‘Make in India’ might be in the ICU but as Pichai’s elevation shows, Indian brains are still in demand

The world may not run on Made in India cars or necessarily wear clothes made in an Indian textile mill or even use Indian weapons but almost every citizen has been touched by software and hardware engineered by an Indian. Now, the news that Sundar Pichai, the boss of Google, is about to become the top dog at Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is something that should be celebrated. He, of course, will not be the first Indian to head one of America’s top companies. That honour went to Satya Nadella, who has quietly and surely been heading Microsoft for five years now. Nobody really knows the secret sauce that makes Indian engineers and managers such great corporate leaders. At one level, it is depressing that Indians have to go to the US and to a lesser extent the UK, to discover their ultimate potential. While the success of people like Nadella and Pichai is a matter of great pride for Indians, it is also an awful indictment of the Indian system where mediocrity rules the roost because success is not encouraged through a competitive format or celebrated.

This is evident in a system, where churning out millions of graduates is seen as more important than the concept of excellence, where education for education’s sake matters more than the actual results. One has to encounter a comical situation where you have an apparent doctorate holder applying for a peon’s job. This isn’t an indictment of the lack of jobs but one where the education system has failed us. Because mediocrity is celebrated at the cost of excellence. India continues to suffer immense brain drain because the best and brightest have little choice but to go abroad to fulfill their potential. Of course, India has many ills that the system is aiming to correct, particularly the caste system and the lack of social inclusion but social mobility will come not just from reservations. A serious audit must be done on the reservations in educational institutions even though the idea itself is an anathema to any mass politician. We have to look at the conclusions of the education system and not just the stories of Pichai and Nadella. We have to question why they had to leave the country? And why neither a Nadella or Pichai couldn’t be heading a global top-100 out of India instead. Of course, the US will continue to attract the best and brightest from across the world. That is what makes that country great. But in celebrating Pichai, we should not miss the opportunity to introspect.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

One of the greatest threats to democracy is when fear prevails about a big-brotherly monitoring of independent thought. This is what the WhatsApp snooping scandal showed

Some time back, in these columns, I had written about the need to come up with a better understanding of our policies. I had mentioned about a study set in an office environment where the purpose was to examine how people react when they know they are being watched. The subjects were divided into two categories: The first group of people was asked to make private donations through a letter or email. The other group consisted of those who would sign up a sheet displayed in the common area of the office. It would also mention the amount committed by them. It was found that people were more likely to donate and be generous when they knew their behaviour would be judged or viewed, in that particular case, by their fellow peers. The crux of this experiment was that people behave differently when they know that their behaviour is being monitored or watched.

While this study looked at the positive impact of such an examination, it is also true that one of the greatest threats to a democracy is the fear that independent thought and criticism of a Government cannot be aired freely because one is being monitored. It is in this context that the recent, frankly terrifying, incident of Whatsapp snooping and hacking of mobile phones of several Indian rights activists must be examined. I presume the readers remember what actually happened. I say this because given the existing climate within the country, it is hard to keep track of one crisis as there are so many more mushrooming concurrently. The issue of an Israeli software, Pegasus, snooping on Indian citizens’ accounts came to light at the beginning of this month. This should have been one of the most significant topics for discussion. But unfortunately, several other crises emerged over the month: The illegal operation of electoral bonds, the Maharashtra imbroglio and the NSSO report claiming that consumer spending and sentiment is at its lowest in 40 years, among other issues.

Honestly, even I forgot about the snooping incident. Until the day I was speaking to a friend over phone, who also happened to be a bureaucrat. He was criticising some of the policies of the BJP Government but before doing so, he became conscious and asked me to call him up on WhatsApp. He feared that regular channels of communication were being tapped or examined in one way or the other by some department of the Government. Yet my friend wasn’t committing any wrong; he just wanted to air his views about the many shortcomings of the current Government as a regular citizen. He was too afraid to continue through a regular call. My friend is not the only one. Even my grocer insisted on talking over WhatsApp rather than making regular calls after the recent news of Pegasus tapping Indian citizens’ phones went viral.

What we know about the “WhatsApp snoopgate” till now is as follows: It was reported in the beginning of November that around 17 Indian activists and lawyers were spied upon by Pegasus. They were targetted using the popular WhatsApp messaging platform. This is done by either giving a missed call on WhatsApp or through a message on the platform. This allows Pegasus to gain access to the device, essentially all your photos, files and emails.

Pegasus, which is owned by an Israeli group called NSO, has been sued by WhatsApp for its activities. NSO’s defence or response when these facts came to light was that it sells the Pegasus software only to Government intelligence agencies to enable them fight terrorism and serious crimes. Its statement also went on to clarify that it does not sell the software for use against human rights activists and journalists.

However, this is exactly how it was put to use in India. The BJP Government responded by asking WhatsApp to explain why the data breach happened. As per news reports, in response, WhatsApp stated that it had informed the Indian Government about the data breach in May and then again in September. Thereafter, a parliamentary committee was formed to look into the breach, among other things. According to reports, after some pushback and non-cooperation, this committee will try to get some answers from the relevant wings of the Government.

