Needles and Haystacks

Five Things We Learned this Sem

2006-09-25T16:52:00.000+08:00

As the semester draws to a close, we thought it would be appropriate to post a blog entry on the things we learned from InfoTech class this semester:

1. ICT could possibly be the key to kicking poverty. Whether it’s because of outsourcing or off-shoring, or because ICT provides us with the capacity to reach the rest of the world and look for jobs world-wide, ICT has definitely provided jobs for our poor countrymen. In fact, there are actually more jobs available than qualified workers! If only our supply of workers can meet the demand of the global market, maybe we won’t be such a poor country anymore.

2. There is no escaping ICT. ICT is getting to be something like taxes… there’s just no escaping it. It has invaded different aspects of our lives, from government to love life (hey, there are people out there who depend on VOIP to call significant others long distance!)… whenever there’s a need to communicate, you can bet that some sort of ICT will be used.

3. Local is getting outdated really fast. The whole world has been made available to the Filipino. We no longer have to be confined to local ideas, local products, or even local languages. Of course, this also means that we are given the opportunity to educate the rest of the world on our beautiful country, countrymen, culture, and products. Communication, trade, even committing crime across the globe has become as easy as clicking a mouse, all because of ICT.

4. There is more to law than litigating. Mention the word “lawyer” and the first thing most people think of is a courtroom. But this class has shown us that there are other options for lawyers too tired/wary/chicken to face judges and the opposing counsel. This semester, we learned that policy-making is an option available to us future lawyers. It’s just as challenging, lucrative, and interesting as litigation J

5. Understanding principles is the key to policy-making. Whenever our professors would lecture on certain policies, they always made it a point to emphasize key principles. This provides students with a clearer understanding of WHY a policy is made the way that it is (most of the time). If only ALL our politicians understood that understanding is the key to well-made laws, maybe we won’t have so much trouble in the legislative department. Then again, if we didn’t have trouble, we wouldn’t need lawyers either…

Overall, this sem has definitely given us much food for thought. With all this newly learned information, we believe we have just proven that searching for knowledge and understanding of the world of ICT is definitely NOT as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack.

Government with a Capital E

2006-09-19T23:32:00.000+08:00

Nowadays, the trend in governing a country is having an E-Government. As it can be deducted from its name, it is a system of governance wherein information and communication technologies (ICTs) are integrated into the government’s framework and functions. In E-Government, accessibility and delivery of government services to the people are aided and enhanced by ICTs (i.e. online access to these services). Ideally, having an E-Government will also improve communications between different government agencies, thus, improving the efficiency of making policy decisions and giving services to the people. It would also make citizens become more involved in running the country as transparency in the transactions of the government would become more possible because said dealings can be made readily accessible online to anyone. Also, citizens may be able to voice out their opinions regarding government policies, projects, and laws that are being proposed to be passed.

Has the Philippines joined the trend?

Well, it seems to be exerting an earnest effort to do so. Government agencies are now gradually computerizing their data, speeding up the processing of forms, licenses, documents, etc. For example, the former whole-day renewal of one’s driver’s license has now been cut down to just a matter of three hours tops. Some agencies have even gone as far as making it possible to accomplish the necessary forms online. There are also some that entertain queries through email (tried and tested: NSO would give a detailed reply an email question within three days). Some agencies also offer some of their services through SMS. Example, one’s PhilHealth number may be obtained by just sending an SMS to the PhilHealth textline (see http://www.pinoytechblog.com/archives/e-government-try-out-philhealth).

What should be improved on?

There are a lot of things to improve on but of primary importance is the training of people in the government to become proficient at least with basic ICT, and attaining system uniformity and interconnectivity between the agencies. Training government employees and officials in ICT is clearly essential. It would be impossible to have an efficient E-Government if only a handful of government can operate a computer.

As for system uniformity and interconnectivity between agencies, these are important because streamlining of government services will only be possible when these are attained. At the present state of things, wherein each agency is implementing their own ICT system, processing may have sped up in one agency but the completion of the actual needs of the citizen would still take days to accomplish since he has to go from one agency to another. For example in obtaining a visa, an online form may now be accomplished but the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance and Birth Certificate requirements have still to be delivered personally. Thus, one would still have to go to at least two other agencies to complete his task. If the system of all agencies are only uniform and interconnected, days of processing may be replaced by just minutes of clicking and thinking by a government employee on desk duty.

