Reimagining Safety In A World With Nuclear Weapons

Prakash Menon talks about two very important and urgent matters and how they actually go hand in hand. Nuclear warfare and climate change. In this talk, you learn how we will find ourselves in the middle of a nuclear apocalypse if we don't implement change now.This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.Watch the video here

On India-Pakistan sparring at the UNGA

The Print’s daily roundtable TalkPoint posed a question: Does India-Pakistan sparring at UNGA bring any diplomatic benefit for either country?India does not gain anything by sparring with Pakistan at the UNGA. In fact, for a major power like India engaging in a war of words with Pakistan actually diminishes its status, re-hyphenates it with Pakistan, and demonstrates a lack of diplomatic foresight. Pakistan is a lesser power and India might actually gain more by ignoring Pakistan’s rhetoric at the UNGA than by responding to it.However, India’s tough posturing and appearing to send a ‘message’ to Pakistan at an international forum will have short-term gains domestically.With assembly elections due in Maharashtra and Haryana, domestic imperatives and people’s perceived requirements of a ‘tough posture’ are likely to influence India’s position on Kashmir and Pakistan at the UNGA.For Pakistan, provoking India to respond to its aggressive rhetoric is actually a victory. Pakistan would want to get the world to discuss India’s actions in Kashmir. Pakistan is also looking to score brownie points at the UNGA. India can negate Pakistani efforts by ignoring its rhetoric and instead focusing on other major issues such as climate change. So, it is not a good idea for India to fight with Pakistan at the UNGA. Read the entire discussion on ThePrint.in website here.

---

 

The hot risks of ‘Cold Start’

India’s controversial military doctrine is of limited use in a clash with Pakistan and should stay cold and underplayed.India’s military should privilege development of a military capability that allows for causing destruction without posturing. Long-range firepower from air, land and sea platforms provide more promise for retribution under the nuclear shadow than IBGs that, at best, could threaten and may mostly even flatter to deceive. Capabilities that support force application in ‘Other than War’ forms would act as a better deterrence.Read more

Donald Trump Endorsement: India's Calculated Move

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s indirect endorsement of President Donald Trump for the White House is a calculated risk. India’s gains from the US in the next few months would determine the merit of this endorsement. But an unapologetic India doesn’t care about its grand old foreign policy’s dogmatic values and principles.Read More...

On the Howdy Modi event

The Print’s daily roundtable TalkPoint posed a question connected to the Indian PM’s Howdy Modi event in Houston: Is it smart diplomacy for PM Modi to align himself with Donald Trump’s campaign in Houston?Whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s endorsement of US President Donald Trump at the ‘Howdy, Modi’ event should be termed smart diplomacy depends on its real impact on the future of India-US relations. The event by itself carries immense symbolic value, and the world will take note of how far India-US relations have come. This is a positive outcome. However, an Indian Prime Minister taking an overt partisan position on US domestic politics will have negative consequences.First, this sets a precedent for any foreign leader to take sides in Indian elections or its politics. This could ultimately make it tough for India to manage its relations with other countries. Second, the Indian-American community faces the risk of being seen as more Indian and less American. Opponents of Donald Trump might even play up this line of thinking to reap political dividends in the 2020 US presidential elections. So, the costs involved are real.The backlash against China’s attempts to influence Australia’s domestic politics showed that once nationalist political sentiments take precedence in the host country, immigrant communities face the risk of being isolated and targeted.Read the entire discussion on ThePrint.in website here. 

