Senate Bill No. 3327: Will this Bill Really Give

Internet Freedom for the Filipinos?

           

Miriam Defensor-Santiago's Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, according to her, will ensure that the Filipinos will be able to meet the challenges posed by the ICT and cyberspace, and able to wield it and benefit from it in charting a better future. How does this bill match up with the current enacted law on Data Privacy Act of 2012? Can this bill eliminate the uncertainties of the latter enacted law? Does the bill clearly draw the line of those punishable acts from those genuinely innocent and yet brilliant works of those computer addicts with their pure genius acts in using their toys? Will this bill really protect the Filipinos from those crooked minds of those people whom all they want is to lure the innocent with their vital information and do illegal acts using the internet at the expense of the latter?

            The bill is trying to put some amendments to current applicable laws such as the Data Privacy Act, E-Commerce Act, Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines to name a few, and intends to repeal entirely the newly enacted Anti-Cybercrime Law. Although terms, punishable acts and penalties are similar from each other, what is significant in this bill is that the author tried to carefully clearly emphasize the details of each section so as to enhance its discussions on what are really illegal and what are lawful. However some of them are still blurry, maybe only to me who is studying law, or maybe more so to a layman? It would also seem at the first reading that 2 or more parts of the bill is discussing the same issues where in fact the bill is trying to pertain to different acts. It's either that it needs a few editing or the reader just has to focus on what he's reading (like me perhaps, hehehe...).

            The creation of the Department of Information and Communication Technology and how the bill intensified its duties and responsibilities with regard to the implementation of plans, policies, programs and measures that this bill is trying to convey would be very beneficial, especially now that most, if not yet all but eventually I suppose it will be, tasks that a person needs to do (i.e. working at home, paying bills, buying articles, reading books, playing, etc.) can be done over the internet. This agency will be the one to oversee what is happening over the world wide web, especially with regard to assuring that the rights of the Filipinos are not violated using the internet. The Department of Information and Communication in collaboration with the Department of Education and Commission on Higher Education will create and develop curriculums for students to allow the new generations acquire knowledge on how to properly utilize the internet in all its aspects through formal education. This will be beneficial as well, instead of them getting the information directly from the net because they as well as their parents are not certain that the information the kids are getting from the computer are trustworthy.

I particularly like the part on the Periodic Review Clause, which makes the bill up to date with all the new technologies available in the market and from which the crooks can and will use to do illegal acts that can make the law, without this periodic review, obsolete, and allow these crooks free from any liabilities at the expense of the innocents. 

I have noticed that some of the provisions under Cybercrimes to be a little stringent, ambiguous and inconsistent with the other statements used in the bill, such as the following:

·         Chapter VII. Cybercrimes and other Prohibited Acts, Section 26. Violation of Data Privacy: Unauthorized access. - It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally access data, networks, storage media where data is stored, equipment through which networks are run or maintained, the physical plant where the data or network equipment is housed, without authority granted by the Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or other such person providing Internet or data services having possession or control of the data or network, or to intentionally access intellectual property published on the Internet or on other networks without the consent of the person having ownership, possession, or control of the intellectual property, or without legal grounds, even if access is performed without malice. (Senate bill No.3327/Fifteenth Congress of the Philippines)

o        My take: what is access all about, as defined here in the bill? Access is the ability and means to communicate with or otherwise interact with a device, computer, system or network, to use resources to handle information, to gain knowledge of the information the device, computer, system, or network contains, or to control device or system components and functions. Access does not, based on the bills definition, speak of a way a particular way to communicate or interact with a device. In my understanding, it's just the pure and simple way of surfing the internet or getting information, whether it is for educational purpose or for leisure. If these information are indeed not for the p se 4 F}D4hrHe owner of such should be careful in keeping these from the public's eyes. Meaning, the owner should prove first that he made all the necessary technical approaches to hide this. Because if the data can readily be accessed in the internet without any password or any security system to conceal them, intentional access of it should not be illegal, for whatever purpose by any individual, in good faith, accessed it for. It should only be illegal if the access is done through hacking.

