Showing posts with label Post. Show all posts
Socialism, Communism, Open Source and Browsers
I love Firefox and the Mozilla foundation - it was the beacon of innovation when Microsoft tried to kill it with repeated versions of its buggy Internet Explorer! If you were involved in software development or managing online products circa 2005-2008, you would know the nightmare it was to develop a website compatible with IE and its myriad of versions (IE6 was especially notorious)!
At that time, Firefox was our ray of hope, and I would have tried to evangelise almost every friend, family or client to ditch IE and embrace FF. With clients, however, the big problem was, Firefox was an Open Source software and the corporate world has a certain amount of scepticism towards this species of software. [Ironical because most of the largest software services in the world run on Operating Systems which are clones of Linux and most of the web's websites run on Apache - these two being probably the largest Open Source projects in the world!]
In spite of this, when I got this blog post from Mozilla (the non-profit which runs Firefox) in my mailbox, I got thinking about whether Open Source community is right in thinking that Software, where no one takes credit, is really the reason for the success of Open Source? I quote:
My doubts also emerge from the fact that while Firefox did help keep the hope alive during the dark period of 2000-2010 for browser innovation, the real clincher was Google supported Chrome browser.
Today most organisations - SMBs to MNC Enterprises use (or allow) the Chrome browser. Google did significant amount of (subtle) marketing to ensure that it was able to usurp the hegemony of Microsoft over the browser market since Chrome's launch in 2008. And these 'for profit' dollars poured into evangelising corporations probably helped sideline Internet Explorer.
As this chart shows, IE declined steadily once Chrome was launched, while Firefox's penetration levels have remained steady but not really grown much (proportionally) in the intervening years.
Mozilla Foundation is a great organisation - if you are concerned about your privacy, if you are someone who believes in rights of individuals over the state, if you want to keep the web open and secure - you should support them. Geeks and Intellectuals still use the Firefox browser more than they use Chrome. (I am not one of them, I use FF only on special purpose - bit the self-confessed Google fan that I am, Chrome is my mainstay).
Organisations like Mozilla need to exist so that if one day Google, even against its corporate motto, turns evil - we have a ray of hope. However, the example does set back the hope of the early 90s that Open Source will trump Proprietery software one day to create a truly "Free Software" world.
.
At that time, Firefox was our ray of hope, and I would have tried to evangelise almost every friend, family or client to ditch IE and embrace FF. With clients, however, the big problem was, Firefox was an Open Source software and the corporate world has a certain amount of scepticism towards this species of software. [Ironical because most of the largest software services in the world run on Operating Systems which are clones of Linux and most of the web's websites run on Apache - these two being probably the largest Open Source projects in the world!]
![]() |
Source: Netcraft Webserver survey 2017 |
My apartment building has a community garden. The building owner started it with a donation of raised beds and soil. What happened next amazes me to this day.Honestly, other philosophies that pride in "no-one, in particular, taking credit" (or Common Ownership) are Communism and Socialism. The concept of everyone contributing to the best of their abilities and being rewarded universally is very Marxist and the Chinese story notwithstanding, we've seen the model failing to deliver in the erstwhile USSR and several other communist colonies which broke down in mid-90s.
One day tools appeared, the next a shed to store them. Seeds were planted. Someone put up string trellises for tomatoes. No one took credit.
My doubts also emerge from the fact that while Firefox did help keep the hope alive during the dark period of 2000-2010 for browser innovation, the real clincher was Google supported Chrome browser.
Today most organisations - SMBs to MNC Enterprises use (or allow) the Chrome browser. Google did significant amount of (subtle) marketing to ensure that it was able to usurp the hegemony of Microsoft over the browser market since Chrome's launch in 2008. And these 'for profit' dollars poured into evangelising corporations probably helped sideline Internet Explorer.
Mozilla Foundation is a great organisation - if you are concerned about your privacy, if you are someone who believes in rights of individuals over the state, if you want to keep the web open and secure - you should support them. Geeks and Intellectuals still use the Firefox browser more than they use Chrome. (I am not one of them, I use FF only on special purpose - bit the self-confessed Google fan that I am, Chrome is my mainstay).
Organisations like Mozilla need to exist so that if one day Google, even against its corporate motto, turns evil - we have a ray of hope. However, the example does set back the hope of the early 90s that Open Source will trump Proprietery software one day to create a truly "Free Software" world.
.
Animal Farm and the current political landscape of India
I've just finished reading The Animal Farm, and while it essentially describes conditions in USSR under Stalin just after the WW2, it can be generalised to any country or political setup a few years or cycles after a major change. It is not just a commentary on Communist or totalitarian regimes (or Stalin's period) alone, but also a general account of how every political system deteriorates over a period of time, after acquiring power.
In specific, I think, it starts applying to present day India, now that the BJP has occupied the top slot in the pecking order displacing the Congress firmly and has bolstered its position for a near sure victory in 2019 elections following the thumping victory in 4 of 5 State Assembly elections.
As the book prophesies, the current political order too is sure to corrupt as much as the previous UPA regime. This will happen probably in a decade or so of remaining the 'ruling class', tenably after Modi is replaced by another leader who forgets the days under the Congress misrule which they bitterly campaigned against in 2014 elections.
If one studies the pattern of 'Power Corrupts', and going by recent developments - such as the NDA's attempts to meddle with constitutional order (encroachment on powers of the judiciary, open disobedience to Judicial verdict in cases like Jallikattu & BCCI), always on attempts to eulogise right wing idols, and support to religious figureheads who propound religion or Vedas or other traditions as the source of Indianness instead of the Constitution, etc. - one perceives events similar to those described in the Book taking place in India (especially events after elevation of Napoleon as the dictator). The similarity in events or actual circumstances is of course a little far fetched, but the Animal Farm being fiction, one expects reality to be obviously milder and less pronounced.
To be sure, India has been through this pattern once, when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency after the 1971 military success emboldened her into thinking that she had absolute power. Democratic norms combined with strong opposition protests helped bring India back from the brink of dictatorial 'new master' eventuality.
Irrespective, reading the book set in motion questions of how we, as aware & awakened citizens, can make attempts to prevent India of today meeting a fate even remotely similar to fictional happenings depicted in the book. Another question which begs answers is how has USA which also rose from a revolution avoided the fate of USSR? Was it just because USA was based on capitalist ideals that its political class did not degenerate into becoming the 'new masters'?
In my view, there are two answers - both simultaneously being true. First, a just democratic order (unlike what is in place in present day Russia or Pakistan), clearly prevents a political class corrupted by power to stay in power - similar to how the Congress-led UPA was dethroned in 2014.
But second, and a precursor for the sustenance of a democratic order, is maintaining balance between judiciary & executive and independence of judicial & electoral institutions. For this to happen, all attempts to create any discord between the Judiciary & Executive must be thwarted, any attempt to weaken leadership or independence of Judicial & electoral bodies resisted, and foremost, attempts to undermine or alter the constitution need to be defeated.
One can see how the above 3 have been constantly practised in USA, and how all US citizens are always imbibed to consider the constitution as the greatest document ever and the Bill of Rights is reiterated at every political discourse. No religious text or tradition has ever been commanded to supersede the constitution or be the 'source' of Americanness.
This is one thing I see missing in India which I feel an urgency to start. A continued reiteration of faith and belief in the constitution as the supreme guiding force for all citizens, above any other ideology including religious texts and/or philosophical tenets like Communist or Nationalist ideologies.
The challenge for the next opposition (which I do hope will rise with the gradual decline of the Congress party) will be upholding the constitution, its ethos and citizens' belief in its ideals in face of neo-liberal, right wing capitalist order which currently has risen to power.
*Image Credit: http://www.wynghs.co.za/news/animal-farm-rehearsals-continue/
The challenge for the next opposition (which I do hope will rise with the gradual decline of the Congress party) will be upholding the constitution, its ethos and citizens' belief in its ideals in face of neo-liberal, right wing capitalist order which currently has risen to power.