The primary issue, however, with such a grave and serious case is that it is a reminder to the people that their lives are no longer private. It is important to remember that the Supreme Court had itself stated that the right to privacy is fundamental as guaranteed under the Constitution. The familiar refrain of any Government, especially the current one, is that these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. But what’s common between bureaucrats and grocers alike is that they are genuinely afraid of speaking against the policies of the Government, for this may affect them adversely. There is no denying the fact that this fear psychosis exists and the environment creating this mindset is problematic on its own.

There are many questions regarding Pegasus that must be answered but the most basic question is: How was a software — sold only to Governments and enforcement agencies to tackle terrorism — used to target human rights activists, journalists and politicians? This is an uncomfortable question that the Government must answer and it must do so for its own benefit.

This incident has heightened the fear factor among the citizens. They worry that critics are being monitored and that they may be spied upon without following the due process of law.

The breach of an Indian citizen’s privacy, with no regard to established procedures, is egregious if true. However, even the belief that this is an accepted state of affairs today is problematic. Such fears lead to a “chilling effect”, where people will be more fearful about criticising the Government. What will be even worse is that this fear will prevent the Government’s failures from coming to light in public.

All of this will make the Government a non-transparent organisation, one that answers only to itself or to a privileged few. Indeed, this would be a travesty. A Government, we must not forget, is an agent of its citizens. It was elected by the people to act for their benefit. It has not, by any stretch, been empowered to snoop on lawyers and journalists who question it unless, of course, our new definition of a terrorist is a person who does just that. In which case, our worst fears have already been realised.

(Writer: Ajoy Kumar ; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Post the Chandrayaan-2 setback, some may question the ` 970-crore investment in space but this will pave the way for India to tap into trillions of dollars worth of lunar minerals

In science, there is no such thing as failure. There are only experiments and efforts.” With these words, Prime Minister Narendra Modi consoled a crestfallen nation after India’s moon lander Vikram was unsuccessful in descending on the lunar surface smoothly. Some may question the `970 crore ($140 million) price tag of the Chandrayaan-2 mission. But this investment will eventually pave the way for India to tap into the trillions of dollars of mineral wealth on the moon and near-earth asteroids.

To many, this may sound like science fiction, but several national space agencies including the US’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, Chinese Space Agency, Russia’s Roscosmos, the Japanese Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency  (JAXA), are already mapping and exploring the lunar surface and nearby asteroids.

Many private players like Moon Express, Astrobotic Technology, Blue Origin, iSpace and so on have serious commercial plans for lunar prospecting as well.  The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), too, completed our first mission to the moon, Chandrayaan-1 in 2008, with great results and now Chandrayaan-2 is expected to take it forward with a mission life of up to seven years. The moon isn’t so far out of our reach after all. Actually, it’s only a two-three day journey, which is shorter than the 79-hour journey on the Kanyakumari-Dibrugarh Vivek Express!

The technology to exploit lunar resources, though immature, is around the corner. The first lunar rover was launched in 1970 by the erstwhile Soviet Union, a year after the first human lunar landing by the USA. Safely landing and remotely driving a car-sized eight-wheeled vehicle on the moon’s surface back in 1970 was a gigantic achievement. The technology was re-used in 1986 to clear radioactive debris inside the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster there. In 1997, NASA’s Sojourner rover became the first rover on Mars, followed by rovers Spirit in 2004, Opportunity in 2004 and Curiosity in 2012. China landed two of its rovers on the moon, Yutu in 2013 and Yutu-2 in 2018.

India started its moon exploration mission with Chandrayaan-1, announced by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2003 and launched in 2008. ISRO’s Moon Impact Probe confirmed the presence of water in the lunar soil, whereas NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper instrument on-board looked for minerals across the moon’s surface. Interestingly, Chandrayaan-1 was also looking for Helium-3. This specific form of Helium, scarce on earth, is abundant on the moon’s surface. But why are ISRO and other space agencies looking for it? The answer is potentially abundant, safe and clean nuclear energy hidden in it. While Helium-3 fusion technology is laboratory-proven, it isn’t yet commercially viable. Helium-3 also finds applications in cryogenics and medical imaging.

Rare Earth Metals (REMs) are indispensable for modern electronics. China has already cornered 90 per cent of the supply and is aggressively capturing more. While only limited sources of REMs have been found on the moon, NASA still considers it important to be able to mine it, given its critical importance. Further, the moon also has concentrated deposits of titanium, a metal critical for advanced weaponry.

However, the big question remains if lunar mining will ever become commercially viable? For that, we need to look at other maturing knowhow that will benefit lunar mining technology. Reusable rockets, as demonstrated by SpaceX and Blue Origin, are set to disrupt the launch industry. Other Government and private agencies are furiously trying to emulate the same to remain competitive. Space transportation costs are expected to go down significantly. With equipment delivered to the moon, advanced construction robots will assemble mining facilities.

Also, 3-D printing technologies will allow  forging smaller parts and replacements. Autonomous vehicle technology being pioneered by the likes of Google, Tesla and Uber can be re-purposed for automated prospecting, extraction and movement of lunar mining vehicles. Advances in industrial robotics will lead to automated ore refineries, with lunar mining vehicles dumping raw ore at one end and refined product coming out of the other. Human supervisors would stay in habitats built into the lunar caves, similar to the International Space Station.

It is not just one technology in isolation, nor just one mineral that will seal the deal. When taken together, we can see a reasonably positive picture emerge. The likely trajectory of lunar mining will probably start with surveying and small sample-return missions. These will eventually grow in scope with small factories and minor human settlements, before growing into a large industry.

