Anti-cybercrime law slips past Philippine Internet users

2012 has been a shaky year for the Internet, notorious recently with the governments trying to crackdown on some of its excesses. Remember SOPA and PIPA and how the Internet managed to strike back such that the US government withdrew its push for those bills?

Well, the Philippines is currently facing a similar situation. With the online community distracted by hotly-debated issues this past year like the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the on-going debates on the Reproductive Health bill, the Philippine legislature was able to pass the bill into law without anyone noticing.

Obviously, the local online community is not taking the situation well, especially with an online libel provision that seems to have been “inserted” without the knowledge of the general public.

As far as Internet security acts are concerned, the Philippine Anti-Cybercrime Law shows where the priorities of the Philippine government lie. For example, the US SOPA and PIPA placed high priority on intellectual property rights while a recent Malaysian Evidence Act forces Web sites to give up data on “security-threat” bloggers.

However, the local version seems to place more emphasis on morality with its provisions against “cybercrime” offenses like cybersex, hacking and more distressingly, libel–which seems to be defined based on laws dating back to the Spanish colonial period.

Specifically, the online libel provision of the Anti-Cybercrime Law supposedly updates the Philippines’ own libel laws which do not cover online situations. With the new provision included in the anti-cybercrime law, those who think they have been maligned online–especially those in power or who have the money to file a lawsuit–can now go after the online world with a vengeance.

Yes, for those who have experience in dealing with anonymous Internet trolls, good luck with that one. Pity the Web sites though who have to clean up the mess afterwards. Questions of its implementation are still being debated.

It doesn’t help that the person responsible for the insertion of the dubious provision has an axe to grind with Filipino Internet users. Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III had been heavily criticized by the online community after his speeches against the RH bill had been found with plagiarized sections from US bloggers. Even the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy was not spared, whose speech was translated from English to Filipino to fit into Sotto’s turno en contra speech.

Unfortunately, Sotto has been unapologetic and even scathing of the online world, denying his speech had been plagiarized and belittling his critics. After it was revealed that he had been the primary proponent in having the online libel provision inserted into the law by his own chief of staff, Sotto has denied pushing the provision.

Declaring it a form of “e-Martial Law”, local netizens and media groups decry the blows struck against freedom of expression and press freedom. With support from the international group Electronic Frontier Foundation, they’ve called for the repeal of either the offending provision or the whole act itself.

Sotto, who said he had been a victim of “cyber-bullying”, has said the online libel provision will “level the playing field” between an accused and his online accusers. Ironically, this “appeal to sympathy” comes from a senator who has parliamentary immunity. Powerless? I don’t think so.

My take on the situation is that, yes, there should be a form of responsibility of what we say or do on the Internet. But while we’re talking about responsibility, where is the sense of responsibility by those who have power but who are willing to abuse that power for their own gain? Who has power and who is powerless when all is said and done? –http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/anti-cybercrime-law-slips-past-philippine-internet-users-62218828.htm