Saudi Arabia is expected to see the most gains from these new AI developments, with a PWC report projecting that AI will account for 12.4% of the Kingdom’s GDP by 2030. The same report projects that AI is anticipated to account for nearly 14% of the UAE’s GDP as well as 8.2% of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar’s combined GDP by 2030.

The AI sector offers the Gulf, a region rich in oil, an opportunity to diversify their economies. While many economists already recognize that economic reliance on oil is unsustainable in the long term and seek other means for economic growth, oil still makes up approximately one-third  of Gulf states’ total GDP.

Beyond diversification, AI can also increase efficiency in sectors such as finance, and healthcare, public services and smart city infrastructure. For example, the UAE is already beginning to apply AI in government sectors, including using AI sensors to monitor traffic, implementing facial recognition to track driver fatigue and integrating chatbots to improve customer service.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are the forefront AI leaders in the region and have made several advancements regarding AI investments. For instance, the UAE’s state-sponsored MGX AI investment firm, is involved in several major projects, including a $500 billion project known as Stargate. Stargate was officially announced in January 2025 by U.S. President Donald Trump, and is a major AI infrastructure initiative involving the collaboration of several major global tech companies such as OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank. Moreover, the UAE has made notable advancements in its data centre ecosystem with Khazna Data Centers, a data centre operator originally owned by one of Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth funds. Recently, the company introduced a 100 MW AI facility in Ajman as well as future plans to install additional capacity.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is currently the largest Gulf investor in AI. At LEAP 2025, an annual technology conference, the Saudi government unveiled AI projects worth $14.9 billion and also announced other related initiatives, including a $100 billion Transcendence AI Initiative, backed by the Public Investment Fund (PIF). Amazon Web Services has also made a $5.3 billion commitment to build new data centres in the country. 

Nevertheless, these ambitious plans have to face a major obstacle: water. The Middle East is already the most water scarce region in the world, with minimal rainfall and extreme temperatures.  Moreover, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries produce about 40% of the world’s desalinated water, with over 400 desalination plants operating in the region. However, water desalination, which is powered primarily by natural gas, is heavily relied on for water needs in the Gulf. The World Bank estimates that water availability per capita is expected to be halved by 2050. 

The lack of available water makes building data centres a major challenge, since these centres require vast amounts of water in order to cool their processor microchips as well as the buildings where microchips are housed. For instance, Google’s data centres in the U.S. alone used an estimated 12.7 billion litres of fresh water in 2021 to cool their servers. 

This is a problem that is not getting better. As AI investment expands, so does the need for more water. By 2027, the water demand for AI data centres is estimated to reach between 4.2–6.4 billion cubic meters worldwide, which corresponds to more than four to six times Denmark’s annual water use. Gulf nations, with growing populations and increasing water demand, already face pressing water problems. Ambitious plans to expand AI infrastructure and build larger data centres only risk exacerbating this issue. 

Is there yet a solution? Some facilities are piloting ideas, such as implementing closed-loop cooling systems for their data centres, which recycle wastewater. However, AI runs the risk of shifting rather than resolving the water crisis in the Middle East if such techniques are not widely adopted. 

The post AI and Water Scarcity in the Middle East appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At its core, this meeting was about searching for a mutually beneficial trade. North Korea reportedly went in the interest of obtaining satellite technology, economic aid and food supplies. In return, Russia is desperate to refuel its dwindling ammunition in order to sustain its war on Ukraine. 

North Korea likely seeks satellite technology for a number of reasons. One is truly for satellites — the country has already failed twice this year to put a spy satellite in orbit and says they will try again in October. They seek more advanced technology to aid this endeavor. 

The other, unspoken reasoning is for nuclear missiles. Both satellites and missiles rely on rocket technology, and the United States and its allies argue that North Korea uses its space programs as a cover for weapons tests. 

This deal could thus be doubly threatening to the West, as it would both aid Russia in its war against Ukraine and support North Korea’s nuclear and weapon proliferation.

Other than posing a threat to the United States and its allies, North Korea’s nuclear proliferation is a violation of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, which was at the time supported by Russia. A decree also forbids any financial aid or education training that may help North Korea’s nuclear program. Moscow has in the past been hesitant to share such technology with North Korea, over its own concerns about the country’s nuclear arsenal. However, experts now believe that Russia’s priority for its war in Ukraine (and its desire to form strong relationships with enemies of the West) outweighs any previous inhibitions toward North Korea. 

