Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Is DOJ’s Geronimo Sy blaming lawmakers for botched Cybercrime Law?

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy announced at today’s 3rd Regional Cybercrime Conference that he has drafted a new Cybercrime Law that has no more provision on online libel.

What Guillermo Sy didn’t mention during the conference was that he apparently blames lawmakers as the cause for the scuttling of the Cybercrime Law.

You see, Geronimo Sy gave a talk during an academic forum at Silliman University last December. Perhaps he didn’t bank on someone from Silliman U writing about his talk afterward. This was what came out in the Silliman University Alumni Newsletter dated January 19, 2013. It was accompanied by the picture below of the smiling, boyish cybercrime expert:

Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy poses at Silliman University after discussing the Cybercrime Law in a forum

This was the write-up on what Geronimo Sy told the students:

Addressing one of controversial issues today, the Dr. Jovito R. Salonga Center for Law & Development conducted a forum on The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) on December 11 at the SU Justice Aldecoa Jr. Moot Court. The chairman of the Office of the Cybercrime of the Department of Justice, Assistant Geronimo L. Sy came to speak on the topic.

In his lecture, Assistant Secretary Sy clarified some of the most frequently asked questions about cybercrime: 1) data privacy, 2) cybercrime, and 3) cyber security.  He said their proposed version of the cybercrime law seeking to conform to the Budapest Cybercrime  Convention was to address only the core cybercrime issues but the current version of the law passed by Congress contained many unnecessary provisions, including provisions on libel and child pornography, which he quipped were only inserted at the last minute. Aside from Sillimanians, the forum which covered Republic Act 10175 otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 approved on Sept. 12, 2012, was also attended by the teachers and students from schools in Dumaguete.

When Guillermo Sy told the forum about the last-minute insertions, did he also tell them that one of those insertions involved the controversial section – on Real-Time collection of traffic data?

The Silliman U Alumni Letter can be accessed by clicking here.

Weren’t you inviting me over for coffee before all of these controversies blew up,  Sir Assec  Sy?

In any case, I’m still highly suspicious of what Assec Sy’s draft bill will still  contain. The online libel provision is not the only problem with this law. For instance, there is also the take-down clause and the powers given to authorities to spy on digital traffic.

Any take-down provision will now have to be reconciled with a new United Nations declaration, shown below:

I’m reposting below an article by my hubby Alan on what Geronimo Sy’s Cybercrime Law was like:

What the Cybercrime Law really means

By Alan Robles

Government is perplexed. President Benigno Aquino says he can’t understand why the public is so angry. After all, what’s wrong with a law that chills free speech online, allows warrantless surveillance of Internet traffic, and promises specially stiff jail sentences for Filipinos who commit crimes using digital technology or a digital device (such as a smartphone)?

A law, furthermore, that allows government to block websites without warning and provides no oversight or accountability of the implementing agencies?

Oh, and did I mention the law’s most repressive provisions were inserted stealthily and without any public hearings?

If Aquino seems clueless — he says he’s read the document at least thrice — citizens are not. Civil society recognizes Republic Act 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Law, as a crude and blatant attempt to censor the Internet and trample the Bill of Rights. The good news: barraged by outraged petitions, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the law’s implementation. The bad news: the TRO expires in January. The worse news: if the law takes effect, surfing the Internet will never be the same for Filipinos. They face a surveillance and censorship state in the making. As Senator Teofisto Guingona III says, the Cybercrime Law is an attempt to dictate what Filipinos may and may not see on the Internet. It’s also an effort to control what they may and may not say online. Plus, it offers law enforcers exciting new possibilities for abuse and extortion.

How could such a draconian law have come into being? Simple. Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet. Back in the 1990s, Internet visionary Nicholas Negroponte already had a term for these people: the“digital homeless.” He described this as the part of the population that is neither young (who’ve grown up knowing nothing but the Net) nor elderly (who have the time to go online). Unfortunately, according to Negroponte, the digital homeless “tend to be the decision makers, executives, and politicians” despite the fact that they “are really out of it. They are not part of this digital world; they don’t understand it.”

There seem to be three main characters behind RA 10175: Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy, Senator Edgardo Angara, and Senator Vicente Sotto. The law started life in Congress as a bill to fight cybercrimes like hacking, spam, destruction, theft of data, and child pornography. Sy seems to have given identical drafts of the bill to at least four senators, who promptly put their names to their copies and submitted them as their own without bothering to change them much — and apparently without understanding the contents. Angara delivered the sponsorship speech, becoming the bill’s padrino.