Performing well in the sandbox won't be enough

RBI recently came up with a Draft Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox in financial technology. For context, a sandbox is a framework that allows testing of innovations by private firms in a controlled environment. As far as developments in the fintech regulation space go, this is a good one. A sandbox allows players to run a pilot test on new products and services at a smaller scale with less capital than usually required. According to the draft, RBI will consider testing for innovative products and services in the following areas, Retail payments, Money transfer services, Marketplace lending, Digital KYC, Financial advisory services, Wealth management services, Digital identification services, Smart contracts, Financial inclusion products, Cybersecurity products. Some of these, especially the digital KYC and financial inclusion, are more front-facing than others. There is also a separate clause for innovative technologies that include, Mobile technology applications (payments, digital identity, etc.), Data Analytics, Application Program Interface (APIs) services, Applications under blockchain technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning applications. A notable exemption from the sandbox is cryptocurrencies. This is keeping in line with the report of the Inter-ministerial group that recommended banning private cryptocurrencies and proposed a fine of up to ₹25 crore as well as up to 10 years imprisonment. It echoes the stance of the report that encourages developments in blockchain and the distributed ledger technology in general. This is likely due to concerns that private cryptocurrencies can lead to macroeconomic instability and finance terror groups, both of which are fair concerns. There have been claims that the sandbox is available for a limited set of customers, only 10-12 companies. It is unclear whether that hypothesis is true. The eligibility criteria as specified in the draft states that the focus of the sandbox will be to encourage innovations where there is an absence of governing regulations; there is a need to temporarily ease regulations for enabling the proposed innovation; the proposed innovation shows promise of easing/effecting delivery of financial services in a significant way. This does not directly translate into having only 10-12 players. This should also act as a win for Facebook, and in all probability, WhatsApp. It is an open secret that WhatsApp has been keen to launch a payments service in India, dubbed ‘WhatsApp Pay’. However, over recent times, the regulatory climate has proved to be unfavourable to bring those efforts to fruition. The regulatory sandbox may serve as the ideal testing ground for the service before its release. A successful stint in the sandbox is not a guarantee to achieve regulatory approvals however, as the draft states. Companies and their services can perform well and still be denied clearance to launch at a national level. That is something firms like WhatsApp and Facebook will have to deal with. Any financial services that pass the sandbox will need to clear regulatory hurdles such as data localization guidelines laid out by RBI and the data protection bill (if and when it becomes law). There are two key things to keep in mind here. Firstly, the sandbox is likely to be of help to both newcomers into the market as well as incumbents who plan to try out new ideas in fintech. This includes innovative efforts to increase financial inclusion through services that rely on machine learning and AI. Thus, it is a boost to the fintech landscape overall and also on India’s AI front. The latter of which could use an injection in homegrown talent, applications, and infrastructure. Secondly, returns from the sandbox have the potential to pay off dividends in the short to long term, depending on how long the program lasts. The RBI, also to their credit has provided a set of risks and limitations in the draft. It includes the possibility of innovators losing time and flexibility because of due process. The need for regulatory approvals after sandbox testing and legal issues leading to consumer losses is also included. None of these risks is an argument for not having the sandbox. The sandbox proposed is an objectively good idea. Countries around the world, including Thailand, Singapore, and the US have tried it. In a fintech space that is growing and needs new innovation to foster better development in areas such as financial inclusion and creditworthiness, this is a welcome step. It is too early to say whether the idea will be successful, or whether it will face implementation challenges or end up leading to unintended consequences, such as favouring the incumbents over startups or making participation exclusive to a limited set of players. The idea is still in the draft stage and it could be a while before it is successfully carried out. The bottom line here is that despite all these considerations, it is better to have a sandbox than not have one.This article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. Views are personal.

What the Congress party needs is a palace coup

While the government of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah has received severe criticism for its policies, the Congress has largely been excused for its failure to effectively hold the end of opposition. The BJP has turned many parts of the Congress legacy into a debilitating political liability. My indictment of the Congress is threefold: most of its leaders do not know what they stand for, its organisation is hopelessly out of date, and it lacks the quality of top leadership that the situation demands.Read more

Stronger fiscal federalism

Former prime minister Manmohan Singh recently urged the Centre to do more to enhance the spirit of cooperative federalism. His comments were in the context of the changes made to the terms of reference to the 15th Finance Commission (15FC). These changes were made in July, quite late in the tenure of the 15FC, and especially when the final report was expected by the end of October.Read more 

The Puzzling Ban of E-Cigarettes in India

The Indian government’s own disastrous experience with bans of various substances and services in the past should categorically advise it against such a move in the future. Yet, it is planning to go down the same route again with the case of “e-cigarettes” also known as Electronic Nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). A ban on ENDS, however well-intentioned, will put several former smokers at a greater risk of limiting their access to no-tar alternatives and will end up defeating the larger public health objectives.