*Image Credit: http://www.wynghs.co.za/news/animal-farm-rehearsals-continue/
Are we witnessing Modern day Mahabharat?
Chance and serendipity can often spring profound thoughts and insights; I experienced one such moment today. I was driving towards office and switched on the Radio. All India Radio FM Gold channel was broadcasting an audio re-run of the famed Mahabharat TV Serial.
Prologue: The episode was the last part (Anudyuta Parva) of Sabha Parva - after Pandavas lose their wealth, kingdom and respect in a gambling game and leave for their penance of 12 years Vanvaas & 1 year Agyaatvaas. In the scene after their exit, Vidur (the Prime Minister) visits the quarters of Patriarch Pitaamah Bhishm. Bhishm is cross with himself for not stopping the unethical gambling game which ultimately led to a public disrobing of his great grand daughter-in-law Draupadi.
During the episode, Bhishma utters a very insightful line -
This line rang a bell taking me back little more than two years when the Manmohan Singh government was facing widespread charges of graft and corruption, and Manmohan Singh claimed helplessness at the corruption charges making a point that he himself was clean and was being unfairly blamed for misdeeds his associates.
And then it suddenly dawned on me that the simile between Bhishm's and Manmohan Singh's predicament was not isolated but just the tip of a much larger metaphor for the political scene we've witnessed. Following are the other similes:
कà¤ी कà¤ी मनुष्य अपनी विवशता को अपना कर्तव्य मान लेता है|
[Meaning: Sometimes one assume one's helplessness to be his obligation.]
This line rang a bell taking me back little more than two years when the Manmohan Singh government was facing widespread charges of graft and corruption, and Manmohan Singh claimed helplessness at the corruption charges making a point that he himself was clean and was being unfairly blamed for misdeeds his associates.
And then it suddenly dawned on me that the simile between Bhishm's and Manmohan Singh's predicament was not isolated but just the tip of a much larger metaphor for the political scene we've witnessed. Following are the other similes:
- Manmohan Singh: Bhishm- the decrepit head of the ruling alliance, who has little power to execute his own decisions or even stop wrong decisions taken by the erring courtiers; but who nevertheless refuses to leave the side of the throne.
- Sonia Gandhi: Dhritrashtra - the (actual) head of state who above the nation's welfare wants his/her progeny's welfare. Love and affection towards their progeny make them take decisions which their own discretion^ tells them not to take.
- Pawan Bansal / A Raja / Kanimozhi / Kalmadi etc : Shakuni - the malevolent 'relatives' of the Crown prince who used the Crown prince's ambition for the kingdom combined with his lack of objectivity to their own personal advantage.
- Jairam Ramesh / AK Antony: Kripacharya & Dronacharya - members of court who have no choice but to fight from the side of the throne, irrespective and in spite of their intellect.
- Pranab Mukherjee / P. Chidambaram: Vidur - the intelligent minister(s) of the state who acknowledging their inability to stop the wrongdoing, just steer clear of controversy and keep their own side clean.
- Rahul Gandhi: Duryodhana - The Crown prince who feels that his birth (and not his ability) entitles him to the throne; who is ready to go to any length to get the throne and yet lacks any ability to even execute a sinister plan which he devices.
- India: Draupadi - the daughter in law who's ripped off in front of the whole world for a feud which she was neither an instigator of nor was directly a party to.
Thankfully for India, the sovereign is no longer a monarch who hazards the fortune of the people for a family feud, but the people themselves who decided well in time that we don't need another Kurukshetra and changed power much before a whole war would ensue!
.
^ Discretion is a literal translation - the apt word which came to my mind was विवेक in Hindi
^ Discretion is a literal translation - the apt word which came to my mind was विवेक in Hindi
Learning from 11 years in KPMG
I quit my job at KPMG one year ago - 22 January 2016 was my last day with the firm. As I reflect back on that day, it felt more like a graduation day! The eerie mix of nostalgia, excitement, anxiety and blues of missing your friends.It is only when we give up what we have is when we can embrace the new!
KPMG was not just my first job but also a place where I learnt everything that I represent professionally. KPMG is one of the institutions I deeply respect and love – and relationships I have built here will stay with me for my lifetime. In my entrepreneurial career as well, I am often reminded more of all the great things I have learnt over my 11 years in KPMG.
An year gone by, I realize these learnings have stayed with me and apply equally to the world outside KPMG. Almost all would apply to those working in role of (internal or external) consultants but several are generic and can be applied across professions. I have tried to change the text so that the learnings sound generic.
PS: I also plan to write a series of posts on how I became an entrepreneur and my journey as an entrepreneur until now. But may be it is too early to start writing about this because I am yet to settle and prove myself in the entrepreneurial world - may be some would follow in time.Here go, my 11 learnings from 11 years in KPMG!
1. Live the values
Most large corporations, especially MNCs have a set of values or priciples estabished by the founders or over a period of time. These values define the organization, its purpose and its 'moral compass'. Living values is the best way to ensure you never go wrong in making decisions, communicating your views and living your professional life as a whole. During my 11 years, there was no better feeling to me than telling a client that we are confident of something because these are KPMG’s values and this is how we work or that we cannot do something for them because it is not in line with our values!2. One Team
But it doesn’t end there – yes, we all crib sometimes about problems with Admin, Finance and HR, but in the end we are all one firm – Support teams take as much pride in working for their company as client facing staff does. Over my tenure, one belief which has always stayed with me is that if I am ever stranded, I can just call upon my “KPMG citizenship” to bail me out of any situation. That feeling indeed is something I will have to live without!
3. Take Pride
I cannot stress this one enough! Pride is everything – how you look when you turn up for a meeting, how your document looks when it reaches the client’s mailbox, how you speak, what you do at the client site ... We all need to be extremely conscious that we represent our organizations and everything we do defines them as much as they define us! We are the face of our firm, every report, every document, every email from you carries similar prestige as those from Directors. So take pride and an equal amount of diligence in making them.4. Remain connected within and without
As we specialize we will get divided into smaller specialized work groups – remember they are work groups not relationship groups for you. And if you plan to rely on networking with clients, your internal networks must be strong and across organizational divisions. Ensure you know others in and outside your department, function, city, even country if you can! Even extend that network to past colleagues.5. Never say no to work
Not because, you’ll upset that boss who sits in your appraisal, but simply because the more you work, the more you learn. This statement is especially true for consultants. Every engagement I’ve worked on has been a learning and has helped me in future work.6. Practice Networking
Many of us think that networking is done by sales teams or bosses to get business; a very narrow view of the value of networking. Networking is sitting in the cafeteria with colleagues, often those outside your department, networking is helping someone do their tax submissions, networking is helping a client with finding a restaurant to take his wife/girlfriend to. And it is best done without expectation of returns. Finally, only if you have practiced networking within your organizaion will you be able to do it outside effectively.I have heard many ‘post-appraisal’ discussions when people feel that others who make themselves ‘visible’ are given undue advantage. While I believe the system is fairer than we imagine, nevertheless, if it does favour those who are better networked, it doesn’t do any injustice. If you can’t network internally with your peers and superiors – how do you expect to do this outside the organization? Internal networking builds a habit which makes external networking natural!
7. Don't ignore life
We have all burnt mid-night oil and that’s not what I am asking you to say no to! But remember if you got to work hard, party harder and live a great life – health is possibly one thing you need. I realized this more as I grew older, and I really wish someone had told me this earlier. I started a regular regimen quite late in my life and trust me the later you start the more difficult it becomes to maintain discipline. Make sure you ‘exercise’ your body and mind equally well on a regular basis along with putting in long hours at work.While work life balance might be a chimera in consulting, and it's a personal preference to maintain it, ignoring life may be the worst thing for your career. Don’t let the saying “Life is what happens to you when you are busy doing other things” become true for yourself!
8. A consultant is half scientist half celebrity
Note I didn't include salesman, doctor, investment banker, janitor etc in the list. Consulting is an abused term, but rightly o because consultants are manfridays for their clients, but for ourselves we need to think ourselves as scientists – those who seek insights; and celebrities – those who can baulk in limelight gracefully. Making it simple – it is not sufficient to know your subject, it is also important to articulate it well so that the client appreciates your knowledge. Similarly, it's ok to fake knowledge it sometimes, but make sure you utilise the next available opportunity to research enough on your subject so as not to look like a fool in the next meeting. If you do these two, you will never need to “Sell” your services!9. Turn up at the client site as often as you can
It may be a great feeling to be around friends in office – but nothing in professional life is more rewarding than being at the client site. I inherently am a bad networker – with people and clients – my basic nature is that of a shy reticent individual. But during my consulting days with KPMG, I always preferred being at client sites and this helped me become the opposite.At the same time, even though I didn’t ‘network’ intentionally with so many clients but just seeing me turn up at their office every day, week, month – made them know me better and helped me build a relationship with them. When there were days I only had office work to do, I still preferred doing it sitting at a client office – being with my project team members and in front of the client rather than sitting in the office.
10. Invest in yourself
Similar to not ignoring life, but related to more to growing as a professional. It may be a great feeling to be called an expert on a particular subject, but in the ever-changing world of today – your status will not stay for long. Make sure you are watchful of whether or not you are growing as a professional and keep investing in yourself. The best part about being a consultant is that the firm will support, reward and even pay you for investing in yourself. And unlike clients who can hire you if they don't have the right skills, you can't hire someone else to do your job!11. Never bcc
True to one of the values I imbibed in KPMG (we are open and honest in our communications); Bcc is an enemy of this! If you ever feel like ‘I don’t want to clutter his/her mailbox with the replies” – please forward that mail to them separately than doing a Bcc..
Personalization is against Privacy - but is it a threat to mankind's existence?
The Economist argues in this article how online services which provide for personalised services are breaching some age-old notions of privacy.
Google mines the data it collects from users for two purposes. One is to improve the user experience, making its various online services more personal, useful and rewarding for the individual—and thereby increasing their popularity. The other purpose is to provide better targeted information for advertisers.The above is a foregone conclusion - we all are ignoring the looming fear of privacy invasion for the convenience that online services give us. In fact, after much brouhaha about the US NSA snooping over a vast majority of the world (incl. politicians in other countries), not much seems to have changed in the world perception given how social media platforms (hosted in US data centers and subject to US laws) have snowballed into world's largest corporations.
That is fine for the vast majority of internet users, who are happy to trade a measure of privacy for the convenience. However, most people (though not all) stop short of blurting out more intimate details about their private lives.
Even so, all those innocuous bits of self-revelation can be pieced together, jig-saw fashion, by intelligent algorithms. Throw in the digital paper-trails stashed in Google searches and Amazon purchases, and things can begin to get a little scary.
However, another concern is now coming up which is not so much about someone knowing about the underwear brand I wear (which wouldn't really be very devastating), but about me NOT knowing what I don't know.
One of the foundational principles of democracy - which underpins other more explicit principles like freedom of speech or freedom of practising one's religion - is the freedom and the right to have access to unfettered information. One of the reasons North Korea and even China are castigated by proponents freedom is because of the conditions imposed by these regimes on the flow of information to their citizens.
Recent studies have shown that excessive personalization of say our Facebook feeds or WhatsApp Group based news which we receive, makes us as blind to other perspectives as may be people of a restrictive or oppressed regime.
The information we take in is so personalized that we’re blind to other perspectives. Thats why Trump was a surprisehttps://t.co/MtN8np3jHE— Nikhil Kulkarni (@kulkarninikhil) November 10, 2016
No wonder that religious preachers, right wing activists and even divisive religion based military group like the ISIS find Social Media a good source of recruiting volunteers!
Activist Eli Pariser who has coined the term Filter Bubble argues that "while we might think of the internet as an impartial, universal library with Google serving as a superhuman Dewey decimal system, it’s remarkably, and perhaps pathologically, individualised". Another article by Rohit Prasad of MDI, Gurgaon, in India, argues that -
"The institution of paid search raises barriers to entry for firms that do not have the required marketing budgets and that apart from paid search which is quite evidently non-neutral, the paradigm of neutral search itself is being questioned as anti-competition"This is still quite benign as it only attacks the laissez-faire economy principles of the free market, but he also adds that -
"the use of personalization rules in serving search returns implies that we get to see what the search engine thinks we would like based on surfing information it has gathered about any people, rather than some ‘objective’ listing"Veterans of journalism - the fourth pillar of a democracy - agree with this sentiment. As Rich Jaroslovsky, the chief journalist at SmartNews, puts it - "Excessive personalization creates a rabbit hole ... you never discover anything that you didn't know already and your world view gets narrower .. and ultimately leads people to feel dissatisfied" (Source: futureof.news)
- The Internet is entering every sphere of our lives - from 'where to buy a house' to 'which route to take for the morning commute to office. If personalised technology makes us take biased decisions, it may be impacting our whole life! Further, it may be preventing us from benefits of serendipity by forcing us to take the beaten path, dumbing us down or killing that chance we have to be more creative!
- Internet penetration is increasing at an exponential pace and hence more people are being subjected to decision making assisted or influenced by Social Media. Whether it is about the route on your daily commute or who should be your President or Prime Minister; all of us are being subjected to filter bubbles while contributing to these decisions. The ubiquity of internet means that we are at a greater risk of making a collective mistake in making decisions!
- In the last few years, as the propensity of political leaders to take tough decisions has reduced and the trend of referendums has gained traction. The United Kingdom (who's Westminster model is a template for democracy in several countries), has witnessed two referendums in recent past - one on Scotland remaining a part of the UK and another on UK leaving the EU. As technology - electronic voting et. al. - makes it easier to conduct elections; direct democracy might become the norm. Some low population countries like Switzerland are already making the switch. This makes over personalised social media even scarier as biases may influence specific political decisions not just personal decision or choice of leader.
- In a world where we are heading towards making some very crucial decisions regarding climate change or future of robotics or spacefaring - combined with point #3, biases influenced by narrow social media networks and incomprehensibly tested personalization algorithms (technology), we might just take a wrong decision which may have far reaching impact on future generations and the very existence of mankind!
It is high time philosophers, futurists, technologists, activists, politicians and even common people started exploring the dangers of personalized Social Media and devised ways to counter it!
Rupee Note & Coin Trivia
- Currency notes are issued by the Reserve Bank of India but Coins are issued by the Government of India.
- As a result. coins in possession of RBI are considered assets of RBI compared to Notes which are liabilities. And the distribution of Coins is undertaken by RBI only as an agent of the Government.
- Another ramification of this is that when you hold a Currency Note, you merely hold the RBI Governor's promise to pay you, but when you hold a coin, you actually hold an asset just like Gold or equity.
- Last, while you can use Re. 1 coins to pay any value i.e. if you had 1 crore coins, you could buy a house by using them, but Coins up to 50 paisa are called “small coins” and can only be used to pay up to a maximum value of Rs 10. So much for the 'chillar' (loose change) in our kiddie 'gullaks' (piggy bank)!
Image Credit: Pixabay
Are you sharing sensitive information over WhatsApp?
Note: This post of cross-posted from www.yaksas.in; while I am a participant in the discussion quoted below, but sincere thanks are due to Uday Mittal for compiling this into a blog post and publishing online.
The other day I participated in an interesting discussion. The discussion took place in an information privacy forum comprised of professionals from various industries. The topic of discussion was Legal ramifications of sharing screenshots of a conversation held on messengers such as WhatsApp, Hike, Telegram etc. (We’ll take WhatsApp as an example).
Point(s) of Discussion
I initiated the discussion with the following questions:
If an individual forwards a screenshot of a WhatsApp group conversation to another individual outside that group; will such sharing be considered:
- Invasion of privacy of the members of the WhatsApp group?
