By: Uma Asher

What does the psychedelic rock band Grateful Dead have to do with the digital economy? During a session titled “The Digital Economy: A World Without Borders” at the 2018 One Globe Forum, panelist Harish Pillay, Global Head, Community Architecture & Leadership atRed Hat, paid tribute to band member John Perry Barlow, who had passed away just three days earlier. Mr. Pillay said, “He was a hero who helped define what it means to create the internet. He coined the phrase ‘borderless world’, and declared the independence of mankind on the internet. The internet… creates opportunities for anybody anywhere to be able to contribute – coding, documentation, whatever – from an open-source perspective.”

Panelist Rohit Kulkarni, Country Manager, Payoneer, underscored the importance of a borderless world, saying, “In ecommerce, 30% to 40% of businesses export, as compared to 3% to 4% of traditional businesses in India.”

Moderator Anisha Singh, Founder & CEO, mydala.com, said, “We keep talking about the digital economy. But a lot of industries have had issues in terms of going digital – for example, the music industry, and now the pharma industry. What are some of the industries that are going to be in serious trouble?”

Mr. Pillay responded,“The biggest disruption will probably be in the medical sector… All its alleged smarts are on the equipment side. Diagnosis, patient information – the entire set of components there in many hospitals is still very non-digital. We need a way to get that out into the digital space.”

Ms. Singh raised the issue of privacy, citing the example of Aadhaar in India. Mr. Pillay declined to comment on Aadhaar but said, “Clearly, personal data is going to be an issue… We leave a digital trail constantly. The internet is incredibly leaky.” He added that open-source technology helped mitigate some of this.

Ms Singh noted that many governments were concerned that tech giants such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple controlled vast amounts of data. “If governments are scared, should we be scared? And what does this mean in terms of digital/non-digital?” she asked.

Panelist K.S. Prashant, Managing Director, IDeaS Revenue Solutions,said, “I’m not sure whether we should be scared or not, but… if we do not centralize data, we will not benefit from the advances of science, machine learning, artificial intelligence, neurobiology. But at the same time, if the data lies in the hands of a few, someone could do a lot of mischief with it.”

Citing Yuval Noah Harari, author of the book Sapiens who discussed the hacking of the human algorithm, Mr. Prashant said, “Based on information my watch is transmitting, it can predict whether I’m a diabetic – someone has reached my pancreas already. It won’t take long for them to hack my brain.”

While there was no reason for panic right now, he said, it was important to realize that everybody had a role to play. He said, “Not just the individual, but also corporations need to ignite their conscience. Governments have a role to play – they should not stifle research, but at the same time they cannot take their eyes off it. World bodies need to make sure things get standardized. It’s not going to happen tomorrow or next year; it could take a few decades.”

Speaking of governments, Ms. Singh turned to the only panelist representing one – Patrick Santillo, Counselor for Commercial Affairs at the United States Embassy in India.Noting that US president Donald Trump had effectively leveraged the digital platform, she said, “It was the first time that I’ve seen in a country that I absolutely love go almost protectionist at certain places. Are we going borderless, or are we putting up a wall?”

“A very easy question for the only government guy in the room,” Mr. Santillo responded, prompting laughter. He argued that at different periods in history, technology had given rise to fears of exclusion. He said, “If we were in this room 100 years ago, how we would feel about automation, about lines being implemented to produce the automobile, because that would revolutionize our lives, it would put all the horse-and-buggies out of business. Every generation seems to deal with many of the same issues.”

He added, “We decide as individuals – and as governments – where we are on that spectrum, and that is bound to ebb and flow with elections and with personalities… If we look at the trend lines, I don’t see the United States as a protectionist market. We are currently India’s No. 1 market.”

He said the US strove to represent the multi-stakeholder approach, and added, “We remain hopeful that the community of nations will come together and identify some of these trendlines that can ensure the free flow of data, because our economies are based on it not just in the digital realm but also in the manufacturing realm.”

The conversation then turned to bitcoin, which was originally supposed to be borderless and decentralized. Mr. Kulkarni said, “I’mnot going to comment on whether bitcoin is good or bad. But the underlying problem is, it’s difficult to trade!”

He gave the example of a merchant in India selling jewelry to a US buyer: the buyer would transfer money into a US bank, which would transfer it to a bank in India, from where it would go to the jeweler’s account, and then the jeweler would have to go to the bank and submit paper documents. Mr. Kulkarni said, “This is not just about India – this is how things operate in a large part of the world. So there’s an undercurrent of frustration not only among businesses but even individuals remitting money.”

He said some technology would inevitably replace this system. “Time will tell whether blockchain and bitcoin is the right one. But the jubilation you see over bitcoin is because of that frustration.”

He said 60% to 70% of remittances to India were cash, which could be misused as much as any other currency. He said, “The risks are the same, though the way to address them is going to change.”

Ms. Singh noted that Estonia had pioneered e-residency, allowing entrepreneur e-residents to get global digital access. “Are we going to be digital nomads and e-residents bouncing around the globe?” she asked, adding, “That sounds beautiful. I’ll accept losing my privacy if it means I can be on the beach in Phuket, doing work.”

Mr. Pillay quipped, “Be careful what you wish for.” He said his own country, Singapore, was also exploring the idea of “non-resident residents”. He said the potential of e-residency was wonderful, and added, “We are in the early days yet. I call this the Cambrian explosion time, where there’s a tremendous amount of ideas being thrown out. Ninety-nine per cent of them will die out, and a few nuggets will stay on because they have currency and relevance.” But, he added, he was not prepared to sacrifice privacy.  

Mr. Prashant said that individuals would not get to decide what to give up. “People have a very weak hold on privacy,” he said. Mr. Kulkarni demurred, saying, “I don’t give my data to Facebook by not having an account… I think it’s completely in one’s control to manage it well.”

Mr. Santillo added, “I can’t see us going away from borders, and from some form of connectivity to our communities. Is that community always going to be a nation? Might it be a city? I think at our core, people do want to belong. I can’t imagine a world where people are going to give that up.”

The panel ended in laughter as Mr. Pillay responded to an audience member’s question on privacy by saying, “There are people who say, ‘I don’t care about privacy; I’ve got nothing to hide.’ If that’s the case, why close the door when you go to the restroom? We all know exactly what you’re going to be doing in there. And yet, why do you close the door?”