On track for a nat’l ID system

The Asian Development Bank noted in a 2016 report that “for nearly two decades, the government of the Philippines has attempted to establish a national ID system. However, these attempts have faced opposition on constitutional and privacy grounds.”

The report was about the unified multipurpose ID (UMID) system that was put in place in 2005 by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through an executive order, which required “all government-owned and -controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their identification systems.” It was a good start to a national ID system but, according to the ADB, still a weak one, since it was merely based on an executive order and not a law from Congress. It also had very limited coverage—less than 8 percent of the population as of 2015. “In the current UMID system, groups such as the self-employed, the unemployed, minors and those working abroad have not been enrolled,” the report pointed out.

Congress has attempted many times to push for a national ID law, only to meet sustained and fierce opposition from privacy advocates and progressive groups who feared that such a system might result in the invasion of privacy and violation of civil liberties and human rights. Supporters of the system, on the other hand, point to its potential benefits: It would streamline government databases and make official transactions more efficient, while sparing citizens the inconvenience and cost of having to carry around multiple IDs. It could also help battle terrorism and crime.

President Fidel Ramos batted for such a system during his term as part of his administration’s security and counterinsurgency measures, but the proposal was disallowed by the Supreme Court in 1998, ruling that it posed a “clear and present danger” that would violate the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.

That long-elusive law now appears closer to becoming a reality with the news that the Senate and the House of Representatives have agreed on a common version of the latest measures to push for a national ID system. Apparently to allay the fears of privacy and human rights advocates, the bicameral version has done away with the House bill’s more detailed information requirements, such as the cardholder’s parents’ names, permanent address, height and weight. The reconciled bill now on track to become law requires only the cardholder’s full name, sex, birthdate, birthplace, address and nationality, as well as biometric information. As reported in this paper: “Besides serving as official proof of identity, the ID card may be presented in requesting social welfare, services and benefits from government agencies, applying for passports and driver’s licenses, opening bank accounts, registering as a voter, and getting admitted to schools and hospitals.”

Still, apprehensions remain. The Makabayan bloc in the House has warned that the bill poses a serious threat to privacy and the right against surveillance. “For a regime that holds a record of criminalizing dissent and silencing vocal critics, this could be an additional arsenal for further espionage and repression,” said Kabataan Rep. Sarah Elago. Added martial law victim and former Commission on Human Rights chair Etta Rosales: “Under more humane conditions where people are free to walk the streets and enjoy the comfort of police protection, I would say ‘yes’ because this facilitates government services to the public. But conditions are not healthy and safe.”

The proposed ID system is said to have included stringent safeguards against, and penalties for, the unwarranted disclosure of private information. But before this measure gets passed and forwarded to Malacañang to be signed into law by President Duterte, the public does need to know: Will they be safe with an all-knowing ID in hand? Anything less, and this critical project needs to be reconsidered.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113462/track-natl-id-system#ixzz5GdDrgpMm
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

PRRD will sign nat’l ID system into law: Palace

President Rodrigo Duterte will sign into law a bill seeking to establish a single Philippine Identification System (PhilSys) once ratified by the two houses of Congress, Malacañang said on Thursday.

“We welcome the approval of the National ID System by the House and Senate bicameral conference committee,” Roque said in a press statement.

“This landmark bill is part of the legislative priority agenda of the Duterte administration to improve the delivery of government services; thus, once ratified, the President will sign this into law,” he added.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are expected to ratify the bicameral report on Monday.

The proposed bill seeks to integrate and interconnect some 30 redundant government IDs by coming out with one national ID system, or PhilSys.

The PhilSys will have three key components: the PhilSys Number or PSN, the PhilID and PhilSys Registry.

The PhilID will be a non-transferable card containing on its face the PSN, full name, facial image, date of birth, address and fingerprints of the individual.

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) is mandated to act as the PhilSys Registry, a repository and custodian of all data including the PSN, registered records, and information of all persons registered in the PhilSys.

Under the proposed bill, PhilSys Policy and Coordination Council (PSPCC) will be created with a mandate to formulate policies and guidelines to ensure effective coordination and implementation of the PhilSys

National ID will ensure access to, delivery of public service–solon

THE establishment of the Philippine Identification System (PhilSys) will enable more Filipinos to access vital services, such as education, social protection, health care, banking and finance, according to one of the principal authors of the measure creating a national identification system in the country.

