Young lawmaker says cybercrime bill 'too vague'
MANILA, Philippines - Lack of definition of what constitutes computer crime may further delay the passage of House Bill 6974 or the CyberCrime Prevention Act of 2009, according to Kabataan Party-list Rep. Mong Palatino.
Palatino urged fellow members of the House of Representatives to re-evaluate the bill, saying that the proposed measure could be used to stifle freedom of expression, speech and the press and may violate the people's right to privacy.
"The definition of 'cybercrime' in the bill is vague and its scope overly-broad that it may criminalize ordinary electronic activities of any Tom, Dick or Harry who uses the Internet, a mobile phone or any electronic device," he said in a statement.
Palatino cited Section 4 of the bill prohibiting the "recording, distribution and exhibition of recorded 'private acts' and 'other obscene and indecent acts' are not limited to sexual acts and thus not sufficiently defined.
"How will this affect the right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression especially with regard to issues of public concern? Will the scrupulous acts of public officials be considered "private acts"? How will this affect media exposes and investigative reportage on corrupt practices in the government?" he asked.
On the threat to right to privacy, Palatino pointed to Section 9 of the bill which empowers the government to monitor activities and access private accounts of persons suspected of committing "cybercrimes," even activities and files that are not related to said punishable acts.
"For example, for the government to pin-point an activity which is criminal in nature according to the Act, it has to monitor all other activities of an individual at a given time, and worse may expose the activities of other individuals using the same computer system or server at the same time. For the government to access a malicious file in an individual’s hard drive, it has to confiscate and search through the entire storage device, thus exposing all other personal files and correspondence to government access and intrusion, even those unrelated to the 'cybercrime'.
"This is dangerous because it gives the government an excuse to justify illegal fishing expeditions against ordinary citizens and allows the wanton violation of the strict requirements in criminal procedure."
Palatino said that he will ask the House leadership to return the bill to second reading to thresh out all vague and controversial provisions. "We should also consult netizens, the online media and other stakeholders before we pass any bill that directly affects them," he said.
The young solon also said that HB 6974 will not resolve the problem of government websites being hacked. "What the government should do is to strengthen its IT network, improve the IT infrastructure and foster the development of IT in the country in order to empower institutions and individuals against malicious technological infringements. Compromising the rights of citizens in the use of IT is not a resolution."
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
Cybercrime Bill threatens freedom of expression online
I am extremely concerned with the passage of HB 6794 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2009. This bill is a serious threat to our fundamental right to privacy as well as the freedom of expression online.
Many of us do not realize that this bill does not only affect the estimated 24 million internet users in the country but also the more than 70 million mobile phone subscribers. This bill not only penalizes cybercrimes committed using computers but also those acts using mobile phones as defined in Section 3 of the bill.
While I agree with the critique on the vague definition of some of the terms of the bill (i.e., computer data', 'recording of private acts'), I am more worried on the provisions of the bill on data collection and retention. Under Section 10, law enforcement agencies are authorized to collect or record 'traffic data.' Meanwhile, Section 11 states that services providers are ordered to preserve data for six months or up to 1 year if so ordered by law enforcement authorities.
This is dangerous and unacceptable. I believe that the collection and preservation of what this bill calls as traffic or computer data will pave the way for the government to do mass surveillance. It gives the government the power to not only monitor alleged cybercrime perpetrators but also political opponents such as the opposition and political and human rights activists.
Retaining data creates risk of abuse by the State and law enforcement agencies. These data will be a very powerful tool to intimidate and silence critics and activists. We all know how skilled some of our security agencies and other government organizations in manipulating and twisting information. Just remember martial law.
Data retention prevents open communication and the free flow of information as it creates an atmosphere of fear and put pressure on the users to 'behave' as exchanging critical information might incriminate them later. Some will even resort to not communicating at all as it puts them at risk. It is like being under the martial law regime where one needs to be careful about what he says or expresses. This is not good for a democracy like ours which encourages active participation of citizens in every aspect of the society.
Collecting and storing of data for a certain period of time also encourage identity thefts. How can we be sure that our most private data are secured from hackers and identity thieves. And who will pay for data storage? Is it the service provider or the government? If it is the latter then it is another unnecessary burden to us, the taxpayers, considering the potentially high cost of data storage given the narrow definition of traffic data in the bill.
I urge the lawmakers to pause and carefully consider the issues raised against the bill.
Joey Dimaandal
Quezon City