Tag Archives: Cybercrime Prevention Act

[Statement] Cyber Martial Law Year One: Full Stop, No Mere Pause -PIFA.ph

Cyber Martial Law Year One: Full Stop, No Mere Pause
September 12, 2013

Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance Statement
One Year After the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) Was Signed Into Law

pifa stop cyber ml campaign 2013

September 12, 2013 – One year ago today, Congress and the President would have imposed Cyber Martial Law – ignoring citizens’ outrage online – had not the Supreme Court ordered the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 0175) restrained indefinitely albeit temporarily.

Recent events show just how valuable Internet Freedom is in “speaking truth to power,” in particular, in reminding government that it exists to serve the people and not the other way around.

It was only through free and open social media that a multitude of Filipinos from all walks of life got to march to Luneta, calling for an end of the corrupt “pork barrel” system of political patronage.

Just days before the “Million People March,” many Filipinos had been discussing online how the nation’s coffers got plundered. Taxpayers’ money supposedly funded fake non-governmental organizations, only to end up lining the pockets of “well-connected” private individuals to feed their lavish lifestyles.

Internet freedom has allowed Filipino scientists, using open source software, to create “visualizations” demonstrating just how deep the rot goes across party lines. Laid bare on multiple electronic media platforms is a crime committed with the complicit (or else unwitting and inept) help of government officials. Can it be mere coincidence that those “Honorable” senators and congressmen who had pushed the hardest to get this law passed now find themselves in the vortex of corruption?

It is this very freedom that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was designed to restrain. This law expands the government’s powers without affirming the state’s primary responsibility to protect and to recognize the democratic rights of its citizens on the Internet.

Internet freedom flows fundamentally from the human right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” Last year, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has endorsed the UN Human Rights Council’s affirmation “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online,” and that States have the obligation to protect and promote the same.

Although the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act remains restrained, let us not forget that the Supreme Court’s order is only temporary. Pending the Court’s final decision, we must remain vigilant and urge the court and our lawmakers to esure nothing less than a COMPLETE REPEAL of this draconian law.

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[From the web] PIFA Files 15th Petition vs. Cyber Martial Law -PIFA.ph

PIFA Files 15th Petition vs. Cyber Martial Law

The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) – a broad alliance of organizations and netizens – has filed before the Supreme Court on Monday (October 8, 2012), just a few minutes before the end of office hours, the fifteenth petition against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act 10175.

Petitioners asked the high court to issue a “Status Quo Ante Order and/or writ of preliminary injunction” to make government “observe the status quo prevailing before the enactment and effectivity of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.”

PIFA claims that its members have “legal standing to sue” because of the “chilling effect” that impacted on their online activities beginning October 3 – when RA 10175 took effect – subjecting netizens to “unwarranted electronic surveillance” by the Philippine government 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Section 12 of RA 10175 provides for “real-time collection of traffic data” which, the petition explains, “refers to [the collection of] ‘any computer data other than the content of the communication, including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.’ …[which] includes information on the identity of the person sending or receiving computer data.”

“Petitioners have legal standing to file this petition as individual and juridical persons who are lawyers, Internet users, taxpayers, subscribers of Philippine telecommunications companies, bloggers, writers, artists, citizen journalists, traditional media persons with an online (Internet) presence, and concerned citizens,” the 61-page petition reads.

PIFA scores the Cybercrime Prevention Act as “an undue abridgment of the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press” which “authorizes government to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure,” and decries that it “violates the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.”

PIFA warns that “the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act will clog the dockets of our courts arising from a deluge of frivolous lawsuits,” zeroing on Section 6 which raises the penalty for “all crimes” in other penal statutes as long as committed with the use of information and communication technologies.

PIFA said RA 10175 is “contrary to the guarantees of equal protection under the law” and “acts an ex post facto law” while also violating public international law. The petition also pointed out that the United Nations Human Rights Council has recently recognized just last July that the “freedom of expression on the Internet” is a “basic human right.”

The petition explains that even if Congress does amend the law, such corrective legislation would still “not render the issues moot, because [the violations] are capable of repetition, yet evading review.”

The petition also points out that the Cybercrime Prevention Act contradicts the Constitutional mandate for a “balanced flow of information under a policy respecting freedom of speech and of the press.”

