Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 criminalising   any   sexual   content   at   all,   including   activity   that   takes   place   between   consenting  adults.     In   line   with   the   three-­‐part   test,   the   Philippine   government   should   question   whether   it   is   actually   necessary   to   criminalise   and   block   all   sexual   content   online.   Fully   enforcing  this  law  would  be  a  massive  undertaking  which  would  require  enormous   resources   dedicated   to   locating   and   blocking   offending   websites.   It   therefore  merits   careful   consideration   as   to   whether   the   government   of   the   Philippines   actually   intends  to  assume  such  a  broad  responsibility.         Recommendation:     Ø Section  4(c)(1)  should  be  reconsidered  in  light  of  its  broad  applicability  and   the  resources  necessary  to  enforce  it.     6. The “Reckless” Standard   As  the  country  where  the  notorious  ILOVEYOU  virus,  one  of  the  world’s  first  major   online  security  scares,  originated,  there  is  an  understandable  sensitivity  within  the   Philippines   over  the  need  to  contain  computer  viruses.  Nonetheless,   section   4(a)(3)   of  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  goes  troublingly  far  in  its  attempt  to  combat  the   spread  of  malicious  code:       Data   Interference.   —   The   intentional   or   reckless   alteration,   damaging,   deletion   or   deterioration   of   computer   data,   electronic   document,   or   electronic   data   message,   without  right,  including  the  introduction  or  transmission  of  viruses.     While   it   is   certainly   reasonable   to   criminalise   the   intentional   introduction   or   transmission  of  computer  viruses,  the  use  of  the  “reckless”  standard  is  problematic.   Levels  of  technical  sophistication  vary  dramatically  between  different  users.  This  is   particularly   true   as   the   Internet   spreads   into   communities   with   limited   levels   of   education  and  computer  literacy.  In  this  context,  it  bears  questioning  as  to  how  one   determines  the  level  of  technical  understanding  necessary  for  a  person  to  be  using   the  Internet  responsibly  (i.e.  not  recklessly)?     It   could   be   argued   that   any   PC   user   who   surfs   the   Internet   without   anti-­‐virus   software,   or   even   who   fails   to   regularly   update   their   anti-­‐virus   software,   is   being   reckless.   What   about   someone   who   forwards   on   an   email   after   their   anti-­‐virus   software  has  flashed  up  a  warning?  While  this  may  not  be  behaviour  one  might  wish   to   encourage,   it   is   unfortunately   common   among   computer   users,   and   hardly   justifies  a  criminal  sanction.     The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy - 13 -