All Categories

( Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance )PIFA'S STATEMENT OF UNITY

10/20/2012

STATEMENT OF UNITY

We are a broad alliance of organizations and individuals who stand together to protect our basic rights to liberty and dignity – including the right to privacy, and freedom of expression, speech, sexuality, and mobility – on the Internet. These rights are currently being threatened by the implementation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. As a neutral, non-partisan movement, PIFA stands at the forefront of the struggle for internet freedom of the Filipino people.

We oppose RA 10175 as it contains provisions that are oppressive, susceptible to abuse, and against the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. We also find it unacceptable that there was insufficient public consultation while the bill was being discussed, subjecting stakeholders to a law that does not reflect their best interests.

We see the Internet as a venue for education, expression, and empowerment, but RA 10175 focuses on the Internet as a platform for criminal activities. We reject this law that threatens the legitimate online activities and interactions of the Filipino people.

We will take the battle online, to the streets, and before the courts of law – to all possible venues for engagement . We will defend Internet Freedom, a right recently enshrined in the UN International Bill of Human Rights, which the Philippines has an international obligation to uphold. We call on those who passed this law to take responsibility for their actions. We urge the High Court to declare RA 10175 unconstitutional. And we strongly urge President Aquino to heed the call of the people and withdraw his support for this unjust law. We encourage all stakeholders to oppose this measure and continue defending their rights, online and offline.

The government’s primary obligation to its people is to protect our fundamental rights and liberties. Failure of the government to fulfill its obligation does violence to the democracy upon which it is founded. This era would be no different from the dark ages of Martial Law. And never again shall we let that happen.

0 Comments

PIFA TO COME UP WITH LEGAL BRIEF SOON

10/20/2012

0 Comments

The Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA) will not rest even after the Supreme Court issued on 09 Oct. 2012 a temporary restraining order (TRO), stopping for 120 days the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

In preparation for the Oral Arguments set on 15 January 2013, PIFA’s legal team is currently writing a ―legal brief – a scholarly legal document much longer and more comprehensive than PIFA’s 61-page petition – something the high court will ask for eventually from all petitioners.

Before the Supreme Court can ―go into the merits – that is, look into the petition’s substantive arguments – the magistrates must first rule on the petition’s procedural arguments. PIFA’s legal team is working on expounding on the following arguments:

Procedure: Why must the Supreme Court take up the petition & not dismiss it?

1. Actual harm on Filipino netizens began when Cybercrime Prevention Act took effect on Oct. 3, placing them all under 24/7 warrantless electronic surveillance.
2. Any amendment to RA 10175 that Congress introduces later will not be enough because the substantive issues can be repeated, yet evade judicial review.

Substance: Why must the Supreme Court grant the petition & strike down RA 10175?

PIFA’s petition presents seven arguments, scoring the Cybercrime Prevention Act as unconstitutional for:
1. Unduly abridging free speech & expression, and press freedom
2. Authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures
3. Violating Internet user’s privacy
4. Being contrary to equal protection of the law
5. Violating legal obligations under public international law
6. Punishing certain acts previously allowed back when these were committed in the past (ex post facto law)
7. Curtailing the speedy disposition of suits by clogging the court dockets with a deluge of frivolously filed cases

PIFA filed the fifteenth petition against Republic Act (RA) 10175 on 08 Oct. 2012, after Bayan party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares and the National Press Club filed theirs separately that same day.

0 Comments

FREEDOM HOUSE and other Human Rights Groups Condemn RP Cyber Crime Law

10/6/2012

0 Comments

Philippine Internet Freedom Fighters are gaining support from international human rights groups.

Those Philippine congressmen and senators who claim to be freedom lovers and human rights supporters can now eat their words. The world now knows what they truly are -- FASCISTS.

Here's a report from FROM ABS CBN NEWS:

US human rights groups blast Philippine cybercrime law

By Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 10/05/2012 12:42 AM | Updated as of 10/05/2012 9:41 AM

MANILA, Philippines - US-based international human rights groups on Thursday
criticized the Philippine government for passing the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012, which is seen to curtail Internet freedom.

The Washington, DC-based Freedom House condemned the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, which was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino on September 12.

The independent rights watchdog organization urged the Filipino lawmakers to heed the calls of netizens and repeal several provisions in the law that went into effect October 3.

