Public sharing of home quarantine addresses a bad idea

This article originally appeared in Deccan Herald

On March 24, several WhatsApp groups catering to apartment associations started buzzing with excel files containing addresses of those who were placed under home quarantine. The source was a website run by the Government of Karnataka which contained details for all districts in Karnataka (deleted ‘purportedly’). This author was eventually able to access the website which contained approximately 30 files. It is unclear whose decision it was to make these details public. Statements from government officials indicate this was a deliberate step. However, it seems to be at odds with how sensitively matters are reportedly being handled by teams on the ground, who were informing nearby residents as needed.

Why is this a bad idea?

On March 14, a leading English daily misreported a story that the spouse of a patient who had tested positive for COVID-19 had skipped quarantine and traveled to another Indian city. There were several calls for exemplary punishment, but it later turned out that the person in question had not violated quarantine instructions at the time of travelling. Sure, certain questionable decisions were made subsequently. But we need to be aware that these are unprecedented times and no one is really prepared to deal with the situation. The fear and self-preservation instinct is apparent. But there is also a danger of uncontrolled reactions by the general public in such a scenario.

Over the last few days we have also seen disturbing reports of airline crew and healthcare professionals facing a backlash at their respective places of residence. Videos have also emerged showing people physically abusing fellow citizens for coughing in public and not wearing masks. Regrettably citizens from the North-East have been subject to racial abuse.

This is why it is ill-advised to publicly share this kind of information. While individual names and phone numbers have not been shared, an address is enough to enable targeting (changed slightly).  In information security terms, it can be considered a form of  doxing people (publicly posting personal information). The individuals living at those addresses have been put at risk of being on the receiving end of discriminatory and abusive behaviour. While some of them may have violated their quarantine instructions, treating all of them as potential criminals is not an acceptable response (changed slightly).

Unwittingly aiding the flow of information

Another important aspect to consider is the role of unaffected individuals in circulating this information. The Bengaluru version of the list was doing the rounds on WhatsApp since the evening of March 24. And it continued to be circulated by people even if they disagreed with the practice or could not vouch for its authenticity. As expected, the link to the website eventually made its way onto Twitter and was shared by users with a large number of followers. Others shared it with the intention of being helpful and sharing information. Unfortunately, in such a situation, these actions only aided the virality of the information. 

There is also a tendency to believe that since the information is already out there, individual sharing actions do not matter. However, when the information in question can put someone else at risk, we must consider the downstream implications of that individual action too.

What is the right way to react?

Understanding how to react to minimise the risk to others in such situations is important. Although it is tempting to share such information with acquaintances or  Tweet about specifics while disagreeing with the action, it is necessary to consider if the unintended consequence of the action.

If the intention is to raise awareness about the lack of sensitivity, then the act itself can be highlighted without sharing the location/source of such information. It must be remembered that this action can have the second order effect of nudging others to look for it.

Another possible course of action is to reach out directly to the authorities who have made this information public. This  may not be possible in all situations but can be an effective strategy. It should be noted that their actions or decisions are not always taken with bad intentions. Those responsible may react positively to such interventions if the risks are clearly highlighted to them. 

Why is sharing-hygiene important?

This sharing hygiene is especially important as we see more [information disorder] flooding our lives. The large platforms where this information proliferates are attempting to take measures to tackle this but such content moderation at scale is impossible to do well. It is as much a demand-side problem as it is a supply-side problem. Passively sharing information may have more consequences than we realise. We have a collective role to play in curbing information disorder.

Is the government doing enough to fight Corona on health & economic fronts?

The events of the past few weeks have served as a grave reminder of the challenges of living in a globalised world. The benefits of globalisation and its impact on human progress can never be understated. However, every once in a while, through global financial crises or through pandemics such as the one we are currently witnessing with COVID-19, we are also reminded of its perils. What started in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 has within a few months, impacted over 267,000 people in 185 countries, unfortunately killing more than 11,000 people as of 22nd March 2020 already.The economic and social impact of this pandemic will only unfold over time but the early signs are not comforting. An estimated 25 million jobs are likely to be lost due to the COVID-19 crisis, pushing millions more into underemployment and working poverty. With supply chain disruptions impacting almost every sector including Information Technology, Manufacturing, Entertainment, Travel, and Retail, stock markets across the world have witnessed their worst performances since the 2008 global financial crisis. Global income is expected to shirk by as much as US $ 2 trillion in 2020, with developing economies alone bearing as much as US $ 220 billion of the impact. The resulting economic shock and looming financial crisis is expected to push the global annual growth below 2.5% in 2020.The full article is published in and available on The Quint

