Cybercrime Law Essay

The Cybercrime Prevention toy of 2012 is the first fair play in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes computing doohickey crime, which prior to the passage of the uprightness had no strong pro found actor in Philippine jurisprudence. While rightfulnesss such as the Electronic duty mold of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792 regulated certain reckoner-related activities, these laws did not interpret a legal basis for criminalizing crimes committed on a calculator in general for example, Onel de Guzman, the computer programmer charged with purportedly physical composition the ILOVEYOU computer worm, was ultimately not prosecuted by Philippine authorities out-of-pocket to a lack of legal basis for him to be charged under existing Philippine laws at the time of his arrest. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, formally recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in the Philippines approved on 12 September 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interac tions and the Internet in the Philippines.Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, nipper pornography, identity theft, illegal access to information and libel.The Act, divided into 31 sections dismantle across eight chapters, criminalizes several types of offenses, including illegal access (hacking), data interference, turn of events misuse, cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such as computer fraud, content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other offenses. The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense under Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and libel, an offense under Section 355 of the rewrite Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system. Finally, the Act provides for a catch-all clause, wherein all offenses currently punishable under the revise Penal Code are likewise punishable under the Act when committed u sing a computer, with corresponding stricter penalties than if the crimes were punishable under the revise Penal Code alone.The Act has universal legal power its provisions give way to all Filipino nationals regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines, whether the erring device is wholly or partly situated in the Philippines, or whether ill-use was done to any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the Philippines. Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Act. A takedown clause is included in the Act, empowering the segment of Justice to restrict and/or demand the removal of content found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, without the need for a court order. This provision, primarily not included in earlier iterations of the Act as it was beingness deliberated through Congress, was inserted during Senate deliberat ions on May 31, 2012.6 Complementary to the takedown clause is a clause mandating the retention of data on computer servers for six months subsequently the date of transaction, which may be extended for another six months should law enforcement authorities request it.The Act also mandates the National Bureau of probe and the Philippine National Police to organize a cybercrime unit, staffed by fussy investigators whose responsibility will be to exclusively handle cases pertaining to violations of the Act, under the surveillance of the Department of Justice. The unit is empowered to, among others, collect real-time traffic data from Internet service providers with due cause, require the disclosure of computer data within 72 hours after receipt of a court rationalise from a service provider, and conduct searches and seizures of computer data and equipment. It also mandates the initiation of special cybercrime courts which will handle cases involving cybercrime offenses (offenses enumerated in Section 4(a) of the Act)