LETTER: Think about how many applications we use every day. We rely on them to pay bills, order food, book rides, communicate with colleagues and access government services.
We willingly provide information because we want the convenience they offer. We simply tap “Allow” when an app requests permission to access our location, camera, microphone or contacts.
As a Computer Science lecturer, i explain to students that individual pieces of data may seem insignificant, but their value and sensitivity can change when they are combined.
A collection of location records, gathered over time, can paint a surprisingly detailed picture of someone’s daily life. This raises questions about personal privacy and security.
In software engineering, on the issue of security, it is not something we can establish simply by looking at a company’s name or country of origin. It has to be tested.
We need to know what information an application collects, whether that information is necessary, how it is stored, who can access it and how the developer responds when something goes wrong.
The same standards should apply to navigation applications. The government has encouraged the use of alternatives such as TuJu, a locally developed navigation app associated with the Malaysian Highway Authority.
Supporting Malaysian technology is worth pursuing. There is no reason Malaysian companies should not compete in developing useful applications for our own communities.
But, a Malaysian-made app should also be able to answer the same questions we would ask of any international product.
A developer that can demonstrate sound security practices has a stronger case for winning the confidence of customers, businesses and government agencies.
This is where the Waze debate could lead to something more useful.
An application used to manage confidential government records should face more demanding checks than a simple calculator app.
Software changes all the time. An app considered secure today may require another assessment tomorrow.
This is a normal part of cybersecurity, not evidence that technology cannot be trusted.
There is also a lesson here for education. We spend considerable effort teaching Malaysians how to use digital technology.
Schools introduce digital skills, universities offer computing programmes and government initiatives encourage people to become more digitally literate.
These efforts are important, but knowing how to use an app is only part of being digitally literate.
We should also understand what happens behind the screen.
Many are comfortable using online banking, e-wallets and shopping platforms, yet rarely read privacy settings or question why an application wants access to information unrelated to its purpose.
Thus, digital literacy should include more practical conversations about these everyday decisions.
The Waze debate may eventually move out of the headlines. But the questions raised by this episode should remain.
We need a more consistent way to evaluate the technology we depend on, whether it comes from Malaysia or abroad.
If there is one lesson Malaysia should take from this debate, it is that digital trust cannot be built on popularity, nationality or promises alone.
It must be supported by evidence, proper testing and accountability.
The most important question is not simply which app should guide us on the road.
It is whether we know enough about the technology guiding our increasingly digital lives.
ABD MALIK MOHD RICK
Lecturer
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)