Artificial intelligence (AI), a subset of machine learning, has the potential to drastically impact a nation’s national security in various ways. Coined as the next space race, the race for AI dominance is both intense and necessary for nations to remain primary in an evolving global environment. As technology develops so does the amount of virtual information and the ability to operate at optimal levels when taking advantage of this data. Furthermore, the proper use and implementation of AI can facilitate a nation in the achievement of information, economic, and military superiority – all ingredients to maintaining a prominent place on the global stage. According to Paul Scharre, “AI today is a very powerful technology. Many people compare it to a new industrial revolution in its capacity to change things. It is poised to change not only the way we think about productivity but also elements of national power.”AI is not only the future for economic and commercial power, but also has various military applications with regard to national security for each and every aspiring global power.
While the U.S. is the birthplace of AI, other states have taken a serious approach to research and development considering the potential global gains. Three of the world’s biggest players, U.S., Russia, and China, are entrenched in non-kinetic battle to out-pace the other in AI development and implementation. Moreover, due to the considerable advantages artificial intelligence can provide it is now a race between these players to master AI and integrate this capability into military applications in order to assert power and influence globally. As AI becomes more ubiquitous, it is no longer a next-generation design of science fiction. Its potential to provide strategic advantage is clear. Thus, to capitalize on this potential strategic advantage, the U.S. is seeking to develop a deliberate strategy to position itself as the permanent top-tier of AI implementation.
The current AI reality is near-peer competitors are leading or closing the gap with the U.S. Of note, Allen and Husain indicate the problem is exacerbated by a lack of AI in the national agenda, diminishing funds for science and technology funding, and the public availability of AI research. The U.S. has enjoyed a technological edge that, at times, enabled military superiority against near-peers. However, there is argument that the U.S. is losing grasp of that advantage. As Flournoy and Lyons indicate, China and Russia are investing massively in research and development efforts to produce technologies and capabilities “specifically designed to blunt U.S. strengths and exploit U.S. vulnerabilities.”
The technological capabilities once unique to the U.S. are now proliferated across both nation-states and other non-state actors. As Allen and Chan indicate, “initially, technological progress will deliver the greatest advantages to large, well-funded, and technologically sophisticated militaries. As prices fall, states with budget-constrained and less technologically-advanced militaries will adopt the technology, as will non-state actors.” As an example, the American use of unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan provided a technological advantage in the battle space. But as prices for this technology drop, non-state actors like the Islamic State is making noteworthy use of remotely-controlled aerial drones in its military operations. While the aforementioned is part of the issue, more concerning is the fact that the Department of Defense (DoD) and U.S. defense industry are no longer the epicenter for the development of next-generation advancements. Rather, the most innovative development is occurring more with private commercial companies. Unlike China and Russia, the U.S. government cannot completely direct the activities of industry for purely governmental/military purposes. This has certainly been a major factor in closing the gap in the AI race.
Furthermore, the U.S. is falling short to China in the quantity of studies produced regarding AI, deep-learning, and big data. For example, the number of AI-related papers submitted to the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) in 2017 indicated China totaled a majority 37 percent, whereas the U.S. took third position at only 18 percent. While quantity is not everything (U.S. researchers were awarded the most awards at IJCAI 2017, for example), China’s industry innovations were formally marked as “astonishing.”For these reasons, there are various strategic challenges the U.S. must seek to overcome to maintain its lead in the AI race.
Each of the three nations have taken divergent perspectives on how to approach and define this problem. However, one common theme among them is the understanding of AI’s importance as an instrument of international competitiveness as well as a matter of national security. Sadler writes, “failure to adapt and lead in this new reality risks the U.S. ability to effectively respond and control the future battlefield.” However, the U.S. can longer “spend its way ahead of these challenges.” The U.S. has developed what is termed the third offset, which Louth and Taylor defined as a policy shift that is a radical strategy to reform the way the U.S. delivers defense capabilities to meet the perceived challenges of a fundamentally changed threat environment. The continuous development and improvement of AI requires a comprehensive plan and partnership with industry and academia. To cage this issue two DOD-directed studies, the Defense Science Board Summer Study on Autonomy and the Long-Range Research and Development Planning Program, highlighted five critical areas for improvement: (1) autonomous deep-learning systems,(2) human-machine collaboration, (3) assisted human operations, (4) advanced human-machine combat teaming, and (5) network-enabled semi-autonomous weapons.