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite in orbit. Just six decades later, global space activities are valued over $350 billion as revealed by a Morgan Stanley report, with projections to reach over a $1 trillion by the 2040s. NASA estimates that the present lunar resources are worth hundreds of billions. But the moon is just a test bed of sorts for asteroid mining and Mars colonisation, where there are even more resources to be harnessed. The website Asterank lists several near-earth asteroids and their potential financial value. Asteroid Ryugu, that is orbiting between the Earth and Mars, has an estimated $80 billion worth of minerals. Japan’s Hayabusa 2 touched down on it earlier this year and is expected to return with a sample next year.

In the ancient Indian epic Mahabharata, after the devastating war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, the oldest of the 100 Pandava brothers, Yudhisthira laments over his depleted treasury. However, Ved Vyas tells him of the great Mount Meru (the sacred five-peaked mountain of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist cosmology that is considered to be the centre of all the physical, metaphysical and spiritual universes) in the inhospitable reaches of the northern Himalayas that has an abundance of gold. Yudhishthira launches an expedition to mine the mountain and thus replenishes his kingdom’s coffers.

We are an ancient yet continuing civilisation. For centuries, India was at the forefront of several technologies, especially metallurgy, textile, civil engineering and agro-tech. While large-scale space mining and colonisation are still decades away and are fraught with millions of dangers and hurdles, no civilisation can propagate itself unless the present generation plans and invests for the future.

In 2018, the Modi Government restarted the ambitious Indian Human Spaceflight Programme by announcing budgetary funding for the programme and Gaganyaan, an Indian crewed orbital spacecraft, is intended to be the basis of the project.

The programme will eventually help establish a domestic space tourism sector and perhaps decades later, lead to an Indian moon base. We owe it to our descendants to give them a head start when they take over the reins of India.

(The writer is Telangana BJP spokesperson, economist and Director, Centre for Leadership and Governance, Hyderabad)

Writer: Anugula Rakesh Reddy

Courtesy: The Pioneer

India must understand which e-commerce policies can create uncertainty for firms as addressing them will help it reap benefits innovative technology companies bring

During Amazon’s second quarter earnings announcement recently, its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Brian Olsavsky commented on India’s e-commerce policy and expressed the hope that the Government would provide a stable and predictable policy for the company to continue with its investments in technology and infrastructure. This demand is a new addition to the e-commerce debate and a novel one given that it is coming from a firm already heavily invested in India.

India must understand which policies in the e-commerce space can create uncertainty for companies, as addressing them will help the country reap the benefits innovative technology companies can bring to the table. Amazon services bring in jobs and investment to local economies globally and in India, along with innovation and knowledge that will help companies grow and improve productivity.

Amazon’s inauguration of its Hyderabad-based office, that is the single-largest till now globally, housing 15,000 employees across 1.8 million square feet of space, is proof that it considers India a viable business environment despite the regulatory hurdles faced in tariffs, taxes, stringent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) norms and ever-changing data regulations.

Globally, site selection by large multinationals follows an intensive bidding process, with US states offering incentives to woo them. Last year, the firm narrowed down its Amazon HQ2 locations, choosing Northern Virginia over New York. There were a total of 238 bids for the site. Some states, most notably New Jersey and Maryland, offered multi-billion dollar incentive packages — $7 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively — to Amazon, but did not make it to the shortlist. After taking into consideration the existing availability of skilled workers, the infrastructure, cost of doing business and a stable business environment, the tipping factor which influenced the location decision was the pushback in the New York location, in contrast to a warm welcome from the community in Virginia, despite its moderate offer of $750 million in incentives.

Governments bid aggressively and offer incentives to attract successful multinationals as these firms generate economic activity through supporting and linked businesses, upskill workers and increase the uptake of more structured management practices, thus improving the overall productivity of local companies.

Recent research found that such million-dollar plants lead to significant increases in management, productivity and employment by the incumbent firm that boosts the local economy.

There is a stronger effect through companies which are in sectors where there are frequent flows in managerial labour from the plant’s industry, found by comparing incumbent firms in locations, which were the winners of the bidding process with the runners-up who narrowly missed being selected for the site.

Policy uncertainty deters companies from investing and hiring. When organisations are unclear about the future economic environment, they hold back on investing until policies become clear. Productivity growth also falls because this pause in activity freezes reallocation across units. In the medium-term, the increased volatility from the shock induces an overshoot in output, employment and productivity. Thus, uncertainty shocks generate short sharp recessions and recoveries.

All this affects long-term investments that are irreversible in nature and for which horizons for cost recovery can run into years. This would include innovation and research and development investments, ventures into new markets and infrastructure development. When there is a lack of stability and certainty in the future actions of the Government and regulators, enterprises hold back from investing in these dimensions. This, in turn, limits the impact of such firms that can come from long-term investments, including benefits to employment, wages and growth.

The role of economic and policy uncertainty at the macro-economic level has been measured globally and has recently been highlighted in the 2019 Economic Survey. An index is created by quantifying newspaper coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty mentions in the national newspapers, through combinations of keywords related to policy and uncertainty. This measure correlates strongly with stock market volatility measures, such as the India VIX Index. This measure is used globally to study the effects of events such as Brexit, the US-China trade wars and so on.