In a landmark 200-page report titled “Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction”, the Royal College of Physicians in the UK concludes that e-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking, nor do they result in the normalisation of smoking. They find that the available evidence indicates that “e-cigarettes are being used almost exclusively as safer alternatives to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to reduce harm to themselves or others from smoking or to quit smoking completely”. Importantly, they further categorically find that the long-term harm caused by e-cigarettes is less than 5 percent compared to other tobacco products.

By allowing ENDS to operate in India legally, the government and regulatory bodies can have a lot more control over the product. This includes levying appropriate taxes, issuing public use guidelines, providing information about the product, enforcing a minimum age for sales, and individual product restrictions surrounding flavour choices and nicotine concentration in tobacco or e-cigarette products. In fact, regulators could go further to ensure product standardisation, labelling requirements to indicate the level of nicotine (something which is not in practice today for normal cigarettes), and technological developments in the field to further reduce the harm caused by the products.

Read the full article here

The Case Against Weakening India's No First Use Policy

Last month defence minister Rajnath Singh chose Pokhran – the site of India’s nuclear tests – to suggest that the future of the country’s nuclear no first use policy would depend on changing “circumstances”. Singh’s surprise statement was apparently aimed at Pakistan after tensions escalated following the Indian government’s decision to bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories.The statement also comes amid dissatisfaction with the no first use policy, with one critic calling it a “formula for disaster”. Opponents cite Pakistan’s battlefield nuclear weapons, which they believe offer a shield for Pakistan-based terrorism. The way out, according to this logic, would be for India to threaten pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Pakistan’s arsenal.Read More

Honey traps, deepfakes, AI: Why India’s RAW needs to prepare for threats beyond terrorism

In the context of India, honey-trappers usually try to extract information or spread fake news. There is still evidence of the adversary breaking into the top-level. That, however, is no reason for India’s intelligence community to not break out of the status quo. If anything is to be learnt from the 26/11 experience, intelligence agencies must stay ahead of the curve, adapt to these rapid shifts and not jeopardise the nation’s first line of defence.Read more

Howdy Modi and Trump showcase Indian lobby in US. But double loyalties can’t go far

Trump’s presence at Howdy Modi certainly highlights the strength and the comfort of the India-US relationship. The event’s organisers claim that it is the largest-ever turnout for a foreign elected leader on US soil. Apparently, only the Pope attracted a bigger crowd. In the amoral world of international relations, it is par for the course for states to influence the politics and policies of other countries.  A lot depends on how the prevalent nationalist “America First” political sentiment in the United States perceives the Howdy Modi rally.Read more

