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.

India's Upcoming Digital Tax: How Will Big Tech Cope?

Taxation and regulation is slowly catching up with technology: India is now preparing a framework to tax Big Tech companies. India’s desire to do so is part of a global pattern. Earlier this year, France came up with a proposition to tax Google, Facebook, and Amazon. India following suit will lead to broader international consequences with a combination of factors determining how Big Tech is taxed.Digital taxation has been on the government’s mind for some time. June 2016 saw India come up with a “Google Tax,” an equalization levy that taxed digital advertising. In 2018, the revenue from the tax surpassed 10 billion rupees ($139 million). Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is also keeping an eye on the tech ecosystem. Modi himself has pushed for Digital India, Startup India, and called for digital payments post demonetization. As India grows as a market for digital technologies, the scope for the government to tax big tech firms such as Facebook and Google grows.India is a huge market for companies. As of April 2019, Facebook had 300 million users in India. You can expect to see a significantly higher number from Google. The idea is that India is a big source of revenue for tech companies. However, because these companies do not have a significant economic presence (SEP) in India, they might not pay their fair share of taxes. This is where India’s new proposed framework comes in. Multinational tech companies achieve scale without volume; they are structured in a way to pay less taxes. The proposal currently in the works will change that and make companies liable to be taxed.The complication here is that we live in a world where technology is a variable in international relations. Most giant tech companies are American and operate from Silicon Valley. The Trump administration might not like Big Tech but it will retaliate against other countries taxing Silicon Valley. The Americans have already postured against this seriously before. When faced with the prospect of data localization by India, Trump’s White House considered capping H-1B visas. The United States has already announced an inquiry into France’s proposal to tax Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. There is a good chance that the matter might end in tariffs for France. This is something India has to consider as it goes ahead with taxing American Big Tech. Trump himself has been aggravated by the tariffs India places on the United States. He called out Modi and called the tariffs “no longer acceptable” during the G-20 summit. India’s push for digital taxation will likely provoke a similar reaction from the White House.The other stakeholder here is Silicon Valley itself. It is unclear how firms will react to thinner profit margins in India. There is a possibility that they could acknowledge market leverage while lobbying through third parties. The other end of the spectrum is that they could threaten to pull out of the market, leaving India with no direct substitutes. One possible outcome of a proposed Indian tax could also be the loss of future possible investment in India. If the government decided to tax Facebook and Google on revenue generated in India, they could see it as a sign to invest more in other markets. At the moment, India could be too big of a market to ignore. However, the imposition of taxes going forward might take away the incentive to innovate for the Indian consumer. It would also translate into the slower deployment of new AI-based technologies by large tech corporations, potentially slowing down India’s advancement in the AI race.All of the options above are highly unlikely, though. What is most likely to happen is the revision of a new framework with Big Tech at the table. Because both parties, the Modi government, and Big Tech, have a lot at stake, a compromise seems like the rational outcome. This way Google and Facebook can have a say in deciding how they are taxed and how much they should have to pay. A mutually consented tax rate could be beneficial for all stakeholders. It would keep investment flowing while not forcing India to look for domestic substitutes. It would also ensure that India does not rely on Chinese substitutes, doubling the scale of Chinese digital companies. However, just because this seems like the rational way forward does not mean that it is the one that will be taken. There are so many ways that an Indian digital tax could play out; we can only hope that policymakers will have carefully considered its impact on India’s foreign relations.Modi, Trump, China, and Silicon Valley — it is all a fascinating mess. It also goes to show how technology has inserted itself into foreign policy and geopolitics. As the Modi government might consider taking France’s lead, it is a step toward taxation coming to terms with the digital economy. How this ends globally will determine profit margins in Silicon Valley and development budgets in New Delhi.This article was first published in The Diplomat. 

Where will big data take platforms like Netflix?

Streaming services are cataloguing the entire world’s audiovisual content onto their platforms. If you had told someone ten years ago that most of the world’s movies and TV shows would be available on-demand in their pocket they would have given you a patronising look of disbelief. If at present of the streaming industry is pathbreaking, the future promises to build even further on it.Streaming is funded by subscriptions and guided by big data analytics. Knowledge of how consumers behave on platforms such as Netflix and Prime Video lets the services gauge what else they might be willing to pay for. It is hard to say which way streaming is likely to go over the next decade. However, it is possible to make an educated guess based on the frameworks of information economics.Three main areas are likely to be affected by the continued usage of big data to improve streaming, user experience, security, and pricing.When the news broke that Netflix customises individual thumbnails for each user, it was another endorsement of how the platform was using big data to keep customers hooked. Netflix doesn’t just use a film or show’s original art; it employs an algorithm to source high-quality images from the content. Then it does more testing to determine what individual subscribers are most likely to click on. Based on that, each user’s Netflix homepage looks different, even if they have similar tastes. The idea is to have users spend as much time on Netflix as possible, and personalised thumbnails are a small cog in the working of this big machine. Data on who binge-watches which shows and how long each visit on the website lasts is also crucial when it comes to deciding what to invest in. This is not a new phenomenon. The TV show House of Cards is a case study to understand this.Big data tells Netflix (and Prime Video and Hulu and Hotstar) what users want even before they themselves know it. The data-based knowledge that David Fincher’s movies were in high demand — this insight was based on the number of times people played and paused them and how long they watched for — was a powerful resource for the TV decision-makers. Combining Fincher with a star-studded cast was not a shot in the dark. Netflix bet $100 million on two seasons (26 episodes) of the show at first, without watching a single episode. They even went as far as to make different trailers and filtered their distribution according to user preferences. This just shows that the information about our tastes and tendencies, as exhibited by big data, is empirically reliable.Going forward, big data analytics will continue to tell companies what the users want. This will have a significant impact on how funds are distributed across genres. For instance, the success of Narcos and Stranger Things will drive investments in more original content in their particular genres. This also means evolving content markets all over the world to keep users hooked and get new users to subscribe (think about the success of Sacred Games in India).

