Buyer beware?

I don’t know who first coined the phrase but I suspect it would be safe to bet that it was a lawyer, a company lawyer probably. After the momentary panic that gripped GCash clients or users, we were once again reminded of two realities in today’s digital world.

First is that internet and digital dependent companies will react substantially only when their business and reputation is seriously at risk. Otherwise, companies simply rely on remedial measures, not radical defense. Second reality is that from analog to digital, companies always put the blame and responsibility on consumers by citing their prayer: BUYER BEWARE.

In the analog world, where most transactions are face-to-face and physical products are involved, the declaration of “Buyer Beware” is fair. But in a time and space when even the very companies who created their digital businesses and platforms constantly face catch up with threats and challenges to their operations, how are simple folks in the barrio who transact via a third party provider at a sari-sari store supposed to “beware” of phishing, hacking, identity theft, etc.?

Digital retail as well as electronic wallets and banking are here to stay, but the general impression is that the government as well as the legislative branch have been very slow in requiring ramped up protection for online users and consumers. The laws that apply to brick and mortar stores still need to find their way to online and digital stores in terms of consumer protection, integrity and traceability of vendors and products. E-wallets and online banking need to have the same level of protection provided for by banks.

Instead of letting digital vendors and platforms deal with threats as they choose and in their own good time, government and Congress need to put its foot down ASAP. These companies must be required to invest a pre-determined value of its income for cybersecurity and buy insurance for transactions, just like actual banks do under the PDIC or global insurers.

During our interview of Gabriela Party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, we asked if it was possible to require or place electronic banks and E-wallets under the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation or require that such financial transactions be covered by insurance. Rep. Brosas confirmed and agreed that it would be a good idea to consider in Congress.

That being the case, let’s all make that our social media AGENDA or topic of interest online. Make all digital platforms and vendors provide protection for their customers. If not, then Businesses Beware.

*      *      *

Every once in a while we hear or read in the news about how “Blue Guards,” “Sekyus” are preventing persons in authority from entering private property. The worst of these are incidents where firemen are not allowed into a burning building, mall or warehouse complex because the guards are more concerned about “incidental theft” than the entire place going up in flames.

Just as bad are incidents where police officers or investigators are stopped in their tracks or blocked by security guards who lock their doors or gates to keep the cops out and prevent them from conducting an investigation of a crime scene or locating persons of interest.

Apparently, it does not end there. One would be tempted to say that for “Sekyus” it is simply self-preservation and ignorance of the law. But it seems that in the corporate world, the same situation exists. The bigger they are, the greater their tendency to delay cooperation or use their lawyers to stonewall things or buy them time.

I recently learned from the investigative arm of the Department of Information and Communication Technology that their investigation of the missing funds of GCash clients could not get up to speed until the data or logs were submitted to the DICT for investigation. GCash prioritized working with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or BSP in order to restore the funds that were taken from GCash clients without their permission.

I suppose the irritant in the situation is that the delay in turning over the data log gave whoever committed the cybercrime enough time to cover their cyber tracks if any.

Security guards understandably have greater fear of their employer and supervisors who have the power to make them jobless, but it is tragic that the authority given by the state to its agents or law enforcers are neither feared nor honored, particularly the investigative arm of a department under the Executive branch of government.

Whether it’s a police matter, a legislative inquiry or investigation being conducted by a regulatory agency, a number of corporations, their executives and as well as lawyers have – in the words of authorities – played games, delayed or denied cooperation, or used influence to excuse them from taking part in investigations, particularly when it comes to their operations, financial dealings, etc.

There is a verse in the Bible (Romans 13:1) about the consequence of challenging authorities. “The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.”

If biblical warnings can’t seem to get the attention of those who are guilty of “obstructing justice” by the simple act of not cooperating, granting entry or access or not submitting documents and data, perhaps it is high time for members of Congress and the Senate to redefine the laws and actions that constitute “obstruction of justice” and refusing to cooperate with agents or officers of the court and state.

The authority vested by the state must be feared and honored. At the very least it must be recognized.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]