng bayan. Ngayon lang po yata nangyari yan. Sana po ay maipapagpatuloy nyo po iyan hanggang sa kahuli-hulihang araw po ng inyong panunungkulan.

    Kami po ay walang problema sa inyo. Sa susunod o sa mga susunod pang mamumuno po ng ating bansa kami po natatakot kaya po masidhi po ang aming pagtutol sa onine libel na naisingit po sa cybercrime act of 2012. Isa po ako sa mga naniniwala na hindi po biro ang ibinigay naming responsabilidad sa inyong balikat. Pero sana naman po bago po matapos po ang inyong termino e maisaayos na po muna ninyo ang online libel na naisingit sa cybercrime act of 2012.. marami pong mali po sa batas na iyon. Alam ko po na sobra po ang pagka busy ninyo kaya po naiasa nyo po sa inyong mga katuwang sa pamamahala po ng ating bansa. Pinagkatiwalaan nyo po ang inyong mga katuwang at dahil isa po kayong mabuting tao, ang mga mali po nila ay sa inyo po maipupukol. Ayaw ko pong sabihin na kayo po ay naisahan. dahil hindi lang po kayo ang naisahan. BUONG SAMBAYANAN po ang naisahan ng online libel ng cybercrime act of 2012 na iyan. at tulad nga po ng sinasabi ko, napakalaki po ng posibilidad na gamitin ng susunod o ng mga susunod pa na mamahala ng ating bansa ang gamitin ang online libel laban sa mga gustong magtuligsa sa mga mali o pang aabuso nilang pamamaraan sa pagpapalakad ng ating bansa! Never Forget and Never Again yan po ang sabi nyo re Martial Law. Pero dahil po sa online libel bubusalan po nito ang bawat bibig ng bawat Filipino. Paki REPEAL po ng online libel sa cybercrime act of 2012.
    Maraming marami pong salamat! at mabuhay po kayo!

    Rosario

      • Lawmakers should make a deep and thorough study of Libel law, and not just “insert” and make all of us swallow it!

        Repeal that libel provision. Or amend all libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code, as amended. But the better alternative, make libel a civil responsibility with FINE and DAMAGES only. No criminal imprisonment.

    • Si Senador Tito siguradong mababasa ang sulat mo Ka Rosario. Lagot Ka. Lagot tayo.

      Si Ochoa pag nabasa niya sulat mo sigurado hindi nya ipapabasa kay PNoy!

      But, in all seriousness, it is very interesting to see how CJ Sereno and the SC justices will handle this controversial issue particularly because of the fact that PNoy signed it into law.

      • @parengtony: lagot ako! lagot tayo? bakit? retroactive ba ang cybercrime act? may ni libel ba tayo? . totoo lang naman ang mga pinagsasabi natin ah. at tsaka si PNoy pa naman ang presidente, hindi pa ako natatakot ng husto, maraming PAO naman siguro ang legal system natin, baka mabigyan nila ako, if ever. hehe and if ever din na makulong eh, makikisuyo na lang ako na kung pwede eh sa cebu nila ako ikulong para matuto akong sumayaw makasama ko ang mga cebu dancing inmates. may exercise na ako, matuttuto pa akong sumayaw kahit parehong kanan ang paa ko. di ba?

        sana nga @ leona, @ raissa, @ vander anievas thank you. Sana nga mabasa ni PNoy pakiusap natin sa kanya. At sana SC will give the TRO which different groups asked.
        sa news, 7 na raw ang nag file, sa wed meron pa raw magpa file dalawa pa yata.
        Bukas Oct 2, ang mga hacktivist sabi sa news suportahan daw sila at 10:30 am sa harap ng SC. I AM THINKING OF GOING.
        NAG SIGN DIN AKO SA CHANGE.ORG

  3. meron po balita sa abs-cbnnews.com na SOTTO OWNS UP TO LIBEL CLAUSE ON CYBER LAW. sabi sya at isa pang senator ang gumawa. sa wakas INAMIN na din nya. sino kaya yung isa pang senator?

    • I have no idea.

