Padre Faura was closed to traffic last Tuesday as the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments on the Cybercrime act of 2012. Groups opposed to the bill trooped in big numbers

not only to show their support for the lawyers arguing in front of the court to strike down the law but they were also there out of genuine concern for the threats to their freedom, in the Internet and in the real world.

Everybody understands the implications of the provisions in the law that adds penalty to libel that was done online. Media outfits, bloggers and other content generators (read: writers in the Internet age) have shown their outrage by making clear to many how dangerous the Cybercrime law is. There is a campaign to decriminalize libel and yet here we are, in 2013, implementing a law that strengthens penalties to it.

The chilling effect of the libel clause on one’s exercise of freedom of speech can be made apparent if your commentary (offline or online) becomes recorded and broadcast all over the Internet through the ubiquitous cellphones and data connections and suddenly you find yourself the subject of a complaint under the law. The one who posted this is liable. The one who said it would be liable. The others who reposted it around would also be liable.

A meme thus becomes doubly dangerous. It propagates like wildfire and with the cybercrime law, everyone becomes liable under RA 10175.

The issue of the Cybercrime law goes beyond Internet libel. It covers cybersex, cyberbullying, libel and everything in between. The law makes it an offense to gain “illegal” access and perform “illegal” interception of data. It also puts in an overly broad phrase “misuse of devices”.

As a hardware tinkerer (I should have used “hacker” but the cybercrime law and its advocates have put the term in a bad light), I create devices using microcontrollers, oscillators and electronic parts. Native inventiveness and need go hand in hand in creating interface equipment that can talk to each other and send data to each other.

Yet sometimes one needs to push hardware (or “devices”) further. One may overclock processors, root phones, and yes even “Jailbreak” smart devices— if only to overcome the imposed limitations of vendors to the hardware one buys. In an economy like ours, where one cellphone already costs a ton, to eke out the smallest fraction of additional performance to the devices we have is a boon.

Does such tinkering, especially on communication devices, make one liable under the broad definition of cybercrime offfenses? The hardware is already yours when you paid for it so why do we have to limit ourselves to what the manufacturers set for you.

The same might also apply to software and services. Since you have paid for these already, why are you limited to artificial constructs that the providers give you? Putting a limit through the phrase “misuse of devices” can potentially stifle innovation and inventiveness especially of the youth.

The same vague and sweeping language on data interference such as the intentional or reckless alteration of data . . . including the introduction or transmission of viruses makes one vulnerable to capricious elements who would use the law to oppress rather than to help people.

With the law, the state will be forced to always monitor Internet and cellphone traffic data. Upon suspicion, the state can monitor everyone that you email, text and message. In order to do this correctly and not take the messages out of context, one need to monitor other content providers that are simultaneously connected to you. They also have to start collecting data even before you commit the “crime” since one needs to backtrack your messages. This is patently unreasonable and falls squarely under the violation of one’s right to privacy and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Department of Justice is tasked to do this data collection. They are also tasked to issue orders to restrict or block access to computer data (the infamous “take down” clause) which many say intrudes on one’s freedom of speech and grants the DOJ wide power in blocking access to data.

We are all affected by this law. All users of mobile phones are vulnerable. So are those who are Internet media savvy as well as occasional users of the Internet. Most of our landlines pass through the net nowadays which makes all of electronic communication vulnerable. It poses dangers to ordinary people that comments on inequities heaped upon them by society.

The UN Human Rights Commission has declared that all people should be allowed to connect and express themselves freely in the Internet. We send our emails, texts and messages to others in order to express ourselves and communicate with others. The UN body also pointed out the importance of the Internet in the “promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” It is now high time for the administration, the legistature and judiciary to recognize these and Ctrl-Alt-Del the problem of the Cybercrime law away.