Information Weaponsied in the Ukraine War

Russia-Ukraine war is not the first war of the Information age but it certainly marks the beginning of a new and dangerous trend in Information Warfare. The ease with which more than half of the world’s population is being denied to their basic right – the right to freedom of ‘opinion’ and ‘expression,’ the way 4.9 billion internet users have been made hostage to tech platforms’ filtered worldview (on the click of a mouse), must be a matter of concern for all responsible countries of the world!

The plight of Ukrainians is heart-wrenching and cannot be justified but that is one side of the War, and knowing the other side, no matter whether it’s black or white, comes under the most celebrated definition of individual freedom as well!

From the beginning, it appears that for the Big Tech club, this war offers a perfect moral terrain to test their enormous digital might (accumulated over the years) – to see how much their improvisation can influence social, political, and geopolitical events to shape the destiny of a War, in real-time! But what if this pilot completed successfully? Will it be called the loss of Russia alone!

Recent Developments

On 16th March, while introducing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to U.S. Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (in an emotional gesture) led the members of the house in chanting “Slava Ukraini” (Glory to Ukraine). The virtual address of Ukraine’s social media star President aired live, received millions of views, likes, comments, re-tweets, impressions, and shares across the world. Within a few minutes of the live stream, almost all major social media platforms got flooded with public reactions/emotions in the support of Zelenskyy and an equal proportion of hatred against Russian President Vladimir Putin. From the beginning, Zelenskyy’s moves tok the internet by storm, and everything related to him was ‘viral’ on social media platforms, and that was, perhaps, a sufficient reason to hail the ‘glory’ of a President, whose country was in the middle of a war!

Before ending his speech, Zelenskyy played a 2 min 20 seconds video too, where mass devastation of his country by Russian troops, along with scenes of good old days and present scenario were presented in a single frame (with slow music in the background). The video was so perfectly composed that it makes one wonder whether the Ukrainian President is sitting inside a bunker with his troops (from where he often posts pictures and videos on his Instagram/Twitter/YouTube/Facebook etc.) or with his ‘Kvartal-95’ studio staff!

If the Russia-Ukraine war would have been a movie or a reality show, it would have been declared a global blockbuster by far and Zelenskyy would have been nominated for an Oscar 2022 (through online voting lines)! But unfortunately, this is not the case. In between these much-celebrated ‘glories’, standing ovations, routine social media lives, and heroic press conferences; there are some grim realities of War and some real numbers that exist too.

War has already caused grave damage to common Ukrainians, their properties, infrastructure, and source of livelihood are severely destroyed. According to a recent UN report, War in Ukraine damaged over $100 billion worth of infrastructure and inflicted hundreds of civilian and military causalities. And if the conflict drags on, it risks creating a “devastating freefall into poverty” and “extreme vulnerability” for millions of people. There are also estimates that if the War protracted at the current pace, the rest of the world will soon start feeling the heat as well, and all prospects of post-Covid global economic recovery will get seriously affected!

But far from all these real-life challenges, the Ukrainian President is busy fighting a different kind of war.

Weapon of Mass ‘Deception’ and New Front Lines

It is said that “control people’s perceptions of reality and you control them.” Applying aggressive PR campaigns to deceive the real objectives/status of the War, is a part of a long and tested Western strategy. But what has changed now is that this time it turned more open, blunt, precise, and real-time, with the help of big tech platforms and their political/diplomatic executives.

It is interesting that when Russian troops marched toward Ukrainian borders, Zelensky sent an SOS call to Meta executives to block Russia’s media outlets from posting to Facebook in Ukraine and to cut off Facebook and Instagram in Russia itself. Nick Clegg, former deputy Prime Minister, United Kingdom, and current Policy Affairs head of Meta (who was promoted to the position a few days before the War) responded to that call by not only blocking Russian Media in Ukraine but by making ‘temporary’ changes in the platform’s overall policy toward hate speech too (so that Ukrainian can post ‘death threats’ to Russians and Putin). According to Bloomberg’s report, from the beginning of war, Clegg is in constant touch with Zelensky and his staff, he is sending them regular updates over emails, and facilitating them by providing additional features such as blocking pro-Russian accounts, hiding their friend lists, and blocking ads from Russian businesses, etc.

When asked an explanation for such motivated moves by Russian prosecutor, Nick Clegg tweeted that: “Our policies are focused on protecting people’s rights to speech as an expression of self-defense in reaction to a military invasion of their country.”

Now the question comes if media which Russian government controls is called ‘state-controlled,’ then how Meta can be called ‘free’ medium, after such politically motivated steps and ‘special gestures,’ taken by a former political executive?

It is interesting that for every social media/big tech product that the Russian government blocks in their country, there are VPNs and Onion Routers kind of service protocols to surpass that and to open the gates of the dark web for Russians but when a normal internet user, sitting in a third country, try to access Russian media outlets from Google, a “403 – Forbidden. That’s an error,” message returns to their screen (as an extra token for the so-called liberty)!

Volunteer Hackers and Digital Mercenaries

On 27th February, Mykhailo Fedorov, Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine and Minister of Digital Transformation, called out all hackers of the world to join Ukraine’s “IT Army,” and help the country to fight on the cyber front. On the same day, pro-Ukrainian hacktivists of the infamous ‘Anonymous’ hacker group launched a series of cyberattacks against websites of the Russian government, their financial institutions, media, and businesses. Within 48 hours, they claimed to take down over 300 Russian government platforms. As per the latest updates, more than 300,000 volunteer hackers (mostly millennials and teenagers) from different parts of the world have already joined the fight from Ukraine’s side. Through a telegram group “IT Army of Ukraine”, these volunteers are coordinating with each other, disrupting Russia and the neighboring Belarus government and their critical infrastructure, including Railways, and electricity grids, sharing the location coordinates of Russian tanks and troops with Ukrainian forces, and launching simultaneous propaganda war against Russia, with a simple and innocent claim- “they are fighting for what is right and what is truth.”

Covering the key in charge of this entire campaign, Mykhailo Fedorov, The New York Times article (published on 12th March) says: “The work has made Mr. Fedorov one of Mr. Zelensky’s most visible lieutenants, deploying technology and finance as modern weapons of war.” In fact, “Mr. Fedorov is creating a new playbook for military conflicts that shows how an outgunned country can use the internet, crypto, digital activism and frequent posts on Twitter to help undercut a foreign aggressor.”

Now Mykhailo Fedorov has a new request, which he again tweeted from his official account: “If Apple and Google notify all the smartphones in the world about the constant Russian shelling of Ukraine, all the people would force their governments to close the sky over Ukraine because of war horrors.”

From a simplistic view, it appears healthy participation of pro-active internet users to bring down the evil army of invaders but what if this trend becomes the new normal! Can the trend of running such a global war recruitment exercise and activism campaign, on the basis of morality and truth, bypassing all geopolitical talks/negotiations/efforts and other sovereign nations’ own national interests, be called moral and just, in all the cases, all the time? And what if in the future, some real terror regime will start a similar open hacking cum social campaign against the world? Then what would be the moral basis to fight against that kind of war?

Smartphones, Fast Internet, and Influencers cum War Fighters

On 18th March, a video of the Ukrainian president went viral on media, when he paid a visit to civilians wounded by attacks on Ukraine, at a hospital in the capital Kyiv and met a teenage girl receiving treatment for shrapnel wounds. Seeing the president next to her, the little girl started crying out of joy, and then she told the Ukrainian Premier how he is popular on “TikTok,” adding: “everyone supports you in TikTok,” it prompted Zelensky to smile and he joked: “Yes? So we have occupied TikTok?” The girl replied, “all talks are about you, it is all about you.”