------------------------------------------

Links to helpful information about E-Government:

http://www.digitalphilippines.org/

last visited: September 19, 2006; 12:15 a.m.

http://ww.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/eprimer-egov.pdf
last visited: September 19, 2006; 1:48 a.m.

Site featuring E-Government in different countries all over the world:

http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/wsis-themes/ict_stories/themes/e-government.html
last visited: September 19, 2006; 1:56 a.m.

Cashless Happiness

2006-09-11T17:44:00.000+08:00

Before money came into being, our ancestors practiced bartering to get rice from the farmlands in exchange for fish from the seashore. While the practice may be ancient, it has never gone out of style... and each one of us has probably done it at one point or another. If you're a girl from our generation, you probably swapped a few pieces of scented stationary with your grade school classmate to get the sheet of fancy stickers from Stick 'Em Up.

The practice has continued to thrive throughout the years probably because it lets people get rid of something that is just occupying too much shelf space, in exchange for something they really really like. It works on the principle that another man's trash may be another man's gold.

These days, the internet has taken bartering to new heights. Now there is an almost unlimited pool of people with whom you can barter with. You can trade ANYTHING with just about ANYBODY! For example, Kyle MacDonald posted on his blog that he aimed to have a house in exchange for a red paper clip. Within one year, he managed to reach his goal, and in the middle of all of these transactions he managed to make a lot of people happy.

Others have put up bartering communities, wherein in exchange for certain products, they get virtual currency which they can use to barter with someone from the same community – something of a twist to the old method. It still works on cashless transactions, but it allows people to transact with others who may not want the product being offered but are willing to part with their own goods (and vice versa).

This system could bring about a lot of good, especially for poor folks who can't afford to buy whatever they need but do have things of value which they can trade. And remember that barter doesn't have to be done with THINGS all the time. If our local government units in far flung places can only get internet access, maybe it will be possible to barter for things available online in exchange for local products. Think of hand-woven cloth from Antique in exchange for online courses in Math, English, and Science especially designed for the children of that particular town. Transactions like that are win-win situations, allowing us to showcase Filipino products while developing the community.

Of course, we're not saying everything about bartering is good. There have been illegal exchanges also, which are experiencing as much of a boom as licit bartering. But the bad things should not deter us from using a method that has the potential to help so many others. After all, if a man can get a house in exchange for a paperclip, Filipino goods which are products of great skill, ingenuity, and creativity could certainly fetch much much more.

Article on Kyle MacDonald:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/07/redpaperclip/index_01.htm?chan=smallbiz_smallbiz+index+page_after+work, last visited Sept. 11, 2006

Interesting Stuff on Barter
http://www.businessknowhow.com/money/barter.htm last visited Sept. 11, 2006
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/barter/index.html?query=COMPUTERS%20AND%20THE%20INTERNET&field=des&match=exact last visited September 11, 2006
http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art073.htm , last visited September 11, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640271/site/newsweek/

PIRACY: in the not so high streets and buildings

2006-09-05T22:14:00.000+08:00

It is common knowledge in the Philippines that the DVD pirate central is found in Quiapo. There, instead of just finding the usual array of sidewalk vendors with their makeshift stands and stacks of illicit wares, some “hot” stalls are situated in buildings devoted to the trade.

This “central” is not a secret to anyone. Knowledge on how to locate the exact place can easily be obtained by just asking anybody around. You can even locate it by simply looking into every building there since said central is operational the whole week and the whole day. If this pirate haven is that conspicuous, it makes you wonder why said place still exists when the Optical Media Act, a law that supposedly punishes manufacturers and distributors of these illegal DVDs was enacted way back in 2004. Could it be possible that the enforcers of this law are not aware of this publicly known secret “hot” spot? But, to be fair, it must be very hard to put an end to DVD piracy when there are literally millions of patrons of said goods. Clearly, the Quiapo pirate central could not have existed this long and operate seven times a week if it did not have a constant influx of buying customers.

But why do many people have this obsession in purchasing pirated CDs when they constantly violate the law every time they do so? There are many theories on this but it seems the most logical and realistic one is the price difference between original DVDs and their pirated counterparts. In the Philippine market, original DVDs would range from around P400 going as high as P3000. The ones in Quiapo, supposedly ranges from as low as P20 up to P80. The difference in price is too big. It is understandable why many people succumb to temptation especially nowadays wherein the qualities of the original and pirated, due to the advancement in technology, are almost the same.

But, piracy is a crime. There is definitely truth in the fear of many that the Video/Movie industry may die because of this “phenomenon”. The creators of the films or shows should be given their dues. But, people are just human. Not many can pass up a bargain. Perhaps if the prices of DVDs will be brought down, like in the case of VCDs, DVD piracy may remarkably diminish. It seems the threshold of people on whether they would buy the original or not is the cost of watching a movie in the theaters. If the original would cause the same or below it (fat chance), they would buy it; if it is higher, they definitely would not purchase it, but might buy a pirated copy of it, depending on how much they would like to see the show.

Of course, there is another solution to DVD piracy proliferation, convince the pirate patrons that VCDs are as good as DVDs (but of course original VCDs would be pegged at a P99 minimum).

------------------------------------------------------

A piracy bust escapade in Malaysia (last visited: September 5, 2006, 1:33 pm): http://www.michaelooi.net/archives/2004/09/some_happenings.html

Links to sites about DVD piracy in the Philippines:

http://baratillo.net/?p=502 (last visited: September 5, 2006; 1:44 pm)

http://www.philippinenews.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b9dd24972f9e220f4978a5ac58459c0 (last visited: September 5, 2006; 2:09 pm)

http://www.mac.doc.gov/PressMain/Jan03Press/Jan10PhilippinesEnforce.html (last visited: September 5, 2006; 2:14 pm)

A link with a heated debate on Philippine DVD Piracy (last visited: September 5, 2006; 2:36 pm)

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/forums/viewtopic.php?p=44504

Power of Online Venom

2006-08-27T14:27:00.000+08:00

In today's world, the cliché the pen is mightier than the sword has been modified to take into consideration all other forms of electronic communication that now shares the role of the proverbial pen. There are text messages, e-mails, internet discussion groups, and of course, blogs.

Hollywood put the blog's power to the test with its publicity campaign for Snakes on a Plane (SoaP). More than six months before its release, SoaP already generated hype because bloggers and internet discussion groups began to discuss it online. There were all sorts of reactions, predictions, and suggestions made, so much so that the movie's producers actually incorporated the suggestions into the movie. The internet was actually one of the main tools used to promote the film, even though the ones doing the promoting were mostly fans. Producers apparently thought that if people talked about it, they're probably going to see it. And so they encouraged bloggers and other net users to talk about it some more. There was so much interest that producers of other studios even considered coming up with a new line of movies meant to generate internet buzz on how awful they are.

Too bad for the producers, SoaP didn't do as well as they had hoped. Sure, it debuted at number 1, but it earned only $15M, which was much less than what they expected. What happened? they asked. With all that hype they were so sure the movie would be a runaway box office hit.

Does this mean the cyber-pen hasn't got much power after all? No it doesn't. If anything, this proves that it's a mighty force to be reckoned with. Didn't people believe talk that it was going to be a bad movie and refused to see it? The problem was that producers psychologized people's reactions too much. As one writer put it, when people said the movie was going to be crappy, they meant it. They did NOT mean "it's so crappy you should see it." They just meant it would be crappy. Period. Most people didn't want to watch a movie that was already heralded as awful.

While blogs and other cyber-pens are powerful enough, it would probably work best if it went hand in hand with more traditional forms of advertising. Also, consider that while a lot of the world has internet access, most still rely on word of mouth or on newpapers and TV to clue them in on what movies to watch out for. It would help if people encouraged others to watch a film because it was GOOD. As SoaP has shown the world, there are a lot of people out there who mean exactly what they say when they write on their blogs. And if people say that something is going to be another bad movie and a waste of theater money, you can bet that most of them mean it.

