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.”
Vague provisions
The lawyer pointed out that when the DOJ has been able to issue an order restricting access to data, the fight is already over. In addition, Disini said the bill doesn’t provide for the specific basis to which the DOJ can issue an order.
“At least, in the case of the court, the judge has to be convinced of the evidence. There are specific requirements a judge must consider before issuing a warrant,” he stressed.
With such sweeping powers, blogger Cocoy Dayao of the ProPinoy Project said the vague provisions of the law only make it prone to abuse.
“This bill is so vaguely written that it can potentially mean the ability of Government to restrict Internet access,” Dayao said in a blog post.
“We’ve seen it in Egypt. We’ve seen [it] elsewhere during repressive regimes. I’ve no doubt that Aquino probably won’t be abusing this, but who is to say a more authoritarian government rises up?” he added.
In addition, since the proposed bill also have provisions against acts that constitute libel committed through various online venues, Dayao said the bill can also be used to muzzle overeager critics of government.
Disini further pointed out that posting libelous comments online actually constitutes double liability, since an alleged offender can potentially be accused of libel under the cybercrime law and the Revised Penal Code.
“In other words, it’s worse [to commit] libel online. It’s already worse, for other reasons. But the problem is bloggers, for example, don’t have an organization. They don’t have an infrastructure to assist them in case of libel suits,” he stressed.
‘Useless’ new agencies
Among other questionable provisions of the proposed law, Disini took notice of the part, which establishes several new agencies and offices that would be tasked to coordinate anti-cybercrime efforts of the government.
Specifically, an Office of Cybercrime will be established under the DOJ to coordinate with other cybercrime-related offices in other agencies, such as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Information and Communications Technology Office (ICTO).
A budget of P50 will be given to these newly installed agencies to implement the provisions stated under the measure.
“Do you really need a coordinating council [to combat cybercrime]? While I understand the desire to have centralized efforts, we should encourage different agencies to improve on their skills and let whatever expertise they have to be developed,” he said.
Disini stressed that “cybercrime is actually a law-enforcement issue,” pointing out that the Philippines already has capable law-enforcement agencies to handle such cases.
Focus on FOI instead
TXTPower, for its part, said that instead of trying to clamp down on purported cybercriminals, the government should instead pass the long-overdue Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill.
“Instead of opening up government to public scrutiny with the FOI, we now see the government going on the offensive with a cybercrime bill that transforms the Philippine internet into one giant place for fishing expeditions on alleged cybercriminals,” the group said.
The Philippines is part of a small minority of countries still without an FOI law, TXTPower claimed. The House of Representatives recently said that the FOI bill is not part of the lower chamber’s priority measures for the year.
“Aside from passing the FOI law, the government should also focus its sights on improving and expanding internet access, curbing corporate abuses by telecommunications companies, and removing taxes on end-users of telecommunications services,” it added.
source: interaksyon.com