This light-hearted moment is, unfortunately, the reality of common Ukrainians at the moment, which is also called the first “TikTok War” of our time! The country is under serious attack but Elon Musk’s Starlink’s fast internet services are healing the wounds of Ukrainians with TikTok, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube, Twitter, and FB lives.

From the beginning of the War, social networks have been flooded with videos from Ukrainian civilians documenting their live experiences of War, and the images of women and teenagers/kids posing for selfies, shooting ‘TikTok’ videos (wrapped in blankets in underground bunkers, army tanks in the streets, and so on.), playing music instruments amid the debris of buildings destroyed by shelling, etc. are going viral everywhere. Ukrainian social media influencers, who usually post videos of their travel, fashion, movies, foods, etc., have now started sharing their war experiences posing with combat gears and machine guns and they have virtually turned into ‘war-fighters’ on the battlefields of social networks.

If this social influencing game would have played out between the two countries, then it would still be called OK, but the problem lies in the unfair acceleration of this trend, at the global level. While on one hand, all major social networks have restricted Russian content from their platforms, on the other hand, they encouraged battalions of social media influencers (Ukrainians/Non-Ukrainians) to run a one-sided campaign against Russia.

We must note that there are millions of social influencers (cum paid workers of tech clubs) with direct access to billions of smartphone users! Encouraging them to leverage their access to spread propaganda for objectives of a War, under the guise of morality, truth, democracy, freedom, and ‘western values,’ kind of things, is certainly more dangerous than the state-controlled propaganda machines!

State Controlled vs. Internet Controlled

The Russian news editor, who unfurled an anti-war sign behind the newsreader on a live TV show and flashed a placard with words like: “Stop the war,” and “Don’t believe the propaganda. They are lying to you here,” earned a social media star and international celebrity status overnight for her ‘daring’ act of speaking against the government and army of her country (from Zelensky to Macron, everyone praised her for this act). But the question is- Will a regular internet user who expresses his/her views in support of Russia, be allowed to become a celebrity/influencer on the U.S.-controlled tech platforms? Forget about expressing support for Russia, even accessing the Russian side of the story is being completely forbidden in the so-called platforms of freedom and democracy!

So what is worse, State-controlled media or Big Tech club-controlled internet?

Occupying the moral ‘High Grounds’

It is often said that wars of self-interest usually end when the winner’s interests are satisfied but wars of morality are often “longer and bloodier.”

In 2009, while launching NATO’s new strategic concept, former US Defense Sectary James Mattis said: “we need a new Strategic Concept that reconciles war’s grim realities with the human aspirations of our own people and the global audience,” as changing character of war in the information age will require military forces that recognize that “capturing perceptions” is the new ‘high Ground’ in today’s conflicts, as “the moral is to the material as three is to one.”

From the beginning of the War, the focus of Ukraine is on holding the moral high grounds with the help of information weapons- Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Telegram and TikTok and they certainly have an edge here. But there is an interesting side of this superficial moral high ground as well.

From Churchill to World War II’s ‘Darkest Hour’ to Pearl Harbor to ‘9/11,’ to Terrorism to Third World War, in his speeches, Zelenskyy- the moral warrior of the social media age, is using every occasion to call out his allies and partners to turn this war into a global crusade for democracy, liberty, peace, and freedom! But at the same time, with the full support of the narration industry behind his back, he is quite assured that he will never be called an ‘aggressor,’ a term which is more frequently used for the Russian President (who on the contrary consistently cautioning the world to refrain from contributing to any kind of escalation).

Influence on India

In his article “To Be or NATO be: Putin’s War on Ukraine Is Also a Western Creation,” former foreign secretary, Kanwal Sibal writes: “The propaganda against India by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist and so on shows that a free press is no guarantee of objective information.”

The approach of Indian media (print/electronic/social) in this entire event exposed our vulnerability and vacuum in the narration industry too, Kanwal Sibal summarized our situation more precisely when he wrote: “The Ukrainian crisis has also exposed how our own press is incapable of reporting responsibly on international affairs. It is treating the Russian assault on Ukraine as a quasi-assault on India, with an outpouring of emotional sympathy for Ukraine and castigation of Russia as the aggressor, ignoring the complex causes of the conflict and the need for mature, balanced, and factual reporting, with due consideration of not being entirely out of line with the country’s foreign policy interests in search of TRPs.”

This war has many lessons for the countries like India, where not only in traditional media but on new-age tech platforms too, the western bloc has an absolute and ever-increasing dominance!

We observed that how social media policies can be relaxed for ‘violent speech,’ tech mercenaries (army of hackers) can be recruited online, funds to run the War can be crowd-sourced via crypto, releasing coordinates of troops movement to enemies has become the new definition of morality, and the War itself turn into a military show streaming 24/7 in smartphones, now should we continue to enjoy this free entertainment or take some steps for the future war preparedness?

What Next – Weaponization of AI?

In the Russia-Ukraine crisis, one thing which comes out in open is that every single western product or idea – from food to money to social media to technology is a potential strategic weapon! And a decision on how, when, and where to launch it, will not be taken by voting in the UN!

If the weaponization of information via social networks is capable to attack the ‘wetware’ of billions of people, what would be the scale of damage when AI will be weaponized in the future? We must note that all these tech platforms already have inbuilt AI capabilities, it is only a matter of convenience and choice of Big Tech and their PR staff to leverage it for their goals or not!

With 100 percent market access, we have given a free pass to Big Tech club in our Narration Industry (and their related economy) but what would be our future options when AI would be weaponized against our own strategic interests? And how are we planning to tackle that situation?

The post Mass Deception as a new kind of warfare appeared first on IMR.

The present multi-domain warfare and impending theaterisation demand coordination and integration across all domains. Communication enables this coordination with real time interaction and transmission of data amongst the fighting forces in all domains. All this is facilitated now with digitisation of the communication in all dimensions.

The aim of Digitisation and Network Centric Operations (NCO) in the Armed Forces webinar & virtual expo was to provide a forum for the stakeholders in the Services and Industry to enable information exchange on latest technologies particularly relating to the digitisation in the Army, effective network-centric operations, C4ISR, communication systems, decision support information systems for exchange of data and big Data including its challenges and vulnerabilities, the space domain and impact of new technologies (5G, IoT, AI, VR/AR) on warfare.

The event brought together stakeholders from the armed forces, DRDO, public sector, industry and academia and provided them a platform to present their views and discuss pathways.

Inaugural Session

Welcome Address. Lt Gen Sunil Srivastava, Director, Centre for Joint Warfare Studies put the theme of the Webinar in context and highlighted the present multidomain warfighting environment. He emphasized that digitization and net-centric operations were the core of battlefield dominance. All actors were leveraging digitization and NCO by weaponising information technology. He said that we must embrace digital jointness to unlock the digital battle space. Seamless sharing of warfighting information will generate shared operational awareness, effects and tempo which we could use to our advantage to paralise the adversaries OODA cycle. There is a need to seamlessly share info, link sensors & shooters and decision makers, even in a degraded environment, aggregating the combat capabilities of Services while remaining physically disaggregated. C2 Agility brings Force Agility which enhances Force Effectiveness.

Special Address. Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, Chief of Integrated Staff to Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (CISC) spoke of the contextual relevance of the webinar with the urgent operational need of Services to move forward towards joint networking and digitisation especially as our adversaries and particularly the Northern neighbour was already exploiting it, leaving no choice but to move forward at a faster pace in this direction. He opined that in modern warfighting the one who dominates in the information domain will stand to win. Space and cyber domains while being independent also influence operations in other domains. In his address, he brought out the relevance of satellite surveillance and satellite communication and several new technologies such as 5G, Artificial intelligence etc., all of which enhance the warfighting capability.

