Cyber Crime
chu-chu
Wednesday, October 3-I opened my Facebook account
and found the news feed strewn with status and comments mostly against,
sporadically in favor of the Cybercrime Prevention Act or Republic Act No.
10175.
Indeed many felt smart and gave their one-peso worth of opinion
about it but as one college dorm mate opined, those who actually got hold of a
copy of the newly inked law are few and fewer are those who have read and
studied it.
The itch to type my one-cent worth status re: Cybercrime
Prevention Act got the better of me and so I shared to the Facebook world my
indifference toward it knowing that, just like any other law, it will miserably
fail on implementation.
Alas! The next day I found a copy on the Internet, printed it,
and dutifully read the controversial but short cybercrime law.
Its second chapter has four sections enumerating
"Punishable Acts."
The first that drew my attention is Sec. 4.a.6 on
"Cyber-squatting." Yes, since the younger Aquino administration has
allowed the demolition of thousands of illegal settlers in Metro Manila, they
have all transferred to cyberspace!
Defined by the act, cyber-squatting means getting a domain name
(ex.:www.georgene.com) that is the same or identical as that of an existing
trademark registered with a government agency. Cyber-squatting is said to
"mislead, destroy the reputation, and deprive" these agencies or
others from registering in the web using their trade mark names.
So if someone tries to outwit the government and creates a
website with the name www.cybercrimeinvestigation-center.com.ph within thirty days of the effectivity of the act, he or she
may be the first to stand trial for violating RA 10175.
This new cybercrime is punishable by prision mayor (6 years and
a day to 12 years in prison).
Not to be missed is Sec.4.c.1, under "Content-related
Offenses." "Cybersex," says this law, is "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."
Now, this thing is good but the devil in the law is that it
does not and can practically not regulate pornographic sites originated from or
based in foreign countries.
In fact, the jurisdiction, clearly ironed on Chapter V, only
covers Filipinos where ever in the world he or she may be. Thus, the law is
only a thin veil offering haphazard protection to our kids against the poison
of pornographic and violent sites.
Oh, how futile!
The crux of many a banter, however, is libel, found on Section
4.c.4. While the definition adheres to that which is provided in Article 355
under the Revised Penal Code, the devil, this time, is on the penalty.
Just like cyber-squatting, which is also under Section 4, libel
under RA 10175 is punishable by six years and a day to 12 years in prison plus
a fine of P 200,000 up to the maximum amount commensurate to the damage it has
created.
While there is already a move to decriminalize libel, in
keeping with the times of free speech and expression, it seems as if we are
going back to the dark age of Philippine history that is Martial Law, when
every published or broadcast word was tagged with care.
Now the wisdom goes to social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
Multiply) users who love to lash out at their enemies thinking that posting
demeaning and scandalous status in English makes it less scandalous and
offensive (and smart!) than saying it out loud in the face ala free-for-all palengke
style.
So, FBnemies better bid farewell to each other, eh?
Despite this shock, what should actually get the most attention
is the power that this law gives to the Department of Justice which is now
given the authority to oversee the pre, post and during operation investigations
on cybercriminals. Together with the
Philippine National Police and National Bureau of Investigation, these
enforcement agencies are also given the right to search, seize, and examine
computer data.
At the end of the hullabaloo that Cybercrime Prevention Act
creates now, what we should remember is that it takes five years before this
law gets repealed or amended.
So, what the devil are the senators talking about being open to
amending some of its provision? Oh! They simply must have forgotten the
amendment clause.
No comments:
Post a Comment