INTERESTING LINKS:

www.snakesonaplane.com - Official website; last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_plane - interesting article from Wikipedia; last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002234847 - last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/08/21/hollywood-wonders-why-crappy-movie-isnt-a-hit/ - last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/movies/15298563.htm - last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://snakesonablog.com/ - last visited Aug. 27, 2006

http://beautifulcandy.blogspot.com/2006/05/snakes-on-mania.html - last visited Aug. 27, 2006

Quest in Defining the Governance

2006-08-22T23:31:00.000+08:00

If you make a search on your favorite search engine in the net for the term “Internet Governance”, you’d have a bountiful harvest of literally thousands of results (actually, Google will tell you it’s about 2,790,000 results) from all over the world. These results would lead to sites devoted to various topics and not only limited to International Law and governments.

What is this Internet Governance?

Funnily, despite the interest and devotion that it has sparked, the honest answer to this query is, “I don’t exactly know.” The bigwigs and authorities of this so-called Internet Governance have not yet come up with an actual definition for this concept. Ever since the 2003 World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), the closest thing to a definition ever produced is just a proposed one that is nothing near finality and is subject to change whenever deemed necessary. It appears the root cause of this seemingly unending quest is the lack of agreement between the parties involved (nations) on what it should encompass. Some would love to limit this ‘governance’ to just the system of allocating domain names and IP addresses on the net. Others would like to embrace everything related to the Internet going as far as those only remotely-related. The logical and obvious solution to this problem is finding the middle ground of the spectrum. However, no matter how clear it is to the parties that this is the key, a deadlock on the definition of Internet Governance still ensues. Some blame the self-serving interest of the supporters of each end of the spectrum. Some blame commercialism. But could it be the reason behind the cause of the problem is the hesitance of society to concretely have the Internet under some sort of governance?

It is no secret that one of the Internet’s alluring characteristics is its rather free and unregulated environment. Admittedly, the Internet has done fine without any formal governance. To a layman, placing the Internet under a governance is tantamount to restricting its use. Sure cyber crimes are becoming more rampant, and sure, Internet transactions are becoming more and more complicated, but the Internet has not collapsed because of these rising problems. Its popularity has not even diminished by its emerging setbacks.

Perhaps the solution to defining Internet Governance is knowing exactly what this ‘Governance’ will be. A governance incorporating the norms that have successfully kept the Internet from succumbing to a state of utter chaos and anarchy might be the key. It may be more palatable to the stakeholders involved and more attuned to the issues and problems of the net. Indeed, “Why fix it when it is not broken?” and “Why break it in the attempt of trying to fix it?”

Yes, the answer is striking a balance between interests. The Internet has defied all odds and has managed to keep itself alive and even thrive all these years. Perhaps the answer lies in the current Internet system—among those who just use and enjoy it.

-------------------------------

Links with insightful ideas on how governance of the Internet should be:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html

-- last visited on August 21, 2006; 6:29 PM Phil. Time

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uOitgSmvhPMJ:www.wgig.org/docs/book/

-- last visited on August 22, 2006; 10:12 AM Phil. Time (html versiond of a pdf file)

http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/eric/blog.20051113165257.html

-- last visited on August 22, 2006; 10:32 AM Phil. Time

Hope for the Future

2006-08-14T16:18:00.000+08:00

These days, it's very rare for a person to walk into a room and not meet someone who has worked, is working, or is planning on working at a call center. For a lot of Philippine graduates, the call center has become THE place of employment. With starting pay that is much, much higher than minimum wage, it's no wonder fresh graduates (even not-so-fresh graduates) are lining up to join call center companies.

Call centers began to thrive in the Philippines because of the phenomenon of the outsourcing boom. What exactly does outsourcing mean? Answers.com states that it is contracting with organizations outside your country for work that could otherwise be done by employees within your company. More and more companies from developed countries are hiring people in poorer Asian and European countries to do all sorts of work: from making 3-d models to answering customer queries to transcribing medical information. All this is happening for the simple reason that it's much cheaper to outsource rather than to hire their own countrymen. Employers consider this cheap but quality labor. For the laborers, though, it’s not really cheap. Consider where these laborers live… $10 a day is not much to a multinational company, but it’s more than minimum wage to a Filipino.

Call center services are just one of the outsourcing sectors being promoted by the Philippine government. The others are: animation, software development, medical transcription, and business process outsourcing*. The amazing thing is that there are not enough people to fill the jobs being offered. Things have certainly changed. When our age group was in grade school, our Social Studies teachers used to tell us that there aren't enough jobs for Filipinos, and that's the reason why there are so many OFWs out there. Who would have thought that there would actually come a time where there are too many jobs instead of too many people?