- Punishable against provision IT Act section 43 (unauthorized sharing of computer data) or 43A (sharing of personal information without permission from the data owner)
Arguments
Uday offered the following views:If sharing screenshots of WhatsApp messages is punishable, then by that logic forwarding audio and video files involving other people, who are not part of that particular conversation or group, should also be punishable, as such an act may hamper the privacy of the said individuals.
In my opinion, an individual won’t be punishable under section 43A as it applies to “body corporate” or an association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities. Having said that, it may apply to WhatsApp Inc for failure to take appropriate steps to protect SPDI. However, since it’s a US based company they would be governed by the US laws (please correct me if I am wrong). Besides, they have mentioned it in their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that their platform may not be used for infringing privacy of others.
Following is an excerpt from their Terms and Conditions page:
“Legal and Acceptable Use. You must access and use our Services only for legal, authorized, and acceptable purposes. You will not use (or assist others in using) our Services in ways that: (a) violate, misappropriate, or infringe the rights of WhatsApp, our users, or others, including privacy, publicity, intellectual property, or other proprietary rights; (b) are illegal, obscene, defamatory, threatening, intimidating, harassing, hateful, racially, or ethnically offensive, or instigate or encourage conduct that would be illegal, or otherwise inappropriate, including promoting violent crimes; (c) involve publishing falsehoods, misrepresentations, or misleading statements; (d) impersonate someone; (e) involve sending illegal or impermissible communications such as bulk messaging, auto-messaging, auto-dialing, and the like; or (f) involve any non-personal use of our Services unless otherwise authorized by us.”
Following is an excerpt from their Privacy Policy page:
“Your Contacts and Others. Users with whom you communicate may store or reshare your information (including your phone number or messages) with others on and off our Services. You can use your Services settings and the block feature in our Services to manage the users of our Services with whom you communicate and certain information you share.”
Technically speaking, the moment when a user press the button to send a message, it implies that they are willing to share that information with the individual or group they are interacting with. The moment that message lands on other user’s device they become the owner of that information and should have the right to use it as they wish (unless the message is classified according to a mutually agreed classification scheme, which isn’t the case normally). Since they are not accessing this data in an unauthorized manner and the device on which that data resides in that moment, is in their ownership, they should not be punishable under section 43 as well.
The response was quite succinct and while I agreed with it reluctantly; I had further points to make:
I agree that application of section 43 on grounds of unauthorised sharing of computer data is questionable. But 43A is applicable to both body corporate and persons in India as per this clarification.
Also, basis the above explanation it effectively means that even though WhatsApp groups are restricted to few individuals; posting any messages on WhatsApp is as good as publishing them publicly (because others in the group can share them freely without any fear of litigation from you!).
This is quite counter-intuitive because WhatsApp tries its best to protect your information even from Govt. snooping by encrypting it! And on the other hand, just by posting something on WhatsApp, one is opening it up for potential public disclosure!
Thus, the discussion reached a point of an impasse. The responsibility to resolve it was then assigned to Cyber Law experts, within the group.
The Verdict
This is where Ms Soumya Patnaik, a Cyber Law Practitioner, stepped up and resolved the dilemma with her comprehensive explanation of applicability of relevant sections of the IT Act, 2000:
Section 43 of IT Act
Applicable Law
Section 43 of the IT Act makes unauthorized access and misuse of computer, computer system or network, or any data or information stored on such network/resource punishable.
The essential parts of this contravention therefore are:
- There must be a computer/computer system/computer network/ computer resource;
- Such computer must be owned by, or under the control of a person; and
- The person (alleged offender here), must have gained access to such computer or any data/ information stored on such computer without the permission of the owner (or possessor) of such computer, network or resource.
Contextual Application
In the present context, person “A” is transferring or sending messages and albeit “personal information” of his own accord, to person “B”. Therefore, even though “B” transfers the information or message to a third party, the same does not involve any unauthorised access to data/information. Thus, from the context of Section 43, there has been no contravention on the part of B.
Section 43A of the IT Act
Applicable Law
As per Section 43A, any body corporate who is possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information (“SPDI”) in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, and is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or gain to any person, such body corporate would be liable to damages by way of compensation to the affected person.
The Section clearly defines “body corporate” to mean “any company, including a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities.”
The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (“Privacy Rules”) have been formulated under Section 43A of the IT Act, and therefore, may not, and cannot be read separately from Section 43A.
As per the Privacy Rules, SPDI is a certain category of personal information that includes: (a) password; (b) financial information; (c) physical, physiological and mental health condition; (d) sexual orientation; (e) medical records and history; (f) biometric information; (g) any detail relating to these categories. Therefore, as you would note, SPDI forms a much narrower category than the broader category of ‘personal information’. What Section 43A and the Privacy Rules deal with, are in fact, SPDI, and not the broader category of ‘personal information’.
Further, on a review of the Privacy Rules, you would observe that the onus rests on the body corporate that is collecting such SPDI, or handling such SPDI, to obtain “consent” of the data subject. It then requires the body corporate to also inform the data subject of the purpose for which such information is being collected, how it will be used, who it will be transferred, how and where it will be stored, etc.
Now, in a situation where the data subject volunteers to give out information (even if it is SPDI), to a body corporate or any other person, the provisions that require the body corporate to obtain prior consent, etc., are entirely defeated. The only other provision that would apply in this case may be the onus to maintain reasonable security practices and procedures, and to not transfer it to a third party, without consent.
The notification referred above does mention “any person”, but the intent of the notification is not to defeat Section 43A (which clearly applies to bodies corporate only). Even if we do agree with your argument that the onus under Section 43A applies to bodies corporate as well as individual persons, I am not sure of the practical enforcement of the obligations as against individuals. How does an individual like you and I maintain ‘reasonable security practices and procedures’ and further, for what purpose is such an individual collecting someone else’s SPDI like financial information, etc.?
Also, please note that clarifications are in the nature of administrative directions and cannot override the provisions of a statute, in this case, Section 43A of the IT Act (which clearly refers to bodies corporate alone).
Contextual Application
In this case:
- It is very unlikely that the information being transferred amounts to SPDI;
- The very fact that the information is being voluntarily transferred to another person over a WhatsApp group defeats the requirement of prior consent; and
- The parties involved here are individuals and not bodies corporate.
Section 72A of the IT Act
Applicable Law
This brings us to Section 72A of the IT Act, which states as follows:
“Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain, discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 3 lakh, or with both.”
Present Context
In my opinion, this would be the relevant provision in the present context. Assuming a friend has shared certain personal information (this could be any personal information, and not just SPDI) with you, and you share it without your friend’s consent, with a third party, you may be punishable under Section 72A.
Even then, the operative words here are: (a) with the intent to cause; or (b) knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss of wrongful gain.
Therefore, unless it can be proved that you had such intent, or that any prudent/reasonable person would know that such sharing would cause wrongful loss to your friend, you would still not be punishable under this provision.
Situational Example
Shreya’s friend Sonakshi, is a lawyer. Sonakshi had sent a picture of her visiting card (which contained her name, address, contact number and email id) to Shreya, over WhatsApp. Shreya has another friend, Soumya. Soumya needs a lawyer and seeks Shreya’s help. Shreya, albeit well-meaningly, shares the image of Sonakshi’s visiting card, with Soumya. Soumya’s phone gets hacked, and Sonakshi’s personal information is now in the hands of the hacker, who has started stalking and harassing Sonakshi. In this case, would Shreya be liable under Section 72A, because she shared the information with Soumya, without Sonakshi’s consent? Unlikely, since:
- At the time of sharing the information, she did not intend to cause any wrongful loss to Sonakshi; and
- No reasonable person could have anticipated that Soumya’s phone would get hacked and Sonakshi’s personal details would be with the hacker who would eventually stalk and harass her.