Keynote Address. Lt Gen Upendra Dwivedi, Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Information Systems & Communications), Army HQ gave the Keynote Address and an outline of new initiatives and consolidation of the earlier efforts undertaken by the Indian Army in its journey towards induction of modern technology for conduct of military affairs at all levels involving operational, logistics and human resources. He talked of new generation technologies like Artificial intelligence, 5G, Quantum technology, Robotics, drones and so on. In this journey, the Army is also coordinating with several agencies under the Ministry of information technology, DRDO and academic institutions like IITs and has ordered studies and conducting seminars to remain in step with the new technologies for conduct of military affairs both in peace and war. He was critical of the long process of our defence procurement since by the time products are inducted, these are at the verge of obsolescence. To infuse efficiency in the process, he suggested to pin point accountability for the delays in the procurement process and also suggested a layered GSQR concept which would give time to the concerned staff to introduce workable amendment in the GSQRs so as to stay abreast with the technology. As regards communication, he informed that, as dug in cable communication remains vulnerable, the focus now is on wireless and digitised communication and net centricity between services. He mentioned that an integrated operational and intelligence system will facilitate Theaterisation.

Technology Perspective. Dr Ranjana N, Director, Directorate of Systems and Technology Analysis (DSTA), DRDO HQ, pointed out that digitisation was inevitable. She said that data was a strategic asset. Improved knowledge at all levels could naturally lead to integration in all layers of operations which may even call for changes in the tactics and doctrines. Data must be protected and managed to attain immediate and long-term strategic advantage to the military. Designing of systems is a challenge since it not only has to be robust in hardware and software but, their modularity and scalability is also essential. Cyber hardening of storage, NW and Sensors is equally important. Obsolescence of equipment and their upgradation is big challenge. We are constrained to run old systems with systems of new technologies. Thus, along with old systems, we should able to operate/integrate new sensors and technologies such as 5/6G, AI, big data etc. She cautioned that conceptualisation is the big challenge since the product may not exactly be as visualised. Further, layered architecture and modularity are the key to the modern comn equipment and will have to be developed indigenously. She highlighted that DRDO is working on GIS, Adhoc NW, MANETS, SDR, EW, AI, XL-UUVs, change detection and mine hunting.

Industry Perspective. Col KV Kuber, Director Defence & Aerospace, Ernst & Young gave the industry perspective. He asserted that COVID-19 pandemic had forced digitisation in the country including in the Services. He felt that digitisation in the Services was lagging behind the civil side. Therefore, the pace of digitisation in the Services needed to be hastened particularly in procurement, which could be faster with digitisation. He said that since legacy systems could not be changed in one go, digitisation should be able to integrate the old legacy systems as well. Compatibility, interoperability and backward integration were important. He highlighted the AKANKSHA model of DRDO. He recommended adoption of the waterfall/Agile approach and exhorted that procurement should not be an imprisoned by procedures.

Session 2 was earmarked for Digitisation issues related to the Army. The session was chaired by Lt Gen Dr RS Panwar, former Commandant of Military Collete of Telecom Engineering. Brig Ulhas Kirpekar, Brig Information Systems, Army HQ spoke on “The Digital Army and Initiatives.” Maj Gen K Shankar, Additional Director General Telecom in the Directorate of Signals, Army HQ spoke on the “Role of Army Cloud Centre and Digi Locker.” Brig SS Soin, Brig Telecom, Signals Directorate, Army HQ gave a presentation on “Future of ASCON and AREN Networks.”

The theme of Session 3 was Network Centric Operations and was chaired by Vice Adm Shekhar Sinha, former FOC-in-C Western Naval Command. Capt JS Sachdeva, Captain NCO, Naval HQ spoke on “Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap requirements of the Navy for NCO.” Col Vineet Jaiswal, from Directorate of Information Systems gave the “Technology Perspective and Capability Roadmap requirements of the Army for NCO.” Air Cmde KN Santosh, Principal Director, Operational Networks, Air HQ spoke on “IAF Technology Perspective & Capability Roadmap requirements.” Gp Capt Parijat Saurabh, Air HQ spoke on “Meeting Electronic Warfare Threats.”

Session 4 was on C4ISR, Command & Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence. The session chairman was Lt Gen PJS Pannu, former Dy Chief IDS (Operations). Dr K Rajalakshmi Menon, Program Director (ISTAR), Centre for Airborne Studies, DRDO gave a talk on “ISTARS for Indian Armed Forces.” Col Abhijit Singh, Colonel Artillery-9, in the Directorate of Artillery, spoke on “Aerostats for surveillance and C2.”  Gp Capt P Batra, Gp Capt (Airborne Sensors & Networking), Air HQ gave a talk on “Airborne Early Warning Aircraft as Force Multipliers.”

Session 5 was devoted to Communication Systems. Lt Gen Rajeev Sabherwal, former SOC-in-C and Commandant MCTE chaired the session. Col Gurmeet Singh, HQ IDS, gave a talk on “Tri-Services Strategic / Operational Communications.” Brig Rajiv Singh, Brig Tactical Communication Systems, from Signals Directorate spoke on “Battlefield Tri-Services Tactical Communications.” Himansu Kumar Swamy, Scientist E, Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research, DRDO spoke on “Maritime Data analysis & visualization.”

Session 6 was on Information, Data and Big Data – Challenges and Vulnerabilities. The session was chaired by Maj Gen Pritam Bishnoi, former Additional DG Tactical Communications, Signals Directorate, Army HQ. Brig Inder Sethi, Brig CICP, Ordnance Services Directorate spoke on “Data Sovereignty and Big Data Analytics.” Devsena Mishra, Promoter Advanced Technologies gave a talk on “How Big Data and Big Tech undermine national security.” Maj Gen Manjit Singh, Joint Secretary (Cyber) NSC Secretariat gave a talk on “Emerging cyber security threats.”

Session 7 dealt with Space Domination and Satellites under the chairmanship of Lt Gen Satish Dua, former CISC. Air Cmde Prem Kumar, from the Defence Space Agency spoke on “Requirement of robust space situational awareness.” Gp Capt Amarendra Samal, Gp Capt Operations (Space), Air HQ gave a talk on “Steering India towards military space domination.” Capt Manish Kumar, Capt NSO-SA, Naval HQ gave a presentation on “Security of satellite-based Communication networks.”

Session 8 covered New Technologies – 5G, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality/ Augmented Reality and was chaired by Lt Gen MU Nair, Commandant MCTE. Dr Santu Sardar, Director DRDO Young Scientists Lab gave a talk on “Relevance of Quantum Communications Technology for Armed Forces.” Brig Navjot Singh Bedi, Commander Defence Communications Agency. Spoke on “Relevance of 5G for the armed forces.”  Maj Gen Harsh Chibber, Maj Gen ASC HQ Western Command spoke on “Transforming and Reducing Costs of Military Logistics Through IoT.”

The Closing Remarks were given by Lt Gen Sunil Srivastava, Director CENJOWS while the Vote of Thanks was delivered by Maj Gen Ravi Arora, Chief Editor, Indian Military Review.

Key Points Needing Attention

The key points which emerged in the eight sessions of the webinar are tabulated below:-

• Theaterisation would need tri-service digital infrastructure to support seamless op, decision support structure and battlefield management & C2 constructs.            

•  One of the challenges in integration is to have an attitudinal change towards automation and adopting agile processes. This also involves breaking away from silos.                                                                                                                 

•  The architecture of NCO system will require individual Service data centres and secure linkages with the joint regional data centre with a robust and secure cloud storage. The cloud storage will reduce the burden of forward fighting formations, which could retrieve relevant information, as required.

• The ongoing transformation in the strategic and tactical communication network i.e., Army Static Switched Communication Network (ASCON) to Network for Spectrum (NFS) and Army Radio Engineered Network (AREN) to Tactical Communication System (TCS) with overarching presence of satellite communication must continue to achieve the transformational targets. In that, the fibre optics based NFS is the back bone and integrator of three services. This is planned to be supplemented with satellites and microwave communication to extend it till the forward edge of the battle through TCS.

•   Besides three Services, the data and information also emanate from several other sources and also from other domains such as space, cyber etc in different formats which need standardisation.

•  To pick up relevant intelligence, about the adversary’s capabilities / limitations, information sharing will not only be between Services but, could even be from other national/ international sources. This requires synergy with various national and international organisations. With introduction of core strategic network NFS, the Army, Naval and Air force Strategic networks should handshake with it for integration of their data, video and voice communication.                

•  It is important to invest in infrastructure for safe, secure and seamless joint operations with holistic evolution in organisations, doctrine, strategy and tactics.

•   Legal Aspects of Warfighting. We also need to invest in legal aspects of war fighting which are often ignored or do not get due attention.                                                                                                                                  

•   IACCS. Indigenous IACCS of Indian Air Force in its 10 years of operations and in quite robust. Phase 5 would be implemented now. Trigun and Akash Teer projects of Sister services when linked to this system will enhance NCW capability of the Services hence, must be pursued actively.

•   Slow Modernisation. One major challenge is to use the legacy system along with modern equipment. The industry, academia and services have to find an answer to this challenge.

•   Upgradable Systems. Technology upgrades faster than we acquire systems. Therefore, we need to draw a line up what we can absorb and implement and periodically upgrade, say in 5 or 10 years, to reap the benefit of the changing technology.

•   An incremental and evolutionary approach is required in NCW where end state cannot be defined since it is always evolving but, our efforts must be measurable to stay on course towards our goal.

• Role of EW. Dominance in frequency spectrum would aid in gaining advantage over the adversary in the land, sea and air and space domains.

•  ISTAR Development. Integrated Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) under development by DRDO, with close interaction with IAF, utilises several high technologies for offensive and defensive roles in one platform. All three Services must be involved in the project at this stage of evolution, especially since the system identifies surface targets.

•  Possible Naval Role for ISTAR. Inclusion of additional sensors like anomaly detector, pollution detector and AIS in ISTAR will broaden its employment potential in naval role.

•   Broader Exploitation of ISTAR. ISTAR should have seamless integration with other national intelligence networks for gauging the intent and moves of the adversary. The potential of ISTAR for broader exploitation should be examined.

•   Use of Aerostats. Aerostats have been used by the IAF for surveillance. Other Services can examine their employment with due consideration of disadvantages like vulnerability, blind zone, limited employment in mountains, shorter life and endurance.

•  AWACS. It provides immense force multiplier capability. However, it remains a lucrative target using LR SAMs and LR Anti radiation missiles. The number of AWACS required would depend on the expanse of op area needing coverage.

•  C4I2 Requirement for the TBA. To implement the C4I2, we need robust, secure, high bandwidth wireless communication for formations particularly in the TBA due to requirements of mobility. Apart from the common standards, formats and protocols, joint encryption, mission specific applications, the bandwidth requirement of the communication is vital and must be ensured. Systems with self healing capability are required for the TBA.

•  GIS, AI and Robotics. Common Geographic information for the three Services is vital and should be prioritised.

•   Wargaming and Simulation. The robustness and the reliability of the communication systems can be tested in realistic wargaming and simulation exercises.

•   Situational Awareness Model for the Indian Navy. DRDO has developed Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) for the Indian Navy, followed by Indian Navy Situational Awareness System (INSAS) and finally by 2027, Navy aims to develop Indian Navy Common Operating Picture (INCOP) with many more analytic features using new technologies and communication systems. With these developments DRDO and Indian Navy have shown the way for indigenisation for the other Services to emulate.

•   In TBA, three services besides their inherent conceptual variances use varied types of legacy and IP based modern communications. The communications are static, deployable and mobile. It is recommended to check the efficacy and status of integration in operations and test bed to identify variances and then find solutions to integration challenges.

•   Info, Data and Big Data Challenges. The big tech companies while serving our communication needs, also pose challenge to our security since the data collected by them is stored beyond the national boundaries, thus, beyond the purview and jurisdiction of national law. This opens possibilities of its misuse which is inimical to our sovereignty, national and security interests. Hence, the data sourced with in the country must be stored with in the country so that these remain under the purview of our law enforcement agencies.

•   Security. With increase in digitisation in defence, the threats too proportionally have increased in this domain. Therefore, communication products and contents must be sourced from the trusted sources only.

•   Space Domination. Space situational awareness is vital for collision avoidance as well as to keep an eye on developing threats in the space domain. While collision avoidance would be ensured by ISRO, the threatening satellite or anti-satellite activity is the domain of the defence. Optimum solution for generating required warning / data is vital for both. The first step towards this is building of robust SSA.              .

•   Space Observation/Surveillance. To enhance security, we need to enhance our observation in the area of interest with dedicated capabilities at LEO.

•   Vulnerability of Satcom. Satellite communication is vulnerable to external interference at various levels i.e., at satellite level, in command-and-control link as well as its ground infralstructure. Such attacks/ interferences are difficult to attribute to an adversary. Hence, the diversity and robustness of satellites and its infrastructure is vital.

•   Quantum Comn. Unlike other forms of comn, which remain vulnerable, the quantum communication will ensure secure military communication. Several countries are engaged in the research in the field, eg, China and US have achieved considerable success. Indian defence forces, too, should not lag behind. DRDO (young scientist laboratory) is following a road map and is moving ahead with research in this new area comprising several applications.

•   Relevance of 5 GTechnology in the Armed

contd on page 48

contd from page 46

Forces. 5G will enable monitoring, collation and present relevant data of all activities for better coordination and informed decision taking of high order. Thus, it acts as a force multiplier. It will facilitate transition from old archaic procedures to new processes, increasing efficiency of the defence systems. Armed forces require low to high frequency bands from below 3GHZ band to above 6GHZ band to cover all operations. Dedicated specialist teams should be established to interact with the industry and monitor progress of rolling of 5 G in the armed forces for various facets of its use.              

•   Reducing Cost of Military logistics through IOT. The use of the emerging technology will overcome challenges and bring in transparency, reliability efficiency and decision making with use of less man-hours. Following actions will help to implement use of technology in logistics:-

(i)            Institute inhouse system studies to explore potential use of IOT and Blockchain.

(ii)           Standardize protocols for data sharing.

(iii)          Nominate lead agencies as per domain expertise.

(iv)         Earmark test beds and evaluate.

(v)          Expand scope throughout the organisation.

The post EVENT REVIEW: Digitisation & Netcentric Ops in the Armed Forces appeared first on IMR.

ALSO READ: Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence and Big Tech – Part 1

Human Error – ‘Free Will’ is the Hurdle

The paper points toward an interesting thing – the element of ‘Free Will’ in human minds. It says that in the future, with the invention of technologies and enhancement in intelligence research, the exactitude of predictions will certainly grow but it will never reach total precision. And the reason for that is the “Man has an element of free will, and can always act irrationally, even against his own interests.” As long as men with ‘free will’ are there, there is no way to verify the conjectures about the intentions, and free will can surprise anytime. One can say that the ‘Human Error’ that these tech products and improvisations are trying to minimize is Free Will, which was a key hurdle in influencing/controlling the system in the past.