No free-loading

The increasing use of big data analytics will also mean tighter security for accounts. So, no chance of four people pooling their money together to get one streaming account. Also, no mooching off your friend’s account. The free-rider problem means streaming giants lose money on every individual that watches content without paying for it. Because Netflix has data on usage patterns — laptop model, user location over time — it can identify when someone other than the paying customer is watching. So, it is no wonder that the company is now planning on using AI to keep off account-moochers. Though such algorithms have not taken mass effect, there is reason to believe that this might change soon.Lastly, big data will be transformative when it comes to pricing streaming services. As companies compete for a higher share of users’ e-wallets, data on how much the consumers are willing to pay will be transformative in determining how the service is priced. The marginal cost of adding an additional user to a streaming service is negligible, which means that the price they can be charged is relatively flexible as compared to traditional industries such as cars. This is exactly what Netflix has been trying to leverage in India. In July, the company unveiled a mobile-only plan for the price-sensitive market. It is a novel move that might help Netflix compete with Prime Video, Jio TV, and Hotstar in India, all of which are cheaper options. The same could hold true for markets where the consumer is willing to pay more for premium services. Data will decide.User experience, security, and pricing are three key areas where big data analytics could be transformational for the streaming industry. This is by no means an exhaustive list. It would have taken a mental leap ten years ago to conceive of the current streaming scenario, and we might find the same a decade from now. New applications of insights from big data will continue to come to light. And the interesting thing is that, for us who are now aware of the speed at which data engineering and digital ecosystems can evolve, none of these developments are situated too far off in the future to be imagined. In big data analytics, the enabler of the present is also the driver of the future.This article was first published in The Hindu. Views are personal.

Privacy is dead. So, it’s time to turn data into a bargaining chip.

Tech firms offer services in exchange, but the government will argue it needs your data for national security. Why not trade it then.

This year, Google bought Nest. Why was the world’s biggest search engine acquiring a thermostat company? Because through Nest, Google will get to know what temperature you prefer in your home, or when you come in and go out during weekdays and weekends.Everyone wants data. It is why The Economist claimed that “(t)he world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data”.In today’s digital world, fighting for privacy is fighting a losing battle. What we can instead fight for is making privacy a bargaining chip. Giving up your data to different people only makes sense if you know what you get in return.Earlier last year, when US Senator Orrin Hatch asked Mark Zuckerberg how Facebook remained free, a mildly amused Zuckerberg replied, “Senator, we run ads”. The clip went viral and highlighted the need for regulators to get up to speed with technology.People who understand how Facebook and Google work may know how they get their revenue by selling ads. They monitor your clicks; how much time you spend on a website; and what webpages you visit to target what they should be showing/selling to you. So, if you spend some time viewing videos of cats or say, an iPad, Facebook and Google will make sure that the content targeted to you is based on cats or iPads. However, the workings behind targeted advertising mean that it makes sense to think about privacy as a bargaining chip rather than an absolute right.Debates in technology change fast. Over the past year, different aspects of tech policy have been highlighted. There was an argument on intermediary liability on whether platforms should be considered the same as information publishers. We also have the ongoing debate on data localisation and where they should be physically located. Facebook’s launch of Libra shifted conversations to cryptocurrency and whether Facebook needed to be broken up. In the middle of all this chaos, the argument for user privacy seems to have died down. The news attention cycle is partly to blame.An equally big, if not bigger, part of the blame should be put on how big tech (Facebook, Google, and Amazon) operates. The business models for a lot of platforms (including Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter) are responsible for it. Let’s look at Google. The idea is to offer services in exchange for your data. You don’t pay when signing up, but instead, give money to the platform’s clients after the application has used your own habits against you. Remember searching for that specific shoe wishfully, only to desert it midway, but the ads popping up for several weeks?The bottom line you need to understand in case of big tech making claim to your data is that they will provide you services in return (think Google Drive, Google Photos, or Google Search).It is not just big tech that wants your data. The government wants it too. While big tech might offer you services in exchange for that data, the government is not obliged to make any such promises. Instead, the government’s argument is that it needs access to data to maintain law enforcement, ensure national security and have supervisory access. This is a global trend that spans across contexts.For instance, the Reserve Bank of India wants unfettered supervisory access to financial data. India’s updated Information Technology Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules want data on the originator of content on platforms. The Australian government has exclusive access to its citizens’ healthcare data, which cannot be shared outside its borders. There is also a big sentiment for states, especially developing economies such as India and China, to view data as a form of national wealth that can be used for development. This, in addition to the argument for law enforcement, makes the state naturally take an opposing stance to Facebook and Google when it comes to data access.These conversations are bound to become more complex as technology advances and the state plays catch-up. We are already looking at years of discussion on Facebook’s Libra project, which will also be a defining battle for the short-term future of cryptocurrencies. There is also Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s proposal for a multilateral data-sharing framework, called the Osaka Track, which was proposed at the recent G20 summit. Over time, emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and the internet of things are bound to raise the stakes as well, as both are closely linked to data.With so much happening in and around data and technology, it can be dizzying to keep up. The privacy debate gets left behind. The only big company making any noise about privacy seems to be Apple.So, it’s time for us to get the bargaining chip. I know how this is a controversial opinion, especially for people who consider privacy to be an absolute right, and rightly so. I am not implying that the battle on privacy is lost. I am implying that it is a losing battle. Quoting Shoshana Zuboff, the nature of the internet and ‘surveillance capitalism’ leaves us with little choice.In such times, thinking of privacy as a bargaining chip only seems to be a bi-product of a pragmatic assessment of the situation. You can use your privacy in a transaction to get goods and services. You pay with your privacy when you sign up for Google or Facebook and opt in to their services. Similarly, you lose your privacy when the government has sensitive data on you (which may or may not be optional). Giving up data about yourself only makes sense when you know what you get in return. ‘Privacy is a bargaining chip’ is one of the few phrases that are always central to the debates in tech policy and helps us make sense of the world around us.The article was first published in The Print. Views are personal.