Not Enough Reasons for Cryptocurrency Ban

An inter-ministerial committee led by Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg has proposed that holding cryptocurrency in India be made illegal. Directly or indirectly investing, trading, or exchanging foreign cryptocurrencies could lead to a prison sentence of up to 10 years or a fine of up to ₹25 crores. The committee’s argument is that banning cryptocurrencies makes sense given the risks associated with them and volatility in their prices. RBI governor Shaktikanta Das has backed this decision, going as far as to call cryptocurrencies a ‘Ponzi scheme’. In an interview, Das stated that the issuance of currency is a sovereign function. Allowing private companies to issue currency will undermine and destroy macroeconomic and financial stability. He also aired that they would raise concerns about money laundering and terror financing-things. There is some substance to the argument. But a blanket ban on cryptocurrencies might be hard to implement and might do more harm than good. That’s not me saying it, the committee itself has previously argued this. They also argued that a blanket ban would drive operators underground and might prove to be a catalyst in cryptocurrencies being used for illegitimate purposes.So why does a committee go from being on the fence on cryptocurrency regulation to a blanket ban? Cryptocurrency has never been legal tender (it might be once Facebook-led Libra comes out). It has always been traded like more of an asset. So it's not like bitcoin was challenging the Rupee (or Dollar or Pound in the first place). The recommendation is still a draft law. But once it is imposed, there is no plan to facilitate an exit for current crypto holders, who will end up being criminalised. According to The Wire, there are 50 lakh crypto traders in India and trading volumes are in the range of 1500 Bitcoins a day, or around INR 1 Bn. It lags some way behind the global trading volume which is in excess of $21 Bn. So if you hold/continue to hold foreign cryptocurrency, there is a real chance that one fine day you might wake up a criminal.There are around 2,116 cryptocurrencies globally with a market capitalisation of $119.46Billion. All of them are banned unless they are Indian. The panel recommended that the RBI can consider having a digital banknote as India’s official digital currency. So there is hope yet for crypto in India, just none for the private sector. In addition, there is also plenty of hope for blockchain technologies.According to the report, blockchain can be used by banks and other financial firms for processes such as loan-issuance tracking, collateral management, fraud detection and claims management in insurance, and reconciliation systems in the securities market.Broadly there are two points of contention that this ban and encouragement of blockchain presents. Firstly, implementation. Crypto trading and investing do not require government or third-party approval. This means it is hard for the government to detect where, when, and by whom crypto transactions are being conducted. This is before we get into the state’s capacity to monitor all these transactions.Secondly, winners and losers. RBI emerges out of this a winner. Not having to regulate cryptocurrencies under its mandate means that the can has been kicked down the road at the moment. There will be arguments made that the Indian economy also won. The burden of proof here is to justify how the Indian economy was losing when the crypto ban wasn’t in place.As for losers, there are two big stakeholders that lost. Firstly, for India’s startup community involved in crypto, this is a major setback. Crypto exchange CoinRecoil’s CEO Kunal Barchha in an open letter to the PM said as much. One possible means of recourse for them might be the law. Article 19 gives citizens the fundamental right of freedom to business in any sector or trade. It is hard to predict how the judiciary might rule on this when asked in court, but a legal challenge will provide hope to businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies.The second loser here is Facebook. More specifically, Facebook-led Libra. The ban means that if the currency achieves mass adoption, it is not going to have a user base in India. This might mean that Indian’s lose out on innovations in fintech until the ban lasts or is circumvented at least. As the crypto business flourishes globally, India might be left to play catch up once the ban is lifted.Bottom line is that there are good arguments on the side calling for the curtailment of cryptocurrencies. However, they are not nearly enough to call for a blanket ban. Let alone one that punishes through ₹25 crore fines and 10-year imprisonments. Even the committee or earlier versions of it would agree. The crypto ecosystem could have done without regulation in order to grow. As with other areas of technology, the government’s approach protects us for the moment. However, bans such as these, even if implemented well, will have to come down someday. Let’s hope we are prepared for when that happens.The writer is a Policy Analyst – Technology, at the Takshashila Institution and the co-author of Data Localisation in a Globalised World: An Indian Perspective. Views are Personal.This article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. 

An Ecosystem of Smart Payments for Mobility

The Nandan Nilekani-led committee on digital payments made its recommendations to the government recently. The report talks about a multitude of issues, including the international expansion of RuPay cards, increasing digital payment acceptance at scale, and a revised outlook towards KYC. One of the most fundamental things the report talks about is the need for an NCMC (National Common Mobility Card) wallet.The idea of unifying cards for mobility has been recurring in the policy sphere for the better part of a decade now. For instance, launched in 2011, the ‘More’ card aimed to be a single point of transactions for transportations, including metro, buses, as well as parking. The initiative failed to take off but Nilekani committee seems to have revitalised the debate. The committee mentioned NCMC in no less than 3 of its recommendations to the government. It suggested using the platform as a common technical standard to promote interoperable standards for transit payments. It also asked to Enable wider use of NCMC by extending use cases beyond mobility to point of sale devices. They also recommended creation of an NCMC wallet.The idea behind the NCMC originally was to create a seamless experience for citizens by allowing them to use a single card for transport. One nation, one card. Starting with metros and buses, the applications of the card could at a later stage transcend into paying for fuel, tolls, and maybe even canteens at railway station.Widespread adoption of such an initiative is envisioned to have multiple positive effects. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the card could have a positive impact on the growth of digital payments. Secondly, this could help in ease of use for existing methods of transport (buses and metro) and provide a good template to introduce new methods of commute (smart bikes). Thirdly, the one nation one card approach could serve as a driver for more people to take up public transport, helping lower emissions.The introduction and adoption of such a card would fit into the larger narrative of a developing India under Smart Cities and Digital India. The ingredients for the strategy for smarter mobility are all present, the question remains whether a smart NCMC card is the best possible solution to the opportunity that India has today.

