Is the latest True controversy a case of mass paranoia?

Before you do that, let’s recap what the uproar is about. It has to do with personal data of True smartphone subscribers being leaked, exposing several thousand people to potential risks such as identity theft.
Interior Minister Anupong Paochinda described the leak as “trivial”. True, on the other hand, reportedly said the leak was the work of an expert hacker, something the company could do little about.
In other words, a sophisticated cyber-criminal was responsible for a “trivial” incident. I hope you see my point, and forgive me for not knowing how to feel. Should I rest assured that smart hackers are interested in only trivial stuff, or should I be worried that the government regards hacking private information in a telecom giant’s database as trivial?
The fresh controversy involving True Corp is not about TV content or live broadcast disputes, but something that the likes of CNN, BBC or the Washington Post would jump at with glee. After all, Facebook is currently under intense international scrutiny for a similar scandal involving a massive data breach.
True’s “trivial” leak was big enough to draw the attention of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). The results of the telecom watchdog’s enquiry elicited a half-hearted apology from True – although it did little to satisfy critics, who say the reaction was too little and too late.
Critics don’t agree with Anupong that the leak was trivial. They say the hacked data could be exploited by marketing people or even criminals. Some have also cited the Facebook scandal, in which users’ information was allegedly exploited to sway the US presidential campaign, culminating in Donald Trump’s unexpected victory.
Previous True controversies had to do with its market dominance, which on paper doesn’t amount to a monopoly but makes the company very powerful all the same. TrueVisions, for example, is not a monopoly. However, its customers have little bargaining power when popular content or live sport broadcasts disappear from their screens due to a copyright dispute, or the provider’s reluctance to spend “too much” money buying programmes that are “too expensive”.
The present controversy, however, has other disturbing aspects. The leaked subscribers’ information contained official identification numbers, ID cards and home addresses. As critics pointed out, criminals may have seen the leaked data and have already started pondering what to do with it – although Anupong, when asked for comment, failed to see any immediate danger.
“Only what’s on the surface of the ID card is out in the open,” he said. “It contains nothing sensitive.”
Nonetheless, True has been hit by a tide of public outrage, which has escalated following the company’s claim that it was a victim of a highly sophisticated hacking operation. Doubters say the leak was actually the result of poor handling of sensitive data or naivety, rather than complicated and well-planned scheming by outsiders. Some also claimed that warnings of weak data protection had been sounded prior to the leak.
Critics have called on the NBTC to nip the problem in the bud. They note that, at a time when virtually every online commercial activity requires personal data, we are seeing just the tip of the data-breach iceberg. They insist that half-hearted measures by the NBTC or the likes of Anupong could lead to more failures in handling of personal information resulting in abuse and data theft on a grand scale.
“Please, please, please. Could we have a reaction from someone with a bit of digital knowledge?” a social media poster commented with exasperation. He added that most Thai politicians and bureaucrats could not match a 10-year-old kid for knowledge of computing and the Internet. 
The current uproar is also being directed at the NBTC, which is perceived as not fully protecting consumers’ interests. That perception may or may not be accurate, but it seems to underline the public’s reliance on the commission to shield them from such breaches and abuse. The new constitution shifts the responsibility of protecting telecom consumers from the government to the commission, mainly because politicians are perceived as more vulnerable to conflicts of interests.
In short, a lot of people don’t want the latest True problem to be played down. They point out that Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg was hauled before the US Congress to explain a data leak that did not even include users’ national ID numbers.
True, the NBTC, or Anupong for that matter, must never think that their critics are being paranoid or overly cautious. When it comes to abuse of personal data, pre-emptive action is always of the utmost importance. Simply put, when the cat is out of the bag, it’s impossible to put it back in, and it can wreak havoc.