The House of Representatives just passed on the third and final reading House Bill No. 6440, their counterpart to Senate Bill No. 2317. Together, the two bills will be consolidated to become the "Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009".
But, hey, how about Section 8?
Don't get me wrong. I don't support child pornography, and just like 99% of Filipinos, condemn it. But the problem is, with all these hullabaloo of "Yes, the Philippines finally passed an anti-child porn law", no one seems to have read the actual text of the two bills. I honestly have not read the House of Representatives version, because it's not available on their website. But I suspect Section 8 is still there.
So, what is so evil with Section 8 of SB 2317, and why is Isles Tech using some of his precious time ranting about the bill instead of catching up with the cases to read at law school? Here's the actual text of Section 8, SB 2317:
"Section 8. Responsibility of Internet Service Providers. All Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shall notify the PNP or the NBI within seven (7) days from obtaining facts and circumstances that Child Pornography is being committed using its server or facility. Nothing in this Section may be construed to require an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to engage in the monitoring of any user, subscriber or customer, or the content of any communication of any such person; provided that no Internet Service Provider (ISP) shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this Section.
All Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shall install available technology, program or software to ensure that access to or transmittal of Child Pornography will be blocked or filtered.
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) shall promulgate within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act the necessary implementing rules and regulations which shall include, among others, the installation of filtering software that will block access to or transmission of Child Pornography."
Here are two practical effects for you, who read blogs and access the Net almost daily:
1. Your ISP will be required to "install available technology, program or software" to make sure that "access to or transmittal of Child Pornography will be blocked or filtered" - in other words, every ISP will be required to watch what you are doing. (I'm not sure how they are going to do this, but possibly through some blacklisting scheme, just like in Germany and New Zealand.)
That's not so evil from my perspective - I've been surveillanced all my life (although I am not a subversive) and firewalls are good to force me to do more useful things anyway. And, most importantly, I'm not hiding anything :).
But this?
2. If your ISP mistakenly identifies you as a patron of child pornography, you cannot make it pay damages, since "no Internet Service Provider (ISP) shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this Section [8]."
Privacy advocates should find good ground against Section 8 of SB 2317, which presumably also appears in HB 6440.
Like this post? Please help me pay for my Internet access.
Labels: child porn in the philippines, child pornography, hb 6440, privacy, sb 2317
But, hey, how about Section 8?
Don't get me wrong. I don't support child pornography, and just like 99% of Filipinos, condemn it. But the problem is, with all these hullabaloo of "Yes, the Philippines finally passed an anti-child porn law", no one seems to have read the actual text of the two bills. I honestly have not read the House of Representatives version, because it's not available on their website. But I suspect Section 8 is still there.
So, what is so evil with Section 8 of SB 2317, and why is Isles Tech using some of his precious time ranting about the bill instead of catching up with the cases to read at law school? Here's the actual text of Section 8, SB 2317:
"Section 8. Responsibility of Internet Service Providers. All Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shall notify the PNP or the NBI within seven (7) days from obtaining facts and circumstances that Child Pornography is being committed using its server or facility. Nothing in this Section may be construed to require an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to engage in the monitoring of any user, subscriber or customer, or the content of any communication of any such person; provided that no Internet Service Provider (ISP) shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this Section.
All Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shall install available technology, program or software to ensure that access to or transmittal of Child Pornography will be blocked or filtered.
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) shall promulgate within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act the necessary implementing rules and regulations which shall include, among others, the installation of filtering software that will block access to or transmission of Child Pornography."
Here are two practical effects for you, who read blogs and access the Net almost daily:
1. Your ISP will be required to "install available technology, program or software" to make sure that "access to or transmittal of Child Pornography will be blocked or filtered" - in other words, every ISP will be required to watch what you are doing. (I'm not sure how they are going to do this, but possibly through some blacklisting scheme, just like in Germany and New Zealand.)
That's not so evil from my perspective - I've been surveillanced all my life (although I am not a subversive) and firewalls are good to force me to do more useful things anyway. And, most importantly, I'm not hiding anything :).
But this?
2. If your ISP mistakenly identifies you as a patron of child pornography, you cannot make it pay damages, since "no Internet Service Provider (ISP) shall be held civilly liable for damages on account of any notice given in good faith in compliance with this Section [8]."
Privacy advocates should find good ground against Section 8 of SB 2317, which presumably also appears in HB 6440.
Like this post? Please help me pay for my Internet access.
Labels: child porn in the philippines, child pornography, hb 6440, privacy, sb 2317
