Skip to content
February 13, 2012

Sen. Angara explains the Anti-Cybercrime Bill

A couple of weeks ago, we got news that the Senate has finally approved their own version of the Anti-Cybercrime Bill (Senate Bill 2796). It has gotten a lot of mixed reactions and has even been labeled as a measure similar to SOPA/PIPA in the US.

Senator Ed Angara, one of the proponents of the Anti-Cybercrime Bill in the Senate, explains some details about this bill at ANC Future Perfect.

Here’s the recording of that full interview.

The topic on cybersex was mentioned and discussed. Again, the apprehension of a lot of people about the vagueness of the provision was somewhat addressed here — that any actions that may deemed to be in violation of the law has to go thru the proper legal process — a warrant from the court, show of probable cause and most of all “common sense”. So I don’t think that the example of “a husband and wife exchanging favors or gifts in return for online sex” can be considered a criminal act under this bill.

Sen. Angra added that the Senate Bill 2796 will have to be merged with the version in the Lower House (Congress) and be amended, corrected or properly worded before it is passed into a law.

Huawei Ascend Mate & Review

Congress approves Anti Cybercrime Bill HB 5808

12 Responses to “Sen. Angara explains the Anti-Cybercrime Bill”

  1. PJ
    Twitter: peejayreyes
    says:

    what about 2 consenting adults or married couples, having cyber sex, who live far from each other?

    • Ligrev
      Twitter: Ligrev
      says:

      “…any actions that may deemed to be in violation of the law has to go thru the proper legal process — a warrant from the court, show of probable cause and most of all “common sense”. So I don’t think that the example of “a husband and wife exchanging favors or gifts in return for online sex” can be considered a criminal act under this bill.”

  2. jameserik says:

    this bill is more beneficial to politicians, clearly because they want to protect their own interest. protecting the public interest is just an alibi, because they knew the power of the internet nowadays, anything could spread like wildfire. this violates freedom of expression.

  3. Iyan Sommerset
    Twitter: iyansommerset
    says:

    Common sense isn’t so common. Especially not in this country. Besides, the problem isn’t the intent of the law, it’s the letter.

  4. garz says:

    What?? Kim Dotcom operated here for a year? Hacking into bank accounts? Are they even sure about these ‘facts?’

  5. Global Finance Schoo says:

    Nice idea! BUT, why now? This is a looooooooooong overdue!

  6. Winthrop Yu says:

    While Cybersex has drawn the most attention, the truly dangerous provision is the late insertion — Section 13 – “RESTRICTING OR BLOCKING ACCESS TO COMPUTER DATA”, which allows the blocking of websites even without a warrant.

    Coupled with Section 4-C-4 – “LIBEL” (another last minute insertion), it can be used to “gag” or restrict journalistic freedoms, both by traditional and new media (e.g. blogs, etc.).

  7. pong says:

    labanan yang mga politicians na yan. gusto nila kunin ang internet sa mga pinoy para pagka kitaan nila. Yang angara na yan wag kayo maniwala dyan, tangal yan sa boto ko pag sumali yan sa elecksyon. tangalin nyo din sya sa mga boto nyo at ang mga kasama nyan

  8. were says:

    wow! these oldies feels they know what they’re talking about.. i bet they dont even know how to use a computer..

Leave a Reply

*
*