Cybercrime Law
MUST READ: Hotmail phase-out: What's a user to do?
Topic: Security * Follow via: * RSS * Email Alert
1Comment
0 Votes
1
inShare more +
Philippine cybercrime law must protect, not harass, citizens
Summary: We need law and order in cyberspace, but it must not be used to stifle freedom of expression and intimidate citizens.
By Melvin G. Calimag for Pinoy Post | November 5, 2012 -- 02:47 GMT (10:47 SGT)
Now that the massive public outcry against Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Law, has died down a bit--by virtue of a TRO (temporary restraining order) issued by the Supreme Court--I'd like to make a few comments on the controversial legislation which I've followed over the course of its decade-long journey.
Let me state at the outset that I'm in favor of the Cybercrime Law, but not in its current form. I think this is the same position taken by most local ICT stakeholders.
I like what Genny Marcial, external relations director of the Business Processing Association of the Philippines (BPAP), told me on the same day the high tribunal issued the 120-day TRO. Marcial said despite the fact that BPAP led the lobbying for the passage of the law, the trade group was nonetheless pleased that the measure was suspended pending the final determination of its constitutionality.
Like the rest of the industry, she said BPAP was also quite surprised that the version approved by Congress was not the same law which they had supported during the early stages of its drafting.
PH-CERT, the organization of Internet security professionals in the country, also put out a press statement that basically said the same thing. It was a different version of Cybercrime Law, they said. Both groups said the provision on Internet libel shouldn't have been included in the final version of the law.
If I remember it right, online libel was not at all mentioned when the proposed legislation was first broached about 10 years ago. It only cropped up in
Topic: Security * Follow via: * RSS * Email Alert
1Comment
0 Votes
1
inShare more +
Philippine cybercrime law must protect, not harass, citizens
Summary: We need law and order in cyberspace, but it must not be used to stifle freedom of expression and intimidate citizens.
By Melvin G. Calimag for Pinoy Post | November 5, 2012 -- 02:47 GMT (10:47 SGT)
Now that the massive public outcry against Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Law, has died down a bit--by virtue of a TRO (temporary restraining order) issued by the Supreme Court--I'd like to make a few comments on the controversial legislation which I've followed over the course of its decade-long journey.
Let me state at the outset that I'm in favor of the Cybercrime Law, but not in its current form. I think this is the same position taken by most local ICT stakeholders.
I like what Genny Marcial, external relations director of the Business Processing Association of the Philippines (BPAP), told me on the same day the high tribunal issued the 120-day TRO. Marcial said despite the fact that BPAP led the lobbying for the passage of the law, the trade group was nonetheless pleased that the measure was suspended pending the final determination of its constitutionality.
Like the rest of the industry, she said BPAP was also quite surprised that the version approved by Congress was not the same law which they had supported during the early stages of its drafting.
PH-CERT, the organization of Internet security professionals in the country, also put out a press statement that basically said the same thing. It was a different version of Cybercrime Law, they said. Both groups said the provision on Internet libel shouldn't have been included in the final version of the law.
If I remember it right, online libel was not at all mentioned when the proposed legislation was first broached about 10 years ago. It only cropped up in