Another tech ban, another distraction: Why blocking Signal misses the point

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

There have been recurring whispers about restricting encrypted messaging platforms in the name of national security. More recently, the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) has indicated that it is considering a move to ban Signal following incidents where scammers allegedly used the platform to impersonate government officials.

If that conversation gains traction, the position of Scam Watch Pilipinas remains firm: We oppose banning Signal or any other messaging platform in the Philippines.

Not because Scam Watch Pilipinas is blind to cybercrime. We have spent years warning Filipinos about scams, mule accounts, phishing rings, and organized online fraud. But banning Signal is not the solution. It may create more problems than it solves.

Here is why.

1. Impersonation is not a Signal problem

Scammers spoof government officials on Facebook, Viber, Telegram, SMS, email, and even traditional phone calls. They clone profile photos. They create fake accounts. They use stolen identities.

If impersonation becomes the benchmark for banning platforms, then almost every messaging service would qualify.

Signal did not invent spoofing. Criminals exploit whatever channel is available. Remove one, and they migrate to another within hours.

The issue is enforcement, not the existence of encrypted messaging.

2. Cybercriminals can bypass bans in minutes

Anyone who has investigated scams knows this basic truth: technical bans are minor obstacles for organized groups.

VPNs, proxy services, Tor, sideloaded APK files, alternate app stores, and foreign SIM cards are easy to obtain. Encrypted chats can move to Telegram, private Discord servers, dark web forums, or smaller niche platforms overnight.

Blocking Signal does not eliminate encrypted communication. It inconveniences casual, law abiding users while pushing criminals toward channels that may be even harder to monitor.

If authorities believe a network level block will cripple cybercrime, they are underestimating the sophistication of the very actors they are trying to stop.

4. It punishes legitimate users, not criminals

Signal is widely used by journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, whistleblowers, corporate executives, and even some public officials who require secure channels for sensitive communication.

For reporters covering corruption, procurement anomalies, cybersecurity lapses, or national security issues, encrypted messaging is protection.

If the platform is banned, the immediate victims will be legitimate users who rely on privacy for lawful work. Criminals will simply migrate.

5. Encryption is not the enemy

Signal uses end to end encryption. The same cryptographic principles secure online banking, e commerce transactions, and government digital services.

If we start framing encryption itself as suspicious, we risk undermining broader digital trust.

The Philippines is pushing digital transformation, egovernment systems, fintech expansion, and cross border digital trade. These rely on strong encryption.

Weakening or stigmatizing encryption sends the wrong message to investors, startups, and citizens.

5. It creates a chilling effect on journalism and accountability

As someone who covers cybersecurity and governance issues, I rely on secure communication channels to speak with sources. Many insiders will only share information if they know their identity is protected.

Remove that assurance and two things happen: sources go silent and sensitive disclosures move offshore. Neither outcome strengthens public trust.

Secure communication protects whistleblowers who might otherwise face retaliation. That protection is part of a healthy democratic system.

6. It risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic

Banning an app is visible. It makes headlines. It creates the impression of swift action. But serious cybercrime operations are dismantled through intelligence work, digital forensics, financial tracking, cross border coordination, and prosecution. Not by disabling a single platform.

If impersonation of officials is the concern, then solutions should focus on stronger digital identity verification for public servants, public awareness campaigns on official communication channels, rapid takedown coordination with platforms, and better tracing of financial flows tied to scams. Target the abuse. Do not criminalize the tool.

The real question

Do we want to target criminals, or do we want to target technology? Cybercriminals thrive on weak enforcement, mule networks, poor digital literacy, and gaps in prosecution. Fix those. But do not punish journalists, lawyers, activists, and ordinary Filipinos who simply want secure communication.

What is deeply troubling is the pattern. We have seen headline driven tech reactions before. There was the public move to ban Grok. There was the bold claim that blockchain is 101 percent hack free, a statement that no serious cybersecurity professional would make. No system is immune from exploitation. That is Cybersecurity 101.

Now we are looking at another sweeping reaction. This is not how digital governance should work.

The Department of Information and Communications Technology is supposed to be the country’s technical brain trust. Its policies must reflect deep understanding of how networks, encryption, and cybercrime ecosystems actually operate.

Executive Director Usec Aboy Paraiso of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center knows that cybercrime is layered, borderless, and constantly evolving. He has consistently framed the CICC as an investigation and coordination arm, not a policy sledgehammer.

Which makes this clear that this does not look like his call. This feels like a directive from the top, the familiar reflex of the DICT Secretary of banning what cannot be easily enforced. When enforcement becomes difficult, his instinct is to block the platform instead of strengthening capability. This approach may be loud. It is not strategic.

We need calibrated, evidence based, technically sound decisions. Not shotgun approaches.

Ignorance of how technology works should never shape national policy.

If the Philippines truly wants to lead in digital transformation, cybersecurity, and innovation, then our public statements and regulatory instincts must reflect technical maturity.

Signal is not the problem. Criminal misuse of technology is the problem. And banning a privacy tool because it was abused by scammers risks solving the wrong issue while creating new ones.

That is not sound cyber policy.