If India has to control coronavirus pandemic, it must contain 4 other contagions as well

The infodemic and the behavioural contagion feed off each other, and higher levels of social anxiety exacerbate the process. Similarly, the psychological and economic contagions reinforce each other and are in turn amplified by informational, behavioural and viral contagions. The complex interactions among five contagions make it much harder to contain the spread of the coronavirus that triggered this cascade. This why a governmental response focused on public health alone (with some information management thrown in) will not suffice.Just like there are war cabinets during wartime, the multiple pandemics call for a pandemic cabinet. If there ever was a time for the cliched whole of government approach, it is now.Read more

Saving Our Own: COVID-19 Presents Challenges and Opportunities in Technology

With the pandemic existing at this scale, state capacity alone may not be enough to respond effectively. Struggling in the face of an invisible threat, states have to co-opt technology to augment their arsenal for a long-haul fight against coronavirus.The unprecedented spread of the COVID-19 outbreak is overwhelming healthcare systems across the world. In less than three months, the virus has impacted 177 countries or territories (including cruise ships) infecting over 2,30,000 people and killing over 11,000. The rapidity of community spread has left policymakers and bureaucrats scrambling for ways to bolster an overworked healthcare system. Another impending concern is of people who are struggling to adjust to a self-isolation way of life.With the pandemic existing at this scale, state capacity alone may not be enough to respond effectively. Struggling in the face of an invisible threat, states have to co-opt technology to augment their arsenal for a long-haul fight against coronavirus.There are three phases in which technology can be effective - one in the detection of COVID-19 positive individuals; second in enforcing quarantine conditions and finally on facilitating the non-infected individuals to stay-at-home.Technological developments of the last few decades are helping the testing regime that has been currently applied for COVID-19. There are two stages for detection: thermal screening that we see at airports or public places and the confirmatory test. The thermal screening is a crude process - it can only identify if someone has a fever. While the confirmatory test usually determines if the virus is present in the sample by searching for the virus’s RNA.However, this depends on an adequate amount of virus being present in the sample which further depends on the way the sample was taken. An alternative way to test for COVID-19 is to identify antibodies that the human body makes in response to the virus. This is a better method because antibodies can stay in the body long after the infection is over and therefore can be used to determine a history of infection.The first serological tests based on antibody testing are now being made available. These tests will make identifying susceptible people easier and hopefully reduce the ambiguity brought on by the other methods.Quarantine and self-isolation seem to be a difficult way to contain viruses, even celebrities have chosen to defy quarantine, setting bad examples for the general public. China, one of the world’s most technologically advanced societies, was quick to adopt self-isolation and asked its residents to stay indoors.Through AliPay (one of the most popular mobile apps in China), the Chinese State has attempted to regulate the movement of its people. The idea is that based on a number of factors, each person’s app is going to be assigned a QR code to signify a risk of exposure. The code itself has three categories; green - unrestricted movement, yellow- self-quarantine for a week, and red - self-quarantine for two weeks. The system is being rolled out nationwide and is going to make it extremely hard for people to go around town without having a code.There are concerns with these measures, such as privacy violations (though some of the data being collected is not permanent in nature, for instance, location data). But it has unintended but anticipated consequences. In China, people were not informed about what variables their QR codes were being calculated. So people who were returning home from work and had their codes turn red were not allowed entry in their apartment complexes and were exposed to a higher degree of risk. Or for people departing high-risk areas having their codes turn red meant they could not get on flights or take exits on highways. Yet effective quarantine measures are required and the compromise on privacy may be essential to ensure wider public health. In India particularly, this appears to have been brought on by public behaviour itself endangering public health should be a crime, and safeguards against such lapses should not be undermined.Finally, technological innovations need to help individuals working from home maintaining social contacts. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion around how extended periods of isolation could impact mental health. With longer work-from-home durations and quarantine, there is a significant chance that we might be looking at increased cases of depression. Communities being isolated at this level is unprecedented, and if the situation continues like this for a longer period, people will miss physical contact, social validation, and also the endorphins from a gym session. This is a gap that tech can and may need to address if things continue the way they are.Given the anticipated long-term effects of this viral outbreak, we are going to need technological interventions to curb it as soon as possible and help us adjust to a new way of life in the long term.Shambhavi Naik is a research fellow at the Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru. Rohan Seth is a policy analyst at the Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru. Views are personal.This article was first published in News 18.

Antitrust is already working. Here’s why.

