MERGED: All about Anti-Cybercrime Law, related issues and developments

[reptoid]

---

My personal feeling is that unless a person makes a direct threat against a political figure then there is no valid reason to use the law against individual bloggers etc. The bill should be aimed at protecting ordinary people and encouraging a basic code of conduct for online interactions. It must not be allowed to become a tool of suppression.

[raissah]

o cge uyon ka bai?how about if the government will control your freedom of speech not only in reality but also in cyberspace world?how about that?then the Philippines might be turn into communist country like N.Korea and China were there critics put into silence and Internet W.W.W could been filter (Web Filtering) by the government itself! paminaw nimo?naa pa kaha kay privacy og freedom of speech ana?kana mga nagpataka storya sa internet mga uneducated na sila so naa rana nimo if mopatol ka.. using internet must be responsible and aware kay vulnerable kaau ka sa mga trollers!hehehe! btw I wonder how juan dela cruz would still embrace the democracy if that is the case..!

Do you know exactly the difference between trolling and Defamation?
Why are you making a comparison betweenN.Korea and the Philippines? Are both countries the same? Is N.Korea a Democratic Country? No, right? Then there isn't any relevance, is it?

There's a big difference between freedom of speech and just babbling about things that aren't exactly true.

Kanang mga writers and press nga magpataka ug himo g article bsag dli tinood, example Cristy Fermin so meaning uneducated na sila? Really? Meaning tanang mga educated pareha nimo kaantigo mo tak-um sa ilang baba?

Are you sure 100% of the those who use the internet are responsible enough?

Apan ug himoan mog issues like sa 10 things I hate about the Philippines nga video kay yawyaw man lage mog tamas ginhawa.


I believe it's time to address these issues. Ug imong igsoon nga baye or let's say mama nimo, ingnon sa net nga pokpok or burikat or kabit ni Juan, ok ra kay it's just the art of trolling? dependi rna nimo kung mopatol ka? Seriously? SMH

[brian joshua]

patay tang tanan nicomment ug bati bahin ni noynoy...

sugdan na natog trace unya i-edit himoon ug "maayong presidente c noynoy"

[diatabz]

There's a big difference between freedom of speech and just babbling about things that aren't exactly true.H

When it comes to the Internet, there is no difference.

[raissah]

When it comes to the Internet, there is no difference.

Yeah. I guess I kinda agree with you. Nowadays, there's not even much of a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

[cliff_drew]

Are you really sure there is online defamation in the approved bill? Last time I checked it was removed.

[high_heels]

well, come to think of it. this bill will help a lot of people. and its most likely to teach online bullies to put their act together....in general this is still a good bill for me.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as long as its your opinion and not defamatory remarks then I believe there is nothing to be threatened about.

[reptoid]

It's surprisingly difficult to find a detailed assessment of the bill. It was passed on it's third reading and the media has focused on the hacking and (somewhat vague) cybersex portions.

[machinecult]

well, come to think of it. this bill will help a lot of people. and its most likely to teach online bullies to put their act together....in general this is still a good bill for me.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as long as its your opinion and not defamatory remarks then I believe there is nothing to be threatened about.

I know what you mean. But try considering being 'bullied' online and actually being bullied? Which do think is more harmful? It's like choosing whether to be robbed online or robbed at knife or gunpoint. Its more sanitized but its still a crime and punishable by existing law.

Also, how does one get bullied online? One simple solution is to lose contact with the offender, there are plenty of options out here. Do we really need the government to interfere with EVERY personal matter? There must be other ways to this instead of passing vague laws. For me this is just another big-government agenda of coercing privacy and individuals.

We pass a bill to rid of online bullying, ironically by allowing corrupt government to take their place.

[cliff_drew]

It's surprisingly difficult to find a detailed assessment of the bill. It was passed on it's third reading and the media has focused on the hacking and (somewhat vague) cybersex portions.

Just found it. Here it is. Note, cyberthreats and cyberdefamation were removed.

HB 5808 Cyber Crime_ 3rd Rdg.

SEC. 5. Other Offenses. – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:

(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets, aids or financially benefits in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable; or

(b) Attempt to Commit Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

What constitutes cybercrime? Does these supersede Section 33 of E-Commerce Law? Given that cybercrime is defined, are the authorities capable to investigate these kind of offenses?

As I see it, these provisions are too vague and dangerous.