Sample Material of Current Public Administration Magazine
Information Technology
::The Non Politics of Outrage::
We need a white paper on the extensive data markets that currently exist in
India We are witnessing mass outrage over certain actions or non-actions of
Facebook (FB) and a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica (CA),
regarding the use of personal data for political messaging during the U.S.
presidential elections. But digging into the issue, it is difficult to see what
is really novel in the current disclosures that was previously not known. It is
also unclear why the facts that these disclosures centre on are more important
than many other well-known facts about the underlying issue of data, digital
controls and exploitation. It is not evident what the real concerns underlying
the outrage are. And lastly, there is the important question of what it really
means for countries such as India.
CA’s role in the U.S. elections has been known for quite some time. So now
after a whistle-blower’s account and an undercover investigation, if those
responsible for data and digital policies behave as if any of this is news to
them, it is either disingenuous or unacceptably naive and incompetent.
As FB has clarified, the only illegal element here is that a research company
transferred data to CA against FB policies. But both the company concerned and
FB itself could have legitimately used the same user data for the same purpose
of psychometrics-based micro-targeted political messaging for any of their
paying clients. What exactly do we then have a problem with? Just with violation
of FB’s policies, or with psychometrics-based political messaging and the
collective national damage that it causes? Is it, for instance, alright if FB
itself did similar things for its paying clients, which it has provisions for?
Digital controls
Meddling in elections is a most serious issue, but there are other equally
important data-centric threats — from complete data-based control over all
activities and actors in a sector by platform companies (think Uber, but the
process will soon reach as afar as agriculture and manufacturing) to that of
actual informational warfare, by name, which can wreck countries. Interestingly,
CA’s parent company also offers data-intelligence services to militaries, and
indeed countries such as the U.S. have extensive informational warfare projects
based on social media and other micro-informational sources for various
countries. Global digital companies such as Microsoft and Google are known to
cooperate closely with the American establishment, and, when insisted upon,
prioritise the latter’s interests even over their own economic ones.
Developing countries like India must realise that they do not have the kind
of leverage that the U.S. or even the European Union (EU) have over global data
giants, and will never have it, whatever be their boasts. A specific privacy
shield arrangement with the U.S., for instance, ensures special protection just
to EU data in the U.S. All data collected in India and transported abroad (data
laws being nearly non-existent), on the other hand, remain largely out of our
control or influence.
As this data gets converted into digitally-intelligent services in all
sectors — from transport, commerce and tourism, to education and health, to
agriculture and manufacturing, we are getting structurally sucked into
foreign-controlled digital value chains from which any attempts to escape may
soon become too difficult and costly. At that stage, whether they influence and
control our elections, or economics, or culture, or internal and external
security, manoeuvring space for resistance will be limited. All these data-based
controls need to be seen as of one kind, and common strategies urgently devised
for India to remain free — free not just in the much-vaunted “consumer choice”
sense, which is mostly the Trojan Horse, but also free collectively, as a nation
and a community.
It may sound rhetorical but such is the vastness and depth of new global
digital controls that digital freedom from them is becoming close to being as
important as freedom from physical and legal controls was in the middle of the
20th century.
Political response needed
First of all, we need to recognise the ignored collective aspects of data,
and the potential of collective damage or gains from it, which the CA issue most
clearly demonstrates — and focus on the related concepts of collective (not just
personal) data protection and collective data rights and ownership. The current
exercise by the Srikrishna Committee on data protection seems centred entirely
on personal data rights, which is insufficient.
Considering it of strategic value, India is currently devising regulation for
digital geospatial data, putting many public interest checks on its various
uses, including it being taken abroad. The problem is, even from a security
point of view, geodata is perhaps no longer the most strategic. Social data of
various kinds and sectors may be of greater strategic value. Advanced militaries
like in the U.S., Russia and China know this and are investing in large-scale
informational warfare and insurgency projects. Evidently, all or much of Indian
social data, in various sectors, including even granular data of consumer
behaviour (which provides much detailed psychometric information with cross-sectoral
application) need some protections, although of varying kinds taking into
account legitimate economic and global integration issues.
As with geospatial information, all critical data and digital intelligence
about various sectors must be designated as collective national assets, and the
collective rights to them instituted. This does not mean that all such data will
necessarily be prevented from being taken abroad, or being used by foreign
companies. It basically means an enabling cover of jurisprudence and political
economy being thrown over such data, which ensures assertion of collective
rights to it, and, where needed, the corresponding laws and regulation.
Platform companies such as FB, Amazon and Uber are key sites of data
collection and expropriation, and its conversion into digital intelligence (to
influence elections, or whatever else they wish to do). They form the
intelligence infrastructures of the sectors concerned, acting like their
“brains”. Such platform companies, when exceeding certain data sizes, need to be
closely regulated like utility companies.
Within such a cross-cutting framework of data laws, regulation and policies,
specific sectors need their own regulation. In the case of election
manipulation, for instance, rather than just giving notice to CA to explain
matters, it will be much more appropriate to route the current outrage to
undertaking a thorough assessment of the role of digital data in elections over
the last few years in India, and presenting it to the nation.
Forget CA and FB, an extensive data market with data brokers exists in India
as everywhere else, and almost all important data of Indians can be bought in
this market. Even in the case of CA and the U.S. elections, apparently only a
seventh of the budget that CA spent on acquiring personal data was used for FB
data that is currently under micro-examination. Where was the remaining 85% of
the money spent? CA’s chief executive officer has claimed that it had “profiled
the personality of every adult in the United States of America — 220 million
people” which is considerably more that the 50 million profiles being reported
as harvested from FB in the current controversy.
Compulsory reporting
Is the Indian government willing to come up with a white paper on such
extensive data markets that also exist in India? The U.S. is considering
legislation for compulsory reporting of all social media-related spendings by
political agencies, which is also a good area for India to explore.
A data-based digital society and economy are a completely new reality. The
question is, are we as a nation ready to develop the needed political response
to it? The biggest roadblock in this necessary direction is the same upper
middle-class that is currently outraged on the CA issue, but resists due
regulation of the digital sector because it threatens its hyper consumptive
culture and runs counter to its anti-political biases. It still wants to savour
for some more time the utopian dream that the Internet finally delivers them of
governments.
(Source- Written by Parminder Jeet Singh published
in The Hindu)
Get this magazine (Current Public
Administration) free if you purchase our any of the below courses: