Bills penalizing cybercrime acts opposed

Monday, February 7, 2011

A LEGISLATOR strongly criticized the proposed cybercrime bills in Congress, saying these will only provide law enforcers with opportunities to intrude into the private communications of individuals.

The House Committee on Information and Communications Technology has started deliberations on a number of House bills defining and proposing penalties for "cybercrime", including those filed by Representatives Sonny Angara (Aurora) and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Pampanga).

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

"The inviolability of private communications and correspondence is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and may only be violated by the State in exceptional circumstances," ACT Teachers party-list Representative Antonio Tinio pointed out.

"In this day and age, when internet and mobile technologies are increasingly becoming indispensable means of communication, the constitutional guarantee on the inviolability of private communication and correspondence must be extended to communications in cyberspace, which not only includes email but also private communications using such services as Facebook, Twitter, Skype, numerous instant messaging or 'chat' services, and other online activities of individuals," added Tinio.

Tinio said existing legislation sets a high bar for authorizing government surveillance on private communications.

He noted that the Anti-Wiretapping Law allows law enforcement authorities to engage in wiretapping only in cases involving treason, espionage, rebellion, mutiny, and similar threats to national security or in cases of kidnapping.

Republic Act 9372 or The Human Security Act, meanwhile, allows surveillance only against judicially-declared terrorist entities or against suspected terrorist threats.

Tinio explained that both the Anti-Wiretapping Law and the Human Security Act have explicit and detailed provisions, which are meant to safeguard the right to privacy of those subjected to surveillance by law enforcement. These include the requirement for court authorization to conduct surveillance, court custody of any materials gathered from such surveillance, and the need for court authorization to access such materials for whatever purpose.

"In contrast, the proposed cybercrime bills lower the bar on government intrusion into private communications to an unacceptable level," said Tinio, adding they will allow surveillance on the basis of a broad and often vaguely defined range of acts to be known as cybercrimes.

Cybercrimes may include illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, computer forgery, computer fraud, cybersex, child pornography, and unsolicited commercial communications.

"If passed in its current form, we will have an absurd situation where cybercrime investigators will have more broad and sweeping powers to invade the privacy of communications of citizens than law enforcers investigating threats to national security," Tinio stressed. (Kathrina Alvarez/Sunnex)