With the United States Congress taking aim at Google’s Search in anti-trust hearings, anti-trust is in the spotlight again. It is still unclear whether tech platforms privileging their products is enough to build and win an anti-trust case against big tech. We will find the answer to that question in the times to come. Until then, let us remember that 2019 displayed two memorable sides of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The first where he made the US Congress look stupid while explaining to them how Facebook made money. Remember, “Senator, we run ads”. The other side was visible when he talked about Elizabeth Warren being an existential threat to Facebook.Warren had not been the favorite to win the Democratic ticket for a while, let alone the Presidency, but was big enough to get herself heard. And a big part of her message was opposition to Big Tech and her call to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Even if Warren goes on to win the Presidency (she has dropped out of the race now) and launches her anti-Big Tech campaign, it is unlikely that any of the Big Four (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google) would be broken up so easily.Actually, there are a bunch of reasons why it is unlikely that Big Tech would be broken anytime soon. For starters, all of them have the capital and expertise at hand to handle an anti-trust challenge. Also, you could well argue that anti-trust (or at least the way it operates) wasn’t built for this. And finally, a significant part of America views these companies as symbols of success, and at times engines of economic growth.So how is anti-trust working? Is it because it seems to have successfully threatened Facebook to merge its messaging services, making it harder to separate them? No. Anti-trust would still apply to a more interoperable messenger. If it could break up AT&T, one of the largest and most complex networks known to mankind, then consider it capable enough to mandate the decoupling of a complex messaging service.Instead, anti-trust works today as a deterrent, and a fairly effective one at that. Through the threat of breaking up Big Tech, it has ensured that these massive corporations think thrice before acquiring smaller firms. Instead, it has unknowingly been responsible for establishing a new approach to dealing with competition in Silicon Valley: The slow burn.The idea is that bigger tech companies slowly eat into their competitor’s market share or refrain from entering into new markets for fear of anti-trust. Professor Scott Galloway explains this well through Star Wars. Here is a slightly paraphrased version of his analysis:The Death Star’s multiple reactors can cause the total and rapid destruction of a planet. But, firing a single reactor on a planet is enough to be overkill for a city or a base, but nowhere near enough power to destroy an entire planet. That is basically what Big Tech has also adopted as a strategy.Prime Microsoft (1990s) was absolutely ruthless as a company. During the first browser wars, it killed its closest competitor, Netscape, and ended up inviting anti-trust. Since then, Microsoft has learned. Now, for instance, it has decided to compete against Slack with its latest offering, Teams. Turn on the single reactor. Microsoft began by offering Teams at a marginally lower price point than Slack. It has gradually upped the ante since then. Now bundling Teams with the Office 365 bundle, it has passed Slack in terms of users (13 million v 10 million, according to the most recent reports). Had Microsoft wanted to turn on the death star, it could have begun with retailing Teams for free and added in support for the G-Suite and say, Zoom. Making Teams interoperable would have taken away much of Slack’s USP.Once you begin thinking in terms of this analogy, a lot of Big Tech’s actions (and non-actions) begin to make sense. Think Amazon and FedEx.Amazon sits upon arguably the world’s best physical distribution networks. With some significant tweaking, they can also perform FedEx’s functions of transporting packages between cities. This would easily eat into the market share of FedEx. Plus, since it is Amazon, it is likely that replacing FedEx would happen at break-even or loss, beating FedEx’s price point. Amazon somewhat turned on the single death ray recently when it blocked its sellers from using FedEx ground for Prime shipments during the holiday season,  citing a dip in performance levels. Had it chosen to turn on the Death Star, it could have banned their express service from Prime Shipments and both express and ground services on Non-Prime Shipments.Amazon has also perfected its software over the years. So, when you order something on the platform, it feels frictionless. When was the last time you used the FedEx app? For Amazon, this market is low-hanging fruit – One that it won’t go for (at least with all its push) in the foreseeable future.And that in itself is how anti-trust is working. Yes, it wasn’t built keeping in mind Big Tech. Who could have predicted that we would have such companies back then? Big Tech likely has the capacity and expertise to navigate an anti-trust challenge. Anti-trust may not have been built for this, but the current version of it seems to have unintentionally been repurposed. It is now akin to a tool of deterrence against Big Tech. To some extent, we may have Warren to thank for it.Rohan Seth is a Policy Analyst at the Takshashila Institution. Views are personal.This article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. 

