Techie Shots in the Dark

2nd part of the blog experiment

2006-09-17T16:29:00.000+08:00

We gave it two weeks, and we got a grand total of 13 hits. Half of which were probably either faith or nerissa.

We've posted our url, and begged our friends to visit our blog. After the announcements, we got an increase in traffic. We still have to see if we can get them to react to our entries.

E-government

2006-09-15T13:18:00.000+08:00

Last year, I got a glimpsed of the e-services of GSIS. My parents, who are in their late 50's asked me to sign them up in GSIS' online services. I did as I was told. My parents basked in the convenience of checking their accounts online. They need not go to the GSIS office just to check their account.

E-government, or the use of information technology in delivering services to the citizens, has been the talk of town lately. Governments all over the world have set up their own e-government framework. The goal is efficiency and wider access.

Efficiency in the sense that administrative work is made easy as information between government agencies may be shared at the click of the mouse, ruling out redundant and paper-based work. Also, citizens can just access the agency's website, transact business that they could do online; hence, reducing the queues in the office.

Wider access in the sense that as long as one has access to the internet, he can avail of the services provided by the government online. Problem is, how many Filipinos have personal computers? Know how to use the computer? Have access to the internet? Technology can make the administration and delivery of services easy and fast. But if people do not know how to use this technology, investing in e-government may turn out to be another white elephant.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATION
ANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMENT/
0,,menuPK:702592~pagePK:149018~piPK:149093~theSitePK:702586,00.html/

http://egov-coe.ncc.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
amp;amp;amp;id=43&Itemid=1/

http://www.cdsea.org/CDSCOnsultants/e-gov.asp/

A Blog Experiment

2006-09-04T11:48:00.000+08:00

In relation to our blog effectivity entry, we put a hit counter in our blog to see if people visit our blog (not necessarily read our entries). This is on the premise that the more hits we get, the more effective our blog is with respect to sharing our thoughts.

For this week, we will not tell our friends about our blog. Then, we will see how many people visit our space. The following week, we will advertise our blog to our friends and blockmates, and post our blog address in Friendster bulletin boards.

We hope to see a difference in site traffic.

Wala lang!

effectivity (or lack thereof) of blogs

2006-08-23T22:49:00.000+08:00

Nerissa says:

Why do people blog? Is it really because they want other people to read and know what they think and feel? or is it because they just want a space where they can rant and let out the stresses of their day, share their joys and opinions?

with the sheer volume and number of blogs available on the internet, do bloggers really expect that their blogs will be read by other internet users?

When we blog, we know that our friends will read our blogs...We really don't care if strangers read our blogs, except of course when they start an online debate, make a nice comment, link to our blog, or sometimes trash what we said on our blogs.

Of course, we don't doubt that some bloggers are here for the purpose of brainwashing the rest of the Internet users and gaining control over the entire world. (hahaha!) We also don't doubt that some blogs are just therapy for those who can't afford time on the couch.

What's the deal with anonymous bloggers, anyway? Nerissa, who is the author of one anonymous blog (don't bother searching for it, and she claims that if somebody she knows reads the blog, they won't have any doubt that it's her anyway) claims that anonymity makes for a "great" online diary.

Faith says:

Publicity, may it be good or bad, is still publicity. It spurns awareness of the thing being publicized. With the Internet, one cannot control the kind of publicity his/her product will get. The anonymity that goes with blogging for example, empowers one to write anything about the product.

Although not everyone has access on the Internet, those who have access have the capacity to buy whatever it is being advertised or written about in the Internet. One’s target market is there. The game is all about people writing something good about your product. The power of persuasion is just so great.

For example, a friend asked me to search about this particular PDA in the Internet. The gadget was really costly, but the reviews I read about it were not great, most of it said, it is too costly for the specs that it’s better to buy a laptop for the price. My friend got discouraged from purchasing it.

