One Last Angry Look

iMali

2007-09-17T14:25:00.000-07:00

uberjam design #001

if i had a shirt like this for
every mistake i've made
in these exams,
i'd make a
fortune.
really.

maybe if they put snakes on a treadmill...

2006-09-21T20:55:00.001-07:00

Many companies engaged in production and publicity have learned their lesson from the success, and failure, of Snakes On A Plane.[1] I would venture to say that the lesson is this: You can’t trust the Internet. Or at least, it is this: the Internet is still a new enough publicity and advertising medium as to be extremely volatile and highly unpredictable.[2] Unlike what they may expect from conventional TV, radio, and print advertising, groups and individuals who wish to gain one sort of following or another by offering their material on the Internet have quite a way to go in determining the “right” package, or the “exact” strategy, to ensure that their stuff sells. This is true for the music, TV, and movie industries.

Yet, a number of success stories will keep these people trying. An obvious choice as a “role model” or prototype is the rock band Ok Go. I first came across their home-made music video,[3] shot in the vocalist’s backyard, while browsing videos on YouTube. By then their 3-minute, 25-second number had been re-performed by so many other quartets, showing just how much (and how well) people liked (and retained) what they saw and heard. I encountered their next video,[4] also independently produced, through a link sent by a friend. I doubt if any video shown on MTV could muster so much talent and innovativeness, when nowadays so much reliance is put on the power of editing to make something look good and/or original.

Still, I wasn’t sure where to place Ok Go within the current music scene. After all, they practically launched their album, Oh No, through the Internet, departing from the usual track of corporation-designed and -approved marketing. Was Ok Go a “serious” band? Were they just posting their songs and videos on the Internet for the heck of it? What did they get out of it? They’ve even posted songs from the album on their website,[5] where one can listen repeatedly without having to pay anything. How did they earn?

Issues relating to the detrimental effects of easy sharing and downloading of music through the Internet have repeatedly cropped up through the years. The lockdown on Napster and similar peer-to-peer sharing sites was focused on the protection of intellectual property, based on the general assumption that the proliferation of free music was bad for business. Yet, as the wild success of Ok Go has shown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNU33UVYhRE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWzFYywASmo&mode=related&search=

a balance can certainly be struck where the Internet may be used to help promote music and other industries[6] in a positive way, without treating rights-holders unfairly. The fact that songs and albums can now be accessed and copied more freely and conveniently does not necessarily mean losses for artists and labels. It is true that the dynamics of marketing in the music industry has been drastically changed by streaming, bit-torrenting, and file-sharing technologies. Whether or not an album has gone platinum based on record store sales may no longer be an accurate indication of its status as a “hit”. Of course, the entirety of the Internet’s capacity to serve as a publicity tool is yet unchartered and untested. Nevertheless, for now it is safe to say, that fickle and capricious though it may seem, the Internet is not totally averse to making new friends. :)

[1] http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/08/21/hollywood-wonders-why-crappy-movie-isnt-a-hit/, apologies to Sir Gigo for the reference to his reference. :)
[2] http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/09/18/lonelyfatguy39-fails-to-generate-media-attention/
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY_t24ywJMM&mode=related&search=
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxeQN2GWAzw
[5] http://www.okgo.net/music_music.asp
[6] As an example in the TV industry: http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-nbc-nobodyswatching,0,5673139.story?coll=zap-news-headlines

The Screen Has Eyes

2006-09-13T14:13:00.000-07:00

Have you ever tried ordering things online? How about accessing your bank account? Or paying your bills?

To get some perspective, it is said that about 25 million people have tried selling things online. Now, multiply this figure with potential buyers given the global internet market available today, and sure enough, the numbers are bound to increase exponentially.

For those who have NOT tried it, much of the reason lie in their faith (or lack of it) in the security measures provided for by all these various institutions peddling their wares or offering their services through the internet. How safe are these online transactions? What are the steps that have been undertaken to make them secure?

After this article, you might probably say "who's to blame them?"

A couple of minutes ago, I would have said --- with some degree of confidence --- that a lot has been done to curb potential threats insofar as internet security is concerned. That was before I got to read this.

It's a short article about this trojan (among the most advanced today, apparently) which gets to steal the passwords (or whatever they're called) of people who access their bank accounts online. It does this by actually generating a video clip while a particular person is trying to log in to his/her account, using his/her infected computer. Simply put, whenever that person tries to access his bank account online, the trojan automatically springs into action and creates a video showing what that person is doing exactly (including his typing in of his password/access number) by capturing what is shown in the computer screen.