Wrong to say coronavirus has doomed world economy

The pandemic, like any other economic event, will throw up its own set of winners and losers; best if the debate around the economic impact of coronavirus builds a measure of nuanceThe global conversation about the coronavirus pandemic has focussed on a few things. Firstly, that the outbreak of the virus can largely be considered a Black Swan event, which is an unanticipated problem with severe unintended consequences. Secondly, that there is a need to ‘flatten the curve’ so that healthcare systems can cope, and thirdly, that its impact on the economy and markets everywhere will be debilitating and that everyone is a loser here.As far as the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic goes, there are two problems with the common assessments making the rounds: One, they are an understatement. The global economy is doing badly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The pandemic will play into this existing matrix in ways that are not entirely clear as yet. Two, when we abstract the analysis to the point that our main takeaway is that everything is going to hell, the analysis itself loses most meaning and its nuance. In short, while it may seem callous to put it like that, the pandemic will have its own set of winners and losers.The tech industry should be Exhibit ‘A’ for this hypothesis. If you ask yourself for a moment who the biggest winners from this pandemic might be, a preliminary response from many will be that tech giants like Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. will stand to gain. Things are not quite as simple as that though. Apple, for instance, is not in the running because their supply chains run through China and are likely to be severely impacted. So is the case for Samsung. Basically, any company with a complex supply chain that may or may not run through China is going to be hit.We need to also consider the fact that we are in the middle of the biggest work from a home experiment in history. Zoom, the US-based video conferencing service, for instance, has gained a lot from this, without actually making a lot of significant changes. Since the beginning of December 2019, its stock price has gone up by $40 to about $ 115 (from approximately $70). It peaked earlier in March at about $125.Moreover, tech platforms, per se, are better suited to navigating this outbreak as compared to more traditional firms. They have fewer components in their supply chains relative to, say, a phone or a tablet. People are likely to depend on the conveniences offered on their screens, given that travelling is going to be restricted. Spending more time at home also means slipping more frequently into distractions of social media and online streaming.Now let’s turn to another aspect of the current economic conundrum. The spread of the virus does not bode well for the gig economy. The current situation puts workers at a huge risk of exposure, especially in developing countries like India. It is not effective to self-quarantine in informal settlements. It is hard to stock up on essentials or food when most of one’s family is living hand to mouth and it is near impossible to provide for families when the small/medium businesses temporarily shut down.Most huge platforms rely on the gig economy to sustain themselves. Let’s take the case of Amazon. While it has its product and management teams, which work from their HQ and other regional offices, there is a huge part of the company that is run by the gig economy, i.e., people working in warehouses and drivers who deliver the products to the consumers. It needs to see to what extent companies with such business models are affected by the current disruptions.Let’s turn to another industry that is likely to be impacted -- Entertainment. Box offices across the world are facing huge losses and will continue to do so. Cinema halls and popcorn machines have already been facing threats from online streaming. Netflix and HBO have been winning golden globes and Academy awards, giving the ‘traditional’ film industry a run for its money. Enter coronavirus and the release dates for most movies have been postponed. The longer social distancing and self-quarantine last, the worse it is going to get for cinema halls. People are likely to get more hooked to streaming and a significant percentage might end up realising that they can do just fine without making that extra trip to the hall.The world is a net loser from coronavirus, there are no two ways about that. But while many industries will be impacted and a large number of firms are likely to shut down due to the lack of demand, this is not reason enough to make abstract, generalised claims about how the economy is going to suffer.We live in a complex, interconnected world where effects are not equally bad for everyone. Let us treat this as a complex global economic event and accord it the nuance it deserves. It would be best to avoid broad generalisations when speaking of the economic impact of the coronavirus and build our beliefs on reason, not dogma.(Rohan Seth and Nischitha Suresh are analysts with the Takshashila Institution)This article was first published in Deccan Herald.

Xinjiang in danger of severe Covid-19 outbreak

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the Covid-19 outbreak a pandemic this week. That designation implies an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, affecting a large number of people.The Chinese government initially tried to conceal the severity of the problem by hiding facts about the outbreak, which in turn contributed to the spread of the virus across the world. But the state machinery swung into action on January 23 by quarantining Wuhan and other cities in Hubei province, where the outbreak was first observed. Some cities on the east coast were also partially locked down as the number of cases increased.Though a lot of effort has gone into containing the spread of the virus across China, the situation in the westernmost Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, which is one of the most vulnerable regions for reasons detailed below, remains largely ignored and underreported.

The article was originally published in Asia Times

COVID-19 & China: Crisis to opportunity

Three events last week underscore how the narrative has shifted around China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak. The first of these is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Wuhan, which coincided with the country’s health authorities confirming that the outbreak had peaked there. Second, the World Health Organisation’s declaration of Covid-19 as a pandemic for which the epicentre had shifted to Europe. And third, the Donald Trump administration’s initial ham-handed response to the outbreak in the US.Read the full article in Deccan Herald here

China-style lockdown not the only way to deal with COVID-19. Democracies, learn from Taiwan

The manner in which the Chinese government managed the COVID-19 outbreak is being favourably compared to the general mess that Europe and the United States have made of it so far. Now that China seems to have contained the initial outbreak while Western countries are struggling with a massive surge in cases, Beijing’s propagandists and apologists have started asserting that the Chinese one-party, one-leader “system” is superior to a messy liberal democracy that is incapable of acting with the coherence, speed, and efficiency required to contain the pandemic.

