The Philippine Senate has approved, on third and final reading, the Senate Bill 2796, or the so-called Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (CPACT).
Edit: Reader Jommie has left a note —
This is only the Senate version of the bill. The House has yet to pass its version, it would still have to be taken up on second reading. Before it gets signed into law (IF PNoy wills it), the two chambers of Congress would still have to meet on a bicameral meeting to consolidate the two versions.
Read more here:
This compilation is a personal list as I am aiming to answer the question — “What are your objections on CPACT?”
I will be updating as soon as I get more information from Atty. Vitangcol whom I am pressing to get more info from.
Who Will Be Affected?
2. Long-Distance Relationship “Lovers”
3) Real Estate Agents, Deal Sites, Marketers
Objections on CPACT
The National Cybercrime Bill defines what are crimes committed on cyberspace (or technology) constitute a crime in the Philippines. It attempts to be encompassing, and overreaching. It is a catchall in how vague some provisions are. In many ways, this is good, and in many ways, this is evil. Philippine Law enforcement has been clamoring for a law that define crimes committed on cyberspace. It makes their job “easier” because they don’t have to think, and the overreaching power of the bill means the law can be interpreted as seen fit. Source
On Illegal Access / Interception
It touches on Your ability to Root or jailbreak your smartphone (which is btw very legal in the states). Bawal na din mag mod ng PS3, PSP, Xbox, etc. Even rooting your router as well. What’s even scary is section 13 of the senate version which reads “SEC. 13. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data. Source
I say that this definition alone is absurd, as it would consider “cybersex” even between consenting individuals as a crime. The term “lascivious” is also subject to different interpretations by different people. What seems “lascivious” to me may not be so for someone else. (Think TTH.) Also, are boobs sexual organs? What about male nipples? Butt? Etc Source
The bill has no provisions defining sexual harrasment, assuming cybersex is sufficient definition. Source
There’s a huge difference between consenting parties having a little fun over webcams, and a pedophile preying on a kid in a chatroom. -_- Source
Cybersex is a crime now? Papaano na lang ang mga mag-asawang bansa ang pagitan? Papaano nalang nila maitatawid “yun” hehehe Source
I happen to disagree on the cybersex provisions. It would be good to have that clause deleted, but nevertheless it’s already the law of the land care of the Anti-Voyeurism Act. Source
I hope there is also a cyberjail for me and my wife. It is really a good help to us and to our sexual life while I’m working abroad. Source
So this could be in the realm of possibility: My name in Twitter is “Tanduay”, so if Tanduay Distillery Inc wanted to make a twitter account, instead of paying me millions (presumably haha) to hand over the name, they could sue my ass instead? I know it’s just Twitter and not a domain name but hey, there could be similar relevant cyber-squatting stories out there involving valid and reasonable use of similar-to-something sounding web domains that would be steamrolled by the “law”. Source
This might be use to control political activists or bloggers who found a new home on the internet. Then there is the question of implementation. Source
This should give you pause. This should give you a chilling effect. The National Cybercrime Bill defines libel as “The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” It simply means that what Libel means in print, broadcast and radio means exactly the same online. Source
“In contrast, the proposed cybercrime bills lower the bar on government intrusion into private communications to an unacceptable level,” said Tinio, adding they will allow surveillance on the basis of a broad and often vaguely defined range of acts to be known as cybercrimes.
“If passed in its current form, we will have an absurd situation where cybercrime investigators will have more broad and sweeping powers to invade the privacy of communications of citizens than law enforcers investigating threats to national security,” Tinio stressed. Source
This is dangerous and unacceptable. I believe that the collection and preservation of what this bill calls as traffic or computer data will pave the way for the government to do mass surveillance. It gives the government the power to not only monitor alleged cybercrime perpetrators but also political opponents such as the opposition and political and human rights activists. Source
What are your objections for this Bill? Please let us know via comments.