Conclusion
In the words of Ms Patnaik:
Under our current privacy regime, I think we are safe. Section 72A is applicable in case of disclosure under a lawful contract. Therefore, where personal messages are being shared, on strict interpretation, it is unlikely to trigger Section 72A [this point was also highlighted by Mr. Sharma]. However, of course, we should try to not share other’s information, images, messages, etc. with third parties, without their consent. If the information is even remotely SPDI, such as health related information, we should definitely not publish it!
Finally, WhatsApp is pretty much like Facebook actually, or any other social medium, and anyone sharing personal information on it should just beware that it is being published all over.
Do you agree with the verdict? Would you like to appeal against it? Leave your arguments in the comments section and let's keep the discussion going.
Lead Image Source; Wikipedia
Hints for extraterrestrial life from human beings
![]() |
** |
The existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrial life is a common topic for Science fiction - stories, movies or even discussions. There are various visions of an alien proposed - doomsday / apocalypse themed movies portray them as reptiles with high frequency reproduction capabilities. However, few other more benevolent themes like the E.T. or Avatar show them as humanoid. Which of these two versions are more likely to be true?
Let us look at it from another perspective, what are some of the characteristics of an intelligent animal? Some which come to mind are [Source]:
- The use of tools
- The ability to learn and remember (obtain knowledge) through experience, study, or instruction
- The ability to communicate (the ability to give and receive information)
- The ability to solve complex problems
Next is our ability to learn from instruction which takes us to our eyes, ears and mouth - eyes and ears allow us to receive instruction while the mouth helps in giving instruction. Again, cognitive development plays its own role in interpretation of what the eyes see or ears hear.
Next is our ability to communicate - as earlier we communicate using sounds from our mouth (and receive through ears), but one often unappreciated difference between human and animal communication is our ability to form facial expressions. While other animals also emote expressions from faces, none is as versatile as humans. We can communicate through eyes or certain facial muscles as well.
And finally, the last thing which differentiates mankind from other animals is our ability to think and solve complex problems. Our brain is a powerhouse of not only cognitive intelligence which makes our other 'sensory organs' effective, but also analytical intelligence which is responsible for everything from language to say our ability to build rockets that go into outer space!
Any intelligent animal or say an alien - if intelligent will most probably have to be equal to humans in all the above capabilities and it follows that they will need eyes, ears, mouth, fingers and a significantly large brain! So aliens shaped like cows or goat or sheep or giant lizard or dinosaurs may not be practical. Any advanced life form will mostly evolve into humanoid shapes to able able to carry out complex tasks. In fact, not only will aliens be humanoid, they will actually be Carbon based or at best Silicon based given that Carbon and Silicon are most abundant elements in the Universe!
One caveat here is that we are only talking about intelligent animals capable of being at least as intelligent as a chimpanzee or more. So a Godzilla like alien is still possible, provided we do not call it an 'intelligent animal'! However, most extraterrestrial themed movies show the alien civilizations contacting humans by flying to earth in a spaceship which presumes they are intelligent animals.
To cap the subject, it isn't really necessary that, if there is life elsewhere in the Universe, it is intelligent. Here's an interesting debate between Niel De'grass Tyson and Richard Dawkins on the same subject.
**Image Credit: 'Dobbie the Extra-Terrestrial' on Flickr
Email habits, productivity tips and using GMail like a pro
I tweeted this morning about an article which proposes to help your productivity by urging you not to empty your mailbox or at least not be fussy about emptying it every day.
The best advice on productivity in today's age of information overload - trying to empty ur inbox is a waste of timehttps://t.co/QNVXL2CyBy— Nikhil Kulkarni (@kulkarninikhil) October 21, 2016
Does the advice mean that you should procrastinate or as some one sarcastically put on my Facebook wall - "[Don't bother with replying to an email the moment you get it] If they are important enough they will be resent and sent again ...." :-) Such conclusions drawn from the article above only make the message weak.
Organizing the Inbox and emptying it are two different issues. Those who don't use Inbox as a todo list might have other ways of managing to-do. The article above is meant for those who rather than organize emails and prioritize them according to their importance, choose to use the 'arrival time' of an email as a default prioritization order. Those for whom acting on each mail means reading or replying it or deleting i.e. ignoring it. And also accompanied by the syndrome that an email replied and deleted (or archived) is 'ball out of my court' and I need not visit it again until there is a response from the other side.
This strategy of email management is appropriate for someone doing a back-office customer service job where each email acts like a ticket which you need to close. [Such professions are incidentally those which are getting replaced by AI or analytics based bots or programs]. However, in most professions today email is a means of a. collaboration b. information for personal welfare & growth [ex. newsletters] c. intimation of process statuses. Apart from 'c', none of the other two can afford to be consumed on a 'act as it comes' basis because both collaborative work and personal development need thought and focussed attention. And attention should be scheduled when the mind is in a state to do it than done impromptu.
However, there are troves of articles online junking email as an appropriate medium to get these two jobs done. There has been concerted effort to move away from email for both collaboration and personal development. Newsletters have moved to blogs and interactive portals - some are even attempting to convert them into MooC like interfaces. Collaboration itself is evolving with Office Online and Google Docs competing for features and several other special purpose collaboration platforms like Jira and Slack emerging (Slack even offers ways to intimate).
But in spite of this, email continues to serve as an all purpose channel for collaboration and personal development and I guess, like the cockroach, it will survive the current wave of change and stay relevant even decades later as a general purpose communication or messaging platform. So what options do you have as a user - do you continue to live with schedule as they come strategy on email?
Until GMail and filters arrived on the scene - 12 years ago - you had no choice, but it is no longer so. With GMail, we can sort our mail automatically for 75-80% mails properly in folders for later reading and clearing when we have time. This way the time spent in sorting mails, which is what most people do while 'emptying' their inbox, will be saved. I have a very real benchmark of this from my KPMG days. My official mailbox on Outlook which did not have this feature usually took 4 hours per week to keep organized, and yet many times I couldn't find mails when needed because I had made mistakes in sorting them manually.
Using a combination of a well defined labels hierarchy and filters which automatically move mails to these labels, most collaboration and personal development emails can be automatically sorted into proper labels to be attended to at a pre-scheduled time than actioned as they arrive. You are only left with a. intimation mails b. mails from new sources for which filtering has not been set up.
Organizing the Inbox and emptying it are two different issues. Those who don't use Inbox as a todo list might have other ways of managing to-do. The article above is meant for those who rather than organize emails and prioritize them according to their importance, choose to use the 'arrival time' of an email as a default prioritization order. Those for whom acting on each mail means reading or replying it or deleting i.e. ignoring it. And also accompanied by the syndrome that an email replied and deleted (or archived) is 'ball out of my court' and I need not visit it again until there is a response from the other side.
This strategy of email management is appropriate for someone doing a back-office customer service job where each email acts like a ticket which you need to close. [Such professions are incidentally those which are getting replaced by AI or analytics based bots or programs]. However, in most professions today email is a means of a. collaboration b. information for personal welfare & growth [ex. newsletters] c. intimation of process statuses. Apart from 'c', none of the other two can afford to be consumed on a 'act as it comes' basis because both collaborative work and personal development need thought and focussed attention. And attention should be scheduled when the mind is in a state to do it than done impromptu.
However, there are troves of articles online junking email as an appropriate medium to get these two jobs done. There has been concerted effort to move away from email for both collaboration and personal development. Newsletters have moved to blogs and interactive portals - some are even attempting to convert them into MooC like interfaces. Collaboration itself is evolving with Office Online and Google Docs competing for features and several other special purpose collaboration platforms like Jira and Slack emerging (Slack even offers ways to intimate).
But in spite of this, email continues to serve as an all purpose channel for collaboration and personal development and I guess, like the cockroach, it will survive the current wave of change and stay relevant even decades later as a general purpose communication or messaging platform. So what options do you have as a user - do you continue to live with schedule as they come strategy on email?