      Because the Senate Journal only mentions HIM – SOTTO.

      Bakit siya nagdadawit ng iba kung wala naman talaga?

      • Baka kailangan ng isa pang “foreigner” mag tanong sa kanya ukol diyan. Unti-unti, piraso-piraso ang pag aamin niya sa mga bagay na ito. CNN Foxnews, Al Jassira ‘o BBC kaya?

        • hindi po sya puede sa FOXNEWS. fair and balance ang station na yun. baka himayhimayin sya ng husto eh lalo lang syang mapahiya. lalo lang mapagtatawanan ang mga Pilipino. magkakalat lang sya. sana huwag na sa FOXNEWS.

        • FOX News – “fair and balance ang station na yun”. Oh wow!

          But one thing I can grant Fox News, they are really effective in their propaganda work…as illustrated by your “made in good faith” comment.

        • Fair and balance?!? . . . Fox News is a rabid anti Democrat or I may say a die hard Republican News station . . . .

        • Ang foxnews ay bahagi ng News Corporation na pag-aari ni Rupert Murdoch.

          News of the World newspaper in England (just recently closed down), also a subsidiary of News Corporation is involved in wire tapping and phone hacking offenses committed in UK…and possibly Australia and USA as well.

          enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/News_of_the_World

          Para kay @pinay710 lang po itong tip na ito, dahil sa pagkakatanda ko, gusto niyang matuto ng cut/copy and paste.

          If interested please copy the link and paste it onto a “NOTEPAD”, replace the 2 DOT words with a Period {.} on each DOT word, then copy and paste it to the address bar of your browser.

          The ADDRESS bar is on the uppermost left-hand side of your INTERNET EXPLORER or CHROME or SAFARI or any other browser.

          Highlight or Select What You Want to Copy or Cut

          1. Highlight or Select the item or text you want to copy or cut by hovering over it with your mouse’ cursor, press the left button of your mouse, then drag the mouse over the intended items…then release the button.

          2. Right click over the highlighted subject, left click your choice (cut or copy).

          3. Bring up “Notepad, Wordpad” or “Sticky Notes” for WINDOWS, or maybe bring up any of your files or documents,..then right click on an empty space, then left click paste.
          a) to copy (to duplicate) or cut (to move) other files.
          b) for images, right-click on the image, then click on “Copy”

          Once you learn this basic thing, you can develop your own technic.

          For more info, google the phrase…..copy and paste.

        • @rolly, salamat ang hindi ko alam ay yung pagcopy from another website papunta dito sa ibang website. example dito sa pabibigay ng comments. hehehhee di bale na ok na ako sa pagbabasa na lang at bigay ng konting comments. maraming salamat pa din.

        • Kung ang ibig mong sabihin ay ang pagpunta sa ibang site na hindi mo iiwan ang kasalukuyang website…ito ang dapat gawin:

          Move your cursor over the link (http)…isang halimbawa kay baycas #31…right ciick, then choose “Open in new tab”.

        • maraming salamat rolly. gusto ko kasing ipabasa sa mga apo ko sa facebook ang mga links na andito. lalo na sa ibang site na meron din comments na hindi nila alam ang mga sinasabi nila. puro din sila comment ng hindi nila alam eh dito sa site ni raissa may mga proof/links. eh halos nagaaway na sila dun sa mga comments nila eh wala naman sila proof/links eh di ilalagay ko ang mga links nyo. ok ba yun? hindi ako mali libel?ok lang makulong ako may edad na hehheheh senior citizen.

        • Regular visitor ako dito sa blog ni Raissa, pero madalang mag comment…pwede mo pong gamitin ang alin man sa “Post” ko…no problem at all.

          You may open different tabs (or maybe as many as you want) at the same time…halimbawa, 1, 2, o tatlo ng kay Raissa blog, isa para sa FB, isa para sa twitter. For simplicity, 2 tabs is okay… isa kay Raissa at isa para sa FB.

          Para visible ang mga sites ng sabay sabay…right click an empty space in the ‘task bar’ (the lowermost part of your screen), then select “Show windows side by side” or with *Windows XP* , “Tile the windows vertically”. Sa ganitong paraan, mas mabilis ang copy and paste.