"While the Cybercrime Prevention Act addresses issues relating to online crime, the provisions of the law that extend to libel and 'other offenses' violate established global norms of free expression," Freedom House said in a press statement. "The Philippines’ existing libel law is vague, criminalizing any speech deemed 'critical,' including speech criticizing the government or other authorities."

It added that the new law authored by Senator Edgardo Angara extended the Revised Penal Code to cover online speech and slapped a maximum penalty of 12 years, which is double the maximum penalty for libel in traditional media.

"[The law also] leaves open the possibility of authors facing ‘double punishment’ for libel if their work appears both online and in print," the group said.

Freedom House also expressed concern that because of the law's vague wording, anyone who shares offending content could end up behind bars.

"Merely a Facebook "Like" could be construed as libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The law also establishes that the Department of Justice can block websites that contain criminal content without in-depth or third party review, and that it can monitor online communications traffic without a court-ordered warrant," it added.

"Freedom House recognizes the need to prevent online crimes but believes that this act is a gross overreach that severely jeopardizes the Philippines’ status as a country with a free Internet. This law could lead to widespread self-censorship by individuals and online platforms and cause a chill in what has been a vibrant space for free expression," it said.

'Dark day for the Philippines'

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), described the passage of RA 10175 as a
"dark day for the Philippines."

Jillian York, EFF director for International Freedom of Expression, said the new law is troubling because its libel provision that criminalizes anonymous online criticism as well as its takedown clause that also allow the Department
of Justice to block access to websites without a court order.

"EFF stands with the many local activists in opposing this egregious violation of freedom of expression and offers our support to the petitioners and other activists in standing against the Cybercrime Prevention Act," York said.

She encouraged support for Philippine groups and initiatives opposing the new law.

International campaign

The New York-based Access, meanwhile, has launched an international campaign to call on the Philippine
government to repeal the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

"The Cybercrime Prevention Act, which just came into effect, is so broad and loophole-ridden that a wide range of online activity could be considered libelous. Even if you don't write the material, just sharing it with someone online could land you in prison," the Access petition said, referring to the "libel by republication" and "aiding and abetting" doctrines in criminal
law.

"In the face of this unjust law, Filipinos have been protesting in the streets and online to stand up for their rights. With elections just around the corner, we've been told that many politicians are downright scared of a national and international backlash, giving us the opportunity to convince them to junk this law for good. And we know there's nothing like an election to get politicians to listen," the group said.

Access said that while the Philippine Supreme Court is scheduled to take up the constitutionality of the law on Tuesday, and simultanously, silent and non-violent protests will also be held on October 9 or "Black Tuesday."

"With broad and unjust cybercrime laws being enacted around the world, we need to fight them one by one. That's why it's critical that the international community stands together on Black Tuesday," the group said.

Access said it will deliver to the Philippine Senate a petition signed by internet users worldwide before Tuesday's protests.

"If we can get them to repeal the law, it'll send a message to governments everywhere that the world will not stand by while our voices are silenced online," it added.

0 Comments

WHEN MEDIA RESCUED FREEDOM

10/2/2012

0 Comments

In the 1950s when a US senator was wrecking havoc on Freedom by his Red Scare tactics, demonizing anyone he fancied by accusing him/her of being Communist, Broadcast Media courtesy of Edward Murrow saved the day for Freedom and its believers.

In the mid-2000s when the movie Goodnight and Goodluck was released, the Philippine mainstream media was threatened by President Arroyo's proclamation of a State of Emergency. Fortunately, mainstream media fought back.

Today in the Philippines, the bulk of the country's senators have enacted a law that threatens new media - the Internet. The 'netizens are fighting back.

Below is an article I wrote in 2006 about the film Goodnight and Goodluck as well as about Media and Freedom.

0 Comments

GUY FAWKES RISES AGAIN.

10/2/2012

0 Comments

Guy Fawkes masks are all over the Internet, this time in the Philippines in protest of the Cyber Crime Law.

The Guy Fawkes mask was popularized in the film V for Vendetta (2006) adapted from the comic book story of Moore and Lloyd.

Below is an old blogpost I did in 2007. Then and now, Freedom is at a risk.