New Improvisations

Nothing has affected the ‘Free Will’ of humanity more strongly than the Corona pandemic. While waiting for the lockdowns and restrictions to go over, everyone was literally forced to spend more and more time on technology platforms. Many businesses around the world and the very idea of their existence vanished during this phase and everyone seems to lose something or the other but we cannot let this fact go unnoticed that it is the Big Tech club that has emerged as the biggest beneficiaries of Covid pause. The recent stats on their quarterly revenue tell a lot.

Google, Microsoft, and Apple’s combined revenue crossed over $50 billion in the April-June quarter. Facebook saw a 101% increase (as compared to the same quarter in 2020) and for Amazon, it was the third consecutive $100 billion quarter, its sales grew 27% to $113 billion, in the last three months.

On one hand, in between the news on new variants and third wave, many countries are still struggling to recover, and to restart their economic cycle, on the other hand, the Big Tech owners have started pursuing new aspirations in new domains, not in cyber but in the physical world i.e. farmland, sea and space.

The Case of India

In Arthshastra, Aacharya Chanakya has said: “ACQUISITION and SECURITY, are dependent upon peace and industry. Efforts to achieve the results of works undertaken is – industry. Absence of disturbance to the enjoyment of the results achieved from works is – peace.”

While the Indian government is drafting the guidelines for social media and eCommerce, these tech giants have already started entering into new domains and sectors. Companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon have already started capturing the fin-tech and payment markets; there are already Google Pay, Amazon Pay, and Facebook Pay and WhatsApp’s recent P2P money transfer feature.

Now they have started exploring microcredit, digital insurance, MSMEs, retailers and social commerce and their growing financial portfolio is a serious matter, from the national security point of view. Recently, the RBI warned against these patterns which can cause financial destabilization in the long run.

After one and a half-decade of behind-the-scene predatory practices, they are now in an open fight with the domestic companies. Now there is frequent news about small traders, retailers, startups and telecom operators raising concerns over the FDI and trade policy violations and on the unethical/discriminatory business approach of these US content providers. The confederation of all Indian traders (CAIT), a body of over 8 crore Indian traders, was forced to move the Supreme Court against the hegemony of Amazon and Flipcart kind of eCommerce platforms and their alliance with selected suppliers and local private banks.

In 2019, during Reagan National Defense Forum, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos shared his deep commitment toward the home country’s intelligence and defence department’s interests and criticized fellow Big Tech players for not doing enough on their part, out of the pressure of some of their employees and socio-public groups. And he said: “If Big Tech is going to turn their backs on the Department of Defense, this country is in trouble. That just can’t happen.”

A recent development is that Amazon is planning to diversify its entertainment portfolio in India too and looking for ways to acquire multiple film and media distribution players.

Economic security is one of the most important dimensions of national security, and the question before countries like India, who are embracing the Big Tech products to the fullest is – how they will deal with this situation where things are now beyond simple profit/loss calculations.

Perception Management

Social media platforms are the biggest mediums of trend creation, and trends can build/affect/and can damage the perceptions.

When the song of a school kid from some remote village, goes viral on social media, the chief minister of the state invites the kid to his house and felicitates him, literally, for being viral. Even though it seems a normal and healthy trend but unknowingly such activities legitimize social media to shape and control the narration. And this is not the first time, there are many such incidents in the past when some street singer, some Baba ka Dhaba, some housewives, some old person, getting the name, money and fame overnight and all these heart-touching stories, for a moment make people think that is the real power of social media, this is the real empowerment of the common people!

Now, this is something which is visible, it is a visible trend, there is a need to look at that is not visible, which is hidden and, if speaking in the language of intelligence, then let us test those hypotheses for which there is not enough information that can refute it.

From the last 3-4 years, a tsunami of social media influencers belonging to all age groups, all castes and communities and all classes of the society is emerging on these platforms. There are thousands of influencers who are running their shops on these tech platforms – YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. They have enormous viewership and one can say that if these are the real numbers, then they have good public support too. When they produce something viral, their content spreads like corona virus, they go global and then they receive endorsement/promotion from the local and global perception management ecosystems, existing in politics, media and businesses.

These tech platforms provide the opportunity to not just earn money but to earn name, fame and brand as well. On one hand, these trends develop some aspirations in the rest of the young minds. Today, we see engineering kids turning more and more YouTubers, Rappers, and Standup comedians, at a time when we need the engineering talent most. There is nothing wrong with pursuing creative talent but it is about the mindset of switching on or off a trend.

On the other hand, what kind of content these influencers produce needs to be seen as well. Around 98 per cent of these influencers produce content that promotes anti-national sentiments and social divide in the name of caste/ community/ regionalism/ language, etc. They promote violence, vulgarity, abuse and all sorts of objectionable/ unethical things. In a way, they are trying to bring some of those challenges of the past, from which India is working hard to move on.

Let us assume a future scenario – what if the Indian government has passed some bill in parliament, which is in the interests of the business, economy or any other larger national interest like the Article 370 abrogation, CAA or recent agricultural reforms. What if these foreign tech platforms would ask their influencers to use their power to create chaos in the society (if that law does not suit their particular interest group/ lobby)?

This is a job of creating misinformation and disinformation. Can one expect these social influencers to act independently and freely and with some sensitivity toward the national security interests of India? Unfortunately, for a majority of them, we cannot! And what if they continued with the foreign agenda? How would the security agencies be able to deal with the tsunami of social influencers, which is paid by, nurtured by, promoted by foreign platforms!

That’s a serious national security concern.

Conclusion

What is the solution? Solutions come to mind only when we think about changing our role – from Guest to Host. We are more on the receiving and defending side. The situation needs to be turned around.

Big Tech is a business model that is based on the study of psychological and behavioral aspects of the human mind. We will have to think about what unique capabilities do we possess and what, as a country, we can offer to the world, which would be more magnificent and productive for the future of humanity!

These platforms are the result of a few decades of investment (on information, technology, and the human mind) but we have a unique asset with the history of thousands of years of investment – the Bhartiya Mind.

To recall that heritage and to encourage the young Indian minds, there is a need to work on the two dimensions simultaneously, and with equal priority.

The potential of business and market information of India, as well as the war strategies/ doctrines of the world, need to be promoted in a big way, among the youth and professional community.

This will help them in developing self-consciousness and with a self-conscious mind, they will be able to explore their own country’s potential in a better way and will be able to craft business strategies, based on an understanding of human instinct/ psychology. That in the future would be able to disrupt the tech dominance.

The post Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence and Big Tech – Part 2 appeared first on IMR.

Big Tech and Big Data are the two most talked-about trends of our time. From their ever-increasing dominance to staggering market cap numbers, to anti-trust/regulatory issues to ideological conflict with the elected governments/representatives of the world, to new stunts in space, for several reasons, they make headlines more often than any other business on earth.

While discussing the Big Tech and Big Data people often tend to forget that there is an interesting history and background associated with their origin, perhaps because that is one of the least discussed matters of our time.

Computer, internet and cyber, the foundational elements of Big Data and Big Tech, have been invented as an outcome of military and intelligence R&D projects.

The person who used the term ‘cyber’ for the first time, an American philosopher and mathematician Norbert Wiener, in his book (1948) “Cybernetics – or Control and Communication in the Animal and Machine,” his thesis was that “a society can only be understood through the study of the messages and the communication facilities which belong to it; and that in the future development of these messages and communication facilities, messages between man and machines, between machines and man, and between machine and machine, are destined to play an ever-increasing part.” His next book, which came two years later in 1950, was “The Human Use of Human Beings,” and the theories given in the book inspired many automation efforts that we see today.