The bill was supposed to follow an international agreement on specific cybercrimes, the Budapest Convention (by the way, the Philippines is not a signatory). But, in a fit of creative legal engineering, it looks as if Sy and congressmen went above and beyond what the agreement calls for. To cite an example: the Budapest Convention has a section on safeguards to protect human rights and liberties —the Philippine Cybercrime Law drops that totally. And, where the Convention lists the very specific crime of “child pornography,” RA 10175’s framers invented and added a new vague category, “cybersex”— the “willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.” Looking nervously at the porn stash in your smartphone?

In the final stages of preparation, someone tampered well and truly with the bill’s DNA, producing the patchwork Frankenstein creation sent to Aquino for signing. The Budapest Convention does not at all mention libel as a cybercrime, but apparently Senator Sotto shoehorned it in while his fellow senators (Guingona exempted) nodded or dozed. Sotto’s insertion was neither easily noticed nor subjected to a public hearing. Completing the mutilation, other congressmen threw the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill, wildly changing the bill beyond the Budapest Convention’s intended scope. Nobody objected, least of all Sy. By the way, RA 10175 calls for the creation of a DOJ Office of Cybercrime and an interagency, Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC). Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy will head the first and be a member of the second.

Adding insult to injury, rather than brief the public on the act while it was being legislated, the Justice Department only called for “public consultations” after the bill had been signed into law. Fortunately, Filipinos had already been alerted long before that when Senator Sotto, smarting from online mockery of his speeches, taunted his detractors by warning them a law on cyber libel was coming. As a result, much of the outrage has centered on the Cybercrime Law’s provision on libel, which promises to create a mess.

Now, anyone who’s at all used the Internet (and social networks in particular) knows it’s rife with harsh insults, mockery, badinage, and naughty language. It’s the way the Internet has always been. The Cybercrime Law apparently wants to change all that: it empowers anyone and everyone to sue at the drop of the proverbial hat. If you’re among the nearly 30 million Filipinos using Facebook, you see those buttons,“Like,” “Comment,” and “Share”? Start treating them with lots of respect. Wait, maybe “respect” isn’t the right word — “fear” is. Because should you happen to use them the wrong way, those buttons could land you in prison.

What, you ask, is the “wrong way”? The concise legal answer to this question is, “Your guess is as good as mine.” If you post a comment on FB about a celebrity, politician, neighbor, or even total stranger, that person could sue you for libel. It’s conceivable that if someone else makes such a comment and you share it, you could also be sued. What if you neither comment nor share, but indicate you “like” the comment? You could still be included in the libel suit. Senator Angara even helpfully suggested that if enough people “like” a libelous post, they could all be charged with conspiracy. He said on a TV show that “if you agree to destroy the reputation of this person, then that is conspiracy.”

The Cybercrime Law’s libel provision threatens to unleash a tidal wave of suits which could flood a court system already legendary for its backlogs, delays, and corruption. If you’re accused of cyber libel, even if you eventually beat the rap, in the process you’ll still be forced to spend time and money fighting the case, a process that could take years. In the Philippines, libel has always favored the rich and powerful.

Libel aside, there’s also the fact that the Revised Penal Code has been folded into the Cybercrime Law. Should RA 10175 come into effect, any crime committed with the aid of information and communications technology (ICT) will incur a much harsher jail sentence than the same crime committed with no-tech. Charged with theft? Trespassing? Estafa? If you happened to have used digital tech during those crimes (a call on your iPhone? An email?) your possible jail sentence will be increased. Plus, you could face a separate charge for “misuse” of the device. And, by the way, every Filipino, no matter where in the world he or she happens to be, is covered by the Cybercrime Law and can be sued at a low level Regional Trial Court here.

Ironically, the Cybercrime Law will certainly not stop your kids from accessing porn, visiting banned content, or insulting each other. Internet users have a variety of ways to circumvent blocks and it’s doubtful Aquino, Angara, and Sotto know about sockpuppets, fake accounts, proxies, spoofers and tunnels. Even banning websites will not work, not when the contents can simply displace to another site, or millions of other channels (the term for this is the Streisand Effect). Assistant Secretary Sy, in one forum, pointed to sites that give instructions on how to build Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) as pages that could be blocked. A Google search “how to build IEDs” yields 16 million results. Will the government block them all? Will it block Google? If government proposes to give us China’s repressiveness, shouldn’t it at least also give us China’s economic growth?

