Beware of Geeks bearing gifts

A YEAR ago, Americans installed a reality TV star in the White House who doesn't let facts get in the way of a good tweet. Donald Trump's shambolic management style has given America's enemies a perceived opportunity to drive their country's agendas.

Not long after the last new year fireworks had gone out, Kim Jong Un announced that North Korea's nuclear missiles could now strike the US, saying: "The button for nuclear weapons is on my table." And how did the leader of the free world respond? By Twitter, of course, boasting that his nuclear button is "much bigger & more powerful".

It is surreal, not only that the fate of humanity hangs in the balance of what resembles a schoolboys' pissing match, but that we - the US and the rest of world not under a dictator - aren't doing more about it. Maybe it is the belief that the verbal one-upmanship will not result in actual war - that Pyongyang's claims of nuclear ability are overblown, and that, if push comes to shove, there are sufficient checks and balances in the US system to prevent Mr Trump from starting an apocalypse. Or maybe the more immediate threat of global conflict is from elsewhere.

The Trojan Horse

First, let's go back 2,500 years. The Trojan Horse was a large wooden horse built by the Greeks and left outside the walls of Troy during the war between their two kingdoms. The Greeks appeared to retreat, and the Trojans wheeled the horse into their city as a trophy, only to have the soldiers hidden inside it open the gates to the victorious Greeks. From this story came Virgil's phrase "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts", as well as the label that now describes computer malware disguised as legitimate software.

Technology and the Internet have been a boon to the masses, giving access to information, levelling the playing field between rich and poor and between advanced and under-developed countries. It has made life more convenient, improved individual well-being and community engagement.

But for all its benefits, tech has introduced its own malware into society. The Internet, like any global city, has some murky back alleys. The Dark Web and the untraceability of cryptocurrency facilitate illegal activities, from drug deals to terrorism financing. In a 2017 report, Nato said access to technology and the global nature of cyberspace would enable terrorist networks expand, challenging the current near-monopoly state actors have on high-tech weapons.

If World War I was started when a gunshot rang out in Sarajevo and World War II was marked by wailing air-raid sirens, the next global conflict is likely to be launched with the quiet click of a mouse. In a cyber attack, enemy-sponsored hackers could jam defence systems and disrupt key installations. Impromptu auditions have already been held: Last year, the ransomware WannaCry claimed as its largest victim the UK's National Health Service, shutting down everything from MRI scanners to blood-storage refrigerators.

State-sponsored hacking

There is speculation that governments are pouring resources into hacking. Russia's hacker army, thought to be 1,000 strong, has an annual budget of US$300 million. China is said to have a hacker army of 50,000, but has consistently denied this. Bloomberg reckons North Korea employs 1,700 hackers, backed by 5,000 support staff. However, Reuters reports that it is the US that is the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyber spying and cyber warfare. At home, Singapore's military is building a team of cyber defenders, "White Hat" SEALs if you will, to protect the nation from cyber warfare.

In a democracy, transparency of information is the lifeblood of free elections. He who informs (or misinforms) the electorate can influence the outcome of an election.

A Stanford University study says fake news websites received 159 million visits during the last month of the 2016 US election. Facebook believes 120 fake Russian-backed pages created 80,000 posts that were received by 29 million Americans directly, and far more through sharing of the posts. If, as is believed, most of this misinformation was pro-Trump, how much of it influenced the election outcome?

Unsurprisingly, Singapore has expressed concerns about fake news. A Select Committee of Parliament has been formed, with legislation to follow. But even a hint of media control by the authorities will have the civil rights community up in arms. In combating inaccurate news reports with regulation, the government could de-legitimise news media by the perception of editorial influence. When the authorities clash with fake news, the public will be the losers.

Against this backdrop, some recent developments could have far-reaching effects, which have yet to enter our collective consciousness.

Facebook recently announced changes to its News Feed algorithm to prioritise content from friends and family over posts from businesses and news media, explaining that more personal interaction enhances users' welfare. The upshot of this is that your Facebook feed will show limited updates from news outlets.

Whether you believe the move is prompted by altruism, a calculated profit motive or even a desire to pre-empt regulation, it is clear this change will create an echo chamber that is both larger and louder. The user's own views will be reinforced by self-selection, as we are more likely to interact with like-minded connections, which will in turn cause Facebook to push more such views to our news feed. Society's social, political and economic fault lines will deepen.

If we used social media only to view friends' travel photos and indulge in their food porn, Facebook's new policy would not matter. But with a rising proportion of our news coming from online content, and our opinions inevitably shaped by commentary received from platforms where we spend the most time, Facebook and sites like it will have an outsized impact on how we view global developments. Add to this the rise of fake news, and you have a potentially dangerous combination.

Another thing that has largely escaped our radar: the US Federal Communications Commission announced in 2017 the repeal of the US's net neutrality policy. This is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate against type of content and user. Without this, they could selectively block content and slow down or deny access to sites. Theoretically, a loss of net neutrality could allow those with deeper pockets to influence public opinion and silence the marginalised and minorities.

Why it matters

Citizens of a modern democracy must have access to accurate news and independent commentary from credible media sources to make informed voting choices. Anything that reinforces bias or allows those with greater financial resources and an agenda to influence the electorate's views would threaten that freedom. If the information we receive is being filtered or controlled in ways we are unaware of, our decisions are being influenced without our knowledge. Tech giants like Facebook and Google, which control arguably the most important commodity in the Internet age - information - have the ability to shape the world. There's no guarantee that they will do so for the better.

Tech has invaded our lives with the promise of a better lifestyle, and on this, it has largely delivered. While we have knowingly relied on its conveniences, it is our unwitting submission to its influences that poses the threat.

Beware of Geeks bearing gifts.