Monthly Archives: March 2014

Arts, Business, Consumer Affairs, Economic, Government, Society, Technology

Internet privacy and the need for firms to profit…

BIG DATA

The next phase of the internet revolution will concern Big Data. Coupled with that will be a ‘Big Debate’ about privacy.

Big Data, a Californian gold rush for the internet age, is all about the potential of the vast quantities of data generated online. It is only now that the brainboxes of Silicon Valley are beginning to harvest, store, transfer and analyse in ways that could prove extremely valuable to companies and governments among others.

Silicon Valley is well known for its liberal sprinkling of fledging firms whose business models are built around Big Data. AdParlour, for instance, set up in 2008 by young entrepreneur Hussain Fazal, is designed to build an advertising network for Facebook.

Whereas traditional advertising is transmitted to those who are not remotely interested as well as to prime potential customers, the new generation and streams of ads can be targeted at people based on personal data gleaned from their online activities.

As Fazal says: ‘Almost everywhere you go on the web, you are being tracked.’

The difficulty for companies such as Facebook, which styles itself as a trendy firm in tune with users, is that increasing numbers of people are uncomfortable with having their every online move observed and used for commercial gain.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a prominent article headlined ‘Give Me Back My Online Privacy’, which highlighted findings by the Pew Research Centre suggesting more than half of Americans are concerned about the amount of personal data online. Potentially there is big money in all that minutiae about our lifestyles and shopping habits.

The anecdotal evidence is important to note. The annual value to Facebook of an American woman who is a light user of the site is just over $12. This doesn’t sound a lot until you multiply this by the millions of users and factor in those online advertising techniques – many of which are still in their infancy – and are likely to become more sophisticated and effective over time.

The public mood among Americans about being watched online is more sensitive than it is in the UK following the revelations about the National Security Agency. Many Britons, though, do feel a sense of unease at the snooping of their personal data, and how the information may be exploited.

From the corporate point of view, probing into customer lifestyles and behaviours is not a novelty. Firms have always, and quite legitimately, wanted to know as much as they can about consumers, so they can target their products and prices to best advantage.

Loyalty cards have been tracking people’s purchases and giving stores information on shopping habits for years. Credit scoring for loans and plastic cards, which monitors behaviour in terms of how, when and whether people repay their debts, has also been a feature of the commercial landscape for some time.

At the moment, the use of Big Data to target ads is relatively crude, which is why those spawned by your previous purchases often miss the mark.

At this point in time, however, it is only scratching the surface. Once the so-called ‘internet of things’, where everyday objects are connected to the internet, takes hold, even your fridge will be tracking your habits, making known all about your clandestine food intake. Privacy is not an absolute, but a concept that changes according to time and place.

The internet is redefining some existing social norms: the generation that grew up with the internet and those that come after may be comfortable sharing information their parents and grandparents would have considered wholly personal.

At the moment, it would seem that many users either do not know or do not care that they might be giving away valuable information about themselves online. The online economy has unarguably brought significant consumer benefits.

Shoppers can easily compare prices and obtain the best deals, and can buy goods from anywhere in the world. Users value their experiences on Facebook and Twitter and may feel the surrender of some personal data is a price worth paying.

Set against that is the reality that the details of our day to day lives, hobbies, friendships, work and interests, is being mined by companies as if it were just another commodity.

Yet, it is an exchange in which the terms of the deal are not clear – we have no way of knowing how valuable our personal information might be to companies, and whether the benefits we receive in return are a fair deal.

The debate about privacy and commercial profit will become more pressing as the online world becomes smarter.

Standard
Economic, Europe, Government, History, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

America has a role in supporting Europe. It isn’t about to turn its back…

AMERICA & EUROPE IN COUNTERING THE THREAT FROM RUSSIA

A European crisis has, once again, brought the ambitions of a second-term American president into the sharp light of day. Mr Obama could never have wished that he would land in Europe with the sole task of rallying some of his country’s oldest allies against the expansionist threats posed by Vladimir Putin of Russia. And yet, this is precisely the situation Barack Obama finds himself in.

Mr Obama arrived in The Hague and described Europe’s idiosyncratic collection of comatose economies as the ‘cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world’. His presence was enough to underline the realities of a new and emerging Cold War message: one to which America remains the ultimate guarantor of European security.