This video shows how the trojan does this exactly.

Chilling, ain't it?

It's amazing how innovative criminals (online ones, in particular) are able to keep themselves one step ahead of the authorities (cybercops, to some) who are after them, and the security specialists who are specifically hired to keep them at bay.

Perhaps, the only consolation with this most recent development is that, at least, the trojan involved herein is only targeting (at the moment!) Brazilian banks. But the comfort provided by this thought is bound to dissipate very soon, given the tremendous speed technology is able to spread itself across the globe.

So I'm taking back that consoling thought.

Now tell me. Would you now consider ordering things online? How about accessing your bank account? Or paying your bills?

Double Standards

2006-09-06T13:53:00.000-07:00

Last September 1, Russia was said to have toughened up its laws against internet piracy as it tries to boost its bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). It appears that it's the only major economy left that's not yet a part of the 149-country association.

The United States, one of the countries who have not yet endorsed Russia's entry, has cited the latter's intellectual property protection, or the apparent lack thereof, as one of its main concerns.

A few months ago, in June, China also made news when it passed "stronger" legislation against internet piracy. This, despite allegations by certain sectors that the country has yet to show that its copyright protection efforts have any teeth at all.

Interestingly enough, China, despite the greater incidence of piracy and copyright infringement there, IS a member of the WTO and is considered by the US as a "major" trading partner.

So why the difference?

Perhaps it's in the fact that, with around 110 million internet users and 690,000 websites in the country alone, China is viewed more in terms of its money-making potential rather than the dangers it constantly poses to copyright owners and content providers. After all, next to the US, it's already China that has the biggest internet market around.

This observation, besides showing what is perhaps already that obvious, may perhaps give Russia (and a whole lot of others) some hints and tips on how to more effectively support it's WTO application. And it's not more anti-piracy laws and/or investigating bodies --- they could simply follow later on --- but more internet access to more people.

One last thing...

To end, it's rather interesting to note that businessmen (especially the big ones who get to control significantly the governments that see to their protection) are not the most intelligent bunch around. Didn't their mommies ever tell them never to count their chickens, before they've even hatched?

However, that said, this ugly duckling's not about to vent some real complaints. My mom's always told me, "the best things online, are free."

so says i *

2006-08-23T05:35:00.000-07:00

The other day, I came across a poster of a forum on “Blogging and the Internet Persona.” It was the first time I encountered the concept of a “persona” outside a work of fiction, with which it is usually related, as in “This writer has really developed the protagonist’s persona,” or “Here we come across two conflicting personas in one character.” Novel as the use of the term was in such a context, I realized that the idea was not foreign at all – the internet is filled with personas.

A “persona” is defined as “[t]he role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image or personality, as distinguished from the inner self.”[1] Whenever a person puts any facet of herself up on the web, she has the perfect freedom to (re-/de-)construct herself. She can add, subtract, modify, tweak, alter, or invent a new self entirely. This is true whether it involves the simple act of creating an e-mail account – “hotchickmagnet@yahoo.com,”[2] regardless of its accuracy – or the more complicated task of a 13-year old boy pretending to be a 42-year old lady from a different country to fool around in chat rooms. The possibilities are innumerable, though we often take for granted even the more common avenues for constructing personas: Friendster and the profiles and pictures that go with it; MySpace and more than a dozen accounts claiming to be Mariah Carey’s; online RPG’s and the thousands of “characters” living actual cyber-lives; blogging and what bloggers choose to share about themselves, and what they don’t.

All of these personas generate images and impressions of those who create them, which many times do not give viewers (or readers, watchers, listeners, lookers, etc.) an entirely accurate picture of their creators. Whether or not intended, whether in a conscious effort to re-shape who they are to a different audience (or at least to one which exists and communicates within an arena separate from the “real world”), or to simply reach out and be reached, this precisely is the beauty and wonder of the internet. In such a space, the possibilities of what we are, and what we can be, expands and lays itself out before us. We can create websites, post our art, talk about ourselves, talk about things we believe in or wish to believe. And it doesn’t necessarily matter that someone is looking (although one may ask what the point would be otherwise), but more importantly, that we can be seen and heard – in the ways we want to, how often, and how much. Access to the internet and a little know-how on opening accounts and posting things can be, in a word, liberating. I mean, if you had the ability (and the energy) to answer random questions as an ancient Japanese warrior with an appetite for killing,[3] wouldn’t you go for it?