My thanks @Mel for posting the story of Purple Romero entitled DOJ drops online libel in cybercrime law.

_________________________________

Related Stories

Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?

Was Senator Sotto lying?

Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening”

Why I stand by my story that Sotto “inserted” online libel section in the Cybercrime Law

UPDATE: Implications of the Cybercrime Prevention Law

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

Dear US bloggers: Remember how Sen. Sotto challenged you to sue him for plagiarism? Here’s how…

 

Comments

  1. …our Supreme Court – last bulwark or venue for justice…

    …but here is what is taking place “The other justices of the court disapprove of Sereno’s “unilateral” action and have threatened to revoke the order.”

    …off-topic nga…but can the People and Country expect nothing of this ‘sort?’

    …what’s happening?

  2. ‘Pinas jurisprudence on ‘Free Speech’ is, more or less,’ from USA…if u have not yet accessed SCOTUS [ one can read a lot from this, just type it & be a subscriber’ ] try it…here’s one issue on speech –

    “The Albany Law Review has recently posted its Fall Symposium on the Supreme Court’s free speech decisions. Contributors discussed FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (fleeting expletives); Reichle v. Howards (criticism of Vice President Cheney); Golan v. Holder (copyright extension); Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (public sector union fees); and United States v. Alvarez (Stolen Valor Act),”

    …from SCOTUS blog

  3. Here’s some partly news on cyberspace issue –

    “SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has ordered Google Inc. to comply with FBI warrantless demands for customer data.

    U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston on Tuesday rejected Google’s argument that the so-called National Security Letters were unconstitutional and unnecessary. Google could appeal the decision. The company declined comment Friday.

    The order obtained Friday omits any mention of Google and the proceedings have been closed to the public. The order references a separate case in New York federal court that the “petitioner” is involved in another lawsuit with the government over similar disclosures.

    Public records show the government filing a lawsuit against Google in April after the company declined to cooperate with similar demands.

    The FBI bars recipients of the letters from disclosing to anyone, including customers, that they have received the demands.”

    ‘Warrantless demands for customer data’…by the FBI vs Google. Is this good business for Google? Safe for it’s customers? Part of terrorism issue? Will our cybercrime law here reach this level if the law is enforced? They say ‘Why be afraid if you didn’t do anything wrong?”

    …Yea, but the hassle defending oneself all through on it isn’t a nice juk?

  4. DOJ Assistant Secretary Guillermo Sy said that the cybercrime law was “a cut and paste legislation”.

    • @Rene…”a cut and paste legislation” … a very poor way of legislating a bill into a law! …by so many including lawyers.

      …a deliberate evil way of controlling the actions of free citizens. A governmental conspiracy! And yet we, the People, elect these people to harm us instead. It’s a fiasco indeed!

      We hope the SC will tear into pieces the cybercrime law apart for being contrary to our rights to freedoms and the Constitution.

      • here in Saudi Arabia, youre free to do surfing but not to Bold net or gambling net, you can facebook and write all you can but without hurting anyone….you can do everything but not against Islam, say cybersex he he he that is not allowed, you may say something accusation but but…be ready for 4 witnessess, otherwise you will be jailed….

        Salam to all CPM’er especially to Leona he he he, you must be an iron woman…

        • …thanks @macspeed!…In SA [Saudi Arabia] may not have what we have here…written rights in the fundamental law of the law…so ‘women’ here in ‘Pinas are ironing most of the time…

          …’4 witnesses’?…one or two are not believable until 4 holds it so? Our Treason law requires at least 2 witnesses for the same overt acts…

          …in our ‘religion’ …God is the witness ‘via ‘d priests’…we ‘confess’ and gets absolutions including ‘crimes’ and ‘sins’…a reason ‘to be corrupt’ instead! ‘And sin again some more’! 7 x…

          hahaha…juk – @mac

        • he he he he corruption an ancient first sin, Shatan corrupted Adam, then Adam corrupted Eve then they multiply led by Adam giving the rules to fed and help each others.

