Cyber-monster

Power Point

By Elizabeth Angsioco

You are enjoying your morning coffee while browsing online news. You came across this: “Corruption charges to be filed against the Department of Culture Secretary”. You tweeted: “is this related with news that DC Sec. just acquired three new luxury cars?”

A few minutes later while chatting with friends, you see this message appear on your computer screen while a big booming voice (ala-big brother) tells you: “Good morning. This is your friendly DOJ cybercop. We found prima facie evidence of cyberlibel in your tweet about the DC Secretary. We are shutting down your Twitter account in one, two, and three.” Then Twitter black out.

Ten of your friends retweeted (RT’d) said tweet. They were also RT’d by a number of their followers, and so on and so forth.

All of you just disappeared from Twitterverse.

Because your Twitter and Facebook accounts are synchronized, you hurriedly logged on to your FB page only to find the same message.

Unfortunately, your Twitter comment that also appeared on FB was “liked” and “reposted” by more than 30 friends whose own friends did the same.

All of you disappeared from Facebook.

Besides being deprived of your constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and privacy, all of you could even be accused of cyberlibel that carries with it a maximum prison time of 12 years, fines of at least P100,000.00, or both.

You open new Twitter and Facebook accounts. You begin following your favorite online personalities. But @hecklingforever, @mrslawyerna, @auntieblogger, @pilipinabit @carlingceldron, @freedomthinker, and the others no longer exist.

All of you got struck down.

Instead, you find the following tweets and FB posts:

“@doctorize: hurray to government! We have the best in the world!”

“@pagkainko: exciting! The best recipe for adobong kangkong now online.”

“@senatoranotto: please watch my special appearance in Iskul Batikul tonight.”

“@AngPresidente: Tuloy-tuloy na po ang matuwid na daan, mga boss.”

You discover that the social media you knew is dead. It became “sosyalan media”. Netizens lost a potent platform to further democratize our country and hold government accountable.

Yes, this piece is about Republic Act No. 10175 or the “cybercrime law”. I call this the “cyber-monster law”.

For the record, I am for a cybercrime law that will punish online abuses BUT not one that violates people’s human rights.

I checked the original bill filed by Representative Susan Yap and generally, except for one or two provisions that should be further developed, I find it acceptable.

However, what we now have is abusive. It is not surprising that it is now the subject of about ten petitions asking the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against its implementation and to strike down a number of provisions for being unconstitutional.

I honestly do not know how Congress and the Palace could have failed to see the problematic provisions of R.A. 10175.

Section 4 lists cybercrime offenses that include “(c) Content-related Offenses (4) Libel- The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”.

This is the “Sotto amendment” inserted during the period of amendments in the Senate. He made good his threat against netizens for accusing him of plagiarism in relation with his anti-RH speeches.

Section 5. Other Offenses, lists “(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable”.

Is liking, retweeting, and reposting of what may be construed as libelous aiding or abetting? This provision makes it appear like it is.

Section 6 is also dangerous because it imposes a higher penalty on cyber-libel than ordinary libel.

Section 7 effectively removes people’s protection against double jeopardy as it says, “Liability under Other Laws – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.”

Section 12 poses serious threats to netizens as it authorizes law enforcement authorities, with due cause, but does not specify what “due cause” means, “to collect or record…traffic data in real-time associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.”

Although contents and identities are excluded from traffic data, imagine how easily this provision could be abused by government agents!

Section 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data could be most abusive. This is the strike-down provision empowering the Department of Justice to order the restriction or blockage of access to computer data if prima facie of possible violation is found.

In effect, you may lose your website, twitter account, and Facebook page.

R.A. 10175 is seriously a cyber-monster law.

No, I am not a lawyer and there is nothing more that I want than be wrong in my reading of this law.

Yes, I exaggerate. But sometimes, one must, to drive home the point.

The cybercrime law must be opposed. While some call for amendment, for me, the best way is to repeal it, then file a new and acceptable cybercrime bill.

After all, the United Nations has already said that right to Internet access is a human right.

bethangsioco@gmail.com and @bethangsioco on Twitter