Tag Archives: RA 10173

Students’ Take: MCPIF (SB 53), Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)

For summer of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) for Monday-Wednesday class: (a) Can the proposed MCPIF be improved? [07-May-2014] and (2) for Tuesday-Thursday class: (a) Gray areas in the application of the Data Privacy Act [08-May-2014]. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

M-W T-Th

No submissions: [MW] Arroyo (1), Carreon (1); Withdrawn: [MW] Luego

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: Contacts viz RA 10173, Competing advertising in sponsored events, and Direction of Copyright Reform

For first semester of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) Contacts viz RA 10173 (6 July 2013); (2) Competing advertising in sponsored events (30 August 2013); (3) Direction of Copyright Reform (18 October 2013). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

No verifiable post(s): Cortes (1), Diaz (1), Nones (1); Non-compliant post as to provider: Delos Reyes (1); Withdrawn: Imperio

Batch 15’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: RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372

For summer of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system (7 May 2013); (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372 (21 May 2013);

Submitted, but no verifiable post(s): Gabronino (1,2); Withdrawn: Agnir, Alicayos

Batch 15’s contents will be 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: 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

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.