A less understood concept is that enterprises can also face uncertainty at sectoral, geographical and individual levels. Industry-level uncertainty can be measured through surveying firms sampled across sectors, asking them about expectations of future growth and costs at various horizons. Though this is harder to capture, it is amply clear that Amazon’s statement alludes to policy uncertainty in the e-commerce space.

Here are a few of the policies in the e-commerce space which increase uncertainty for businesses and thus deter investment: The draft National e-Commerce Policy rules earlier this year, preventing companies from influencing prices or selling products in which they hold stakes, disrupted business plans for e-commerce firms. It pushed firms back to the drawing board to ensure they can comply with the current regulations while limiting losses that arose from lack of clear direction from the start. The final e-commerce policy has been held back for another year, putting the investments of businesses in this sector in jeopardy during the interim months.

The recent recommendation by a high-level Government panel to do away with the need for foreign firms to store a copy of all personal non-critical data in India will help companies, though the decision on data localisation remains to be made.

Under data localisation, foreign companies would need to redesign internal algorithms to access data locally, pay up for new servers and face costs to protect data in less-secure environments. There is also uncertainty as to what constitutes non-critical data and how it would interact and overlap with critical data. E-commerce companies still face policy uncertainty while the due process of discussions with various Government bodies and stakeholders regarding data localisation is completed. We soon expect to hear from the Prime Minister’s Office on data localisation. The announcements, though not final, do offer direction and some insights into the Government’s thought process.

A related issue is the disclosure requirement of source code under the draft e-commerce policy. Amazon depends highly on data-driven marketing and heavy use of its item-to-item collaborative filtering algorithm for customer recommendations.

A code submission requirement is a coercive technique aimed at achieving the transfer of technology and local needs. Technology transfers happen in an organic and legitimate manner through managers and employees developing skills and passing them onwards in data communities or by moving across companies. Whether this will come into effect through the final e-commerce policy will remain unresolved till mid-2020.

Multiple guidelines can also cause delays in the resolution of uncertainty. The RBI’s Report of the Working Group on FinTech and Digital Banking includes e-aggregators, Robo advisers and Big Data all under FinTech. E-commerce firms, which are data-intensive and provide multiple services, will be included under this description. The Ministry of Finance FinTech Steering Committee report remains pending that will recommend another set of guidelines on regulation around technology-enabled activities in India.

For India to reap benefits from global multinationals such as Amazon, we need to provide companies exactly what they are asking for — a stable and predictable policy environment that can foster investment and infrastructure development.

Early investments from large innovative companies will give a head start to India, enabling it to pick up technologies from global leaders and push domestic innovation forward faster as well. This is critical for a capital-scarce country like India, which is aspiring to become a $5 trillion economy in the next five years.

(The writer is faculty, ISI Delhi and Fellow at the Esya Centre)

Writer: Megha Patnaik

Courtesy: The Pioneer

By signing an executive order to protect its networks from foreign espionage, the US has drawn the first blood on what was hitherto whispered as a need to counter Chinese ambitions

US President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order on ‘Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain’ that effectively walked the talk on clamping down on the growing Chinese presence and influence. While the order itself was ostensibly country-agnostic and company-agnostic, the unmistakable target was a leading Chinese company, Huawei. Predicated under security concerns, the statement from the White House said that the order, “declares a national emergency with respect to the threats against information and communications technology and services in the United States (US) and delegates authority to the Secretary of Commerce to prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk to the national security of the US or the security and safety of its people.” Soon, the US Commerce Department added Huawei to the ‘entity list’ of banned organisations. Against the backdrop of the ensuing US-China trade wars, this latest American salvo has huge implications for Chinese products and services going forward, as it questions the construct of “Made in China,” given the inextricable and complex Government-industry interlinkages that beset the ownership, interests and operations of major Chinese organisations.

Unlike most unilateral decisions initiated by Trump, this executive order had bipartisan support across the political divide, symbolising the overwhelming threat perceptions within the US that are emanating from China. The Huawei action was looming for some time and the US had been sabre-rattling on the same with other Western powers. While Australia had acceded to the warning and banned the organisation earlier, the European nations were sceptical about the US’ seriousness. Given that the Chinese multi-national had outmanoeuvered the European companies like Ericsson and Nokia in grabbing market shares across emerging markets of Africa, Latin America and Asia — the expectation of reciprocal protectionism would rise within Western capitals to support their own organisations as the Chinese state does.

The US went as far as threatening its allies to withdraw “intelligence” inputs unless they stopped using the Chinese manufacturers like Huawei for building their 5G infrastructure. At the heart of the fears is the new internet architecture that could possibly “link” industrial equipment, personalised data, security cameras and civic facility details among others and transport the data dump to a repository in China, from where a apocalypse-like situation of a virtual “shutdown” of American military-economic-civic infrastructure could be effected if China so wanted in a crisis!

Given the Chinese ambition, investments and strategic outlook, such fears of data protection are not entirely unfounded. Expectedly, the Chinese have likened the US move to a “cold war mentality” and alluded to the US fears as unsubstantiated paranoia. Given the construct of the organisation itself and the rules governing its principal place of origin and headquarters ie, China, it is certainly obliged and vulnerable to the diktats of its Ministry of State Security.

