The Philippines' New 'Cybercrime' Law Aims To 'Protect' Citizens By Going After Filesharing, Online Libel
from the an-insulting-law-that's-tough-on-libel----go-figure dept
About a year ago, the Philippines pushed through a completely unneeded anti-counterfeiting bill at the behest of the WIPO (itself working at the behest of the US government). Despite the evidence that counterfeiting isn't a big problem, the bill was pushed through and defended with a bit of doublespeak by the Philippines IP office, who claimed that the bill had nothing to do with various corporate interests applying pressure... except for the ones that have "lost a lot of profits due to piracy." To quote Glyn Moody: "Indeed." [Wryly raised eyebrow emoticon]The Filipino government has now moved past that, enacting a so-called Cybercrime Prevention Act that goes well beyond dealing with hackers and fraudsters. As Mike pointed out earlier, the new law contained some very broad wording that outlawed "cybersex," subjecting violators to some very harsh punishments (up to six years in jail and fines up to $25,000). That, in and of itself, would be worrying. But the law goes even further, recasting former civil offenses as criminal acts. As Patrick Villavicencio at InterAksyon points out, the legislation bears a lot of resemblance to the failed SOPA/PIPA bills, aiming at taking down filesharing rather than protecting citizens from online attacks.
“What SOPA and PIPA aimed to do, the Cybercrime Law has done,” Acero said, referring to the objective of the two bills to curb the rampant sharing and downloading of movie and music content online, as lobbied by firms in Hollywood.Rather than infringement being a civil issue or a minor crime at best, the additional wording drags this activity under the heading "cybercrime," allowing law enforcement to collect real-time traffic data on filesharers. It also contains a "takedown clause" which gives the Department of Justice "sweeping powers to issue a block or restrict order against websites." This puts the power in the hands of content producers, allowing them to have a site blocked or taken down simply by filing a request with the DOJ. One needs only look at the average legacy industry "rogue site" list to see how this provision could result in the muting of several legitimate sites.
Under Section 6 of the law, all crimes “defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws” can be punishable under the Act if they are committed with, using, and through a computer system.
Among the country’s special laws, the Intellectual Property Code penalizes, among others, illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted content.
University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini, meanwhile, said that because of Section 6, the law essentially made all crimes a form of cybercrime when committed through a computer or Internet system.
Beyond this aspect lay some very disturbing new limits on speech. GMA News has a wrap-up of ten of the most chilling new limitations on expression, most of which stem from some very generous additions to libel laws.
Your tweet about the barangay captain who loves San Miguel more than his job? That could be classified as libel, which is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice 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 juridical person..." Take note of the part where it says "real or imaginary." You're damned if you're lying and you're damned if you're telling the truth.That's just a small part of it. People can no longer "blacken the memory of one who is dead," no matter how terrible a person they were. It also does away with the requirement of criminal intent for cybercrimes. Instead, simply performing anything defined as a criminal act, no matter your intentions, could get you arrested.
Then there's this bit of nastiness:
In an InterAksyon.com article written by Patrick Villavicencio, University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini said that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the so-called "victims" and their lawyers "could argue in court that old libelous posts [that are] still live today can be charged with online libel." The report further quoted Disini, who explained, "Kasi pwede nilang sabihin na (Because it could mean) by keeping it there today, you’re still publishing it now. So if you’re still publishing it after the law took effect, then you’re liable for its publication today."There's nothing like having previously legal activity "grandfathered in" by new laws. Not only will Filipinos need to be very careful what they say going forward, they're also going to take a long look at anything they've said in the past. Not only that, but they're going to need to be very careful with their responses to anything others say that veers towards libel.
Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully encouraging the spread of libelous content shall be charged for abetting libel. That means the act of clicking the "Like" button of Facebook or retweeting posts on Twitter may be tagged as unlawful as well.What else? "Ironic, suggestive or metaphorical language" can be considered libelous. And the penalties are incredibly harsh. Online libel can be punished with a prison term of 12 years and a ₱1,000,000 fine, far harsher than the penalties for offline libel.
Between the free speech limitations and the sweeping powers being granted to content creators and law enforcement, the new law is bad news all around. The DOJ will be meeting with stakeholders in October to ensure that the IRR (implementation of rules and regulations) "will not stifle basic human rights, not the least of which is internet users' freedom of speech and expression."