          Self-learn din po ako sa pag gamit ng computer (I’m more comfortable and confident with the Hardware and the technical side) at marami akong natuklasan sa gamit ng ‘Right Click’, so I keep on experimenting with it.

        • oo nga rolly, ginawa ko yung right click. maraming salamat. aaralin ko pa mabuti. heheheheh hirap tandaan ehheheh lito na si lola mo hehehehpero maraming salamat gagawin ko para mabasa ng kabataan at mga iba itong blog ni raissa at mga links nyo.

        • pwede din control n kung gusto mo mag open ng isa pang site para di magalaw ang nakabukas na mas madali yon control N lang, ate….

    • tingin ko kaya siya umamin ay dahil tinayuan din ng malacanan ang bill na ito. may kakampi na kasi siya…

      • Si Ochoa no choice sa pagtayo nya sa Cyber Crime Prevention Act (CCPA) dahil siya nagsubo kay PNoy na pirmahan ito. Sa totoo lang, lahat ng politiko na takot sa public opinion, pabor sa libel provision ng CCPA.

        • kung mananahimik nga naman ang publiko kahit sa internet lang, walang pupuna sa mga kabalbalang gagawin nila sa kanilang nasasakupan. kaya tuluy-tuloy ang ligaya nila. para na rin tayong nasa ilalim ng martial law nito kung mabubusalan ang mga bibig natin. sana ay ma-realize ng mahal na pangulo ang gravity ng insertion na ito. baka nga hindi niya ito alam. sana nga..

        • @parengtony….. Totoo iyan lahat ng politico na may graft ridden characteristics or had criminal acts hidden on their closets were happy about the new law on libel wherein the PLAGIARIST, PRO RH BILL the NAKAKAHIYANG naging SENADOR tito SOTTO FINAGLED the portion of cybercrime bill ( libel ) into a law.

          But bear in mind that ESCUDERO, CAYETANOs, ANGARAs, PIMENTEL, RECTO.SANTIAGO, ARROYO and the others especially ENRILE are BRILLIANT and INTELLEGENT LAWYERS and nobody noticed SOTTOs FINAGLING the Cybercrime Law. So as OCHOA.

          We dont have to be affraid in commenting here on this BLOG about the true character of SOTTO that ” dapat sya ay mag resign na bilang SENADOR sa mga kapalpakan nya o dili kaya ay wag syang iboto sa susunud na senatorial election or kung sino man ang itataas nya nang kamay na kandidato nya ay wag iboto. We can do it without DEFAMATORY words or statements.

          PLAGIARIST or telling TALES about her wife abortion were facts that can never be presumed to be DEFAMATORIES.

    • baka naman idea yon nong isang Senador – wala lang siyang guts na ipalagay pangalan niya dahil …. ah ewan…. mahirap na ang maunang makasuhan.

      tapos pangalan ni Senator Sotto and pinalagay to get the credit…

  4. sakop din kaya ang mga tv shows na uploaded sa internet? paano kung may tv personality na may nasabing hindi maganda at uploaded ng network nila? ang mga print journalists na may mga web sites ang kanilang newspaper? ano ang kaso, libel(ung dati)? o cyber libel? o pareho?

    • Sagot ko….DOBLE DEAD….pareho…bilanggo DOBLE! Wala na makakalabas sa bilanguan! Ang sabi daw ni Sen. Sotto, sa balita “Sa pagkat naniniwala ako sa batas na yan, at wala akong na iisip na may masamang dadgdag diyan.” “walang Dagdag” ?…eh…na DOBLE NA NGA ang pag paparusa…sa Revised Penal Code at Cybercrime Law! ‘Di niya nakita itong isiningit niya? Apurado at bilis ang singgit talaga.

  5. Thank you for bringing up the point that this law (all bad laws, for that matter) transcend the lifespan of any single administration. I’d remarked with friends that the timing of this law’s enactment and events surrounding it’s publication feel more like a chess game than incompetence (“this one got by us” is simply a little white lie). While, as Undersecretary Casambre said, “The law is there to protect the people,” I agree that it should be worrisome that this particular law can be bent to protect certain people. I’d cast a wary eye toward all the senators of this 15th Congress who have an eye toward future public office.