Solving for a Smarter Strategy

The failed implementation of the More card and the subsequent proposal for the NCMC card implores us to ask a few questions about where we are and where we plan to go from here. This is not to say that the smart card is not the solution, but to imply that it should be part of a broader vision that is not limited to the introduction of new cards and instead also utilises existing and emerging technologies.Smart cards for public transport are not a new invention. London has been using the Oyster card for years now, covering metro, buses, ferries, as well as cable cars. In 2007, Mumbai experimented with the same with a card called GO Mumbai (a pilot project) which was applicable for BEST buses and later in Central and Western Railway Services. The rates of adoption were meager. Out of the 37 lakh people who used the Central Railway only 12,000 used the card. In the Western Railway as out of the 33 lakh commuters, only 39 used the card. So before we go about implementing a new NCMC card, it would be a good idea to learn from the pilot initiatives like GO Mumbai and develop a strategy that incorporates these new learnings.GO Mumbai failed because of the infrastructure that supports smart cards. The company responsible for supplying gadgets that would validate the smart cards, Kaizen Limited, failed to deliver a sufficient number of products. Furthermore, the machines available to validate the cards for travel were riddled with technical problems. This directly contributed to low rates of adoption.So we need to learn from the pilots that did not fare well, as well as from initiatives that did. One idea might be to develop multiple points of entry and recharges for public transport in India. This would include introducing bank cards, public and private, with NFC that work on public transport systems. RuPay, recently adopted the same by launching contactless cards. Contactless cards would eliminate the need to have a metro card for users who own debit cards. The introduction of NFC technology in the metro, as well as buses, would facilitate payments by Apple Pay and Android Pay in smartphones and smartwatches. In such a scenario, an NCMC card could serve as an alternative to individuals who do not own a bank card or would prefer to top up using cash. An added advantage of having just one card (VISA, Mastercard, or RuPay) would be eliminating the need for continual top-ups. Such an ecosystem would make it a seamless experience for consumers to use public transport while multiplying the number of digital transactions. Besides, debit/credit cards are used at other points such as petrol pumps nationwide, so they wouldn’t need a strategy to push NCMC cards for fuel payments. This also supplements the committee’s current recommendation on increasing NCMC acceptance and maybe the future regardless of whether or not the government accepts this suggestion.So instead of tackling a problem as complex as payments for mobility using a new card, let us take this as an opportunity to introduce an ecosystem of smart payments, where consumers can easily access public transport with or without cards. Something we are progressing towards through the recommendations of the Nilekani committee.The writer is a Policy Analyst – Technology, at the Takshashila Institution and the co-author of Data Localisation in a Globalised World: An Indian Perspective. Views are Personal.This article was first published in Deccan Herald.  

Modi govt’s blanket ban on plastics at this moment of economic slowdown is a bad idea

Modi’s de-plasticisation campaign seeks to end the use of single-use plastics by 2022. It is unclear if anyone in the government has done economic and environmental cost-benefit analyses of a nationwide ban on single-use plastics. If India’s proposed ban on single-use plastics is successful, the benefit is that we will reduce plastic pollution, but at the cost of worsening the cumulative environmental impact.Read more

China’s headache: Taiwan and not Tibet or Xinjiang

China’s defence white paper 2019 reiterates the importance of Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan for China. The white paper highlights China’s concerns about Taiwan. But it implies a certain lessening of its worries on Xinjiang and Tibet compared to the past.Read more...

