Category Archives: Society

Britain, Economic, Government, History, Society, Technology

AI is not a threat but an opportunity

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

IS the march of technology and machines something to be fearful of? Andy Haldane, the Bank of England chief economist, thinks we should be wary at the very least. He recently told the BBC that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) will make many jobs obsolete with far-reaching social and cultural consequences. He predicted a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” on a scale greater than anything seen before. “Each of those [previous industrial revolutions] had a wrenching and lengthy impact on the jobs market, on the lives and livelihoods of large swathes of society,” Mr Haldane said.

There is a distinction to be drawn between the short and long-term impacts of such upheavals. The western world has become immeasurably wealthier since farming techniques drove millions off the land and labour-saving automation took hold at the end of the 18th century. The increased prosperity that followed cannot be gainsaid though economic historians argue over when real living standards really began to rise for the majority. The period of transition was marked by social unrest and repression both here and on the continent.

But it remains the case that significant technological advances, whether they be the coming of the railways or the arrival of the silicon chip, have been accompanied by economic growth and higher per capita GDP.

Arguably, we have been too slow to adapt to automation in the UK, with too many jobs that could be mechanised still being carried out manually. This is one reason behind the UK’s poor productivity and sluggish wage growth, which have been the hallmarks of the economy in recent years. Stopping automation or taxing it as Labour threatens to do would stifle investment and worsen the country’s competitive position.

Mr Haldane was right to have said we cannot be sure whether the new machine age will destroy jobs or create new ones and on what scale; but seeking to stop it, as history shows, would be foolish and futile. Although AI will have a significant impact on manual work, many of the jobs likely to go will be middle-income posts in service industries – but these will be people who should be able to adapt to new challenges. Rather than stand in the way of progress, governments should ensure that their policies are geared towards encouraging the uptake of new skills and retraining. Automation should not be considered a threat but an opportunity.

Standard
Government, Legal, Society

Electronic signatures can be written into the law

LAW COMMISSION

SIGNING on the dotted line has been the seal on deals and contracts for hundreds of years. But the supremacy of the traditional written signature could be nearing its end as the Law Commission has ruled that it can be replaced with a typed name or even the click of a button.

The Government’s independent legal adviser has released a report stating that e-signatures can be treated as equivalent to written ones. The report could have implications for documents including Last Powers of Attorney, which must be signed manually, as well as credit agreements and land sales.

Currently many businesses are afraid to use e-signatures because they are concerned they could be challenged in court.

In one case, the commission said, a large organisation has its documents signed manually before scanning them and then shredding the originals, a practice it described as “inefficient”. Electronic signatures can take forms including a typed name, clicking on “I accept” on a website, using a finger or stylus on a touchscreen and using a password or Pin code.

The guidance raises the prospect that an email with a name typed at the bottom of it or even an email header could be treated as a signed document.

The commission has opened a consultation on whether a new law is required to enshrine the legal validity of e-signatures, but said it is “not persuaded at present” that this is absolutely necessary, because the law is already in force. “Our provisional view is that the combination of EU law, statute and case law means that, under the current law, an electronic signature is capable of meeting a statutory requirement for a signature if an ‘authenticating intention’ can be demonstrated,” it said.

The Law Commission says that recent rulings made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal set enough of a precedent for there to be no need for a new law. European law also says that e-signatures should not be treated as less effective than physical ones.

The commission also suggested that, in future, signing could be witnessed via webcam or Skype, something the law does not currently allow for.

“We provisionally propose that it should be possible for a witness to observe an electronic signature by video link and then attest the document by affixing their own electronic signature to it,” the commission said.

In the future, it said, the law could even allow a second person to virtually witness an e-signature by signing into an online platform so they can see it appear in real time.

The Law Commissioner said: “Contract law in the UK is flexible, but some businesses are still unsure if electronic signatures would satisfy legal requirements. We can confirm that they do, potentially paving the way for much quicker transactions for businesses and consumers.

