Setting up a special media cell to track and counter negative news is not going to work, it is only going to spread unnecessary paranoia writes Shilpa Rao
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” George Orwell
In the wake of all that is going on in the country, there is a small piece of news albeit an important one, that has slipped off unnoticed. The NDA government has announced plans to set up a special media cell to track and counter all negative news. The National Security Council Secretariat which is run by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, has proposed the creation of the National Media Analytics Cell (NMAC) to monitor and analyse blogs, web portals of newspapers and TV channels, and various social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
The NMAC will use a software that will generate relevant tags to highlight confrontational posts and classify them into negative, neutral or positive categories. Additionally, the software is said to trace the pattern of the author by analysing past posts to gauge his or her background, website preferences, and judge if the author is on the verge of getting radicalised or is instigating trouble.
Why this? Why now?
In some ways, the NMAC will seem similar to the New Media Wing that was set up by the UPA government in 2013. The New Media Wing would send the government daily reports of what was appearing on social media on various government policies. The NMAC, however, goes a step ahead by actively countering all negative news. The NMAC comes on the heels of the Section 66A which was quashed by the Supreme Court in March last year. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was used to arrest people who shared or commented on content that was perceived to be anti-government online. The Supreme Court scrapped the Section, calling it unconstitutional.
In the ruling, the Apex body stated that ‘offensive content’ is a vague term and what was offensive to someone may not be offensive to someone else. The bench observed that the Section conflicted with the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and therefore had no place in a democracy. As per the ruling, online content could be blocked or touted as criminal only if it led to communal disturbances, led to chaos or affected India’s relationship with other countries.
The NMAC seems like an attempt by the government to repackage and reuse what was previously rejected by the Supreme Court in an attempt to serve its brand of nationalism. If the events at universities such as JNU and AMU are any precedent, the ruling party has made it very clear that it is using policies to promote a narrow sense of nationalism, to divide those who subscribe to hyper-nationalism and those who don’t.
Does Data Mining Help?
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Security Agency has insisted that mass surveillance and data mining was required to protect the US from terrorists. Data mining is often offered as a technique that will help governments thwart terrorist plots, violent demonstrations or anything that could lead to chaos and the use of force. However, this is easier said than done. The method did not help prevent either the Boston bombings or the attacks in Paris despite there being enough intelligence available ahead of the incident and the assailants being on the watch list.
Data Mining works best when profiles are well defined, searches are relatively narrow and events occurring in that year are plenty. Terrorists attacks, protest marches and violent attacks are rare and scattered. This leads to inaccuracy and several false alarms. Moreover, time and again, too much data has proven to be useless. In a detection system, unless it is tuned accurately to minimize the number of false positives, the end-user could be inundated with false alarms, when the system mistakenly recognises something harmless as a threat. As ‘negative’ news would be relatively common and terrorist threats would be rare, the system would very easily be overwhelmed by false positives. No matter how well-tuned it may be.
As security expert Bruce Schneier pointed out, connecting the dots in hindsight is easy. But in real time – impossible. He demonstrated this by highlighting that US intelligence agencies had at least three days warning that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was going to launch a chemical attack, but were unable to stop him as the messages were lost in the noise. The data may also not provide enough proof for governments to act on the matter. It could very easily be misplaced information or information taken out of context that is irrelevant. At this stage, the risk of a mistake is very high and it is preferable to not act at all. Thus, the lack of solid proof makes it tricky for governments to act ahead of an incident and prevent it. In India itself, the subject is still up for debate, but the lines between the public and the private are obviously starting to blur.
Not Feasible
A report from the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee in the Parliamentary Assembly in Netherlands, showed that mass surveillance has been ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks and negative propaganda online. Mass surveillance has created a very large haystack, from which finding a needle is next to impossible. As systems are inundated with information, one can almost never pick up what is relevant and actionable. Alarm signals are easily lost in the bulk of alerts that are generated as the net was thrown wide.
Additionally, mass surveillance diverts large amounts of funds from traditional law enforcement that can help gather better and more effective intelligence on smaller targets. Concentrating on small targets can lead to relevant data being collected at the right time and allow for appropriate follow-ups to take place. The money wasted on mass surveillance tools could be better spent on investigations, intelligence gathering and emergency responses. Instead, it is being wasted on committees and software that will inundate government systems with irrelevant information. Right now, it’s just spreading paranoia.