Whatever the intrinsic American wishes are, America cannot abdicate from that role. While history may reflect back the words of Franklin Roosevelt who pledged that America would never send US troops to fight in Europe, or even during Mr Obama’s own reign in office when he pronounced America’s ‘pivot’ and orientation towards Asia, Putin’s provocative stance and actions in Crimea has made such a profound difference to how the US reflects upon Europe. The United States accepts that the threats posed by Russia are serious and interconnected, and is turning away from the Pacific to behave in a way that every president from Truman to Reagan would have recognised.

Predicting what Putin will do next to enhance and strengthen his Russian Federation is difficult to determine. As a former KGB officer, he knows the high value placed on keeping his intentions as mysterious and covert as possible.

Psychology is also at play. The flint-eyed incumbent of the Kremlin strongly believes that Mr Obama is a president motivated far more by what is happening in the Pacific. To Mr Putin’s eye Barack Obama is a leader that is fundamentally uninterested in Europe and viscerally reluctant to use force of any kind. The Russian leader observed how Mr Obama steered clear of intervening in Libya by allowing Britain and France to claim the credit for toppling the Gaddafi regime. America’s role in that campaign was leadership from the back, rather than the front dynamism many would otherwise have expected.

And no-doubt the Kremlin hardliner would have taken special note when Bashar al-Assad made a mockery over Mr Obama’s ‘red lines’ and gassed hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians without paying a military price.

Mr Putin may even have thought this was an American president who could be pushed around. The disarmament treaty with Moscow, signed in 2010, for example, imposed far greater cuts on the US arsenal than was made to the Russian inventory.

Russia has remained committed in driving a wedge between Europe and America. Along with its actions in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated the compelling necessity of NATO and the Atlantic Alliance. Such miscalculations may even impel Europe to realise the mistakes of continuously running down its defences.

America and Europe seem certain to respond with skill and resolve. Such a partnership can only make the world a safer place.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Society, United States

The ‘war on terror’ doctrine has failed, but why?

‘WAR ON TERROR’

Intro: The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily

It is now more than twelve and a half years since the Al-Qaeda attack on America’s Twin Towers of 9/11. Yet, despite all the efforts by the West in dealing with additional terrorist threats under its catch all phrase ‘war on terror’, al-Qaeda and its affiliate type organisations (of which there are many) now control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. This size increases still further if we factor in Afghanistan, Libya and vast swathes of Somalia.

The rapid expansion and spread of jihadi groups comes amid the west’s ongoing fight and struggle of George W Bush’s infamous war on terror doctrine. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been expended; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and the practices of torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. What is so extraordinary is that the attempts made by the West to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

It was never an inevitable outcome that organisations and splinter groups aligned to the ideology and methods of Osama bin-Laden should have survived and flourished like they have. Al-Qaeda inspired jihad is now stronger than ever.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia was crucial to the rise of the original al-Qaeda based group. On the 9/11 attacks, 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi and the Commission Report in the aftermath revealed that Saudi donors were the main financial supporters and backers for al-Qaeda. More than 28 pages of the report relating to Saudi involvement have never been published, and the Bush administration never sought for a moment to pin blame or any measure of responsibility on Saudi Arabia. This failure has enabled the Saudis to go on playing a central role in the funding and recruitment for jihadi groups across much of the Muslim world. Instead, Bush sought to wholly attribute blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without a shred of acceptable evidence.

Policies of wrong-footedness have continued. Since the start of the Arab Spring the US, Britain and their allies have supported jihadis who manoeuvred and appeared to be on their side – much in the same way as they backed them in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Rebel groups in Syria and Libya, much like al-Qaeda, have been viewed tolerantly thanks to their opposition and denouncements of Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, paid with his life after Washington underestimated the danger posed by the jihadis with whom America had been cooperating.

The willingness of the US, Britain, and their allies to cooperate with theocratic absolute regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf does have aspects to it which are hypocritical. The absurd pretence that they want to establish secular democracies in Syria, Libya and Iraq is the clearest example. There is a sustained unwillingness, too, to admit that the Sunni monarchs are viscerally anti-Shia. We need to look no further than the sectarian hate propaganda proliferating on well-funded Arabic satellite television stations, across social media sites, and through the internet in general.

But ‘why’ you may ask has the West been so gentle with the Saudis (and their allies) responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement. The reason is the kingdom’s financial might. Washington and London’s hunger for lucrative arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals is a prime driver.

The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily. Greater accountability should have been delivered by now for those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Standard