“And not only that: there’s scope, with our proposals for webcam witnesses, to do even more to make signing formal documents more convenient and to speed up transactions.”

Standard
Britain, Defence, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

The EU is reducing Britain’s defence contribution to a Brexit bargaining chip

BREXIT

Intro: Brussels is threatening to limit our role in a series of programmes and ban UK firms from bidding for contracts. Given the importance of Britain to continental security, this beggars belief

TERROR incidents provide us with a stark reminder of how we remain in the cross hairs of a diverse spectrum of threats by those who challenge our values and wish us harm. It is therefore essential we remain resilient, unified and fully prepared to respond.

The evolving character of conflict, which now extends to terrorism, cyber-attacks, energy manipulation, cash disruption, information warfare and election interference, collectively reflects the constant, aggressive, sub-Article 5 challenges we now face. To compound matters, we are witnessing the start of long-term shifts in the balance of power away from Europe to regions less supportive of the global order we helped to create.

Changes in demographics and technology present further challenges. Africa, soon to be the home to a quarter of the human race, is creating just one fifth of the jobs it needs to fill. In ungoverned spaces, this is a perfect recruitment ground for radicalism. Extreme global weather patterns bring the dangerous consequences of rising sea levels and crop failures are progressively leading to large-scale migratory movements.

5G, the next generation of cellular technology, heralds almost unthinkable implications for digital innovation that will transform all our lives. It will also revolutionise the art of conflict, such as swarm drone warfare. Whichever state (or states) harness 5G first is likely to claim the prize in data ownership and the commensurate leap in defence capabilities. China is in the lead.

The world is changing, and fast. However, none of these challenges is insurmountable and we can be in the driving seat. They require understanding, international leadership and teamwork. It is therefore disconcerting that Britain’s military, intelligence and policing contribution to European security could be drawn into the never-ending vortex of Brexit tit-for-tat. Let the Brexit talks continue apace – but European security should be unconditional.

For those who have said “let us just focus on Nato” must recognise its precise remit. Nato provides hard power, a collective defence based around Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Security wise, working with the EU provides political and diplomatic leverage (for example, through sanctions) and agencies such as Europol that coordinates national policing and intelligence to help share live data on hostile and illegal activity.

To truly leverage our collective abilities, for the UK cannot deal with all these challenges alone, we must respect the structures through which our collective security is exercised, in tandem with our European partners.

The quid pro quo is a recognition of Britain’s considerable offering. We are Europe’s most formidable defence power, with the largest military budget, with privileged access to the US and one of only two European states possessing “full spectrum” military capabilities, including a nuclear deterrent. Britain has proved its willingness to step forward as a force for good when other nations hesitate. Our overseas aid budget, again the largest in Europe, provides capacity to engage post-conflict or to bring stability or thwart a future conflict.

Alongside our soft and hard power is genuine expertise. Our response to the Novichok attack in Salisbury is a striking example. Thanks to our world-class intelligence services, we not only exposed the agent and its origins but provided compelling evidence to convince more than 20 nations to expel Russian diplomats.

And so it beggars belief that Britain’s ability to contribute to European defence could be reduced to a bargaining chip on the Brexit negotiation table with a threat of limiting our participation in a series of programmes and prohibiting UK businesses from bidding for contracts.

The Galileo positioning navigation project has become the totemic example. Britain pioneered this project and, with our military providing a quarter of Europe’s total defence force, we will arguably utilise its functionality more than any other nation. Yet we are to be demoted to “observer status”. We may now be obliged to go it alone and to build our own system. The Russians must find this all extremely amusing.

. See also The Galileo satellite project

It is only with a united voice that we can influence global events. Look at our hesitation over Syria. Keeping pace with global challenges and evolving threats will require even greater collaboration, not less. We should revisit the security partnership across Europe and not use our pre-eminent military expertise as a pawn in negotiations. Brexit or no Brexit, Britain should be unconditionally committed to the security of Europe – and so should the EU.

Standard