Similar to the U.S., Russian leadership has stated the importance of AI on the modern battlefield. Russian President Vladimir Putin commented, “Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere (AI) will become the ruler of the world.” Not merely rhetoric, Russia’s Chief of General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, also predicted “a future battlefield populated with learning machines.” As a result of the Russian-Georgian war, Russia developed a comprehensive military modernization plan. Of note, a main staple in the 2008 modernization plan was the development of autonomous military technology and weapon systems. According to Renz, “The achievements of the 2008 modernization program have been well-documented and were demonstrated during the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.”
China, understanding the global impact of this issue, has dedicated research, money, and education to a comprehensive state-sponsored plan. China’s State Council published a document in July of 2017 entitled, “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan.” It laid out a plan that takes a top-down approach to explicitly mapout the nation’s development of AI, including goals reaching all the way to 2030. Chinese leadership also highlights this priority as they indicate the necessity for AI development:
AI has become a new focus of international competition. AI is a strategic technology that will lead in the future; the world’s major developed countries are taking the development of AI as a major strategy to enhance national competitiveness and protect national security; intensifying the introduction of plans and strategies for this core technology, top talent, standards and regulations, etc.; and trying to seize the initiative in the new round of international science and technology competition. (China’s State Council 2017).
The plan addresses everything from building basic AI theory to partnerships with industry to fostering educational programs and building an AI-savvy society.
Recommendations to foster the U.S.’s AI advancement include focusing efforts on further proliferating Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)programs to develop the next generation of developers. This is similar to China’s AI development plan which calls to “accelerate the training and gathering of high-end AI talent.” This lofty goal creates sub-steps, one of which is to construct an AI academic discipline. While there are STEM programs in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Education, “The United States is falling behind internationally, ranking 29th in math and 22nd in science among industrialized nations.” To maintain the top position in AI, the U.S. must continue to develop and attract the top engineers and scientists. This requires both a deliberate plan for academic programs as well as funding and incentives to develop and maintain these programs across U.S. institutions. Perhaps most importantly, the United States needs to figure out a strategy to entice more top American students to invest their time and attention to this proposed new discipline. Chinese and Russian students easily outpace American students in this area, especially in terms of pure numbers.
Additionally, the U.S. must research and capitalize on the dual-use capabilities of AI. Leading companies such as Google and IBM have made enormous headway in the development of algorithms and machine-learning. The Department of Defense should levy these commercial advances to determine relevant defense applications. However, part of this partnership with industry must also consider the inherent national security risks that AI development can present, thus introducing a regulatory role for commercial AI development. Thus, the role of the U.S. government with AI industry cannot be merely as a consumer, but also as a regulatory agent. The dangerous risk, of course, is this effort to honor the principles of ethical and transparent development will not be mirrored in the competitor nations of Russia and China.
Due to the population of China and lax data protection laws, the U.S. has to develop innovative ways to overcome this challenge in terms of machine-learning and artificial intelligence. China’s large population creates a larger pool of people to develop as engineers as well as generates a massive volume of data to glean from its internet users. Part of this solution is investment. A White House report on AI indicated, “the entire U.S. government spent roughly $1.1 billion on unclassified AI research and development in 2015, while annual U.S. government spending on mathematics and computer science R&D is $3 billion.” If the U.S. government considers AI an instrument of national security, then it requires financial backing comparable to other fifth-generation weapon systems. Furthermore, innovative programs such as the DOD’s Project Maven must become a mainstay.
Project Maven, a pilot program implemented in April 2017, was mandated to produce algorithms to combat big data and provide machine-learning to eliminate the manual human burden of watching full-motion video feeds. The project was expected to provide algorithms to the battlefield by December of 2018 and required partnership with four unnamed startup companies. The U.S. must implement more programs like this that incite partnership with industry to develop or re-design current technology for military applications. To maintain its technological advantage far into the future the U.S. must facilitate expansive STEM programs, seek to capitalize on the dual-use of some AI technologies, provide fiscal support for AI research and development, and implement expansive, innovative partnership programs between industry and the defense sector. Unfortunately, at the moment, all of these aspects are being engaged and invested in only partially. Meanwhile, countries like Russia and China seem to be more successful in developing their own versions, unencumbered by ‘obstacles’ like democracy, the rule of law, and the unfettered free-market competition. The AI Race is upon us. And the future seems to be a wild one indeed.
