“If policy shaped by myths continues, the country will not be protected by technology. It will be governed by illusion”
DICT Secretary Henry Aguda is once again in the limelight, and not for reasons, keen observers stress, that reassure the ICT sector.
This is the information and commnication technology sector, an extensive term for industries using digital tech, from computers and software to wireless networks and the internet, to manage information.
It includes manufacturing and services focused on creating, commercializing, and using new technologies.
In recent weeks, IT and cybersecurity professionals have unreservedly expressed concern on social media over public pronouncements and actions that, in aggregate, point to what these professionals and analysts chorus as a troubling pattern in how technology policy is being shaped at the highest levels of government.
What worries practitioners is the substance and tone of these statements, which many feel assume that complexity can be reduced to slogans sans consequence.
Declaring that blockchain is “101 percent hack-free,” the website called the transparency portal, banning the AI chatbot Grok, and pushing the idea of mandatory registration of social media users are not harmless oversimplifications.
In the ICT lexis, blockchain refers to a decentralized, distributed, and immutable digital ledger technology (DLT) that securely records, tracks, and shares data across a network of computers.
It acts as a “single source of truth” for transactions without requiring intermediaries like banks or central authorities.
The blurted out statements are seen by practitioners as sweeping interventions into highly technical domains, delivered without the sternness or severity such decisions demand.
These actions also reveal a deeper problem.
Observers say the DICT chief increasingly sounds less like a technocrat guiding a critical sector and more like a politician chasing attention.
ICT policy does not respond well to theatrics. It requires precision, restraint, and a deep respect for how systems actually behave in the real world.
The “101 percent hack-free” blockchain pronouncement is a clear example, according to observers.
In cybersecurity, absolutes are a warning sign. No system is invulnerable.
Security depends on architecture, governance, implementation quality, and constant review.
By publicly portraying blockchain as immune, the statement does not inspire confidence among professionals but raises alarms instead.
It invites adversaries to test the claim and, more importantly, conditions policymakers to believe choosing a technology automatically eliminates risk.
This has serious implications for government infrastructure.
There is little public clarity on whether the DICT has a comprehensive, vendor-neutral roadmap for blockchain adoption.
If such a roadmap exists, it has been eclipsed by rhetoric. If it does not, then slogans are being used in place of strategy, while budgets appear tied to fashionable narratives rather than verified security realities.
Another example is the so-called “Transparency Portal,” a regular website branded as transparency.
Instead of inspiring confidence, it was met with ridicule within the IT industry, particularly among executives who actually design, build, and secure production systems.
To them, it looked less like a serious transparency reform and more like a glossy website marketed as innovation.
Many found it insulting. As one industry practitioner remarked, “He is treating us like we are stupid, thinking we would not notice.”
The same lack of nuance is evident in the banning of the AI chatbot Grok.
While the urgency of enforcing the Anti-Child Pornography Act is undeniable, Grok is a tool, not a social media platform.
It does not distribute content on its own. It generates outputs in response to user prompts.
Banning an AI tool as if it were a content distribution network reflects a misunderstanding of how AI systems function and how regulation should be applied.
Worse, it sets a precedent where tools are punished for potential misuse rather than governed through proportional safeguards.
The push to require social media users to register in order to catch cybercriminals follows the same logic.
It sounds decisive, but it oversimplifies a problem that is global, adaptive, and highly technical.
Serious cybercriminals already know how to evade identity requirements.
Ordinary users, meanwhile, shoulder the privacy and security risks of mass registration schemes with little evidence that such measures will deliver meaningful enforcement results.
What makes all of this especially dangerous is not just the statements or actions themselves, but who is making them.
These pronouncements come from the DICT secretary, someone expected to provide the government with sound, technically grounded advice.
When that guidance is flawed, it stops being personal opinion and becomes policy influence.
What happens when lawmakers, agency heads, or even the President accept this narrative as truth?
Observers say it is already being seen. A congressman pushes a bill shaped by a preferred technology.
A government agency quietly leans toward vendors offering the same solution across Congress, the Senate, and local governments.
This is not innovation. It is institutional echo.
Both the Grok ban and the social media registration narrative risk becoming the foundation for poorly written laws.
All it takes is one grandstanding legislator to cite these actions as justification.
This danger is magnified by a reality we must acknowledge.
Most legislators, and much of the population, are not deeply technical.
Their understanding of digital systems is limited, and this is a global problem.
That is precisely why clarity and restraint from a technology secretary matter.
Instead, these pronouncements feel like soundbites designed to generate positive publicity.
The irony is that they have backfired.
Rather than projecting leadership, they have exposed a widening gap between rhetoric and technical reality.
When policy is shaped by myths rather than verified security facts, public systems do not just become inefficient.
They become fragile, expensive, and exposed.
If this continues, the country will not be protected by technology. It will be governed by illusion.
