raissa robles | A License To Snoop: Why the Cybercrime Law is not the answer to child cyber porn

See - raissa robles | A License To Snoop: Why the Cybercrime Law is not the answer to child cyber porn


"x x x.

By Raïssa Robles

To combat cyber porn using children, the government is vigorously pushing for the Supreme Court to unfreeze the Cybercrime Law (Republic Act 10175) and allow it to take effect.
But they haven’t specified just what it is in the law that will help them.

Is it the fact that the law shoehorns the entire Revised Penal Code into cyberspace and imposes extra-heavy criminal penalties on ANY crime committed with the help of digital technology?
Would it be the fact that the law will allow anyone — say, a senator? — to sue for libel anyone on Facebook?

Could it be the bit that lets government block any website it chooses — the way China does?

Or perhaps it’s that bit in the Cybercrime Law that allows the government to spy without any accountability? That might be it.

I cannot stress enough the dangers of the Cybercrime Law. Its atrocious lack of safeguards can easily enable rogue cops and government officials to commit crimes of extortion and blackmail using the digital highway.

In the course of my investigation, I also learned that the Cybercrime Law was enacted in order to enable the Intellectual Property Rights Office (IPO) to go after those who download music on the Internet from torrent sites. This is one of the REAL USES of the Cybercrime Law.

It is also not enough to simply remove the section on criminal libel from the Cybercrime Law. Because the Cybercrime Law is not just about libel. Or just about child pornography. It includes all the crimes in the country’s statute books including rebellion.

It hands policemen and personnel of the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation as well as employees of the private telecom companies the power to spy on everyone – private citizens and even government officials. That’s because the wording of Section 13 on the “Real-”Real Time Collection of Traffic Data” is so vague.

Given what’s been happening in the US about the rogue activities of its National Security Agency, can we expect OUR law agencies (which are not exactly famous for being clean and effective) to do better? By the way, the NSA has also been claiming it was just studying metadata, which might be true, but that didn’t stop it from rampant and wholesale snooping on any target they chose, without oversight or accountability.

Anyway, I doubt the Cybercrime Act can do much to stop cyber porn because, as the police recently disclosed, those who make their children and other relatives engage in sex before video cameras use video chats. Most probably, my hubby Alan told me, they use Skype. And Skype is encrypted and even foreign governments have had a tough time cracking the encryption so they can spy on terrorists who use the service.

Alan, who has been lecturing on Internet privacy at the International Institute für Journalismus in Berlin, also noted that in order for authorities to effectively use the Cybercrime Law to catch cyber porn producers, they would have to spy on the Internet activities of a large section of the population and see which IP addresses might be suspect.

That would be the equivalent of saying “there might be snatchers in Manila and we don’t know who they are, therefore we should be allowed to freely raid and search every home in the hope that maybe we’ll find them.”

The police said cyber porn is a thriving cottage industry in Cebu, Pampanga, Cagayan de Oro and Metro Manila. So there you go.

The real-time traffic collection of data would have to be undertaken in those areas.

How Cybercrime Law can give rise to extortion and blackmail using the digital highway

It was actually an anti-crime crusader who warned me of this possibility.

To those who say I think so poorly of the NBI and policemen, here’s proof why we should all be worried about this happening.

Two years ago in January 2012, NBI Chief Magtanggol Gatdula was sacked after being implicated in the kidnap-for-ransom of an illegally staying Japanese national Noriyo Ohara. Six other NBI agents were fired. the ransom demand was allegedly P6 million.

How can the Cybercrime Law be used for extortion?

One Filipino worker in the Middle East sent me a letter expressing concern that the Cybercrime Law made “Cybersex” a crime. The law defines Cybersex as:

“The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.”

According to the Filipino worker, the problem is that many Filipino overseas workers use Skype or Facetime to have “remote sex” with their spouses or partners or they exchange pictures.

Both would easily fall under “any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity.”

What if these activities were attached to an e-mail and a rogue investigator threatened to post it on YouTube – unless he was paid not to?