Slow economic growth is both immoral and anti-national. Don’t ignore falling GDP rate

Having convinced ourselves that the Narendra Modi government’s policies cannot be at fault, we are now debating whether the economic slowdown that began in 2017 is cyclical or structural. More than three million people emerge out of poverty for every percentage rise in GDP. The Indian economy will have to grow at over 10 per cent per annum every year to become a five-trillion-dollar economy by 2024. The RBI now projects a growth rate of 6.9 per cent for the next year.Read more

Wider debate needed on major changes in data protection law

With the developments in Kashmir and the economy dominating so much of the national discussion, it can be hard to keep track of what is happening with tech policy. One thing that might slip through the cracks is the changes in the Data Protection Bill. According to a recent report by Medianama, the ministry of electronics and information technology, or MEITY, is privately seeking responses to new questions from select stakeholders.The Data Protection Bill is going to be profoundly important in India’s tech policy landscape, going forward. It will tackle issues around data privacy, data protection, and data processing, all of which have never been discussed at length in Indian law. Based on inputs received from the Srikrishna Committee report, it will also focus on data localisation. So when MEITY initially asked for feedback on the draft data protection bill, it received over 600 comments from individuals and organisations. For this round of comments, the ministry has reached out to only 10-15 stakeholders.This raises a host of questions and concerns about the process. First, as Medianama puts it, why the secrecy? With over 600 comments being submitted, the bill is clearly an issue with a significant amount of public interest. MEITY and its bureaucracy could argue that 600 submissions are a lot to process, and not all the comments are relevant to the process. But for a piece of legislation this important, it is surely better to have too many inputs instead of picking and choosing which voices you would like to elevate. There is also not a lot of transparency in the process. How does one figure out the basis on which these 10-15 stakeholders were selected? This is not to imply that the participants asked for feedback are not a decent sample of stakeholders. But this could have been done better had a rationale/basis behind the selection been provided.Not knowing why some people have been selected and the others ruled out matters more when the bill has sweeping changes. The new version of the bill is reportedly going to address issues in e-commerce and community data. Both these topics were not a part of the Srikrishna Committee or the October consultation process. It is unclear what the bill’s stance might be on both these matters. To make an educated guess on e-commerce, the bill might condense and borrow aspects from the draft e-commerce policy from earlier this year. It is anyone’s guess what those aspects might be, but it does narrow down the list. As for community data, there does not exist such a precedent. It is frankly shocking that the consultation has been labelled as “clarifications” in the bill. If entire new industries are being addressed under the document, then surely it should be classified as additions/revisions, and thus call for comments from all stakeholders. It might not have been acceptable to have a selection of stakeholders for a round of clarifications on data protection. And that is even more so when it comes to picking and choosing stakeholders regarding legislation that has such substantial changes.This lack of transparency also makes one question the importance given to the comments submitted earlier. There is clearly value in having documents that present the perspectives of stakeholders across the industry, academia, and civil society. But given the recent turn of events, who can say whether these perspectives have been reflected in the new version that is being circulated for feedback. The idea here is not to give credit to organisations/individuals who may have caused tangible changes in policy. Instead, it is to ensure that the process that goes into finalising the document is truly multilateral.The final version of the policy will still have winners and losers. No legislation is objectively perfect. This is especially true in technology, where most laws find it hard to keep up with rapid advances in the industry. If the industry wins through lax laws on data privacy, civil society arguing for stronger privacy laws will de facto lose. What the consultations should then aim for is to reflect that different views on subjects were considered before making trade-offs in favour of one over the other.What makes this situation even more bizarre is that up until this point, the process has been fairly transparent. The Srikrishna Committee’s recommendations were comprehensive and publicly available. As was the first round of comments in October 2018, even though the comments submitted were not made available to the public. Why then has the second round of inputs been restricted to just a few people without any explanation? Not allowing public comments while adding e-commerce and community data to the mandate is going to have negative implications when the bill finally comes out. A large share of stakeholders in academia, industry, and civil society are going to have fundamental disagreements on the way this was carried out, as well as its contents.Indian policy towards all things technology is slowly catching up with advancements. As new legislation comes out regarding other emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, fintech, and the Internet of Things, it would make sense to involve multiple perspectives while designing it. Failure to do so is likely to have an adverse impact on the adoption of these technologies and, by extension, India’s development.This article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. Views expressed are personal.