While PeNoy keeps on saying that he is the opposite of his predecessor, it looks like he is just the same as GMA or former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Big Brother simply replaced Big Sister.

==============================================

“The people should not be afraid of the government.
The government should be afraid of the people.” - V

The Movie to watch in Big Sister’s Philippines

The Wachowski brothers did it again! The Matrix (the original not the sequels) was such a great philosophical metaphor of a film. This time, it is a straightforward attack on the supporters of Georgie Porgie and his War on Terror.Well, it is still a metaphor but anyone can immediately see the parallel between the High Chancellor (played by the very good actor John Hurt) and George W. Bush, and the events in the film are close to reality. (Of course, nobody can expect George Bush to be as articulate as John Hurt.)

The movie is V for Vendetta, directed by the Wachowski brothers, who gave us The Matrix. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith of The Matrix) is the Man Behind the Mask in this Phantom of the Opera-cum-1984 film. Natalie Portman (of the second Star Wars trilogy) plays the leading female character. John Hurt, who played Winston Smith, the rugged individualist who resisted Big Brother’s impositions in Orwell’s 1984, now plays the Big Brother himself (Chancellor Sutler) in V for Vendetta.

Like 1984, V for Vendetta shows us how easy people can be duped into surrendering their freedom for alleged or imagined security threats. The Americans have already given up some of their freedoms in support of Bush’s War on Terror. It is not inconceivable that the US will go the way of England as depicted in the film.

In fact, in the Philippines, some of the things shown in the film have already happened and are still happening. As the soldiers involved in the Oakwood mutiny have asserted, the bombing in Davao was done by the soldiers themselves with no less than the then Armed Forces Chief of Staff or then Defense Secretary (Angelo Reyes) being involved.

And of course, the modus operandi of arresting people then labeling them as terrorists and later killing them extra-judicially is too plain to see by critical thinking people.

It would do well for the President and her Cabinet to watch this film.

This movie is recommended to all freedom-loving people, especially the Muslims, who now carry the stigma of terrorism the world over due to the Bush-war propaganda.I must say, hats off to the Wachowskis for their courage in making a film that goes against the Terror-mongerers of the world.

In the Philippines, such a movie could not be made. The producers / director would be charged with sedition by the administration.

See: Rolling Stone: V for Vendetta

0 Comments

GOVERNMENT SEEING TREASON AGAIN

10/1/2012

0 Comments

In the reign of President Aquino III, the Filipinos were slapped with two internet laws - the Data Privacy Act and the Cyber Crime Law. One protects the authorities from the prying eyes of the public while the other opens the public to the prying eyes of the authorities, especially the information in cyberspace.

It appears that every new regime wants to shackle the citizens and cut off their rights. In the past administration, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo almost proclaimed Martial Law for the whole country. (She did impose Martial Law for parts of Mindanao). Arroyo signed the Presidential Proclamation 1017, imposing a State of Emergency.

The Arroyo administration saw treason whenever a group of citizens met in a public place or marched in protest against government policies. This time, the Aquino administration sees treason in the writings of bloggers and even in Facebook and Twitter posts.

In 2006, Arroyo tried to use PP 1017 to harass and threaten mainstream media. Now, Aquino III tries to threaten social media with his Cyber Crime Law.

To promote her State of Emergency, Arroyo's government showed a TV documentary titled Fighting Treason:1017. Below is the review I wrote about the documentary. It was published in the PJR REPORTS in April 2006. PJR stands for Philippine Journalism Review.

*************************************************

0 Comments

BLOGGERS’ CODE OF ETHICS

9/26/2012

0 Comments

With the brouhaha over Senator Tito Sotto's plagiarism and the new Cyber Crime law, perhaps it is time to re-visit the Bloggers' Code of Ethics

From the The cyber-journalist Website. (Adapted from the Society of Professional Journalists of the U.S.)

******************************

BLOGGERS’ CODE OF ETHICS

Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:

• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

0 Comments

STATEMENT FROM FWGP

9/25/2012

1 Comment

Two Laws and Losses for Freelancers and Netizens
The Freelance Writers’ Guild of the Philippines’ (FWGP)

Statement on Aquino’s Cyber Laws
21 September 2012

In August and September of this year, the Philippine President signed two laws that “recognize the role of information and communications technology in nation-building and social and economic development.” These laws are:
RA 10173 or the Data Privacy Act (signed August 15, 2012), and
RA 1075 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act (signed September 12, 2012).
Both laws posture to provide cyber security but they are actually measures against the perceived lawlessness of cyberspace. They are likely to cause hindrance to nameless netizens, including those who are engaged in online freelance work.

