Slashdot Mirror
Philippines' Cybercrime Law Makes SOPA Look Reasonable
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.
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.
The Philippines don't look so good as a place to locate a data haven anymore.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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'.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder. What is means is that if I attack someone's politics, they can throw me in jail by saying its libel. Have you never heard of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say "
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
SLASHDOT, FOR FUCKS SAKE HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE? There's no information here. Do you have proof? Any?