What does Russia seek in return for this nuclear technology? Putin may be interested in the possible tens of millions of old Soviet artillery shells and rockets in North Korea’s possession. Russia has run through its own arsenal in its war on Ukraine faster than it perhaps expected to, and is now desperate for weapons and artillery. 

An obstacle to this deal, though, is another UNSC decree (which Russia also endorsed) that bans North Korea from exporting or importing any arms. It prohibits the transition of weapons in or out of the country. This resolution effectively bans Kim Jung-Un from making this trade and giving Russia their weapons. As such, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has stated that any military cooperation between North Korea and Russia is illegal as it breaks the United Nations Security Council resolutions and other international sanctions.

In this same vein, in August of last year, according to American Intelligence, North Korea volunteered 100,000 of its own troops to help Donbas and in September they sold Russia millions of artillery shells and rockets for use in Ukraine. However, both parties heavily deny this claim, though these denials could be truth or just cover for deals that break UNSC treaties. 

There is history to this kind of covert weapons aid between Russia and North Korea. After World War II, the Allies took Korea from under Japanese occupation and divided it between the Soviet Union and the United States. Then, on June 25, 1950, the Communist North, overseen by the Soviet Union, invaded the U.S. backed South. During the war that ensued, the Soviet Union secretly funneled North Korea pilots, aircrafts, machine guns, tanks, materials and medical services. They couldn’t get directly involved due to their tenuous relationship with the United States, who were actively involved on the South Korean side. Any sort of blow up between the two countries could result in a nuclear war. As a result, the pilots had to fly in other uniforms, speak other languages, and pretend to be tourists when on the ground. Armistice was reached in 1953, but since no peace treaty was ever signed, the two countries are still technically at war. 

Following the war, the relationship between the Soviet Union (Russia) and North Korea has fluctuated, but they now find themselves in a very similar, if reversed, position to 70 years ago. Putin even brought up this piece of history during their meeting. He said it was “our” country who first recognized the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a state and “our” country who supported their “war of independence” in the 1950s. Similarly, North Korea was the third country to recognize the independence of breakaway states of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Eastern Ukraine, in reaction to which Ukraine terminated diplomatic ties with North Korea. Perhaps by bringing to mind the times “his” country supplied weapons to their invasion, Putin hopes to endear Kim Jung-Un to contributing to his own invasion. 

It still remains to be seen what the products of this meeting will be, on Russia’s war on Ukraine, on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and on our current political landscape. Regardless, this was a meeting ripe with historical and modern implications that will have heavy influence on both the outcome of this particular meeting and on international politics in the years to come.

The post The Korean War to Today: The Russia-North Korea Collaboration appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The government has stated they do not believe these objects are intergalactic, but the public has gone wild with speculation about extraterrestrial visitors with searches and posts about UFOs increasing by over 300%. 

Concerns over security and distrust in the government have increased whether or not these high-altitude objects are otherworldly or just “recreational”. Some far-right conspiracy theorists have alleged that the Biden administration launched these balloons to divert attention away from other pressing issues.

The first incident occurred when the Air Force spotted a Chinese surveillance balloon on Jan. 28, 2023, when the balloon entered U.S. airspace over Alaska. U.S. security officials have stated that the balloon was over “sensitive military sites.” The balloon was shot down on Feb. 4, 2023, over South Carolina after quickly making its way across the country. 

China has said that the balloon was not a surveillance balloon but some sources have made differing claims as to what it is, with some sources saying it was a weather balloon blown astray and other sources saying it was a “civilian airship.” 

The balloon has strained the already tense relationship between the United States and China since the ongoing trade war that started in 2018 due to the alleged theft of technological and intellectual property by China. 

Additionally, the United States has raised security concerns over China’s increase in military spending, their presence in the South China Sea, their human rights abuses in Hong Kong and the “military harassment of Taiwan.” NATO declared China to be a “security concern” in 2021 with China’s development of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of Chinese surveillance amidst these security concerns has encouraged the U.S. government to be extra vigilant and “scour the skies” for other potential surveillance objects that are part of China’s global spy balloon program and is the cause for why the U.S. Air Force has seen an increase in high-altitude flying objects.

Another balloon was spotted over Latin America on Feb. 6, 2023, that China quickly admitted ownership over; however, Chinese officials stated that the balloon was used for “flight training” and was blown off course due to “weather conditions”. The Venezuelan and Colombian governments decided not to shoot down the balloon as it posed no threat but U.S. security officials believe it was another surveillance balloon in China’s fleet.

Both Colombian and Venezuelan officials stated they did not feel the object was a threat to security. The Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs even said they “reject” the attack of U.S. officials, stating “Once again, the United States resorts to the use of force instead of treating this situation with the seriousness and responsibility that the case deserves.” 

