Topic: anti-boo bill

[Idiot]

Another bill soon to be a law the House Bill No. 4315, or the "anti-cyber boso" bill, authored by Buhay part list Rep. Irwin Tieng, criminalizes who take or possess an indecent "video tape, disc record," or "replay" or "share, relay or exhibit the contents thereof in any form."

This bill is against "cyber boso [voyeur]," or the distribution of private sex videos, taking "peep-show clips" or engaging in "audio-visual kiss-and-tell" face up to six years’ imprisonment and fines of up to P500,000.


this is the second time na sinabi nila ito 

[Paprika]

Blame technology. 

[Madarame Ikkaku]

ambisyoso! 

who would be dumb enough to get caught? 

[audio_X]

asa pa sila!kung may mahuhuli..hehe!

[rydhel1016]

Ang maiiwasan lang dito eh yung gawing pang blackmail yung mga videos pag nag turn sour yung relationship. after that, wala na.

Unless, atasan nila mga pulis na i search yung mga files sa mga cellphones, mp4 players at storage devices at lahat ng may lamang pron eh kalabuso. Hmmm, siguro kasama na to sa body search at bag checks na gagawin sa malls, hahahahahaha.

[Madarame Ikkaku]

di ba kailangan nila ng search warrant kung ini invade na ang privacy ng suspect?...

[hippo]

di ba kailangan nila ng search warrant kung ini invade na ang privacy ng suspect?...

Tama, kailangan ng search warrant. However, may mga exceptions to the rule. Eto yung mga tinatawag na warrantless searches. Marami-rami ring instances na pupuwedeng gawin ang isang warrantless search pero next time ko na sabihin. Hindi ko hawak yung Consti book ko eh. Haha!

[Madarame Ikkaku]

Tama, kailangan ng search warrant. However, may mga exceptions to the rule. Eto yung mga tinatawag na warrantless searches. Marami-rami ring instances na pupuwedeng gawin ang isang warrantless search pero next time ko na sabihin. Hindi ko hawak yung Consti book ko eh. Haha!

sa naalala ko, warrantless search maituturing kung caught in the act ka ng isang official while he/she is on duty... marami pa un.. pero who's dumb enough to view sex scandals in broad daylight? a loser?

[KaMushroom]

nanonood pa nga ako minsan sa school eh

[Madarame Ikkaku]

nanonood pa nga ako minsan sa school eh

ako rin hahaha

[rydhel1016]

Warrantless search for example sa MALLS and other establishments.

[djlove]

walang kwenta yan sa mga mall lang yan sa mga commercial area.

[asanti]

isa naman law na mahirap ma implement ... ang daming batas na nga dinagdagan pa

another useless law

he he tinanggalan ng ligaya ang ibang spies

[hippo]

Warrantless search for example sa MALLS and other establishments.

Hindi siya technically considered warrantless search in the Constitutional sense of the term. The Constitution's bill of rights, among which is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (unreasonable when done w/o a warrant),  is a defense against public officials (i.e. police, military) and not against private individuals (i.e security guards in the malls).

Anyway, here are some of the instances wherein a warrantless search is deemed legal:

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest.

2. Plain view doctrine (i.e. nakita ng pulis na may hawak kang joots, hindi na kelangan ng search warrant yun)

3. Search of a moving vehicle (can be checkpoints) (However, this is limited to a visual search. Para sa mga espiya, pag tinigil kayo sa mga checkpoints, huwag nyong bubuksan ang pinto at trunk nyo. Ilaw na lang sa loob ng auto. Hanggang dun lang ang search na pwedeng gawin sa checkpoints. Kung magpumilit na buksan auto nyo, hingian nyo na ng search warrant. Kung walang maipakita, huwag na huwag papayag.)

4. Consented warrantless search (to some extent, parang yung nangyayari sa malls pero not exactly that)

5. Customs search (or Airport search)

6. Stop and frisk rule (only for certain instances)

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

[rydhel1016]

Hindi siya technically considered warrantless search in the Constitutional sense of the term. The Constitution's bill of rights, among which is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (unreasonable when done w/o a warrant),  is a defense against public officials (i.e. police, military) and not against private individuals (i.e security guards in the malls).

Anyway, here are some of the instances wherein a warrantless search is deemed legal:

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest.

2. Plain view doctrine (i.e. nakita ng pulis na may hawak kang joots, hindi na kelangan ng search warrant yun)

3. Search of a moving vehicle (can be checkpoints) (However, this is limited to a visual search. Para sa mga espiya, pag tinigil kayo sa mga checkpoints, huwag nyong bubuksan ang pinto at trunk nyo. Ilaw na lang sa loob ng auto. Hanggang dun lang ang search na pwedeng gawin sa checkpoints. Kung magpumilit na buksan auto nyo, hingian nyo na ng search warrant. Kung walang maipakita, huwag na huwag papayag.)