“The PhilSys is particularly important for vulnerable sectors of our population, like those who are marginalized and living in poverty and those living in remote areas. Once they have the means to prove their identity, people will be empowered to exercise their rights and privileges and access basic services,” Rep. Xavier Jesus D. Romualdo of the Lone District of Camiguin said.

According to the Identification for Development initiative of the World Bank, over 16.3 million Filipinos do not have proof of identity and are hindered from availing themselves of government and financial services.

The bicameral conference committee report reconciling the House of Representatives and Senate versions of the measure is set to be ratified by both chambers before Congress adjourns next week.

Allaying concerns raised by critics that the national ID system will infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens, Romualdo, who was a member of the bicameral conference committee, said Congress has ensured that only basic personal information will be stored in the PhilSys and that such information will be protected and kept confidential.

“Only one’s name, sex, address, date and place of birth, blood type and biometric data, such as facial photo and fingerprints, are required to be entered in the PhilSys. Furthermore, disclosure of and granting access to stored data and information to anyone, even to law-enforcement agencies and the military, is prohibited and penalized,” Romualdo explained.

The reconciled version of the bill provides that disclosure of information is allowed only when  the registered person has given his or her consent, specific to the purpose prior to the processing, or, upon order of a competent court, when the compelling interest of public health or safety so requires, provided that the risk of significant harm to the public is established and the owner of the information is notified within 72 hours of the fact of such disclosure. Information obtained as a result of any unauthorized or illegal disclosure is inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding.

Who’s afraid of a national ID system?

A CONGRESSIONAL bicameral conference committee approved early this week the consolidated version of a bill establishing a national identification system. The ratification of the proposed law by both houses of Congress is set for Monday. Once ratified the bill will then be forwarded to the Office of the President for executive action.

The primary objective of this planned national ID system (NIDS) is to provide a valid proof of identity for all citizens and resident aliens as a means of simplifying public and private transactions. It likewise aims to eliminate the need to present other forms of identification when transacting with the government and the private sector, subject to appropriate authentication measures. It is also envisioned to be a social and economic platform which will ensure seamless delivery of government services.

There is nothing in the soon-to-be-law that mentions the use of the national ID system as a precautionary measure to prevent a terrorist attack. However, I read some media reports saying that the issuance of ID cards can guard against terrorists and suspected criminals.

It was also reported that the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) is tasked to implement the ID system, maintain the centralized database and issue the “tamper-proof” cards to every Filipino. These cards would contain basic information about the cardholders, including some biometrics data.

There is no doubt that the issuance of a national ID to every citizen is “doable.” However, is the collection of the individual’s private data safe?

Way back in August 2016, I wrote about the proposed national ID system in this column. I am reproducing portions of that write-up which are relevant to the current issue.

Previous attempts to establish NIDS

President Fidel V. Ramos, way back in 1996, issued Administrative Order (AO) 308, implementing a National Computerized Identification Reference System. However, the Supreme Court struck it down on July 23, 1998, in the notable case of Blas F. Ople v. Ruben D. Torres, et al.

Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno wrote the decision and even commended then Senator Ople in his effort to “prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis considered as ‘the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men’.” In that petition, Ople prayed to invalidate Administrative Order 308 on “two important constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes our citizenry’s protected zone of privacy.” The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared AO 308 null and void for being unconstitutional.

What are these constitutional issues? First, the Supreme Court held that, “AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order.” Basically, Congress could have passed a law relative to the national ID system, instead of the President issuing an AO. Second, “because facially it violates the right to privacy.” Simply put, it breached the people’s zone of privacy, which is recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution.

On April 13, 2005, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 420, requiring all government agencies and government-owned and-controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their identification (ID) systems. Again, this was challenged by various groups and petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. Likewise, the same two issues were raised: first, it was a usurpation of legislative power by the President and; second, it infringes on the citizens’ right to privacy.

Collection of private data into one repository

A typical information Technology (IT)-based infrastructure for the NIDS would entail a central computerized database system, remote online access points and telecommunications facilities.

All of the data that would be provided by the citizens – name, address, birth date, civil status, (even biometrics data) etc. – would be stored in one huge repository, the central computerized database. This would be under the care of the PSA.

Various government agencies, for example the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), would then have their own remote access facility, normally a computer workstation. In the course of its daily operations the DFA would access the central computerized database online, query the same and check the authenticity of a passport applicant, download the personal information of the applicant, and make some data updates if necessary (say, passport number issued to the applicant). Over time, the central database would contain complete dossiers of each and every Filipino.