Blogging can make or break your product. You cannot control what the bloggers would write about your product. And what they say usually leads to a discussion of your product. The good thing about it is that, you get feedback right away. So you can improve and release a more marketable product.

e-governance

2006-08-21T11:54:00.000+08:00

The Internet has no territorial boundaries. As long as there is access, one is part of the worldwide network. Internet governance and e-governance will require all the countries of the world to work together. Since there is no world peace, and even if there is, it seems very difficult that ALL countries would come to an agreement regarding this. -- after all, even UN treaties aren't signed by all members of the UN. Moreover, each countries have their own interests to look after, that most of the time, there is gridlock on the negotiating table. The disparity in the levels of technology and the access to it also affect a country's position with respect to e-governance.

The Philippines should be more active in drafting the rules in internet (and e-) governance. This would be in our best interests in the long run especially since we are marketing our country as the next (or best) e-services hub. We need an active participation in rule-drafting to protect and promote our interests.

Our lawmakers and representatives to international conventions should be made more aware of the needs of our country and employees in these fields.

their loss, our gain...

2006-08-14T18:54:00.000+08:00

In this era of globalization, Adam Smith’s division of labor rules. The battle plan is not to be a jack-of-all-trades, but rather to specialize. Get the job done at a lower cost. Thanks to the Internet, back-office operations can be done in other countries. Labor-intensive operation like customer service and bookkeeping work are performed in countries offering the best cost advantage, in terms of the quality of the work output and the price of labor.

Workers from industrialized countries have complained that this phenomenon of outsourcing had cost them their jobs and displaced them from work. It can be said that their loss has been our gain. But is there really a loss? We don’t think so. Given the savings from outsourcing, businessmen may invest in more technical and skill-intensive industries, creating a new demand for workers. The bottom line is that, it is not only companies that should be competitive, but also the workers, by continuously improving and honing their skills.

Outsourcing has been the Philippines’ gain because it has kept the dollar coming in. It has created jobs for thousands of graduates. Presently, university graduates’ first job is with a call center. Although the work schedule goes against one’s biological clock, it pays well compared to the usual 8am-5pm jobs.

But is Outsourcing just a phenomenon? A fad? Or a Bubble that sooner or later will burst?

It will just be a phenomenon, a fad or a bubble if the Philippines could not maintain its comparative edge over other countries in providing e-services. If she could not provide a constant pool of educated and skilled workers, infrastructures and even just an aura of political stability, she should not be surprised that one day, the bubble would burst and outsourcing exits from the country.

For write-ups of e-services in the Philippines, please click this link...
http://www.e-servicesphils.com/

what your web searches may say about you

2006-08-09T21:25:00.000+08:00

Came across this article while surfing the net (Aug 9, 2006): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html
?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=technology

The article tells about this AOL searcher whose identity was revealed along with the searches she made over the internet for a period of time.

It's interesting because as law students (and in our private time, heehee) we perform searches over the internet. We know (if we read their privacy policies) that they compile data in their sites, but we didn't know that the compilation of data was in the extent demonstrated by the article. Of course, we don't know if the compilation of data works when we're signed in, or if they use our IP addresses to trace the searches we perfom.

Well, anyway, we just have to ask: Can they trace our searches and compile data on us if we're not signed in? i.e. using google search when we're not signed in to gmail, yahoo search when not signed in, etc.

Fair Use

2006-08-02T17:17:00.000+08:00

Sec. 185 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines states: “The fair use of copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. The same provision gives factors which shall be considered in determining fair use. These are: (a) the purpose and character of the use, (b) the nature of the copyrighted work; (c) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

We know that the fair use doctrine is a defense provided for users of copyrighted material against charges of infringement against them. But what exactly is fair use?

The factors do not give a concrete limitation on what use is “fair”. Instead, it calls for a balancing of the rights of the copyright owner and the use by an individual of materials that are made available to the public. And in any issue which involves balancing of opposing rights, we encounter policy decisions by the arbitrator or judge. This is why the question of fair use is, we think, one of the most difficult questions in copyright law.