  7. Raissa wrote:  

    “Senator Angara, the law’s main sponsor at the Senate, accepted the amendment because he said – “cyberspace is just a new avenue” for spreading libelous material:  x x x

    “Is it really? Can we simply adopt the present law on libel that covers print and broadcasting to apply to the Internet as well?”

    I believe that the cyber libel law is no different than  the libel provision in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) except the higher penalty involved and the power given to the government to block the publication of the purported libelous item.
    And that is a whale of a difference.

    Why the higher penalty when cyber libel is committed with the same elements involved? Why raise the penalty from a maximum of 6 years to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, thus negating probation? Does the crime of libel become aggravated  by using a computer?  Do we equate it with the crime of homicide with the use of unlicensed firearm where the resulting punishment is more grave?  Is there such thing as committing libel with the use of unlicensed computer or iPad?

    In the non-cyber libel, the publication remains until maybe the publication is proved libelous.  But in the cyber libel, the alleged defamatory publication is immediately blocked without any due process of notification, hearing and final judgment.

    • What should alarm everyone is –

      “SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.”

      With or without the Libel Section 4, if a crime is committed with the aid or use of “… information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act:”

      NOW that should send shivers and chills down everyone’s spine.

      It was a poorly written Legislation. The use of general statements and broad references. The Act proponents’ (Legislative and Executive) excuse and leveler?

      Wait for the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). As if it is sufficient to allay or correct people’s fears and the new law’s vagueness.

      • If Section 6 is kept and Section 4 is omitted, an online blogger and/or commenter who are sued by a complainant under the Revised Penal Code (Article 353, Act 3815) as basis. The Libelee can also be charged under the Cybercrime Prevention Act if the medium or tool used to commit libel was a computer, iPad, smartphone and the like (ICT).

  8. Plagiarist Senator Tito Sotto was quoted by BARNABY LO of CBS NEWS as saying “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm.”

    Sotto owns up to libel clause on cyber law

    ABS-CBNnews.com
    Posted at 09/29/2012 4:58 PM
    Updated as of 09/29/2012 4:58 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – Senator Vicente Sotto III admitted that he is one of two senators who inserted the libel clause in the Philippines’ new anti-cybercrime law, according to a report by a US news website.

    In a September 28 article, cbsnews.com’s Barnaby Lo quoted Sotto saying, “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm.”

    Sotto earlier said he supports the libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10175) to “level the playing field” between journalists and social media users.

    Sotto was involved in a controversy recently for allegedly plagiarizing blog posts of American blogger Sarah Pope and a speech of the late US Senator Robert Kennedy.

    The senator claimed he became a victim of “cyber-bullying” following uproar from netizens.

    But Sotto has said the libel clause, under Section 4-C(4), is not meant to “curtail press freedom” but to protect ordinary people who are “victims of online attacks, character assassination and the like from people who do not observe the standards of journalism.”

    Senate records show that Sotto added the libel amendment on January 24, 2012.

    The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will take effect October 3.

    SOURCE: www abs-cbnnews com/nation/09/29/12/sotto-owns-libel-clause-cyber-law
    Reference: www cbsnews com/8301-202_162-57522609/facebooks-like-may-land-filipinos-in-jail/

    • So now he has admitted he is a liar. May his nose grow in direct proportion to the magnitude of his lies.

      • I think the Senate Chamber is too small for Tito Sotto’s growing nose.

        He has ambitions though to become Vice President.

        Sniff, sniff… even a hound dog would degress compared with his’ nose.

        Kudos to our Raïssa Robles, her attention to detail and inquisitive mind (i.e. Senate Journal of January 24, 2012) makes her stand out as an excellent journalist.

        Another plus for Raïssa Robles! Thanks for sharing your work.

    • To justify by “leveling the playing field between journalists and social media users” is a big BS!