Combating child porn

In 2009, Congress already passed RA 9775, which specifically defined and punished child porn on the Internet.

The Cybercrime Law did two things to RA 9975. It raised the penalties in RA 9775 “one degree higher”.

It also allowed “real time collection of traffic data”.

As for blocking child porn sites from being viewed in the country, this is not as important when it comes to the Philippines since we are a producer, not a viewer of porn (which costs a lot of money and needs a credit card.)

However, please note that data collection and blocking porn sites were already included in a previous law, RA 9775.

Despite this, authorities would want us to believe that only the Cybercrime Law would enable them to combat cyber porn.

Senior Supt. Gilbert Sosa, director of the PNP Anti-Transnational and Cyber Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (ATCCD-CIDG) recently told Philippine Daily Inquirer that:

“The debate on the Cybercrime Law focuses on the substantial part of it. But the police needs the procedural aspect of the law so that we can run after these pedophiles.”

First off, what is wrong with that statement?

Supt. Sosa forgets that the pedophiles are residing in another country watching Philippine porn. How can the Philippine police catch them?

Sosa and the Department of Justice also conveniently forget to tell the public that RA 9775 already gave law enforcement authorities broad powers to combat child porn.

For instance, Section 9 of RA 9775 puts the onus on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to report that the crime of child porn is being committed using their servers:

“Section 9. Duties of an Internet Service Provider (ISP). – All
internet service providers (ISPs) shall notify the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) within seven (7) days from obtaining facts and circumstances that any form of child pornography is being committed using its server or facility. Nothing in this section may be construed to require an ISP to engage in the monitoring of
any user, subscriber or customer, or the content of any communication of any such person: Provided, That no ISP shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this section.

“Furthermore, an ISP shall preserve such evidence for purpose of investigation and prosecution by relevant authorities.

“An ISP shall, upon the request of proper authorities, furnish the particulars of users who gained or attempted to gain access to an internet address which contains any form of child
pornography.

“All ISPs shall install available technology, program or software to ensure that access to or transmittal of any form of child pornography will be blocked or filtered.

“An ISP who shall knowingly, willfully and intentionally violate this provision shall be subject to the penalty provided under Section 15(k) of this Act.

“The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) shall promulgate within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this provision which shall include, among others, the installation of filtering software that will block access to or transmission of any form of the child pornography.

You can view RA 9775 here.

You will notice that RA 9775 already has a section allowing ISPs to block child porn sites and provide “authorities” with “particulars of users who gained or attempted to gain access to an internet address which contains any form of child pornography.”

This section is quite broad. “Particulars of users” could include their names, their IP addresses as well as their actual residential addresses.

This is better than “real time collection of traffic data” that is in the frozen Cybercrime Law.

The main difference – and this is where the stinker lies – is that the Cybercrime Law covers our entire Penal Code and not just child porn. Including the political crimes which from experience, you and I know, are frequently used by those in power against those who oppose them.

The Cybercrime Law is one of those laws that were promulgated by our lawmakers with their eyes wide shut to its very serious implications on our hard-fought freedoms and civil liberties.

It would be supreme irony if the Supreme Court were to unfreeze this monster of a law as the nation celebrates the 28th anniversary of 1986 Edsa People Power.

NOTE – To refresh your memory, please read my stories on the Cybercrime Law by clicking on the links below:

What the Cybercrime Law really means
UPDATE: Implications of the Cybercrime Prevention Law
Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening”
Is DOJ’s Geronimo Sy blaming lawmakers for botched Cybercrime Law?
NEWSFLASH: Supreme Court extends TRO on Cybercrime Law INDEFINITELY
Why I stand by my story that Sotto “inserted” online libel section in the Cybercrime Law
Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?
The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen
Why did four senators file nearly identical cybercrime bills?
The quadruplet bills on Cybercrime
Gov’t TV station invites me to anti-cybercrime law forum
Dear Justice Assistant Secretary Sy: If cyber adultery doesn’t exist, why did you put it in the Cybercrime Law?
How the new technology is reshaping the way we bring news to the public

x x x."