Ear to the Edge of Time

They sent up a dog in the Sputnik, once

in the interests of science.She didn’t know that there was only

six days air inside.

And so what – dogs die everyday. Give one over.

Put down in kennels. Neglected.

So why, now, am I so haunted by

this whimpering canine, locked in a cab,

and shot into space?

 

Did they give her a window, at least?

Some evidence of where all that blasting rocket fuel was taking her?

Did it break the heart of the scientist who had told her

to sit nice and still – and did his training work?

Or when the rubbish dropped back to earth,

was the inside of the ship covered In deep grooves

and marked with scratches?

 

– Excerpt from the play Ear to the Edge of Time

BBC Science in Action podcast (22:54)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/scia/rss.xml

Slim Maker’s Pickings

Finished ooohing and aaahing at finds from the day’s walk, to wind down with a somber thought: This “comparative advantage” thing, that crowds out tiny entrepreneurial shops’ product in favor of imports, has a teeny unintended side effect – the bottom falls out of the demand for basic components.Want to build a computer-controlled lathe? Good luck. At best – at best! – you get to start your construction practically ex nihilo – well, not really out of nothing, as it turns out little boutique junk shops sell leftover cuttings from steel plate slabs, for example. And the ideas you need are out on the Web to seek out, arrange and pick from. But the raw material you need will be difficult to come by.

 

Take this afternoon’s quick three kilometer walk down to Kalentong Street. Down that three kilometer stretch of commercial store fronts, there were exactly four shops that made aluminum and glass frames, five Internet shops, two hairdressers, three grocery stores, three (four?) automobile parts stores, six hardware and construction supply shops, three banks, a couple of junk shops, five fast food outlets, three carinderias, a city college, and one machine shop. Of those six hardware shops, exactly one sold power tool cutting bits – the business end of drill presses and milling routers. The machine shop I’d asked apparently didn’t know someone just 200 meters away sold tool parts, and appeared to reuse and resharpen their own high speed steel bits on a cutter straight out of a 1960s small machine shop floor.

 

What got me thinking was that chat I’d got into with the fellow who sold me the countersink bit for my router. I’d noticed that his shop, all perhaps 40 square meters with wooden shelves crammed floor to ceiling with carpentry and plumbing and machinist’s odds and ends, all hung about with the lngering smell of light machine oil, stocked some pretty scarce bits. NSK bearings. Hand taps. Wire filters. All manner of brass fittings sitting in worn cardboard boxes like jewelry for Edward Scissorhands. I’d wondered, did they stock these odd looking aluminum extrusions, that I could maybe use for a machine bed frame?

 

Ah, it’s not the kind of thing we’d stock, and he’d warned I have a hard time coming by these particular bits I was looking for. It turned out that this hardware store was also something that let him scratch a hobby itch of his – he assembles solar panels, and apparently this shop let him access to parts and fittings for that kind of DIY job. Uy, that’s cool!  He’d warned me that I’d find that importing components would wind up being more expensive than buying completed assemblies. The taxes (by which I think he meant tariffs) that would have to be paid for import duties typically kill off small enterprises trying that sort of thing.

 

I agreed, recalling finding Radio Shack listings for exactly the parts I was looking for. Absolutely ridiculous prices. Something like 8,000 pesos for a 50 centimeter ball threaded screw; and a ludicrous 37,000 for this end thrust bearing, and 16,000 for a pillow block to support the screw midway. All told, sixty-one thousand pesos for three pieces of metal to slide a small tool plate back and forth 50 centimeters. That’s more than my net monthly income, dammit.

 

There used to be a time that there were small machine shops that made those small bits of metal, he recalls. I’d forgot to mention the small machine shop I’d passed, which owner had given me directions to Yale Hardware, a full hour’s walk further away. That’d be another place to try on the first coming weekday, he’d agreed. But there’s no demand from others for what you’re looking for. Except perhaps for those carbide milling bits.