But here’s a strange thing: prominent Chinese individuals who criticised President Xi Jinping and the Chinese “system” for botching up the initial response to the Wuhan outbreak have been arrested or mysteriously disappeared. In contrast, Americans, British, and Europeans are criticising their leaders, governments, and public health policies without the smallest risk of arrest or detention. If the Chinese system is really as good as it is cranked out to be, why the need to silence the critics?

Read more

Why the current pandemic may perhaps be the world’s last one

Viruses can be deadly but are pretty simple things. They are composed of a few proteins and a small amount of genetic material and can be completely characterized fairly easily. Back in 2003, it took a few months for scientists to fully sequence the 29,727 nucleotides of the SARS virus genome. In comparison, it took around a month for Chinese scientists to do the same for the SARS-Cov-2 coronavirus, the genome of which is comparable in size to the SARS virus. That’s because the technology used for sequencing improves with advances in computing power, and today’s machines are orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones we used two decades ago. This is also why testing a patient for coronavirus today takes a few hours and costs around ₹5,000.Read more

Is India’s Rising Defence Pension Bill Affecting Modernisation of Military? 5 Myths Busted

Business, as usual, is no longer an option. India must tackle the rising defence pension bill.

Lt Gen Prakash Menon and Pranay Kotasthane bust five myths of the defence pensions debate. Read the full article on ThePrint here.

SC Verdict: A positive step to realise VC's potential

On March 4, a historic day for the cryptocurrency industry in India, the Supreme Court of India quashed the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) prohibition on the trade of virtual currency (VC). The road towards the day of the verdict has been long and arduous. Even this verdict is a small win and how the cryptocurrency industry moves ahead remains to be seen. The Supreme Court concluded that the interdiction of VCs failed the four-pronged proportionality test and violated the fundamental right of the cryptocurrency exchanges to carry out any occupation, trade, or business. The Court believed that there were less intrusive measures to achieve the purposes that RBI intended. It also added that the RBI had not presented any empirical evidence to show that entities regulated by it suffered harm due to VC exchanges.

Nevertheless, the Court refuted almost all other arguments made by the petitioners. It upheld the right of the RBI to regulate VCs and commented that the RBI could regulate/prohibit anything that may impact the financial system of the country. On the claim by the petitioners that the circular was an executive action by the RBI and did not afford similar judicial acceptance as legislative action, the Court observed that the RBI was an autonomous institution responsible for maintaining the financial integrity of the country and enjoyed broad powers to govern activities that impact the monetary, credit and payments systems in India.

The latest judgment came almost two years after the RBI, through a circular, had prohibited the use of virtual currency. The circular forbade entities regulated by the RBI from dealing with or providing services to individuals or business entities dealing with or settling virtual currencies. All entities which were already involved in the provision of the aforementioned services were asked to wind down in three months. Cryptocurrency tokens could undermine international policy frameworks such as the AML (anti-money laundering) and FATF (Financial Action Task Force), designed to counter money laundering and terrorist financing, RBI had posited. It could also adversely impact market integrity and capital control, RBI’s deputy governor, BP Kanungo had further explained at a press conference on April 5th, 2018.

This led to the closing of many fledgling crypto exchanges within the country. Koinex, India’s largest crypto exchange was shut down because of the circular.  Unocoin, one of the early entrants in the bitcoin space in India, resumed fiat deposits on March 5, 2020, after suspending it in the summer of 2018. Unocoin had to lay off 50 percent of its employees after the ban. India has already lost valuable time, money, talent in a promising industry.

It is believed that the government and the RBI have similar opinions on cryptocurrencies. In February 2018, in his budget speech, then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had categorically said that ‘the government does not recognise cryptocurrency as legal tender or coin and will take all measures to eliminate the use of these crypto-assets in financing illegitimate activities or as part of the payments system’. An inter-ministerial committee also submitted its recommendations on July 22, 2019, and suggested banning private cryptocurrencies and criminalisation of activities related to VCs. The committee also submitted a draft bill - Banning of Cryptocurrency & Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019. The current Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said that ‘countries will have to show extreme caution on cryptocurrencies.

It will take much more to kickstart a decimated industry. Sensing the inclinations within the Finance Ministry and the RBI, and having been at the receiving end once before, the banks are likely to be circumspect in lending to the crypto exchanges.

