In 2015, the FMA reported that the Philippine government was considering introducing PISCES, a biometric identification technology developed by the U.S. government, at its border points (including Ninoy Aquino International Airport), according to classified documents obtained by privacy activists. PISCES stands for Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System, a customizable software application that provides border control officers with information they can use to identify and detain or track persons of interest. The system can be used to quickly retrieve information about people entering or leaving a particular country. For women`s rights activists, the Supreme Court`s decision disproportionately affects women and girls. Gender is important for understanding privacy on social media. The vulnerability of women and girls to privacy issues is rooted in the perceived notion that they are inferior, needy and safe targets. Women`s privacy is sometimes scrutinized by others who implicitly assume that they should be more responsible for their private behavior than their male counterparts. This attitude arose from historically unequal power relations between women and men in public and private life, patriarchy, and men`s desire to control female sexuality. [16] Women`s privacy online is often violated and monitored because modesty and chastity are imposed on them and to ensure that “women stay in their place.” The case of high school students at a Catholic school who were not allowed to graduate or participate in graduation rites because of their allegedly lewd Facebook posts is just one example. STC`s legal counsel shared this view and justified its action of disciplining students as guardians of the morality of Philippine society. The parents of the defense students filed a request for a habeas data opinion and asked the court to order the STC to hand over and deposit all electronic and printed copies of the photos and declare that they were illegally acquired in violation of children`s right to privacy.
The telephone companies prevented the passage of the law. Citing privacy concerns, major wireless service providers T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint filed an injunction in Puerto Rico arguing that requiring official identification violated an individual`s right to privacy and security concerns, such as those of women victims of violence and victims of crime.165165 Groupe Speciale Mobile Association, supra footnote 160. In the United States, a federal bill, Senate Bill 3472, concerning the registration of prepaid phones, died in 2010.166166 GovTrack.us. N.D. P. 3427 (111.): Prepaid legislation for the identification of mobile devices. Available at www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3427 (last accessed June 6, 2017) The ubiquitous use of social media in the Philippines has greatly influenced the way Filipinos interact and communicate. Many live in “always available mode”.
The Philippines may not be an information-based society, but it is a networked culture. [5] This evolution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has influenced the Philippine view of privacy. The concept of privacy is not, as we like to imagine, universal. Data protection is difficult to define because it is defined differently in different jurisdictions. Traditionally, the right to privacy has been succinctly defined as the right to be left alone. It has also been defined as the right of a person to be free from unwanted publicity or disclosure, and as the right to live free from unwarranted public interference in matters that do not necessarily affect the public. In the Philippines, privacy has traditionally been viewed as a person`s right against improper seizure, that is, the person`s right to their home, office, or any place where they expect the state or government to be unable to enter without a warrant. [6] However, technological advances have led to the protection of information privacy, that is, the right of the individual to control his or her information.
In the context of social media, it is an individual`s selective control over who accesses their personal information, including contact information and personal communications, and control over the contexts in which the information may be used. [7] The Data Protection Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10173) (“DPA”) is another potential source of redress against communications surveillance. It does not deal primarily with communications secrecy, let alone communications surveillance, but with data protection, which is a separate category of privacy. However, the Act includes inside information, which it defines as “all types of data constituting privileged communications under procedural rules and other relevant laws” (Section 3(k), RA 10173, emphasis added). Accordingly, any Philippine legal system that purports to regulate communications privacy (and communications surveillance more broadly) must include ODA as a component. The overview of the social media privacy legal landscape and the experiences of teenage girls in the Philippines have shown opposing views on online privacy in the Philippines, whether it is an anomaly or a human right. A counterweight to privacy is the police power of the state: the power to restrict and regulate the use of liberty and property for the common good. This power easily surpasses the other two inherent powers of government, the eminent sphere and taxation, in terms of interference with private rights.
Police power regulates not only property, but above all the freedom of virtually all individuals. In this sense, it is infinitely more important than the eminent field and taxation.4646 Isagani A. Cruz, Constitutional Law (2007 ed). The NPC, sponte sua or individuals who are victims of a data breach or personal data breach, or who are personally affected by a breach of data protection law may file complaints of breach of the DPA. The person who is the subject of the data or personal data breach or his duly authorised representative may lodge the complaint, provided that the circumstances of the Authority must be established.