Does the arrival of AI mean the end of data privacy?

In recent years, there has been a great buzz around the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and what that might mean for the Indian economy. On the government’s side, Niti Aayog has come up with a national strategy on AI; the Ministry of Commerce has set up an AI task force. A ‘National Centre of AI’ is also planned. All of these initiatives have a scope to define where AI can contribute to the Indian industry and how to best achieve adoption at scale. But there’s a flip side to AI and that impacts data privacy.

The relation between AI and data privacy is a complex one. Broadly speaking, the growth of AI may spell the end of data privacy if we don’t proactively try to embed privacy by design.

Algorithms in AI learn from big datasets. For example, let us take a huge dataset, say India’s Aadhaar database. To the human eye and mind, it would be almost impossible to discern any insight from looking into this huge database/spreadsheet. However, to an AI algorithm, it could serve as fuel. AI learns from big data and identifies patterns in numbers that may draw unlikely correlations.

The catch here is in the fact that the more data an AI programme is fed, the harder it becomes to de-identify people. Because the programme can compare two or more datasets, it may not need your name to identify you. Data containing ‘location stamps’ — information with geographical coordinates and time stamps — could be used to easily track the mobility trajectories of, say, where and how people live and work. Supplement this with datasets about your UPI payments, and it might also know where and what you spend your money on.

So, the more data AI is fed, the better it might get to know you. Because of this, if AI is the future, then privacy may be a thing of the past. Still, can AI be, instead, leveraged to enhance privacy for individuals and companies?

There is a bit of a silver lining. Applications of AI have immense potential when it comes to enhancing security and privacy. It can help better understand how much of your data is being collected and how it may be used. A good use case is the AI, ‘Polisis’ which stands for Privacy Policy Analysis.

The algorithm uses deep learning and can read privacy policy documents to develop insights such as an executive summary and a flow chart of what kind of data is collected and who it will be sent to. In addition, it also outlines whether or not the consumer can opt-out of the collection or sharing of the data.

As rosy as leveraging AI for privacy might sound, data is going to drive the economies of the future, and in a data-driven regime, the idea of privacy takes centre stage to protect the interest of consumers and citizens alike.

This brings us to another question: if AI is fundamentally opposed to privacy, is there a way to get around the problem? There are two aspects to how privacy can be maintained not at the cost of development in AI. The first is that of consumer action. There is a need to modify the bridge between AI and data protection.

Terms and conditions

With rising data collection and storage, doctrinal notions around ‘consent’ and ‘privacy notices’ should be reconsidered. For instance, we may need to revisit the model of ‘clickwrap’ contracts (which allows the user to click on the “I accept” button without reading long, verbose, and unintelligible privacy terms and conditions).

What consumers are not aware of is that often, they can decline the contract and still get unfettered access to the content. While this is a practice that should not be encouraged, it is still a step better than accepting terms and conditions without reading them.

The best practice would be to find out whether the following T&Cs are a part of the agreement: (1) Can the website use your content? (2) Does everything you upload become open source? (3) Can your name and likeness appear in ads? (4) Do you pay the company’s legal costs to cover late payments? (5) Is the company responsible for your data loss?

Of course, you shouldn’t have to read legalities before you want to read an article. To that extent, a possible workaround could be using tools such as ‘Polisis’.

The second solution is to change the nature of AI development. This means including privacy by design in AI algorithms. While there can be no strict set of rules or policy guidelines that can bind an algorithm designer, best practices following constitutional standards jurisdiction-wise can be developed as a benchmark.

A few techniques that could be deployed to enhance privacy when data is being processed by an AI algorithm are differential privacy, homomorphic encryptions, and generative adversarial networks. Along with these, another privacy enhancing and data protection measure which should be taken is of certification schemes and privacy seals to help demonstrate compliance by organisations.

The development of AI might spell the end of privacy as we know it. There have been examples of AI enhancing privacy, but those are the exceptions, not the norm. AI is proliferating, so it is necessary to embed privacy and appropriate technical and organisational measures for it into the process that leads to positive outcomes. The opportunity for AI today is, therefore, not just solving for corporations and nations, but instead, to do so in a manner that is sustainable in terms of user privacy.

This article was first published in Deccan Herald. Views expressed are personal.

