Martes, Mayo 6, 2014

Magna Carta For Internet Freedom

"NOTHING  IS  PERFECT". No human being is perfect and so is the "MAGNA CARTA FOR THE INTERNET FREEDOM".

I was really overwhelmed on how the Magna Carta For Philippine Internet Freedom protected The Right to Privacy and strengthen the Right to Freedom of Speech  at the same time. 

The right to privacy is a right inherent in every Filipino Citizen which may restrain anyone including the government, to do acts that may jeopardize  the privacy of individuals

                                                                 (source: google images)

While Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them

                                                      (source: google images)

Before discussing my suggestions for the improvement of  some of the parts of Senate No. 53, I would like to recognized the parts of the said Law which upon reading gave me “goosebumps” because I felt the genuine love and concern of the drafters of the said law to our fellow Filipino Citizens specifically to women and children.

Specifically Section 49 and Section 50 of Senate No. 53 wherein Section 49 tackles about the internet being used for deceiving or defrauding another which to my mind can also be considered as “ESTAFA”, and Section 50 talks about Prostitution and Trafficking in Persons, which is a matter regarded as harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome in our country.

Estafa is a criminal offense wherein a person defrauds another by any of the following means: (1) by unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by deceit; or (3) fraudulent means.
Estafa through deceit or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is done by: (1) using fictitious name as means of deceit; (2) altering quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to art or business; (3) by issuing unfunded checks or postdated checks; and (4) availing of services of hotel, inn, restaurants etc, without paying therefor. So the complainant for estafa aside from the filing the later can also file a case based on Section 49 that is Fraud via ICT, if the criminal act was done using the internet. (source: revised penal code)

                                                          (source: google images)
Women and children who engages in activities called prostitution are endangered and is more prone to have  AIDS, and other sexually transmitted disease and be a victim of rape and murder.
 The program imbestigador of  GMA - 7 serves as an instrument on how chronic these problems are .
                                                             (source: youtube)
 Based on what I have researched according to surveys of women working as masseuses indicated that 34 percent of them explained their choice of work as necessary to support poor parents, 8% to support siblings, and 28% to support husbands or boyfriends. More than 20% said the job was well paid, but only 2% said it was easy work, and only 2% claimed to enjoy the work. (source: wikipedia)

(source: google images)
Further, the following sections only showed intensified patriotism and served as an inspiration to those who have low self-esteem by reason of their disabilities
Section 15. Strategic objectives of the DICT. – In fulfilling its mandate, the DICT shall be guided by the following strategic objectives:
(l) Encourage the use of ICT in support of efforts or endeavors for the development and promotion of the country’s agriculture, arts and culture, history, education, public health and safety, and other socio-civic purposes;
(n) Empower, through the use of ICT, the disadvantaged segments of the population, including persons with disabilities (PWDs) or who are differently-abled.

(source: google images)

              But since the actual objective of this blog is to share my comments and suggestion for the betterment of  (Senate No. 53) The Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, I will now discuss which to me and in my own understanding and interpretation of Senate No. 53,  can be considered as a doubtful and difficult question of law.

              1 .   Section 4. Right to freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. 

             b) A person’s right to publish content on the Internet, or to remove one’s own published content or uploaded data, is recognized as integral to the constitutional right to free expression and shall not be subject to any licensing requirement from the State. (source: S.B. 53)
              The lawmakers should have specifically identified the kind of published content or uploaded data a person has the right to publish and remove, what if the data uploaded and published by a person has already caused harm to someone else's name before the publisher - offender has deleted the said data, the drafters should specify the kind of data، it should be those that are not harmful to anybody and this provision should be subject to some limitations 

               (d) No person shall be compelled to remove published content or uploaded data from the Internet that is beyond the said person’s capacity to remove. (source: S.B.53)

            It is uncertain on  how can a person not have the capacity to remove one’s post when he/she has the capacity to published it, the objective of Section 4-d is ambiguous, the kind of incapacity should be thoroughly discussed by the lawmakers. 

             2 .Section 5. Promotion of universal access to the Internet.

               (b) A person’s right to unrestricted access to the Internet may, upon discretion of the appropriate Cybercrime Court whose jurisdiction is defined in this Act, be suspended as an accessory penalty upon final conviction for criminal offeses specfied therein. (source: S.B. 53)

              The means on how can the Cybercrime Court put a restriction to a person’s right to Internet Freedom should be clearly identified because of the reality that wireless networks is readily available almost everywhere and most of the time it's for free. The person should only be restricted to have an access to the specific website  he used to commit the offenses specified under Section 5b- I, II and III. 
            3 . Section 19. Regional Offices. – Subject to the concurrence of the Department of Budget and Management and the approval of the President, the DICT may be authorized to establish, operate and maintain a regional office in each of the administrative regions of the country, as the need arises (source: S.B. 53)
             I have nothing against the Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, I just think  that the lawmakers will need a huge amount of money to be able to fully put into force T he Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, while in truth in fact we are well aware that there are other problems that the country is facing that needs to be fix immediately. 
4 . And lastly Sections 46. Violation of Data Security specifically the portion the discusses about  (a) Hacking. – (source: S.B. 53)
            Based on what I have learned from the subject Technology and the Law, there are actually 2 kinds of hackers , the good hackers and the bad hackers, the bad hackers are those that can be penalized under this law specifically Section 46-A. But what about the good hackers? Those that saved us from the bad ones, should they also be penalized? If they will be penalized, who will now regain the access to our government websites from the "BITTER"  Chinese? The lawmakers should be more specifc and sensitive to the reality and needs nowadays. 

Walang komento:

Mag-post ng isang Komento