In normal life, the answer would be no.
Usually, whether we are going to be remembered or forgotten is not something that we could opt for. We can indeed thrive to by our actions or deeds, but the final outcome of this psychological process is up to third persons having a good or bad perception about us.
In May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the ECJ’) has come to a milestone judgment saying that a person has a right to be forgotten. But the context where the person ought to be forgotten is internet. Not the real world. However, real enough to influence the life of a real person. Thus the ECJ tangled the right to privacy, the right to data protection and the right to expression in a digital world. It brought to internet life Directive 95/46, originaly designed to protect private data of persons processed either by automated means (computer data bases) or by non-automated means (traditional paper). The said Directive could not have envisaged the need for the protection of data on internet, since the internet itself was underdeveloped then.
Mr. Mario Costeja González, the complainant in this case, wanted the Google to remove information on the auction of his property which was published in a local newspapers distributed in Catalonia, Spain, 16 years before. The information consisted of 36 words only. It was published on two dates only. However, still after so many time has lapsed, anyone searching through the name of Mr. Gonzáles using Google, would be offered information about the said auction.
No society would benefit from knowing these few words on selling of his property. Nor would third persons. The only benefit, or more properly malafit was done to Mr. Gonzáles. He wished his name not to be connected with an event that existed many years before, that implied no criminal act nor offence nor damages to third persons.
The ECJ has recognised that by saying that the information to be erased is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the lapse of time. It authorised Mr. Gonzáles, and other Gonzáleses alike to request search engines to erase the data.
However there we come to a problem. The search engine at issue is Google Inc. But it has its subsidiaries in all the European countries, such as google.es, google.fr, google.at, etc. Therefore Google could come to an idea to erase Mr. Gonzales’s name only from its European subsidiaries.
Because the judgment was issued by the ECJ, which is called the supreme court of the EU. And which formally does not have jurisdiction over USA, Australia or New Zealand.
And why not?
Because it is internet at issue. And internet does not have borders, at least not the classic ones. And because anyone in Europe could access google.es, but at the same time google.com. So if a person was erased from google.es, he still remains at google.com. And he is visible within Europe, at google.com, but also within USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Let’s imagine that the ECJ judgment implies only his erasure from European Google subsidiaries. What could he do to have his name erased from Google.com accessible worldwide? Well, he could initiate the same proceedings before USA court. And Australian court. And New Zealand court. And African court. Actually before all other courts, apart from European which already gave its ruling. Would that be feasible? Justified? Protective of human rights? An answer may already appear to us.
But what is the relation between the real law and cyber law?
Classic legal theories recognise the teritorrial principle in law. With the emerging of international law, the strictly teritorrial approach was a bit modified, by spreading certain features to supranational level. We now face the emerging of a cyber law. In cyber law, uncertain is the teritorry, its control, the area of application. What is not uncertain are the subjects of law. They are still real. Their status is still certain. Therefore the ECJ judgment pointed out that the subjects of the right to erasure are the inhabitants of the EU. The category ‘inhabitants’ is in this case certain.
If we recall the well established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it has defined the jurisdiction of a state on a less formal manner. It took into consideration the effective jurisdiction. Not the one which was determined by borders. Nor the one recognised internationally. Therefore the formally Cyprus teritorry could be considered as belonging to Turkey for the purpose of Turkey being respondent party for violations of human rights (see Cyprus v. Turkey, ECtHR judgment of 2001). Such a legal construction enabled the Court to act in an effective manner when dealing with human rights violations which needed a real remedy. A remedy which is effective.
In this case, strictly formally speaking, Google supsidiaries at the European teritorry would be liable. However, can we restrict the information so as to flow only in Europe? Can we determine with certainty that no person in Europe will use the Google.com world url. The answer would be NO. If we have a new media for spreading information potentially violating human rights, we must adjust our legal rules applicable to it. And apparently the praxis.