 

I’d had an uneasy chuckle, saying that perhaps I ought to rethink this project of mine. Oh no, he’d said, you should go ahead and try build it, but it won’t be easy to put together, much less find the stuff you need locally. Gagawa ka.

 

Ahh. It won’t be easy.  I fancy thinking someone will find it entertaining that I’ll finally make a milling tool frame out of high density hardwood, or medium fiberboard. There’s problems that can be engineered around, certainly, but it doesn’t seem particularly appealing to make a 100 kilogram wood frame when what the job calls for is metal.

 

My problem is that we don’t make that metal, and that really, really pisses me off.

 

Gagawa ka, Toff.

Gatdula’s Obscurantism is Dangerous

I’d originally posted this as a comment to the CBCP article, RH bill deprives Filipinos of Constitution-guaranteed freedom — lawyer (9 February 2012), which was a curiously twisted read to wrap my head around. And a bleepingly irritating read, at that.

Your friend, the lawyer Gatdula presumes too much, that the “tenets of our lawmakers’ faith” should hold primacy in deciding a moral path in the matter of the RH Bill. The moral path along which you are guiding your flock is a dangerous one, not least for the sophistry it engenders in your advocates. The argument Gatdula wishes to promote pushes, through our fallible politicians, the entire nation toward an ecologically, not to mention quite possibly economically, precarious future.

Consider the impact of your pro-death position, which leads to loosing bounds on population growth. If you succeed in blocking this RH bill in it’s entirety – and, likely, others to follow it – you will have removed an important instrument with which to contain the growth of the Philippine population. This will have effects several generations down the line, far removed from the political climate which surrounds the present debate.

Now consider this: Have you thought out what it takes to sustain a population of 250M people? Three hundred million? Five? Does your spiritual technology provide for the kind of ecological and social strains that will create? Do you imagine that the faithful OCW flock can expand to fill a global niche? Or are you hoping for the best? The phrase “pro-death” I’ve used is quite precisely chosen: An unsupportable population size teems with lives which potential will not be realized. What is that, but a living death, to exist in that way?

Be mindful of how you wield your influence in this society – it is a far ranging power, to wield minds and attitudes. The longer you persist in maintaining this stance, the greater of a danger you are becoming in the eyes of more and more in the Filipino nation, including,

Yours truly,

Antonio A Hilario

Fencing the Frontier (II)

After getting over my irritation (and mild embarrassment) that the Senate legislative content server doesn’t even have a proper domain name – and that their cybercrime bill 2796 comes in so close on the heels of the United States’ abortive SOPA and PIPA legislative disasters – my next gut response was “okay, just what have our legislators got up to now?”

I’ve been a consumer of Internet content for over a decade, and a programmer and Web developer for almost a decade; and SB 2796 troubles me in a number of ways. I’ll walk through these sections of the bill that bother me.

Cybercrimes against things

SB 2796 is not about your right to use electronic communication with, say, reasonable expectations of privacy. The Declaration of Policy (Section 2) emphasizes protection of computer systems

from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts.

It is, straightforwardly, about the State adopting “sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels.”

I dislike the imprecision in their definition of the terms in Section 3. Take one mild example, its definition of a “service provider”:

  • any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communicate by means of a computer system, and
  • any other entity that processes or stores computer data on behalf of such communication service or users of such service.

Now, am I a service provider, if I operate a weblog where my readers are allowed to post comments, and converse among themselves? How about when I establish a chat service for my friends on my rented web server – are both I and my ISP “service providers”?  I was hoping to set up a site that’s a kind of mashup between Mathoverflow and Wolfram Alpha – will that make me a “service provider?” These questions are relevant to reading Chapter II, “Punishable acts”, where it is lawful for a service provider to intercept, use, or otherwise disclose the content of activity on the service.

There’s a few more bits in Section 3 about electronic interception, subscriber information (basically any information related to a service user’s location, service details, and billing history), and “traffic data or non-content data” (network traffic data ), and that all-important modifier phrase, “without right,” that are germane to the discussion of punishable acts, which I’ll spell out in detail later.

