MEMORANDUM

TO: Judge Panganiban

FROM: Skyler Ignacio

Date: May 01, 2021

SUBJECT: Opinion on the issue of privacy vis-a-vis social media and cyberspace.

MEMORANDUM

I. FACTS

A world where everyone shows and tells everything, there must be value and
discretion and privacy. The Philippines has the highest usage of social networking
among Internet users at 83%, compared with the global average of 58%. Among the
available social media platforms, Filipino online users prefer using Facebook over
Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest among others, with 92% having profile and with women as
the most active users. For Filipino online users, Facebook is the easiest and cheapest to
access. Mobile networks in the Philippines offer it for free as package for data plan or as
an incentive for subscribing to their network. This development in information and
communications technology (ICT) impacted Filipinos conception of privacy. The concept
of privacy is not, as we like to imagine, a universal one.

Privacy is hard to define as it is set differently in different jurisdiction. Traditionally,

the right to privacy is concisely defined as the right to be left alone. It has also been
defined as the right of a person to be free from undesired publicity or disclosure and as
the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which
the public is not necessarily concerned.
 In the Philippines, privacy is traditionally viewed as a person’s right against
unreasonable seizure which is the person’s right over his/her house, office or any place
where he/she has expectation of privacy wherein the state/government cannot enter
without warrant. However, developments in technology brought about informational
privacy the person’s right to control information about him/her. In the context of social
media this refers to a person’s selective control over who accesses his/her personal
information, including contact information and personal communication, and control
over the contexts in which the information can be used.

Privacy in the context of social media is less understood and has resulted to rising
cases of violations of privacy occurring in online spaces specifically in social media.
News reports and anecdotal evidence revealed many cases of invasion of privacy are
committed against women and girls. The multiple platforms for posting and reposting
information in social media make it hard to control and regulate the personal data
women want to share. Viral circulation of private pictures and videos is a common
problem in social media. Women and girls are punished for the act without
understanding the interconnectedness of technology, privacy and violence against
women. In the light of these foregoing, FMA undertakes an issue brief to understand
privacy in social media in the context of the Philippines. The study highlights the
Philippine Supreme Court’s decision on the case of St. Theresa’s College Cebu. The case
stemmed from students of a Catholic school who were not allowed to participate in
graduation exercise due to their provocative posts in Facebook. The paper analyzed the
case, identified legal, political and social implications of the decision.

The development and popularity of social networking sites, cybercrimes have

immensely increased. It has become necessary for the country to prioritize the issues
and make strict laws with the developing technology. Social media is becoming great
interest of individual users especially women and children who are falling prey to the
unknown people with whom they mingle through their online registered profile.
Nonetheless, the friend list or contact list include some unknown friends and sharing of
thoughts. Social media does offer some privacy measures regarding this. Hence, the
post would focus on how safe it is to share personal information online, the crimes
taking place, issues in it, the laws regarding social media privacy in Philippines and
some suggestions regarding the development of such laws.

In the Philippines, there is no specific and direct policy on social media privacy.
However, there are several laws including jurisprudence that deal with privacy in
general and in relation to social media. A range of privacy policies can be found in the
Constitution, Revised Penal Code, Rules of Court and Civil Code.

II. ISSUE:

What is the essence of the right to privacy?

III. CONCLUSION

Social media is an internet based form of communication. Many other forms of social
media like blogs, micro-blogs, wikis social networking sites, widgets, virtual worlds also
exist. But social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok,
Snapchat and Myspace have become popular in the past few years. But in order to use
a social networking site and notice other people posts the person has to first create a
profile. The main purpose of these social networking sites is to establish a relationship
in the virtual world. But little did the users know that this was accompanied by crime
too.

The concept of cybercrime emerged during 1990’s and has climbed the ladder of
success reaching to a whole new level. But it is us who have signed the deal with the
devil and now our privacy has been compromised. IP address, key words used in
searches, websites visited which seem harmless, from information that we share on
social media, to online transactions, to cookies collecting user browser history, to
mobile registration- personal details about an individual is engendered by each use of
internet.

