TECHNOLOGIES' IMPACT ON PRIVACY PDF

**TECHNOLOGIES' IMPACT ON PRIVACY** **INTRODUCTION** The impact of technology has affected almost every individual from a nursery pupil to the oldest senior citizens. A laptop being used by a three year old child is now common; senior citizens who used to hate computers are now using Facebook and...

**TECHNOLOGIES' IMPACT ON PRIVACY** **INTRODUCTION** The impact of technology has affected almost every individual from a nursery pupil to the oldest senior citizens. A laptop being used by a three year old child is now common; senior citizens who used to hate computers are now using Facebook and Twitter. An employee who came to work without his mobile phone will be forced to go back home for he cannot live a day without his phone. During my daughter\'s eighteenth birthday, the resort owner told me, \"Sir, because of Facebook, my gross income was significantly increased due to the frequent reunion prepared by my customers which was usually initiated due to posting of class pictures in Facebook. On the other hand, are problems brought about by stalkers who used technologies in order to obtain private information from Facebook users by pretending to be a friend. Hence there are also drawbacks brought about by technological advances. **Constitutional Provision on Privacy** The word "PRIVACY\" was only mentioned once in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, thus:\ *(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.\ (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Art. III, Sec. 3)* Reading or even memorizing this constitutional provision of our Constitution will not be enough in determining whether one\'s privacy is being violated or not because the right of citizen to privacy is NOT absolute, that is, it admits of exemptions and this is clear in the phrase \"except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.\" A good question might be, - When can we say that the order of the court is lawful? - In what instance that a citizen\'s right to privacy can be invaded because public safety or order requires it? - What are the laws which prescribe the invasion of an individual\'s privacy? A. **Exemption 1. Lawful Court Order.** B. **Public Order or Safety Requirement** This provision is best explained without regard to technology. In the Philippines, terrorists often carry out their attacks in public places such as LRT/MRT station and shopping malls. Hence, if Pedro is carrying his precious wedding gift specially wrapped and sealed for wedding purposes decides to ride at any LRT/MRT station, he cannot prevent the security guards to compel him to open and show the contents of the gift. This is because of the principle that the general welfare of the public is the supreme law. Thus, when one decides to ride in LRT/MRT or to travel by plane, he is temporary surrendering his rights to privacy because public safety requires it. C. **Express Provision of the Law** There are so many laws which provide an express provision requiring surrender of one\'s privacy. For instance, under the Anti Money Laundering Law, when an individual deposits in one transaction an amount of at least Three Hundred Thousand pesos (P300,000) in a bank, the latter is obliged by law to provide the name, as well as the personal information of the depositor, to the Anti Money Laundering council. Since this book is NOT intended for law students, we do not need to enumerate all laws and explain each of them. It is enough that the reader understands their meaning. **ILLUSTRATIVE CASE 1. LEGAL ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED ID SYSTEM BLAS F. OPLE, et.al vs. RUBEN TORRES, et.al (GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998)** **FACTS:\ **On December 12, 1996, then Pres. Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 38 entitled \"ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM\" (AO 38) to provide Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service among others. The Administrative Order was published on January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, then Senator Blas OPLE filed a petition contending that: - A.O. 308 is unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of Congress. - It violates of individual\'s right to privacy. **ISSUE:**\ Whether or not A.O.308 is unconstitutional for violation of individual\'s right to privacy. **RULING:**\ There is an extensive debate which was first resolved by the Supreme Court regarding the nature of AO 38, that is, is it a law or just an administrative order implementing a law? The Supreme Court held that AO 38 is a law and hence, unconstitutional because the President has no power to make laws. We shall not 1. Broadness, vagueness and overbreadth of AO 38. It does not state in clear and discuss this extensively since our focus is only in privacy issues. **AO 38 was held to be unconstitutional for the following reasons:** 1\. It does NOT provide who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose.\ 2. There is NO guard against leakage of information. Thus, an intruder, without fear of sanction or penalty, can make use of the data for whatever purpose, or worse, manipulate the data stored within the system.\ 3. An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the National ID System\ 4. The rules and regulation to be promulgated by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) cannot remedy the defect.\ 5. It does not satisfy with the rational relationship test **Even while we strike down A.O. No. 308, we spell out in neon that the Court is not per se against the use of computers to accumulate, store, process, retrieve and transmit data to improve our bureaucracy**. Computers work wonders to achieve the efficiency which both government and private industry seek. Many information systems in different countries make use of the computer to facilitate important **Personal Observation** Normally when one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was resolved so that the others would become irrelevant and/or moot and academic, the Supreme Court will not mind discussing the other grounds. AO 38 is unconstitutional because it is a law and making laws is not included in the powers of the executive branch. The SC would normally stop there. However, the divided court15 explain and discuss fully the privacy issue notwithstanding that fact that said AO 38 would still be unconstitutional even if it will not violate the privacy right of an individual. Maybe, the magistrates would like to guide the lawmakers in the future if the latter decide to enact law called, the **National ID System.