A consistent policy framework needed

Coherent policy action by the government is required now. The government must identify the policy objective it wishes to achieve. These objectives would be a combination of checking money laundering, preventing terrorist financing, promoting greater financial inclusion, and ensuring financial stability. Evaluating all options and analysing empirical data and then choosing the most effective and less invasive measure is necessary.

RBI set up a sandbox for testing fintech products in April 2019. Opening this sandbox to cryptocurrencies as well would enable companies to live-test their new products in a controlled environment. This would not only promote innovation but also enhance the knowledge and awareness about cryptocurrency projects amongst the government officials, allowing them to take appropriate regulatory measures if and when global players such as Facebook launch their products in India.

The government should set up a specialised cryptocurrency advisory council that would liaise with multiple stakeholders in the government, industry, academia and suggest enabling regulation for the industry in India. The advisory council would be cognisant of the legislations in different parts of the world and conduct India-focused studies and recommend measures suited to the Indian landscape.

The Supreme Court judgment is a small step in the long road towards realising the immense potential of cryptocurrency and the government should leverage this opportunity to inspire confidence and implement progressive legislation.

 (Utkarsh Narain is a technology policy researcher at Takshashila Institution, a centre for research and education in public policy in Bengaluru. This commentary was published in Deccan Chronicle on March 12. The views expressed are personal.)

Using Tech to Deal with Covid-19 Is Problematic

Covid-19 has taken the world by storm. With Covid-19 being classified as a pandemic, recent predictions claim that within the coming year, 40-70% of people around the world will be affected with Covid-19 (including mild disease or an asymptomatic form). In a sense, China being the epicenter of the outbreak has reluctantly taken the world through a learning curve on how technology intersects with the policy in public health emergencies.As the number of cases rose in China, the ruling party’s response has been interesting. Since early February, China has been encouraging citizens to return to work. But while the Government does that, it has also begun efforts to regulate people’s movement through smartphones. Currently, the system is present in 200 cities and is being rolled out nationwide. Users fill in a form on the Alipay app with their personal details and are presented with a QR code, which can be green, yellow, or red. If your code is green, you are free to move about unrestricted. A yellow code means staying at home for a week, whereas a red means a two-week quarantine.On the surface, it makes sense. People who are predicted to be at risk should take precautions to ensure they don’t spread the virus. Software is a great medium to help achieve that. In a pandemic of this scale and seriousness, workers in public places like metro stations, subways, and residential societies should have the power to check who may be a contagion risk.But once you take a closer look, it becomes evident that tech does not always mirror society. People do not always fall neatly into green, yellow, and red signals. Data that classifies people may be riddled with biases. Algorithms may come to unjustified and false conclusions that put people at risk. Data shared with law enforcement agencies infringe on people’s privacy. All of this is evident now, making China an excellent case study to learn from.The New York Times has done exceptional reporting on this. In a particular case, Leon Lei, 29, was allotted a green code on Alipay before leaving his hometown, Anqing, to return to work in Hangzhou. A day before he departed, his code turned red, seemingly for no apparent reason. It is hard to say why the code changed and what parameters the algorithm used to detect the possibility of people being at risk. A working theory could be that Leon’s hometown, while itself not being a hotbed for the virus, borders Hubei Province — the center of the outbreak. As a result, the software decided to change its color. But it is hard to know for sure.Had location been the deciding factor in the code changing its color, then it is safe to assume that an increasing number of people in Anqing would get red codes, even if they are not at risk. This would make it harder for them to move to safer areas. Vanessa Wong faced this situation when she had no symptoms and her code suddenly turned red. Her employer and housing complex needed green codes for entry, leaving her stranded in Hubei. In addition, personal data shared by the users send location and an identifier to the police.This brings us to a larger question. What is a responsible way to use tech in such emergencies? State capacity is limited and technology is a handy tool that allows governments to bridge gaps. But as China teaches us, such solutions have very significant limitations. They do not mirror society accurately, can be biased, infringe on privacy, and have the potential to do considerable harm.This is why monitoring apps, such as Alipay need to be more transparent. It is better to disclose what data is being collected and how much weightage each parameter will be given. Citizens would then have the basic know-how of why their codes turned green and what they can do to be safer. It is because there is little to no transparency in the Alipay process, forcing uninfected citizens to be stranded and putting them at risk.People often tend to claim that technology is just a tool. It is value-neutral and does not defer between groups. It seems like a benign sentence but is dangerously misleading. When it comes to outcomes, history, and China today teach us that tech ends up choosing winners and losers, unintentionally so. Covid-19 is a crisis that should not be wasted in teaching us that.This article was first published in Deccan Chronicle. Views are personal.