The sad problem is that a lot of Filipinos are not qualified for these jobs. Thankfully, this problem is now being addressed. Some companies serve as training centers for would-be-call center employees, and even offer English proficiency modules online. Other companies in animation are willing to train people for free, provided they work for the company.

But of course, not everything is happy and perfect in the world. There’s bound to be a sourpuss (or several) out there. For example, citizens of developed countries are afraid that outsourcing will rob them of their jobs. Is this a valid fear? Maybe, maybe not. But there are people out there who believe that with the savings and income made from outsourcing, companies are now getting the means to develop programs that have need for their countrymen’s expertise, thus disproving the theory that outsourcing takes away jobs**.

Overall, outsourcing is definitely a gift. And for a third world country like the Philippines, it just might be our hope for the future.

*http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?index=1&story_id=52593; visited August 14, 2006
** http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/08/us_tech_workers.html; visited August 14, 2006

Links:
ml;jsessionid=KEF1MUMEYYROUQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN
http://www.cio.com/archive/071506/global_outsourcing.html
http://www2.cio.com/research/surveyreport.cfm?ID=10
http://www.blogsource.org/2005/10/japanese_animat.html
http://www.i-telco.com/call-center-outsourcing-services-in-philippines.html

Some Companies that Practice Outsourcing:
http://www.ajketcher.com/
http://www.3dstormstudio.com/
http://www.accenture.com/

A Perfect 10 Google War

2006-08-08T23:38:00.000+08:00

In November 2004, Perfect 10 (P10), an adult website, filed a case against Google for copyright infringement of pictures on its site. P10 sued Google on the ground that a search using Google’s Image Search would yield thumbnails and direct links to P10 members-only pictures displayed, without permission, on various sites. On February 17, 2006, the California District Court hearing the case granted the preliminary injunction asked by P10 to stop Google, for the meantime, from allowing searches of P10-related images.

The Decision[1] granting the injunction contained both ups and downs for the web community.

THE GOOD

A good side of the Decision is the affirmation of the ruling in the case of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.[2] where it was held that “in-line linking” and "framing" do not violate copyright laws. In in-line linking, “the in-line link instructs the user’s browser to retrieve the linked-to image from the source website and display it on the user’s screen, but does so without leaving the linking document”[3].

Another favorable aspect of the Decision is its acknowledgement of the ‘server test’ as the correct test to be used in determining the party liable in in-line links. In said test, the website that illegally stores and serves copyrighted pictures to internet users will be deemed to be the infringer and not the website that in-line links to it.

THE BAD

Aside from the injunction, a bad side of the Decision of the Court is its finding that Google’s Image Search feature of displaying thumbnail versions of exclusive P10 pictures probably violated copyright law. In reaching such a conclusion, the Court applied the traditional 4-factor 'fair use'[4] test[5]. Only one of the factors was found to be in favor of Google[6].

Pivotal to the Court’s ruling is Google’s receiving of advertising revenue from its AdSense Program[7]. According to the Court, because of the revenue earned by Google in its search thumbnails, its use of P10’s images was commercial—making it less likely to be fair use and thus, outside of the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp doctrine. Also, crucial to the Court was the “downloadability” by cellphone users of Google’s thumbnails. In light of P10’s venturing into paid cellphone image downloads of its pictures, it was held that Google’s thumbnails was likely not to be fair use since it eroded P10’s potential cellphone market.

It seems the Court narrowly considered fair use in this case. It gave too much weight on probabilities not within the control of Google. How could it foresee that a person would click on a link to an infringing site which happens to be an AdSense partner? Also, how could it have possibly known that an unscrupulous person would download search thumbnails on his cellphone?

This case should be followed closely by the web community. Victory for P10 might lead to a bad precedent. Internet freedoms might become a thing of the past and overreaching copyright laws might become the trend.