* Apologies to The Shins (http://www.theshins.com/).

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persona, 23 August 2006.

[2] This is purely an example, I haven’t checked if such an address exists (although I would bet it does).

[3] http://www.askaninja.com/, 23 August 2006.

He said, She said

2006-08-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

The internet is a very potent venue for libel, what with the great volume of exchanges that take place on it everyday. There are numerous sites that offer all kinds of opinion on matters such as services of hotels and restaurants, performance of known individuals, and effectivity of health/diet programs. Most of such evaluations border on being libelous. For instance, a site called DontDateHimGirl.com includes posts from women about men they have dated, warning other women against dating these same men for reasons therein disclosed. [1]

Defamation, as punished under the Revised Penal Code, pertains to all kinds of attack against honor and reputation. [2] Article 353 of the RPC, which purports to refer to libel, actually defines defamation. Libel is in fact a form of “defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means”. [3]

Holding service providers liable for incidents of libel ‘within our jurisdiction’, especially where authors of posts remain anonymous, does not look so promising as a safety measure against the mass of libelous material. Under Section 30 (b) of the E-Commerce Act, service providers are generally not held liable for “making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material or any statement made in such material…provided that the service provider does not have actual knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent, that the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful…” And perhaps rightly so, for to ask them to monitor said materials could might as well amount to infringement of privacy rights.

Not even requiring posters to identify themselves poses as a viable solution for addressing the problem, for as Mark Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center has pointed out, to require such would have a chilling effect on speech. [4]

It seems then that whatever solution we come up with has to strike the perfect balance between protection of one’s honor and protection of another’s right to privacy and expression.

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060801/tc_nf/44901. accessed 08 august 2006.

[2] People vs. del Rosario, et. al., 86 Phil 163.

[3] Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2001 edition, p. 931.

[4] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060801/tc_nf/44901.

someone's watching...

2006-08-08T16:50:00.000-07:00

My friend is a computer engineering graduate from some reputable university. Once, while we ware talking, he casually mentioned how easy it is to hack into people’s [free] email accounts – especially those of people whom one knows really well. He went on to tell of how he had hacked a friend-turned-enemy’s account, forwarded some of the incriminating mails in that account (both from the inbox and sent folders) to people close to the user and deleted most of the personal mails the user obviously wanted to keep on hand.

On a larger scale, security on the internet is a real problem. For example, there are companies which, for advertising and marketing purposes, monitor the online habit of internet users. Such a practice does not sit well with many, especially when spam mails start clogging their email accounts.

In his article EFF’s Top 12 Ways to Protect your Online Privacy[1], Stanton McCandish gives several pointers, which include the following:

1. Do not reveal personal details to strangers or just-met “friends”. [2]

2. Realize you may be monitored at work, avoid sending highly personal email to mailing lists, and keep sensitive files on your home computer.

3. Beware of sites that offer some sort of reward or prize in exchange for your contact information or other personal details.

4. Do not reply to spammers, for any reason.

5. Examine privacy policies and seals.

6. Use encryption.

The nature of internet use is such that any user is potentially vulnerable to invasion of privacy. Knowing that, each one has the duty to take safeguards to ensure at least one’s own security.

[1] http://www.eff.org//Privacy/eff_privacy_top_12.html. accessed 08 august 2006.

[2] The opening paragraph of this entry sufficiently illustrates the danger of doing that. :)

paper tiger

2006-08-01T21:37:00.000-07:00

The situs of taxation, also referred to as its territoriality, is one of the inherent limitations on the taxing power of the State. This is based on the principle that a State’s power to tax, however broad and extensive, is necessarily limited to “persons, property or businesses within its jurisdiction… to subjects... over which it exercises dominion.”[1] In other words, a State may not impose taxes on anyone or anything anywhere; limitations of territorial jurisdiction apply. Where situs of taxation is the issue, the following factors may be taken into consideration: the kind or classification of the tax being levied; the situs of the thing or property to be taxed; domicile or residence of the person to be taxed; his/her citizenship or nationality; the source of the income taxed; and the situs of the excise, privilege, business or occupation being taxed.[2] Even in the case of “ordinary” or conventional transactions, the determination of tax situs is not a matter of simple ascription but can be rather tricky, as a perusal of several NIRC provisions (e.g., Sections 23, 85 & 104) readily shows.