India can fight COVID-19, but only if the private sector is allowed to step in quickly

It is important to say this because thus far, the task of addressing the COVID-19 has been delegated exclusively to the government. Almost all activities, from airlifting Indian nationals, screening arrivals at airports, testing samples, quarantining and treatment are carried out by the government. While this will be effective if the number of cases remains in the current order of magnitude, the government’s facilities alone will not be sufficient if the number of cases rises 100 times or more.The good news is that India has a private healthcare sector and R&D capability that can be used in the fight. The bad news is that we’re not letting them.If we even have a few lakh suspected cases, the government’s resources will fall short of what is required. The right time to think about the capacity required to handle such a massive crisis is now. The single most important thing for India to have a national response — as opposed to a government response — is to enable the private healthcare ecosystem to play an appropriate role to complement the government’s efforts wherever possible.Read more

The prospect of an oil stimulus in the time of Covid-19

Three major players in a market are trapped in a brutal price war. Investors stand to lose billions of dollars unless a price floor is fixed, and there is a fear of bankruptcy. Authorities are hoping that a price floor cartel succeeds. Does this ring a (telecom) bell? Well, it’s not what you think. This market is oil, and the three players are the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. The US has private shale oil suppliers, while the latter two have state-owned oil companies. Over the weekend, the price of crude dropped precipitously toward $30 a barrel, after the Saudi-led oil cartel failed to agree on production cuts with non-member Russia. US shale oil players, who were not a party to the negotiations, were hoping for a cartel agreement since their very viability depends on higher oil prices. Anything below $50 is bad news for them, especially for the junk bond investors who have financed these shale oil wells. The Saudis, with a vengeance, decided to up the ante, increasing their oil production and offering customers steep discounts, thus effectively trying to muscle into the market share of Russian oil companies in Europe. Russia, which is not a part of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), refused to play the ball on production cuts because its oil firms seemed bent on hurting US shale oil producers. The price war might very well be a proxy manifestation of a geopolitical showdown in West Asia between a Russia-Iran alliance and a US-Saudi one.Read More 

India’s Approach to the Indian Ocean Region: From Sea Control to Sea Denial

Given the budget constraints, the Indian Navy’s approach should change from sea control to sea denial

India’s Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat announced last month that India will prioritise submarines over its third aircraft carrier. The importance of this announcement was lost amid the clutter surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to India. “When we know that there would be two aircraft carriers there, and if the submarine force is dwindling, then our priority should be for submarines,” said General Rawat. It is a notable statement coming from the CDS himself, possibly hinting at the much-needed change of approach from sea control to sea denial towards the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).The article was originally published on The Diplomat.

ಬಜೆಟ್ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆ | ನಾಲ್ಕು ಚಾಲಕಶಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ದೊರೆಯುವುದೇ ಬಲ?

ಈಗಿರುವ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಉಪೇಕ್ಷಿಸಿ ಬಜೆಟ್ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಖಾಸಗಿ ಕಾರ್ಪೊರೇಟ್ ಹೂಡಿಕೆಯು ಉದ್ಯೋಗಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮತ್ತು ಜಿಡಿಪಿ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಮೂಲವಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ, ಆ ವಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೂಡಿಕೆಯ ವಿಶ್ವಾಸ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಳೆದ ಒಂದು ದಶಕದಿಂದಲೂ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ.ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಚಾಲಕಶಕ್ತಿಗಳ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಜೆಟ್ ಏನು ಮಾಡಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನೋಡೋಣ.Read the full article on Prajavani here.

Karnataka Budget Could Have Done More to Spur Growth

Analysis of Budget’s performance vis-à-vis the 4 drivers of growth in Karnataka shows more misses than hits; among positives, right noises on Bengaluru's economic development.Read more at https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/karnataka-budget-could-have-done-more-to-spur-growth-810873.html

Why Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's $10 bn to fight climate change may not help