On this account, the ECJ did make a step further by giving the Directive 95/46 its cyber life, although almost twenty years ago when it was created no such spread of internet was imaginable. It also did make a link of the right to be forgotten to the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights, the instrument which already celebrated its 60 years birthday. Such connections make those instruments living together with the growth of society.
Should we then confine ourselves to some old outdated theories? Should we close eyes to real life? The European Court of Human Rights pointed that the right to privacy should not be interpreted restrictively (Amann v. Switzerland, ECtHR judgment of 2000, Rotaru v. Romania, ECtHR judgment of 2000, etc.). Why should we then restrict the application of ECJ judgment to European subsidiaries of Google? Would the purpose of the protection of EU inhabitant be achieved if we act restrictively? If an international principle in dealing with human rights violations is restitutio in integrum, can then a person be ‘in integrum’ forgiven if we allow only for narrow application of ECJ judgment? By answering these questions, we will determine the tommorow’s effect of similar violations. We have to imagine how the tommorow would look like in order to act now. And to act with no constraints that would impair the efficiency of law.
The Hong Kong Deputy High Court Judge, Marlene NG, on the other side of the world, in her judgment of August 2014, in a similar case, has said in concluding remarks to her judgment: ‘…the internet has become a universal medium. The advantages of having easy access to a rich store of information are many, and they have been widely applauded. But such benefit comes at a price; any risk of misinformation can spread easily as users forage in the web. The art is to find the comfortable equilibrium in between.’
We therefore have to accept the fact that the law must follow the growth of society, and not walk by it. The law should follow life and each segment of its development.
So the only logical answer to the first question of this text would remain: No, the person cannot be partially forgotten, neither in real life, nor in the cyber world.
Smart Border Management: Transformation from Analog to Digital Borders
A border is something where the territorial boundary of a sovereign country ends and what begins is a bigger responsibility of protecting its boundary from any external threat, which can be defined in a broad term as border security. Different countries have different types of borders, including land borders, coastal borders and aerial borders (or airspace). Securing these different types of borders at all times makes border security a challenging task.
This analyst insight will highlight the pain points and opportunities in the smart border management market and how the traditional analog borders can be transformed into digital borders with the help of technology.
The dynamics of border security change with every country, as every country has different types of terrains, a different type of threat perception and different types of borders.
The terrain can be anything from plains, marsh, mountains, deserts, creeks, riverine, dense forests, deltas, etc. The more types of terrains a country has on its borders, the bigger the problem would be to secure its borders.
Threat perception can be anything from arms and drugs smuggling to illegal immigrants, to cross-border terrorism, to illegal occupation of its boundaries by neighbors.
Types of borders can be anything from fenced to unfenced borders, to friendly borders or hostile borders.
Every border is different and needs different, tailor-made solutions to protect them.
We are living in an era where technology is driving everything and is changing so fast that it has nullified all the traditional wisdom of securing borders. Today, hybrid warfare is possible, wherein cyberattacks, satellite attacks, and drone attacks are the reality and terrorist organizations are using them globally. We have seen an attack on the Saudi Aramco facility, wherein using drone-based loitering ammunition hampered the overall global supply chain. If a nation does not adapt to these technological changes, sooner or later, enemies will find a way to enter its borders, and the effects can be catastrophic.
So a nation is required to have 360-degree protection to form a smart, comprehensive border management system that is digital and can cope with these ever-changing global security scenarios.
First of all:
They need to secure their maritime borders, land borders and airspace using different technologies – perimeter security sensors, radars/sonars, C4ISR systems, digital intelligence, predictive analysis tools, etc. – for security from any kind of outside intrusions/attacks.
They need a strong intelligence collection mechanism at the borders so that information on any upcoming threat can be gathered beforehand and preventive measures can be taken. Different tools and systems should be deployed for SIGINT, COMINT, ELINT, and IMIMT.
They also need to secure themselves from any kind of airborne attacks and should have systems to detect and neutralize not only bigger aerial vehicles and missiles but also for UAVs flying on/near their airspace.