Like most Chinese offerings, the winning appeal of Huawei was in its cost-effective technology and terms of trade. However, the recent move has added a ‘non-commercial’ angularity of dealing with Chinese companies. Last year, the global list of top 500 companies, as measured by Fortune magazine, had an unprecedented 120 Chinese companies making the cut (just shy of 126 by the leading nation, US). This sudden emergence of Chinese companies owes its success in huge measure to the complex commercial-political wiring of Chinese organisations that baffles most corporate-watchers as to their real ownership and control structures. Founded in 1987 by a former People’s Liberation Army (PLA) officer, Ren Zhengfei, who now owns only one per cent of share, it has grown into a $106 billion global conglomerate with a mammoth $14 billion dedicated towards R&D. Despite its immense size, scale and the competitive intensity of its domain, it still grew at a staggering 21 per cent over the previous year. Today, it serves 45 of the top 50 telecom operators worldwide and its network already reaches one-third of humankind. Somewhere, questions abound about such rapid rise, access and the ‘invisible-hand’ that drives such surreal growth. Given its formidable presence and invaluable necessity in the infrastructure of some third-world countries, it will not be easy to ‘ban’ its products across such countries — though it certainly marks the beginning of larger implications for ‘Made in China’ that go beyond a corporate entity.

Partly on account of genuine fears and partly on account of the escalating trade war, the recent US move has drawn the first blood on what was hitherto whispered as a need to counter the Chinese juggernaut. In a barely veiled threat, the Chinese have reminded the US about its own vulnerabilities with American organisations like Qualcomm, who generate over half of their revenues from China, as indeed the likes of Intel and Apple, who rely on Chinese parts and market! Many of China’s strategic sovereign imperatives like the ‘One Belt, One Road’ or in this case, the ‘Digital Silk Road’, which promises hyper speeds and capacities of 5G (promoting ‘Internet of Things’) communication, envisages a pivotal role for organisations like Huawei. The sovereign intent on becoming a Cyber and Artificial Intelligence (AI) superpower has fuelled the Chinese State to support and fund many aggressive and audacious investments that make the world nervous, given the known Chinese ambitions and penchant for means. The temerity and commitment behind developing cutting-edge technology that could have multiple “spin-off” usage and data-sharing has the Western world worried.

The Chinese are past masters in reverse engineering and sourcing technology licitly and illicitly, especially in matters of defence equipment and overall security preparedness. However, due diligence and care has to be ensured with evidentiary proof of potential misuse or “leakage” before censuring or ascribing any questions on the Chinese organisations as it should not violate the principle of fairplay in the global economy. The onus is now on  China to demonstrate transparency and unveil its control and command structures behind its corporates as also convince the wary world of its intentions and ambitions. Unfortunately, it will be an uphill battle for China given its history and its prevailing instincts to convince the world, otherwise.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)

Writer: Bhopinder Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A fear of surveillance made users switch to this platform but now it has admitted it has been compromised. What next?

Security and the knowledge that communications are direct and private are the underpinnings of any major communications service. So the knowledge that Whatsapp, the world’s most widely-used communication service with an estimated 1.5 billion users across the planet, was targetted by a private intelligence firm, wherein spyware could be installed on a target’s phone, is deeply unsettling. It is unclear how much access the spyware gave governments. The Israeli firm behind it claimed it only sold to governments it had ‘vetted’ but it is clear that the spyware defeated the purpose of the social platform encrypting its messages from end-to-end. It is also unclear how many people were impacted by the breach, how long it was active and who used the breach, which some suspect was the Saudi Arabian government. But it is clear that governments and intelligence agencies across the world are constantly searching for ‘backdoor’ entries to software systems, targetting everybody from political opponents and human rights activists to journalists or even spouses. In fact, in many countries, including Western democracies that take human rights seriously, laws allow spy and police agencies a huge amount of leeway to legally intercept calls and install spying software on devices.

Will this scare users away from WhatsApp onto other platforms that claim that they are even more secure? Unlikely as WhatsApp has a huge user base though smaller groups of users could use services such as Telegram to communicate, as several terrorist cells already do. Not that they are perfect. In fact, they are more than likely to have vulnerabilities that have been exposed by intelligence agencies and private firms and are being used by governments as we speak. In fact, larger services like WhatsApp can ironically be more secure because their large software development teams can patch up security holes quickly if they want to. And for most regular users of such applications and of software in general, there is usually nothing to fear, but when dictatorial governments use such intercepts without any judicial oversight, there is a problem. One thing is clear though. In the cat and mouse game of spying and information arbitrage, things are unlikely to change anytime soon. Software will always have holes that will be exploited. We can only hope that those doing the exploiting are not making fools of us all.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Chris Hughes has argued that the platform is an existential threat to the world and needs to be fragmented

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes made his millions when the social networking giant went public, but after that he has taken a strong advocacy point and even during a visit to India almost eight years ago, warned of the dangers of the social media platform. Now in an opinion piece in The New York Times, titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook”, he lays out in plain detail why the social media behemoth should be fragmented. In essence, he says, it is a clear and present danger to modern life and a threat to democracies. It is a cause taken up by US Senator from California and contender for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 US presidential election, Kamala Harris as well, who ironically represents the San Francisco Bay Area where Facebook is based. Other nations, too, particularly in Europe, have tried to look at ways to curb the social media giant.