The Evolution of Synthetic Thought

Download the Essay in PDFThe world has never been enough. At least for us, humans. The endeavour to become more than what we are lies at the heart of human civilisation. We have overcome challenges of nature, obstacles of time, physical and mental impediments. Perhaps nothing reflects the culmination of this collective zeal to surpass our capabilities as much as Transhumanism.Transhumanism is a belief that human beings can transcend the limits of physical and mental limitations through technology. For some, a Transhumanist is an ideal to strive towards, and for others, it is both a source and an answer to all of humanity’s problems.Borne out of a belief system that humankind should reach the pinnacle of its capabilities and beyond, Transhumanism comprises augmentations to overcome limitations. While technological augmentations may be a recent endeavour, primitive humans have utilised tools to augment their capabilities. From the wooden spears, they used to hunt, the prosthetic wooden and iron legs to augment walking, all the way to lances in warfare, humans have employed augmentations throughout history. Eyeglasses, clothing, and ploughs signalled a rise in using tools to augment our capabilities.The rise in medical technology, genetic science, and electronics from the 1990s, has opened new frontiers in human capabilities. We don’t merely use technology as enablers but have started adopting it from within in the form of cybernetics. Armbands, deep-brain stimulators, physical and neural augmentations, mechanical and cybernetic implants, and potentially gene editing are technologies that humans can use to enhance themselves and achieve capabilities previously unheard of.On one hand, science is driving innovation in augmentation, and on the other, Transhumanism has given rise to a significant amount of philosophical thought. Notions of challenging what it means to be human, virtues and vices of post-humanism, and the dangers of uncontrolled immortality provoke deep questions that do not have answers but encourage much debate and discourse. There is also an entire section of humanity that believes that the very notion of Transhumanism is irrelevant, for any such technological advancements are several decades away.Transhumanism has generated fear and enthusiasm in equal measures. While proponents extol the virtues of embracing technology to enhance our lives, detractors fear what this will mean to be human at all. The widespread availability of Transhumanist technologies could result in radical life extension, overall well-being and improper perpetuation could create class divides, encourage oppression and even alter geopolitical landscapes.For the first time in human history, we can radically alter our minds and bodies and take shortcuts to the various destinations of natural evolution. This essay looks at Transhumanism from an emerging technological paradigm and attempts to provide an objective view of where Transhumanism is headed and what it means to the rest of the world.[pdf-embedder url="https://takshashila.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/TE-Evolution-of-Synthetic-Thought-CRG-2019-01.pdf"]Download the Essay in PDF

Facebook can’t be taken down, but Zuckerberg can be taken down a notch

It is hard to associate Facebook and most of Big Tech with anything positive right now. Privacy breaches and the Cambridge Analytica scandal led the American Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to fine Facebook $5bn. The fine was a joke. FTC’s decision was seen to be so weak that Facebook’s stock actually rose in the wake of the levy. You know a corporation is a fairly big when a multi-billion dollar fine barely qualifies as pocket change for it. The question most of the world seems to be asking is whether Facebook is perhaps too big?You will hear arguments that bigness is not a crime, that no company should be punished for being successful. But that is not remotely the point. The only reason the world now thinks that Facebook needs to be curbed is because of its horrendous conduct with the privacy of user data. Earlier this year, we found out that Facebook stored millions of passwords in plain text, visible to thousands of employees. When users signed up for two-factor authentication, Facebook used those numbers for targetted ads. What’s worse is that the $5bn fine is for privacy violations that Facebook has been fined for before by the FTC in 2011. Not only did Facebook’s conduct failed to improve, it actually got worse (read: Cambridge Analytica).

