Fight against cybercrime moving forward

The country, even the world, has so much more to learn when crafting laws that should govern the digital highway. So even if our lawmakers had passed an imperfect law in 2012, only after years of debates, it’s something to be thankful about.

And even if the Supreme Court had acted promptly to the plea of several citizen groups to review the law on grounds that some provisions were unconstitutional, thereby postponing the law’s effectiveness by another 15 months, that’s democracy at work. And for that, it’s still something to be thankful again.

It may still be an imperfect law, this latest version of the 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Act that incorporates the High Tribunal’s inputs, specifically not allowing the Department of Justice to block access to online content that it deems offending.

Not everyone is happy with the final verdict on the law, but at least things can start moving forward now. Hopefully, this will pave the way for firmer ground that our law officers can stand on when pursuing cybercrime perpetuators that have trespassed on the basic rights of others.

Cybercrimes abound

Online libel had been a central issue in the petition of civilian groups against the 2012 law, but there are other crimes that need to be sanctioned, and which are perhaps more detrimental to the wellbeing of Filipinos and the nation in general.

We’re talking here of scamming, phishing, bank fraud, identity theft, cybersex, computer viruses, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber bullying, even cyber terrorism and cyber warfare. There are others that I failed to mention, and there will be more future “inventive” crimes to come.

This is to be expected of the Internet age, a new era that our forefathers had little imagined would happen. Even those who consider themselves savants of the cyber world are surprised at the crimes that are spawned by persons who are hell bent on doing harm.

Far from perfect

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which should be seeing enforcement within the year, is far from perfect, mainly because there so many changes happening in this digital arena that the law will most likely not have covered yet.

But what is mainly contained in the law already seems to be adequate in dealing with lawbreakers, and which could already be adequate to protect our citizens from crimes that affect their lives and properties.

The Supreme Court had struck a good balance in judgment by declaring four of the 19 questioned provisions of the law as unconstitutional. Netizens can now relax when posting unsolicited commercial communications, more popularly known as spam mail; this is not a crime.

It’s also unconstitutional to collect or record traffic data in real time, just as the DOJ may not restrict or block access to computer data that they suspect is tainted. And it is unconstitutional too to prosecute online offenders when there is a potential for double jeopardy.

On the other hand, the High Tribunal showed its wisdom when it declared the provision penalizing online libel as constitutional, therefore supporting the prosecution of authors of libelous online content, but not those that received or reacted to it.

Enforcing the law

While our lawmakers would most likely have to revisit the 2012 law in the future to fine tune or introduce important updates, the ball has now moved to the side of our law enforcers. And this is a major challenge considering the difficulty that even the world’s best cyber experts are experiencing.

While society still faces “physical” crimes such as murder, stealing, terrorism, bullying, rape and other similar offences, crime that uses the Internet requires a different breed of policemen who are able to track down IP addresses linked to organized crime.

More importantly, running after cybercrime offenders would mean having a well-funded and well-oiled enforcement team with the latest gadgets, gizmos and the best experts.

It would be a travesty to have a law that cannot be implemented because there is no money for a lab with the latest computers. This is so much like our antiquated Navy boats running after the Bangsa Moro army riding on the latest speed boats.

In fact, this would be a bigger national tragedy.

Concerns on tobacco consumption continue

Let me move on to another topic by way of ending today’s column. Reading a press release by medical and health activists reporting on reduced tobacco consumption arising from the sin tax law is pleasant news. This could mean that more people have decided to quit cigarette smoking.

For a while, doubting Thomases as well as a number of stakeholders belonging to the tobacco industry were skeptical that the rise in prices of tobacco products because of higher taxes would do the trick.

With a stick of those popular cigarette brands now retailing at about P3, young adults who are most vulnerable to picking up the deadly habit are now thinking twice about “burning” their allowances. In fact, even adults who smoke are reportedly trying to lessen their intake because of cost considerations.

While this bit of news is welcome, it should not lead to complacency in this fight against tobacco consumption. In fact, if the latest news in the market is reliable, several cigarette companies are moving to re-brand some of their products so that they are more affordable and will cater to lower income groups.

This is being done to compete against Mighty cigarette products that is now being sold in more sari-sari stores for only P1 a stick, and as expected, eating up huge chunks of the shares formerly held by other brands like Marlboro and Philip Morris.

Mighty is reportedly being investigated by our law enforcers for the possibility of technical smuggling. Let’s hope that this riddle is resolved soonest.

On the other hand, it would be very unfortunate if other members of the tobacco industry will be able to introduce their own versions of the P1 per stick cigarettes. This will definitely not help to curb smoking and reduce the number of lives threatened by tobacco-related diseases. –Rey Gamboa (The Philippine Star)