A strong response mechanism is needed to respond to any intrusion events, which can include autonomous UAVs/UGVs/remote weapon stations, to act as a force multiplier and can help ground forces in effectively disseminating the threats without endangering forces that are physically protecting the borders.
It should have a reliable communication system (wired and wireless) in place with a strong encryption mechanism (an overlap of 256-bit encryption and proprietary algorithms) and their exclusive waveforms so that nobody can hack into their mission-critical communication.
Second, they need to secure their ports of entry – airports, seaports, land ports:
At these ports, they should have robust security mechanisms (which should be fast as well as effective) for identity check, immigration, baggage screening, physical security, etc.
For coastal borders and seaports, artificial intelligence and machine learning-based maritime analytics can play a bigger role by taking information from centralized systems like AIS, GIS, etc., and can inform the authorities in advance about any suspicious vessels/ships/ boats before they even enter national waters.
Third, countries need to have a strong national cybersecurity system in place that can help detect threats and vulnerabilities in the system and suggest ways to overcome them.
By adopting the above-mentioned measures and technologies, nations can transform their existing analog borders into digital borders, wherein every suspicious activity gets detected, recorded and presents a holistic picture of the overall security scenario to concerned officials for better decision-making.
Based on the Frost & Sullivan analysis of the global border protection market, the industry is expected to grow to $168 billion by 2025, expanding at a CAGR of 7%. Below are the key technology investment opportunities for security companies:
Autonomous UAS (UAV and UGV) – To automatically respond to any threat
Counter UAS Systems – To detect and neutralize unmanned aerial threats
Remote Weapon Station – To guard the borders, without endangering lives
Software-defined Radios – For robust, futureproof, unhackable communication
Maritime Analytics – To detect and catch the suspicious vessels before entering national waters
Predictive Analytics – A strong, centralized and automated Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) platform that can detect probable cyberattacks and suggest ways to mitigate them
Integrated C4ISR System – To build a system of systems that can take information from various subsystems and show a holistic view of the overall security system
Every problem brings an opportunity to solve it. These problems of securing different types of borders in different countries, for different terrains, and to address different threats present a much bigger opportunity for security companies.
5G: A new stage in civilization development amid global competition
The format of the next-generation cellular networks, which is commonly known as 5G, is considered by a vast majority of experts as one of the “key technologies in the decades to come.” It is seen as a major element in ensuring the leading positions of a country at a new stage of the race for the most favorable national development status. What are the political features of this phase of technology rivalry?
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) plans to approve the final version of the 5G standard by early next year. However, experts throughout the globe have been developing the “general principles and properties” of the fifth-generation cellular communication technologies for more than five years. The current fourth-generation technology guarantees maximum data transfer rate at about 150 Mbit/s. 5G promises speeds of more than 1 Gbit / s. By the middle of this year, “China, South Korea, Japan, and most EU countries had chosen the frequency spectrum that will be used in fifth-generation networks.” A heated debate has been under way in the United States, which has already held several frequency auctions for 5G .According to Deputy Prime Minister Maxim Akimov, who oversees the development of digital technologies in the Russian Federation, the launch of 5G is “a matter of survival if we do not want to lose technological leadership”.
Experts have no doubt that the fifth generation mobile networks will lead to “drastic changes” in many areas of life. While the present-day cellular communication standards are designed to exchange voice traffic and exchanges between terminal communication devices, the 5G technology is intended to create an environment in which billions of different devices interact with each other in real time. Moreover, the speed and reliability of connection should boost many times. The 5G environment should become a kind of communicative digital “ocean” into which an overwhelming majority of people and economic entities will plunge in the coming decades. This will fundamentally change the industry, global supply chains, defense tecnology, agriculture, transport, medicine, approaches to managing national infrastructure, and in general, the quality of life of billions of people, by becoming part and parcel of everyday life.