Why India needs to leverage and not localise data

If one were to chart the arc of geopolitical competition over the past 100 years, one can identify four primary sources of contention – land, people, natural resources, and now, the commanding heights of new technologies. At the heart of the current competition lies data – the fuel that will power future innovation.

We generate data just by existing. Every telephone call we make, every social media share, a journey from home to work, financial transactions, and even the beat of your heart is data. This is valuable to corporations big and small looking to create new products and offer new solutions. The more data you have and the better quality data you have, the greater your chances of tailoring products, out-innovating competitors, and achieving scale.

It’s little wonder then that access to data has become a point of geopolitical contention. This was evident at the recent G20 summit in Osaka. India boycotted a move by the world’s leading economies to establish a new regime for global data governance. The Osaka Track, as it is called, is a plurilateral initiative to establish a framework for cross-border data sharing, essentially aimed at limiting a states’ ability to hoard data generated within its borders.

This goes against India’s stated policy. India boycotted the Osaka Track preferring the conversation to be held at the WTO. Foreign Secretary, Vijay Gokhale, also underscored the significance of data as “national wealth.” India’s approach has been that of data localisation. Localisation essentially means storing domestic data on domestic soil. India’s rationale for pursuing localisation comes from the notion of viewing data as a new form of wealth. Keeping this in mind, there is a strong sentiment across the government to internalise this wealth and use it for development. While the idea does seem to make sense on the surface, a deeper look shows that there are significant costs and benefits to it.

Perhaps the greatest benefits to localisation lie in security and ease of access. RBI emphasised the latter by being the first government entity to call for localisation. The BN Justice Shrikrishna Committee and E-commerce policy have also called for localisation, citing similar grounds. However, there are significant costs to localising data in India and incurring those costs might not make data more secure. Firstly, building and maintaining data centres is a capital intensive business. It requires a significant amount of water, electricity, and bandwidth. Electricity and water are both commodities that India does not have in abundance. As of 2017, an estimated 240 million (24 crore) people in India did not have access to electricity. NITI Aayog estimates that 600 million (60 crore) people face a severe water shortage in India, and the situation will only get worse with the water demand being twice the supply by 2030. The recent Chennai water crisis does a lot to place emphasis on this. It would just not be fair or ethical to allocate water reserves to cool down data centres when they should be diverted to Chennai.

Secondly, as far as benefits are concerned, having data centres in India is not likely to make data more secure. India currently ranks 23rd in the global cybersecurity index. There have also been multiple leaks on the Aadhar data India does store locally. So there is a historical precedent for data stored on Indian servers to not be adequately protected. Moreover, if the idea is that storing data here is likely to impose an Indian jurisdiction on it, it may not pan out that way. The physical location of data does not define who owns it or has access to it. If Facebook decided to store data in India, the data would still belong to Facebook.

Given this, it is important to shift the data policy conversation from a storage location to access. Moreover, in doing so, it is important to adopt a strategic outlook. From this perspective, data is a tool of leverage, along with the size of the Indian market. India ranks at the 57th position in the Global Innovation Index. Our technology and innovation ecosystem has a lot of catching up to do, in comparison to those in the US and China. Therefore, allowing foreign competitors free and easy access to Indian data could stymie the growth of future Indian enterprises.

It would instead be far more prudent to pursue a policy of conditional access. There are a number of potential benefits to this approach.

Conditional access could either take the form of requirements for localisation along with investments and collaborations with Indian enterprises. A similar approach was recently taken by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which shared vehicle and DL data with Indian companies for a fee of ₹3 Crore. The Vahan and Sarthi databases brought in a revenue of ₹65 crores in total and were made available to 87 domestic companies. Apart from expanding state revenues, such an approach with foreign firms could lead to greater capital investments in India along with the diffusion of technology and managerial and operational best practices. In the long run, this could aid India’s start-up and tech ecosystems.

However, going down this road requires clear domestic legislation and regulations. There are three broad areas regulation should be aimed at addressing. Firstly, defining domestic jurisdiction of data. There is a need to define laws on who owns data, the citizen or the state. Calling data national wealth sets a precedent in favour of state ownership of personal data. Once defined, procedures for judicial safeguards and parliamentary oversight should be put in place to determine who can access public data. That can be followed by discussions over the finer points on what kinds of data should be classified as sensitive and personal. The data protection bill addresses this to some extent. However, the bill is not law yet. Even if it were to become law, it is unclear what aspects of the bill will be changed.

Secondly, in case foreign players are to collaborate with the Indian ecosystem to use data, there needs to be a regulation providing for foreign access. This is likely to be a huge part of conditional localisation. Having a framework that facilitates domestic and foreign collaborations between companies as well as states could be helpful in leveraging data for Indian development. Thirdly, regulation needs to address standards in public data. If data collected by states is to be made accessible to private parties, there need to be national standards in how data is collected, sorted, and opened for access. This would help in processing data and deriving insights from it. Standards would also make it easier to maintain clean datasets.

Considering the above, making the argument for localisation might be a sound short-term negotiating strategy. But in order to strengthen one’s hand at the global table, in the long run, it’s important to focus on putting in place domestic rules and regulations and then negotiating conditional access.

The views expressed above are the authors' own. The article was first published in Deccan Herald.

Reading into India’s draft e-commerce policy

Bottom line is that it would now be misleading to say that the Indian government does not have a vision in tech policy. It is one step forward from our late 2017 vision.