4. Consented warrantless search (to some extent, parang yung nangyayari sa malls pero not exactly that)

5. Customs search (or Airport search)

6. Stop and frisk rule (only for certain instances)

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

Kung nakitaan ka ng NARCOTICS/Bloodstained knife/pugot na ulo sa bag mo as mall, pwede ka ba kasuhan?

[hippo]

Kung nakitaan ka ng NARCOTICS/Bloodstained knife/pugot na ulo sa bag mo as mall, pwede ka ba kasuhan?

That may constitute as probable cause and those guards may detain you in the mall's security office for questioning and bring the police with them. As said in the case of People v. Marti, the bill of rights protects the citizens from the abuses from public officers, not from private individuals. However, the citizen is not without a remedy. He may file a damage claim against the private individual under Art. 32 of the Civil Code.

Let's say nakitaan ka nga sa malls ng marijuana because of an allegedly unreasonable search ng mga mall guards?

The general rule products and effects recovered from an unreasonable search is covered by the exclusionary rule. The said rule provides that such products and effects are inadmissible as evidence because they came from an illegal search. This is also referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine."

HOWEVER, according to the case of People v. Marti, if the alleged unreasonable search is committed by private individuals instead of public officers, the exclusionary rule does not apply and the effects gathered from the search becomes admissible as evidence.

So in the presented case, the mall guards can get you for possession of marijuana and turn you over to the police. Such will be used in evidence against you and most probably, get convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

MORAL LESSON PARA SA MGA ESPIYA: Huwag magdadala ng mga ganung bagay sa mall. Huwag tatanga-tanga at pa-macho effect. Itago ang dapat itago. Huwag niyong ipapakita sa iba! Haha!

[Yubi Akira]

House body OKs bill vs cyber voyeurism


   
MANILA, Philippines -- A bill against "cyber boso [voyeur]," or the distribution of private sex videos, inched closer to becoming a law after it hurdled deliberations at the House of Representatives' justice committee.

House Bill No. 4315, or the "anti-cyber boso" bill, authored by Buhay part list Rep. Irwin Tieng, criminalizes who take or possess an indecent "video tape, disc record," or "replay" or "share, relay or exhibit the contents thereof in any form."

Those taking "peep-show clips" or engaging in "audio-visual kiss-and-tell" face up to six years' imprisonment and fines of up to P500,000.

Tieng reminded lovers going out on Valentine's Day dates to be wary of video-capable phones, noting the incidence of so-called video sex scandals in the country. He also warned lovers "against being too trustful" of their partners.

"Your lover today may be your blackmailer tomorrow," Tieng said in a statement.

He said his office has monitored many cases where individuals spread sex flicks on the internet or over bluetooth networks, either to get back at lovers who have spurned them or to force their former partners back into a relationship.

And in some cases, he said, motel operators or their employees take video footage of clients.

[capoeirista]

parang di pa malinaw sakin ang lawak ng sakop nitong law na to.

di ko alam kung maituturing kong magulo,
una yung nagpapasahan ng sex scandal.
pangalawa sa may ari ng motel.

panu malalaman ng authority kung patago nangyayari ang krimen? pag lumabas na sa internet? di ba nakakahiya yun kung i-claim ng individual na sa kanya yung scandal?

kung may ari ka ng phone, ipapakita mo ba laman nun? panu kung meron ka ring personal na scandal dun? nde ba magagalit gf mo kung pakita mo sa pulis yung scandal nu?

hindi ito ang klase ng law na fool proof.

may nakita na ako na scandal na halos rape na ang ginagawa. that scandal can be an evidence to that crime.
kung may law na ganyan, kung nsa phone yun evidence, buburahin yun, at, wala nang evidence sa crime.

[hippo]

parang di pa malinaw sakin ang lawak ng sakop nitong law na to.

di ko alam kung maituturing kong magulo,
una yung nagpapasahan ng sex scandal.
pangalawa sa may ari ng motel.

panu malalaman ng authority kung patago nangyayari ang krimen? pag lumabas na sa internet? di ba nakakahiya yun kung i-claim ng individual na sa kanya yung scandal?

kung may ari ka ng phone, ipapakita mo ba laman nun? panu kung meron ka ring personal na scandal dun? nde ba magagalit gf mo kung pakita mo sa pulis yung scandal nu?

hindi ito ang klase ng law na fool proof.

may nakita na ako na scandal na halos rape na ang ginagawa. that scandal can be an evidence to that crime.
kung may law na ganyan, kung nsa phone yun evidence, buburahin yun, at, wala nang evidence sa crime.

And I cast serious doubts as to how the law will be implemented should it indeed become a law. Should it indeed become a law, I personally think it will be struck down as unconstitutional on the ground of unreasonableness in its implementation.