But this takes us back almost 15 years when the world was railing against the massive power of another American technology giant, Microsoft. But look at where it is today. And while Microsoft is a pale shadow of the consumer company it once was, it remains a technology icon and a vital piece of the software puzzle. Breaking up Facebook may be as impossible to achieve as breaking up Microsoft was. However, there is little doubt that it does need to be reined in. It has played havoc with the media and has become a tool of fake news and promoting hate. Mark Zuckerberg might have a baby face but his company is doing more harm to humanity than helping it, and there needs to be a proper global consultation on how to combat social media firms and their viral manner of spreading news. Companies like Facebook and Twitter cannot use the fact that they are technology companies as an excuse to prevent being regulated like media companies, considering that they have played havoc with the rules and regulations of fairplay and objectivity. There is no doubt that technology has democratised the media, making it more accessible and able to demolish constructed narratives but it has also allowed hateful agenda to spread very fast with disastrous consequences. India should also sign up with other democracies and look to read the rulebook to Facebook.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Instead of imposing blanket rules, Governments globally can implement a regulatory model involving a negotiation with technology companies that is based on identified issues

Technology companies have fundamentally changed the way in which we obtain information, communicate, travel, transact in goods and services and consume content. However, they’ve also been responsible, in many ways, for some of the most pressing issues we face today. For example, concerns that TikTok exposes children to predatory behaviour led to the app being taken off the stores of Google and Apple; although this has since been reversed. YouTube has faced similar issues in the past. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are being used to bully and harass, especially those from socially marginalised communities and to magnify extremist content and propaganda. There are multiple instances where Facebook has been involved in leaking user information, harvesting user data, using targeted advertising to influence election results and pushing political propaganda. It has, along with Whatsapp, also been used to propage “fake news” and spreading disinformation and misinformation, which has been linked to violence and deaths in India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Uber, Amazon and Apple have all been criticised for their lax labour standards. And Google, Facebook and Amazon have been accused of (and sometimes held liable for) anti-competitive behaviour. More generally, there is also a lack of transparency in the way these companies function and most of them have access to vast amounts of user data, which is collected, stored and sold to advertisers with minimal oversight.

Many of these issues exist and are exacerbated because some of these technology companies, especially “Big Tech” firms (generally refers to Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple), have large businesses and because of their significant global market share and revenue. A major reason as to why these companies were able to rapidly scale to their current sizes lies in their leveraging what is known as the “network effect”, wherein the value of certain goods or services increases as they gain more users. These platforms have also been able to invest in improving their services, especially by collecting and leveraging large pools of user data to improve their machine-learning algorithms.

While utilising network effects is not problematic by itself, the vast wealth of these firms has also meant that they could often simply buy out and integrate the products or services of competitors, or prioritise their own platforms over others and, hence, entrench their dominant positions. Furthermore, until recently, they faced virtually no regulatory oversight and were given free rein with how they chose to conduct businesses. This was, in large part, a consequence of the public support that these companies enjoyed and because they, and technology more generally, were seen as offering a way to enable access to information — providing “free” services or helping consumers obtain goods and services at lower costs. However, issues that have arisen have made it clear that there is no longer a question of whether to regulate technology companies but rather one of how best to do so.

Regulators around the world are grappling with this problem in multiple ways. The European Union (EU) introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to regulate the use of personal data of those in the body. Germany introduced a law requiring platforms to remove hate speech and other illegal content within 24 hours of being informed of such material. Singapore introduced a Bill that seeks to impose penalties on users and platforms for spreading “false statements of fact” in the country. Furthermore, Australia passed a Bill that forces technology companies to hand over encrypted data to the police.  More recently, the lower House of the Russian Parliament went so far as to vote to support a Bill that would essentially allow it to create its own domestic internet, ostensibly for national security reasons.

Some of these measures can have unintended consequences. For instance, the GDPR has been criticised for its broad definitions and because its stringent data protection requirements are more likely to disproportionately affect smaller companies by driving up costs, potentially stifling competition. Similarly, in India, there are concerns that regulations, often aimed at fixing issues caused by larger platforms, could significantly impair the ability of start-ups to scale their businesses. Moreover, some of the more extreme measures that have been introduced (such as those requiring building in backdoors to encryption and restricting the Internet to national boundaries) have the potential to alter the nature of the Internet itself and have wide-ranging implications for civil liberties, security and rights such as privacy.

India is also in the process of framing regulations applicable to this space. Over the course of the last year, the Government published the draft Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018, the draft Personal Data Protection Bill and the draft National e-Commerce Policy. While each of these regulations was ostensibly introduced to solve specific issues and sought to regulate distinct areas of the digital economy, they also had overlaps, which affected each other. For instance, the Intermediary Rules primarily sought to address misinformation and “fake news” on social media platforms by requiring intermediaries to take certain steps, such as proactively monitoring their platforms for unlawful content. However, the definition of “intermediaries” is broad enough to encompass practically all entities from social media sites, messaging platforms, e-commerce platforms, cyber cafes, payment companies and internet service providers, thereby making these rules applicable to these entities as well. The draft e-Commerce Policy, in addition to introducing data localisation and other requirements, also seems to be conceptualising a State-controlled, community-owned-model for data, referring to it as a “collective resource” and a “national asset.” This has implications for entities beyond e-commerce companies and can impact how the right to privacy is developed in India. It also potentially runs counter to the Supreme Court’s decision in Puttaswamy vs Union of India, where privacy, framed primarily as an individual right, was held to be a fundamental right.

