Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
Versus Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom
The
first time I heard about the Cybercrime Prevention Act was when I was asked by
my co-workers on my take about it. Having no time to watch the television more
so to read the papers, I had no inkling of the said law so I asked a brief
orientation of it, as understood by mycoworkers, being engineers without the
interest of reading the entire law.
So
they told me about the hot controversies… listening to one of them really
convinced me that he was knowledgeable about the law, well, thanks for
yahoonews. Then my initial reaction was, what’s wrong with the government
restricting your online activities and write ups. Everything is being
restricted by a lot of different laws.
Whats
new? Every right and freedom that you got must always have boundaries. That’s
what I call responsible living.
Arrogant
as I am, I even felt that my co-workers didn’t really understand why there was
a need to regulate blogging and other online services. Then I heard someone
talking about porn movies and internet downloads.
Bingo!
So
that was what it was all about! I thought that what they were actually concerned
about was their being restricted to watch porn movies and to download files
without permission. Remembering their noisy rants about saying goodbye to their
favorite sites makes me grin like a joker.
A
lot of them even changed their profile photos on facebook showing their support
for the amendment of the law. And I even
told them that it was a good law then since they would have to be extra careful
in entering porn sites.
The
debate as argued between engineers and paralegal was actually very childish and
subjective. I did not actively participate on it as I thought that the
implementation of the law was as necessary as our modern system requires.
When
I first read the Cybercrime Act, I did not find anything questionable in it. I
even wondered why lots of issues arose in the media when the law was as
ordinarily restrictive as any other law.
Then my professor gave the whole class an
assignment on our own take in the said law. Oh my! Imagine going through all
that technical nonsense again!! The idea makes me nauseous!
So
here I am attempting to understand seriously the contents of the controversial
Cybercrime Act.
What
caught my attention first was the penalties as provided for under Section 8 of
the Act. They are even higher than the penalties imposed in the E-Commerce Act
which includes hacking. IT students may face imprisonment from 6 to 12 years
for experimenting their cybercrime capacity.
Imprisonment
is one of the forms of rehabilitation. It involves conditions and treatment
programs to change behavior generally.
One
does not need such long periods to inculcate to a person the seriousness of the
cybercrime he committed in order to reform him. Imagine a person being
incarcerated for shouting “Magnanakaw Ka!” on twitter for a longer period than
a person who inflicted slight physical injuries against another.
Another
example of a stiffer penalty provided by the Act is the penalty for online
libel. While the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of libel of not
more than 4 years and two months in jail, the Act provides 1 degree higher for
online libel. Honestly, I thought it was just fair, considering that the spread
of an online defamation reaches around the world while a newspaper publication
reaches those people within the locality.
But,
wait a minute.
For
someone like me who loves making rude remarks on my friends’ wall on facebook,
am I already a candidate for cybercrime imprisonment award? And for someone who
uses the facebook wall as her own personal diary, isn’t the law too harsh if
she forgets to guard her tongue in one moment and be liable only because she
loves sharing her thoughts to the world?
What
do you think motivated our lawmakers to approve of a law as oppressive as the
Cybercrime Act? Or if they were not motivated by any personal agenda, did they
really understand what it contains?
Another
thing about the Act is its provision on online libel which violates the rule
against double jeopardy. Funny isn’t it? If you hated your ex-lover that much,
then institute online liber case against him and make him pay twice for it. It
would be just perfect!
But
seriously, our Constitution shields us from a second prosecution for the same
offense. We cannot be tried again on the
same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. And for
sure, online libel is not an exception for this.
If
a 19-year old teenager is convicted of such crime in a cybercrime court and was
made to be confined in prison for 8 years, and another 9 years of imprisonment
of the same crime by another court, the young teenager would have spent his
fruitful years in prison. Do you think it is fair for him to be punished like
that?
If
this happens to me, I think I would commit another crime after the termination
of my imprisonment so I could go back to jail for fear of adjusting to the way
of life outside of prison walls.
I
think this is the time for the fault-finders to celebrate since they do not have
to dig up material evidence to convict a person for cybercrime.
Section
4 (a) (3) of the same Act defines data interference as the intentional or
reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data,
electronic document or data message, without right, including the introduction
of viruses.
Let
us say that a GSIS employee, in the performance of his duty, without malice or
intention, introduced viruses on its central database system, resulting to the
deletion of pertinent data of the entire system, will that person be liable of
violation of the same section of the Act?
Looking
at the elements of data interference as one of the cybercrime offenses makes
you think that the person in the above example is guilty of cybercrime.
Although he was performing his official duty, the fact that he introduced
viruses on the database system, regardless whether or not there was malice on
his part or through his reckless act, he is liable. Or you may argue that he is
not, since he had the right being an authorized employee having an access on
the government computer system.