------------------------------------

[1] Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., No. CV 04-9484AHM, 2006 WL 454354 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2006)
[2] Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)
[3] Id., p. 816
[4] If the use of copyright material is deemed to be ‘fair use’, no copyright infringement took place
[5] The 4 factors: (1) purpose and character of use of the work; (2) nature of the work; (3) amount and substantiality of the work used; (4) effect of the use to the potential market of the owner of the work (note: these are the same factors for fair use considered in Sec. 185 of the Philippine Intellectual Property; see http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7copyright.htm for said provision)
[6] For a good discussion of the District Court’s application of the 4 factor fair use test see Nixon Peabody LLP web article on this case located at http://www.nixonpeabody.com/copyright_article.asp?ID=98&PubType=N
[7] A program which allows third-party websites to have Google-sponsored advertising and share revenue from the advertising; with this program, Google will receive advertising revenue every time a user clicked on a thumbnail and was taken to a third-party website that was also an AdSense Partner (as defined in a Baker Botts LLP web IP Report located at http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=29cd2daa-1a6f-4f16-aa97-0d056d84aaac)

See the following for information and opinions/views of the Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. case:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/TELECOM_Digest_Online/0373.html
http://www.out-law.com/page-6660
http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=29cd2daa-1a6f-4f16-aa97-0d056d84aaac
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/copyright_article.asp?ID=98&PubType=N
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004838.php

https://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Perfect10_v_Google/

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004433.php

Related links to the application of copyright laws and the fair use doctrine in the Internet:
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi#QID550
http://www.out-law.com/page-3712

To Tax or Not To Tax

2006-08-01T15:05:00.000+08:00

The Internet has changed many things in our lives. It has revamped the way how people go about their daily routine and work. It is so powerful that, aside from its users, it has even affected other realities in our societies.

One of the things it affects are taxes, the lifeblood of the Government (hence, also that of the civilized society). Why? Taxes are hinged and dependent on transactions. Since there are more transactions now, implementing taxes have become more complicated.

A particular principle in tax that has become more problematic is tax situs—Who will tax?

Countries would battle for hours in treaty conventions about this particular topic. Locally, Local Governnment Units (LGUs) will slug it out just to settle this. Is this surprising? No. After all, whoever has the power to tax will get the money.

In our E-Commerce Law, tax situs is addressed in Sec. 23. The first paragraph of said provision provides:

"Unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, an electronic data message or electronic document is deemed to be dispatched at the place where the addressee has its place of business. This rule shall apply even if the originator or addressee had used a laptop or other portable device to transmit or receive his electronic data message or electronic document. This rule shall also apply to determine the tax situs of such transaction."

In light of the express statement in the last sentence of this paragraph, the first clause in this section, "unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee", is big trouble. Does this mean that our Government is willfully giving the option on whether a transaction can be taxed by it or not to contracting parties? A simple reading of the provision leads to an affirmative answer. If that’s the case, one can sell, let’s say an animation, to a person in a country where such a transaction is exempt from tax, invoke the provisions of Sec. 23 of the E-Commerce Law and designate the other country as the tax situs and viola!—a successful evasion of Philippine sales taxes. Given the rapid increase of Internet transactions, it is no exaggeration to state that this section may eventually drain the life out of the Government.

Another problem with this section is its vague allusion to tax situs. By not mentioning who can exactly tax, conflicts will arise with our local statutes. At point is the Local Government Code provision (sec. 150; see http://www/chanrobles.com/localgov2.htm ) on how and which LGU has the power to tax sales in their territories by entities with principal offices in other municipalities. Since "place of business" is the point of reference, what if a person from the principal office of a company goes to a sales outlet in another municipality and makes an internet transaction there, which municipality can now tax? A conflict between laws will now arise.

Perhaps an amendment of the law is needed. A provision dedicated solely to tax situs might be the key.

----------------------------------

Discussion on tax and the Philippine E-Commerce Law see: http://pascn.pids.gov.ph/DiscList/do2/sO2-08.pdf

Discussion on E-Commerce Law and jurisdiction see: http://www.ilpf.org/events/jurisdiction2/conf00d2.pdf

Annotations on Philippine E-Commerce Law see:
http://disini.ph/downloads/EcomIRR%20Annotations.pdf

ICT Related Ranting

2006-07-24T23:16:00.000+08:00

Last Thursday, I was woken at the indecent hour of 4 a.m. by the ringing of my cellphone. Not knowing who it was, I rejected the call and went back to sleep. Two seconds later, the same number called. When I ignored several calls, I received the message:

"Beh, sagutin mo naman plz...."

So I figured, some poor guy out there is having a lover's quarrel... I should be nice. I replied, "I'm sorry, I'm not Beh. You have the wrong number. Please don't call this number anymore thanks."

