There's an 'anti-selfie' bill in Congress
By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 08/28/2014 10:51 AM | Updated as of 08/29/2014
3:21 AM
MANILA - If you're the type of person who enjoys taking
random snapshots of people, places, things and even the
ubiquitous selfies and groupies and then posting them on
social media, better be careful.
According to Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate, there's a bill
in Congress that seeks to bar taking photos of people
without their permission.
House Bill 4807 or the Protection against Personal
Intrusion Act is now up for 3rd reading in plenary.
It defines "intrusion of personal privacy" as "any person
who willfully intrudes into the personal privacy of another,
without the consent of that person and with the intent to
gain or profit therefrom, shall be civilly liable to the offended
party."
"HB 4807 will create a chilling effect on media and would
especially affect citizen journalism. It would punish with civil
suit taking photos,video or even audio recording anything
claimed as a personal/ family matter even of public officials
and personalities," Zarate said.
"Even an innocuous selfie with public figures at the
background would be liable for 'intrusion of privacy'. This is
absurd and we urge our colleagues to reconsider," he
added.
According to HB 4807, the following acts are considered an
intrusion into the personal privacy of another and shall be
presumed to have been committed with the intent to gain or
profit.
-capturing by a camera or sound recording instrument of
any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of the person
-trespassing on private property in order to capture any
type of visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of any person
-capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or
other physical impression of a person or family activity
through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device
even when no physical trespass has occurred, when the
visual image, sound recording or other physical impression
could not have been captured without a trespass if no
enhancement device was used.
Section 4 of the bill says any person whose personal
privacy was intruded as defined may in a civil action
against the person who committed the intrusion, obtain any
appropriate relief, including compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
Any person obtaining relief may be either the person
whose visual or auditory impression has been captured or
the owner of the private property trespassed to capture the
visual image, sound recording or other physical impression
of another.
"The fact that no visual image , sound recording or other
physical impression of a person was actually sold for gain
or profit shall not be available as a defense in any civil
action or proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions
of this act," the bill explained.
The only exemption from this act are legitimate law
enforcement activities.
The bill is authored by Congressmen Rufus Rodriguez,
Maximo Rodriguez, Jorge Almonte, Gwendolyn Garcia,
Linabelle Ruth Villarica, Lito Atienza and Leopoldo Bataoil.
NO MORE SELFIES, PAPARAZZI?
Critics said the bill has wide ranging implications on press
freedom and even social media.
Jose Torres Jr., board member of the Photojournalists
Center of the Philippines (PCP), Inc., said the bill needs to
define what "intent to gain or profit therefrom" means.
"It would seem that people from the media and journalists
can be targets of the proposed measure. Worthy of being
emphasized is the phrase 'with intent to gain or profit
therefrom.' In case a complaint is filed in court against a
photojournalist, can lack of intent to gain be used as
defense?
"It must be clearly defined what can be classified for 'gain'
or 'profit.' News outfits - newspapers, magazines,
television, online publications, radio, and news wire
agencies - are basically for profit organizations. There must
be clear provisions that specify that news gathering must
be exempted from this section," he added.
The group said it wants media to be exempted from the
coverage of the proposed law.
"We suggest to add the qualification 'unless this is done in
the practice of a media professional in the interest of public
interest.' If we limit Sec 3 a, Sec 3 c will then apply only to
the protection of privacy clause."
The group is also pushing for a definition of "private
property."
"Private property must be spelled out and defined. Public
places, cars, public transport, public buildings, among
others, and individuals, who by nature of their position or
profession are classified as public figures, cannot claim
violation of privacy. Does 'personal privacy' extend to public
domain or public places in private spaces, for instance
malls, shopping centers, events venues, a luxurious resort,
among others?"
On the matter of capturing any type of visual image, the
group said this provision can affect journalists who use
modern legitimate tools of news gathering like drones with
cameras or telephoto lenses.
The group proposed that news and visual storytelling that
fall into educating, warning, exposing incidents and events
that will benefit the majority of society must be exempted
because interest groups can use provisions of the law to
put enterprising journalists in tough situations.
The group also wants a corresponding provision of penalty
for grave use of authority and clear use of provisions of the
law for harassment of journalists.