          When offspring came and multiply into family then into tribes, each tribes has each own leader which has Law to protect their food against the other tribes corruptions…

          Then the tribes became a nation, then nation became nations….he he he then same thing principle, people vote their leader in which some are corrupt and some are good…

          The system of corruption will worsen by the token of time thru ages…..he he he world population cannot be stopped, food source is limited to Earths land and sea area…

          Even the most strict rules like Saudi Arabia will not be exempted when its population becomes 100 x more than today…

          When one animal is hungry, its instinct is to kill and eat, for humans…..he he he he little bit fine but sharp and deadly….

    • US congress can’t even pass PIPA or SOPA.
      PH anti-cybercrime law is worse than SOPA.

      How did this cr*ppy legislation become law?
      My gulay… that’s the problem when philippine congress is dominated by OLD FARTS…

      Btw, who voted them?!?

  5. This cybercrime law issue is not forgotten! Thanks Raissa and Alan.

    Lawmakers like to ‘regulate people actions.’ O.k. Unto cyberspace the regulations reaches us.

    Here, in this cyber domain, we love to ‘open up ourselves’, nicely or cruelly. We enjoy cyber space.

    Before, on some instances, duelists shot each other in duel combat, death or injury results. In cyber space
    now, they can duel, call each other names and curses. Would it be nicer to do it in actual ‘live situations’ person-to-person? No. It has to be done ‘in silence’ via cyberspace. I like this better.

    Lawmakers have made a big ORANGUTANG of our freedom in cyberspace! These classes of public officials love to ‘tinker’ with our lives, our joys, our rights and how we love to live our lives even unto cyberspace.

    I did not get my PC expecting cybercrime law coming into to inhibit me, to CHILL ME how I like and love to USE this machine thru the INTERNET. Of course I do not even think for a moment to LIBEL anybody here in a criminal way – LIBEL. No, I will not do that. Some may do. But this “some” should not be the cause to stop me and YOU, all of us to continue cyberspace and INTERNET. But it appears SY and lawmakers are going to do that.

    SURFING on the INTERNET, we are! Gov’t and other are not only in that, they are also ON CYBERSUBMARINE checking on us the surfers. For a FEW bad surfers, ALL OTHER SURFERS will suffer and the gov’t method is to CHILL everybody surfing!

    Imagine how the Senate approved the cybercrime law by TOTAL INCLUSION of all provisions of the REViSED PENAL CODE and other special laws!

    The lawmakers went BERSERK! It is as if IT DRIED THE OCEAN of its waves on us!

    Why did one swimmer buy her bathing suit for? His swimming trunks for? To dry & wrinkle up in the sun! ?

    They THREW THE MONKEY WRENCH on us!

    If we do not have a supreme court, we are all monkeys then!

    Why cut down our enjoying the surfing in cyberspace? For a few measly bad eggs?

    CYBERSPACE should never be touched. No CHILLING should be attempted on it. Not even an ounce or grain but to LET IT BE left alone. The MONA LISA should be left alone forever!

    What ‘manera’ or manner our some public officials getting into unto US the surfers in space? Them officials even disregarded the BUDAPEST CONVENTION and tried to give us instead A PEST!

    There is a very personal motive of these officials: To Stop Being Attacked In Cyberspace By Citizens and Everyone On Their Conducts Contrary To People’s Welfare! Imagine a million surfers doing the attacks!

    They are scared. Will there be an IMPLOSION or imploding in cyberspace and dissolve the existence of people and government without a monkey-like cybercrime law? Yes, these officials believe it so. WE DONT!

    We fervently PRAY our SUPREME COURT will DECLARE the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The law’s interconnected provisions are monkeys-with-TAILS, it cannot survive in the face of the 1987 CONSTITUTION on free speech and of the PRESS! The CHILLS starts from letters A to Z. From the preamble to the final signatures of the lawmakers.

    We PRAY…Amen.

  6. I’ll upload another story on Taiwan tomorrow.

    Good night, guys.

    And thanks for coming over again and again.

    • Good night as well to you good couples….

      i have just eaten my dinner pakbet my own style of cooking here in solitary life in Al Khobar he he he i cannot link myself to another woman, it is not allowed unless i marry another one with approval from the first…

    • Preelection request is for people to “go out and vote”.

      Postelection observation is that people tend to “go in and again be fence-sitters“.

      Saddening. I hope this will not be so.

      @raissa, please be unrelenting…

      “Ang demokrasya ay hindi nagtatapos sa eleksyon. Ang mas mahalaga ay ang tatlong taon sa pagitan ng dalawang eleksyon.”

      – Dr. Nicole Curato, sociologist, University of the Philippines

    • Do not stand at my grave and weep,
      I am not there; I do not sleep.
      I am a thousand winds that blow,
      I am the diamond glints on snow,
      I am the sun on ripened grain,
      I am the gentle autumn rain.
      When you awaken in the morning’s hush
      I am the swift uplifting rush
      Of quiet birds in circling flight.
      I am the soft starlight at night.
      Do not stand at my grave and cry,
      I am not there; I did not die.

      -Mary Elizabeth Frye

      • appointed time, everyone has,
        no one can advance nor delay for its dash,
        when it comes; that will be the end;
        but one’s soul has no end…

        no more sun, no more light,
        no more love which one delight.
        just memories of success
        lingering for those who has access…

        someday some will follow,
        the good work for tomorrow,
        with too many hindrance,
        one will cross with endurance…

        Jesse, you’re an inspiration
        for Filipino nation….Amen

        ….a sonnet for Jesse Robredo, may his spirit be in Allah’s Kingdom
        on the nth Heaven no one knows where…..macspeed 05/24/2013

    • sana sya ang ating maging guideline o batayan para sa mga bago at dati ng pulitiko…

      di kaya mainip tayo sa kakahintay ng papantay sa mga nagawa nya?

  11. Erratum

    My thanks @Mel for posting the story of Purple Romero entitled DOJ drops online libel in cybercrime law.

    Hmmp.

    • I am grateful that you allow me to visit your website (blog) and able to partake of crumbs that fall from your table to satisfy my yearning for nourishment (news).

      I don’t think I deserve a special mention for inserting a prepared article (web link) written by another who did the real hard work. Kudos sa inyong lahat.

      Please don’t get me wrong. For me to share my thoughts and concerns (commentary) with everyone is more than enough.

      Agyaman ak.

        • Come June, if Supreme Court decides as unconstitutional ang cybercrime law, balik sa congress anu?

          Will congress first repeal, or amend or introduce another one straightaway?

          Lol

          passa pasa. 16th congress to tackle again this kind of law worked on by previous batches.

          Now Sen N Binay might include her version of Regulating Social Media in the senate for a modified cybercrime bill.

          I wonder if by that time the members of the bicameral (joint) committees during their meetings would have improved their minutes or notes taking.

        • Nice work @Mel

          Warrantless Real-Time Data Collection… hmmmm

          Seriously, Comelec spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money to automate the election system. And they can’t even pronounce the results in Real-Time.

          Do our lawmakers know what is the cost involved just to collect a day’s worth of data for the Philippines’ Internet population ? Where’s the budget going to come from ? Where are they going to get the manpower ? How are they going to setup the network infrastructure ? What is their framework for sifting through data ? Is the data collection going to be across the board, sparing no entity or will it be selective ? Will there be a centralized Log hosting or do the service providers and large companies be compelled to participate in collecting the data ? How long will the data be stored ? With a goldmine of data collected, do we need a special agency to safeguard its integrity ? What happens if someone manage to steal the data ?

          Is a Cybercrime law worth all these trouble just because 1 politician can’t stand being criticized on the Internet ?

          I am not in favor of any government (anywhere in the world) spying on its citizens. It is not healthy and will only hinder intellectual pursuits. In addition, it will create a cloud of mistrust among its netizens and further divide this fractured nation.

          These dinosaurs do not understand what they’re going into, other countries such as the U.S. have separate departments to do just this, like the CIA, NSA and Homeland Security. Funded by billions of dollars, and still they Fail.

          This law will only serve as another avenue for corruption money to flow through and become a self-serving instrument for those with a different agenda on their minds.

        • Let’s just use the money we’re potentially going to use on the Cybercrime law and spend it on further improving the automated election system until we perfect it.

          Take small steps, one at a time, finish the task then move on to the next. Not grandstanding at some political arena, passing laws left and right with half-baked results.

        • Actually, COMELEC did not spend hundreds of millions for the lemon PCOS machines.