This
is actually confusing. When the law states “without right”, does it refer to
having authority on the access of the system or on the introduction of viruses?
Although this sounds ridiculous, but, maybe, there is such a thing as the right
to introduce viruses for the purpose of crashing the system for public security.
I
asked my co-worker who manages the entire network in the office if it is
possible for an IT personnel to purposely infect a computer system with viruses
as instructed by his superior. And he
answered no. If the purpose is to destroy the database then deletion or other
similar method should be applied except infection of virus. This is because
introduction of virus to a system is an act of violation of their professional
ethics.
I
was really glad to hear this. But still, the law should have been cleared about
this.
Asking
around my friends to see their primary concern on the Act was very helpful. I
realized that most of them were doubtful about the government’s ability to
investigate cybercrimes in order to determine the real perpetrators. I agree
with them.
Take
for an example an unauthorized use of your account in a computer café. After logging in and out of your yahoomail,
another user was able to access into your account and used it to commit any of
the crimes against the Act, then a complaint was filed against you, and your
only defense was that you had no knowledge of such act, do you think that the person
who committed it could be identified?
If there is anything good that we could get
from this law, it is to make us extra careful in allowing others to use our
computer or other electronic device.
We
could start being cautious with our comments when we are posting them online.
We could stop installing unlicensed applications and downloading pornographic
movies. Yes, this is really good.
But
is it really good?
The Act in its entirety lacks limitations. The
definitions of offenses are stated but in general terms and without borders.
The powers granted to the authorities are broad that they could be abused.
On
the Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data provided under section 17
of the Act requires only a prima facie finding of a violation of the provisions
of the Act for the DOJ to issue an order to block or restrict access to the
computer data.
For
a law that punishes crimes twice as high as under the Revised Penal Code and
only requiring a prima facie evidence is against public policy and welfare. It
is arbitrary and oppressive. It should not be considered as a valid law.
It
is like having martial law implemented in online transactions.
If
you make a mistake of installing an unlicensed application, or make libelous
statement against someone, or trade with Amazon, or engage in online gambling
and your enemy catches you doing any of these things, the DOJ may authorize the
internet service providers to block such contents if it sees a prima facie
violation of any provision of the Act.
For
me the hardest part is, not being able to download my favorite Japanese animes
and mangas!! Those characters I have been following through for like 15 years
will be gone forever. Goodbye Naruto.
But
the biggest issue that arises in the implementation of this Act is the
government’s attempt to restrain our freedom of expression. Our Constitution
assures us of our right to express ourselves. It is the most basic freedom
being protected by the State in recognition of our being part of it. Such
freedom shall not be suppressed unless such speech will bring about a clear and
present danger of evil.
Where
is this constitutional guaranty when the DOJ could immediately block the speech
if found to be offensive or libelous without trial and hearing? If the
government itself prevents us from enjoying our rights, where shall we go for
protection?
Then
a heroine comes along in the person of Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago. I am
not saying that I see her with idolizing eyes, but for the purpose of defeating
the unconstitutional provisions of the Act, I now salute her with gratitude.
An
anti-cybercrime law version 2.0 bill has been filed by Senator Santiago re to replace
the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act.
What
is so genius about this bill is the fact that it decriminalizes libel as
opposed to the provision under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.It safeguards the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
The
said bill treats libel as a civil liability rather THAN A CRIINAL ACT. So one
will only be liable to the damage or injury that he has caused to the injured
party by his derogatory statement. One does not have to worry of being imprisoned
by calling her husband’s mistress “KERIDA” out of fury and post it on any
social network’s wall.
Our
freedom of expression, privacy and due process and right against illegal
searches and seizures are recognized and protected in this bill. It also
provides proceedings for taking down websites or networks and prohibits
censorship of contents without court order.
The
bill is like a work of a genius. Every contentious provisions of the
Anti-Cybercrime Law is corrected here.
It
also attempts to eliminate the provision relating to double jeopardy and
proposes to create another organization for the enforcement of laws governing
Information and Communications Technology.
Although
I am not sure if creating another office called the Department of Information
and Communications Technology is a good idea since it will require a big amount
of government fund and besides, there is already the National Privacy Commission
created under RA 10173 otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and
other government agencies which may work together for the successful
implementation of anti-cybercrime law.
Issues
on vagueness and generality of the Anti Cybercrime Law have only been resolved
here. The bill tries to limit and specifically define cybercrime offenses.
It
also covers provisions to ensure the country’s protection against cyber attack
by terrorists and other enemy of the states.
Child
pornography, child abuse, human trafficking, hacking, piracy and copyright
infringement are still considered as criminal acts.
Strict
guidelines for securing of warrants, notifications and seizures of date are likewise
provided in the bill.
I
am so glad lots of people reacted negatively after the approval of the Anti-Cybercrime
Act. Otherwise, countless people will suffer the consequence.