Cybercrime Prevention Act Of 2012

[Steve & Myrlita]

I only use FB to keep in touch with my family and good friends. I do not friend casual aquaintances or friends of my friends unless I know them personally. I guess that makes me appear to be snobish. If so, sorry but it's the truth.

You're not the only one. I do exactly the same.

Only family and friends or people I know.

No interest in all the apps, games, gossip etc...

Myrlita is the one who loves the apps and stuff. I just read and reply if needed.

[Mike S]

I watch a TV news program (in English) called Head-Start .... Karen had one of the authors of this bill on there and asked him some very hard and straight forward questions ...... he admitted that there were a lot of items in that bill that were very vague and needed to be changed ..... he said they would amend those parts of the bill ...... he also stated that unless it could be proven that you had malice and intent to do mental harm to someone you would not be prosecuted under this law ........

BUT .... I say with the law as it stands they can do what they want to who they want regardless of what the author was intending ...... we all know how this happens ..... it is like taxes once it is implemented it never reverts back no matter what they say ...... it is here to stay .... IMHO ..... and without malice to anyone in regards to this subject ..... :cheersty:

[Call me bubba]

latest news article regarding the "passage" and who was and was not for it.

THE passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 can be counted as one of the major achievements of the15th Congress . :hystery:

But the public outcry and protest marches and demonstrations launched by critics of the law, several senators who co-authored it have disowned the law and have sworn to the fact that they were not aware of its oppressive and controversial provisions.

The 14 senators who voted for the passage of the Cybercrime law in the Senate are Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel 3rd, Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., Vicente “Tito” Sotto 3rd, Ralph Recto, Manny Villar, Edgardo Angara, Pia Cayetano, Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos Jr., and Francis Escudero.

But four of the 10 Senators after seeing the public outcry against it immediately issued statements saying that they are willing to amend some of the provisions.

There are four controversial provisions that have caused strong public objections.

These are: Making libel a cybercrime, if committed online;

(2) adoption of the entire Penal Code, if the crime is committed by the use of information technology,

(4) but the penalty shall be one degree higher; and

(4) authorizing the Department of Justice to issue an order to restrict access to computer data found to be prima facie in violation of the new law.

Cayetano in her recent tweets following the public condemnation admitted that she was not aware of the inclusion of the libel clause otherwise she would have opposed.

She said she will file an amendment to or a motion to repeal that offensive clause.

Escudero admitted he made a mistake when he voted for the bill and said he is willing to correct it by filing a bill to repeal the libel provision.

Escudero reminded reporters that he was the one who filed a separate bill decriminalizing libel in 2010. He said there is no reason for him to have a different stand when it comes to online libel.

Marcos for his part also admits his oversight but instead of making excuses he said he would just do something to correct it.

Angara, the main author of the bill, said he is also open to amendments but maintains that cyber libel should not be repealed.

According to Angara he doesn’t see any need to repeal the libel provision in the law and instead of removing libel, it would be better if a bill seeking to decriminalize libel is passed.

Unlike the four lawmakers, the other 10 senators who voted for the approval of the bill stood by their decision,

Sen. Vicente Sotto 3rd even admitted that he was the one who proposed the libel be included in the law.

Sotto, who has been a subject of online attacks following his privilege speech against the Reproductive Health bill,

was accused on inserting the libel provision to get back on Internet users who have criticized him. :hystery:

But the Senate majority leader noted that his proposal to include libel on the list of cybercrimes was made during the session on January 24, 2012 and nobody objected.

http://www.manilatim...-cybercrime-act

Edited October 27, 2012 by Pittman apartments Sgn

[Dave Hounddriver]

I have an opinion on this law that is not shared by others but I will share it so, if I am proven right you can say you heard it here first.

I don't believe cyber libel is the clause that will bother foreigners. We are smart enough to keep our opinions to ourselves when it comes to a possible libel suit against any of our hosts.

I believe we will be hit hard by the Cybersquatting clause. Any website owner who has a site that an influential filipino desires may be subjected to the Cybersquatting rules. Cyber squatting is the acquisition of a person’s domain name in bad faith to profit. . . That is what the new law does (link here)

Others have mentioned to me that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over your web site if you use dot com and not .ph. I agree. But I am not talking about the web site. I say they have jurisdiction over the individual if that person is physically located in the Philippines and if that individual is making a profit using a site like AyalaMall.com (just as an example) then the very powerful and influential Ayala family could come down like a ton of bricks on that individual.

Just sayin' Be careful out there.

[i am bob]

I say they have jurisdiction over the individual if that person is physically located in the Philippines

Why not? The US has been doing this for years! I know of one gentleman who is a Canadian and lives in Canada. He also owns a website based in Canada that asks for donations of used medical equipment that will be sent to Cuba for use in their hospitals - which he then gives to a local group of former Cubans in Toronto who arrange for and ship the equipment. He can no longer take a flight if it lands in the USA as he knows he will be arrested as soon as it touches down.

[earthdome]

I have an opinion on this law that is not shared by others but I will share it so, if I am proven right you can say you heard it here first.

I don't believe cyber libel is the clause that will bother foreigners. We are smart enough to keep our opinions to ourselves when it comes to a possible libel suit against any of our hosts.

I believe we will be hit hard by the Cybersquatting clause. Any website owner who has a site that an influential filipino desires may be subjected to the Cybersquatting rules. Cyber squatting is the acquisition of a person’s domain name in bad faith to profit. . . That is what the new law does (link here)

Others have mentioned to me that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over your web site if you use dot com and not .ph. I agree. But I am not talking about the web site. I say they have jurisdiction over the individual if that person is physically located in the Philippines and if that individual is making a profit using a site like AyalaMall.com (just as an example) then the very powerful and influential Ayala family could come down like a ton of bricks on that individual.

Just sayin' Be careful out there.

I don't think the cybercrime law will change anything for foreigners. As a guest you are always at risk of offending someone important or not so important and getting deported regardless of whether you may have violated any laws.

The reason why there is opposition to this law in the Philippines is concern that it will be abused by those in power to stifle political speech and have a chilling effect on free speech by filipinos in the Philippines.

[Thomas]

Others have mentioned to me that the Philippines has no jurisdiction over your web site if you use dot com and not .ph.

Well. I GUESS they have jurisdiction over ALL websites STATIONED in the Philippines undepending of what's the last part of the adress.

[i am bob]

Hey guys! The way this already works is pretty well world wide and accepted by all countries.

Basically, if you are physically in a country and you do something that is either illegal in that country or violates International law, you will be arrested. The fact that the server you are running is in a different country doesn't matter because YOU are physically in the country that wants to detain you. If you are just there as a visitor on a Visa, that still doesn't matter because you are still physically in that country. This is all set out in International treaties and agreements signed through the UN, NATO, ASEAN, and so on. The only way to get around this is to set your server up in a country that does not recognise these treaties and not have any personal identification associated to the server or domain running on it.

So - if you are in the Philippines and run an website that the Philippines government deems worthy of prosecution, odds are you will be prosecuted - even if your server and domain are based outside the Philippines. Or this could happen in Australia with the Australian government, in the US and the US government, in Canada and the ... Ok, forget that one. My politicians are too busy trying to figure out how to twist their expense accounts into personal funds or bowing to the PROC to buy our oil companies.