Which of the Is the Legal Basis of Our Cybercrime Prevention Law
12 décembre 2022

2.1 Governing Law: Please cite all applicable laws in your jurisdiction that apply to cybersecurity, including laws that apply to monitoring, detection, prevention, mitigation and incident management. This may include, for example, data protection and electronic data protection laws, intellectual property laws, privacy laws, information security laws and import/export controls. The Act also directs the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police to organize a cybercrime unit with a special advocate whose mandate will be to deal exclusively with cases related to violations of the law under the supervision of the Department of Justice. Among other things, the entity has the authority to collect real-time traffic data from Internet service providers for a reason, to require the disclosure of computer data within 72 hours of receiving a court order from a service provider, and to conduct searches and seizures of data and computer devices. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially registered as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law passed in the Philippines on September 12, 2012. It aims to resolve legal issues related to online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. The cybercrime offences included in the bill include cybersquatting,, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and defamation. [1] 2.

In March 2020, the first guilty verdict in a cyberlibel case was handed down against a local politician, Archie Yongco, from Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur. [50] Yongco was convicted of falsely accusing another local politician of contract murder via a Facebook post, which he deleted minutes later, but whose archives were created; The court was not convinced by his denial that he had published the news, and he was sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay damages of ₱610,000 (₱12,175). [50] Cybercrime investigation amendment laws are being drafted in the Philippines and aim to introduce new procedural powers, responsibilities, and extradition provisions. These amending laws aim to provide prosecutors and investigators with a structured approach to cybercrime investigations and to further align national legislation with the Budapest Convention. There is no general U.S. law that explicitly requires companies to implement backdoors in their computer systems or provide encryption keys to law enforcement. Under the All Writs Act, some courts have ordered appropriate assistance in some cases, including a notable case where Apple was asked to provide assistance to bypass security features — something Apple successfully resisted until it was in litigation. The National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police are the enforcement agencies for the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Both organize a cybercrime unit or centre with a special advocate to deal exclusively with cases of violations of the 2012 Cybercrime Prevention Act. (g) `computer system` means any interconnected or related device or group of devices, one or more of which, according to a program, carry out automated data processing; It covers any type of device with data processing capabilities, including but not limited to computers and mobile phones.

The hardware and software device can include input, output, and storage components that can be standalone or connected to a network or other similar devices. This includes computer data storage devices or media. 6.3 Is there potential tort liability (or equivalent legal theory) for failure to prevent an incident (e.g. negligence)? Jurisdiction. Law enforcement authorities can only investigate cybercrime, and national courts can only adjudicate cybercrime cases if the State concerned has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a State to enforce laws and punish non-compliance with laws (this topic is discussed in more detail in Module 7 on international cooperation in combating cybercrime). Jurisdiction is linked to state sovereignty, which is the right of a country to exercise its authority over its own territory (UNODC, 2013, p. 55). Jurisdiction is usually associated with the geographical territory or locus commissi deliciti (the place where the crime was committed), with States claiming jurisdiction and prosecuting crimes committed on their territory (principle of territoriality). Since there are no geographic boundaries and territories in cyberspace, location cannot be used to determine jurisdiction. For this reason, states rely on a variety of other factors to determine their jurisdiction (Brenner and Koops, 2004; Rahman, 2012; Maras, forthcoming, 2020): One of these factors is the nationality of the author (nationality principle, active personality principle). This principle states that States have the power to prosecute their nationals even if those nationals are outside their territory.

To a lesser extent (in its use), the nationality of the victim may be used to assert jurisdiction over a crime (nationality principle, passive personality principle). A State may also establish jurisdiction because crimes committed in another State (e.g. treason or espionage) have harmed the interests and security of the State requesting jurisdiction over the case (principle of protection). Finally, any State may establish jurisdiction over certain cross-border crimes, such as mass atrocities (e.g. genocide), which are presumed to affect all persons, regardless of their geographical location, if the State in which the offence was committed is unwilling or unable to prosecute the offender (principle of universality). (a) develop a national cybersecurity plan and strengthen emergency assistance in the fight against the real-time commission of cybercrime-related offences by a Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT); The guide has been, and still is, the only readily available source of substantive information on a complex area on which advice can be given. Steven Rix, Head of Legal Operations, Europe – GlaxoSmithKline Other relevant cybercrime laws include the Electronic Communications Protection Act (“ECPA”), which protects communications at rest and in transit. Under the Stored Communications Act (Title II of the ECPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2702 criminalizes intentional access (or exceeding authorized access) to a facility that provides an electronic communications service (“ECS”), which may include, but is not limited to, email service providers or even email provided by the employer. Violations of ECPA are punishable by penalties of up to 10 years for repeated violations for improper purposes. ECPA also prohibits the wilful interception of electronic communications during transmission under the Wiretap Act (ECPA Title I), 18 U.S.C.

§ 2511, with some exceptions for law enforcement, service providers, and others (possibly including employers). Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1839, and Trade Secrets Defense Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1836 to 1139 are other sources of possible criminal and civil penalties for theft of trade secrets and other valuable intellectual property rights. 2) Civil law. These jurisdictions have codified, consolidated and supplemented laws or statutes that delineate fundamental rights, responsibilities, duties and expectations with respect to conduct. These legal systems are mainly based on laws and constitutions. (4) Defamation. – Illegal or prohibited defamation within the meaning of article 355 of the Revised Criminal Code, as amended, committed by means of a computer system or other similar means that may be developed in the future.

Substantive law focuses on the content of the offence, such as the elements of an offence comprising prohibited conduct (actus reus – “guilty act”) and the mental element (mens rea – “guilty mind”).