When it comes to electronic transactions, the difficulty increases a hundredfold. In response to their special character, R.A. 8792 applies the rules on dispatch & receipt of electronic data messages or documents as a basis for the determination of tax situs. Section 23 provides:

SEC. 23. Place of Dispatch and Receipt of Electronic Data Messages or Electronic Documents. – 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 originator has its place of business and received 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. xxx (Emphasis supplied).

Identifying a “place of business” in electronic transactions may be feasible for mainstream, commercial, and relatively big companies offering services over the internet. Yet thousands of other transactions are being perfected electronically everyday, which the State has no way of monitoring, although they may ordinarily be taxable under our laws. How will the Bureau of Internal of Revenue, for instance, keep track of the citizenship and residence of aliens habitually entering into contracts of sale with Philippine users? Does the fact that the vendee was physically located in the Philippines at the time of the transaction, whatever his or her nationality, make the “source of income” one situated in the Philippines, and thus taxable under our income tax laws? What of users who shield their true locations and identities by making themselves appear as coming from countries other than their own? Surely our tax laws are inadequate and insufficient to cover all the permutations of persons, property and businesses involved in electronic transactions, and an attempt to justify the imposition of taxes on these would entail mechanisms and resources one cannot (at present) even fathom.

For now, it seems that the State’s power to tax electronic transactions will have to remain limited to businesses whose physical location are determinate or determinable. In a (cyber) space and era where physical boundaries blur and converge, a legal principle so rooted in territory and tangibility of location seems to cave in on itself. The limitation on the State’s taxation power renders practically impotent amidst the present realities of information and communication technology.

[1] ABAN, Benjamin. Law of Basic Taxation in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 2001.

[2] Ibid.

Mad World

2006-07-26T12:32:00.000-07:00

In an age where consumerism is fast becoming a religion by itself, where one has a hard time keeping pace with the steep rise of technology; it's getting harder and harder to come clean and deny having used, in one way or another, this very same technology to violate another person's rights or at least further one's interest over another.

The world that is the internet, for instance, provides an avenue for a plethora of things one could do wherein one is able to affect, or at least look in to, the life of another human being, simply by a few mouse clicks and/or typed words.

There are the ever-popular Friendster and Myspace, which many consider to be a stalker's dream put to life. Simply by subscribing to their services, one could have an idea of the world of this other person whom we've come to know only by name or by his/her email address. Sure, there are restrictions available to a given user. But very few actually make use of them. Indeed, they do tend to defeat the purpose of joining such a community.

There is peer-to-peer transactions made possible by softwares like edonkey, KazaA, eMule and Limewire. This goes to include those applications making use of bit-torrent technology. These online exchanges of data are probably the fastest, most convenient way to send one's work across the globe at the least cost possible. Many of the entertainment bigwigs are naturally opposed to this. They are losing billions, they say, in revenue because of the huge advantage this technology provides to pirates and copyright terrorists.

We have the password and serial number providers. The Net is dotted with sites that provide serial numbers and/or passwords for restricted internet sites or softwares. What motivation is there left for a person contemplating on purchasing an authentic PC game or utility application?

These are but some of the realities out there that we are forced to deal with right now. They may not appear to be all that daunting --- at least not yet --- but I surmise they would be in the very near future.

How does one resist the urge? The temptation to do something which, in all likelihood, is probably not the most law-abiding thing to do? Is there need to reassess one's morals? Or are we justified in 'fighting back' against what Marx referred to as the world's owners of the modes of production, by completely disregarding their ability to earn income?

The lines have been drawn in some areas. But they are oftentimes still blurred, and rather confusing.

The thing about it though is that no one appears to be in a hurry to remedy this. At least there is no significant number.

But we're not complaining. No. Not just yet.

ever-changing

2006-07-18T19:52:00.000-07:00

When I first used the internet about ten years ago, I did not foresee that it would be able to offer the many conveniences that it does now. Back then, all I cared about was having my mails instantly sent (to not so many people, mind you.. coz it was not like most of my friends had access) and doing a little research here and there (come to think of it, a 13-year old does not have much cares in the world). It seemed like I could lose access to the net and not miss it much.. after all, I could always go back to the traditional ways of snail mail and library research.

But not so now. The internet has pervaded practically every aspect of an individual’s life! A mom-to-be can google (yes, the word is now used as a verb) pre-natal care, a child can play games on yahoo, a teenager can take a survey of either schools he can enter or job opportunities he can seize.

