W7y8w3

But the Cybercrime Law violates at least twoother rights:Access to informationThe law establishes a sentence of three to six yearsfor persons found guilty of capturing digital informationfrom a public institution, such as what is spenton social programmes, and complements this withnew data to analyse the information (such as when ajournalist analyses public data from different sources,creating a new data set). Critics of this legislationunderstand that at this point it contradicts the Lawon Transparency and Access to Public Information. 5Article 6 of the law on access to informationmakes it a criminal offence to use data without permission,which means that anyone who accessespublic information without authorisation and createsa database where this information could bedisseminated would be guilty of a crime. In this way,access to public information and the right to freedomof information are limited. 6This observation sparked the debate amongpoliticians, civil society and experts and prompteda review. Article 6 was repealed in March 2014.Information freedomThe amended article regarding telephone interceptionsincluded in the Cybercrime Law goes as faras to punish any kind of monitoring, regardless ofthe purpose. This makes the privacy of communicationsso strict that the monitoring of public officialsin order to secure transparency is also prohibited,affecting citizens’ freedom of information and theirability to conduct research in the public interest.The exemption that applies to the media, and whichrefers to an exemption of the penalty when investigatingor monitoring issues of public interest, wasnot included in the amendments of the law passed.ConclusionsMass surveillance by the Peruvian state has notbeen proven in recent years; however, it is knownthat the national intelligence services are treading athin line of legality through their use of surveillancetools to monitor citizens’ publicly shared information,which according to the norm is a crime too. Theincrease in the budget for the DINI suggests thatthey could be doing more than that. Ideally, theseresources should be directed to using surveillanceas a tool for protection and security – but we do notknow yet know if that is the case.5 Law No. 27806 of 2002.6 Interview with Roberto Pereira C., lawyer and legal consultant atthe Press and Society Institute (IPYS) (www.ipys.org), 14 May 2014.Regarding the legal framework for surveillance,the biggest problem is not the law itself, but its interpretationand application. This creates the needfor specialised training for legal practitioners, prosecutorsand law enforcement authorities in technicalterms and standards and technological methods relatedto the violation of communications in all aspects.The Cybercrime Law appears to affect freedomof information legislation, which guarantees transparencyin the public sector. The Cybercrime Lawalso impacts negatively on other genuine rights thatallow society and individuals to exercise democraticcontrol and play an oversight role. The fact is thatwhat one law defends, the other blocks.Undeniably, the many cases of interceptionpushed the approval of the Cybercrime Law, in thepursuit of legal mechanisms to curb such crimes.However, the result reflects little analysis on thetopic, poor legal specifications, little precision inthe application of the law, and the lack of a consciousreview of comparative international lawsthat could have contributed to making it more efficientand appropriate.Action stepsThe debate on how to improve the Cybercrime Lawshould continue. Specifically, it should include theclause on media exemption in order to keep trackof what is considered in the public interest. In thissense, it is also crucial to protect the right to freedomof information and investigation, which serves as amechanism for citizen control in governmental affairs.Given the uniqueness of the environment inwhich it must be applied, the Cybercrime Law couldbe reviewed by legal practitioners and comparedto similar laws in other countries. It would also beadvisable to add some kind of standard glossary ofterms as an interpretive guide.Civil society organisations that are frequentlymonitored should place more importance on theneed to encrypt information and have reliablesecurity mechanisms for their communications. Securityprotocols and devices can be used to preventcommunications being violated. Internet serviceproviders (ISPs) must guarantee their users reliableand safe communications, since it is very likely thatintermediaries are used in surveillance.Finally it is clear that the opposition, civil societyand the media cannot give up fighting for theirrights to privacy and to exercise their oversight ofpublic affairs. The state will always try to find waysto control its citizens, and Peruvians already knowthat surveillance is just one of these ways.PhilippinesCommunications surveillance in the Philippines:Laws and the struggle for the right to privacyComputer Professionals’ UnionRick Bahaguewww.cp-union.comIntroductionThe Philippines has been crowned the “texting capitalof the world” 1 the “social networking capital ofthe world”, 2 and its financial district is ranked asthe “selfiest city of the world”. 