Considering that the government does not have its own national broadband network, most probably the remote access can be effected by using the existing commercial telecommunications facilities. This is where the danger lies. A commercial telecommunications facility is designed for public use. Couple this with inadequate network security on the part of the government agencies and you have a recipe for disaster.

With such vulnerabilities, it opens up the possibility that “would-be-hackers” might be interested in getting through the NDIS for their own personal gain.

Exposure of private data to the public

Will this centralized database of the NIDS be secured? Is there a risk that our private data will be exposed to the public? What are the technical and internal controls to prevent data leakage?

As I have mentioned in my other published articles, all information technology systems and computer devices can be compromised. No software application is perfectly written. Any software system would tend to have bugs, which could be exploited.

I said before that, “the reality is that the government does not have an established and effective security mechanism to protect its computer systems and communications networks from determined hackers.”

And I say it again now – the proposed NDIS is doable, but, in the hands of an incapable and technically clueless implementing government agency (probably together with their not sufficiently expert personnel), there is a great risk that the unsuspecting citizens’ private data would not only be exposed to the public, but be under the complete control of some unscrupulous individuals and politicians – putting our fundamental right to privacy at risk. The potential for misuse of our private data, collectively gathered through time, would always be there.

allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.Times

Yes to a national ID

A LITTLE more than a month before the May 9, 2016 national elections, hackers broke into the database of the Commission on Elections and dumped the personal data of millions of Filipino voters on the Internet. “ComeLeak,” as the biggest-ever private data leak in the country came to be known, was supposedly pulled off by homegrown hackers belonging to Anonymous Philippines and Lulzsec Pilipinas, in order to highlight the lack of security measures in place to protect the voters’ data collected by the Comelec.

Ultimately, the hackers dumped 340 gigabytes of purloined data online. This represented the personal information of most of the country’s 55 million registered voters, including those of 1.3 million Filipino overseas voters (complete with their passport data), 15.8 million sets of fingerprints and a list of candidates in all elections held since 2010, when automation of the electoral system was first implemented, according to the Web security outfit Trend Micro.

The Comelec quickly went on damage-control mode, saying that both its data and the elections had not been compromised by the cyber-attack. Two hackers – both of them young IT students – were arrested in Sampaloc, Manila and Muntinlupa by the National Bureau of Investigation shortly after the data dump was discovered, and that seemed to be the end of that.

The ComeLeak scandal was eventually buried by stories on the elections itself, as expected. Not a lot of people even remember it anymore.


But the cyber-attack on Comelec two years ago highlights the single most important concern being raised about the national ID system, which seems about ready to be rolled out nearly two decades after it was first proposed during the Ramos years. Can government be entrusted with our private data, which should never fall into the hands of malicious hackers and other people with criminal intent?

The question is important because unlike most personal data submitted online, registered voters and Filipinos who sign up for the national ID program do not do so voluntarily. Their data submissions are unlike those, say, of people applying for bank loans or credit cards or who go on social media or visit other Web sites, who give up private information willingly even if they know that it could end up with third parties that buy them from companies that collect and sell them.

The security of submitted data is about the only valid objection to the national ID system, which got a big boost after both chambers of Congress hammered out a common version of the proposed law on the scheme this week. The National Statistics Authority, as the repository of the data collected from the citizenry who will be given IDs, should make sure that it has learned from the sad experience of Comelec in 2016, in its bid to rationalize the chaotic system that we have at present.

If only because a unified ID system will provide relief and convenience to Filipinos who can’t access vital services without it, we should agree to the plan. And I don’t know of anyone who’s ever been asked to produce at least two government-issued ID cards or to submit a birth certificate to prove being born every time he or she renews one of the 30-plus mostly- redundant IDs issued by an equal number of government agencies will disagree.

* * *

Security concerns aside, all the other objections to the national ID system are unfounded, paranoid and just plain stupid. Take, for instance, the opposition by left-leaning groups to the scheme on the ground that it violates personal privacy.

This is fear-mongering that cannot outweigh the benefits of having a system that provides convenience to millions who suffer every time they have to transact business with government and private entities that require proper identification.

Nearly all well-run countries rely on some sort of unified ID system (say, the personal social security number in the United States) in order to provide services to the public. By itself, having such a system in place cannot constitute a violation of privacy, unless the data is illegally accessed or used.