The petitioners are personalities known offline as well as online, such as Bayan Muna party-list Representative Teddy Casiño.

Blogger-petitioner Noemi Lardizabal-Dado delivered this statement for her group, Blog Watch Citizen Media: “We believe RA 10175 only increases the lavish power of Philippine libel laws, and that the United Nations Human Rights Council is correct in calling Philippine libel law ‘excessive.’ We join with groups opposed to the Cybercrime Law to amend or repeal the law. We welcome engagement with government so that we can craft a better law which protects women and children and which strives for equal protection for everyone.”

Freelance Writers’ Guild of the Philippines (FWGP) founder Ime Morales said, “As an organization, FWGP believes that RA 10175 is unconstitutional and was pushed to serve certain business interests; and we will continue to fight for our rights as writers and netizens of this country.”

Contact

Ayeen Karunungan
renee.karunungan@gmail.com
0917 505 70 55

Read petition @ pifa.ph

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news] NUJP: Aquino declaring war on people by keeping libel in Cybercrime Law -GMANews.com

NUJP: Aquino declaring war on people by keeping libel in Cybercrime Law
October 6, 2012

President Benigno Aquino III is declaring war on his own people with his position that online libel should remain a punishable offense under the Anti-Cybercrime Act, the National Union of Journalists said Friday.

In a statement, the NUJP scored Aquino for insisting that the provision on online libel should not be removed, to give victims a form of “redress.”

“We now have a president who has openly declared war on his own people,” the NUJP said on its website.

Several groups had objected to the new law, saying the provision on online libel may threaten the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The NUJP said that if Aquino insists on keeping online libel in the law, it could only mean Filipinos were never his bosses at all.

“This can only mean one thing — we are not his bosses at all, if we ever were in the first place,” it lamented.

On the other hand, the NUJP quoted Thomas Jefferson as once saying, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so.”

Read full article @ www.gmanetwork.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[Petition] Call for Petitioners- repealing of the CyberCrime Law (RA 10175) – PIFA

Call for Petitioners

Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) is for the eventual repealing of the CyberCrime Law (RA 10175). One of the strategies we are going to embark on is to file a TRO this coming October 4, 2012. We need to know who (as individual) and what groups want to support the petition given the outline of the petition below:

I. The Law is an unreasonable search and seizure

a. The Law violates the right to privacy.

b. The Law violates the right to privacy of communications.

c. The Law does not meet narrowing tailoring standard for legislation that infringes fundamental rights.

d. The Law creates data harvesting/data mining. Surveillance.

II. The Law violates equal protection. No substantial distinction.

a. Does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate use. The Law penalizes legitimate use. (The Law is void for vagueness. It fails overbreadth.)

b. The Law operates as an ex post facto law.

c. The Law does not meet narrow tailoring standard for legislation that infringes fundamental rights.

III. The Law violates the right to free speech.

a. The Law is contrary to Public International Law.

b. Balanced flow of information right.

IV. The Law will clog the dockets and jail.

For individual petitioners, we need you to submit your name, age, address, citizenship and TELCOS (subscription to the internet and description of how are you affected by the law (e.g. because you’re a netizen, blogger, freelance writer; how much you will be affected by the law in your usage of the net for your work in narrative form). Draft petition will be available for your reading and review on October 2 evening before midnight.

For organizational petitioners, your group needs to be SEC-registered. Submit to us your name and TELCOS (how much your business/advocacy will be affected by the law in narrative form).

SUBMISSION OF NAMES/ORGS FOR THE PETITION IS ON OCT 1 (MON) UNTIL 7PM. PLEASE EMAIL TO joftivillena@gmail.com or the form below

THE ACTUAL SIGNING PERIOD IS ON OCT 3 (Wed), 5-10 PM at 11 Matimpiin St., bgy. Pinyahan, Q.C. Look for Jofti. YOU MAY ALSO BRING YOUR FUND DONATIONS TOO.

During the actual signing, the individual petitioners need to bring 25 photocopies of your Internet bill and payment receipt most recent (e.g. wi-tribe, DSL, etc.) and 25 photocopies of one government-issued ID (e.g. passport, SSS, etc.).

For organizations, please bring 25 photocopies of your Corporate Secretary’s Certificate which shows the organization’s board resolution authorizing you to sign/file the petition.

Make sure you are physically present on October 3 to sign up.