Up until 2018, one would have been hard-pressed to identify whether India had any coherent intent regarding its technology policy. There were question marks on where the government stood with respect to a range of issues — data protection, cross-border data flows, AI, encryption, fintech, and e-commerce. With the coming of the draft e-commerce policy, the good news halfway through 2019 is that India does seem to have a definite plan for all of these pillars of technology. The broader question is: what does this mean for stakeholders across the ecosystem and for India’s digital aspirations?The draft policy has a lot to say about consumer/citizen data. A lot of which has been mentioned in policies before this one. Data is a national asset, but does that mean it has to be controlled by the state? This question is more relevant now than ever. India does not currently have a data protection law in place. There also isn't a due process of law for data disclosure. The policy says that data should be stored locally. This is in line with the personal data protection bill and RBI’s directive.

Maybe the plan is that localisation will help transform our digital infrastructure. Across the three policies, there is no roadmap to suggest how localisation will be achieved or why it’s needed (apart from unfettered supervisory access, as stated in the RBI notification). Let’s say that the directive does help build digital infrastructure in India. It will not make India a data centre hub, because of our electricity, bandwidth, and water deficiencies. If the plan is to overcome these deficiencies, there is no course of action attached to it. Storage is not the same as access. People own data. Fiduciaries get access to it by consent. Just because a data centre is located in India may not mean the data belongs to the state. So, the rights to insights generated will stay with fiduciaries as well. If the policy’s plan is to take us to a Digital India, it is unclear how these directives shape the road to it.Another condition from previous policies is the requirement that operating e-commerce platforms must have a registered business entity in India. The amendments to the intermediary liability guidelines followed the same tone. There are two broad concerns stemming from this. Firstly, implementation. How do you track that every e-commerce vendor has a business entity in India? The policy suggests nothing in terms of implementation. Second, how do you punish platforms violating the rule? Do you have them removed from the app/play store? What if Google and Apple don’t comply? In which place, why do it in the first place?Secondly, who are the winners and losers of this measure? The broad answer to this is foreign e-commerce platforms — specifically, medium to small e-commerce platforms that might not be able to afford to set up registered business entities. At the same time, it is a win for small and medium enterprises at home. They now have lesser competition. They are also enabled through the simplification of export regulation and the raised ceiling on export goods. This makes it relatively easier to look for markets abroad by reducing costs. At the same time, it closes the gifting route for foreign companies to export to India. Bigger foreign companies have the means to comply with the directive, even though it might take a while to adjust organisational structure. This likely means lack of competition for domestic Indian firms. Making it harder for foreign e-commerce firms to compete is somewhat of a theme here.Ultimately, the draft e-commerce policy leaves us with more questions than answers. Firstly, is there a direct link between localisation and the quest for access to data? Why localise in the first place? If there are objectives behind it, how is localisation part of the roadmap to getting there? Also, how does the government plan to crack down on platforms that do not have the financial resources to have an office in India? Will the administration identify and penalise every foreign player on the app/play stores? While answers to these questions remain unclear, one thing that the draft e-commerce policy does resolve is the perceived absence of cohesive intent. The list of questions and regulations discussed above is by no means exhaustive. There are other components — marketplace models, anti-counterfeiting measures, source code for advertisements, and so on. The bottom line, however, is that it would now be misleading to say that the Indian government does not have a vision in tech policy. It is one step forward from our late 2017 vision.This article was first published in The Hindu. Views are personal. 

How Can India Combine Data and Regional Power?

The stakes concerning jurisdiction over data have never been higher. There is a global discourse today on the future of data that was recently brought into the news cycle by the U.S. government. The Trump administration was mulling over capping H-1B visas to deter India’s rules on data centers. There is a sense perhaps that data has become a variable in regional and global geopolitics today. Owing to its immense population, India unsurprisingly generates a lot of data. The question for New Delhi is how to translate this into a geopolitical advantage.China has a robust approach to its data — one that has been conducive to its digital goals. It needs countries to store their data locally. Companies might store their data in China but can resist sharing user information with the government. Apple has a data center in China but refuses to share encryption keys with the government. By closing off its data from the world, China lies on an extreme end of the data geopolitical spectrum.Other countries, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia differentiate their data, some of which is deemed fit to be shared with the world. Critical data, however, is not allowed to cross borders. In cases with a middle ground, data can be shared, but a working copy of it must be maintained at home.This brings us to India. As data regulation changes from bills to laws, Indian data policy is still officially in flux. Looking at current global trends, India could broadly either go the American or the Chinese way. Maybe New Delhi could pursue the best of both approaches. What these broad approaches might be missing, however, is a geopolitical opportunity. Here India could use its data and that of its neighbors’ (BIMSTEC) to their collective advantage.BIMSTEC is a group comprised of Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal, and Bhutan. The group made headlines recently when India invited its members to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. This is a good indicator for the relevance of regional groupings, as the SAARC leaders were invited for the same event last time around, in 2014. Combining BIMSTEC with data is a huge opportunity for India. Taking the lead in this regard has a set of technological and geopolitical advantages. This could mean having a common set of data processing laws, common security standards, a common market for data, and a larger region and resources to build data centres in.Doing all or any one of the above could add importance to BIMSTEC in the region and the world too. The only similar project to exist in the data space is that of the European Union and the Council of Europe. Having a standard of data processing laws and shared space for localisation for seven countries would add significant bargaining power against warnings like caps on H-1B visas. Convention 108+ in the EU does something similar. By having common adequacy standards, data can only flow across borders for processing when the receiver/processor meets the standards set for it.So not only can a combined BIMSTEC approach to data can increase the region’s bargaining power globally, but it can also help better security standards. It is also likely to bring down the costs of storing and maintaining data. Data centers are resource-intensive in terms of electricity, water, and bandwidth. Pooling resources to build and maintain them is likely to bring down costs. Should the BIMSTEC area become a cheap option for data centers, it would give the region an increased say in the global technological debate.Pooling national data can also help the faster development of AI in the region. More importantly, any advancements in AI-based on regional data would help develop the technology in the context of developing countries and not just Silicon Valley. It can become hard to relate to AI that can open garage doors for Teslas in South Asia. It would be more useful to have self-driving cars that can deal with potholes, for instance. This would also be good for BIMSTEC enterprises as they use data to solve local problems.BIMSTEC pooling of data would be tailor-made for AI to solve regional problems across borders. Also developing new standards for data processing presents a new opportunity. It would bring the privacy debate back into the discourse in these countries. Having a multinational approach to data jurisdictions is not something the world is familiar with—certainly not South Asia. Developing laws that address these issues would be a remarkable achievement considering the unique challenges each country faces.The bottom line is that in a world of high-tech geopolitics, BIMSTEC might be a better approach than India alone. It would undoubtedly provide more power to India and the region. The icing on the cake is that it presents wonderful possibilities for the future of big data and AI in the region. Having a regional approach to local problems, splitting costs of data centers, and the possibility of better processing laws is wonderful. All that remains for India to do is take the lead and add data as a component of foreign policy.This article was first published in The Diplomat. Views are personal.  

