MANILA, Philippines—The House of Representatives has passed on third and final reading the cybercrime prevention bill, which intends to punish people who commit computer fraud and other cyber-related abuses.
There was hardly any opposition to the measure, except from Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, who explained during the voting Monday night that passing the measure would give the government a dangerous weapon.
“We are dangerously granting the government the legal basis to invade the privacy of individuals,” Palatino said.
The bill, co-authored by 21 lawmakers, lists the prohibited acts relating to the use of computers and other electronic devices. These include illegal access, illegal interception, system and data interference, computer fraud, cybersex activities and child pornography.
But according to Palatino, the bill contains provisions that affect people's civil liberties.
For one thing, cybercrime is defined vaguely, he contended. The measure encompasses the recording and distribution of recorded private acts not limited to sexual acts. But he said this will have an impact on media exposes where they use hidden cameras to catch acts of corruption.
He added that even the “Hello Garci” phone call that snagged President Macapagal Arroyo, who was caught in a wiretapped conversation with an unidentified election official during the counting of votes during the 2004 polls, would be considered a private act.
He also warned that the proposed law would allow government authorities to monitor people's personal accounts on various sites, including e-mail. If a person is suspected of engaging in cybercrime the authorities could open his accounts for surveillance on his actions, he said.
In such instances, the government could access activities and files not related to the suspicious activities.
“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,” he said.
Palatino said the measure should be revised to remedy the vague provisions on the definition of cybercrime, and to make the bill more technical.
There was hardly any opposition to the measure, except from Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, who explained during the voting Monday night that passing the measure would give the government a dangerous weapon.
“We are dangerously granting the government the legal basis to invade the privacy of individuals,” Palatino said.
The bill, co-authored by 21 lawmakers, lists the prohibited acts relating to the use of computers and other electronic devices. These include illegal access, illegal interception, system and data interference, computer fraud, cybersex activities and child pornography.
But according to Palatino, the bill contains provisions that affect people's civil liberties.
For one thing, cybercrime is defined vaguely, he contended. The measure encompasses the recording and distribution of recorded private acts not limited to sexual acts. But he said this will have an impact on media exposes where they use hidden cameras to catch acts of corruption.
He added that even the “Hello Garci” phone call that snagged President Macapagal Arroyo, who was caught in a wiretapped conversation with an unidentified election official during the counting of votes during the 2004 polls, would be considered a private act.
He also warned that the proposed law would allow government authorities to monitor people's personal accounts on various sites, including e-mail. If a person is suspected of engaging in cybercrime the authorities could open his accounts for surveillance on his actions, he said.
In such instances, the government could access activities and files not related to the suspicious activities.
“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,” he said.
Palatino said the measure should be revised to remedy the vague provisions on the definition of cybercrime, and to make the bill more technical.
No comments:
Post a Comment