The question of fair use also becomes more important as more and more copyrighted works (and those not copyrighted) become available to the public over the internet. In fact, the internet makes it all the more difficult to monitor use of such materials, much less determine fair use. Just recall the problems peer-to-peer applications have wrought on the music industry.
We concede that the four factors given in the Intellectual Property Code (largely based on US law) is a bit vague to help us formulate an exact definition of fair use. But, these factors are broad enough to apply to the use of materials available over the internet. Fair use as a defense is available as a limitation on the protection given to copyright owners. We don’t want to do away with the fair use doctrine despite its vagueness, because it enables free sharing and expansion of knowledge.

In terms of information technology, it is also interesting to note that the same Sec. 185 of the Intellectual Property Code also classifies “decompilation” as fair use. Decompilation, says the provision, is the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs.

There is no doubt that as information technology pervades more of our lives, more people will acquire the skills to create their own programs for their own use and personalized for their needs. And there will be a greater need for “interoperability” of computer programs. Considering that most of us use Microsoft, it’s safe to presume that the code we will be reproducing for “interoperability” will be Microsoft’s. Of course, we don’t know what Microsoft will say about this.

tax situs problem

2006-07-28T20:59:00.000+08:00

Even without electronic commerce, Philippine taxation already has a somewhat convoluted method of taxation. In fact, one of our basic rules of taxation is the source rule. This is important in determining which income is taxable in the Philippines. Basically, if its income from the Philippines, then it's taxable by the government.

Before we had electronic commerce, we had contracts perfected abroad and performed in the Philippines, or vice versa. Some goods were produced or purchased abroad, and sold here in the Philippines while some were produced or bought here in the Philippines, and sold abroad. All of these transactions were evidenced by a written contract.

With electronic commerce, it's entirely possible to negotiate and perfect a contract while the parties are in different countries without entering into a written contract. People exchange goods and services at the click of a mouse. Just take a look at online English Language tutoring services - the tutee is in Korea while the tutor is here in the Philippines. Question arise as to where is the service rendered? According to the Tax Code, the situs of services is the place where the service is performed. In this scenario, where is the service rendered? In Korea? or in Manila?

The E-commerce Law only provides that in determining the situs of taxation of electronic transactions, the place of dispatch which is the principal office of the originator, and the principal place of business of the recipient should be taken into account. In the absence of a specific provision in the statute, we may apply the provisions of the Tax Code. But the question is, who has the jurisdiction to tax the services?

It would be easier if it is an exchange of goods because the sale is consummated upon the delivery of the object of sale. In this scenario, even if the transaction was perfected over the internet, delivery of the object is a must. The Tax Code provides that for goods produced abroad and sold within the Philippines, or produced domestically and sold abroad, the income is considered to be partially derived from sources within the Philippines; and for those purchased abroad and sold domestically, or purchased here in the Philippines and sold abroad, the sale is taxed where the good is sold. In effect, we just have to take a look at where the good is sold to determine the situs of taxation of the transaction.

The Tax Code is clear as to when to consider an income to be taxable in the Philippines. But enforcement is another thing. Unless we read everyone's email, which definitely we can not do, electronic transactions is hard to monitor as it happens over the internet at a fast pace.

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

Or let's make it simpler, when will the government of the Philipppines have a right to tax such electronic transaction? -- we tax the citizen on all his income (so the question doesn't arise). What if resident and non-resident? then it's necessary to determine whether it's income from the Philippines or not.

In electronic commerce, where will we draw the line? Is it Philippine income if perfected in the Philippines? performed in the Philippines? or must it be both?
definitely, we won't agree that it be both -- otherwise, the tax law would be easy to circumvent. They will simply perfect the contract somewhere else if it has to be performed in the Philippines.