I thought that was the end of it, but no... he STILL kept calling! I finally put my phone on silent and went back to sleep. However, I woke up at 5:30 and after checking that the unknown caller hasn't been calling anymore, I took the phone off silent mode.

What a mistake that was!!!

At 5:59 a.m. the unknown caller struck again. Several times, in fact. Once more I pleaded with him/her to stop calling. But of course, it was useless because the person kept calling and texting me messages asking me for my name and telling me his name was James. Finally, I told him that if he didn't stop, I'd call the network and report him. Of course, he ignored me and continued bugging me so I eventually called customer service.

Only to find out that all they could offer me was sympathy!!! I asked the operator if it were possible that this number be banned from calling me. She said if I had his number banned, all other incoming calls will be banned too. So I asked if it were possible to cut this guy's number. She said if the number were pre-paid, the network had no control over it. Apparently, what's being said about the legal profession is also true for ICT: Justice in this country is just-tiis.

When networks started charging piso per text, the "Cn i b ur txtm8?" messages declined. But through unlimited call and text services -- which I learned in class is made possible through VOIP -- such messages are back with a vengeance.

While I'm lucky because the annoying calls only lasted a day or so, (although, this is my third unknown number), I couldn't help but wonder how other unlucky people cope with text and cellphone stalkers. Based on what I've been told, if you're a subscriber and you're being stalked by someone who happens to have a pre-paid line, all you can do is either ignore the caller or change your number. It's sad that while this network provides the means for stalking, they don't provide much protection for their customers. I was told by my classmate that to put up a call screening system that would prevent stalkers (like the system over e-mail that lets you ban specific addresses), companies will have to spend millions - and he doubts companies are willing to spend that much.

I guess not every customer matters after all.

The Good and the Bad

2006-07-11T12:59:00.000+08:00

Driving along EDSA, you'll notice billboards of a cellular network company advertising international calls for only ten cents a minute. TEN CENTS? How did they manage to lower the cost of a long distance call to less than that of a local call? The answer is VOIP: Voice Over Internet Protocol.

What is VOIP exactly? Simply put, it is technology that allows users to communicate through the internet. It is a child of CONVERGENCE . Convergence means “movement towards uniformity.” In the world of ICT, technological convergence is the merging of distinct technologies, industries or devices into a unified whole*. Convergence is a hybrid of many different things, a mongrel which exhibits the best of each part that makes it whole.

Lest you get lost in this sea of definitions, here are some examples of convergence that you may have done: Using Skype or YahooVoice, Teleconferencing, Home banking by desktop computers, Working at call centers, even Watching movies online. All of these activities let us avail of technologies from many industries all at once. Take the use of Sype or YahooVoice for example. It's a combination of the internet and the telephone/communications industries.

It is because of convergence that the call center industry has thrived in the Philippines. With its help, our countrymen from far flung corners of the provinces are able to go through interviews with employers from developed countries (and actually find work!). It lets us reach our relatives and friends abroad for free, and if we close our eyes and just listen, we can pretend they're actually right beside us. Definitely, convergence has made a world of good things possible.

But what about a world of bad things? Sadly, the benefits of convergence do not come without a price. Cyber prostitution, credit card fraud through online transactions, hacking, and all other manner of cyber crime abound. There are traditional telephone firms that bewail loss of income and cry unfair competition because consumers have switched to other cheaper (or free) means to communicate. Such firms have spent billions building up their infrastructure, only to have them used by others to take away once-loyal consumers. Then of course, you have the impact of convergence on social interaction. With peers and family a mere click away, couldn't one argue that convergence has lessened the importance of personal interaction?

Anything "great" can produce either great good or great evil. It’s entirely up to the user how he or she will use it. You can use convergence to make things easier for people, provide jobs, and do all manner of things that will put you on Santa’s good-kids list. Or you can choose to abuse it and wreak havoc.

So what’s your choice?

*http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/convergence
Interesting Mini-Tutorial: http://www.tele.sunyit.edu/Convergence.PDF

The International Guiding Hand

2006-07-04T14:05:00.000+08:00

The Philippine E-commerce law was based on the Model Law agreed upon by the members of the United Nations Commission on Industrial Trade Law (UNCITRAL). It is then no surprise that included in our law is a provision (Article 37) stating that the law’s interpretation will give due regard to its international origins and bases.

