Tekkie Tekkie Muna (Call your friends and let’s debate on these discussions bago pa man tamaan tayo ng ngitngit ng paghihiganti ng mga apektado ng cyber bullying), sorry for being so political these past posts but the Cybercrime Law in the Philippines aka the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is quite controversial and timely to be discussed and debated upon before the Supreme Court TRO expires and we get struck by its might!
“Department of Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy explained that laws on cybercrime are considered as the 3rd building block of legislations necessary to protect the people from crimes committed in cyberspace and use of ICT.
I always look at cybercrime as something under the 2nd block or special penal laws (where I think the E-Commerce Law is in). Although it seems there is now a set of laws in place that are already in that 3rd block and increasing further (which may already include the E-Commerce Law as it is the first policy in place against hacking and online piracy).
As we use and integrate ICT and Internet in our lives, perhaps it is possible that new forms of crimes can happen online and where broader or special legislation will have to be created (that provides mandate for resource allotment too). Nevertheless, that perspective, whether agreeable or not, brings the importance of having more organized groups of netizens who can interact with policy makers proactively on Internet / ICT related policies and do its share of stakeholder consultation.”
“As the Cybercrime Prevention Act is on TRO, the cybercrime provisions of Republic Act 8792 (Section 33) is once again in effect. For folks unfamiliar with the E-Commerce Law penalties (section 33), I hope this can help.”
For torrent sites, as long as you have a copyright holder or group suing for unauthorized copying (regardless of online source), it is covered.
“Version 1 of electronic libel infograph – The insertion of Libel in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 caused a lot of confusion and this is what we got after checking out sources. Electronic libel is a crime under this act (libel committed with the use of ICT) and as an addition under the Revised Penal Code (if concurrently committing the libel crime in traditional form). Some see this giving room to double-jeopardy.”
That is true unless it is only pursued legally under one of the two possible legal outlets. Double jeopardy means that you cannot be tried for the same offense twice, but as we have seen a person can be pursued under criminally but also under civil (as we saw with OJ Simpson).
“Version 1 of Cybercrime infograph – When the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was passed, there was an impression that this law was done in haste. But actually, the law was almost 11 years in the making.
Here is a timeline of developments that happened through the years involving the struggles of many in pushing for a cybercrime legislation.”
Seems that something that took 11 years would have been mature and nearly fault free. So either the reaction is viral without basis OR these are legitimate complaints/issues and the act was over baked.
Instead of endless debate it would be a real positive step if a re-evaluation and re-crafting initiative was mounted now. I fear we will be debating it for far too long and create just more unnecessary frustration.
Probably 11 years in the making but the revisions or amendments (like online libel) were added just recently. As what Tony Velasquez said in his interview with Sen Angara, last year, there was no online libel yet in the provisions of Cybercrime law.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply put the monitoring responsibility on the outlets (websites or social networks) and let them do the monitoring in accordance with the law. Sort of like what FB does now? If you are a website you are directly liable. Seems a bet more straight forward then being in the policing game for all outlets.
*credits of content and infographics to Digital Filipino, Janette Toral and other netizens