The easieast thing to monitor is if it is performed in the Philippines (which is the current method for determining whether sale of service is taxable in the Philippines). After all, we can't really monitor perfection, unless we read everybody's email. and even then, how will we determine perfection?

on cybercrime

2006-07-25T14:33:00.000+08:00

Before we can hope to combat cybercrime in the Philippines, we'd better educate our people first. GMA mentioned in her SONA a "cyber corridor" and it might be safe to assume that we're going to exploit our IT personnel and build up Philippines (as we are doing now) as the home of the call centers.

It's true that with the proliferation of IT based services and transactions, crimes can be committed in new ways, and new crimes can be thought up by our brilliant criminal masterminds (hehe)

Unfortunately, our crime investigation forces (i.e. police and nbi) are sorely behind when it comes to computer forensics -- picture filipino movies: the rich arrogant criminal mastermind v. the poor humble yet pure of heart police officer who manages against all odds to defeat the mastermind and all his bumbling buffoons. This time we have cyber forensic officers with very little access to computers.

We have a lot of smart people who can learn IT, but the resources simply are not available within the Philippine government to make it worth their while to work as cyber investigators for the government. And, to make cyber forensics really effective, we really have to build connections and partnerships with other countries. We can't combat cyber crime on our own.

"It's funny how from simple things, best things begin..."

2006-07-10T09:58:00.000+08:00

When Nerissa was in grade school, she was perfectly happy with their family's landline while Faith only got the privilege to use a landline at home when she was in college already. That was the time when it will take you years to have a PLDT landline. So while Nerissa was spending hours talking to her classmates through her landline, Faith was busy chatting with her friends through ICOM radio handsets.

But now? They both have mobile phones. They started with those big clunky early Nokia and Motorola models that looked like shortwave radio handsets. Then in college, they got their first email account. Although Faith still prefers snail mail over email, the idea that she can send an email at the click of a button amazes her.

Then, they became Yahoo and MSN Messenger babies! Imagine, they can now talk and see their friends at the same time! Nerissa and Faith became fixtures in front of their personal computers! Communicating with their friends became easy as counting from one to ten! Unless you are rich and can afford telephones with conference and video call capabilities, Yahoo and MSN Messenger provided them with such services at a far lesser cost! Now, they can share stories with their friends whereever they are in the world. Maintaining a long distance relationship may not be that hard on the pocket anymore. What's good is that they can do other things like searching the web while talking to their friends. Although the audio does not come close to the crystal-clear and real-time connection of a landline-to-landline conversation, what is important is that, it gets the message across!

Just think about the impact of this way of communication to the millions of Overseas Filipino Workers! Although they are away from their families, homesickness does not pose a big problem anymore as they can talk and see their families and friends anytime they want to at a lesser cost. As they say "malayo man, malapit din."

Texts and Yahoo and MSN Messenger have been instrumental in bridging and maintaining relationships, whether romantic, platonic or filial. Filipinos are not confrontational people, nor are they expressive with their feelings. They find it easy to say what they feel thru text and chat.

They may not be aware of it, but convergence lies in the heart of all of these media of communication. Data, voice and video communication all merged into one! The result is way beyond we have ever imagined at a lesser cost. All that is needed is a mobile phone or a computer and an internet connection. It is not "out of sight,out of mind" anymore, but "out of coverage area, out of mind."

From the zeroes and ones, came the technology that built and maintained relationships and brought families and friends closer. Just like a line from Barbra Streisand's song, "It's funny how from simple things, the best things begin...."

Is there really UNIFORMITY?

2006-07-04T11:22:00.000+08:00

In a traditional society where business is conducted face to face, and most often than not, reduced in writing, the advent of electronic commerce poses a lot of questions regarding the reliability of electronic transactions. Even judges and lawyers are faced with legal issues arising from such transactions.

To minimize judicial legislation and to have a certain degree of predictability, the UNCITRAL deemed it wise to make a model e-commerce law with a provision on how to interpret domestically enacted e-commerce laws. Since it is a domestic legislation, courts may have its own interpretation of the law. These varying interpretations would defeat the purpose of having a borderless, stable and predictable electronic commerce.

