Everyone’s at risk
The technology that unites the mighty and obscure, the wealthy and the humble of means, isn’t television (class lines get delineated by the programs people choose to watch) but the cell phone. Politically, the battle for hearts and minds since 2000 has been waged by means of text messages. And whether it’s President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sending instructions to her subordinates, an overseas worker keeping tabs on the kids at home, bankers or security guards, the ties that bind are maintained by means of the cell phone.When news first broke that a conversation allegedly between the President and Election Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano had been intercepted and recorded, a troubling thought sent shivers down the spines of many people. If it can happen to the President, people said, it can happen to anyone. That troubling thought has once more gained currency following the revelations made by Sen. Panfilo Lacson in a privilege speech last Tuesday.
We will set aside, for now, why Lacson’s witness, retired T/Sgt. Victor Doble, took so long to detail the circumstances surrounding the tapping of Garcillano’s phone. Doble explained how the phone tapping was done. He says it was undertaken by the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Isafp) with the assistance of someone, or some people, at Smart Communications Inc. The media relations machinery of Smart then kicked in, taking pains to deny that the company has a policy of conniving in the tapping of its subscribers’ phones. It also denied that its officers or rank-and-file condone, much less assist, wiretapping activities.
But the allegation has been made, and what’s more, what was alleged is not beyond the realm of possibility, according to the statements of Smart itself. It is possible, the company said, that someone, acting in an unauthorized manner, might have consorted with the Isafp and helped it. Of course, it can be said that anything is possible, but the question is: Did it happen? And if so, how could it have happened?
The privacy of communication is a constitutionally protected right; it applies to everyone, the exceptions being clearly spelled out in our laws. Our laws are so zealous in this regard that the anti-wiretapping law tries very hard to make any intercepted communication of little or no value in court.
Still, the allegations are grave enough, in terms of their implications to not only national security but to civil liberties, as to require a thorough investigation. There are fundamental issues of governance -- not just political, but corporate -- at stake here. There are issues involving civilian control over the military, and combined politico-military influence over private enterprise, or people who work for private corporations.
If the Isafp did conduct surveillance operations, who ordered it? If an officer did, why didn’t the civilian authorities know about it? If a civilian official authorized it, on what basis? And if somehow, Smart or some of its employees assisted the Isafp, how could it happen without management finding out, or being able to properly determine how it might have happened once allegations were made? Of course, there is a more sinister question: Could Smart have resisted at all a military “invitation” to assist in eavesdropping?
There are technological questions that need to be resolved, as well. Lacson, by way of Doble, suggests intercepting cell-phone calls is quite easy, as is recording conversations for future use and abuse. We have no shortage of technologically knowledgeable people who can verify or dispute this claim, outside of the private firms and public agencies that have a vested interest in dismissing such allegations out of hand.
Good corporate governance, not just effective public relations, suggests Smart would be wise to undertake a more thorough investigation of these allegations. If the Isafp can snoop on its subscribers, then kidnappers and extortionists can do the same, if all that eavesdropping requires is a pliable low-ranking technician. The economy in general, not just Smart, can ill-afford a blue-chip stock taking a hammering in the local or New York bourses because of investor concerns over the vulnerable security of telephone communications in the Philippines.
