Cognitive Warfare

Technology Dominance

Technology Dominance

An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 2)

Less Engagement, Disengagement and Other Ethical Ways 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 […]

Technology Dominance

An Approach to Deal with Technology Dominance (Part 1)

Less Engagement, Disengagement and Other Ethical Ways 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, […]

Technology Dominance

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

Big Tech companies’ biotech invest-ments are often shown in the media in two ways, either badly cooked conspiracy theories or highly valued philanthropic moves; both are the extreme boundaries of analyzing such trends. Neither every move of an entrepreneur should be seen in the light of doubt nor is it wise to believe that business-oriented minds can pursue plain philanthropy goals. But in the long term, such normal looking activities have the potential to disturb the security environment of a country, too, and they need to be examined with a broader national security perspective. One of the most talked-about pre-coronavirus trends was the controversial collaboration between the Big Tech, Biotech and Big Pharma players and some major sections of the Western press were involved in the discussions around these emerging trends. From an outer view, the post-coronavirus lockdown world seems like a playground of well-scripted efforts, where fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) strategy are nourishing the fortunes of these three booming industries. If we consider that this current trend is going to continue for a much longer period then we should prepare not just an exit strategy but a future roadmap too. Big Tech – Biotech – Big Pharma Loop It is interesting to see how the biotech investments of Big Tech companies, which initiated with the R&D goals, have eventually ended up in the controversial partnerships with some Big Pharmaceutical players. The pattern and ease with which these tech giants have shifted their domains to entirely different areas (in a similar timeframe) raise some serious questions. Google In 2007, Google backed a biotech and personal genomics company 23andMe (founded by Anne Wojcicki, who married Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin in the same year). Since its launch, the underlying medical purpose of 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service has been highly controversial and several times this entity fell under the scrutiny of the US and UK government agencies. On 25 July 2018, to leverage the DNA test results from 5 million customers, 23andMe and drug giant Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) entered into a partnership, too. On 18 September 2013, Google announced its new initiative called Calico (California Life Company), and Arthur D. Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, took up the charge as the CEO of this healthcare venture. Calico made some interesting R&D partnerships with AbbVie (a global biopharmaceutical company), Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, QB3 (California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences), Buck Institute, Ancestry DNA, Jackson Laboratory, and C4 Therapeutics. And, in November 2018, it entered into a collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT). The stated mission of Calico was to explore advanced technologies and their possible role in controlling the human lifespan and to “to devise interventions that enable people to lead longer and healthier lives” but it is surprising that even after extensive research, their expected interventions and findings are still in shadow, even for the scientist fraternity. Another Google/Alphabet subsidiary, which often made headlines is Verily Life Sciences or Verily, an R&D organization devoted to the study of life sciences. Last year, Verily formed strategic alliances with Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer and Sanofi kind of leading biopharma organizations, to develop digital clinical research programmes using Project Baseline’s (an initiative of Verily, started in 2017) evidence generation platform and tools. Its official objective “Making information work better so that healthcare works better” may sound philanthropic to some but the company is purely commercial. In 2016, Verily formed a joint venture called Galvani Bioelectronics with British pharmaceutical giant Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK). In 2015, Verily and Johnson & Johnson’s medical device company Ethicon, launched a startup called Verb Surgical, a robotic surgery platform. The company has delivered some health-tracking wearables including smart spoon, smart lenses and smart shoe kind of projects. It is also interesting to note that biopharma and life sciences investments make up more than a third of Google Ventures’ portfolio. Google Ventures, the venture capital investment arm of Alphabet (an American conglomerate and restructured parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries) invested in some thriving biopharma/biotech companies including Editas Medicine (a leading genome editing company), Foundation Medicine (a molecular insight company), PACT Pharma, Magenta Therapeutics, Flatiron Health (a cancer research company, which was acquired by Roche, a Swiss pharma), One Medical, Arcus Biosciences, 23andMe, Grail, and Denali Therapeutics. Microsoft Last year, Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Novartis formed a strategic alliance “to transform medicine with Artificial Intelligence,” which is seen as one of the most expensive tie-ups between Big Pharma and Big Tech. Since 2010, tech giant Microsoft’s biological computation arm has been working on a wide range of projects including “designing molecular circuits made of DNA, and programming synthetic biological devices to perform complex functions over time and space.” The company has quietly built up a stronghold in the medical research and biological computation domains and their researchers are exploring moonshot possibilities in cell programming (to fight serious diseases) kind of emerging sectors and developing computer modeling tools to assist Big Pharma companies in drug discovery and development. In 2000, Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft started what he called his “second career” in philanthropy with the foundation of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose primary goal was working globally to enhancing healthcare efforts and reducing extreme poverty. In the same year, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested in the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) – a public-private global health partnership, which is also the third-largest financial contributor (8.39 per cent) to World Health Organization (WHO), next after USA (14.67 per cent) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (9.76 per cent) itself. These days GAVI is in news for COVID-19 vaccine funding and distribution to poor countries, too, but it is important here to recall that in the past (2011-12) this alliance received some serious criticism for higher pricing of vaccines and for providing Advanced Market Commitments to companies like GSK and Pfizer and was also blamed for encouraging a duopoly […]

Scroll to Top