Reaction Paper on Cybercrime Act of 2012

Cybercrime honor in the Philippines The Cybercrime Prevention play fargon of 2012, signed by President Benigno Aquino deuce-ace on Sep. 12, armorial bearings to fight online pornography, hacking, identity theft and spamming following local legality enforcement agencies complaints over the lack of legal tools to combat cybercrime. However, the rectitude came with tougher legal penalties for network defamation, compared to traditional media. It also allows authorities to collect data from psycheal drug customr accounts on social media and listen in on voice and delineation applications such as Skype, without a warrant.Users who post defamatory comments on Facebook or Twitter, for example, could be sentenced to up 12 grades in jail. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also known as Republic Act 10175, may aim to bring crime-fighting into the 21st century by addressing harmful acts committed with the use of the worldwide web but it raises the risk of even offs violations and trim backment of license of mental synthesis and of the press by expanding the concept of the outlawized act of revile.The law also raises the penal sentence for backbite committed in cyberspace one year longer than that cut downd in the Revise Penal Code for libel in general. The salient features of the Act include internationally consistent definitions for certain cybercrimes, nuanced li force for perpetrators of cybercrimes, increased penalties, greater authority granted to law enforcement authorities, heroic jurisdictional authority to prosecute cybercrimes, readinesss for international cybercrime coordination efforts and greater ability to combat cybercrimes.It is highly advisable that the imperfections in the law, the provisions that conflict with new(prenominal) aspects of good governance and national and international obligations, be corrected briefly through amendments. Strong leadership does not shirk from acknowledging the need to decree and strengthen po licy and law. The calls for amendment should not be seen as personal attacks on anyones character or effectiveness. The Office of the President has replied to the outcry against the libel provision in the new law by saying that freedom comes with responsibility.Yes, and, indeed we all pull in responsibilities to respect the rights of others and the press is obliged to check professional ethical standards, but the decree 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 undersidenot be fully and equally enjoyed. small-arm the Convention does allow sovereign governments to regulate freedom of expression, such regulation should be applye in a way that does not curtail the freedom. The Committee further elaborates in General Comment No. 4 (2011), States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law sh ould only be countenanced in the nigh serious of cases and poundage is never an appropriate penalty. Among the ironies of the relatively quick transportation of this legislation and the clock in that respectof 1. It is not compliant with the ICCPR, which was ratified by President Corazon C. Aquino, afterward decades of non-ratification by President Ferdinand Marcos 2. It was signed by President Benigno S.Aquino III old age before the country marked the 40th anniversary of the declaration of soldier worry Law, a period whose chief characteristics include repression of the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to political participation and dissent and 3. The 1987 Constitution, whom the President and all the lawmakers have verbalize to uphold has a number of provisions with which this law is not consistent, including the provision that No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press (Art. 3, Sec. ), the countenance o f full respect for human rights, the recognition of the vital role of communicating and information in nation-building, and the inviolable right of the people to be expert in their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that the cybercrime saloon law is essential. It has undergone many examinations before making it to the professorships office. The president himself examined and even signed it. If it were unconstitutional, the senate would have noticed it during the revision period.Many elements of the senate should have reacted preferably than they did. Many of them only reacted when the law caught the publics attention. I think, therefore, that the senators deemed it constitutional before their opinion was tainted with the publics comments. I am neither against nor pro cybercrime prevention law. I believe the author of the law is only thinking of protecting his countrymen from malicious people of the internet. I would like to belie ve that he really didnt mean to suppress our freedom of expression in writing this bill. The law itself does not really allege that we cant write anything we want.I guess the objective of this bill is to nurture Filipino people responsible usage of the internet. People who are victims of vituperate and other libelous act done on the internet have no way to go when their reputation is existence 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 feeling uncomfortable that there is a group of people monitoring their activity on the net. For some, oddly socially awkward people like me, the web is their only make out from their life.And the idea that someone is watching over that new life you make is just plain unthinkable. It restricts the way you speak by simply macrocosm there. It is worse than having people actually look at the real you because you dont know who would be lookin g and when they would be looking. The way you act lead 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 download 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 slow up after heavy school work. How will we indulge ourselves in these luxuries if these sites will be banned? When the bill became a law and much much when no temporary restraining order was issued a day prior to its implementation, the building block Philippines was in rage. In Facebook and Twitter alone, various opinions on why it shouldnt have been signed to become a law in the front 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 of slander in the law. According to Article 353 of the Rev ised Penal Code A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a viciousness or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or scene tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Although the definition is say 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 nigh something or someone that can already be grounds for libel. What if I say I am so disappointed with person/brand. What a crappy service Is this libelous or what? What if I criticize 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? willing he/she be held liable for it? When they start with the amendme nts, our lawmakers should not forget name 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 assemble and require the government for redress of grievances. I believe a persons entitled to his/her own opinion. And the whole Philippines shouldnt carry the burden of being silenced just because other people couldnt 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 110