The Data Privacy Act prohibits the “collection and processing of personal information” without prior and explicit consent of the person involved. That personal information may exist in a “material form or not,” and the holder of the information can “directly ascertain the identity of an individual.”

Under the Data Privacy Act, an individual’s racial or ethnic identity, marital or health status, religious, political affiliation, educational background and sexual life, among others, are defined “sensitive personal information.” If the personal information is to be used for “journalistic, artistic, literary or research purposes,” the writer may be allowed to access such personal information without the consent of the person involved.

Freelancers have other purposes outside what is defined by this law. They may be denied access to personal information relevant to their writing projects. They, after all, are not granted the same weight of authority and recognition as journalists or researchers with media or institutional affiliation. The Data Privacy Act upholds RA 53, which cannot compel journalists and their publishers to disclose their sources. Freelancers do not enjoy the same right. They may find themselves at risk along with their sources.

The law further requires that the “personal information controller” (a person or organization) must “implement appropriate organizational, physical and technical measures” to protect the personal information obtained. It is doubtful if freelancers can actually comply with this requirement. It effectively bars them from obtaining relevant information about an individual they are writing about.
The new CyberCrime Prevention Act expands the scope of libel as provided for by Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code to include those that are “committed through a computer system or similar means.” We all know that even factual information can be construed by a complainant as slanderous and defamatory. This provision virtually calls on netizens and online freelancers to stifle their thoughts or face criminal prosecution.

Under the CyberCrime Prevention Act, your computer can become the scene of the crime. Upon demonstration of a ‘”due cause,’” law enforcement agents are authorized to “collect or record data in real time as they are transmitted by a computer system.” We all know that just about anything can be rendered as a “‘due cause.’”

Though this law provides that “all data to be collected or seized will require a court warrant,” it virtually grants an all-inclusive authority to a complainant. One can request for a court warrant even on the basis of mere suspicion that a ‘”cybercrime’” is “about to be committed,” or if “there are no other means readily available for obtaining evidence”. The principle of prima facie, which dictates that a complainant must present sufficient and observable evidence in support of an accusation, is no longer honored by the Cybercrime Prevention Act. We, freelancers and netizens, are likely to stand before the stigmatizing effect of being criminal suspects.

The Data Privacy Act and CyberCrime Prevention Act are meant to protect and secure the computer system and data-base of the government and private sectors. These laws are instruments to protect political and corporate agenda. Part of that agenda is to make the Philippines an attractive investment destination for corporations seeking to take advantage of the cheaper rates of Filipino online workers. As netizens and freelancers, we are effectively forbidden from intervening in such an exploitative situation.

Both laws position netizens as threats to the cyber security requirements of the government and private sector. This is what is insidious about these two laws. Rather than laws that would enhance responsible citizenship through the free-flow of information, these two laws are poised to curb it. There is no provision in either the Data Privacy Act or the Cybercrime Prevention Act that pertains to netizens’ cyber security. If this is the case, then we are absolutely prepared to take it as our own ‘due cause.’

As admitted by the principal author of Senate Bill 2076, which became the CyberCrime Prevention Act, “traditional modes of consultation on proposed legislation may no longer be adequate to embrace the online community.” Nevertheless, he raised the possibility of an “opportune time to expand the reach of the legislative process in this digital age” (Sen. Edgardo J. Angara. Cyber Freedom: More Critical than Ever, http://mb.com.ph/node/350354/cyber-freedom). The time is now, Honorable Senator.

As members of the online community, we are stakeholders in the passage of law, which seemed to have relied on the expertise and interests of ICT specialists, business federations, and law enforcers. We demand the same. We do not want the Data Privacy Act and the Cybercrime Prevention Act to be amended just so our stakes can be inserted in either. A fresh start is required in order to ‘embrace the online community.’ For this to happen, the Data Privacy Act and the Cybercrime Prevention Act must be repealed.

1 Comment

Author

Archives

Categories