3 Data is voluntarilyuploaded and shared by its “netizens” on socialmedia networks through mobile and landline networksand is a gold mine for any state surveillanceactivities. Its 106.5 million mobile subscribers senttwo billion text messages daily last year. Fixed telephonesubscription is almost non-existent, witha telephone density of four subscribers for every100 inhabitants, and mobile subscriptions serveas the main communications tool. The digital dividehas, however, plagued the country even afterthe deregulation of the telecommunications industry.The Philippines is ranked 98th in the world onthe Information and Communications TechnologyDevelopment Index (IDI), 4 with the lowest scorecompared to its Asian neighbours.There are two monopolies controlling the telecommunicationsindustry in the country: GlobeTelecoms and Philippine Long Distance Telephone(PLDT). Telecommunications infrastructure is underthe control of corporations. Government communicationsand transactions have to pass through thisprivate network infrastructure, which is a concernfor sensitive information. Because of this, moststate surveillance activities would require somecooperation from any of the telecoms monopolies.In fact, the controversial “Hello Garci” wiretapping1 Tuazon, J. M. (2012, December 4). 20 years on, SMS remains kingin the ‘texting capital of the world’. Interaksyon. Accessed July 17,2014. www.interaksyon.com/infotech/20-years-on-sms-remainsking-in-the-texting-capital-of-the-world(20 years on, SMSremains king in the ‘texting capital of the world’. Interaksyon)2 MST Lifestyle. (2013, May 21). PH is social networking capitalof the world. Manila Standard Today. manilastandardtoday.com/2013/05/21/ph-is-social-networking-capital-of-the-world3 Golangco, V. (2014, March 13). Sexy and social: why Manila is theselfiest city in the world. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/13/manila-selfiest-city-most-selfies4 International Telecommunication Union. (2013). Measuring theInformation Society 2013. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2013.aspxincident, which will be the focus of this report, wasaccomplished with the facilitation of one of theirpersonnel.Furthermore, the Philippines has been a longtimeally of the United States (US), being a formercolony. Various agreements are in place which allowthe US Armed Forces to use local resources formilitary exercises, to strategically position theirweapons, and for mass surveillance activities. EdwardSnowden revealed in March that the MYSTICsurveillance programme run by the US NationalSecurity Agency (NSA) monitors local telcos 5 and“scrapes mobile networks for so-called metadata– information that reveals the time, source, and destinationof calls.” 6While other governments in countries like Braziland Germany protested the unlawful surveillanceby the NSA, Philippine President Benigno Simeon“Noynoy” Aquino is not even familiar with the incidentand has approved another agreement withthe US on enhanced defence cooperation, whichwill open up more surveillance activities. In a statement,the Computer Professionals’ Union (CPU)warned that the Enhanced Defense CooperationAgreement (EDCA) “is an invitation for surveillance,drones and establishment of new listening postsviolating rights to privacy and sovereignty.” 7In this report, we look at the state of communicationssurveillance in the Philippines, focusing ongovernment policies and how they were applied in awiretapping incident. It remains to be seen if thesepolicies can be used against the growing US militarypresence in the country.5 Robinson, K. (2014, May 22). ‘NSA Gone Wild’ in the Bahamas,Mexico, Kenya, the Philippines and more. AccessNow.org. https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/05/22/nsa-gone-wild-in-thebahamas-mexico-kenya-the-philippines-and-more6 Devereaux, D., Greenwald, G., & Poitras, L. (2014, May 19).Data Pirates of the Caribbean: The NSA Is Recording Every CellPhone Call in the Bahamas. The Intercept. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/05/19/data-pirates-caribbean-nsarecording-every-cell-phone-call-bahamas7 Computer Professionals’ Union. (2014, March 2). Enhanceddefense cooperation: an invitation for surveillance, drones andunregulated communications. Computer Professionals’ Union.www.cp-union.com/article/2014/05/02/enhanced-defensecooperation-invitation-surveillance-drones-and-unregulated192 / Global Information Society Watch Philippines / 193