A Comment On ‘OMB To Pursue Registration Of Hard Disks’

I received a comment on my blog entitled OMB To Pursue Registration Of Hard Disks which I found worth posting here as another blog so that it would not just be a plain response in the bottom of my original blog. The commenter introduced himself in an earlier comment on the same blog as an IT consultant from the corporate world who had served MNCs offshore (UK, US, APAC) in accrediting ISO, CMM and ISMS certifications. He said he finds the current proposal of registering HDDs as illogical and without precedence.

Here is his additional comment addressed to Atty. Cyrus Paul Valenzuela, OIC-Exec. Dir. of Optical Media Board (OMB):

Atty. Cyrus,

Unfortunately circa 2003 I was out-of-the-country busily generating OFW dollar revenues for our country (part of it pays for government salaries by the way). If RA 9239 was similar to RA 9775 which i recently took part in, then no amount of civic contestation can halt the powers behind the bill.

Lex Iniusta Non est Lex. Not because some ‘smart ‘ legislator managed to include the ambiguous 1 sec3(d), which practically allows you to ‘regulate’ all (mutatis mutandis) data storage devices : MP3s, CIF cards, USB flash drives, SSDs et al, you can regulate it. Common sense and logical thinking must prevail in this issue, not the letter of law. You are regulating the ‘transfer of data in the digital age’? Go for the source, after it leaves, the permutations are astronomical, any action to contain it will fail. GCR when it decided to censor the WWW went for the source (ISPs), they did not enforce ‘registrations’ of all net communicating device. (yea they can do so if they want, its in their mandate, they’re communists). See the analogy ?

Will it make sense for LTO to enforce registration of wheelchairs, gas powered RCs (remote control toys), golf carts, peddlers carts, kiddie bikes and other silly wheeled vehicles that ply the streets just because their mandate ambiguously ‘includes’ these class?

Police power should be guided by civil rights and common sense. We don’t need to regulate (read: register) ‘lighters’ and ‘matchboxes’ just because they are used in arson crimes. You don’t need to regulate/register HDDs just because RA 9239 ambiguously tells you so, (the fact that you checked it with the US Patent proves it’s ambiguous). It’s plain silly. In my work travel abroad, nowhere I can find precedence that can closely match the issue except for GCR which is a communist state.

Dura Lex Sed Lex is non sequitur for this particular issue. we are not deliberating LAW (Law As Written) but a LAI (Law as Interpreted). Vox Populi Vox Deus is more apt maxim since I can prove via poll statistics that the number of people against this ‘proposal’ far outweighs the number of people that will benefit from it.

In my world, the corporate world where efficiency and logic prevails, we don’t add additional burdens if the simple and glaring tasks are not addressed properly and with finality. No sense in starting another project if you can’t finish an ongoing one. If one doesn’t have the will and skill to finish his task at hand it would be unwise to add additional tasks. That’s where the phrase ‘ don’t spread yourself too thin’ comes from. That’s how credibility in the business world are earned.

How fares the ‘pirated DVD’ project? You don’t need LAI, it’s a LAW. You don’t need research, it’s there in every corner. Let us do our real agency mandate first before broaching to other trivial business. Slay the dragon first and then hunt rabbits at your leisure.

Hope to receive your invitation as a panelist if ever you decide to pursue this issue.

Arthur G.

Share