Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those which, although containing defamatory imputations, would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith. Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those mentioned in Article 354 of the RPC:
1. A private communication made by a person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty. The following requisites, however, must exist: (a) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (b) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (c) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
The fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable; the privileged character of the communication simply does away with the presumption of malice, and the plaintiff has to prove the fact of malice in such case.
The elements of libel are present
Unfortunately for the respondent, the Investigating Prosecutor found that there is probable cause to charge him, together with the main respondent in the other complaint, with libel. The amount of bail is set at PhP10,000.00 each.
According to the Investigating Prosecutor, the following are the elements of libel:
1. the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
2. publication of the charge;
3. identity of the person defamed; and
4. existence of malice.
An allegation made by a person against another is considered defamatory if it ascribes to the latter the commission of a crime; the possession of a vice or defect, whether real or imaginary; or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Thus, where there is a defamatory imputation, proof of malice is not required as it is incumbent upon the author thereof to demonstrate that such is not malicious and that good intentions and justifiable motives attended the same.
There are, of course, exceptions to the foregoing. Absolutely privileged communications are not actionable. This class includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions. Likewise exempted are private communications made by any person to another int he performance of any legal, moral or social duty and a fair and true report, made in good faith, without comments and remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings. Furthermore, where statements relating to the conduct of public officials are involved, malice is not presumed.
In the libel complaints, the individual respondents never denied authorship of the comments, which are manifestly defamatory. Such being the case, it was incumbent upon the respondents to present proof that such are not malicious and that good intentions and justifiable motives attended the same. Apart from their self-serving denials, the respondents failed to present proof that the statements are indeed not as malicious as they appear or that the same were made with good intentions and/or justifiable motives.
In any case, due to the legal presumption of malice, a prima facie case for libel exists against the respondents and whatever defenses they may have in refutation of the same would be best ventilated in a court of law on the occasion of a full-blown trial.
Libel covers matters posted in the internet
One of the defenses raised by the respondent is that libel under the Revised Penal Code does not cover and regulate the internet. According to the Investigating Prosecutor, the crime of libel as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code is broad enough to cover “publication” of malicious and defamatory statements over the internet. Publication has been defined as the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons and the internet is just one among the main media available to all and sundry nowadays for the communication and dissemination of thoughts, words and ideas.
One significant distinction, however, is to be made as to the scope and breadth of the statutory definition of the crime of libel with respect to the personalities who may be held liable for articles or comments made over the internet. Insofar as the worldwide web is concerned, we cannot apply the traditional concept of a publisher of a newspaper or periodical insofar as his/her liability for libel is concerned to all the actors involved in the setting up, ownership, and management or supervision of an internet site, web log (blog) or forum. This matter is discussed in detail below (referring the the part on Abe Olandres).Computer security is a growing concern for many personal computer owners. Cyber crime has been on a constant rise. Many home computer owners don't realize that they need to pay attention to computer security very closely. This paper describes an investigation on both sides of a cyber attack. We measure the activities of a computer's inner workings while it is under attack. The intent is to reveal indications that an intrusion has occurred by showing events that occur when a personal computer user's password has been hacked. With this gained knowledge, a system can be put in place that can alert the user that his/her computer is under an attack. The main goal is to design a system that is easy for any novice computer user to use.
Ultimately all attacks are originated by people with a motivation to steal, cause vandalism, prove themselves to be elite hackers, or just for the thrill it gives them. Most attacks are actually performed by automated tools that such people release on the Internet.
Computer viruses have a long history. A virus attempts to install itself on a user's system and to spread directly to other files on that system with the aim that these infected files will be transferred to another machine. The payload of a virus can range from 'comical' pranks to destruction of the system itself.
A virus relies on users to spread by sharing infected files either directly or via email. Once launched, a virus is completely independent of its creator.
Although the most common threat to security, the traditional virus does not attack other systems directly and so is unlikely to be detected by KFSensor.
A worm is very similar to a virus. The key difference is that a worm attempts to propagate itself without any user involvement. It typically scans other computers for vulnerabilities which it is designed to exploit. When such a machine is identified, the worm will attack that machine, copying over its files and installing itself, so that the process can continue.
KFSensor excels at detecting worms as they scan and attempt to attack very large numbers of systems at random.
Trojans take their name from the trojan horse of Greek mythology.
Computer trojans work in the same way. A game, screen saver or cracked piece of commercial software is given to a victim. The software may appear to work as normal, but its real purpose is to deliver a payload, such as a virus or a root kit.
A root kit is a piece of software that once installed on a victim's machine opens up a port to allow a hacker to communicate with it and take full control of the system. Root kits are also known as back doors. Some root kits give a hacker even more control of a machine than a victim may have themselves.
The SubSeven root kit allows an attacker to turn off a victim's monitor, move the mouse and even turn on an installed web cam and watch the victim without their knowledge.
Often malware is a dangerous hybrid that can combine the features of the different classifications described above. The SubSeven root kit is delivered and classified as a trojan.
Scanners are tools designed to interrogate machines on the Internet to elicit information about the types and versions of the services that they are running. There are a variety of scanners, some just ping for the presence of a machine, others look for open ports, while others are more specialized in looking for vulnerabilities of a particular type of service, or the presence of a root kit. Scanners are often incorporated into other malware such as worms.
Scanners are a favorite tool of a hacker, but are just as useful to security professionals trying to detect and close down system vulnerabilities. KFSensor detects scanners and is effective at misleading them.
Hacker, H4x0r5, crackers and black hats are all terms for those individuals that KFSensor is ultimately designed to detect and offer protection from. The term hacker is used in this manual to cover all such individuals.
Direct or manual actions, by a hacker are much rarer than the attacks launched by the tools described above. Hackers usually only attack a system directly once a system has been identified as vulnerable or has already been exploited by an automated tool.