One of the most promising and at the same time, conflicting areas, which will, undoubtedly, get good impetus following the introduction of 5G, will be the so-called “Internet of Things”. Microchips will be installed in almost all industrial and consumer products, transmitting all kinds of information and capable of receiving control commands from the outside. Critics fear that the world is moving in the direction of “surveillance capitalism”. The government and business are to address many issues, The Economist points out, including digital ownership, big data, surveillance, competition monitoring, and security. The standards of receiving, transmitting, processing and storing data promise to become a battlefield of both private companies and government organizations . Those who will control their development and implementation will enjoy significant, if not crucial, advantages.
“When an invention becomes part of infrastructure, it also becomes part of political relations and undergoes both engineering and political changes”. Therefore, the main political battles are currently unfolding over the choice of frequency bands for building 5G networks, and over the suppliers. Pessimists, including in Russia, fear that, in case of the worst scenario, the priorities of maintaining sovereignty and security may lead to further fragmentation of not only the Internet, but also the cellular communications space. Differences in the frequency bands used for the development of 5G networks may cause conflicts between telecom operators and refusals to conclude agreements on international roaming. According to optimists, in the absence of universally approved 5G standards, manufacturers of client equipment, from terminals to smart phones, are forced to envisage the possibility of operating in the widest possible frequency range.
At present, the observer attention is focused on two conflicting approaches to the implementation of 5G technologies, the American one, on the one hand, and the Chinese one, on the other. US President Donald Trump regularly makes high-profile statements about the need to ensure America’s top position in promoting 5G technologies. Trump has come out strongly against the purchase of Chinese-made 5G technologies by the United States. Washington is urging other countries to refrain from doing so as well. Otherwise, it said it may wrap up cooperation with its close allies in the field of telecommunications, including the exchange of intelligence data. Given the situation, the US government agencies that deal with technology development have, on the one hand, already managed to distribute the bulk of frequency modulations for the introduction of 5G, compared to other countries. On the other hand, Leonid Kovachich of the Carnegie Moscow Center says, “the United States is working to create networks in the ultra-high frequency range.” Such frequencies – above 6 GHz, provide “the most tangible capacity growth against the existing ones.” However, due to specific technological characteristics, they require an extremely high density of transceiver infrastructure. Thus, America has picked the most expensive option, which, according to critics, including specialists from the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is “extremely prodigal”. In addition, this approach “will further accentuate the technological and, as a result, social gap between large cities and sparsely populated regions in the United States”, and will also significantly weaken the ability of American cellular manufacturers and mobile operators to successfully compete with China in other countries of the world.
China’s authorities have been trying to follow major global trends, including the choice of frequencies for 5G. Meanwhile, as experts at Oxford Information Labs claim, China is operating in several areas at once, for the purpose of at least significantly downsizing the competitive edge of Western companies in implementing 5G projects. The Chinese companies are stimulated by the fact that they already control “more than a third of all 5G patents in the world” and also a fairly limited number of potential developers and manufacturers of 5G technology. The West suspects official Beijing of striving to create a de facto corporate-technological “vertical”, with non-governmental organizations pursuing a policywhich is determined by the country’s political and military leadership. What speaks of such a policy is the pragmatic readiness of the Chinese authorities to provide substantial government loans and subsidies for an early launch of domestically developed technologies, including abroad, through resorting to political, diplomatic, financial and economic influence amidst the international community.
Amid the growing confrontation between the United States and China, European countries voice different views. The German government, Die Zeit wrote in November, still expresses its readiness to “use the key technology of the coming decades – data transmission through the new 5G standard – using the technology of the Chinese company Huawei.” However, according to French President Emmanuel Macron, such an approach “is naive.” Macron is convinced that the infrastructure of the future, which is represented by 5G, should consolidate the sovereignty of Europe, not weaken it. What is meant is data security, without which, Europeans say, it makes no sense to talk about security policy asn such. In his opinion, “it is necessary to abandon” the Chinese-manufactured technologies “in favor of European analogues”.