It is Section 4 that defines three categories of “cybercrime” offenses: Those that detrimentally affect confidentiality of data and reliability of computer systems; computer-assisted fraud, and forgery; and content-related offenses.

We Ownses Your Datas

The first category includes two specific offenses: Illegal intercept, and misuse of devices, both of which are of interest to users and, crucially, system administrators.  Illegal interception is

The intentional interception made by technical means
without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to,  from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data: Provided, however, That it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of a service provider, whose facilities are used in the transmission of communications, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity that is necessary to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the service provider, except  that the latter shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service control quality checks.  [Emphasis mine].

It is striking that nothing is said about restrictions about how that data may be handled or used. There is no provision for how certain kinds of system data should or should not be handled.  Shouldn’t there be something explicitly said about what is broadly prohibited to be done with system users’ data? Shouldn’t information about third parties be protected (i.e. by encrypting it) while it is in the possession of the service provider?

I’ll give you an example: as a computer system administrator I may make a USB flash drive copy of a database table containing my subscribers’ transactions on my site, and transfer it to a different, (perhaps offline) system inside my company as part of my daily routines. Then I can take the flash drive home, can’t I? Nothing wrong there. What if that database table contains our customers’ credit card billing data – and I lose the flash drive? No problem! It’s a sad loss, but completely legal for my company to be operating without data integrity safeguards. Or, I could pass it on to a senior manager, who’ll be converting those tables into mail lists of our highest-spending site users, which we can sell on to e-marketing firms. All completely legal, as this is done as part of my duties as an employee.

(Update, 25 September, 2012: The Data Privacy Act of 2012, specifically Section 11 (General Data Privacy Principles) up to Section 16 (Rights of the Data Subject) address this issue, and specify the scope of responsibility of so-called “personal information processors.”  More on this in later posts.)

There are simply no good business or economic reasons to say that improving the security around citizens’ data is infeasible, too costly, or too complicated. We largely have the software and semiconductor industries to thank for this. While data encryption, for example, is still compute-intensive, it is no longer as costly as it used to be only a few years ago. What I mean by this is that there are programming practices and techniques for, say, writing Web site business logic, or for designing complex desktop programs, that can improve privacy and security using encryption techniques which, only a few years ago, would have required faster processors or more memory. Well, guess what? Today, we have those faster processors and more memory.

Methodology for computing systems design has evolved to both meet time-to-market pressures and attain software quality goals. There are programming and system administration practices which can be put in place to foil casual data theft by system operators and employees, and can be reasonably mandated by a cybercrime law to be a service provider’s obligation to exercise. Societies’ know-how has evolved to the point where we can reasonably enforce responsibilities of third parties that handle citizen data, that they do so with sufficient safeguards to privacy and freedom from unwanted use of that data.

As it stands now, the definition of “illegal access” provides implicit, blanket license to “service providers” to do practically anything they want with the information that enters their domain – which may not be same as what the owner or subject of that data might want.

 

Possession of ‘ping’ a punishable offense?

This innocuous-sounding definition “Misuse of devices”, Section 4A(5), is as much useless as it is apparently poorly thought out, as it ignores “dual use” capability of most computing equipment and software. We need only point out two phenomena to demonstrate why: commodity software (including open source software), and malware.

The main point about software being a commodity (free or paid for) is simply that software is ubiquitous, and the crucial thing about commodity operating systems is that there is a whole bucket of tools in each of them – be it Windows, OS X, or Linux – that can be used to find out things about other networks or computers, usually by interacting with them in some way. These tools can be used to analyze, for example, an Internet site target to find out whether it’s visible on the `Net, learn what software the site is running, learn it’s vulnerabilities, and so on – and thence, defend, or attack it. Many software tools used by IT professionals can be used both ways: as diagnostic tools, for instance, or for illegal intercept. The picture processing tool Photoshop, a favorite of web designers and graphic artists the world over, is also able to be used for digital image forgery.