      The real reason is that all politicians or public officials in the gov’t will now be well-protected in their shells for all the good and bad things they can do …:”praise us for our good but never utter a word about our bad.” “What are we in power for?” this phrase lives on!

      At 12:01 a.m. October 3, 2012 starts the dark day of dark years to come for death of FREE SPEECH and OF THE PRESS! Speak as allowed. Print as allowed in all “your” keystrokes on that keyboard.

      BEWARE! BE READY AND PREPARED. The users of KEYBOARDS and TOUCH SCREENS of computers and cell phones, iPads, iPods, Notepads, and all other gadgets in communications etc. in CYBERSPACE INTERNET in this country will start dying, dying and finally dead UNLESS THE SC issues a TRO to hold implementing RA No. 10175 Cybercrime Law including on the libel provisions

      Goodby Daan Matuid! Welcome THE CHILLED SPEECH AND PRESS ERA.

      Who will “play to level the field for journalists and social media users” on that date?

      • I wonder what Ninoy would think or say about his Nonoy’s signing this into law.


        In 1968, during his first year as senator, Aquino alleged that Marcos was on the road to establishing “a garrison state” by “ballooning the armed forces budget”, saddling the defense establishment with “overstaying generals” and “militarizing our civilian government offices”—all these caveats were uttered barely four years before martial law, as was typical of the accusatory style of political confrontation at the time.

        However, no evidence was ever produced for any of these statements.

        Source: en wikipedia org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino,_Jr.

        The dictator is gone, but this Cybercrime Law re Libel Section 4 reminisces what Martial Law did to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of expression during the Marcos’ Martial Law years.

        Was it just the anniversary last Sept 21 since it was proclaimed in 1972?

        Now we have a new law – signed by BOTH namesake holders, second generation whose fathers’ were arch enemies and political rivals to the end. This time, both in opposite side of the fence found something to agree on, and both signed it, P-Noy signed it into law.

        Irony or ironies? Or just a nuance. I could have just thrown-in an excuse to quote.

        Unthinkable?

        Guess what, who came to JP Enrile’s book launch? See a gala photo and read the book plot at newsinfo inquirer net/279262/unthinkable-guess-who-came-to-enrile-book-launch.

        • Itong Batas, masama ‘o maganda para sa mga Juezes sa Korte Supreme?

          Lalabas ba isang “TRO” ‘o wala? Anon ang magiging desisyon ng Korte?

          Wala akong nababasa galing kay presidente Aquino sa Batas nito. Ayaw ko ang salita galing sa mga assistants lang niya.

          Na saan si presidente dito? Tahimik ang hangging! Aamin ba din si presidente nag kamali siya sa pirma niya sa Batas? ‘O saayun siya sa Batas nito?

          What’s your next move MR. PRESIDENT AQUINO?

        • Dugtong lang!….3 days to go! Filipinos in thousands if not millions may start violating this Cybercrime Law, intentionally or inadvertently [ ‘di sinasadya ].

          What’s Pres. Aquino going to do? Allow the violations to take place?

          Proceed with investigations, chargings and prosecutions of the violators here and abroad?

          Black clouds [not only dark ] are approaching in our skies…free speech and freedom of the press will get so soaked and drowned out. Any rescue coming? No boats?

          Will this be SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? Dr. Hannibal eating human flesh?

          If Dr. Jose P. Rizal is alive, what will be say? Can he still write books like El Filibusterismo and Noli Mi Tangere? I am sure he’ll have a terra bite of a computer and all Samsungs & Apples gadgets as he was a prolific writer and genuis to ideas 100 years ahead of his time.

          Andres Bonifacio? Baka punitin niya ang kopya ng Batas nito.

          Si Sen. Ninoy? Nag tataka…anak saan ka papunta?

          Si Pres. Cory…anak bawi-in mo ang pirma mo sa Batas na yan!

          Si Mang Juan? …malaking ang gastos ko diyan sa computer at internet, ngayun lang ako may “access” ngayun din di magamit? SUS MA! ‘Buti pa walang koryente!