Until GMail and filters arrived on the scene - 12 years ago - you had no choice, but it is no longer so. With GMail, we can sort our mail automatically for 75-80% mails properly in folders for later reading and clearing when we have time. This way the time spent in sorting mails, which is what most people do while 'emptying' their inbox, will be saved. I have a very real benchmark of this from my KPMG days. My official mailbox on Outlook which did not have this feature usually took 4 hours per week to keep organized, and yet many times I couldn't find mails when needed because I had made mistakes in sorting them manually.
Using a combination of a well defined labels hierarchy and filters which automatically move mails to these labels, most collaboration and personal development emails can be automatically sorted into proper labels to be attended to at a pre-scheduled time than actioned as they arrive. You are only left with a. intimation mails b. mails from new sources for which filtering has not been set up.
I personally have 140 filters set on my personal GMail mailbox and 20 main and 62 sub-labels (nested under the 20 main ones) - these exclude system labels like inbox, spam and trash. Some of these labels are now graveyard archives, like labels to keep all mails for old projects done in college or early days of my career, but almost 80-90% of these labels are in active use.
I am sure you have heard of Yesterbox technique by Zappos Founder Tony Hsieh; my daily mail habits try to replicate that technique as much as I can apart from using my mailbox as a treasure trove to mine useful data when needed. For ex, I subscribe to some newsletters by graphic design websites which I neither read when they come (they get archived), nor on a periodic basis. But often when I am stuck on some UI issue or a PowerPoint design issue I try to go through those articles for inspiration to come out of that mindblock. Many times while searching or something else, these newsletters pop-up and give you the right direction.
As an endnote though, I think the advice in the article is good for those who can't leverage labels / filters or who's nature of work do not permit them to maintain an organized mailbox.
.
.
Are we at the cusp of a new Manufacturing boom or a bust?
Read Hillary Clinton's answer to Is bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US a realistic venture, given that manufacturing is so much cheaper elsewhere? on Quora
So, now Hillary wants you to "Make It in America", Modi wants you to "Make in India" and China has already built factories to make the whole world's output inside its borders. If all of them succeed, at best manufacturing capacities will meet the same fate as undersea Fibre optic networks, which subsidized the second wave of the Internet by providing cheap communication infrastructure at the cost of bankrupt companies who laid those cables in the first place.
But chances are that all of them will fail and the world will rise to a post manufacturing world as Alvin Toffler predicted. There are 3 major trends which will determine the future of manufacturing in a post globalization world (note that a post globalization world is where the rules of globalization such as manufacture where it is cheapest will NOT apply!).
Last, if local production will move from manual labour based manufacturing to 3D printing, it'll mean setting up of local supply chains, delivery boys, truck drivers. The local manufacturing hubs like warehouses will also need to employ workers to run the 3D printers, configure them, do quality checks etc. While, none of these jobs will require unskilled workers, but the demand for semi-skilled workers will rise.
So, now Hillary wants you to "Make It in America", Modi wants you to "Make in India" and China has already built factories to make the whole world's output inside its borders. If all of them succeed, at best manufacturing capacities will meet the same fate as undersea Fibre optic networks, which subsidized the second wave of the Internet by providing cheap communication infrastructure at the cost of bankrupt companies who laid those cables in the first place.
But chances are that all of them will fail and the world will rise to a post manufacturing world as Alvin Toffler predicted. There are 3 major trends which will determine the future of manufacturing in a post globalization world (note that a post globalization world is where the rules of globalization such as manufacture where it is cheapest will NOT apply!).
- Rise of robotics - it will become cheaper to manufacture goods in fully automated robotics plants rather than sweatshops or mega-structures where cheap human labor performs an assembly line of jobs
- High degree of Customization - A related collateral advantage of production by robots will be ability to customize each and every product; in fact a Tesla already comes with that option.
You would have already deduced that the traditional low cost human labour based manufacturing hubs will not be able to compete with robotics based manufacturing even if they were cheaper because of their inability to produce such customized output. - 3D Printing - There are two kinds of products manufactured; the first are appliances or valuable goods such as cars, scooters, microwave ovens, dishwashers, refrigerators etc, which not only are physically manufactured but also have moving parts, electronics controls and other decision making paraphernalia. The second are physical objects which have few or no moving parts or electronics - combs, screwdrivers, clips, knives, spoons, plates, furniture or even toiletries.
As 3D printing technology improves several of these can be printed as per your custom choice or colors and shapes either at home but more likely at a e-commerce store's warehouse outside your city or may be in a corner shop in the local market.
Where you get it printed will depend on the size of 'your market' i.e. how many people desire the same goods in your locality and how big your locality is. Printing at home is more likely in say Scandinavian countryside with a low population density; in central Europe local stores are more likely to print such goods while in large US cities or in India, with a high population density, an e-commerce portal will set up printing hubs outside cities inside their current fulfillment centers.
The above has many other connotations for jobs - which, and not national pride or economy - is the real target for politicians like Hillary and Modi alike. Firstly, if robots are taking over rapidly from cheap manual labour, the hope that manufacturing will produce jobs in high numbers is a myth.
Second, with customization means that all these new age manufacturing factories need more software engineers than mere workers. STEM and Coding education is the future for any and every society. While some - those with skills in AI or Machine Learning - will rule the roost, but there could be several more who will be able to seek employment as software testers, UI / UX jobs etc. Plus a sea of jobs like Social Media Marketers which have emerged from the Internet will continue to exist and won't be wiped off, in fact will only increase as we buy and sell more online.
In fact, Hillary will do better following the approach of encouraging technological innovation than paying lip service to Manufacturing growth. She describes all the necessary steps of doing this - education and training, providing broadband to every household, - herself in another answer on Quora.
Second, with customization means that all these new age manufacturing factories need more software engineers than mere workers. STEM and Coding education is the future for any and every society. While some - those with skills in AI or Machine Learning - will rule the roost, but there could be several more who will be able to seek employment as software testers, UI / UX jobs etc. Plus a sea of jobs like Social Media Marketers which have emerged from the Internet will continue to exist and won't be wiped off, in fact will only increase as we buy and sell more online.
In fact, Hillary will do better following the approach of encouraging technological innovation than paying lip service to Manufacturing growth. She describes all the necessary steps of doing this - education and training, providing broadband to every household, - herself in another answer on Quora.
Last, if local production will move from manual labour based manufacturing to 3D printing, it'll mean setting up of local supply chains, delivery boys, truck drivers. The local manufacturing hubs like warehouses will also need to employ workers to run the 3D printers, configure them, do quality checks etc. While, none of these jobs will require unskilled workers, but the demand for semi-skilled workers will rise.
Caveat: All this will not happen overnight or in the next decade alone. In fact, even after 50 years, we may still have some countries or societies manufacturing goods with manual labour, or there may be certain goods, say wrenches or screwdrivers which have little aesthetic aspect - still being manufactured the old way. But this is no different than the fact that even today, there are hunter gatherer tribes in some deep pockets of Africa or that agriculture is still done the traditional way in some parts of the world.
However, what is inevitable is politicians' promises to drive job growth through manufacturing centric policies failing fair and square. May be these politicians themselves know this and what they say is merely a ploy to garner more votes or may be they are indeed blind sided or may be I am wrong!
What do you think about this?
Tags:
Post
,
SocioPolitic
Learning is broken
In my previous post, I advocated that learning for the purpose of making ends meet (making a living) is soon going to be passe. So people are going to learn for the sake of learning!
![]() |
Some rights reserved by LeanForward lf |
This also means that the paraphernalia built by Universities across the globe - that of placement cells, industry-institute-partnerships, alumni programs and all such stuff to ensure that their students get 'placed' in the corporate world - are soon becoming effete.
But as technology and tech entrepreneurs continue to disrupt methods and means of education; possibly even the basic infrastructure - classrooms, campuses, hostels, dorms, auditoriums - might start becoming defunct. The future of learning will possibly just need an internet connection and a device (laptop or tablet or even a phone) to get connected to the internet.