Worse, there are inevitable defects, particularly in new software, that make them prone to being used to attack the machine on which they are used. This is why the newest software isn’t always the best thing to have running on your computer, and why Windows XP is still a better choice for privacy and security conscious computer users (at least if you have no choice) – it’s simply been through a lot more “consumer testing” and has more bug fixes than the newest iteration of that Microsoft operating system.

Which brings us to software that’s been written for purposes that a computer owner does not intend – malware. Anybody who’s been bit by malware knows the signs: Odd behavior from the trusty desktop; increased traffic and reduced Internet access speed; possibly even lost or corrupted files.  It is very likely that many more computer users have been afflicted by these pieces of rogue software that may have been passed on to them by a coworker’s USB stick or, more commonly, by downloading it from the Internet, and who aren’t aware that their computer has been compromised.

It would be more useful to specify creation and dissemination of malware as a punishable act. Otherwise mere possession of a computer containing ping, telnet, nmap, wireshark, dig, or tcping, let alone socat (a general-purpose network socket tool) puts the holder at risk of falling foul of the law. The committee that drafted this Bill needed to go get a clue, perhaps starting with watching a TED Talk or two, and getting a grip on this simple idea: Electronic communication devices and software are “dual use” tools. If government intends to be up to the task of prosecuting misuse of these tools, they would do well to specify the who and what needs protecting, perhaps more than specifying a broad class of dual-use technology.  They could have done better by identifying, generically, breaches of information systems that put life, property, and rights at risk, rather than the tools with which these risks may be created.

Fencing the Electronic Frontier (I)

Something’s come onto the digital frontier radar screen – it’s big, slow, flying low, and riddled with OCR errors. Look up Senate Bill 2796, and read it with me. I got mine from the Senate Legislative Information system, which led me here, and finally to the PDF file, the text from which I’ve pasted below.

Why should you care about this? Because it tells us that the Philippine government is definitely, steadily moving onto the digital frontier, and it seems like the Senate committees are, at least, beginning to understand that the Internet isn’t just a “collection of tubes”:

  • This provides children additional indirect protection under the law – it specifically identifies creation and distribution of child pornography as a punishable offense.
  • If you’ve been more than marginally irritated by unsolicited, commercial electronic spam, SB 2796 has something for you.
  • If you use Facebook (defined in this law as a service provider, apparently), this law affects your rights in the Philippine jurisdiction.
  • If you use a computer regularly in your electronic communications – this includes your touch phone, your work and home computer, your iDevice – this law has something for you as well.

Interested yet? I’ve a few more things to say about this; but for now, here’s the full text of Senate Bill 2796

SB. No. 2796

Prepared jointly by the Committees on Science and Technology; Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws; Education; Arts and Culture; Justice and Human Rights; Trade and Commerce; Public Information and Mass Media and Finance with Senators’ Trillanes, Angara, Enrile, Estrada, Lapid, Villar, Defensor Santiago, Marcos and Revilla as authors.

AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

CHAPTER I – PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Cybercrime Prevention
Act of 2011”,

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications industries such as content production, telecommunications, broadcasting, electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of providing an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and exploitation of information and communications technology to attain free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation,

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act, the following terms
are hereby defined as follows:

a) Access – refers to the instruction, communication with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a computer system or communication network;

b) Alteration – refers to the modification or change, in form or substance, of an existing computer data or program;

c) Communication – refers to the transmission of information inclnding voice and non-voice data;

d) Computer system – means any device or a group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which, pursuant to a program, performs automatic processing of data. It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones and also computer networks. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output and storage facilities which may stand alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer-data storage devices or medium.

