'Reaction Paper on Cybercrime Act of 2012\r'

'Cybercrime impartiality in the Philippines The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, signed by chairman Benigno Aquino III on Sep. 12, aims to fight online pornography, hacking, identity element theft and spamming following local natural legality enforcement agencies com fieldts everywhere the lack of sanctioned tools to combat cybercrime. However, the righteousness came with tougher legal penalties for Internet defamation, comp atomic number 18d to traditional media. It withal allows authorities to stack away data from psycheal user accounts on hearty media and listen in on voice and tv applications such as Skype, without a warrant.Users who post denigrative comments on Facebook or Twitter, for example, could be sentenced to up 12 years in jail. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in addition kn induce as Re creation Act 10175, whitethorn aim to bring crime-fighting into the 21st century by addressing harmful acts affiliated with the use of the worldwide mesh but it raises the risk of rights violations and curtailment of immunity of fount and of the press by expanding the concept of the viciousized act of libel.The law also raises the penal sentence for libel committed in cyberspace one year longitudinal than that imposed in the Revise Penal calculate for libel in general. The salient features of the Act involve world-widely consistent interpretations for certain cybercrimes, nuanced liability for perpetrators of cybercrimes, change magnitude penalties, greater authority granted to law enforcement authorities, elevated jurisdictional authority to prosecute cybercrimes, provisions for international cybercrime coordination efforts and greater ability to combat cybercrimes.It is highly well(predicate) that the imperfections in the law, the provisions that conflict with an early(a)(prenominal) aspects of level-headed g everyplacenance and national and international obligations, be turn soon through amendments. Strong leadership does non shirk from acknowledging the need to revise and strengthen constitution and law. The calls for amendment should non be seen as personal attacks on allone’s character or effectiveness. The Office of the chairwoman has replied to the outcry against the libel provision in the freshly law by saying that emancipation comes with responsibility.Yes, and, thusly we all have responsibilities to comply the rights of others and the press is have to observe professional ethical standards, but the pattern of freedom, in order to impose responsibility and order, should not cross the line into curtailment of the freedom or creating an environment in which such rights sacknot be full and equally enjoyed. While the Convention does allow self-governing governments to regulate freedom of expression, such regulation should be done in a way that does not curtail the freedom. The Committee further elaborates in prevalent Comment No. 4 (2011), â€Å"States parties should consider the decriminalisation of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should still be countenanced in the around serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. ” Among the ironies of the comparatively quick passage of this legislation and the timing thence: 1. It is not compliant with the ICCPR, which was ratified by President Corazon C. Aquino, after decades of non-ratification by President Ferdinand Marcos; 2. It was signed by President Benigno S.Aquino III days before the clownish marked the 40th anniversary of the declaration of soldierly Law, a period whose chief characteristics include repression of the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to political participation and stand; and 3. The 1987 Constitution, whom the President and all the lawmakers have sworn to maintain has a number of provisions with which this law is not consistent, including the provision that â€Å"No law shall be passed abridging t he freedom of barbarism, of expression, or of the press… â€Å" (Art. 3, Sec. ), the guarantee of â€Å"full respect for human rights,” the recognition of â€Å"the vital role of parley and information in nation-building,” and the inviolable â€Å"right of the pile to be secure in their persons, papers and personal effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. ” I opine that the cybercrime prevention law is natural. It has undergone many examinations before making it to the president’s office. The president himself examined and even signed it. If it were unconstitutional, the senate would have find it during the revision period.Many members of the senate should have reacted earlier than they did. Many of them solely reacted when the law caught the public’s attention. I think, therefore, that the senators deemed it constitutional before their opinion was tainted with the public’s comments. I am neither against nor pro cybe rcrime prevention law. I believe the author of the law is solely thinking of protecting his countrymen from malicious quite a little of the network. I would like to believe that he really didn’t mean to suppress our freedom of expression in writing this bill. The law itself does not really relegate that we can’t write anything we want.I guess the objective lens of this bill is to teach Filipino pot liable usage of the internet. People who are victims of slander and other libelous act done on the internet have no way to go when their genius is cosmos attacked. Due to the passage of this law, there can now be protection for these victims. On the other hand, the law has its own flaws. The public are disembodied spirit uncomfortable that there is a group of people monitoring their activity on the net. For some, especially socially awkward people like me, the web is their scarce escape from their life.And the idea that someone is watching over that new life you bu ilt is just plain unthinkable. It restricts the way you speak by simply existence there. It is worse than having people actually look at the real you because you don’t know who would be looking and when they would be looking. The way you act willing change whether you like it or not. There is also major mass hysterics because of the act of banning websites such as Piratebay where people can usually transfer stuffs for free. I, for one, is also against this. Students like me have limited allowance.How are we expected to pay for movies, songs, games? These free stuffs help us relax and unwind after heavy enlighten work. How will we indulge ourselves in these luxuries if these sites will be banned? When the bill became a law and frequently more when no temporary restraining order was issued a day prior to its implementation, the whole Philippines was in rage. In Facebook and Twitter alone, various opinions on why it shouldn’t have been signed to become a law in the f irst place were shared by different people †concerned citizens, most of them.But it is not a secret that what enraged most Filipinos is the inclusion body of Libel in the law. According to Article 353 of the revise Penal Code: A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a wrong or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or discriminative person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Although the definition is said to have been modified to fit the Internet, people still dispute this simply because it violates their rights for freedom of speech and expression.The lawmakers say that when a person says something ‘negative’ slightly something or someone that can already be grounds for libel. What if I say â€Å"I am so disappointed with [person/brand]. What a lousy religious service! ” Is this libelous or what? What if I crit icize a member of the Senate for his unlawful action? Can that person sue me for libel? What if the person who wrote an article was only disseminating valuable information that people should know? testament he/she be held liable for it? When they start with the amendments, our lawmakers should not forget ARTICLE III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. Section 4.No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to amass and petition the government for redress of grievances. I believe a person’s entitled to his/her own opinion. And the whole Philippines shouldn’t carry the burden of being silenced just because other people couldn’t accept this fact. Sorces: http://www. zdnet. com/ph/philippine-cybercrime-law-under-fire-6th-petition-filed-7000005076/ http://www. interaksyon. com/article/44546/cybercrime-law-may-put-philippines-in-more-trouble-with-un-for-curtailing-press-freedom Roni Lyn B . Amaranto AT cx\r\n'