It
was just last night in our class with Atty. Brondial that we talked about the
future of technology, and the impact of the latter to our laws, specifically
the Rules on Evidence. He told us about this book from 1965 entitled
“Futureshock” which he read when he was a bright-eyed college student (well, he
still seems a bright-eyed student now, the ‘college’ part was the only thing
that changed). In the book, the author foretold of ‘throw-away societies’, the
Internet (although not in such term), and bottled water. Atty. Brondial said
that during his time, they laughed at the thought of bottled water. Yet, there
I was last night, with a bottled water atop my armchair. It made me shiver to
remember that I had the same reaction to the concept of bottled air. I
expressed a one-word prayer – Lord! – which God’s omnipotence translated into a
proper statement that I hope it won’t happen and added that should it happen,
please make it about decades and decades from now.
A bottled water is only our answer to the pollution of our waters. It was how we adapted to changes in our environment brought by our own doing whether by choice or happenstance. Adaptability is, as it was said in Zittrain’s lecture, the primary consideration in developing the Internet, which is in line with Darwin’s theory of adaptation. The useless has no place in the future. That is actually a comfort. At least, obsolete does not translate into useless. Zittrain acknowledges such thought when he kept on saying that the old might be brought back as the ‘new’ depending on the needs of the users/society. The proof of that is the cable box. At the time of Zittrain’s lecture, 2004, he said that cable boxes might be replaced by new technology or be brought back again. Now, in the year 2014, a decade later (!), the TV cable box is back (Hello Cignal and SkyCable!).
On the other side of the spectrum is ‘the useful’. Since we do away with the useless, what is left is the useful. However, the useful does not always mean the better nor the best. It is just useful. Again, it was just the answer to the current needs of this generation. Take again the TV cable box. It is indeed back, but who can say it is better than its predecessor? In my opinion, it was brought back to prevent tapping by unregistered users who are being ‘unjustly enriched’ at the expense of those who actually pay for cable subscription. However, as Benkler had proposed, and as Zittrain had reiterated, WiFi should be free for everyone. Those with WiFi should not put passwords on it. Why can’t this idea be the same for TV cable subscriptions, electricity or water lines? Hehe.. Is such a suggestion unethical or downright inane for a law student? This might be the application of the case of Laurel vs. Abrogar, People of the Phils., and PLDT. However, in said case, it was PLDT, the service provider, who was the complainant and being robbed. In the suggestion above, it is at the expense of both the service provider and the end-user that the ‘tapper’ is unjustly enriched.
In my opinion, the discussion on the preceding paragraph stems from the issue of control, which, many people may have noticed by now, is a recurring theme in the lectures in the iLaw Course. It is control that forces users to be protective and somewhat “lawfully selfish” of what they have. The thinking is “I paid for this, so it is only mine to use. If you want it, pay for it, too.” The Law actually sanctions that. It cannot be denied that control is a good thing as long as the control/regulation is a good law; this was already discussed in Lessig’s lecture. Yet, control may be the subject of abuse, not just from regulators but abuse by the end-users as well because in the Internet system, the end-users have gained control (as shown in the decentralization diagrams in both Benkler’s and Zittrain’s lectures).
Just recently, there is this news on the leak of the nude photos of many celebrities thru the iCloud. From this controversy, who is at fault? The hackers who illegally breached the system? Apple, who should have fortified its system in promising to provide quality service? Or is it the celebrities who could have acted vigilantly and responsibly? In Criminal Law, it is the hackers. Contract-wise, Apple might also be held liable. As to the celebrities, they cry out that it was an invasion of their privacy, and no one questions their act of taking pictures of themselves in the nude and posting it. It is because somehow, it has become the norm; it is only self-expression. Such is the perfect example of adaptation based on what is useful and not on what is better. It is the bottled water.
Here is the link :)
No comments:
Post a Comment