There have been privacy-focused initiatives from within Facebook that help users take more control of their privacy. Facebook recently announced an upcoming feature called ‘Off-Facebook Activity’. The idea is that since Facebook tracks what you do on the Internet even when you are not on Facebook, Off-Facebook Activity will give you an overview of websites and apps that share your information with Facebook. You still can’t delete the information that Facebook collects. However, you can choose to delink that information from your digital profile. It’s not perfect in concept, hasn’t been released yet, and does not do nearly enough to calm concerns around Facebook’s conduct towards user privacy.This would not have been such a huge problem if Facebook did not have a stronghold on free speech. Facebook (with its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp) has a monopoly on social media. Its closest competitors are Snapchat or LinkedIn. So even if people want to quit Facebook, they don’t have anywhere else to go. Zuckerberg has in fact admitted to Facebook’s power on free speech itself, stating, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly, I agree.”

Facebook’s monopoly means that no matter how horrible their conduct is with user data, they tend to get away with it. This brings us to the question of whether Facebook can be broken up. The idea here is that if Facebook could be unmerged with Instagram and WhatsApp, it would spark competition in privacy practices. Competition in privacy laws would be better for everyone.There have been calls to do exactly that. The idea of dismantling Big Tech is a key message of United States Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign. Facebook’s own co-founder, Chris Huges, argued for breaking up Facebook too, calling Zuckerberg’s power “unAmerican”. The problem here is that it is a grey area for antitrust laws. It's unclear whether existing antitrust law is equipped to engender a splitting of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It's up to the Justice Department and FTC to determine if a case can be made out for it. Even so, you can rest assured that if the U.S. government wanted to break up Facebook, it would be a lengthy process that might ultimately be unsuccessful. The government tried to break up Microsoft in 1990s, and failed.The other option here is to have stricter regulations when it comes to privacy. It is certainly the one Facebook prefers. In an Op-ed article for the New York Times published earlier this year, Nick Clegg, a vice president–level staffer at Facebook, called for better accountability through regulation. He emphasised the need for “significant resources and strong new rules” and added that breaking the company up would not resolve the problems of election interference or user privacy.Of course, Nick Clegg would say that. The problem here is that even if better privacy laws did exist they might not mean much given Facebook’s size and dominion. It could just choose to ignore them as it has in the past and assuage hurt feelings by paying a fine on occasion. Besides, U.S. privacy laws would not apply overseas. People in India would still suffer from privacy violations at the hands of Facebook.Facebook’s size is not a reason to punish it. However, its conduct toward user privacy is. It might be impossible to break up Facebook, but it is reasonable to demand accountability of it.If Facebook is to be truly made accountable, Mark Zuckerberg needs to be reined in. You will hear people say that Facebook’s current situation is a failure of capitalism. They will probably say that Big Tech needs big structural changes. They wouldn’t be wrong. Capitalism — and the attention economy, in particular — is not perfect. But, as of now, these are broad sweeping arguments, and not solutions. If Facebook is to be made more accountable, we need to begin with making Zuckerberg more accountable. Zuckerberg currently holds ~60% share on the Facebook board. This means Facebook’s board has no power to keep him accountable. It is advisory at best.The fix here is that Zuckerberg's power needs to be regulated. Creating a privacy czar will achieve little if s/he has no power to check Zuckerberg and his decisions. There are ways to accomplish this, none of them are easy.The most straightforward solution here would be to loosen Zuckerberg’s hold on the board by divesting him of a significant part of his shares. The legal precedent for this may not exist. However, it is only fair as Zuckerberg’s power, as a single man controlling the speech of 2 billion individuals, is unprecedented. It would help the board hold him accountable rather than simply advise. It would also steer clear of setting a precedent of companies being punished for being too successful.This article was first published in The Hindu.