"Our apprehension is based on the premise that the act
being made punishable by this proposed measure is not
clearly defined to the point that many acts can be
considered 'malum prohibitum' or conducts that constitute
an unlawful act only by virtue of statute as opposed to
conduct evil in and of itself."
"We worry that this proposed measure can become a tool
that 'unwilling public figures' will use to suppress press
freedom."
Anti-selfiebilfailstoclickinHouse,issentbacktocommittee
By DJ Yap |Philippine Daily Inquirer
6:54 am | Friday, September 12th, 2014
MANILA,PhilippinesA proposed measure dubbed the
anti-selfie bill and which seeks to protect private persons
from intrusive cameras has lost support in the House of
Representatives following stiff opposition from the media.
On Wednesday, House Bill No. 4807, which was on the
verge of passage on third reading, was sent back to the
public information committee for further deliberation.
At least two lawmakers, including committee chair Misamis
Occidental Rep. Jorge Almonte, withdrew their
coauthorship of the bill, possibly derailing its enactment for
good.
Its back to square one, principal author Cagayan de Oro
Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said Thursday.
Almonte said he was withdrawing as one of the six
coauthors of HB 4807, the Protection against Personal
Intrusion Act, to ensure an impartial discussion on its
merits in the committee.
He explained that his coauthorship of the measure had
been automatic after the committee finished its report on
the bill.
Another coauthor, Pangasinan Rep. Leopoldo Bataoil, had
also withdrawn support for the bill.
Almonte said the bill would take a back seat to more
pressing House matters, including the 2015 national
budget, the freedom of information bill and the
Bangsamoro Basic Law.
Rodriguez said he did not mind the two withdrawals but
admitted the measure would have an uphill climb back to
the plenary floor.
Even so, he said, he hoped discussions would continue on
his proposal, particularly its original intent.
Originally the bill sought to prohibit the taking of pictures for
profit of private persons in their private moments, including
trespassing onto their property and using zoom lenses on
their cameras to capture such images.
Intrusion into privacy
But the final version of the measure that made it to the
plenary would punish any person who willfully intrudes into
the personal privacy of another, without the consent of that
person and with intent to gain or profit therefrom.
Intrusions into privacy, according to the bill, include taking
pictures, videos or sound recordings of another person,
trespassing on private property to take the picture, video or
sound recording, or using enhancement devices (zoom) to
do so.
This prompted Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate to label the
measure the anti-selfie bill, a tag that brought wide
attention to the previously unheard of measure. Selfie
refers to a picture one takes of oneself, usually posted on
social media.
Zarate said the bills definition of privacy intrusions was so
broad that even taking selfies, in which the images of other
persons may inadvertently be captured, would be
penalized.
Media organizations, including the National Union of
Journalists of the Philippines and the Photojournalists
Center of the Philippines, strongly objected to the bill,
saying it would infringe on freedom of the press.
That the proposed law seeks to punish even the fact that
no visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of a person was actually sold for gain or profit,
makes it even more insidious, NUJP chair Rowena Paraan
had said in a letter published in the Inquirer on Sept. 1.
She said the measure could end up stifling citizen
journalism and dissuade the public even from simply taking
pictures or videos for personal pleasure.
PCP chair Mike Alquinto said journalists would be the
targets of the measure, noting the phrase intent to gain or
profit, as media outfits worked for profit.
There must be clear provisions that specify that news
gathering must be exempt from this section, he had said in
an Aug. 27 statement.
Anti-Selfie Bill in Congress in the Philippines: What is
House Bill 4807 All About?
By Zachary Stieber, Epoch Times | August 28, 2014
Last Updated: August 28, 2014 1:32 pm
The so-called Anti-Selfie Bill, or House Bill 4807, is in the
Philippines Congress right nowand causing outrage.
The bill seeks to bar taking photos of people without their
permission, defining intrusion of personal privacy as any
person who willfully intrudes into the personal privacy of
another, without the consent of that person and with the
intent to gain or profit therefrom, shall be civilly liable to the
offended party.
HB 4807 will create a chilling effect on media and would
especially affect citizen journalism. It would punish with civil
suit taking photos,video or even audio recording anything
claimed as a personal/ family matter even of public officials
and personalities, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate
toldABS-CBN.
Even an innocuous selfie with public figures at the
background would be liable for intrusion of privacy. This is
absurd and we urge our colleagues to reconsider.
