After weeks of Google’s community standard guidelines made headlines, the Digital Industry Group Inc. (Australia based NGO) rejected proposals from the regulating body based in the southern hemisphere. The group claimed that regulating “fake news” would make the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a moral police institution. In late August, Google itself forbade its employees from indulging in the dissemination of inadequate information or one that involved internal debates. From the outset, the picture is a bit confusing. After the events in Australia, Google’s latest act of disciplinary intrusion seems all but galvanizing from certain interests or interest groups.
A year earlier, Google was shaken by claims of protecting top-level executives from sexual crimes; the issue took a serious turn and almost deteriorated company operations. If anything but Google’s development from the horror of 2018 clearly suggests a desperate need from the hierarchy to curb actions that could potentially damage the interests of several stakeholders. There is no comprehensive evidence to suggest that Google had a view on how the regulations were proposed in Australia. After all, until proven otherwise, all whistleblowing social media posts and comments are at one point of time, “fake”. Although the global giant has decided to discontinue all forms of unjustifiable freedom inside its premises; however, it does profit by providing the platform for activism and all forms of censure. The Digital Industry Group wants the freedom to encourage digital creative contents, but Google’s need to publish a community guideline looks more of a defensive shield against uncertainties.
On its statement, the disciplinary clause, significantly mentions about the actions that will be taken against staffs providing information that goes around Google’s internal message boards. In 2017, female employees inside the Google office were subjected to discrimination based on the “gender-ness” of working positions. Kevin Kernekee, an ex-employee, who was fired in 2018, confirmed that staff bullying was at the core of such messaging platforms. Growing incidents inside Google and its recent community stance are but only fuelling assumptions about the ghost that is surrounding the internet giant’s reputation. Consequently, from the consumer’s point of view, an instable organization of such global stature is an alarm.
The dissidents at Google are not to be blamed entirely. As many would argue, the very foundation of the company was based on the values of expression at work. The nature of access stipulated into Google’s interface is another example of what it stands for, at least in the eyes of consumers. Stakeholders would not wish for an internal turmoil; it would be against the enormous amount of trust invested into the workings of the company. If google can backtrack from its core values upon higher forces, consumers cannot expect anything different. Google is not merely a search engine; for almost half of the internet users, it is almost everything.
“Be responsible, Be helpful, Be thoughtful”. These phrases are the opening remarks from the newly engineered community guideline. As it claims in the document, three principles govern the core values at Google. Upon closer inspection, it also sounds as if the values are only based on what it expects from the people working for the company. A global company that can resort to disciplining its staff via written texts can also trim the rights of its far-reaching consumer groups. It might only be the beginning but the tail is on fire.
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.
CAR Economic Update: A Call for Domestic Revenue Mobilization to Sustain Growth
The second edition of the Central African Republic (CAR) Economic Update, which was published today by the World Bank, examines...
Afghanistan Improves its Growth Despite Uncertainty
Afghanistan’s economy grew by an estimated 2.9 percent in 2019, driven mainly by strong agricultural growth following recovery from drought,...
Shaping the Conference on the Future of Europe
European Commission set out its ideas for shaping the Conference on the Future of Europe, which should be launched on...
The Battle for the Indian Ocean and Island States
Russia has taken an increasing interest in strengthening consistently its diplomacy with small island States especially Cape Verde, Mauritius, Maldives...
Principal Trends in the Development of Eurasian Integration
The development of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2019 was once again marked by deepening integration and the expansion of...
Tourism Can Be Key Part of New EU Green Deal
The Green Deal will form an integral part of the Commission’s strategy to implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its...
The children’s Continent: Keeping up with Africa’s growth
The world’s population is growing, but it is in Africa where this challenge is particularly acute. We know Africa as...
South Asia2 days ago
Bangladesh’s Fantasy of a Developing Country Status in Perplexity
East Asia3 days ago
Chinese pneumonia outbreak (2019-nCoV): An emerging threat to global public health?
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan Facing New Type of Hybrid War
Environment2 days ago
Fifteen Years to Save the Amazon Rainforest from Becoming Savannah
Energy News3 days ago
42 Global Organizations Agree on Guiding Principles for Batteries to Power Sustainable Energy Transition
Newsdesk3 days ago
Launch of Davos Friends of Africa Growth Platform
Reports2 days ago
The Reskilling Revolution: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Education for a Billion People by 2030
Tech News3 days ago
Central Banks ‘Waking Up’ to Digital Currency, Create New Framework for CBDC Deployment