Technology companies can vary widely in the function and services they provide, even though they all share the attribute of providing goods and services through the internet. Therefore, in order to avoid unintended consequences and over-broad application, regulations must be narrowly crafted to address specific identified issues. Regulations must be framed in a manner that they are differentiated on certain metrics (such as the function served by the platforms, the potential impact on users and businesses and the aim sought to be achieved by regulation). One possible method for crafting regulation on this basis is by having more stringent requirements apply to companies that are of a certain size and scale and cross certain prescribed thresholds (whether measured in revenue, user or subscription base, or a combination of such other metrics). Another is by regulating intermediaries based on the function they undertake or the service they provide. However, given how digital companies integrate multiple services such as payments, chat, networking and the like onto the same platforms, this could also be challenging, and would require extensive collaboration with other regulators.

Another key component to consider in this context is the companies that are being currently regulated. It is especially important to include dialogue with technology companies in the context of the digital economy, given that platforms are best placed to understand the limits and abilities of the technologies they deploy. This is also why it might be useful, instead of just seeing regulations as a way to impose liability on companies, to also see them as a means of increasing platform accountability. A regulatory model that takes into account dialogue with these companies, and is based on principles of platform accountability, transparency, and ensuring effective redressal mechanisms may be a more effective way to address some of the challenges presented by digital platforms, than the sort of blanket regulations that are the norm today.

(The writer is junior fellow at the Esya Centre)

Writer: RK Pachauri

Courtesy: Aishwarya Giridhar

With the country taking on the Coronavirus pandemic head on, cybercriminals have lost no opportunity to exploit fears around it. We need to crack down on this fast-growing menace

For the world, the outbreak of Coronavirus has meant solitary confinement for so long. There’s nothing much to cheer about. In the words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “Home is the new office and the internet is the new meeting room.” Even those, who had otherwise been “digitally ignorant,” have now taken to the internet to stay connected, air anxieties, share information and bide the quarantine time. According to data from the department of telecommunications, Indians consumed 308 petabytes (PB) or 308,000 terabytes (TB) of data daily on an average for the week beginning March 22. Such rapid consumption of data has also lured cybercriminals to “harvest free-floating” data to accelerate the spread of malware. But are internet users even aware of the socio-technical challenges that come along? With the spread of the disease, we are (rightfully) bombarded with health advisories almost every day but are we even aware of the importance of preserving user privacy so as to maintain cyber hygiene in these turbulent times?

Some forms of cybercrimes that have assumed importance in COVID-19 times include phishing, malware distribution, ransomware, fake news, cyberbullying, zoombombing and even child pornography. Phishing is a type of social engineering attack, which is done to steal personal data using emails or phone calls. Many more techniques are applied to lure the victim to click at mischievous links or to share the OTP. Only late last month, a Mumbai resident reported to have lost substantial money after he was coaxed to share an OTP on the recently downloaded malicious contact-tracing app. Similarly, social media platforms, emails and apps have also been “weaponised” with malware (also referred to as “spyware”, “payloads”, “trojans” and “rootkits”), which stealthily steals personal data from the device of the unwitting victim. In the wake of the spread of Coronavirus, a threat map website, too, was launched to steal personal information from a panicked public.

To top it all, sextortion email scams are back with vengeance. Such dubious emails falsely claim to possess porn videos of the victim and demand ransom, usually in bitcoins. In certain instances, IT resources of the victim could be “locked”, this is termed as “denial-of-service” (DoS) attack. Another prevalent category doing the rounds amid Corona pandemic is that of misinformation (fake news), which has only further alleviated fears. To cite an example, a fake message claimed that administrators of 52 WhatsApp groups were detained by the Dadar Cyber Crime Police. Another viral message alleged that Prime Minister Modi is offering Rs 15,000 to all Indians and that the Government has launched a video conferencing tool, “Namaste” as an alternative to Zoom.

Several spurious websites advocating safety tips and treatment methodology have mushroomed, too. The latest scam using UPI revolved  around the PM Cares Fund with a fake UPI ID being floated. Likewise, several duplicate websites have emerged  where the unemployed are expected to deposit some money to have access to potential job givers. Scams offering discounted services from Reliance Jio and Netflix have been there, too. Believe it or not, fraudsters even  tried selling the world’s largest statue for $4 billion, claiming the proceeds would be used to help the Gujarat Government fund its fight against the Coronavirus.

Besides, Zoom calls have witnessed undesirable videos and leakage of sensitive office information. What is most unfortunate is that there has been a sharp rise in the demand for child pornography. The digital preoccupation of children has increased because of lockdown-related compulsions of using digital collaboration tools for “study from home” and they have gone more vigorously on online dating and gaming platforms, too. As a result, “children, teens face a bigger risk online” warned a report. Cyberbullying, including unpleasant social media retorts and humiliating posts against individuals or a community, particularly the Chinese and their look-alike communities, have also inflated to almost 900 per cent in the last few weeks. 

All such criminal activities on the cyberspace echo the view that a quarantined world has become like living on a block of thin digital ice that calls us to be extra cautious. To avert COVID-related cybercrimes, we must  practise basic “digital distancing” and maintain “cyber hygiene” norms. One must particularly be wary of “unsolicited emails” or unknown “friend requests.” One should never open links made available through unknown addresses. It should also be a complete no-no to apps that originate from unreliable locations or expose our personal details on social media.