Sign petition @ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dE9UbVFHYkVLUGIydXpSZ0lWbXdUUUE6MQ

We are the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance or PIFA (formerly known as Filipino Internet Freedom Alliance of FIFA — we’re keeping both names), a broad coalition of individuals and organizations seeking to amend / remove the provisions which threaten Internet Freedom in Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. In the long-term, it aims to be the bastion of this freedom.

On October 2, 2012, Tuesday, 10am we will troop to the Supreme Court to let the 3 branches of our government know how we feel about the Cybercrime Prevention Act in its current form. Let’s use the power of social media to spread the word. Long live Internet Freedom!!!

Or connect with PIFA @  https://www.facebook.com/groups/319291631503416/

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news] Business files petition before Supreme Court questioning anti-cybercrime law | Sun.Star

Business files petition before Supreme Court questioning anti-cybercrime law | Sun.Star.

September 25, 2012

MANILA – A businessman has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop government agencies from carrying out some provisions of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act, which critics fear may infringe freedom of expression because of its provision on online libel.

Louis “Barok” Biraogo, in his 28-page petition, said Section 4 (c) [4] of the law punishes libelous items posted on the Internet and “any other similar means, which may be devised in the future.”

He said the provision was crafted by legislators with grave abuse since this is opposed to “Sections 3 (1) (on inviolability of privacy of communication) and 4 (on freedom of speech, of expression, of the press, and peaceful assembly), Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.”

Read full article @ www.sunstar.com.ph

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

[In the news] ‘Prima facie’ evidence in cybercrime easily faked — infosec expert -InterAksyon.com

‘Prima facie’ evidence in cybercrime easily faked — infosec expert
J. M. Tuazon, InterAksyon.com ·
February 7, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — The concept of “prima facie” evidence is nebulous when translated into the digital world, which means any individual could easily be framed for cybercrime using fabricated evidence, according to an information security expert.

Reacting to the recently passed Cybercrime Prevention Act in the Senate, digital forensics practitioner Drexx Laggui told InterAksyon.com in an interview that prima facie evidence varies widely when applied in the physical and digital worlds.

“Prima facie evidence is great for physical evidence, because it’s something tangible. Hindi mo puwedeng ilipat-lipat ‘yan (You can’t easily interchange those),” Laggui told InterAksyon.com.

For example, Laggui said, a stolen wallet found in the possession of an individual could be considered as prima facie evidence for theft “because [that person] deprives [the owner] of the value of the money inside the wallet.”

“The problem with the electronic world is that, when you steal something, for example the personal information of an individual, you merely copy it,” Laggui stressed in Filipino.

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com

 

[In the news] Groups, bloggers ask PNoy to veto cybercrime bill – InterAksyon.com

Groups, bloggers ask PNoy to veto cybercrime bill
J. M. Tuazon, InterAksyon.com
February 1, 2012

 MANILA, Philippines — Various groups and Internet users have called on President Benigno Aquino III not to sign the proposed Cybercrime Prevention Act, saying that some provisions in the bill could only do more harm than good.

The uproar against the proposed measure came just a day after the upper chamber of Congress passed Senate Bill 2796 on third reading, with majority of Senators voting to pass the bill.

The lower house, on the other hand, has yet to take up its version of the bill on second reading.

Consumer group TXTPower, in a statement, said the bill looks less about preventing cybercrimes than an “orchestrated attempt to control and limit Internet use.”

“Under the bills, government would have the power to take down, sans a court order, websites at anytime and anywhere if authorities find alleged prima facie evidence of offenses,” the group said.

The group added that the bills have “serious and grave threats” to the privacy of Filipino Internet users, especially with provisions allowing government to take and preserve traffic data for a period of time.

“For example, under the Senate version, the government would have the power to retain all user-identifiable data for a period of six months, from as many individuals it could possibly tag as suspected cybercriminals,” said TXTPower.

UP College of Law’s Internet and Society Program Director Atty. JJ Disini pointed out that as written, the proposed legislation puts too much power under the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would act as the coordinating agency for the government’s anti-cybercrime efforts.

“Under the bill, the DOJ can issue an order [to take and restrict access to data] should it be found as prima facie evidence for a violation,” Disini said. “In effect, the DOJ’s power is even greater than the court’s power.”

Read full article @ www.interaksyon.com