But what does this mean?

Basically, this provision says that the interpretation of our E-commerce law, although a local legislation, is always with reference to the principles agreed upon internationally.

And what are these principles?

The members of the UNCITRAL agreed that the E-commerce law to be enacted in its member countries will be uniform and that it will promote the use of information technologies in trade and commerce and other transactions, as well as validate such transactions. It will also facilitate electronic commerce among and within nations and support commercial practice (note: gist only).

Eh?

How can we apply such principles to a Philippine setting? What are their effects on existing Philippine laws?

Let’s be concrete. For example, in our Civil Code, there is a provision there stating that certain kinds of contracts have to be in writing or else they will not be enforceable (its a valid contract but you cannot invoke the terms in it in court). Now, with the E-commerce law which advocates the use of information technologies in business transactions (as mentioned, a general principle woven in the making of the Model Law), a person armed with only text messages as proof of the contract he entered into (i.e. the offer and acceptance of the contract were all done through text), may use these messages as proof of the ‘in writing’ requirement of the law. Because of the principles behind our E-commerce law, provisions of the Civil Code (which is like a ‘god’ code in a Civil Law country like the Philippines) will have to accommodate said principles. And this ‘accommodation’ in the law does not only apply to our country but also with the other countries who have made their own E-commerce law because one of those international principles agreed upon was the uniformity of the E-commerce law in the member countries. We could now invoke when dealing with other nations that transactions made using information technologies are to be honored and are valid.

See http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/uncitral/doc for the UNCITRAL Model Law and discussions on it.

Created by Inez Togle and Rochelle Tumaneng

Let's Keep It Simple

2006-06-27T17:13:00.000+08:00

What is an original electronic document?

The Internet is full of websites offering tons of answers even to the most inane questions. Wishing to make this somewhat of a more scholarly entry, we first moused over to the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) website and looked for UN Resolutions addressing my question (as suggested by my professor). We found the MODEL LAW ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE adopted by the UNCITRAL and discovered that its section on original documents was adopted by our own Legislative's E-Commerce Act.

Both state that should the law require information to be presented in its original form, such requirement is met by an electronic document if it can be shown that there is proof of the e-document's integrity (meaning the document has remained complete and unaltered except for the addition of endorsements), and that the said e-document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is required to be presented.

Two phrases sum up the requirements of the model law and the E-commerce Act for original documents:
1. Proof of integrity
2. Capability of being displayed when required

Simple enough, right?

But let's move on the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2001. Rule 4 Section 1 of the REE states:

Section 1. Original of an Electronic Document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data

It seems that only the second half of the definition was incorporated into the Rule. Where did the first part go?

Actually, integrity is also mentioned in the REE, it was just placed in Rule 5 which pertains to authentication of documents. From what we understand, under the REE, an e-document is considered an original if it is readable, but to be accepted in court it must be authentic, and to be authentic it must have integrity.

Complicated, isn’t it?

But did it have to be that way? A closer look at the law and the rules show that basically, they require the same things. The requirements for an original document to exist in the eyes of the law are the same as the requirements for an original document to be accepted in court.

Prior to the E-Commerce act, the definition of original documents did not appear in any other law except the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court. It’s understandable that they should feel possessive of something that was originally theirs. But if the law provides a definition that already makes sense, it certainly makes more sense to keep it the way it is. Why mess with a good thing when you don’t have to? We're certainly not going to. So when someone asks us (again) what is an original e-document, we're sticking to the simplest answer:

Integrity + Readability = Original Document

Welcome :)

2006-06-17T21:05:00.000+08:00

Welcome to NEEDLES AND HAYSTACKS!

ICT is a subject that covers a vast range of topics. From computers to cybercrime, to the worldwideweb, to call centers, to dvd piracy, just to name a few. And of course, there's ICT law. For such a relatively new field of law, there are vast amounts of information about this topic. To some, searching for a good understanding of the field of ICT can be as difficult as finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. And so we've decided to call this blog NEEDLES AND HAYSTACKS, in honor of our great search for understanding and expertise.

Join us as we explore the world of Information and Communications Technology :)

Created by Maria Inez Togle and Rochelle Tumaneng