They do it so because, the more personal information they provide, the more
attractive they are to potential advertisers. As a result, cases of identity thefts, sexual
predators, unintentional fame, cyber staking and defamation have started to gain focus.
Scams such as koob face, who stole personal information of Facebook users and stole it
wrongful people, have also been reported. Version 5 of HTML code is reported to
provide advertising companies access to users online activities such as texts,
photographs, emails and many more.

Usually, teenagers are the ones who easily fall prey. Nowadays, they don’t even
hesitate to share their personal details with individuals whom they don’t even know.
This happens due to the lack of enough mental maturity and capacity to judge right and
wrong. As a result these sexual predators and identity thieves are easily able to hunt
them down.

Twitter has itself admitted that they had scanned the phone contacts of their users
and imported them onto their website database so as to learn more about their users.
The oxymoronic nature of Facebook is seen when it first says that we own all our
contents that we post on the Facebook and on the other hand it says that we users
grant Facebook to use any IP content that we post in connection to Facebook. People
have also been reported of committing suicide after their humiliating videos had been
uploaded on YouTube.

This lack of clarity of the social networking sites and the day to day crimes taking
place in the cyberspace have forced us to critically think what we really want to share
and how our information is being handled. Therefore, the privacy policies should be
read very carefully before giving our consent. However, Facebook has helped by
introducing options of blocking, reporting, protect etc. Twitter has the option of sharing
information only with followers.

IV. DISCUSSION

The right to privacy is stipulated in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (United Nations, 1948), Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (United Nations, 1966), as well as numerous international and regional
human rights treaties and conventions. The right to privacy essentially protects the
integrity of the individual and his or her home, family, and correspondence. A common
denominator for the different areas of privacy is access control, thus control over what
others know about us, control over private decisions and actions; and control over a
physical space. The right to privacy builds on the presumption that a zone of autonomy
around the individual is central to individual freedom and self-determination: ‘In order
to behave in a self-determined fashion, we must in general believe and be able to
presume that we are not being observed, eavesdropped on, deceived about what data
is collected and shared with others, or about the presence of others, and about what
those present know about us. The privacy is important because it renders possible
important human relationships. Privacy provides “the necessary context for relationships
which we would hardly be human if we had to do without the relationships of love,
friendship and trust”. The right to privacy applies to the off-line and online sphere
equally. However, the individual’s right to privacy has evolved alongside the structural
transformation of the public sphere. Accordingly, the concept “online privacy” is often
used to present the specific challenges and implications posed to the right to privacy by
the Internet.

Individuals have a right to privacy not only in the private domain but also when
acting in the public space, as a kind of private sphere which is inherent in the individual
person and which accompanies the person when moving about. Not least in the context
of social media platforms it is important to bear the right to privacy in public spaces in
mind. The right to privacy relates to individual control, and not necessarily to a private
intimate realm.

The right to privacy is a human right and an element of various legal traditions,
which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy
of individuals. The international human rights law provides the universal framework
against which any interference in individual privacy rights must be assessed. In 2013,
the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming that the rights held
by people offline, must also be protected online. It called upon all States to respect and
protect the right to privacy in digital communication.

According to some privacy lawyers, the Supreme Court’s decision contradicted a

person’s rights to privacy and a dangerous precedent as well as it appears the court
lacked understanding of the context and dynamics of social media interaction. Privacy
advocates underscore the existence of privacy in social media which is the person’s
right to selectively control who accesses his/her personal information, including contact
information and personal communication, and control over the contexts in which the
information can be used. The control over the contexts in which information is used
should be emphasized because of the ease with which web content can be recycled or
forwarded. This is particularly relevant in the STC case. One lawyer shared that STC did
not violate privacy of the students as the school was merely a recipient of information.
The school acted based on the photos presented to them. The photos showed acts that
were contrary to the school’s policy regarding students conduct. The posting on the
photos online, constituting a different act, was a repeat violation. According to her, it
was the friends of the students who violated the privacy. She questioned the extent of
authority of the friends to share and use the photos.