The Digital Paradox: Leapfrogging to Serfdom?

“(Hu)man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in (himself) herself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will: (s)he must in all (his) her actions, whether they are directed to (himself) herself or to other rational beings, always be viewed at the same time as an end.” 

– Immanuel Kant

Long ago, a teacher asked one of us to abandon reading by the screen, he urged opting for the conventional reading methodology, born simultaneously with the Big Bang; reading from books and similarly situated tangible materials. The response was reserved back then, but now, it is realised that digitisation is the meta-ideology and the metapolicy. History of the evolution of the modern human can be classified into different phases – from classical to neoclassical and from modern to postmodern – but now, we are entering a post-human phase – where the transition is real, as real as climate change to a metaverse. 

Digital Revolution vs Repression – Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Technology is revolutionising the world. We Indians are lauded for our meticulous technological transition – from digitised learning ecosystems that cater to the needs of school-going fledglings (more than the entire population of countries like Indonesia and Brazil) to the volume of digital payments via our own QR-code-based UPI (Unified Payments Interface) crossing $110 billion in 2023 – a figure more than the entire nominal GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of countries like Bulgaria and Oman. Trends in e-governance (including land records digitisation efforts, e-service delivery, JAM trinity (Jan Dhan, Aadhar, and Mobile Number), National Judicial Grid, et cetera), coupled with ambitions for internationalisation of rupee (UPI going global and promotion of crypto-based digital rupee); makes policy insights in the digital realm both inspiring and quintessential, not only for the accelerated leap of our country, but for the entire world, as our Prime Minister once proclaimed, ‘When India grows, the world grows; when India reforms, the world transforms’. However, it is just one side of the coin.

While on one hand, the digital revolution is making unimaginable leaps and bounds, on the other, individuals are becoming victims of what we’d like to call ‘state-sponsored digital repression’ – where individuals are not even aware of their data being collected, let alone know for what or why. For instance, the entire COVID-19 vaccination programme in India was digitised through the CoWIN app. However, CoWIN data was used by the government, without the consent of the citizens, to make their health cards under India’s Ayushman Bharat Digital Health Mission (an initiative to digitise health and hospital records). Similarly, staff at six metropolitan airports in India were found capturing facial and biometric details of passengers at entry gates, without their consent, to enrol them in DigiYatra, an initiative to replace physical identification with facial recognition at airport check-ins. What is worse is that the entire database is managed by the DigiYatra Foundation, an NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation).

Digital Serfdom in the 21st Century

Jefferson once said, ‘information is the currency of democracy’ – but for us, democracy will reincarnate simultaneously with the birth of individual-owned, individual-led, and individual-centred data policy and infrastructure. Global trends in digitisation, especially that of Web 3.0 and decentralised cryptos [which we’d love to call ‘counter-cyclical digital revolution’, as it directly challenges the present data governance structures owned by the state and corporates], give individuals like us an avenue to dream – dream of the near future where technology empowers us, where traditional centralisers break down, and pass-on the power of digital self-determination to the individuals, in a way, turning the vision of Gandhi (decentralisation and individual empowerment) into a reality. However, when we delve deep into what Machiavelli called ‘verità effetuale’ or ‘what is’, the prognosis is not good. 

The ‘counter-cyclical digital revolution’ engendered a ‘Thucydides-trap’ like situation, which alarmed the present digital hegemons – the nation-state and the corporates – leading to a tightening grip over digital assets – substantiated by the fact that national governments are issuing central bank digital currencies (consider e-INR of India, Sistema of Ecuador, e-Dinar of Tunisia, and DCEP of China), antithetical to the very pith and substance of cryptos (decentralisation). Moreover, while governments around the world are busy passing laws to govern virtual digital assets (for instance, a 30% tax on VDAs in India), the corporates are trying to keep up their relevance by developing a ‘metaverse’ – a future digital ecosystem owned by the ‘digital corporate oligarchy’ (which one of us called ‘metapoly’). 

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Disruptions caused by misinformation and targeted propaganda (for instance, Facebook became what Saira Asher called the ‘digital tea shop’, facilitating Myanmar genocide), deepfakes, child pornography, using digital platforms for plotting terrorist activities, and cyberattacks (recently, biometric data of around 800 million Indians were put up for sale in the dark web), are acting as licenses to the national governments to accentuate restrictions and tighten control over digital platforms and social media. For instance, in India, the proposed Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, if passed, would mandate broadcasters (including YouTube channels and Instagram handles) to register with a Broadcasting Committee, which would vet their content. 

Moreover, while the national governments mask their actions by citing the aforementioned disruptions as a threat to public order and national security, they, themselves, are availing of the disastrous benefits of the digital revolution, strengthening the concept of ‘panopticon-state’ or Foucault’s surveillance society. For instance, consider alleged state-sponsored snooping using the Pegasus spyware or the ‘exception’ clause (Section 17) in the Digital Data Protection Act, 2023, which exempts certain entities processing personal data for specific purposes – like those incidental to the “prevention… investigation or prosecution of any offence or contravention of any law” – from compliance. And when the one maintaining the largest repository of personal data (state) makes laws to regulate its processing, we ask what Roman poet Juvenal asked centuries ago – Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

What is in Store for the Individuals?

Ensnared in this tug of war between the state and non-state actors lies the hapless individuals – with over half of them not even having a smartphone to access the digital realm (victims of the digital divide) and a large chunk of the remaining being victims of ‘state-sponsored data repression’ – looking for emancipation. Will the individuals ever get to enjoy absolute freedom of speech and expression? Can the global digital divide be bridged? How to prevent the ‘leviathan’ state from capitalising on the disruptions arising out of digitisation to feed the ‘big government’ by repressing individual freedoms? How to prevent the corporates from monopolising the metaverse? How to end unnecessary surveillance? How to protect data privacy? What are the digital rights of the individuals? How to annihilate what Habermas called the ‘media-manipulated public sphere’ or the ‘digital tea shops’? Most importantly, how to give individuals absolute rights over their own data? The questions are unending, and technological innovations have no answers. Therefore, to bridge what we call ‘technological value agnosticism’, robust policy formulation with a tint of Kantian individual-centrism is quintessential.

The article has been co-authored by Adwaith PB, an alumnus of Ramjas College and Chitranjan Kumar, currently pursuing LLB at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.