** **Practicing Our Logical Reasoning Skill** Since there is an express provision of the law which requires that authorization must be given by all parties, the SC is without any authority to interpret otherwise because that is the clear intention of Congress. Doing so would be tantamount to indirectly amend the law which is NOT vested by the Constitution in the Legislature. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly To test our logical reasoning skill let us suppose we are lawmakers. If we were the ones who will make laws, is it really more reasonable and justified to require the authorization of all parties? Or is it enough to get the consent of at least one? Bear in mind that in case we find it more proper to require that at least one of the parties to the private conversation, the intention of Congress will still prevail because such is an example of a political issue and not a justiciable one. We cannot question the wisdom of Congress. Another simple example of a political issue is when Pres. Noynoy Aquino appointed Mr. Robredo as DILG Secretay. Although many believed that Vice President Binay is the best person for that job, no one can question the wisdom of the President because that is NOT a justiciable issue but a political one. stone or the **Privacy Rights of Convicted/Detained Person** If Juan is convicted of the crime of rape, can he invoke his right of privacy? Can he still use a mobile phone or a laptop computer to communicate freely with his friends and /or families? In one case involving the then Lt. SG now Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, the latter alleged that the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (\"ISAFP\") officials violated his privacy rights when they opened and read the letters handed by Trillanes, and other detainees to their visitors. **The Concept of Identity Theift** Identity theft is a type of consumer fraud and \"occurs when a person knowingly uses another person\'s information in a fraudulent manner for the purpose of obtaining goods, services, or credit the identity thief looks for information he can use to create official documents or gain access to financial accounts Nowadays, phishing and computer hacking are the most prevalent means of obtaining personal information. Phishing is a high-tech scam that uses spam or pop- up messages to deceive a person into disclosing his credit card numbers, bank account information, Social Security number, passwords, or other sensitive information. It is mostly done through an e-mail. Phishers send an email or pop-up message that claims to be from a business or organization that you deal with internet service provider (ISP). bank, online payment service, or even a government agency. The message usually says that the person needs to \"update\" or \"validate\" his account information. It threatens some dire consequence if he does not respond. The message directs them to a Web site that looks just like a legitimate organization\'s site. The purpose of this is to deceive a person into divulging his personal information so the operators can steal his identity and run up bills or commit crimes in his name So, we must be careful and be cautious before we surrender our personal information to anyone. Worst, if we become a victim of this scheme, the process of determination by our law enforcement agency is NOT easy despite the fact that our laws are NOT enough in our dear country. **Ethical Issues on Professional Relationships and Hearsay** According to Chief Justice Puno, the due process clause of the Constitution is an important element of the privacy rights of an individual. The due process clause is contained in Article III, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution, thus: **What is Due Process?** The constitution contains no formal definition of \"due process\", however, both local and foreign jurisprudence held that: *By \"due process of law\" we mean \"a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.* Affording due process, it has been observed, is a practical application in all areas of our life. Let\'s say, if you are a strict parent, your teenage daughter one night came home at midnight. After opening the door, you quickly slapped her face and shout, \"Bakit ngayon ka lang dumating?!\" (It\'s not a song from Oghie Alcasid). Your daughter quickly ran quickly to her room and cried. Now let\'s pause for a while and put ourselves in the shoes of the parent concerned. Normally, the parent will go back to his/her room wherein his/her spouse is waiting. Your better-half will ask, \"Bakit daw ginabi ang anak mo?\" Then you will respond, \"I did NOT ask her!\" **Requisites of Procedural Due Process**\ **For judicial proceedings:**\ 1. A court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.\ 2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings.\ 3. The defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.\ 4. Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing. **In analyzing the stylistic way of how the constitution is worded, we can formulate the following rule:** **General Rule:**\ *No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property.* **Exception to the Rule:**\ *If there is due process of law.* So what? Anybody can understand this. Does it have any legal significance? Yes, it has very important legal consequences. Since the exemption to the rule can be only applied if there is due process, any person in litigation who alleged that there is due process of clause has the burden of proof. In law, whoever alleges the exemption to the rule has the burden of proof! Going back to the case of Mr. Chavez, it is his stand that he was not afforded the right to be heard. In other words, he alleges the absence of due process which is the general rule. And since it falls under the general rule, it is presumed in law. In computing parlance, that is the default value, the initial value! Since, it is presumed, Mr. Chavez does NOT have to prove it. It is his employer, who alleged, that they gave due process to Mr. Chavez, who is tasked to produce evidence. Now, what if the Constitution was amended and Sec. 1 of Article III was amended to read as follows: *\"A person may be deprived of life, liberty and property, unless if there is no due process of law.\"* **Due Process Clause Applied in Software Designs** You may not be aware that a programmer is applying that due process clause when designing and writing programs, that is, it gives the users the right to be heard when it discerns the presence of a clear and present danger. To illustrate, suppose you open your file named \"complete.doc\" and type therein several pages, when you accidentally press a key which is the key for closing a file. Since there is a clear and present danger, the system will automatically give you an opportunity to be heard, thus, a message will automatically appear as in the following figure: