UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST
Manila Campus
2219 Recto Ave, Sampaloc, Manila, 1008 Metro Manila
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING
1st Semester, School Year 2019 – 2020
NCP514 – ENGINEERING ETHICS AND COMPUTER LAWS
POSITION PAPER
(CYBERCRIMES AND ONLINE PRIVACY)
Submitted by:
HEDIA, JOHNUEL ANDRES B.
20140122890
Submitted to:
Asst. Prof. ERROL JOHN M. ANTONIO
Department of Computer Engineering
July 14, 2019
I. ISSUE
According in an article of the daily news media Inquirer, there is an increase in the
number of online scam / fraud victims with the use of online shopping platforms. On this
case, is online shopping platforms such as Lazada and Shoppee be liable of violating
the Republic Act No. 10175?
II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Internet fraud is the use of Internet services or software with Internet access to defraud
victims or to otherwise take advantage of them. Internet crime schemes steal millions of
peso each year from victims and continue to plague the Internet through various
methods.
III. JUDGEMENT
For me, online shopping platforms such as Lazada and Shoppee violates the Republic
Act No. 10175 because they are making internet frauds. For example, the Blackpink
meet and greet issue on Shoppee. Some Blinks (Blackpink Fans) who are residing
overseas already booked a flight that is supposed to go here in the Philippines because
they’d receive a text message regarding the Blackpink meet and greet.
IV. CONCLUSION
Shoppee must be liable to those victims of online frauds. They must do something
about it.
I. ISSUE
Rappler’s cyber libel case.
II.BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Cyber libel is any inaccurately or injuriously written defamation triggered via electronic
means, including the Internet, social media, email and websites. Cyberlibel creates
instant and irrevokable reputation damage.
III.JUDGEMENT
Rappler CEO Maria Ressa must be punished because libel is libel nothing can change
what ibel is. No one should damage someone’s reputation.
IV. CONCLUSION
Libel can damage lives of people who are not doing something bad. False issues might
as well ruin someone’s reputation.
I. ISSUE
Sharing and commenting on libelous post on social media should be included in
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
According to some article, There are two main types of defamation: libel, or written
defamation, and slander, or verbal defamation. When a potentially defamatory
statement is made online or through social media -- such as via Facebook or Linkedin -that involves the written (or "posted") word, and so it is considered libel.
III.JUDGEMENT
For me, sharing and commenting on a libelous post must be permitted because all of us
has a freedom to tell our opinions regarding that. We must practice our ability to speak
or comment in every situation that happens.
IV. CONCLUSION
In the law, sharing and commenting on libelous posts is forbidden but I think we must
have our own opinion with regards to that. Commenting is good but we must know our
limitations then.
I. ISSUE
A parent whose child was excluded from school because of a communicable disease.
The parent wants to retrieve the student’s record. However, the information was
incomplete, incorrect, and the enquirer was unhappy about how information was
recorded and shared. The parent found out that the school don’t want to release the
student’s record and later found out that the medical data was made available online
with no restrictions. Is the school culpable of violating Data Privacy Act of 2012?
II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Philippines’ Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10173), lays forth a set of
requirements designed to protect personal information in both government and private
sector organizations. The regulation sets out a data privacy accountability and
compliance framework that covers a wide range of issues such as governance, data
security, training, third party affiliations and breach notification.
III. JUDGEMENT
For me, it’s okay if the school don’t want to release the student’s record because its
private and without consent of the student. What I don’t want is that they released the
student’s record online without restrictions. So the school shoul be punished.
IV. CONCLUSION
Posting data of someone without restrictions violates the Data Privacy Act of 2012, we
must get the consent of the owner first before we do something on the data we gathered
about them.
I. ISSUE
On a reunion occasion, you forgot your mobile phone on the table with your friends.
One of your friends tries to access your phone was successfully read your messages in
a chat application. Your friend took a screenshot of the malicious conversation that you
had. The said screenshot started to go viral online and affects your personal and
professional image. Is your friend culpable of violating Data Privacy Act?
II. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 requires organizations to appoint a Data ProtectionOfficer
(DPO), make their data processing transparent to their customers, and maintain
the confidentiality, integrity and availability of their data. 'Security incidents' as defined
by the law do not require notification.
III. JUDGEMENT
Meddling with someone’s property is a big no no for me. We must get the consent of the
owner before we meddle with his/her things. With regards to the screenshot, it violates
the Data Privacy Act of 2012. Damaging someone’s image is not a good thing because
it can harm the victim’s life.
IV. CONCLUSION
First, we must not let our things left unnoticed. Not all of us our trustworthy. Small things
can be a big problem afterwards. Trust only those who are trustworthy.
REFERENCES:

(n.d.).Retrieved from
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html

Internet Fraud. (2016, May 31). Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/scams-andsafety/common-fraud-schemes/internet-fraud

Republic Act 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012. (2016, July 19). Retrieved from
https://www.privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/

Nolo. (2015, February 10). Social Media and Online Defamation. Retrieved from
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html