The heightened security monitoring and increased presence of fighter jets in the sky makes the United States seem very trigger happy, especially now that the Biden administration just signed an $816.7 billion defense budget. 

It begs the question, why does the United States worry so much? The United States has been vocal about their concern over the Chinese military and power for years and released a statement focusing on China. The United States is worried that China is going to use their military strength to become an international power, yet there is little concern over Japan or India becoming an international power.

The United States has the highest defense budget with over $600 billion more than China. The United States has also released multiple surveillance balloons themselves with the Chinese Foreign Ministry stating that the United States has sent over 600 “warships and planes” over China to gather intelligence. The U.S. Department of Defense even stated they plan on making the military “more mobile, more distributed, more resilient and lethal.”

There are legitimate concerns over China’s nuclear arms and their human rights abuses that have potentially been heightened because the United States doesn’t have the control over China that it has over other countries. The United States has a large sphere of influence, offering military aid to over 30 countries and being linked to 29 countries through NATO. China doesn’t need to rely on the United States for economic or military help and has direct relations with other countries the United States is wary of, mostly the connection with Russia. 

The response to the Chinese surveillance balloon that was spotted over the United States in conjunction with the ongoing concerns with Chinese military power seems to make a legitimate argument for the need for heightened security and a bigger budget. However, it is important to question how much worry is necessary, especially when considering how strong the U.S. military is compared to the rest of the world.

The post UFOs, Real or Not? What They Mean for U.S. Security appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The case

On Feb. 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court began oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google LLC. The case surrounds the Gonzelaz family, who lost their daughter Nohemi in a terrorist attack in Paris, France in 2015. Nohemi was a U.S. citizen, and after the attack that killed her, ISIS claimed responsibility for the violence through a video uploaded to Youtube. The Gonzalez family subsequently sued Twitter, Facebook and Google (which owns Youtube), alleging that their services — including the ability for ISIS members to upload recruitment content and an algorithm that recommends similar videos to potential extremist viewers — were indirectly responsible for their daughter’s murder at a French café. 

But calls for big tech and their failure to curb extremist content is nothing new. In 2017, European leaders from the United Kingdom, France and Italy met with Google, Facebook and Microsoft at a UN summit to push for more action against online extremism. Last year, the EU unveiled a new law that held tech companies liable for user content that violates EU-member state law. This past September, the White House announced a series of policies and initiatives aimed at combating the online spread of extremism and terrorist rhetoric. So, why does this case have the eyes of tech and legal experts glued to it? 

“The twenty-six words that created the internet”

Gonzalez brings into question Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives online companies immunity from any problems that arise from content posted by third parties on their platform. The law, created in 1996, seeks to protect users’ right to free speech by protecting the platforms that host it. It reads:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Dubbed the “twenty-six words that created the internet,” the law set the foundation for every website and social media platform we know today. The entire business models of tech behemoths like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube rest on this sentence.

Thus, the Supreme Court has a very difficult question to answer: Should social media companies be legally immune for the content that they host — even if this content can foment terrorism, kill American citizens, and spread hateful, racist, extremist ideology?

While most everyone agrees that Section 230 is due for reform since its inception 27 years ago, the tech and human rights community are divided on what this reform should look like. On one hand, Section 230 provides necessary protections for platforms. Yelp isn’t responsible when a reviewer complains about a restaurant, just as telephone companies aren’t responsible for a conversation that two users have. If Section 230 is overturned, it could incentivize social media platforms to screen user’s posts and practice surveillance at a large scale, which has pretty scary implications for user privacy rights. More importantly, however, a sweeping reform could radically change the way that platforms operate. Those that rely on user-generated content, whether it’s TikTok or Wikipedia, and those that rely on user-guided algorithms, as every social media platform does, would be forced to redesign their models in a way that could create paywalls and remove constitutionally protected speech. As Scott Wilkens, Senior Counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the Institute for Rebooting Social Media, “One has to wonder whether the absence of Section 230 immunity for recommending content to users would have inhibited the invention or development of search engines like Google or social media platforms like Facebook.”

On the other hand, social media has struggled to crack down on the spread of extremist content on their platforms. Recent school shootings and acts of domestic terrorism illustrate the need for tech companies to do more about hateful content. The mass shooter in Buffalo, New York, who murdered 10 Black people in a grocery store, was radicalized almost wholly online through racist and anti-Semitic content. Facebook’s failure to curb material that incited violence — which led to the persecution and targeted killing of Rohingya muslims in Myanmar — demonstrates that a failure to curb such content has potentially genocidal implications. 