The bill says the following acts are considered an intrusion
of privacy.
-capturing by a camera or sound recording instrument of
any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of the person
-trespassing on private property in order to capture any
type of visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of any person
-capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or
other physical impression of a person or family activity
through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device
even when no physical trespass has occurred, when the
visual image, sound recording or other physical impression
could not have been captured without a trespass if no
enhancement device was used.
Congressmen Rufus Rodriguez, Maximo Rodriguez, Jorge
Almonte, Gwendolyn Garcia, Linabelle Ruth Villarica, Lito
Atienza, and Leopoldo Bataoil authored the bill.
The critics of the bill are many and are attempting to fight
its passage.
It would seem that people from the media and journalists
can be targets of the proposed measure. Worthy of being
emphasized is the phrase with intent to gain or profit
therefrom. In case a complaint is filed in court against a
photojournalist, can lack of intent to gain be used as
defense? said Jose Torres Jr., board member of the
Photojournalists Center of the Philippines.
It must be clearly defined what can be classified for gain
or profit. News outfits newspapers, magazines,
television, online publications, radio, and news wire
agencies are basically for profit organizations. There
must be clear provisions that specify that news gathering
must be exempted from this section.
Filipinos also took to Twitter to criticize the bill.
Anti-selfie bill my ass! ayusin niyo na muna ang anti-
corruption bill! #WakeUpPhilippineGovernment, said one.
Its things like the Anti-Selfie Bill that make Philippine
politics one big joke, said another.
Anti Selfie bill? Come on, is that all you can think of? said
yet another.
Philippines "anti-selfie" bill could have chilling effect on
media, citizen journalism
A bill to protect personal privacy passed second reading in
The House of Representatives on 12 August 2014. A
congressman and media groups say once it becomes law,
House Bill 04807 will have negative effects on press
freedom and free expression.
In a statement on 28 August, party-list representative
Carlos Isagani Zarate called the bill an "anti-selfie bill."
Once an informal word, "selfie" was included in the Oxford
English Dictionary in November 2013 and is defined as "a
photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one
taken with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a
social media website."
"As it is, even an innocuous selfie with public figures
inadvertently caught (in) the background would be liable for
'intrusion of privacy'. This is absurd and we urge our
colleagues to reconsider," Zarate said.
He warned that the bill would create a chilling effect on the
media, especially on citizen journalism. "It would punish
with civil action (those who will take) photos, a video or
even audio recording (of) anything claimed as a personal
or family matter, even of public officials and personalities."
HB 04807 or the "Protection Against Personal Intrusion Act"
punishes "any person who willfully intrudes into the
personal privacy of another, without the consent of that
person and with intent to gain or profit therefrom (sic)."
The bill specifies "intrusion into the personal privacy of
another" as consisting of the following acts:
- Capturing with a camera or sound recording instrument
any type of visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression of the person;
- Trespassing on private property in order to capture any
type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of any person
- Capturing any type of visual image, sound recording . . .
of a personal or family activity through the use of a visual
or auditory enhancement device even when no physical
trespass has occurred, when the visual image, sound
recording . . . could not have been captured without
trespass if no enhancement device was used.
The bill says these acts are automatically assumed to be
"committed with intent to gain or profit."
On 28 August, the Chairman of the Photojournalists' Center
of the Philippines (PCP), Mike Alquinto, said their
organization had apprehensions over the passage of the
bill.
"Provisions of the (proposed) law can be used to target
enterprising journalists," Alquinto said. "There are
exceptions to the right to privacy which . . . are not
specified in this bill."
In HB 04807, only "official law enforcement activities" are
exempted.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
(NUJP), in a separate statement on 29 August, said the bill
is made "even more insidious" by the provision that "the
fact that no visual image, sound recording or other physical
impression of a person was actually sold for gain or profit,"
cannot be used as a defense.
"The measure could end up stifling citizen journalism and
even simply taking pictures or videos for personal
pleasure," NUJP's statement said.
 The bill is authored by representatives Rufus Rodriguez,
NUJP urged the authors of the bill to withdraw the measure Maximo Rodriguez, Jorge Almonte, Gwendolyn Garcia,
and for the House of Representatives to instead focus on Linabelle Ruth Villarica, Lito Atienza and Leopoldo Bataoil.
passing a Freedom of Information bill.