Which leads me to another objection to the scheme that has been voiced by leftist Kabataan party-list Rep. Sarah Elago. This lawmaker said:

“This is additional ammunition for the Duterte administration, which likes to silence critics, trample on human rights and criminalize dissent. [The national ID system] may be used for spying and more surveillance.”

This is just the sort of outdated thinking that presumes bad faith and worse motives on a government that merely wants to make the delivery of services more efficient and effective. Besides, Elago, a Janey-come-lately-communist, forgets that all the totalitarian states that she and her leftist buddies are enamored with – assuming that they still exist, of course – were the most assiduous implementors of national ID systems, nationwide surveillance programs and oppressive campaigns to stifle human rights.

I guess Elago and other leftists are convinced that what few supporters they have remaining, particularly among the poorest, most underserved communities of the country, would rather have their right to privacy protected than be able to enjoy services like food and other subsidies, medical treatment, housing, education and documentation that they could get more easily from government with a national ID system.

Elago’s objection, of course, is part and parcel of the bigger campaign against President Rodrigo Duterte himself, who has promised to approve the Congress proposal as soon as it lands on his desk. As another rabid critic of Duterte’s, former Aquino administration official Etta Rosales, explained it, they really have no problem with a national ID scheme, except that it will be implemented by Duterte.

“Under more humane conditions where people are free to walk the streets and enjoy the comfort of police protection, I would say ‘yes’ because this facilitates government services to the public. But conditions [under Duterte]are not healthy and safe,” Rosales, a diehard Yellow, said.

All of which, of course, leads me to the familiar territory claimed by those hard-wired to oppose the current president. They can accept that Duterte is doing the right things, but they just don’t want him to succeed.

And this, ultimately, is the biggest reason why we should have a national ID system. It’s the right thing to do – and it irritates the hell out of those who think they have a monopoly of doing the right thing.

‘Show Dogs’ movie for the whole family

Fantasy film buffs will surely find Viva International Pictures and MVP Entertainment’s latest offering “Show Dogs” an exciting watch.

Directed by Raja Gosnell (“The Smurfs,” “Beverly Hills Chihuahua,” “Never Been Kissed,” “Home Alone 3”), the movie focuses on Max, a Rottweiler police dog who has to go undercover for a mission against animal traffickers. Much to his annoyance, he is partnered with Frank, an accomplished FBI agent who considers this assignment a little bit beneath him.

Max is voiced by actor and Grammy award-winning rap artist Ludacris. According to producer Deepak Nayar, “We needed somebody who has New York tough accent, so Ludacris is the one we wanted to play the tough dog.” Comedic actor Will Arnett plays Frank, a dog-lover in real life.

“Show Dogs” features the voices of Shaquille O’Neal as Karma, Stanley Tucci (“Devil Wears Prada”) as Philippe, Alan Cumming as Dante, Gabriel Iglesias as Sprinkles, and “American Idol” winner Jordin Sparks as Daisy, the love interest of Max. It also stars Natasha Lyonne (“American Pie”) as Mattie, a dog groomer tasked with assisting Frank and Max to blend into a show dog world.

A movie for the whole family that shows the value of trust and teamwork, “Show Dogs” promises to be “a tail you won’t forget.” It is now in cinemas nationwide.

• • •

Tidbits: Happy b-day greetings today, May 26, go to Comm. Fe Aldava Lim, Dr. Jo Catapang, Evelyn Recio Cruz, John Rex Tiu, Noemi Sandiko, Cely Cabalza, Iking Araneta, Nerissa dela Cruz, Brig. Gen. Raul Imperial, Karen Cabrera, Liza Rodriguez, and Josephine Elicano… May 27: Mae Binauhan, Coney Reyes, Cherry Pie Picache, Gino Sotto, Michael de Vera, Col. Rody Tensuan, Lolita Camagun, Angie Duran, and Rufa Mae Quinto… May 28: Lupita Kashihawara, Edgar Aquino, Girlie Pleyto, Alice Marcelo, Mark Dayrit, Christian Jeirezze G. Martinez, Elijah Montealegre, Dr. Nancy Ordona, Rick Valenzuela, Jomar Bautista, Ali Uy, Joselita Sandigan, Edna Luzon,  and Zsa Zsa Padilla… Happy wedding anniversary to Aga and Charlene Muhlach, and Ronald and Agnes Manalili…Condolences to the family of Espie Bruno was 70 years old, who passed away last May 23…Get well soon to Annalyn Bautista…