To let data roam free or coop it up at home?

Cross-border flow is the basic life-blood of data. When information is isolated, it loses its potential to become knowledge and becomes increasingly vulnerable to breaches. Moreover, India might currently not even have the infrastructure to store its own data. More often than not, data is jeopardised by inadequate supporting infrastructure rather than malevolent threats.

A key issue on which India needs to make a decision is the approach to cross-border data flows. The ability to share and process data at lightning speeds is almost as important as the existence of the data itself.It is remarkable what information can achieve when collected and processed at a large scale. With the growth of 21st-Century technology, these possibilities have grown. For instance, because data can flow at unprecedented speeds, centres can analyse trends in real-time and provide insights that guide behaviour. Consider Google Maps, a software that collects information on a global scale, through remote sensors and can instantly count for changing directions, congestion, and solve to the minute for how much longer it will take from point A to point B. The sheer utility of Google Maps has made it essential to how we function on a daily basis.Just like Google Maps impacts the individual, sets of big data drive behaviours of industry and, indeed, entire sectors. A key reason why this model is able to function so efficiently is the nature of data. As a commodity, data can be shared at lightning speeds while managing costs. In the contemporary world, collecting and sharing information has become easier and more effective than at any point in history. It is a result of this that we have made our progress into “Industry 4.0”, and it is the driver that will help us bring about this revolution.However, this progress cannot be achieved without the freedom of accessibility that data aggregation requires. Pieces of information kept in isolation are not nearly as useful or efficient in comparison to what they can do together when combined and consolidated — the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When data is allowed to exist without borders, it has the added benefit of keeping costs down and allowing companies to spread out globally. Any curbs on this ability can have negative side effects for industry and the billions it benefits around the world.Unfortunately, that is a possibility India has been considering over recent years. Data localisation is the idea that data should be ‘localised’ or confined to national borders. Measures to achieve this can vary in their degree of severity. If considered in its most stringent form, localisation can prohibit data to leave national borders (generally there is a provision to make exceptions for special circumstances). When relaxed, localisation requirements might ask for companies to meet security adequacy standards when keeping an updated copy of the data domestically.This brings us to the broader question of why localisation measures in India are on the rise. The Reserve Bank of India released a circular early last year that called for localisation in the payments sector while a special committee, formed for designing recommendations on data protection, suggested localisation methods.Localisation is a trending topic in the Indian data space. So let us take a moment to examine why the government is taking the stance it is. The arguments presented in the central bank’s circular and the White Paper released by the Srikrishna Committee essentially boil down to the need for access rather than storage of data. Unfettered access to data is supposed to translate into more effective law enforcement. Localisation then is a method to enable this need for access. In addition, it would also protect India’s data from malicious foreign entities.While ensuring security and ease of access for Indian data is paramount, localisation might not be the best means to achieve that end. Because of the very nature of data, the physical location of where it may be stored does not govern who has access to it. There are different zones of jurisdiction depending on who the data belongs to. For instance, just because Facebook’s data centre might be located in Bangalore or Hyderabad, does not make it a property of the state or federal government(s). Moreover, even if placing the centres in India would somehow protect them from foreign surveillance (the fears are justified after Edward Snowden’s leak), it would render them more vulnerable to domestic threats. Moreover, more often than not, data is jeopardised by inadequate supporting infrastructure rather than malevolent threats. For example, a study by the Leviathan Security Group stated that in 2011 data was compromised because of a slow water drip in a nondescript office building in the Canadian city of Calgary. The lack of adequate infrastructure set off an explosion that caused days of computer outages for hospitals, ambulances, radio stations, taxis, and criminal justice facilities around the province. It is not easy to source and maintains the infrastructural requirements of data centres. Not only do they need to be completely free of even seemingly minor dysfunctions such as water drips, but data centres also need massive amounts of resources — electricity and water — to function. India might not have the infrastructural capacity to meet the requirements of setting up and maintaining data centres. A large percentage of Indians do not have access to electricity and there is an impending crisis for water.So, India still has a long way to go before it can meet the infrastructural requirements for setting up data centres of its own. Ultimately, for India, and for the sake of the larger narrative, localisation is not a means to achieve better data security. What it will do, instead, is increase costs for the industry while making global organisation tougher to manage. Curbing freedom of movement for data will impact the ability to progress, innovate, and allocate resources while sullying the experience for the end-user, the people.It should be noted that localisation was a key mandate of the BJP government before the elections. There is a widespread belief in the government that localising Indian data is the way to go. It complements the current administration’s ‘India First’ message. However, as far as cross-border data flows are concerned, localisation might not be the tool that helps India in the long or short term. With the reelection of the BJP, there is no reason to believe that the approach to cross-border data flows is likely to change. We can presume that the draft e-commerce policy, data protection bill, and the RBI circular will all enforce their version of localisation.The question is whether it will actually help keep data secure while harnessing the potential we know it possesses. As most experts on big data and AI will tell you, when it comes to data, it is always better to let it roam free.

