Cybercriminals exploit 'Windows Android Driver' searches
December 17, 2012 6:43pm
Fans just got a taste of what to expect this season. Here are the numbers that shaped the first week of UAAP volleyball action.read more
The DLSU Lady Spikers took a walk in the park as they dominated UST from start to finish with 25-8, 27-25, 25-13read more
Japeth Aguilar's trey and block saved the day as Barangay Ginebra escaped the Talk N Text Tropang Texters 97-95.read more
Jessy Mendiola's time is here. Patiently waiting for her turn in the spotlight, she is proof that good things come to those who wait.read more
While we don't espouse violence, one can't help get more adrenaline watching the game when you see players go at each other at all costs.read more
8th January 2013
MANILA, Philippines - The official website of Senate Majority Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto III was hacked by a group claiming to be Anonymous Philippines past midnight on Tuesday, January 8.
Upon loading titosotto.com users are greeted with a pop-up message that says, "Defaced by #pR.is0n3r." When readers click through, they are greeted by an animated Anonymous Philippines logo, with a message criticizing RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Sotto website hacked over anti-cybercrime law
January 8, 2013 4:20am
The website of Senate majority leader Vicente Sotto III was defaced early Tuesday, with the hackers calling on him to revise the Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012.
Visitors to Sotto's website, www.titosotto.com, were greeted with a message from "Anonymous Philippines". "It's been a long time, Tito Sen! Deny us our freedom of speech and of expression through R.A. 10175, and we will deny you your cyberspace. You cannot shut us up, you cannot shut us down," the message read.
Republic Act 10175 is the controversial Anti-Cybercrime Law, which defines and penalizes several Internet-related offenses.
Many groups had opposed the law over what they called vague, yet repressive provisions that call for jail penalties.
Among these provisions in an online libel entry, which Sotto had been criticized for introducing.
"And you shall not see us rest until R.A. 10175 is revised ... We are all waiting, we are all ready," the hackers said, "Protect our Right to Freedom of Expression!"
Tuesday's defacement came a week before the Supreme Court was to hold hearings on the law. Last year, the high court suspended the implementation of the law amid protests against it.
The protests included those from hacker groups, which defaced many Philippine government sites.
But the hacker groups stopped the attacks after learning one of the attacked sites was providing important information on cyclones. — DVM, GMA News
SC wants Cybercrime Law's cybersex provision clarified
By MARK MERUEÑAS, GMA NEWS January 9, 2013 7:33pm
The Supreme Court wanted to find out if the specific clause in the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 punishing cybersex would violate a person's right to free expression.
In a six-page advisory, the high court tasked petitioner and University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque to include in his oral argument the discussion of Section 4(c)(1) of the law.
The advisory was drawn up from a meeting arranged by Associate Justice Roberto Abad with the people behind the 15 separate petitions all questioning the legality of the Anti-Cybercrime law. Oral arguments on the petitions would be held at 2 p.m. on January 15 and 22.
"The Court advises Atty. Roque to touch also on the issue of whether or not Section 4(c)(1), which punishes cybersex (the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organ or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration), violates the constitutional right to free expression," the court said.
This would be in addition to Roque's assignment to tackle whether Section 4(c)(4) on electronic libel or libel committed using a computer system violates a person rights to due process, equal protection of the law, free expression, and against double jeopardy.
I would like to invite everyone to actively participate in this historic oral argument whether you are for or against the said petition.
Let us not be limited in discussing this issue in the cyber world.
For your guidance.
CYBERCRIME PETITIONS SC BULLETIN No. 2
The SC Public Information Office is issuing this ADVISORY on the oral arguments on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 scheduled on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 2 p.m. at the En Banc Session Hall, 2nd Floor, SC Main Building.
Those who wish to observe the said oral arguments in the En Banc Session Hall must write to the Office of the Clerk of Court through Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal to secure passes. They may fax their letter-request to this number: (02)525-3208. Admission is on a first-come-first-served basis.
Only those who have passes and the media with IDs issued by their media outfits who have registered with Security shall be allowed inside the En Banc Session Hall and the designated viewing area on a first-come-first-served basis. The viewing area will be at the lobby of the New Building. The reserved area for the media will be the last row of seats inside the Session Hall and the first three rows at the viewing area.
Read in Full: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/...1/01091302.php
SC BULLETIN No. 3
The following advisory shall govern the oral arguments scheduled at 2:00p.m. on Tuesday, 15 January 2013:
1. Counsels designated by agreement of the parties on 04 January 2013 shall orally argue the following issues:
Read in Full: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pio/news/...e_advisory.pdf
Lawyer to ask for indefinite TRO against Cybercrime Law
By ROUCHELLE R. DINGLASAN, GMA NEWSJanuary 10, 2013 10:50pm
University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque will ask the Supreme Court to indefinitely extend its 120-day temporary restraining order against the implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which is set to lapse on February 6.
Roque, who is one of the petitioners against the controversial measure, said that he will make his manifestation during oral arguments on January 15, Tuesday.
“Hihingi po kami orally na ma-extend indefinitely ‘yung TRO until such time na magkaroon ng resolution or decision ang Korte,” Roque said Thursday during a meeting of anti-Cybercrime Law groups at the College of Education auditorium in the University of the Philippines-Diliman campus.
Last October 9, the High Court issued a temporary restraining order against the Republic Act 10175’s implementation.,
“Kailangan pong makalampag ang Korte. Kinakailangan gisingin na naman sila na, 'Magdesisyon na kayo!' Lalong-lalo na at may posibilidad na may makulong pagkatapos ng TRO,” the law professor noted.
“Pagkatapos po ng TRO, pwede na silang mandampot o magkaso ng mga ordinaryong mamayan dahil sa pagpapatupad ng batas na ito. Diyan po papasok ‘ngayon na hindi gagalaw ang institusyon kung hindi gagalaw ang mamamayan,” he explained.
Roque was a lawyer-petitioner that was tasked by the SC to tackle whether the law's Section 4 (c)(4) on electronic libel violates a person's rights to due process, equal protection under the law, free expression, and against double jeopardy.
We can be expectant our SC Justices are well aware of the repercussion should there be a delay in their decision on the petition.
But that doesn't mean we can exert pressure for the Justices to make a decision haphazardly.
This is a landmark case regarding the use of electronic communication and the responsibilities (freedom of expression) attached to it.
We can only hope for a prudent and timely decision from the #ReformistsAtPadrefaura
One of the very tricky provisions of Cybercrime Law is:
'The issue of whether or not Section 4(c)(l), which punishes cybersex (the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organ or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration), violates the constitutional right to free expression.'
This almost escaped public's scrutiny.
Goodbye show time!
Youth leaders join opposition vs cybercrime law
January 11, 2013 6:47pm
A group of youth leaders have joined the opposition against Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which will be up for oral arguments in the Supreme Court starting next week.
In a 27-page petition-in-intervention for certiorari and prohibition filed on Friday, the petitioners asked the court to stop the implementation of the law for allegedly being unconstitutional. They said some of its provisions violate a person's constitutional rights.
As an example, they said Section 4(c)(1) of the law on cybersex "impairs the right of privacy and free speech." They described the provision as "ambiguous," adding a "vague statute or act is repugnant to the Constitution."
The petitioners also said the use of the word "prostitution" in the law "clearly applies to both prostitution, as commonly understood, and to private and intimate acts between consenting individuals not otherwise punished by law."
Even the words "lascivious exhibition of sexual organ" and "sexual activity" is not precisely delineated in the law, the petitioners pointed out.
Govt sites hacked on eve of SC cybercrime hearing
January 14, 2013 4:31am
On the eve of the Supreme Court's hearing on the Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012, hackers opposing the law defaced several government websites early Monday. Hacked were:
"What happened to the law? Are all laws meant to be broken? Are they made to fool people, deprive them of their rights in exchange of what we believe as 'Heavens for Politicians'? Some say we are against the law because it would hinder our 'criminal activities' but WE do not oppose the said law in any way if it is for the greater good," Anonymous Philippines said in a message it left in the hacked sites.
It reminded the government of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which said "NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."
Meanwhile, foes of the law had adopted a new hashtag on Twitter. Blogger Tonyo Cruz urged those against the law to use the hashtag #NoToCybercrimeLaw in a "black protest" against the measure in cyberspace.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments for and against the controversial measure, which President Benigno Aquino III signed into law last September.
Last year, several groups protested the new law, saying provisions such as online libel may be abused.
Hacker groups had previously attacked some government sites in protest, but called-off its activities after one of the attacked sites turned out to be providing critical information on weather conditions. — DVM, GMA News
Here is some information of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. You can also download the PDF format in the link below.
Arguments vs the Cybercrime Law: What to expect at the Supreme Court
Atty. Marlon Anthony R. TonsonJanuary 15, 2013 10:18am
Before the oral arguments begin at 2 p.m. today, January 15, several groups opposing the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) are set to conduct mass actions or mobilizations as early as 9 a.m. in front of the Supreme Court’s (SC's) gates on Padre Faura Street, Manila.
Here's what to expect in the hours to follow.
These include petitioner groups such as the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the National Press Club (NPC), and the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), as well as party-list groups Kabataan, Bayan Muna, and militant group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and the College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP). Some of these groups had even staged an overnight vigil on the eve of the oral arguments.
Three months ago, the high court in a unanimous vote restrained the implementation of RA 10175 after it received 15 petitions assailing the law’s validity for allegedly violating the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection, due process, and against double jeopardy, as well as the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.
The court will sit en banc or as a “whole bench” with all of its members sitting in judgment. But in October last year, SC Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. said he will not take part in the case after petitioner NUJP asked that he inhibit himself. This means, at most there will be 14 magistrates to hear the oral arguments.
Hacktivists deface Eat Bulaga, BOC sites before cybercrime law hearings
January 15, 2013 5:25am
ust hours before the Supreme Court begins hearings on the Anti-Cybercrime Act of 2012, hacktivists defaced the Bureau of Customs' website as well as that of popular noontime show "Eat Bulaga".
Visitors to the “About” section of the "Eat Bulaga" site were greeted with a blank page with the message "u r alone".
PrivateX, which publicized the hack on its Twitter account, did not make clear if the attack were due to Senate majority leader Vicente Sotto III being a host of the program.
Sotto's website, titosotto.com, had been defaced last Jan. 8 by Anonymous Philippines. Sotto had been criticized for introducing a provision on online libel into the law.
"And you shall not see us rest until R.A. 10175 is revised ... We are all waiting, we are all ready," the hackers said.
Meanwhile, visitors to the the Customs Bureau's URL were greeted with a message from Anonymous Philippines.
The message criticizing the Anti-Cybercrime Law was similar to those posted on government sites hacked on Monday.
"What happened to the law? Are all laws meant to be broken? Are they made to fool people, deprive them of their rights in exchange of what we believe as 'Heavens for Politicians'? Some say we are against the law because it would hinder our 'criminal activities' but WE do not oppose the said law in any way if it is for the greater good," they said in their message on the hacked Customs page. — DVM/TJD, GMA News
Very often the essence of a thing so pure, can be corrupted by the impurities of things around it. No matter how positive the cybercrime law's intention is, filipinos, like the people in different government agencies, will find a way to harass and make money out of it. More laws, means more ways to make money.