Russia is balancing between fears of alarmists over the “cumbersome nature” of regulators and controllers that “jeopardize” the country’s technological development under the pretext of concern “for national security”, on the one hand, and on the other, the belief of optimists who remind them that the 4G and LTE standards of cellular communication were introduced in a similarly protracted and “bureaucratic” way. A number of representatives of the Russian telecommunications industry have expressed concern that “transition to unconventional frequencies or even an isolated Russian 5G system will delay the creation of modern networks for 5-7 years”. Their opponents are confident that domestic operators will need a few more years to launch 5G networks that cover vast areas. “There are no economic scenarios for 5G yet, no one in the world knows how to earn money on such networks, the existing networks all but prove this in practice. It makes no sense to strive to launch 5G networks at any cost. Just as there is no need to clear the frequencies now – nobody will use them ”.
Whatever the case, the undisguised attempts to halt the development of Chinese high-tech companies or even ruin them which have been made by the United States in recent years “have demonstrated to most countries that independence in IT technology is crucial.” A possible scenario envisages prohibition or restriction of services, products or services provided by American companies in other countries; or at least in such a vital sector as public procurement. For many states it becomes critical to create and develop the domestic IT sector, IT services and software. All this may culminate in the “process of disintegration” of the global IT market, the division of countries into blocks and coalitions focused on “their own” manufacturers of software and their own technological standards.
The problem is to ensure sovereignty without having to face technological or informational isolation. “Information isolationism in the era of digital communication is usually a characteristic of rogue states.” While easing the burden of confronting external pressure, this approach deprives the country of the opportunity to form its own international agenda, believes Dmitry Evstafiev from the Higher School of Economics . On his part, Igor Ashmanov, CEO of Ashmanov & Partners, remarks: “Absence of information sovereignty is an absolutely toxic thing. Speaking about digital sovereignty from a technological point of view, it is necessary to underscore the importance of creating domestic technologies and companies. Borrowing something without giving it any thought is not the right thing to do. ” In his turn, Ilya Massukh, Director of the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “ Center for Import Substitution in ICT”, says that technological development may result in the loss of identity. Consequently, nations that are striving to maintain sovereignty cannot afford to be completely dependent on foreign “suppliers of technological products”.
Russia, like most countries of the world, has yet to strike the so-called “golden middle,” which would enable it to use the advantages of the new technological reality to maximum efficiency in terms of national development. However, it should do so without turning the process of adopting new technologies into the driving force of self-isolation, which may easily reduce to zero a significant chunk of benefits supplied by the next- generation communication technologies.
From our partner International Affairs
G2C e-Governance & e-Frauds: A Perspective for Digital Pakistan Policy
e-Governance, sometimes referred as e-government, online-government or digital government, is the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to assist in the transformation of government structures and operations for cooperative and integrated service delivery for citizens and government agencies. e-Governance involves using ICT tools to improve the delivery of government services to citizens, businesses, and other government agencies. e-Governance encompasses a wide range of activities and actors, these include government-to-government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B), and government-to-citizen (G2C).
The benefits to be expected from e-Governance initiatives can be put into three major categories:
- Improve transparency, accountability, and democracy, which reduced levels of corruption,
- Citizen and business satisfaction and confidence with public services, and
- Improve achievement of economic and social policy outcomes (e.g. education, health, justice, welfare, industry development etc.)
e-Governance not only plays a critical role in building inclusive, resilient societies but also, enables citizens to interact and receive services from the federal government and local governments 24 hours a day, seven days a week – 24/7. In many respects, the government-to-citizen (G2C) segment represents the backbone of e-Governance. The G2C initiatives are designed to facilitate citizen interaction with government, which is recognize to be principal objective for good governance.
Despite the opportunities e-Governance offers, it also introduces new challenges. In recent times, Government of Pakistan (GoP) has demonstrated a real willingness to transform relationships between government services and citizens, particularly by strengthening the use of ICT and by offering services online, – (Digital Pakistan Vision). Civil society is also committed to implementing such initiatives to improve democratic governance using ICT.