The model e-commerce law provides that in the interpretation of domestic legislation, like our own RA 8792, due regard is to be given to its international origin and the need to have uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in the conduct of international transactions. RA 8792 contains the same provision with an additional reciprocity clause.

But what does “due regard” mean? It could not possibly mean that the model e-commerce law must be strictly followed at all times. Different economies have its own needs and peculiarities. More so, the law does not operate in a vacuum. At most, it could only mean that the international origin and the principles behind its enactment be considered by the legislators and the courts.

That a law is of international origin is an acknowledgment that electronic transactions are not widely used in some countries. Since it is a novel way of conducting business, there is a big probability that courts may interpret the law in different ways too. Some may interpret it in a conventional way like Philippine courts where electronic documents are reduced into printed output; hence the best evidence rule still governs. Other countries may interpret it with their own domestic principles and laws in mind. The UNCITRAL is of the belief that by taking into account the international origin of the e-commerce law and the principles behind it, uniformity will be achieved.

But will there be uniformity?

WE think not. Different countries have their own principles to follow and their own economies to look after to. Their respective cultures affect their own way of doing things. All of these get its way into the law. As a result, countries come up with its own e-commerce law. Even the states of the US enacted its own e-commerce law.

Moreover, not all countries are in the same stage of development. Each country’s use and development of technology, as well as its response to innovation varies. Coupled with the fact that technology changes at a very fast pace, uniformity is hard to achieve. Some countries may enact laws to accommodate these changes right away, but some may not, giving room for judicial legislation.

What is common then is just the reason behind the law. But the domestic law itself and its application is a totally different story.

In Search of the Original Document

2006-06-26T13:24:00.000+08:00

What is an original document in electronic commerce?

After reading the UNCITRAL laws and our RA 8792, WE realize that there is no express definition of what an original electronic document is.

This may appear to be a serious oversight on the part of our legislators, but we feel that it really is not. After all, the question of originality is more often than not evidentiary.

RA 8792 aims to make electronic commerce more widespread and the rights and obligations arising from it easily enforceable. It may not have defined what an original electronic document is, but it does give criteria on how an electronic document can meet the requirement of original form. RA 8792 Sec. 7(c) gives these criteria as: (i) reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first generated in its final form; and (ii) that document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. The law also states that “for evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws.”

Like we said before, that a document is original is an evidentiary problem. In paper-based transactions, the originals are important when disputes arise, which is why we have the Best Evidence Rule in the Rules of Court. Now, is the concept of original document as important in electronic commerce as it is in paper-based commerce?

We think not. In electronic commerce, what is more important is authenticity and reliability. Especially in transactions which require multiple copies of the same electronic message or document, WE think that all of them can be the basis of the rights and obligations of the parties once they have been proven to be authentic and reliable; and that they have remained complete and unaltered.

Our Supreme Court, however, seems to think otherwise, as they have also put a Best Evidence Rule in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Specifically, Rule 4 Sec. 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence states that “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 accurately.” As can be seen, electronic documents are reduced to paper documents and hence, the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court applies. This does not make clear what an original electronic document really is.

We think it is ironic that the Rules on Electronic Evidence require a printout for evidentiary purposes. Furthermore, the Rules on Electronic Evidence in Rule 3 Sec. 1 has seen fit to apply all rules of evidence to an electronic document. We think this implies that ultimately, electronic documents will be governed by the rules on documentary evidence, which is paper-based.

The One that Came Before

2006-06-20T11:12:00.000+08:00

This blog is dedicated to our ICT subject. Why are we doing this?

a) because it's required
b) because we want to pass
c) because we want a high grade
d) because we are seriously, seriously, seriously interested in Information and Communications Technology.
e) A, B and C only
f) D, because of A, B and C.
g) none of the above