          They spent P1.8 Billion for the procurement of some 70-80,000 machines of which Smartmatic promised to give perpetual support for — Perpetual support that Smartmatic did not have the authorization to give as the technology and software belonged to a third party, Dominion Voting Systems.

          Smartmatic’s deception was revealed in 2012 when DVS terminated its contract with Smartmatic leaving us essentially with outdated machines that would be running on unauthorized (aka Pirated/against Terms and Conditions) software should it be modified.

          It took a case filed by watchdog consortium AES (Automated Election System) Watch before the UN Commission on Human Rights vs. COMELEC, (that essentially included Smartmatic & Dominion Voting) for Smartmatic & DVS to (pretend to?) kiss, make up and finally provide us with the new PCOS source code (which happens to be too late and after the fact).

          You know what’s really nice about the PCOS machines? They use Compact Flash cards which are already obsolete. Think how much more expensive they will be come 2016 since less are manufactured. what’s worse? They did not use WORM (Write-Once Read-Mostly) cards for storage which means the CF Cards can be tampered with after users finish voting on a machine.

        • The ICT Division or group under COMELEC are supposed to be well versed or advance in knowledge.

          Unless, key ICT leaders (including staff) were throttled, suppressed innovatively or rendered inutile by commissioner(s) or executives (stick to TORs, kuno). Such as work within these parameters… only.

          In this article (‘Brillantes blames telcos anew for failure to transmit results‘), LIKE Hello? Are there satellite phones in the Philippines suited for remote or black spot areas? Even just for two days, or three days max use? Will Pay on calls or data use? Client willing to pay insurance fees for loss or damage. Priority from average to large voting precinct clusters but with black spots (no reception) cell coverage.

          Compact Flash cards in PCOS. You thought and wrote it correctly (re ‘already obsolete’).

          Optical Scan or Read (OCR or OMR) has served its purpose then. Advances on Digital Technology platforms aims to cease (or limits) the use or dependence on paper (too much trees are felled to produce tons of paper for repeat national elections), not environmentally friendly anymore.

          i dikit mo lang ang isang memory card sa isang magnet – erase o sira na. size fits to a small pocket to switch, and out comes another. imagine, hundreds (if not thousands) of votes in one cf card that can easily be compromised. Like to flick or toss away, to hand over a dodgy or corrupted one. RECOUNT if disputed? Orasan lang, talu na.

          Did they use recalled CF Cards or passed over by the QA? I guess many of those switched ‘rejects’ are now in COMELEC’s possession, while the good CF Cards are gone. Simple as that? 23% only says the Commissioner, show us precinct registered voters and their precinct locations.

          In earlier interviews of the Commissioner, S Brillantes believes the software (Dominion Voting Systems) in PCOS are COMELEC’s. A licence to a copy of, not the software ownership. Didn’t he or others realize that any upgrades or software version changes may not be covered by the licence purchase? And software update escalation to all PCOS hardware is COMELEC’s?

          —

          Smartmatic – Dominion Software (PCOS) is old technology – a legacy system.

        • @Juan_Voice

          Your realistic question addressed to the legislators and gov’t enforcement authorities are good and valid (‘Do our lawmakers know what is the cost involved just to collect a day’s worth of data …? Where’s the budget …? Where are they going to get the manpower ?’).

          Many of them think that it is free just as many social media services (e.g. fb, icloud data banks) provide their services fee-free. Overseas enforcement is beyond the resources of the Philippine gov’t.

          Alan’s featured article is a prudent reference and realistic guide (eye opener) for many gov’t officials and executives who wish to delve into cyber policing and law enforcement in a global scale.

          Online Libel is out of sync or incompatible with the crimes of cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data or cybersquatting. IT WAS POORLY CRAFTED simply because of a “shoehorned” that deviously “threw the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill”. It lacked comprehension, IMHO.

        • Poorly Crafted indeed…

          These Clowns think that just because they wanted the Elephant to stand on its 2 hind legs, they could just twitch their noses, snap their fingers and that will do the trick.

          The Cybercrime law is an INCOHERENT piece of JUNK that doesn’t do any justice to promote safe computing.

          The Online Libel clause, inserted at the last minute, is a convenient way to escape criticism. It was put there in the hope of squashing open forums of discussion and free speech. It’s a SCARE Tactic concocted by a SCARED mind because it doesn’t understand its own limitation to its own Stupidity.

Trackbacks