The shift is not merely converting the physical to virtual. Using the power of 'virtual', apps and services like Byju's or Khan Academy or the likes of Coursera, UDemy and Oxademy are fundamentally altering several other aspects of learning. For example, learning is no more made out of multi-year syllabi replete with a structured set of subjects and a fixed degree you'd get at the end of it. You can learn smaller portions - indeed learn just one subject just the way Steve Jobs learnt calligraphy after dropping out, though it wasn't a subject he could have 'dropped in on' as a part of the course he was taking at Reeds.
Similarly, you don't necessarily get a full scale degree like a B.A. or B.Tech. at the end of these small stints, the objective - at least of services like Khan Academy or Byju's - is to allow you to learn skills which you think you'd like to put use to; not use to seek employment using the certificate you gain.
Take a leap into future, learning could be transitioning back to the heydays of Indian Gurukul system - just that these Gurukul's will be online. What will be known is not universities, colleges or degrees; what will be known is teachers and professors of repute (the Guru's) and the subjects they teach. Thanks to the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, Guru's could be running a course on several platforms or several courses on one platform. People will take courses from Guru's of repute to learn what they want to, not because they want a degree from the platform which they represent!
This future is clear to me - but what isn't clear is the path to get there. How do we transition from economics of education today which recognizes degrees more than teachers, campuses more than content of learning, curriculum more than individual student needs? How does the industrial way of educating hundreds with the same curriculum change into the knowledge economy world of where each student chooses what s/he learns and gets a customized degree for themselves?
And finally, the entrepreneur in me forces me to think what business opportunities exist in helping the world make this transition? Is it just about altruistic initiatives like Khan Academy or is it in selling apps like Byju's or is it in setting up platforms like Coursera or is it in partnering with established Universities to convert their degrees into online equivalents like Oxademy?
I am seeking answers - comments are welcome!
.
But as technology and tech entrepreneurs continue to disrupt methods and means of education; possibly even the basic infrastructure - classrooms, campuses, hostels, dorms, auditoriums - might start becoming defunct. The future of learning will possibly just need an internet connection and a device (laptop or tablet or even a phone) to get connected to the internet.
The shift is not merely converting the physical to virtual. Using the power of 'virtual', apps and services like Byju's or Khan Academy or the likes of Coursera, UDemy and Oxademy are fundamentally altering several other aspects of learning. For example, learning is no more made out of multi-year syllabi replete with a structured set of subjects and a fixed degree you'd get at the end of it. You can learn smaller portions - indeed learn just one subject just the way Steve Jobs learnt calligraphy after dropping out, though it wasn't a subject he could have 'dropped in on' as a part of the course he was taking at Reeds.
Similarly, you don't necessarily get a full scale degree like a B.A. or B.Tech. at the end of these small stints, the objective - at least of services like Khan Academy or Byju's - is to allow you to learn skills which you think you'd like to put use to; not use to seek employment using the certificate you gain.
A phenomenon which is also supporting such bite-sized learning is the rise of entrepreneurship as a Career option. Entrepreneurship is making it redundant for entrepreneurs to seek formal degrees and learn a series of subjects at one time and then put them to work. An entrepreneur works towards building her/his business, realizes s/he wants to learn something, and then simply picks up a course on that subject alone to learn it and put it to work. Learning on-demand, just like hiring an Uber Taxi instead of buying a car!So, what this means is that 'Learning is broken' - learning as defined by the the established 'authorities' of the world is breaking right in the middle. Governments no more require to set up regulators to recognize or authorize universities, universities no more need to open colleges, colleges no longer need to employ full time professors or publish a set of degrees that they will impart to students or design a curriculum or even build a campus.
Take a leap into future, learning could be transitioning back to the heydays of Indian Gurukul system - just that these Gurukul's will be online. What will be known is not universities, colleges or degrees; what will be known is teachers and professors of repute (the Guru's) and the subjects they teach. Thanks to the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, Guru's could be running a course on several platforms or several courses on one platform. People will take courses from Guru's of repute to learn what they want to, not because they want a degree from the platform which they represent!
This future is clear to me - but what isn't clear is the path to get there. How do we transition from economics of education today which recognizes degrees more than teachers, campuses more than content of learning, curriculum more than individual student needs? How does the industrial way of educating hundreds with the same curriculum change into the knowledge economy world of where each student chooses what s/he learns and gets a customized degree for themselves?
And finally, the entrepreneur in me forces me to think what business opportunities exist in helping the world make this transition? Is it just about altruistic initiatives like Khan Academy or is it in selling apps like Byju's or is it in setting up platforms like Coursera or is it in partnering with established Universities to convert their degrees into online equivalents like Oxademy?
I am seeking answers - comments are welcome!
.
Education for employment is passe!
![]() |
![]() |
Calling education as learning is probably misleading in today's world when there is more clamour for 'employable skills' to be imparted to our kids. From India to Europe to the US, we are all squalling for education in STEM or teaching kids to Code so that they can get jobs which give them better lives.
The purpose of education to merely ready you to earn a living, live a life is an ancient concept now and needs to be deprecated as early as possible. In this age where some developed societies are planning to provide for minimum basic income to all citizens [Reference], the concept of education for earning a living is soon going to be defunct. In such scenario, how do we motivate you people to aspire for education? Sam Walton has famously said - "How do you inspire a grandchild to go to work if they’ll never have a poor day in their life?"
So I think the future of education is about discovering new things, discovering truth, about learning to think, learning to experiment, learning to handle failure, learning to keep yourself motivated to learn even more. Mankind is finally progressing towards a point where the lower echelons of Maslow's hierarchy are met automatically for all citizens and the only ones that people will be able to aspire to will be Belonging, Esteem and Self Actualization - and education / learning will be the only way to attain the last one!
Continued here.
Education for employment is passe!
![]() |
![]() |
Calling education as learning is probably misleading in today's world when there is more clamour for 'employable skills' to be imparted to our kids. From India to Europe to the US, we are all squalling for education in STEM or teaching kids to Code so that they can get jobs which give them better lives.
The purpose of education to merely ready you to earn a living, live a life is an ancient concept now and needs to be deprecated as early as possible. In this age where some developed societies are planning to provide for minimum basic income to all citizens [Reference], the concept of education for earning a living is soon going to be defunct. In such scenario, how do we motivate you people to aspire for education? Sam Walton has famously said - "How do you inspire a grandchild to go to work if they’ll never have a poor day in their life?"
So I think the future of education is about discovering new things, discovering truth, about learning to think, learning to experiment, learning to handle failure, learning to keep yourself motivated to learn even more. Mankind is finally progressing towards a point where the lower echelons of Maslow's hierarchy are met automatically for all citizens and the only ones that people will be able to aspire to will be Belonging, Esteem and Self Actualization - and education / learning will be the only way to attain the last one!
Continued here.
Why should I do an MBA?
Reproduced from a Quora Answer by me here.
There are many possible answers to this question depending upon what stage of life you are in - just graduating, within 5 years of work experience, beyond 5 years etc.; and whether you plan to get a good job or want to start on your own.
There are many possible answers to this question depending upon what stage of life you are in - just graduating, within 5 years of work experience, beyond 5 years etc.; and whether you plan to get a good job or want to start on your own.
I will provide the most generic answer here and refer you to few blog posts of mine for variations of it for different scenarios.
What value does an MBA provide:
- Network: As you go forward in life, you will realize that success depends on what kind of people you are connected to who can help in climbing the ladder of success. For example, as an entrepreneur, your company requires to connect to stakeholders - customers who buy your product / service, service providers who can feed into your product with minimal cost, investors who provide funding etc. Similarly, in a job, if you are connected to your superiors, you get more opportunities to excel and play a more impactful role. An MBA gets you that network - a network of batchmates, seniors, juniors etc who can play all the roles mentioned above (and many more).