Increased digital activity from domestic devices insists that we install anti-virus and virtual private network (to camouflage real IP addresses). We should also regularly upgrade our software. Let us develop a habit of creating stronger passwords, consisting of “caps”, “special symbols” and “numbers.” We must also keep changing your passwords regularly; for this one can rely on inbuilt password managers.

Using two-factor authentication is a must; maybe we can purchase hardware keys like Yubikey. Let us keep our webcams closed when not in use. Adopting a very strict “zero-trust” approach, which includes keeping privacy settings of all the devices and apps stringent, is essential. One must make sure that everything and everyone is verified before we grant any information or access to it. After all, where there are vulnerabilities and weakness, there is space for greater harm — both physical and cyber.

If despite all the aforementioned precautions, one unfortunately gets entrapped in any kind of cybercrime, the easiest way out is to seek help by dialling “100” and registering an FIR/complaint. However, in doing so, the victim must provide all supporting documents and details of the crime, including his/her name, date and time of the incident, email, mobile number, hard copy and soft copy of the screenshot of the malicious message. A complaint can also be lodged with the national central portal, cybercrime.gov.in. Simultaneously, it is prudent to report to the respective service provider of the digital platform where this crime has happened (such as Google for Gmail).

Indeed, these times have imposed serious challenges on us. As rightly remarked by Lt Gen Rajesh Pant, National Cybersecurity Coordinator, “Cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility” and “…the end-point of cyberspace is our mind.” Let us all join hands together and stay extra vigilant on internet spaces and dampen the celebratory din echoing from the corridors of cybercriminals, a la’ Jamtara. After all, digital trends are here to stay in a post-pandemic period, too.

(Writer: Charru Malhotra; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

As robots take over frontline duties for Covid-19 patients, it is time to look at AI’s potential in healthcare

As healthcare personnel on the frontline of humanity’s war against the Coronavirus fall prey to it daily, more and more countries around the world are beginning to bank upon Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-powered robots to fight the pandemic. Even though the scientific community, technocrats and even techpreneurs like Elon Musk have time and again warned mankind against the possibility of AI and robots costing people their jobs going forward and creating mass unemployment, right now they are partnering with the human race and playing a major role in the fight against COVID-19. In fact, robots seem to be a good option in fighting any infectious disease in the future. Right from AI predicting the spread, interpreting and analysing data to robots replacing humans in hospital wards to save medical personnel from infection, we are living this science fiction scenario for real. For instance in the US, one of the major COVID-19 hotspots of the world, robots are replacing clinicians in hospitals, helping disinfect rooms, providing telehealth services and are processing and analysing test samples from patients. In fact, doctors even used a robot to treat the first person diagnosed with COVID-19 in Everett, Washington. The robot in question was equipped with a stethoscope to take the person’s vitals and a camera for the doctor to communicate with the patient through a large video screen. AI systems are also helping doctors identify COVID-19 cases through CT scans or X-rays at a rapid rate with high accuracy. Italy and China, too, have used robots to deliver healthcare and minimise contact with Corona positive cases. In India, hospitals in Kerala, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have used robots for monitoring patients in isolation wards and for delivering food and medicines to minimise contact with doctors. AIIMS, whose healthcare professionals have borne the brunt of the virus during treatment, is now mulling using robots in its Delhi and Jhajjar facilities where COVID-19 patients are being treated. The Milagrow Humanoid ELF that AIIMS intends to use enables doctors to monitor and interact with COVID-19 patients remotely. Patients in isolation wards can also interact with their relatives from time to time through this robot. ELF can navigate around the ward independently and record the activities in high definition video and audio. The advanced humanoid features eyes with emotion and open application programming interface (API) for further development and customisation. There may not be the human touch but there is no lack of human emotion and intent. Milagrow iMap 9 is a floor disinfecting robot that can navigate and sanitise the floors without any human intervention. It can destroy virus spores on floor surfaces using sodium hypochlorite solution, as recommended by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The robot moves around autonomously without falling while planning its own path.

Globally, AI is at the forefront of Coronavirus vaccine and drug research, too, as it has the ability to scan billions of papers and researches in a short while and collate data, thus saving researchers and scientists a lot of grunt work and time taken to come out with a probable cure. Perhaps, that’s the reason why vaccine trials can take place sooner than estimated. However, the use of robots in healthcare is nothing new and has been around for over 30 years. Robots have been used to perform simple laboratory tests or highly complex surgeries, either independently or as an aid to a surgeon. They are also used in hospitals and labs for repetitive tasks, in rehabilitation, physical therapy and in support of those with long-term conditions. AI has been around in the diagnosis of diseases like cancer and heart ailments. In fact, its use is enabling review and translation of mammograms 30 times faster with 99 per cent accuracy, reducing the need for unnecessary biopsies. Plus, what about the health apps and wearable monitoring systems that we use? This is all AI-powered and we don’t even realise how deeply-entrenched it has become in our lives. As science makes rapid strides each day, more possibilities of the use of AI and robots in healthcare are opening up. AI and robots are even being used to provide end of life care to senior citizens and interact with those who live alone to sharpen their minds. The possibilities are endless; it only needs a real human mind to unlock them.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)