What Zoom’s rise tells us about future of work culture

This article was first published in Deccan Herald.The shift to working from home would have happened in an organic manner, but the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the speed of change; important to think about the precautions we must take to make this on-going experiment successfulThe coronavirus pandemic has become the reason for the largest work from home experiment in history. This phenomenon has meant an increased use of video conferencing and collaboration platforms that allow many people to simultaneously interact and collaborate in a virtual setting.Not surprisingly, the company that has benefited most from this on-going experiment is Zoom, a video conferencing platform that is being used by millions of users. Zoom’s share price has more than doubled since the new coronavirus began to spread in December 2019. There has also been a rise in trolling and graphic content on Zoom, an almost definitive sign that it is rising in popularity among teenagers and not just working professionals.Zoom’s rise (along with other video conferencing platforms like Skype and Slack) is indicative of a broader shift in the work culture. This shift to working from home or working remotely would have likely happened in an organic manner anyway, but the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated its speed.There isn’t much value in arguing about whether this phase will lead to a permanent shift in terms of a bulk of jobs being performed remotely from now. That question depends on too many variables, and it is impossible to predict.But the shift itself needs to be understood as part of an evolving trend. Workspaces for the most part have moved from cubicles to open-plan offices. As Chris Bailey notes in Hyperfocus, it is contentious to conclude that open-plan offices improved productivity across the board. What open-plan offices did was to make employees think twice before interrupting their colleagues, and made them more respectful of each other’s time.The future of the office space, moving on from open-plan offices, is the virtual office (widely anticipated and now catalysed by the COVID-19 threat), with people logging in and conducting meetings from home. This brings us to what the characteristics of this new work from home culture will be and what broad precautions we must take to ensure that remote working is successful for us as a people.Thinking through the idea of working remotelyThe first and most important thing to look out for here is going to be the impact this is going to have on the attention economy. With an increasing number of people working from home today, there is going to be a significant reduction in friction. Let me explain, the attention economy runs on the idea of manipulating people to spend more time on platforms. Companies do this by eliminating friction between the user and the content This is why the feed on Instagram is endless, or why the default option on Netflix is to keep watching more instead of stopping. Because everything is either free or so easy to access, attention becomes the currency.But when in office environments, for example, during a meeting, there is a certain amount of friction in accessing these apps. Using Instagram while talking to a colleague is going to have a social cost on your relationship. However, when working from home, it is going to be significantly easier for employees to give in to their distractions instead of focusing on tasks at hand. It is no wonder that Zoom has begun offering a feature that allows hosts to check if participants are paying attention based on whether or not the Zoom window is active on their screens.In addition, this also opens a can of worms for privacy breaches and the issue of regulating non-personal data. Because a huge number of people are shifting to working online for the foreseeable future, the value of online meetings increases in terms of the data being shared on them. This gives video conferencing and collaboration platforms the incentive to collect and share an increased amount of data with advertisers. For example, information on when users open the app, details about the user’s device – such as the model, time zone, city, phone carrier, and the unique advertiser identifier (a unique number created by user devices which are then used to target ads).In addition, increased workloads being transferred online will also generate increasing volumes of non-personal data, making the debate on how that should be regulated more relevant. For context, non-personal data is a negative term that is used to refer to all data that is not personal. This includes data like company financials, growth projections, and quite possibly most things discussed in office meetings.It is unlikely that COVID-19 has transformed offices forever. In this regard, its role in history is likely to be seen as a catalyst, accelerating the shift from offline offices to online offices. But as it does so, we need to take precautions by introducing friction in the attention economy, being conscious of the privacy trade-offs being made to facilitate new features, and installing regulation for the governance of non-personal data.(Rohan Seth is a technology policy analyst at The Takshashila Institution)

There’s more to India’s woes than data localisation

The personal data protection bill is yet to become a law and the debate is still rife on the costs and benefits of data localisation. It is yet to be seen officially if the government is going to mandate localisation in the data protection bill and to whom it is going to apply. Regardless of whether or not data localization ends up enshrined in the law, it is worth taking a step back and asking why the government is pushing for it in the first place.

For context, localisation is the practice of storing domestic data on domestic soil. One of the most credible arguments for why it should be the norm is that it will help law enforcement. Most platforms that facilitate messaging are based in the US (think WhatsApp and Messenger). Because of the popularity of these ‘free services,’ a significant amount of the world’s communication takes place on these platforms. This also includes communication regarding crimes and violation of the law.

This is turning out to be a problem because in cases of law violations, communications on these platforms might end up becoming evidence that Indian law enforcement agencies may want to access. The government has already made multiple efforts to make this process easier for law enforcement. In December 2018, the ministry of home affairs issued an order granting powers of “interception, monitoring, and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer,” to ten central agencies, to protect security and sovereignty of India.

But this does not help in cases where the information may be stored outside the agencies’ jurisdiction. So, in cases where Indian law enforcement agencies want to access data held by US companies, they are obliged to abide by lawful procedures in both the US and India.

The bottleneck here is that there is no mechanism that can keep up with this phenomenon (not counting the CLOUD Act, as India has not entered into an executive agreement under it).

Indian requests for access to data form a fair share, owing to India’s large population and growing internet penetration. Had there been a mechanism that provided for these requests in a timely enforcement through the provision of data. Most requests are US-bound, thanks to the dominance of US messaging, search, and social media apps. Each request has to justify ‘probable cause by US standards.’ This, combined with the number of requests from around the world, weighs down on the system and makes it inefficient. People have called the MLATs broken and there have been several calls for reform of the system.

A comprehensive report by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) found that the MLAT process on global average takes 10 months for law enforcement requests to receive electronic evidence. 10 months of waiting for evidence is simply too long for two reasons. Firstly, in cases of law enforcement, time tends to be of the essence. Secondly, countries such as India have a judicial system with a huge backlog of cases. 10month-long timelines to access electronic evidence make things worse.

Access to data is an international bottleneck for law enforcement. The byproduct of the mass adoption of social media and messaging is that electronic criminal evidence for all countries is now concentrated in the US.

The inefficiency of MLATs is one of the key reasons why data-sharing agreements are rising in demand and in supply, and why the CLOUD Act was so well-received as a solution that reduced the burden on MLATs.

Countries need to have standards that can fasten access to data for law enforcement, an understanding of what kinds of data are permissible to be shared across borders, and common standards for security.

India’s idea is that localizing data will help with access to it for law enforcement, at least eventually down the line. It may compensate for not being a signatory to the Budapest Convention. It is unclear how effective localisation will be. Facebook’s stored in India is Facebook’s data.

Facebook is still an American company and should still be subject to US standards of data-sharing, which are one of the toughest in the world and include an independent judge assessing the probable cause, refusing bulk collection or overreach. This is before we take into account encryption.

For Indian law enforcement, the problem in this whole mess is not where the data is physically stored. It is the process that makes access to it inefficient. Localisation is not a direct fix, if it proves to be one at all. The answer lies in better data-sharing arrangements, based on plurilateral terms. The sooner this realized, the faster the problems can be resolved. data still

Rohan is a policy analyst at the technology and policy programme at The Takshashila Institution. Views are personal.

This article was first published in the Deccan Chronicle.