- Brand: Needless to say, if you want a job or you are looking to attract investors, your qualification (more specifically, the institute you get that qualification from), makes a big difference. Top B-Schools fetch the meatiest jobs and best funded startup unicorns in India were started by MBAs.
- Knowledge: Knowledge is the primary reason purported for an MBA, but Network and Brand come before it. Nevertheless, an MBA gives you a comprehensive view in 1 or 2 years (depending on the duration of your course) of the academic basics of all aspects of the business world - Finance, Marketing, Logistics, Technology, Human Resources etc. This gives you a well rounded view of what lays ahead of your student life and even if it does not equip you enough with ability to excel in any one field, it sure helps you decide what you’d like to excel in. I have given a different view of thison my blog (this was written within my first year of job; do discount my age - and relative inexperience - at that time while reading).
- Perspective: Related to knowledge, but distinct, in my experience an MBA helps one develop a wider perspective of the world. Perspective develops as a result of learning multiple subjects, debating / discussing them within your class with your peers and teachers, and generally reading case studies which may or may not be within your curriculum. The pedagogy followed for MBA - given the relative fuzziness of the field - is different from the prescriptive method of teaching technical subjects. It is more exploratory (at least in most reputed institutes) and this helps develop a habit of exploring and developing a wider perspective.
There are many other reasons why a student should pursue an MBA, but I believe the above 4 top the list. The answer, as I had written earlier, will change slightly depending on what stage of life you are in. I am linking few of my blog posts which will help appreciate the differences of value of an MBA for a fresh graduate vs. those with experience or whether you plan to get a good job or want to start on your own.
Education of the hand and the head
I read this article in Mint by senior policy managers for J-PAL South Asia, they talk about "concern(s) that while enrolment in elementary education has increased, education outcomes have declined, with abilities in reading, writing and other comprehensive skills deteriorating"; suggest "Pedagogical solutions such as restructuring classes by learning level, rather than by age or grade and improving School governance like incentivizing teacher presence and effort, and putting in place properly designed monitoring and accountability structures".
What is lacking however in the whole discourse is making education more suited to vocation and real-world challenges. It is true that students should be able to read and write in order to perform even the basic functions of a modern life, but the reason that students can't read or write is usually not because teachers aren't present.
To illustrate this, consider as to why all students can speak the language well enough, but only fail to read and write? The reason is obvious - ability to speak the language gets practiced from childhood, it is immensely important in their daily routine. Similarly, if reading and writing the language is made a part of their daily routine, with or without teachers, with or without pedagogical help - they'll learn the word!
The question being, how do you make 'learning the word' a part of their daily life? The answer lies in Nai Talim - "The crux of Nai Talim lay in overcoming distinctions between learning and teaching, and knowledge and work. (Vinoba Bhave)". If the curricula go beyond just teaching 'alphabet and numbers', and include vocational activities such as making and selling simple toys - this would involve tasks like creating 'creative boards or charts' for selling, preparing 'sales material', bookkeeping & accounting etc - students find a purpose and a 'routine' to learn the alphabet, learn counting, numbers etc. This is not too different from the custom of lemonade stand set up by kids in the US.
This indeed is education of the head and of the hand as proposed by Gandhi in his seminal article on National Education more than 90 years ago; and as per him, it "will serve a double purpose in a poor country like ours. It will pay for the education of our children and teach them an occupation on which they can fall back in after-life, if they choose, for earning a living". In today's context, this will also help create a more entrepreneurial minded child as is required for a country like India. We will not then need late stage government incentive programs like Startup India, Skill India or Standup India!
It is appalling that even learned researchers ignore the above philosophy (or remain unaware of it) while proposing solutions to the problem of education in India. Even more appalling that the Ministry of HRD / Education department pays no heed to it!
Image Credit: OLPC @ Flickr
The Rail and the Road of career
My daughter was watching one of those Kindergarten videos on shapes [YouTube] and at this scene where a car is waiting for the 'Shape Train' to cross the level crossing; I ruminated a conversation between the vehicles where ...
The car wonders to itself - "I wish I could go as fast as the train!"I realized my rumination had a lot of similarity to the differences, perceptions and expectations of 'Corporate' vs. 'Entrepreneur' career paths. Corporate career is like the Railway - you have a defined career path to progress up, if you perform well, play your moves properly (including living with or harnessing office politics and networking), you can reach the top echelons very fast and without much financial risk on yourself.
The train itself responds "I wish I could roam anywhere like the car does!" [and not be forced to run only where the track goes]
Entrepreneurship is like driving a car on the road - you have a lot of freedom whether to take the highway, the arterial roads, by lanes and if you like it, just wander off into a cozy small village. It is this aspect that attracts professional most to it - 'independence', 'work on any idea', 'freedom to choose your work hours' etc. - a very rosy side of freelance lifestyle.
The similarities don't end here - in fact the analogy gives us several insights into the norms, habits and paradigms of success in both fields. Few examples:
- The train must follow rules, signals, stoppages and follow timings strictly to be efficient and reach its destination on time. For the train, the key metric that matters is reaching on time because the rest of the variables are already controlled by the Railroad company.
- The car, while free to roam exteriors, interiors - whatever - needs self discipline to stay the course. If it lacks its own discipline, it risks just making the journey, but never reaching the destination. On the positive side, that is usually something many people wish for - enjoy the journey, not the outcome.
- Also, the railway comes with its own amenities - food in pantry (nowadays even Wifi onboard!), while you need to manage your own provisions while riding in a car.
- There are times when both cars and trains can run at similar speeds - but cars at high speed are much riskier to drive than a train at similar speed. Hence, a good driver is more important in a car ride than a train.
- Finally, the train can never be owned by smaller individuals, needs huge capex to set-up and run but lacks maneuverability but cars are nimble, can get 'up-and-running' on any destination fairly quickly but are usually used only for short hauls and run on lower capacities.
- If you want to do well in a Corporate career - understand the explicit and tacit 'rules of the game' and follow them strictly; sometimes 'challenging status quo / establishment' may be one of the 'rules of the game'; but either ways - the better you follow the rules, the faster you will grow. When you don't get that promotion you believe you deserved - try to analyze which rules you overlooked and how to follow them in future!
- Entrepreneurship require self discipline if you want to prosper - else you will be one of those millions of freelancers or 'small businesses' who dwarf out and remain stuck-in-the-middle without any chance of making that million dollar valuation. (It's a different matter if that's what you choose to remain - dont-report-to-anyone-small-biz-boss!)
- Don't underestimate the importance of scaffolding when planning for Entrepreneurship; from the coffee machine to courier service and office boys, all need money. Unlike 'Intrapreneurship' roles, Entrepreneurship requires that you either take care of the amenities yourself or spend on them (usually more than what big Corporates do on a per head basis).
- Never underestimate the importance of having a good team in a Entrepreneurial venture - in a corporate set up, a bad accountant doesn't do much harm, but for a small business venture where margins are low, making mistake of one zero can wipe of profits. Relations are more intertwined in a startup - good cofounder relationship can make or break ventures.
- Corporate set-ups are good for established industries requiring large capex (even if they are "new" - like Solar Power or Space travel ventures) but startups are more suited for low capex businesses which need to be agile in changing processes to 'figure out' their business models.
As Steve Blank puts it:
a startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model.Also note that I didn't compare 'Salaried' vs. 'Business' because several Business folk today feel the same 'locked in' feeling of being restricted as several 'Corporate' guys feel; while several 'Salaried' Intrapreneurs exist who have the freedom to work around their passions - some example being professionals like Devdutt Patnaik or Ajit Ranade.
So, if your objective is just to pursue your passion - you need not necessarily embrace the 'Entrepreneur' track; there are ways to pursue passions in Corporate roles as well.
This analogy can be extended much farther, but you get the gist - hope it helps those in the process of deciding to make the shift!