GUILTY BUT NOT GUILTY

FOREIGN NATIONALS (CHINESE) HACKING INTO PHILIPPINE WEBSITES

(DISCLAIMER: NOT TO BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSE AND DISCUSSION ONLY.)

Can they be held liable under the Philippine E-Commerce Law for the violation of Section 33?

Considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, hackers access into the University of the Philippines website without permission and identifying themselves as Chinese Nationals claiming that Scarborough Shoal belongs to China, amounts to corruption which is a violation of E-Commerce Law of the Philippines. However, they cannot be prosecuted directly by the Philippine Government for the violation of Section 33 of E-Commerce Law because such acts were committed outside our territorial boundary.

 After confirming the identities of these hackers, the IP address, Internet Service Provider, and any other information which shall establish whether or not such actions amounts to hacking. And if it appears that the hacking was committed outside our shores then the Philippine E-Commerce Law finds no application.

What the Philippine Government can do is to coordinate with the proper Chinese authority and to inquire about their Law, whether hacking by its Nationals violates Chinese law on cybercrimes and ask for their assistance for these hackers to be arrested and investigated by them (Chinese Authorities) .

In our case, the University of the Philippines is located in the Philippines, where the computer systems and websites are located, while the hacker is in China. The Philippines can try to get the case registered for hacking in China, but the chances are that it may not succeed in this exercise as the hacker is outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines. Even if the case is registered in China, it would be difficult to get the Chinese hacker to Philippines for trial under the Philippine cyber law. While it is true that the law provides for extra territorial jurisdiction to law enforcement agencies, but in reality this can hardly be exercised.

Extradition is the only means available, provided there is an extradition treaty between Philippines and China. Even if there is indeed a treaty, it would be a very lengthy process and rather ineffective in the context of cyber crime issues. Cyber criminals act swiftly to delete and destroy all electronic footprints of their crimes.

In a similar case, last year the United States Government through their Federal Bureau of Investigation asked CIDG’s Anti-Transnational and Cyber Crime Division (ATCCD) assistance regarding a complaint filed by a Telecommunication Company based in the USA of hacking activities allegedly done against them by Filipinos here in the Philippines. Said acts lead to the loss of US$2Million incurred by the telecommunication company, which were then linked to terrorist groups who is funding the Filipino Hackers.  They were arrested and is facing charges here in the Philippines by virtue of the E-Commerce Law, violation of Section 33.

Considering the circumstances, actions committed by Chinese Hackers against Philippine Websites qualifies, under Section 33 of Philippine E-Commerce Law, as Hacking so on that point, GUILTY.

On the other hand, these actions by Chinese Hackers were committed outside our territorial jurisdiction therefore our laws does not extend to them, as far as E-Commerce Law is concerned, so on this point Philippines cannot prosecute the actions of the Chinese Hackers.

LINKS / SOURCES:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2011-11-24/aVmM_Ei7GgRM.html

            http://spong.com/article/23540/Jurisdiction-Concerns-Hold-Up-PS3-Hacker-Case

            http://www.digitalfilipino.com/salient-features-of-republic-act-8792-the-e-commerce-law

            http://www.crime-research.org/articles/hacker-what-can-you-do-against-a-hacker/

(DISCLAIMER: NOT TO BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSE AND DISCUSSION ONLY.)