The National Privacy Commission (NPC) has been inutile in solving the problem of shaming debtors from online apps and companies. Two weeks ago, I received a call from an online lending company verifying if I knew a certain person who owed them P7,486.

The unnamed lending company said that I was listed as a “co-maker,” which was particularly odd because I did not agree to any financial setup and I did not even know the person they were asking money from. I did not argue further and dismissed the caller.

A couple of days later, I received a text message from the company requesting me to contact the person who hasn’t paid yet. The text also disclosed the amount, which they haven’t received.

This case is not isolated and has even been reported to the NPC since February this year. It also conducted a press conference last May where it announced an investigation into 48 lending companies that violated privacy laws.

The latest development on this matter as of this writing was last 6 September where the NPC warned the filing of criminal charges against online lending firms Fast Cash Global Lending Inc., Unipeso Lending Company Inc. and Fynamics Lending Inc.

The NPC statement also recommended charges against the executives of these companies. Recommendation to whom? The Philippine National Police? The National Bureau of Investigation? Individual complainants?

The statement went further to say the agency is also recommending filing a ban on the processing of personal data by the lending firms and removal of the apps from the Google Play Store.

The statement did not specify a timeline, and the agency is waiting for its overseas counterparts to act on its request. While there is action on the complaints, the NPC did not address the solution on how it can prevent online lending companies from shaming their clients.

NPC Commissioner Raymund Liboro and his officials should coordinate with Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT) Secretary Gregorio Honasan and other DICT undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. The fact that this is still happening means the problem can be solved not only through government channels and bureaucratic processes but through technology as well.

The DICT should be part of the solution process. Section 4 of the DICT’s mandate states that the department should, “Ensure and protect the rights and welfare of consumers and business users to privacy, security and confidentiality in matters relating to ICT, in coordination with agencies concerned, the private sector and relevant international bodies.”

Press releases from the NPC are good enough for the public to temporarily consume. The real step in solving this problem is to tackle the technology available to the respective agencies in countering these illegal acts.

Unless the DICT is also ineffective in addressing this issue as well, then we have a bigger problem when hackers start snooping around and utilizing private information from their victims.