This article was first published in the Deccan Herald.Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos recently announced through an Instagram post that he would donate $ 10 Billion from his personal wealth to the newly created Bezos Earth Fund to fight climate change. The global initiative will fund scientists, activists, and NGOs according to the social media post. However, questions such as when will the money be disbursed, whether the fund will be a private foundation, a limited liability corporation, or a donor-advised fund remain unanswered.In recent years, we are seeing increased instances of giving by mega billionaires. Warren Buffet committed a majority of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Mark Zuckerberg also pledged 99 per cent of his Facebook shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, soon after the birth of his daughter in 2015. Billionaires like Infosys’ Nilekanis and Wipro's Azim Premji have signed the ‘Giving Pledge’, committing the majority of their wealth. Bezos, who hasn’t signed the ‘Giving Pledge’ is the latest to jump onto the strategic philanthropy bandwagon.While the individual grant by Bezos is laudable, fighting the adverse effects of climate change will require ‘collective action from big companies, small companies, nation-states, global organisations, and individuals, as Bezos’s post acknowledges. Thus, to understand the direction the fund takes, it makes sense to analyse the policies and actions of Amazon with regard to climate change over the years.On September 19, 2019, Amazon signed ‘The Climate Pledge’ and committed to achieving the requirements of the Paris Agreement by 2040, ten years in advance of the 2050 deadline. For the record, Amazon releases 128.9 grams CO2 equivalent per dollar (USD) of Gross Merchandise Sales (GMS). It aims to fulfil 80 per cent of its energy requirements across all businesses, through renewable energy, by 2024 and raise the share to 100 per cent by 2030. Investing $100 million in reforestation projects around the world and securing a fleet of 100,000 electric delivery vehicles also feature as goals in the Amazon Sustainability Report 2019. Approximately 80 per cent of Amazon’s total emissions, which equal 44.40 Million Metric Tons (mmt) CO₂ equivalent, come from indirect sources -- corporate purchases and Amazon-branded product emissions, as well as third-party transportation, packaging upstream energy-related emissions forming the majority.Amazon’s treatment of the climate action activists from within the company who formed the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice group in April 2019 has been less than encouraging. An open letter, signed by 8,702 employees, to Jeff Bezos and the Board of Directors, asked the company to ‘adopt the climate plan shareholder resolution and release a company-wide climate plan’ to tackle the climate crisis. Bezos used his influence and 16 per cent stake to vote down the proposal in the Annual General Meeting of Amazon’s shareholders. However, the support that the group garnered from other stakeholders in the company made Bezos relook his position and lead to the birth of the above-mentioned ‘Climate Pledge’.The climate group has also urged Amazon to shift to renewable sources for Amazon Web Services, its most profitable business. Amazon continues to award contracts to fossil fuel companies for powering its data centres for cloud services. Amazon is not alone in this regard. Big Tech companies, including Google and Microsoft, are building partnerships with fossil fuel companies to leverage Artificial Intelligence to extract more oil from the earth efficiently. It remains to be seen if Amazon breaks the trend and puts its mouth where the money is. Amazon also sponsored a gala by the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a free-market think tank that engages in climate change denial.Governments have a significant role when it comes to spending to fight climate change. The Paris Climate Accord was also signed between countries and not companies (even though Amazon did make a pledge). Governments are better actors to fight climate change because the trade-offs they face are inherently different than private companies. For example, when Amazon claims that it was to be carbon neutral, it will have to revise its practices to achieve that goal. That could mean cutting corners and making compromises when the company’s own interests are at stake. Governments are long-term and do not face the threat of extinction, unlike private enterprises. This provides ministries and departments with the luxury of a longer-term vision.When you take that into account, it makes sense to better fund governments by paying taxes rather than donating personal wealth through commitments made on Instagram. However, Amazon has not been a great taxpayer. From 2008 to 2018, Amazon has paid $1.5 billion in corporate taxes. It’s closest competitor, Walmart, has paid $64 billion by comparison. Keep in mind that between September 2008 and September 2018, the value of Amazon’s stock grew more than twenty-four times from $78.3 to $1,915. During the same period, Walmart’s stock price went from $59.73 to $94.59. Amazon should have paid a lot more in taxes than $64 billion, and yet it ended up paying $1.5 billion.Putting the prior actions of Amazon with regard to policies, treatments of employees, investments in fossil fuel companies, and low taxes paid into perspective, the $10 billion individual grant is not close to what Amazon can do to minimise its carbon footprint and fight climate change. It is a welcome gesture, but we need much more to confront this global challenge.(Utkarsh Narain and Rohan Seth are technology policy analysts at the Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy in Bengaluru.)

NPT turns 50. The first half it lived a lie, the second half it saw its own demise

One way forward is to move away from prohibiting possession to discouraging their use. At Takshashila, we have advocated a Global No First Use (GNFU) treaty that can help reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear war. This will create the foundation for nuclear weapons states to lower nuclear alertness levels, reduce the sizes of the arsenals and change their posture. What about disarmament? Now, I do not think complete disarmament is feasible — and some such as nuclear strategy theorist Thomas C. Schelling have argued that it’s not desirable either — but it is perhaps a worthwhile goal to pursue in the long run. For the time being though, we can buy another day, month, year, and decade of human survival by committing not to use nuclear weapons first, and then, at all.Read more