To meet intellectual needs, the internet offers an array of knowledge on all sorts of topics. To meet physical needs, a person can learn new recipes for cooking and avail of the services of a nutritionist/dietician. To meet emotional/psychological needs, an individual can locate support groups and take psychological evaluation exams. To meet social needs, one can track down long-lost friends/acquaintances, shop on-line, and even find someone to date (or marry!).

To the geographically challenged, Google Earth can give a map of or directions to any place one would llike to go to. To the civic-conscious fighting for a cause, petition-signing gets done in half the time (or even sooner) and no longer has to entail travel expenses to different parts of the world. To the workaholic who is too busy to stop by a shop to buy presents for special occassions, there are e-cards to send (to show that he at least remembered).

The evolution of technology just might bring us to worlds we thought we would never see – but only time will tell where that could be.

you are a great dancer!

2006-07-11T19:07:00.000-07:00

As with everything in life, technology has its positive and negative aspects. It’s always helpful to be aware of both sides of any coin so that one may act accordingly. The pros and cons of digital convergence, however, are very difficult to track, given its exponential rate of development, complicated further by the need for regulatory mechanisms which have yet to be formulated and enforced.

An excellent example of how digital convergence can be a “double-bladed sword” is its capacity to enable users to transmit huge amounts of media at hyper-speeds. There is no contest that this has tremendous positive impacts on the efficiency and quality of communication and information-dissemination all over the world. On the other hand, it can also be used as a tool to access and manipulate media and information “subject of legal prohibition or by which rights of others are infringed upon.”* Also, the lack of sufficient regulation leaves users, against whom crimes and misdemeanors have been committed through the electronic superhighway, with practically no recourse.

Taking from situations which have occurred and continue to occur in the field of information and communication technology, two possible scenarios come to mind:

A. In the case of RCPI vs. Board of Communications (80 SCRA 471), the Supreme Court ruled that complainants had recourse to the courts to recover damages from RCPI, for its non-delivery of telegrams regarding deaths in their families. Electronic communication is undoubtedly much more convenient and efficient than radio communication; what was once considered “high-tech” is now even more commonplace than telegrams used to be. If, however, misdelivery or non-delivery of vital information were to happen through e-mail or voice messaging, or even through realtime communication (e.g., VoIP digital voice packets are not reassembled properly upon reaching the addressee), to whom would the aggrieved parties have recourse? Is it possible to go after the service provider? Or will users have only themselves to blame for having relied on electronic media?

B. YouTube is now a very popular medium for broadcasting and retrieving video files, from clips featuring celebrities and TV shows down to the most mundane and personal subjects. What is posted immediately becomes publicity – either positive or negative – due to its accessibility to anyone who would care to watch. Thus there is a real need for tangible and viable safeguards against materials which negatively affect those who figure in these easily-transmissible videos, disseminated without, and sometimes even against, their volition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVDP5pW13Q4&search=alyssa%20alano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqk8uc-EMKo&search=michael%20fajatin

Alyssa Alano is lucky. As for Michael Fajatin, he may still have to redeem himself.

* Prof. Henrik W.K. Kaspersen. “Liability of Providers of the Electronic Highway.” http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/converge/960430/kaspers.html#HD_NM_4, 11 July 2006.

A Whole Lot of Sense?

2006-07-04T15:33:00.000-07:00

Sec. 37 of the E-Commerce Act reads: Statutory Interpretation. Unless otherwise expressly provided for, the interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its international origin and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade relations. The generally accepted principles of international law and convention on electronic commerce shall likewise be considered.

Simply put, whenever a situation arises wherein one or any provision of the Act is to be interpreted or given meaning, one always has to remember that:

The Act has an international origin.
Our E-Commerce Act was patterned from the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on Electronic Commerce, which was adopted in 1996. This Model Law is intended to facilitate the use of modern means of communications and storage of information. Accordingly, anyone tasked to interpret the Act would do well to consider the Model Law and the policy considerations behind it.

The Act conforms to the Model Law
No provision should be read or understood in such a manner as to deviate from or contradict its international counterpart, in the form of the Model Law. Of what use would it be to have an international Model Law, and have conflicting domestic laws patterned after it? To provide a model, after all, is to set an example.

The Act recognizes the importance of good faith in international trade relations.
In making sense of a provision, one must always remember that one of, if not the, primary purpose of the Model Law to which the Act was taken after, is the facilitation of paperless communications and commerce. Business and commercial transactions then being focal considerations, it follows that good faith itself, as a necessary element in any business relation must likewise be given weight. No interpretation that would do away with this basic requisite shall be allowed.