Well, we'll see how that goes. Most "stakeholder" meetings seem to be long on listening to concerns but short on actually addressing them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, cybersecurity, cybersex, philippines
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hmmph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmph
US Gov works hard to take away our Rights, take huge sums of money in, and try to boss around other Nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferdinand Marcos would be proud of this law, applying to himself, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or do the Nazi's count as "memory of many who are dead" thereby allowing a loophole. Filipinos just won't be able to make analogies between Hitler and an unfavorable act. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an example, one of the largest criminals ever in Australia, Mr Alan Bond, portrayed himself as a successful businessman for many years. Mr Bond would take libel action against anybody who suggested that he was a crook. It is only now that he has served a term of imprisonment, that Australians are finally free to comment on his character.
Libel laws are a very dangerous two-edged sword. Truth should be a complete defence every time. Dead persons should never be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Criminal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or shut down the internet, but then they wouldn't be able to keep tabs, arrest and extort as efficiently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And I'd guess at least 50% have acquired at least one bootleg CD, DVD, and/or digital files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and the daily salary don't exceed too much from the min 400-500 PHp....
DO math why us Pilipinos prefer pirated over original...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Philippines Passes a Cybercrime Prevention Act ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
malicious imputation .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foreign Exchange Rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Foreign Exchange Rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, if I see a libelous tweet (which this law expands to include a vast array of tweets both past and future), and I retweet it, saying "can you believe the libel this guy is spouting?", I am guilty of abetting libel?
That seems sensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's the nut-job who put the extra provision that made the Cybercrime law look like SOPA/PIPA's cousin.
All due to the fact that someone from the net, commented that his quote came from someone else(Read: Copy,A big EMPHASIZE on Translate then Paste) when he's saying his piece against Reproductive health Bill(Education about sex, which some here thinks legalizing abortion and the use of contraceptives.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Since I found this in a Google search, I guess someone who works for Google in the Philippines is going to prison for, "Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully encouraging the spread of libelous content shall be charged for abetting libel." clause.)
New York Times
Published: August 29, 2012
A Plagiarist’s Rant Against Birth Control
Published: August 29, 2012
Two days later, news that Mr. Sotto had plagiarized his speech spilled across blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Careful readers proved that he’d copied and pasted, without citation, large portions from as many as at least five online sources. Among them were the writings of Sarah Pope, who blogs as “the Healthy Home Economist”; a New York University Web site on the notable birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger; and an American activist named Janice Formichella, writing for Feminists for Choice. What’s more, the senator twisted their words for his own purposes.
Mr. Sotto forcefully denied responsibility rather than confessing and offering an apology. When Ms. Pope blogged her dismay at being plagiarized, the senator declared on Filipino TV: “Why would I quote from a blogger? She’s just a blogger.” His chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, told reporters that blogs aren’t copyrighted, governments are exempt from copyright laws, and parliamentary immunity protects the senator. Besides, the Philippines “plagiarized the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists.”
...
Indeed, Mr. Sotto continues his defiance. He has cast himself as “a victim of cyber-bullying” and backed a proposed law that aims to “regulate” blogs, as his supporters cheer his pluck against academics and intellectuals. He happily misrepresents research studies, avoids mentioning their outdated vintage and likens maternal mortality statistics to Nazi propaganda. He also refuses to explain how his wife’s oral contraceptive killed their son in 1975, when that pill wasn’t even on the market until 1978 and was released in Asia only in 1985.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight: if you say something online, and it later turns out to be ironic, you have to pay $24,110 and spend 12 years in jail?
Everyone responsible for that becoming law needs to be locked up, either in jail or in an insane asylum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could attribute that to insanity but sadly we all know what is it about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really can't see that there is any good in this new law when it seems very anti-society and only helps to keep the poor in the harsh poverty they well know by removing the few options they have to try and better their lives.
The main focus of piracy in this country beyond some pirated movie sellers in local markets would actually be bluetooth. The locals share around videos and music as it becomes popular. Internet piracy of course works but this is a country with a rather unstable wireless Internet network system with frequent disconnections and rolling brownouts. The locals seem to prefer to waste their time with online game-play.
This law is nothing more glorious mistake and benefits the working on Philippines society none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since my proxy is in the United States, it is only subject to American laws, and not subject to Filipino laws. So Filipinos can hide their activities from their government by using my US-based proxy, as long as what they are doing does not break US laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they didn't think this through...
There are many reasons why the new law is bad; this, on the other hand, is both bad and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my words.....
We the Filipino people must be vocal of this law for amendment because it violates our rights of freedom of expressions and speech. I'm against this law not as internet user but because it is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]