Allen, Greg, and Taniel Chan. “Artificial Intelligence and National Security.” Publication. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. July 2017. Accessed April 9, 2018. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/AI%20NatSec%20-%20final.pdf
Allen, John R., and Amir Husain. “The Next Space Race is Artificial Intelligence.” Foreign Policy. November 03, 2017. Accessed April 09, 2018. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/03/the-next-space-race-is-artificial-intelligence-and-america-is-losing-to-china/.
China. State Council. Council Notice on the Issuance of the Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan. July 20, 2017. Translated by RogierCreemers, Graham Webster, Paul, Paul Triolo and Elsa Kania.
Doubleday, Justin. 2017. “Project Maven’ Sending First FMV Algorithms to Warfighters in December.” Inside the Pentagon’s Inside the Army 29 (44). Accessed April 1, 2018.https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1960494552?accountid=8289.
Flournoy, Michèle A., and Robert P. Lyons. “Sustaining and Enhancing the US Military’s Technology Edge.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 10, no. 2 (2016): 3-13. Accessed April 12, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271502.
Gams, Matjaz. 2017. “Editor-in-chief’s Introduction to the Special Issue on “Superintelligence”, AI and an Overview of IJCAI 2017.” Accessed April 14, 2018. Informatica 41 (4): 383-386.
Louth, John, and Trevor Taylor. 2016. “The US Third Offset Strategy.” RUSI Journal 161 (3): 66-71. DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2016.1193360.
Sadler, Brent D. 2016. “Fast Followers, Learning Machines, and the Third Offset Strategy.” JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly no. 83: 13-18. Accessed April 13, 2018. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.
Scharre, Paul, and SSQ. “Highlighting Artificial Intelligence: An Interview with Paul Scharre Director, Technology and National Security Program Center for a New American Security Conducted 26 September 2017.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 11, no. 4 (2017): 15-22. Accessed April 10, 2018.http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271632.
“Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership.” Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. U.S. Department of Education. Accessed April 15, 2018. https://www.ed.gov/stem.
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.
2019 second hottest year on record
Last year was the second warmest year on record, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed on Wednesday. “The average global temperature has...
Drought in southern Africa: EU releases over €22 million in humanitarian aid
The European Commission is mobilising a humanitarian aid package of €22.8 million to help address emergency food needs and support...
5 Thrilling Reasons to Visit Four Seasons Hotel Montreal This Winter
When it comes to winter destinations, Montreal tops the lists of many travellers from all corners of the world. The...
Escalating to De-Escalate: From Balakot to Ain al-Asad
With tensions between the United States and Iran dramatically escalating just days into the new year, the risks of a...
Social Entrepreneurs Have Improved 622 Million Lives
Over the past 20 years, social entrepreneurs working in partnership with the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship have improved the...
The battle for Libya: The UAE calls the shots
This week’s inauguration of a new Red Sea Egyptian military base was pregnant with the symbolism of the rivalries shaping...
Implementing peace deal only path for stabilization in Mali
Implementation of the 2015 peace agreement in Mali provides the only pathway for stabilization there, the head of UN peacekeeping told the Security Council on Wednesday. Jean-Pierre Lacroix updated ambassadors...
Green Planet2 days ago
Larry Fink’s letter to CEOs: Climate change finance goes mainstream, finally
Middle East2 days ago
Berlin Conference on Libya
Middle East3 days ago
Iran crisis: A high-stakes bet on who blinks first
Defense3 days ago
Trump is sending NATO east – the Middle East
Tourism3 days ago
DiscoverEU: 20,000 more young people will explore Europe in 2020
International Law2 days ago
Applicability of international law for justice: Remarks on Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan Seeks Peace in the Region as well as Globally
South Asia1 day ago
Justifying a Pakistani Response to India’s Hybrid Warfare Campaign