Tag Archives: privacy

Students’ Take: RA 10173, SB 3327 viz RA 10175, and Copyright Reform

For the second semester of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173), (2) the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF, SB 3327). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) (8 December 2012); (2) Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF, SB 3327) (12 January 2013); (3) The direction for Philippine Copyright Reform (9 March 2013)

No verifiable post(s): Garillo (3), Longboy (2,3), Mendoza-Bagnes (3), Rosero (1,2,3); Submitted, but no verifiable post(s): Zaraspe (3), Tiongson (3); Posted erroneous subject matter: Abucejo (1); Withdrawn: Tan, De Castro, Ortega

Batch 14’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

The appropriate response? #AMALAYER

Ignore, grumble, or articulate/profound something about it. Those are choices available to me when a topic trends on my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Let me take the last option for this one.

The #Amalayer hashtag trended yesterday in the Philippines. [1] Outside of the usual reactions, there is a facet in it that I am disturbed about.

Continue reading

2 October 2012 Blackout

On 2 October 2012, Philippine netizens who are opposed to the Cybercrime Law started to censor their comments in Facebook and Twitter, and use black images as profile pictures therein, as a form of protest. I cannot blackout this blog since I am not under paid hosting. In lieu thereof, this is what I wish to say on the matter:

I █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █ believe that ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ the Philippine ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ █ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ government█ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████ can ████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ███ do ████████ ███████ █ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ no ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████████ wrong. █ ████ ██ ███████ ████ █ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████

Continue reading

Republic Act 10175: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012


Licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Philippine license.


I. Introduction
    > Past proposals for an Anti-CyberCrime Law
II. Offenses under RA 10175
    > Child pornography under RA 9775, viz Section 4(c)(2) of RA 10175
    > Section 33 (a) of RA 8792, viz Section 4(a)(1) to (5) of RA 10175
    > New offenses under RA 10175
    > Other offenses under Section 5, RA 10175
    > Applicability to other penal laws, when crime committed using ICT, under Section 6, RA 10175
III. Contentious issue: Libel viz Freedom of Expression
    > Libel under Chapter 1, Title XIII of the Revised Penal Code (Act 3815 [RPC], 8 December 1930)
    > Libel under Section 4(c)(4), RA 10175
    > Freedom of Expression viz libel
    > Doctrine of privileged communication
    > ICCPR and General Comment No. 34
IV. Contentious issue: Privacy
    > Right to privacy
    > Section 12 to 17, RA 10175
    > Privacy in relation to Section 12, RA 10175
    > International Cooperation
V. Jurisdiction
VI. Admissibility of Evidence
VII. Takedowns
VIII. Conclusion


I
Introduction

There has been a lot of discussions observed days subsequent to the promulgation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, on 12 September 2012. There are some who assail the law to be unconstitutional as it acts as a prior restraint to freedom of speech, or that it provides undue expanded interference of private activities in the Internet by the Philippine Government, among others. Let me form my opinion herein, without providing legal advice, regarding the present law in its final form.

Past proposals for an Anti-CyberCrime Law

The Anti-Cybercrime law was not a recent proposal. Prior versions have been introduced in previous Congresses but which have been archived when the previous Congresses adjourned, including the 14th Congress. It appears that prior versions were being pushed to meet (1) the urgency to penalize child pornography; (2) rectify the perceived weakness of provision(s) on computer-related crimes in Republic Act 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Act (2000); (3) the necessity of expanding the coverage of the applicability of electronic documents, or ITC-enable acts, to criminal/penal laws, especially those in the Revised Penal Code, where documents, or in which a computer may be used in the commission thereof, are involved; (4) the necessity to provide an efficient legal procedure/allowance in the acquisition of evidence by government agencies when crimes are being committed, or have been committed, through electronic means; and (5) arrangement towards international cooperation, as acts may be transnational.

Continue reading

Students’ take: Fan Art, File Downloads, and Data Privacy Act of 2012 +Case Digests (1S, SY12-13)

For the first semester of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing the legal implications of (1) the Data Protection Bill, (2) Fan Art, and (3) File Downloads. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Data Protection Bill (21 July 2012); (2) Fan Art (1 September 2012); (3) File Downloads (17 September 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Pante (3), Torres (2,3)

Note: Four days after the deadline of task #1, the consolidated bill (Senate Bill No. 2965 and House Bill No. 4115) was passed as Republic Act 10173.

Batch 13’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Ten cases in the class syllabus were also required to be summarized. These are the students’ case digests of said cases:

Case Digests (End of First Semester, SY 2012-2013).

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

Students’ take: Laptop search in ports, Private information on legal repositories, and Online OG (2S, SY11-12)

During the second semester of SY 2011-2012, my students in Technology and the Law were given the task of discussing (1) whether laptop searches in airports are valid, (2) whether persons/litigants can ask online repositories containing decisions of the Supreme Court to remove information therein as it affects their rights of privacy, and (3) whether publication in gov.ph is sufficient publication under the law. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Gov.ph and the Official Gazette (10 December 2011), (2) Information in legal posts (3 March 2012), (3) Laptop searches (15 March 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Badillo (3), Cureg (1,2,3) Olano (1,2,3), Sala (1,2,3), Salaum (1), Tolentino (3). Unposted, but submitted: Badillo (1), Buhay (1,2,3), Gonzalbo (2), Oleriana (1,2,3), Tolentino (2)

Batch 11′s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?


Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

Students’ take: Private information on legal repositories, Wikileaks, and Media’s social network preference (1S, SY11-12)

For the first semester of SY 2011-2012, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing the legal implications of (1) Private information on legal repositories, (2) Wikileaks, and (3) Media’s social network preference. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

Media preference on social network (18 July 2011), Wikileaks and the Right to Information (2 September 2011), Information in legal posts (18 September 2011)

No verifiable post(s): Cervantes (3), Gacutan (3), Lopez (1), Martinez (2,3), Mercado G (1,2), Nabua (2,3), Penachos (3), Rivera (1), Serrano (1,2,3), Suanino (2,3), Valencia (1,2,3), Vasquez (1). Unposted, but submitted: Adriano (1,2,3), Alejo (3), Castillejo (3), Cervantes (2), Delos Reyes (2,3), Faustino (2,3), Lim (2,3), Mercado G (3), Vasquez (2,3).

Batch 10′s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.


Who do you think is persuasive? on point?


Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.