Philippines' Cybercrime Law Makes SOPA Look Reasonable 103
silentbrad writes with this report from Forbes: "The dark days of SOPA and PIPA are behind the U.S., at least temporarily, as copyright tycoons reground and restrategize, attempting to come up with measures that don't cause the entire internet to shut down in protest. But one country has already moved ahead with similar legislation. The government of the Philippines has passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which on the surface, as usual, sounds perfectly well-intentioned. But when you read the actual contents of what's been deemed 'cybercrime,' SOPA's proposed censorship sounds downright lax by comparison. Yes, there's the usual hacking, cracking, identity theft and spamming, which most of us can agree should be illegal. But there's also cybersex, pornography, file-sharing (SOPA's main target), and the most controversial provision, online libel." At least it doesn't mention blasphemy.
What would it take to cut the Philippines off? (Score:0, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, cut the telecom lines that run to/from the Philippines so they have "Philippine-net" and not Internet. Let them see what a fully censored internet looks like.
Not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
The Philippines don't look so good as a place to locate a data haven anymore.
hacking, cracking (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that "most of us can agree [that these] should be illegal". Trying to outlaw that is usually accompanied by banning essential security tools like nmap, wireshark etc., tools that some of us actually need for "peaceful" purposes.
Re:Libel is controversial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because it depends on who is deciding what is libel and what is not. Most likely it will be misused by rich people being accused of corruption getting their accusers into jail because 'nothing has been proven'.
Re:Libel is controversial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libel is controversial? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because liars aren't the problem. The believers are. A leader is never the problem. The followers always are. In every instance that you want to attack speech, you are all making the same mistake of not going after the listener instead. Case closed.
Re:Not so good (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot ban all commercial sex online because some ass***s force children to do commercial sex shows. If you wanted to ban that you would just ban children doing sex shows. Now the whole industry has to go underground, and then there is no reason not to continue the children shows.
Re:Stop repeating the MPAA's propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)