The Act was formulated having in mind the generally accepted principles of international law and the convention on electronic commerce
What could possibly be these principles be, one is prone to ask. The following excerpt would be most helpful:
As to the general principles on which the Model Law is based, the following non-exhaustive list may be considered: (1) to facilitate electronic commerce among and within nations; (2) to validate transactions entered into by means of new information technologies; (3) to promote and encourage the implementation of new information technologies; (4) to promote the uniformity of law; and (5) to support commercial practice. While the general purpose of the Model Law is to facilitate the use of electronic means of communication, it should not be construed in any way as imposing their use. (Guide to the Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on E-commerce).

NOTE

Much like its more “conventional” peers (read: non-techie laws) which are, more often than not, also borrowed from foreign sources, the E-Commerce Act, given this provision, already suffers from a handicap right from the get-go --- its applicability to local settings.

While it is true that time seems to blur away more and more borders between states, it cannot be denied that there would still be major differences in terms of the prevailing conditions (specifically, in technological advances) and pre-existing cultural elements between countries. Given this, would not putting more emphasis on uniformity somehow restrict the law insofar as adaptability is concerned? In our preoccupation to make the Model Law succeed, as a whole, wouldn’t its local offspring suffer when it is sought to be applied here, where not all conditions present when the framers of the Model Law, can be similarly found?

We seem to think so.

what is orig?

2006-06-27T15:42:00.000-07:00

Given a choice between an original and a replication, a person would [more often than not] choose the former. There is a universal notion that a reproduction is inferior to the original, one more reliable than the other.

Such perspective may be localized to capture the general view of documents. Parties are more likely to place confidence in the authenticity of a document when presented with an original, rather than with some other copy.

With the advent of replacing paper documents with electronic ones, the question of what "original" pertains to arises. It would be problematic to construe the original as strictly referring only to that which the originator created, for this would exclude the document which the addressee recieves. Under said circumstances, it would essentially be at the sole prerogative of thew originator to show the existence of an electronic document. Consequently, the addressee might find himself at a disadvantaged positiom. To avoid such inequality, Philippine law fixes the minimum requirements for determining originality to include only the inforamtion's:

integrity, and
capability of being displayed.

In assessing integrity, the law looks into the completeness of, and presence of alterations to the original message, as well as reliability in the light of the relevant circumstances. Integrity must be present from the time the document is first generated in its final form. According to the UNCITRAL Model Law, this "first generation in final form" is intended to include situations where an electronic document is first composed as a paper document; that is, the completeness, lack of alteration to, and reliability of the information must commence from the existence of the final message in paper document, not merely from its conversion into electronic form.

Once integrity is established, all that is left to be done is to present the electronic document . That which is displayed would be considered an original.

Given these criteria, rights and obligations arising from electronic documents are sufficiently protected.

Pagpapakilala

2006-06-21T16:51:00.000-07:00

The members of this Blog Team are Jamael Jacob, Carmen Grace Ramos, and Alaya de Leon. We mostly refer to one another as Jam, Charis (“Ka-rees”), and Aya, respectively.

We graduated from UP Diliman in 2003: Jam has a degree in Sociology, Charis in Psychology, and Aya in Comparative Literature.

Our expectations and interest in this class range from having other blockmates as classmates, to a pure and simple love of computers and the internet. Specifically speaking though, we wish through this class to have a first-hand encounter with the ever-evolving issues regarding the relatively new field of information and communication technology (props to Charis for putting it so succinctly).

There are many unique things about each of us that may be interesting to share as an introduction, but one of the most interesting facts about all of us is how much we have in common:

First, we are from Block B, batch of 2007. We have taken every class each of the others have in our three years of law school. This sem, even when the classes have been totally up to us, we’re apart in only two.

Second, we are members of the college-based Paralegal Volunteers Organization (PVO). Although we belong to different committees, the distinctions blur when we get to work.

Third, we are annual interns at the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN), a developmental legal NGO. We are now on our second year as annual interns. We love what we do there.

Fourth, and as if all the time we spend with one another isn’t enough, our time inside the classroom is spent in close proximity with each other. We’ve always been seatmates and (as far as I know) plan to stay that way.

Oh, and we’re woking on this blog together. Why fix something that ain’t broke? ;)

test post

2006-06-21T08:45:00.000-07:00

test mike. one-two, one-two!