A social listening study prepared by DataLab measured the perception of cybersecurity in Guatemala by digital users, from January 2023 to March 2026. During this period, 43 thousand mentions were made about this topic.
The sentiment of the conversation is 41% negative, while only 2.3% is positive. The conversation is dominated by digital insecurity in the country. The issues that are most relevant are card cloning, digital fraud and bank robbery.
According to Sigfredo Lee, an analyst at Cien, digitalization in the country has advanced rapidly, but there are no protection mechanisms for vulnerable people. He added that older adults are a population group with greater risks, since they grew up in a context where technology was less and now this tool has facilitated cybercrimes.
In this context, he raised the need to strengthen the laws, since many of the crimes are not classified in current legislation. “The legislation needs to be strengthened, but not necessarily make it stricter, but rather make it more complete to cover crimes that have remained in a gray area.”
This is an excerpt from the conversation he had with Free press.
The citizen conversation about cybersecurity is dominated by everyday frauds. What does this tell us about how cybersecurity is perceived in the country?
There is something very important and that is to understand a little about the dynamics of the country’s digitalization. Actually, people have digitized very quickly. The mere fact that there are more cell phones in Guatemala than people tells us that there is aggressive digitalization in the country.
Access to technology, access to the network or the Internet is increasing and doing so very quickly. The problem is that there are not necessarily social protection mechanisms.
Due to this accelerated digitalization, there are important vulnerable population groups. For example, older adults, who are people who grew up without access to this technology and whose learning is not easy; Therefore, it makes them vulnerable to that technology.
Second, many children and young people. There is also a general population with low educational levels—as a national reality—and all these groups, being unprotected by a general cybersecurity platform and by regulations that protect them, become more vulnerable. Probably a lot of that is what we’re seeing reflected in these responses.
Why has cybersecurity become more of an issue of money, trust, and daily vulnerability than a technological issue?
I think that a lot of this is probably the most common, but it is not the only thing. Phishing or social fraud, as it is also called, is very common.
You don’t need sophisticated technological knowledge to hack an account. Probably what we are seeing is the ease with which these types of crimes have been committed again in Guatemala, and that they really go unpunished due to the lack of regulations that adequately punish them.
The study reflects a high emotional load in the conversation, such as fear or anger. What does this tell us about citizens’ trust in the financial and digital system?
The truth is that, unfortunately, this is causing a general distrust towards a certain minimum institutionality.
Towards the financial system, but also towards social networks themselves, towards digital communications and towards digitalization in general, which should be a tool to improve productivity, access to information and people’s lives. On the contrary, what it is becoming is a burden and a mechanism to take advantage of defenseless people.
What risks does it imply for citizens to experience cybersecurity as an everyday problem?
Obviously, the immediate loss that comes with being a victim of all this, which in many cases is still a loss of money. However, there are also more serious crimes, such as child abuse, that go beyond the economic sphere.
But in addition, what it is causing is a setback in a digitalization process that should be accelerating. This harms us in the long term, not only because of the crime itself, but because of the cost involved in stopping the country’s digital transformation.
How can this type of conversation influence the public agenda or pressure political actors to take action?
I believe that the important thing is to raise awareness that there are important unprotected populations and that the State has a role in recognizing that the circumstances in which these crimes occur have changed and to which it has to adjust. Not only do individuals become vulnerable, but also the State itself becomes defenseless, which reduces its credibility and undermines democratic institutions.
Is there a risk that cybersecurity laws will be perceived as control mechanisms and not as protection tools?
This is a very important topic. There was a law that was attempted to be passed a few years ago that even bordered on censorship of the press itself. That’s something that really shouldn’t be. To “kill the wolf” you do not have to “set fire to the forest.”
There are good international practices on what can be done and how to do it without violating rights, especially basic human rights such as the free expression of thought.
The user talks about scams and economic losses, while the State promotes laws. What would have to change to align that institutional response with the real user experience?
There are several things here. There is an intention to strengthen the legislation, not necessarily make it stricter, but make it more complete to cover crimes that have remained in a gray area.
Fraud is already contemplated in the legislation, but it does not take into account particular characteristics of modernity, such as digitalization. On the other hand, there must also be training and training processes, and a clear assignment of responsibilities.
Changing legislation alone is not enough. It’s like closing the stable door when the horse is already out (when the fraud has already been committed). There have to be meaningful prevention strategies.
What role should the State, the financial system and digital platforms play to close this gap?
Legislation can give better and new tools to institutions to defend themselves and protect their clients. But there are also shared responsibilities, to promote safe practices, establish secure communications and share information.
For example, it is common to see advertisements from institutions, public or private, saying: “We are not hiring, don’t fall for this.” That implies investment in communication, in advertising, in education.
It’s part of taking responsibility. Each actor has to understand their role in implementing secure systems.
Thinking about solutions, what should be prioritized, regulation, digital education or prevention?
All of the above. Where something is not done, that is where the problem creeps in. You have to do everything, invest in everything and understand that they are not partial solutions, but comprehensive ones.
Within the population there is a widespread need and it is important to align public policies to address that need.
Find more Guatemala Doesn’t Stop on our video channels Free press and Guatevision, alliance content focused on solutions journalism.