          Si Aling Maria?…tagal at hirap ko mag laba para kumita, makabili ng computer at maka bayad sa internet, ‘di pala magagamit na ngayun? HOY! WALA NA AKONG SABON!

        • it is the elitist society protecting each other…status quo…sila lahat. don’t care about democracy or the country basta enrile, lopez ano yan it shows their true colors, it appears that the lopezes did not like martial law all because it affected their business monopolies not because they were fighting for freedom, justice at all. wow…what a waste!

  9. Not to nitpick– based on the screen cap posted, I wish they identified you as a journalist/blogger. Downloading the video file… can’t wait to watch it. I can’t believe the Palace is actually solidly backing this bill… PNoy of all people….

  10. When Court orders or Warrants becomes passé under the Phils’. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

    …
    The documents, released by the ACLU after a months-long legal battle with the Department of Justice, show that in the last two years, more people were spied on by the government than in the preceding decade.
    …

    As technology gallops along and civil liberties law lags, Soghoian said, it is increasingly being left to the government and private corporations to decide what is legal and what is not. But citizens’ tools to track those new frontiers in privacy are lacking. It’s unclear, for instance, how many of the requests for information went to social networks like Facebook.

    “I think there’s really something at a deep level creepy about the government looking through your communications records, and you never learn that they were doing it,” – Chris Soghoian, the principal technologist at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

    Read the whole story at Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Surges Under Obama Justice Department

    Phils’. “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″.

    SEC. 3. (m) Interception refers to listening to, recording, monitoring or surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.

  11. I finally found time to read and digest the new Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012 that was recently signed into law by President Benigno S. Aquino III. As a non-lawyer, I am amazed – no, dumbfounded might be the more proper word, at how both the crafters and those who recommended to the President to sign the law have overlooked the far-reaching consequences of some of its provisions.

    As I said, I am no lawyer. So perhaps some lawyers out there can help us understand these implications?

    Section 4.c.4 states:

    “Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

    Many of the contents on the Internet, including those found on independent blogs and other social media applications such as Facebook and Twitter, are made by authors whose identity may not always be easily traced. In the revised penal code, libel is committed through statements made through print and broadcast media where authorship can be readily verified. Is cyber-libel then limited to contents found in online mainstream publications and do not include social media which could be considered private communication between organized or related individuals, which are called online communities?

    Section 5.a states:

    “Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.”

    Taken together with Section 4.c.a, does this section imply that allowing someone to post a comment that may be considered libellous can make the site or blog owner liable for aiding or abetting in the commission of cyber-libel? Such an ambiguous provision opens the gates for witch-hunting and retaliation for people who may have legitimate grievances against public figures, especially those in government.

    Section 6 states:

    “All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.”

    The wholesale adoption of a provision of the Revised Penal Code that is even the subject of congressional effort to be de-criminalized is at the very least reckless. The outdated libel law was enacted under a very different milieu that is completely anathema to the social environment that we now have. Libel as it is now, has become a tool for politicians and other people of power to harass and silence detractors, often filing charges in far-flung places to inflict inconvenience to the respondents. Extending the scope of this outdated offence means extending the opportunity of these same people to harass and silence their detractors.

    Section 7 states:

    “Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.”

    Now, this takes the cake. Section 4 adopts the Libel clause of the revised penal code hook, line and sinker and throws in penalties one degree higher, and then in this section says a prosecution in this act shall be without prejudice to any liability against the same penal code. Thus, if a supposedly libellous statement is published in both a printed and online edition, the offended party can sue the author for violating both the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Cybercrime Law of 2012. Whether this can be done simultaneously or one after the other, isn’t this double jeopardy?

    My simple mind tells me we have been Sottonized. And damn, it feels a lot like we have been intellectually raped.

    • That’s why one has to shout when being raped ‘HELP! I’M BEING RAPED!” otherwise, it is “consented” rape. In the victim remains silent throughout the rape rite, NO RAPE!