The article was first published in The Hindu. Views are personal.

The folly of breaking up Big Tech

Further, breaking up these companies would significantly reduce the value consumers get due to the high interconnectedness of the products. A lot of the value that Google has seen in the Maps platform, for instance, comes from all the data that they have from Search. Customers also receive a lot of value from other Google products that are cross-subsidised from revenue earned in other products. YouTube, for instance, is widely believed to be non-profitable but is supported by revenues earned by other products.We would also have to stop and wonder how is it that one of the most integral parts of our lives — Google Search — is provided free of cost. Google can give the service for free because it can monetise it with advertising. If Google is broken up, this would no longer be possible. Breaking up any one of these services would give us substantially less valuable services.Breaking up these technology companies would also have a severe impact on innovation in the sector. As an article in Politico points out, “The top five spenders in research and development in 2017 were all tech companies. Amazon alone spent more than $22 billion. The development of autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence and voice recognition wouldn’t be nearly as advanced as they are now if it weren’t for the work of Google and Amazon”. Investing in R&D and finally introducing them into the market is an expensive ordeal. However, big tech companies can afford to do so because of the nature of interconnectedness that exist within their products...Read the entire article 

Terrorism needs an audience. Facebook gave Christchurch shooter more than he asked for

To be effective, terrorism must have an audience. The New Zealand attackers simply used a GoPro and live streaming on Facebook while they carried out the massacre. With social media and the mobile internet, terrorists can not only reach a global audience, they can get their message across unfiltered. These, unfortunately, are near-perfect conditions for terrorism.When Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the terrorist who carried out the atrocity at two mosques in Christchurch last week, killing at least 50 people, streamed his act live on Facebook, he proved, yet again, that terrorism is theatre. Brian Jenkins, an early analyst of terrorism, argued in 1975 that in “the age of mass communications…terrorism is aimed at the people watching.”While some terrorists make specific demands — like seeking the release of their fellows — the strategic purpose of the terrorists’ actions is to draw attention to their political cause, widen their gross public support and enlist new followers. Terrorism is, as a 19th century political activist described it, “propaganda of the deed.”Read More

Without realistic rules, Election Commission can’t monitor social media before polls

The Election Commission has announced that it will closely monitor the social media campaigns of parties and candidates in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. It has enlisted the cooperation of Google, Facebook and Twitter to uphold “the integrity of the political campaigns on their platforms”. As much as the Election Commission must be commended for factoring in social media activities in its overall governance of the electoral process, it is unclear how effectively it can manage to do this.Even if a significant number — around 40 per cent in urban and 20 per cent in rural areas — of the 90 crore eligible Indian voters are on social media, let us be clear that tackling the regular offline issues during elections is far more important.Read More

Social Media and the Ghost of "Political Interference"

Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey was required to appear for a Parliamentary hearing earlier this month after being accused by social media users of bias against particular political views. He did not. As the conversation around social media, fake news, and online censorship gets intense in the run-up to the general elections, Anirudh Kanisetti asks whether these companies are really interfering with India’s political process, and what could be done about it.http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2019/feb/23/is-twitter-interfering-in-our-politics-1942592.html

Why India must worry about splitting the internet. Ask the Chinese

The cookie dropped yesterday. After weeks of suspense, the US government charged Huawei, a Chinese networking equipment manufacturer, with violating US sanctions and stealing trade secrets from its American partner. The specific charges apart, US officials have made no secret that the action has two broader dimensions — the ongoing trade war with China and the wider geopolitical contest for dominance in the Information Age.On the other side of the drama, last week Bing, Microsoft’s search engine, suddenly became inaccessible to users in China. A day or so later, just as mysteriously, it was back online. Now, unlike Google — which once decided to stay out of the Chinese market rather than accept censorship of its search results — Microsoft has made its peace with Beijing and Bing only throws up sanitised, party-approved hits. It commands a tiny share of the Chinese internet search market. Why Beijing would want to turn off an almost insignificant search engine — and a pliant one at that — is hard to fathom; even if the word has been put out that it was due to a ‘technical error‘ it is impossible to rule out political motives. Neither Microsoft nor the Chinese government has explained why Bing went down for a day.For many years, companies and governments would roll their eyes after incidents like this and concede that ‘that is the cost of doing business in China.’ It is only now that it is dawning on many Western countries, mainly the United States, that censorship is a feature that China has introduced on the internet. Furthermore, China has now acquired enough economic, political, and technological power to be able to shape the future of the internet in its own image, and according to its own interests. The Trump administration is waking up to this reality in alarm.Read more

As China Fights For Huawei, Should India Be Wary of Its 5G Entry?

