Cybersex crimes, which could result in imprisonment of between six and ten years or a fine of between around £3,000 and £15,000, are defined as: "The wilful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favour or consideration". This part of the act (which also covers child pornography) is designed to combat the Philippines' huge problem with people trafficking and individuals being forced into cybersex activities for the profit of a ringleader.
According to the country's Department of Social Welfare and Development, 60,000 to 600,000 street children are victims of child prostitution.
Who is going to fix our credit, make the banks, credit card Companies pay us back?
However, if the act is designed to combat this problem, the use of the term "wilful" is problematic.
Victims of the crimes in question are by no means "wilful", so the term is either included for other purposes or could potentially leave real victims vulnerable to criminal charges.
It is, however, the vague terms used to outlaw cybersex and the update of the Revised Penal Code to criminalise libel communication via computers or "any other similar means which may be devised in the future", that is of most concern.
Like Acta and Ceta, the act is seeking to control and curtail certain cyber behaviour through criminalisation -- unlike Acta or Ceta, it is targeting nearly any cyber activity it can think of, referencing them with some of the vaguest terminology imaginable and thus leaving potential innocent parties open to investigation and action.
(Note: I have been dealing w/every type of fraud since 2005 & I've been hit 18 times, since before this letter.) Now, I call & I set it all this up, thru IDCare, BAM!! I just want to know bc I'm so tired of filing who @ the OPM is personally responsible for not notifying me?