Cybersecurity

The most paranoid people in our midst are the cybersecurity experts. This is a healthy thing.

Digital technologies are progressing at a searing pace. Quantum computing is a fact of life. Artificial intelligence (AI) allows keyboard warriors to do the most wondrous – and most malevolent – things.

Everyday, it seems, we get news of major corporations broken into by hackers. Even those with the most sophisticated cybersecurity systems remain vulnerable. At any moment, bad people could manage to get ahead of the security systems and create havoc.

We do not need Donald Trump to bring chaos into our world. Kids with keyboards could very well do that, thank you. Recently, a global retail giant was hacked and suffered millions of dollars in losses because of it.

In a world where cybersecurity has become indispensable for sustainability, the financial systems are most precarious.

Never mind the scam artists using AI to fake the semblances of authoritative personalities, creating impressions of them endorsing dubious products. The most they can do is to convince naive consumers to order those products online. But any break in cybersecurity that hits our financial institutions will instantly produce chaos on a large scale.

This is why financial institutions are constantly on their toes, making sure their cybersecurity systems are at cutting edge. They cannot afford to be sloppy. The stakes are too high.

Cybercrime is a constantly evolving threat. It presents itself in many forms. This is the reason we need a “whole-of-ecosystem” approach to cybersecurity that pools the efforts of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), the BSP and the National Privacy Commission.

The roles played by these agencies are usually understated. Few appreciate, for instance, the value of a competent, fully-manned DICT in keeping our economy safe. To this day, if we go by the size of its budget, the DICT is not a “sexy” agency. But its importance cannot be underestimated.

The business community appreciates the appointment of Henry Aguda to head DICT. He will be able to orchestrate the private sector’s efforts with the work of government agencies committed to maintain cybersecurity.

Aguda has very good credentials for a job that used to be casually handed out to retired military men. He was, before his appointment, president and CEO of UnionDigital Bank. He held senior positions at both UnionBank and the GSIS. He knows the cybersecurity environment as much as anybody would.

The private sector has not been passive in the face of cybersecurity threats. Our financial institutions have invested heavily in state-of-the-art software and hardware to protect their clients.

Many banks, for instance, are migrating from One-Time Passwords (OTP) in favor of mobile PINs created within the app. This is supposed to be more secure since it is not sent out via SMS, a method that has become vulnerable to hackers.

There is increasing use of biometrics, such as fingerprints, to log into accounts and approve transactions. Biometric identification is rapidly being integrated in more financial apps.

The business community is happy that the DICT is now headed by someone who understands the dynamic and rapidly changing terrain of cybersecurity. It is not easy to find an agency leader who both understands rapidly evolving financial technologies as well as the mandates of government agencies.

Synchronization of private sector initiatives and government oversight will do wonders for our domestic economy.

Remanded

Alan Peter Cayetano has a mean mind. He blindsided his colleagues by moving to remand the Articles of Impeachment back to House of Representatives even as the Senate impeachment court remained convened. The motion was supported by 18 senators.

By remanding the Articles of Impeachment, the House is now asked to certify that due process has been diligently observed when that chamber, one bright day last February, suddenly found the enlightenment to sign a voluminous impeachment complaint and forward it posthaste to the Senate. That is not an easy thing to do.

Recall that there has been much discussion about the indecent haste with which the impeachment complaint was signed by over 200 congressmen. There could not have been sufficient time for them to read the complaint, much less thoughtfully deliberate its contents.

The constitutional propriety of the hurried House process has been raised in a petition filed with the Supreme Court. It might take time for the magistrates to sort out the issues here. But that process certainly needs to be discussed – especially since at least one congressman inadvertently admitted in his social media account that funding for pet projects were promised the legislators who chose to sign the complaint.

Cayetano’s motion to remand the impeachment complaint puts the propriety of the process front and center. Recall what lawyers constantly tell us about the fruit of a poisoned tree.

There are enough people who would rather not talk about the poisoned tree. They complain that the Cayetano motion violated the equal standing of the two chambers of Congress. This is a complaint that will probably require juridical intervention as well.

But to the uninitiated mind, this question stands: shouldn’t the House of Representatives itself be held accountable for its actions?

There are enough people who think this whole impeachment gimmick is nothing more than a silly charade pulled on all of us by congressmen nursing a hidden agenda. We need to know more about what drives this.