As a Tool of Intelligence and Surveillance

Big Tech companies are often propagated as the ultimate dream of an entrepreneur. For many people, these are the ‘garage startups,’ initiated by some college dropouts and computer scientists, who accidentally, one fine day, caught the attention of some visionary venture capitalist, who decided to fund and to bet on those childish-looking ideas and later those ideas, as we know, conquered the whole world! Those stories of hard work, determination, and dedication, are indeed inspiring.

But at the same time, there is a long history of the American scientist fraternity, their businesses and intelligence communities working together as well, from the creation of atomic bombs to satellites to the famous moon landing efforts. And the internet itself is an enhanced version of ARPANET (Advanced Research Project Agency Network) of the United States’ Department of Defense.

Producing commercial entities as the joint initiatives of defense and intelligence agencies, which can bring massive mutually beneficial information, is a part of the United States’ long strategic tradition. The Silicon Valley and the consortium of tech startups that it produced, which we today refer to as Big Tech, are also not the exception.

Generally, when we say Big Tech, we refer to a few US tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, and from the last one or two years, Twitter is also seen as a part of this club. But there are dozens of other tech companies, quite big in operation and scale, that exist in Silicon Valley, like Instagram, LinkedIn, HP, Adobe, Cisco, Oracle, eBay, Uber, Tinder, Airbnb, Spotify, Foursquare, AngeryBirds, Lyft, etc. If we zoom in and observe their business models, we find that these have embedded advanced surveillance capabilities from the beginning.

Silicon Valley – the Background

The stories behind the foundation of Silicon Valley, which has been branded as the ultimate destination of innovation and entrepreneurship and projected as an aspiration for the young Indian minds too, are equally unique.

It is quite a known fact that the defence contracts of the 1950s and 60s were the lifeblood of the Valley. Frederick Emmons Terman, the leader of Allied radio-jamming efforts in World War II, is credited as the father of the Silicon Valley. It is said that after the War, Terman returned to Stanford University and was appointed the dean of the School of Engineering. And in 1951, he spearheaded the creation of Stanford Industrial Park, which is now called the Stanford Research Park and the ‘engine’ of Silicon Valley, as it is home to over 150 high-tech startups, including HP, VMware, Tesla, Steve Jobs’ NeXT computer, and Facebook, etc. It was Terman’s vision to lease the Stanford University’s land to these high-tech firms.

The entrepreneurial journey of Silicon Valley started with military contracts for microwave and vacuum-tube technologies that were used in aerospace projects, then in the 1960s, they received lucrative contracts in the government’s space and defence programmes, including the popular Minuteman missile effort. For these high-tech startups of the Valley, the CIA and US defense department were their first clients.

Later, the US intelligence community-focused venture capital fund In-Q-Tel was launched too, which intended to finance companies whose products were of interest to the CIA and other agencies. In-Q-Tel’s portfolio now includes security companies such as FireEye and data analysis firms like Palantir Technologies.

The ideas of ‘venture capital’ and venture capitalist were coined to encourage the private sector investments in businesses by returning soldiers of World War II. The father of Venture Capital, Georges Doriot, who founded the first venture capital firm ARDC (American Research and Development Corporation), had a prolific military career, too. He worked as the director of the U.S. Army’s Military Planning Division, was appointed the Quartermaster General during World War II, and later being promoted to brigadier general.

One of the most promising ventures of Silicon Valley – Google – is considered as the biggest improvisation of mass surveillance in history. Google has cooperated with the CIA many times in the past but in 2010, when Google and CIA jointly invested in a private intelligence-based cyber security company – Recorded Future, it caught the attention. It was a tool of real-time web monitoring, to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions, and incidents.

With time, as Google started dominating the consumer market, its other side of working as the contractor of their home country’s security and intelligence agencies went into the shadows!

Geospatial Data

Over the years, Google openly coordinated with US intelligence agencies to transform many small startups into useful strategic assets and one such startup was Google Earth.

The core technology behind Google Earth is originally from Keyhole Inc., which was founded in 1999. At that time, Keyhole’s flagship product – Earth Viewer – was used to sell on CDs to real estate, urban planning, defense, and intelligence groups.

In 2003, CIA’s venture capital arm In-Q-Tel invested in the Keyhole, and then it also joined hands with their National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Later in 2004, Keyhole was acquired by Google. In 2004, Google made some other acquisitions too. It acquired the Google Maps from the two Danish brothers, Lars and Jens, and in the same year, it had acquired ZipDash, a real-time traffic analysis company.

Today, Google Map is the default app for Android OS (a product of Google) that has a 95.23 percent market share in India. Although with the recent self-reliance moves of the Indian government in the geospatial domain, and with ISRO and homegrown startups like MapMyIndia coming together, things will certainly turn around in the near future.

There are plenty of such less popular insights about Big Tech and these are not conspiracy theories. The information is official and mentioned in the documents, press releases, and accounts that are available in the public domain. But they never come to notice or become a part of popular discussion and that is somewhat interesting.

One can say that the idea of Big Tech, Big Data, High Tech Startups, Venture Capital, and everything that is associated with Silicon Valley’s culture and glamour have their roots in the military and intelligence ecosystem. The products of the Valley have ventured into all those areas, which have the potential to affect strategic calculations/interest from Economy to Media to Geospatial data to public opinion/perception management, and all this cannot be called a mere coincidence.

So, while referring tech dominance, one must keep in mind that we are referring to a different kind of dominance here – which is covered under the guise of democracy, liberty, equality, global citizen, one world, and now entrepreneurship, innovation kind of flowery words.

Too much discussion on the Big Tech and Big Data often ignores a basic reality, that there are some human minds, a psychology, some philosophy, and a strategic mindset, that works behind these products.

Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence

In the year 1989, Prof Isaac Ben Israel, who is currently the chairman of the Israeli space agency, published his research paper titled “The Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence – The Logic of Estimate Process.” The paper is one of its kind in the intelligence research domain, for two primary reasons: one, the intelligence is a closed domain and there is a lack of meaningful discussions on it’s working philosophy/methods and second, the paper got published at a time when the modern intelligence techniques were in their maturing stage, and this was the same time when the internet was transforming into the world wide web (in 1991).

There is a natural commonality between the intelligence process and big data, both depend on the three As – Availability, Accessibility and Accuracy of information. Since the internet is primarily a tool of military and intelligence works, an understanding of the philosophy and methodology of intelligence research can solve some of the questions related to the objectives and approach of Big Data and Big Tech.

There is a belief that intelligence problems are very complex, they certainly are but the problems related to the physical world are equally complex as well, as the paper perfectly puts “is it possible to solve or predict the weather (“clouds”)? If concrete physical problems can be solved with information and approximation then they can solve intelligence problems as well.

The paper highlights some of the traditional challenges of intelligence research that are related to estimation, approximation, and inexactitude (lack of precision). It critically evaluates the traditional processes of intelligence estimation that were prevalent at that time, such as anti-scientific historicism and pro-scientific historicism, and proposes an approach (amended critical method) based on scientific methods and refutation.

The conventional approach to intelligence research (before internet technologies) was based on historicist methods that emphasize historical processes or trends, and the idea of ‘holism’ to infer large-scale predictions. Those methods were based on the idea of involving/manipulating the dynamics of a society with the social and historic forces, and activism and influencing the trends/processes to push them in a particular direction.

The paper sheds light on the different challenges into those approaches such as obstacles in obtaining relevant information and deriving insights from that, difficulties in experimenting (on a large scale) with the hypothesis/approximations and in testing/validating them, relying too much on ‘what’ part rather than on ‘how’ (the causal explanations), and the lack of a logical process/flow and dependency on the known data, etc.