  12. Hello there,
    Would it be more prudent to say that this Cybercrime Law that was just passed and enacted is directed more to lure the Netizen people to come out in the open, the people who are very vocal against the ill will of the the Government of the day, esp. Mr Sotto, so that it is as easy as to put a “tag” on them, spy on them, provoke them, and at the right time, Mr Sotto will send in the “SWAT TEAM” and swoop and nab on you. The like of you Miss Raissa who is well known to Mr. Sotto is an easy prey. It will be a very sad day if it happens..But then again, you need to be talking to a good lawyer by now. I will be on the side to help out financially if hell breaks loose..

  13. Nasa 1st 13 minutes pa lang ako ng video footage…

    And tanong sa PNP at NBI ay “technology“.

    Ang sagot nila ay “training“.

    May link sa PTV Philippines sa susunod na comment…

  14. Shall we assist these cyber criminals by keeping them incognito or shall we smoke them into the open and reveal their true identity. Just like our celfones. One is free to use any unregistered sim, free to do what ever crimes they feel. If one is registered, crime will be minimized. cannot say completely eliminated because it is impossible but a little effort of registry may change the whole thing. Then let us define what really libel means,

    • Sorry, Rashid, your concern is appreciated but registration is not a solution. It is, as Raissa says, impossible without a world government – never mind a dictatorship – on the Internet.

      Your concern is valid and is expressed in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

      However, at the same time, Article 19 declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

      Laws on Article 12 can be developed and implemented within a nation-state. So can laws against the freedoms cited in Article 19 especially in a dictatorship. But no dictatorship can impose a law that can invalidate that last clause “regardless of frontiers”.

      Certainly, the implementation of a registration solution can be such that foreigners are not allowed to make comments in Philippine blogs. China and other totalitarian regimes have shown that the mechanisms for national border controls within cyberspace are feasible, in spite of the fact that cyberspace is a “worldwide network”. But do you want to make the Philippines a North Korea?

      And do you really want to suppress the freedom of being able to call Senator Sotto a lying cretin when that is the truth? And when your intention is to lift political performance in the country?

      I think not. I seriously hope not.

      • i totally agree with @springwoodman’s blog above.When God created a human being with all the 5 senses other vital body organs, the mind THINKS and SPEAKS. To speak is to communicate. To communicate is to be understood with and by others. But now, communicating will be curtailed or controlled by this law on libel. What then is the use for a human mind? Man has de-created the human mind. It is now totally MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

  15. I dont understand how moderating comments is the same as publishing an article or opinion column.

    1) there is no real relationship between the writer and the owner of the blog. this is NOT true for an opinion writer and pulbisher, the pubisher PAYS.

    2) a comment is like a letter to the editor. has the publisher been included in a suit about a libelous letter to the editor?

    the only diff is that the letter to the editor section is limited by space. this is not true for a comment section.

    • The letter with libelous content won’t be printed. In traditional media, it’s the editors’ judgment that is involved.

      Whereas in the new media, it’s the moderator’s ‘ass’ that is put on the line.

      • @baycas & @GabbyD …plus, it is not a “real relationship” that is required under such libel law in Cybercrime law, but only A RELATIONSHIP, and that is enough! Whether “matrimonial ties” or “concubine ties”, it is only a cyberspace internet TIE that is looked into, and one is tied up “internetically” in it! And the “ass” is explored!

      • @baycas,

        the assumption in the video is that anyone can file, and you cant determine a libelous statement before someone files a complaint. di ba?

        now, under that assumption, has ANYONE, at ANYTIME, filed a libel case against a publisher for a letter to the editor?

        letters to the editor operate under the assumption that the letter and the publisher dont necessarily agree, but the letters are published anyway for freedom of expression and reader feedback issues.

        diba? thats the reason for comments too, di ba?

        so whats the problem?

    • Wouldn’t a “Disclaimer Notice” free Raissa of all legal responsibility for readers’ comments? All newspapers carry such a notice.

      • A disclaimer would not change the effects of libel law. Never is it way to release someone from libel responsibility. No decision or law as of now allows it. Even if one such disclaimer “will be allowed” still FREE SPEECH and of FREE PRESS is totally violated or curtailed if not controlled. The same effects with a disclaimer.Raissa’s Blog will dwindle to a very few in time and maybe finally there is no more blog site.