After the Canadian government arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer and daughter of the founder of Huawei, a Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer, upon an extradition request by the United States, relations between China and Canada have taken a nosedive.In barely concealed retaliation, China arrested two Canadians over the past month, and then summarily re-sentenced a third, a convicted drug smuggler to death. The official rhetoric from Beijing has become increasingly strident, like what we saw during the Doklam stand-off. Beijing has taken off its gloves and is baring its teeth.Such political aggression is part of President Xi Jinping’s foreign policy, and the Chinese establishment might well justify the impatient, aggressive, gangster-like diplomacy as befitting a great power of its stature.Read more

Go Easy on Amazon and Flipkart

The FDI in e-commerce policy clarifications made by the DIPP was done in order to help the small retailers from getting exploited at the hands of the big e-commerce players. While it may help them in the short run, an atmosphere that is not conducive to investment in this sector is bound to hurt them in the long run.Both Amazon and Flipkart have planned to approach the government together to reconsider these provisions. If they fail to convince the government, they will shrink the size of their future investments. This can have a significant negative effect on the entire e-commerce sector and can lead to job losses due to the closing of their private labels. Not to mention the loss of the number of jobs they would have created by their extension plans. Cities in the US are fighting with each other to provide incentives and attract Amazon’s second headquarters, while the Indian government is driving away from the investment.Finally, the decision is bound to hurt the Indian consumers. By limiting the number of discounts given by the private labels, the consumers will have to pay a higher price for their purchases. It will also reduce the variety of goods that are available to the consumers for online purchases.Vertical integration can have anti-competitive practices but can be dealt with in a far more efficient manner than outright bans on such operations. Antitrust authorities across the world have tools to recognise and prevent practices that can hurt consumers and small retailers. The competition commission can be given the mandate to develop these tools and implement them instead of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.Finally, this would also be the right time to revisit the policy of not allowing FDI in multi-brand retail. The parochial fears of potential harm to small retailers are overplayed in the public discourse. All of the small retailers in question have benefited massively from the presence of these platforms. They are now able to reach an unimaginable number of customers because of the platform. Similarly, multi-brand retail can have a massive positive effect on economic growth and job creation.Read More

The three elements of China’s innovation model

In November 2018, the New York Times published a series that began with a story titled, The Land that Failed to Fail. The central argument of the piece is that defying Western expectations, the Communist Party has maintained its control in China while adopting elements of capitalism, eschewing political liberalisation, and pursuing innovation. The last of these three — innovation — is the subject of this piece.What drives innovation in China? This is not merely a question about the mechanics of policy, the might of capital, the determination of dogged entrepreneurs, or the brilliance that is conjured up in university dormitories. Increasingly, it is a question that has acquired geopolitical significance, not just in the context of power politics but also in the debate over fundamental values about the political and economic organisation. In other words, the question that China’s march towards becoming a “country of innovators” raises is whether a political system that prioritises control can foster genuine innovation.Answering this requires an understanding of the key elements of the Chinese model of innovation. To my mind, there are three key components of this model—state support, a systems approach towards the development of new technologies and businesses, and building an effective “bird-cage.” There are, of course, other factors like the pursuit of prestige, the desire to rebalance the economy, the need to enhance the effectiveness of governance, and the size of the consumer market, which supports innovation. But it is the first three components that form the key pillars of China’s innovation model.Read More...

Safeguarding Liberty Against Mobilised Violence

The Bulandshahr incident of December 2018 bears all the hallmarks of mobilised violence: an undisguised political purpose, backing from well-organised groups, and a disregard for the lives of civilians and police personnel alike. In addition to the loss of life and property, such violence undermines a state of liberty in the country. For the violence is often directed against a diversity of opinions, be it on grounds of religion, language, eating habits, caste, or any of the other aspects of our lives that set us apart from each other and that form the basis for our richly plural society. The principle of liberty requires us to respect these differences and to let individuals determine for themselves the way they want to live. Mobilised violence strikes against this principle. It prevents individuals from expressing themselves in the present through brute force and creates a chilling effect that prevents more expression in the future for fear of reprisal. This erosion of liberty leaves our society poorer.Any intervention to alter this status quo will not be an easy one. The change that is most needed is an enlightened citizenry, one that respects the liberty of others. After all, every individual acting as part of a mob has a choice to not engage in violence. We must move towards a society where more individuals make the right decision when faced with this choice.Read more

Understanding Witch Hunts

One of the signs of good literature is the ability to stay relevant with the passage of time. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible, written in the 1950s, uses the Salem witch trials as an allegory for the paranoia surrounding Communism in the US after the end of the Second World War. It is a testament to the strength of the play that it resonates just as strongly in the world of today, with the fears around fake news and the targeting of individuals and communities.The play has a fairly straightforward narrative (minor spoilers to follow): a group of young women lie and claim that certain members of their town are indulging in witchcraft. This sets off a chain of events both absurd and scary, with the accused being presumed guilty until they either confess (leading to a loss of reputation and property) or refute the charge (leading to a death sentence).Read more