DIGITAL KARMA

A young lady went to my office today to seek help. She is a blogger for years and recently discovered that another blogger had been publishing “malicious” stories about her. She is devastated and has had sleepless nights thinking what she did to deserve such treatment from someone who belongs to the same industry. Worse, the blogger is using an “alias”, which she is pretty sure to be fictitious- something created for the sole purpose of defaming her.

Poor Soul – just weeks back she had been shouting at the top of her “online voice” about how stupid a law the Cybercrime Prevention Act (CPA) is. She was supposedly among the first online advocates for the scrapping of the law as it would trample on the precious rights of people to express themselves online. In addition, she had actively advocated for the “decriminalization” of the libel laws saying that freedom of expression and journalistic responsibilities are something that should be protected regardless of jurisdiction.

But then again, the CPA is under suspension by virtue of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court. In January 2013, it would hear the oral arguments of the contending parties so that eventually they can decide whether to declare the law or portions of it unconstitutional.

Please do not misinterpret this writer, but I am secretly grinning when I was hearing her stories. This is what you call “digital karma”. It seems that even “karma” is moving as fast as how the internet evolves. And Poor Soul is just too glad to admit that she was a bit wrong about that legislative measure.

Why? Pre-CPA, law enforcement had difficulty securing information from the Internet Service Providers (ISP) and telecommunications companies. These information are needed to pinpoint to the origin of an internet activity and therefore identify the perpetrator of a crime. Because there was no law that compels the ISPs and telcos to share information with law enforcement, cases do not reach the finish line without the victims (libel or otherwise) getting precious justice. 

Fast forward to the current time, the measures to secure the information from the ISPs and telcos would have been very clear, thus, victims, including Poor Soul would have been able to avail thereof during investigation. But I guess she has to wait until the petitions before the Supreme Court get resolved before she could take a breath of relief.

Another point, let us say that the CPA pulls through, that is the Supreme Court finds it a valid law. But through legislation, libel gets decriminalized, like Poor Soul had been advocating weeks back. If this is the case, the remedy of securing a Court Warrant under the CPA to compel the ISPs and telcos to share information with law enforcement would not be possible anymore. Why? Under the CPA, the remedy is only available for criminal cases because the Court where the Warrant is applied would have to find substantial grounds in determining whether a crime had been committed. Since libel is (already) civil in nature, then how do we go to Court to apply for a Court Warrant? The resultant effect is that “unidentified blogger” goes scot free. Impunity and anonymity are certainly his best tools and advantages. 

There you have it. Nature certainly has a unique way of expressing itself. Good day to all of you.