·         Chapter VII. Cybercrimes and Other Prohibited Acts, Section 24 on Network Sabotage: Direct network sabotage - It shall be unlawful for any person to cause the stoppage or degradation of Internet or network operations of another person, through electronic means, through physical destruction of devices, equipment, physical plant, or telecommunications cables including cable TV transmission lines and other transmission media, or through other means, except if the stoppage or degradation has been done in the normal course of work or business by a person authorized to stop, modify, or otherwise control network operations of the other person. (Senate bill No.3327/Fifteenth Congress of the Philippines)

o        My Take: I don't think that this act should be criminalized, per se, especially if the person who caused the stoppage never intended to do the same. I can't think of any way of how an unintentional stoppage can be done (I'm not the techy type), but supposing this was done by an unsuspecting person who is just surfing the net, trying different things, clicking here and there, and then boom!!! It happenned! There was stoppage, degradation of Internet or network operations of another person, through electronic means, and so on and so forth... There was no intention on the part of the person to cause direct network stoppage. But just because of his curiosity on the internet, direct network sabotage happened. Although of course this person can still be civilly liable.

o        My Take: Although this subsection, I think, can still be revised, like inserting the word "intentionally" (It shall be unlawful for any person to "intentionally" cause the stoppage or degradation of Internet...). Because the word intentionally would also mean that the person who caused the direct network stoppage has his reasons why he did such a thing, and it is usually in bad faith. I think its just proper to insert a qualification to know which act is punishable and which is not. Otherwise, this section referring to the direct network sabotage may cause hindrance to people, especially those not well versed on the internet, making them even more afraid of touching a key as they may think they will cause direct network sabotage, punished with imprisonment of prision correccional or a fine of not more than P500,000.00 or both.  This may also be a reason for an increase on the number or persons still illiterate on the Internet.

·         Chapter VII. Cybercrimes and Other Prohibited Acts, Section 25 on Failure to Provide Reasonable Security for Data and Networks: Failure to provide security - It shall be unlawful for any Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or other such person providing Internet or data services to intentionally or unintentionally fail to provide appropriate levels of security for data, networks, storage media where data is stored, equipment through which networks are run or maintained, or the physical plant where the data or network equipment is housed. (Senate bill No.3327/Fifteenth Congress of the Philippines)

o        My Take: I am unable to comprehend what is really punishable in this because the data which the subsection intends to apply appropriate levels of security, did not state the kind of data and whom such data belongs to. Is it the data of the end-user? If that is the case, should an end-user's aim is to protect some information, is it not that it is in the end-user's hands to protect such data? But if the data that this subsection is referring to is the data of their end-user which the latter offered under the agreement that such information will not be offered to other persons natural or juridical, I suppose it is punishable. 

All in all, I can say that the bill has high potentials which could, once enacted, and would last for a long time. I say so because of this particular part of this bill that really got my attention. It is the Periodic Review Clause. This review will indeed pave way to new additions for the improvement of the law (should this bill be enacted). This would really make this law (again should this bill be enacted) keep pace with the technological advancements and other changes. As we all know, new technology now will only last for a few months or even weeks. As the technology quickly changes, crooked thoughts of the criminal minds also rapidly change by planning again just to make sure they will accomplish whatever perverse acts they want to perform at the expense of other innocent victims.

 Although it is very strict, I suppose it is just the right time that the use of internet is given some limitations. Anyway, freedom does not mean that you are free to do all things without taking into considerations of the effects it can do make to those surrounding you. Freedom has its limitations. And these limitations with regard to internet usage are drawn here in this bill.

Another significant portion of this bill is that it tried to create new kinds of punishable acts based on current acts, statutes and/or other special law, such as some crimes in the Revised Penal Code, Child Prostitution, Child Trafficking to name a few. The bill created punishable acts, by just adding an additional element from current laws. This element is that the act is done by using devices, equipments or physical plants connected to the Internet or telecommunications network. In other words, with the non stop development of the technology of today, crimes may now be done through the use of the internet.

Yes is the answer as to the question on whether this bill will indeed give internet freedom for the Filipinos. Yes this bill is better than the Data Privacy Act of 2012 or even the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Not that I am saying that the current laws are ineffective. The bill just needs a little adjustment for it to be perfect. But this bill is definitely the improved version.