Prof Isaac has advocated that the scientific approach/measures are critical for analysis or accurate prediction about a group, society, or nation, and their major trends. The paper got published in 1989 and, two years later (in 1991), the internet emerged in its new avatar and become the world wide web, and things have been transformed since then.

After three decades, it is quite visible that these computer technology products and their improvisations are using a similar kind of approach (that is mentioned in the paper) in measuring/monitoring/predicting, and deciding the trends. And the issue of inexactitude in intelligence predictions has been resolved to a great extent.

To put it more succinctly, if Google or Microsoft windows were the platforms for facilitating the initial stage of intelligence research – ‘gathering of information’ then Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and WhatsApp, etc, can be seen as the mediums of ‘experiments’ (through greater public engagement and dependencies).

ALSO READ: Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence and Big Tech – Part 2

The post Philosophy and Methodology of Intelligence and Big Tech – Part 1 appeared first on IMR.

ALSO READ: An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 1)

Technology-led Vision Blindness

More than technology dominance that can be sooner or later disrupted (with global consensus and mutual efforts), we will have to be concerned about its side effects. Somehow our current Internet generation thinks that by the accumulation of the abundance of information from the Internet/social platforms they are gaining knowledge and intelligence (which they would be able to upload into some cloud servers in the future, as these companies often claim). But this idea is flawed at its core; the human mind is not designed to work that way! After reading, listening, and watching, we need some time without outside distraction to think and make sense of all that we have observed.

The ability to foresee future events, threats, opportunities and different patterns related to these have a role in the policy/ direction of a nation. Our current generation has stopped practicing this and, like any other art this is also not a privilege, one may lose it. But the question is – can we afford to lose this skill? The absence of this skill can develop a ‘vision blindness’ syndrome and, when a community/society or nation turns vision blind, it always pays a cost for that.

ALSO READ: Pandemic : The Big Pharma Conspiracy

The notion of ‘Vision Blindness’ has its roots in the historic experiences of the Jewish community. In his book “The Founding Fathers of Zionism,” historian Benzion Netanyahu has mentioned that “the Jews, which in the distant past produced many personalities who excelled in prognosticating the future, became during the Exile a people that seemed to have virtually blind in this faculty.”He said that “we did not discern the greatest disasters even a short while before they occurred.” This was a period in which one may say that “vision disappeared from the people of Israel.”

Time to steal the firewood from under the pot has come!

The patterns of Technology Dominance are so complex that upon investigating the matter, one may reach a point where things seem to go into an uncertain and never-ending loop. But in the classics of war strategies, it is said that when faced with an enemy or force too powerful to engage directly, you must first weaken him by undermining his foundation and attacking his source of power (‘The Thirty-Six Strategies’, collection of ancient Chinese war tactics).

The source of Technology Dominance lies in an over-engagement and growing dependency of the people on these platforms. The more we get engaged, the more powerful these apps become. And this dependency is not natural as well, it’s a proven fact that these platforms are designed to arouse the addiction hormone in the users, just like any other addictive element, and the more we get engaged, the more powerful they become. So, the first step to tackle Technology Dominance must be reducing over-engagement on these platforms. We can call it the first step – Less Engagement.

Less Engagement means reducing our dependency on these Big Tech platforms and moving toward our local options – not just being vocal for local but embracing the local apps too. In the last few months, several homegrown alternatives to these popular apps have emerged such as Bharat E Market (a platform developed by Confederation of All India Traders, after a tussle with Amazon), Zoho Mail and its web hosting suite, Koo app, Sandes (government’s messaging app equivalent to WhatsApp) and payments apps like BHIM, PayTM, etc. We will see many more options in the coming days and we can expect some apps to be jointly developed with like-minded nations, too. When a user will have some options to select from, the psychological effect of these apps will automatically get minimized. Once we win that psychological war, dominance will be over.

After Less Engagement being successfully implemented, we can start disengaging from these tech platforms too!

Disengagement

This may sound offensive to some but who said that computers, the Internet and smartphones were the only technology on the planet and only by using these apps one could remain productive and technical! Who established this norm?

The original purpose of these products was to make our routine operations fast and easier. When these tech companies entered India, they came with a typical salesmen gesture and offered some very routine products like the office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), mail, search and some entertainment services – chat, networking, music, videos, games, and shopping. None of these must be given our 24/7 attention and productive energy. So the idea of Disengagement is – if we are using these products other than for their original purpose or their key functions – it means that we are over-engaged on these apps and we are over-engaged because these companies have addictive elements inbuilt in their products. This over engagement is crushing our inherent capabilities, our self-consciousness and without self-consciousness we cannot build great things. To end this addiction, this over-engagement and dependency, we will have to practice some Disengagement from these apps.

ALSO READ: Information Warfare : Curbs on Big Tech Necessary

The question then arises – how this Disengagement exercise can be promoted on a large scale?

We need to understand that computer technology, the Internet, smartphones, Big Data and AI are all some of the most successful business models of our time and they are leveraging their success to the fullest. A large portion of humanity (approx 4.66 billion people) is either over-engaged on tech platforms/ products or is over-influenced by their marketing. To disengage people from these business models, we will have to think about developing New Business Models. The New Business Models is an approach to coin some new ideas, thinking something new, more productive and more interesting and thrilling than all current dominating tech products. Continuing in this space and coining different jargon to leverage the market dominance can be a part of their calculations as they put a lot of effort to reach this stage. But a country like India must think about moving beyond this stagnation!

For a huge consumer segment, these augmented realities (AR), virtual reality (AR) and drone tech-based products, the users are offered thrill, pleasure and sense of adventure. They can be disrupted only with something more adventurous and more thrilling, something in the real world. If we aim to be shaper and more decisive, we will have to think about coining our improvisations and shaping some New Business Models, capable of competing with all the existing ones.

Interestingly, recognizing the stagnation and limitation of their products, these Big Tech founders have gradually started shifting toward new ventures. Agriculture, ocean, sky, air and space kind of domains are their new interest areas! Then why have we restricted ourselves to their products/ improvisations? We must think about going beyond smartphones and the Internet. We are a country surrounded by ocean, gifted with gigantic mountains and some of the world’s rarest natural resources and vibrant diversity. The need is to only explore and think in this direction. New Business Models originated from India can disrupt Big Tech hegemony!

Other Ethical Ways

Other than the Less Engagement and Disengagement process, what else can we do? We can adopt some other ethical ways, such as taxation, regulations, compliances and every single move that is needed for the health of the market and help these companies stay to do business, not to govern!

Recently, the Government of India issued some new guidelines and digital media ethics codes (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code 2021) that provide a progressive and liberal framework to deal with the challenges of social and digital media platforms. The Code includes a well-defined mechanism for grievance redressal, some guidelines for social media intermediaries, provisions regarding removal of unlawful information, as well as ethics codes for online news, over-the-top (OTT) platforms and digital media. This can be called a good beginning.

Public opinion and public pressure often seen as the key instruments of power. These cannot be allowed to be handled irresponsibly. Shaping the narratives, promoting porn and illegal trade, branding protest models, influencing election results and facilitating non-state actors to achieve their goals – these were not the ideas with which the Internet and digital technologies made their way into our life. With a broken security system and massive privacy flaws, these technology platforms dare challenge the constitution of the world’s largest democracy. We can hope that these ethical ways will help in curbing their aspirations.

Conclusion

The three moves – Less Engagement, Disengagement and Other Ethical Ways – together can provide a framework to deal with technology dominance and there is always a possibility to explore more innovative ways.