On the other hand, despite the possible opportunities for implementation of e-Governance, Digital Pakistan initiatives, there are a number of challenges that could prevent the recognition of anticipated benefits. Some of the challenges, for instance disparities in computer and internet access, whether due to lack of financial resources or necessary skills, pre-existing systems and conditions, digital literacy (e-literacy) and more importantly electronic frauds (e-frauds).
The term ‘fraud’ commonly includes activities such as theft, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, bribery and extortion. From the perspective of e-fraud, it may be described as “Inducing a course of action by deceit or dishonest conduct, involving acts of omissions or the making of false statements, with the object of obtaining money or other benefit.” e-Fraud is also defined as a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain where some part of the communication between the victim and the fraudster is via a network and/or some action of the victim and/or the fraudster is performed on a computer network. As a matter of fact, e-fraud is not only technical and management problem but also a social problem.
In Pakistan, a citizen-centric approach (G2C e-governance) will enable the government to provide improved service qualities, which in turn develop the citizen satisfaction in democracy. However, due to a variety of technical, economic, and political reasons, e-Governance initiatives will take time to evolve into their full potential. Similarly, the exact scale of e-frauds (online or offline) being committed in Pakistan is currently unknown. Nevertheless, there are certain areas of concern regarding the “Digital Pakistan Policy – 2018”, for which the following recommendations are put forwarded for consideration in future reviews.
Digital Pakistan Policy must be practicable, outcome-focused, risk-based, citizen-centric, locally and globally relevant.
Policy makers must first educate themselves better with the respect to Internet of Things (IoTs), internet and cyber security along with electronic frauds (e-frauds), and formulate an effective anti e-fraud strategy within Digital Pakistan Policy.
Government must support the necessary research and development (R&D) to address digital issues (e.g. e-frauds and cyber-space ethics, network and cloud security etc.), and establish a program to educate citizenry about the digital ecosystem (e-literacy).
Government must overcome the obstacles to realistic, timely, actionable information sharing with all government institutions/departments and stakeholders.
Government must get its own house in order, continue its efforts to strengthen good governance with emphasis on merit-based institutional development and rule of law. And, exceptionally eliminate corruption and nepotism from the society.
EU and 16 WTO members agree to work together on an interim appeal arbitration arrangement
EU and Ministers from 16 Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have agreed to develop a multi-party interim appeal arrangement...
Questioning the Novelty of India’s New Normal
In recent years Indian notions of Pre-emption and so-called surgical strikes have been referred to as the ‘new normal’ by...
CTCN publication explores role of technology transfer in raising climate ambition
The Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) has published a report titled, ‘Climate Change Strategies 2020′, which highlights the role of technology transfer in...
From Scapegoat Back to Key Ally: Pakistan and the Perils of US Maximalism
In the two years since President Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing but deceit and lies, relations between both countries...
Mongolia, ADB Sign Grant to Develop Participatory Food Waste Recycling
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Government of Mongolia have signed a $3 million grant agreement to improve food...
India-Pakistan: Stitched in Multilateral Interests
Bilaterally botched relationship, Pakistan and India would be working together in an economic and strategic multilateral forum of Eurasia’s Shanghai...
EU steps up support in Nigeria for conflict victims
As millions of people continue to be affected by the conflict in Nigeria’s Lake Chad region, European Commissioner for Crisis...
East Asia2 days ago
Chinese pneumonia outbreak (2019-nCoV): An emerging threat to global public health?
Diplomacy3 days ago
Towards the Bolder Presence of OIC on global Arena
East Asia3 days ago
Tsai’s re-election Poses New Challenge to China
Economy2 days ago
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Promoting Perspectives from Pakistan
Newsdesk3 days ago
241 Companies Commit to Addressing the Disability Inclusion Gap with Valuable 500
Russia3 days ago
Putin and the “Xi Jinping” Model in Russia
South Asia2 days ago
Bangladesh’s Fantasy of a Developing Country Status in Perplexity
Energy News2 days ago
42 Global Organizations Agree on Guiding Principles for Batteries to Power Sustainable Energy Transition