e) Computer Data – refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a compnter system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes electronic documents and/or electronic data messages;

f) Computer Program – refers to a set of instructions executed by the computer;

g) Without Right – refers to either: (l) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law;

h) Database – refers to a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions which are being prepared, processed or stored or have been prepared, processed or stored in a formalized manner and which are intended for use in a computer system;

i) Interception – refers to listening to, recording, monitoring or surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring;

j) Service Provider – refers to :

i. any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communicate by means of a computer system, and

ll. any other entity that processes or stores computer data on behalf of such communication service or users of such service;

k) Subscriber’s Information – refers to any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which can be established;
i. The type of communication service used, the technical provisions
taken thereto and the period of service;
ll. The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and
other access numbers, any assigned network address, billing and
payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement
or arrangement;
iii. Any other available information on the site of the installation of
communication equipment, available on the basis of the service
agreement or arrangement.

I) Traffic Data or Non-Content Data – refers to any computer data other than the content of the communication, including but not limited to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service.

 

CHAPTER II – PUNISHABLE ACTS

SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

A. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems:

1. Illegal Access – The intentional access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.

. Illegal Interception – The intentional interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data: Provided, however, That it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of a service provider, whose facilities are used in the transmission of communications, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity that is necessary to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the service provider, except that the latter shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service control quality checks;

. Data interference – the intentional or reckless alteration of computer data without right.

. System Interference – the intentional or reckless hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, deleting or altering computer data or program.

. Misuse of Devices –

a. The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:

. a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
. a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act;.

b. The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(a)(i) or (ii) above with intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Section. Provided, That no criminal liability shall attach when the use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, or possession of computer devices/data referred to is for the authorized testing of a computer system.

B. Computer-related Offenses:

1. Computer-related Forgery – (a) the intentional input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible; (b) the act of knowingly using computer data which is the product of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.

. Computer-related Fraud – the intentional and unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby, with the intent of procuring an economic benefit for oneself or for another person or for the perpetuation of a fraudulent or dishonest activity; Provided, that if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one degree lower.

C. Content-related Offenses:

1. Cybersex – any person who establishes, maintains or controls, directly or indirectly, any operation for sexual activity or arousal with the aid of or through the use of a computer system, for a favor or consideration.

2. Child Pornography – refers to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.

For the purpose of this Act, a “child” refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or over, but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. A child shall also refer to: (a) a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein; and (b) computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted images or graphics of a person who is represented or who is made to appear to be a child as defined herein.

The unlawful or prohibited acts constituting child pornography shall be defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Law.

3. Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:

a. There is a prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or
b. The following conditions are present:
i. The commercial electronic communication contains a simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt of further commercial electronic messages (‘opt-out’) from the same source;
ii. The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
iii. The commercial electronic communication does not purposely include misleading information in any part of the message in order to induce the recipients to read the message.

SEC. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense:
. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.

SEC. 6. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended or special laws.

CHAPTER III – PENALTIES

SEC. 7. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts ennmerated in Sections 4A and 4B of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the dan1age incurred or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4C(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One Million Pesos (PhPl ,000,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4C(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4C(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00) but not exceeding Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP250,000.00) or both.

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment one degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhPIOO,OOO.OO) but not exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.

SEC. 8. Corporate Liability. — When any of the punishable acts herein defined are knowingly committed on behalf of or for the benefit of a juridical person, by a natural person acting either individually or as part of an organ of the juridical person, who has a leading position within in, based on (a) a power of representation of the juridical person, (b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person, or (c) an authority to exercise control within the juridical person, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Ten Million Pesos (PhplO,OOO,OOO.OO).

If the commission of any of the punishable acts herein defined was made possible due to the lack of supervision or control by a natural person referred to and described in the preceding paragraph, for the benefit of that juridical person by a natural person acting under its authority, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00).

The liability imposed on the juridical person shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural person who has committed the offence.

CHAPTER IV – ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

SEC. 9. Real-time Collection of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, and upon securing a court warrant, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and service providers are required to collect or record by technical or electronic means, and/or to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of, traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.

SEC. 10. Preservation Of Computer Data. — The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the data of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.

Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for another six (6) months provided that once computer data preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the termination of the case.

The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.

SEC. 11. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or control within seventy two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation.

SEC. 12. Search, Seizure, and Examination of Computer Data. — Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties:

Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, content of communications, procure the content of data either directly, through access and use of computer system, or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, in real time or at the same time that the communication is occurring and:

a. To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium;
b. To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
c. To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
d. To conduct examination of the computer data storage medium; and
e. To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.

Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.

Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.

SEC. 13. NOll-compliance. — Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of P.D. No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhplOO,OOO.OO) or both, for each and every non-compliance with an order issued by law enforcement authorities.

SEC. 14. Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities. — To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus and considering the procedures involved for international cooperation, law enforcement authorities specifically the computer or technology crime divisions or units responsible for the investigation of cybercrimes are required to submit timely and regular repOlis including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review and monitoring.

CHAPTER V – JURISDICTION
SEC. I5. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.

CHAPTER VI – INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
SEC. 16. General principles relating to international cooperation. — All relevant international instruments on international cooperation in criminal matters, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offense shall be given full force and effect.

SEC. 17. Applicability of the Convention on Cybercrime. — The provisions of Chapter III of the Convention on Cybercrimc shall be directly applicable in the implementation of this Act as it relates to international cooperation taking into account the procedural laws obtaining in the jurisdiction.

CHAPTER VII – COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
SEC. 18. Department of Justice. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) shall be responsible for extending immediate assistance for the purpose of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of electronic evidence of a criminal offense and to otherwise ensure that the provisions of this law are complied. In this regard, there is hereby created a DOJ Office of Cybercrime for facilitating or directly carrying out the provisions of technical advice, preservation of data, collection of evidence, giving legal information and locating suspects and all other cybercrime matters related to investigation and reporting issues.

SEC. 19. Commission on Information and Communications Technology. – The Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT) shall be responsible for formulating and implementing a national cyber security plan and extending immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT). In this regard, there is hereby created a CICT National Cyber Security Office to carry out the above responsibilities and all other matters related to cybercrime prevention and suppression, including capacity building.

CHAPTER VIII – CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATION CENTER

SEC 20. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Cellter, — There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, hereinafter referred to as CICC, under the control and supervision of the Office of the President, to formulate and implement the national cyber security plan.

SEC 21. Composition. — The CICC shall be headed by the Chairman of the Commission on Information and Communications Technology as Chairman; with the Director of the NBI as Vice-Chairman; Chief of the PNP; Chicf of the National Prosecution Service (NPS); and the Head of the National Computer Center (NCC) as members.

The CICC shall be manned by a secretariat of selected personnel and representatives from the different participating agencies.

SEC. 22. Powers and Functions. — The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:
a. To prepare and implement appropriate and effective measures to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities as provided in this Act;
b. To monitor cybercrime cases being handled by participating law enforcement and prosecution agencies;
c. To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence, investigations, training and capacity building related to cybercrime prevention, suppression and prosecution;
d. To coordinate the support and participation of the business sector, local government units, and non-government organizations in cybercrime prevention programs and other related projects;
e. To recommend the enactment of appropriate laws, issuances, measures and policies;
f. To call upon any government agency to render assistance m the accomplishment of the Clee’s mandated tasks and functions;
g. To perform such other functions and duties necessary for the proper implementation of this Act.

CHAPTER IX – FINAL PROVISIONS

SEC 23. Appropriations. — The amount of ten million pesos (PhplO,OOO,OOO.OO) shall be appropriated annually for the implementation of this Act.

SEC 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Department of Justice in consultation with the Commission on Information and Communication Technology shall formulate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation ofthis Act including the creation and establishment of a national cyber security office with the relevant computer emergency response councilor team.

SEC 25. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC 26. Repealing Clause. –. All laws, decrees, or rules inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act is hereby modified accordingly.

 

See the article on Interaksyon.com.