When
Sir Thomas Lee Cook invented the internet, his intent was for all the world to
revel in a new-found freedom that was unhindered by boundaries dictated by
nationality, creed or religion. Many have taken advantage of what the internet
has to offer and for good measure. Bloggers,
content writers and aspiring
armchair journalists have taken to cyberspace to air out views on
certain issues. Lately, there has been a spate of negative reaction from
netizens on the passing of Republic Act 10175 otherwise known as the Cyber
Crime Prevention Act of 2012.
What
is it about?
In layman’s
terms, the state recognizes the need for providing an environment for the
development, advancement and optimal use of information and communications
technology (ICT) and the need to protect and safeguard its use from all forms
of misuse, abuse and illegal access. In this light, the state sees the need to
combat and prevent these offenses by facilitating their detection,
investigation and prosecution in both domestic and international levels.
My
Reaction
I
believe the government’s desire to take an active step in preserving the
pristine intent on the use of cyber-space. For all intents and purposes, the
internet was created to benefit the citizens of
the world as far as information dissemination, access to cyber-data, and
security systems are concerned.
How
often have we suffered from destroyed operating systems due to viruses lethal
to our computer data? How many government websites have been hacked into as an
offshoot of mischievous pranks? How many subscribers have been the victim of
internet scams robbing them of their hard-earned cash? How many reputations
have been besmirched from intimate videos posted on social network sites? The
list goes on and on…
Upon
reading the transcript of the law, I see nothing that would have merited such a
violent reaction from the frequent users of the internet. Then again, when you
look at the law, you
realize
it was formulated in such a way that it is open to free interpretation. It was
written in such loose legalese that it can be tweaked according to one’s own
slant and purpose.
Salient
Points
Repunblic
Act 10175 indicates the following as crimes under section 4 of its provisions:
a) offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data, b)
computer-related forgery, c)
content-related offenses, d) other offenses. Under these four categories fall
the specific crimes respectively:
a) illegal access, interception,
data and system interference, misuse of devices, cyber squatting; b) forgery,
fraud, and identity theft; c) cybersex,
child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, libel ; d) aiding, abetting and attempting the
commission of crimes.
I
would have been content to take it all in stride except that under section 4
number c it becomes evident that an insertion made as libel was a direct
offshoot of one law-maker’s faux pas in
his CONTRA Y TURNO speech. And this is the contention of most netizens in that
had anyone ticked a facebook page against the esteemed senator, anyone could
have been sued for libel.
No
less than Usec. Ed Sy of the Department
of Justice defended the government’s position in saying that all efforts to
prove an offender’s guilt must undergo legal procedure prior to action being
taken.
The
penalties involved herein must also be administered by the concerned
authorities. The National Bureau of Investigation and Philippine National
Police have been tasked to monitor such offenses and execute the arrest and
implement the corresponding penalties. Given that these two government agencies
are also susceptible to corruption, who will ensure that these agencies will
conduct the investigations without prejudice? The agencies in question must be
proven to be without blemish or unquestionably devoid of malice.
It
is therefore with great relief that due to all the brouhaha the passing of Republic Act 10175 caused , the Department of
Justice has issued a Temporary Restraining Order for 120 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment