Cybercrime Republic Act of 2012, Good or Bad for internet users?

Internet, this might be the most awesome discovery in the world of technology. It provides information very quick. It helps students do their assignments and meet the deadlines. It helps businesses. And it can be use for our own entertainment like going to social networking sites such as and But for every advantages there are always disadvantages or things that makes internet a bad influence for some people. Like in the Philippines, students commit absences or do cutting classes to play internet games. There are also some people uses internet fool others to get money. Others do scamming, theft of identity, child pornography, etc. To prevent these kind of cases the Philippine Congress created a new law called Republic Act No.10175 or commonly known as Cybercrime Republic Act of 2012. In this law, people involved in hacking, cybersex, child pornography, spamming, illegal access to computer system, theft of identity and libel now can be sued. But for other sectors, this law is a threat to freedom for using internet. Because  this law states that even to your single tweet or facebook status anyone can sue you if they find it slander. This law is also alarming because it gives the legal authority to investigate a certain individual via internet without warrant. If convicted for a certain crime under this law you can be imprisoned for six years and up plus other offenses. However, I find this law very helpful to our legal authorities especially this time that cybercrime is increasing. I hope, as always, that this newly created law will be implemented accordingly with no other rights  sacrificed.


2 thoughts on “Cybercrime Republic Act of 2012, Good or Bad for internet users?

  1. Once aware of the situation, I documented a historical event line of the extent of the identity theft, police involvement. We knew who perpetrated the crime, but the husband/wife team fled the state before an arrest could be made. I found the couple on Facebook, gave the attorney’s all information to pursue the perpetrator’s of the crime and they refused to accept responsibility claiming I fabricated my documentation, including a copy of the letter from the original creditor on their letterhead. It should not have surprised me because the attorney working for the law firm who initiated thee suit and fabricated documents lost his license to practice law after a criminal conviction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s