We have 28 states and eight union territories (UT), where each State/UT (and every district of the state) has its unique potential, a vast part of which is not leveraged. From space to sky to ocean to mountains, India has a lot to explore and a lot to create. The need is to stimulate the power of imagination of our young minds and to take that to a new level. Bharat can give at least 36 New Business Models to the world, based on its unique ability and instincts. The time for investing in that direction has come!

The post An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 2) appeared first on IMR.

ALSO READ: An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 2)

‘Technology dominance,’ these two words we hear quite often these days. From the last few years, Big Tech, Big Four, GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple), Tech Giants, Big Five kind of terms have become a part of our strategic discussions. Today, any deliberation on the future, economy and national security cannot be called complete without mentioning the patterns of growing tech dominance.

Computer technology is indeed one of the most dominant technologies from the last three to four decades. It started with the personal computers (PC) then came the era of the Internet, then smart phones, then smart devices and now we are talking about moving toward a new technological revolution driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI). But, at the same time, matters of concern are the shift in the purpose of digital technology from problem-solver to problem-creator to problem-accelerator to toolkit distributor, and its growing capability to not just impact overall social behavior and psychology but of creating anarchy, violence, and riots on the streets, within a matter of few minutes. The patterns of some recent events in different parts of the world suggest that now these platforms are becoming eager to challenge the idea of democracy, the idea of government and the idea of the nation itself.

Different Dimensions of Technology Dominance

A majority of the discussions about the technology dominance in India revolved around the Market and Data but there are some other lesser discussed dimensions as well, such as dominance in the real world, the acquisition/exploitation of natural resources – land, energy and water – that is going on a massive scale. There are close to 4.66 billion Internet users (roughly 60% of the world’s population), an average Internet user spends more than 6 hours a day online and produces approx 2.5 quintillion bytes of data (1 quintillion is equal to 1 exabyte, which is one preceded by 18 zeros). Every day, these platforms process billions of searches, millions of images, videos, billions of emails, video streaming, Twitter feeds, Facebook/ Linkedin/ Instagrams posts, text messages/chats, Gifs/Emojis, navigation data and the bulk of data that is generated from the smart things/devices, too. The data warehouses and factories where all this data is stored and processed every second requires gigantic infrastructure, massive systems for data storage, several processors and millions of miles of fiber-optic lines, everything which they cover under the smart term ‘cloud’ and these clouds on earth consume electrical power and generate heat that no other industrial enterprises have ever generated in human history, and then they consume billions of gallons of water to cool off as well. This is the real-world dominance of these Big Tech companies about which we do not find any climate expert raising concerns. In fact, in some cases, they are the top sponsors of these teenager flag bearers of climate change.

ALSO READ: PANDEMIC: Security Concerns Over Big Tech, Biotech and Big Pharma Loop

Apart from that, something more serious is going on under the sea as well. The 750,000 miles of submarine cables (total 406) enough to go around the earth 30 times, that connect the Internet worldwide – are the backbone of the Internet infrastructure. Today, the US tech giants such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, own or lease more than half of the global undersea cables. Google owns some 63,065 miles, Facebook owns 57,079 miles, Amazon owns approx 18,987 miles and Microsoft owns some 41,04 miles of undersea cables. And, with each passing year, their acquisition of undersea Internet infrastructure is growing.

Now the testing of shipping container-sized undersea data centres has started as well. In 2014, Microsoft launched a research project called ‘Natick’ to test this infrastructure and, as of 2020, they had completed the project and claimed that those servers under the water were more reliable than those on the land. The results of their project signalled that we will see a new dimension of undersea autonomy shortly. And the logic for such an experiment was a one-liner – “50% of us live near the coast. Why doesn’t our Data?”

Technology dominance is often facilitated by legislations too. In 2018, the US Senate enacted an act called CLOUD (clarifying lawful overseas use of data). The CLOUD Act allows US federal law enforcement agencies to compel U.S.-based technology companies or content providers to provide access to electronic data stored on their servers regardless of whether they are in the U.S. or on foreign soil. And it also says that if the foreign law enforcement agency (like that of India, where these products have complete dominance in the market) needs access to the electronic content stored in these data servers then they need to undergo an ‘executive agreement’ with the US government. The Act has the support of the whole Big Tech consortium (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Facebook). Such moves give an extra edge to this ever-growing physical and virtual dominance. These are some of the interesting and least discussed dimensions of technology dominance, which have the potential to establish this idea as an everlasting reality of our time.

ALSO READ: Information Warfare : Curbs on Big Tech Necessary

Other than these, in terms of Market and Data (the most talked about dimensions), the situation is already bleak. If we talk about the Market, the journey of these U.S. tech giants in India started in 2004, with an entirely different set of promises than what they tout today. They came with the offers like office, search, music, emails, shopping and chats, some very routine tasks of the people. Except for Microsoft, which came earlier, somewhere in the 1990s, all other U.S. tech giants entered India, post-2004 and then, from 2004 to 2014, one can say that they got a whole decade of privileged access in India. The legacy of that unrestricted phase culminated into the current market dominance that we see today. As of May 2020, with 99.29 per cent, Google had a clear monopoly on the mobile search engine market in India. Google-owned YouTube now has over 448 million monthly active users in India and the Google-owned Android held a share of 95.23 percent of the mobile operating system market in India. Facebook has over 400 million users and 85 per cent market share in India, which is more than its home country USA. Amazon has over 100 million users and with 17.5 million active users, Twitter has the third largest user base in India, next after the USA and Japan. The data speaks that things are now beyond the simple profit/loss calculations.

Silicon Valley – Vision, Recommendations and Propaganda

In parallel to these mounting dimensions, the leading employers and investors of Silicon Valley and their friends and family members, all have some big plans for the future of humanity too. Often they can be seen talking about things like some ‘X’ pandemic or disaster already on our way and how we need to radically transform our lives to accommodate and adapt to that future. But interestingly, these technology prophets who are making such a prognosis, have their silent investments in the Biotech and Big Pharma companies too. In most cases, their life partners are leading such initiatives.

At regular intervals one will find some interview by Elon Musk, talking about things like AI is an ‘existential threat to humanity, raising concern on Google’s Deep Mind lab and claiming how scary and ‘weird’ the future is. And Musk is one of those who are not merely talking but preparing the solutions too, for example, the Neuralink kind of projects, that are about implantable brain–machine interfaces that Musk called a ‘Fitbit in your skull.’

There is a whole lobby of propagandists that exists in Silicon Valley. A massive propagation of ideas like the mindset of abundance, shifting humanity from ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ stage to ‘haves’ and ‘super haves,’ Universal Basic Income, Homo Deus, Cyborg, etc., is going on with different creative improvisations. In a nutshell, from Market and Data, things are now going toward body, mind and future.

Google Marxism

The idea that Silicon Valley represents the American ‘spirit of enterprise’ is not convincing anymore. The white hair technocrats and visionaries of the USA (who led the US economy in the Reagan era), call the Silicon Valley brigade ‘Neo Marxist.’ They refer to their approach as ‘Google Marxism’ and they have valid arguments for that, too. In his book “Life after Google”, George Gilder, one of the most quoted authors of US President Ronald Reagan, writes “The neo-Marxism of today’s Silicon Valley titans repeats the error of the old Marxists in its belief that today’s technology—not steam and electricity, but silicon microchips, artificial intelligence, machine learning, cloud computing, algorithmic biology and robotics—is the definitive human achievement. The algorithmic eschaton renders obsolete not only human labor but the human mind as well.” When the powerful technology tycoons, with immense control of human life in their hands, try to push the obsolete ideas on their users, the concerns are only inevitable.

The post An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 1) appeared first on IMR.