Implications for human rights

While much of the legal discourse surrounding Gonzalez emphasizes the First Amendment, there is also a critical international legal component to requiring harsher content moderation policies. Social media platforms allow virtually anyone with access to the Internet to upload content to a public audience, giving it the potential to be seen by millions. Particularly in areas facing oppression, conflict or human rights abuses, social media has popularized citizen journalism as a way to identify, document and publicize human rights violations. This is especially important in countries where institutional instability, heightened insecurity, and lack of government cooperation make it difficult for human rights investigators to collect evidence on the ground. During the past decade, conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Myanmar have prompted a flood of content on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and other social media platforms. Sometimes, user-generated content is the only documented evidence of abuse. This has revolutionized the way that human rights researchers collect evidence and study conflict, as these platforms have accidentally become the world’s largest digital archives for human rights abuses and war crimes.

This content is often graphic in nature, and pressure to curb such content is incentivizing social media platforms to wipe it from their sites. Gonzalez is only the most recent pressure on social media companies to handle its problem with extremist content. Human moderators were common at first, but now most platforms use algorithms to remove content before it’s viewed by any human. This presents a problem for victims, human rights groups and international criminal courts, who use this content to build evidence for international criminal proceedings. As a result, these platforms simultaneously accumulate and delete most of the world’s digital evidence for these proceedings. International investigators also rely on algorithms to suggest related content to them, as it makes the process of locating legally relevant material significantly easier. 

Either way the Court rules, there are potentially harmful human rights implications. Doing away with Section 230 would not only fundamentally transform the digital engagement space we’re familiar with, but also incentivize platforms to wipe content critical to human rights investigations. Conversely, retaining Section 230 and giving the responsibility to reform it to Congress (who could take years to produce any meaningful progress) would keep platforms legally immune from content that spreads hate, foments lies and even kills.

The post Gonzalez v. Google Has the Potential to Change the Foundations of the Internet. What Are the Human Rights Implications? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As of December, Bitcoin prices had fallen approximately 63% throughout 2022 and 16% in November alone. While many companies and investors remain confident the currencies will quickly bounce back and remain trustable assets, the fall of the company re-sparked debate over the area of policy and finance. 

The world of cryptocurrencies is uncharted territory. As such, looking at the impact of the trading giant and the journey of cryptocurrency throughout 2022 is best understood by outlining its rise, controversies and debates in modern financial history. 

First, a bit about the evolution of money

The role of money has generally been subdivided into three categories: to act as an accepted medium of exchange, have a store of value and serve as a unit of account to price and compare goods and services. Moving from a bartering-centered system, forms of money have constantly morphed from country to country. Paper money was initially printed during the Yuan dynasty, and credit cards entered the scene in the 1950s. Since, modern finances have operated primarily on the use of debit/credit cards and cash.

The financial system underwent its subsequent change with the evolution of the internet and commercial websites, with digital payments becoming more common in the 1970s and 80s. Money now started moving through online intermediaries.

For instance, companies such as Paypal helped move the needle toward online transfers through the creation of third-party payments. Additionally, firms such as Safaricom, which began utilizing cellular sim cards to promote digital transactions, according to MIT Professor Gary Gensler, presented innovations for moving money. 

The introduction of Bitcoin and the rise of cryptocurrency

The first concrete and surviving digital crypto-currency, Bitcoin, comes after a series of primarily failed attempts in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s to apply the idea of cryptographic technology to cash and credit. Cryptography refers to a system of encoding and decoding data back and forth. 

On Halloween 2008, still anonymous, Satoshi Nakatomo sent out an email announcing work on a new electronic cash system. The proposal was technically advanced but conceptually simple: the creation of a new peer-to-peer direct system that would require no third-party intermediary. The email introduced Bitcoin to the world, and while the system has undergone various changes since, most cryptocurrencies today still operate primarily on the same skeletal structure.  

Bitcoin is an electronic currency that runs transactions using a system of public and private keys unique among users, who maintain a certain level of anonymity because transactions need confirmation through these electronic keys. Bitcoins are defined, according to Nakatomo, as a chain of computer-generated digital signatures, free-floating. 

These digital signatures allow a way to record and verify online transactions on a distributed and shared ledger. Digital signatures operate as a sort of “virtual fingertip,” ensuring correct transactions are taking place. 

Later, transactions are given a unique serial number and form a block that comes into contact with blockchain technology to timestamp and adds to the ledger through a process known as mining. Mining operates to ensure scarcity, so only a limited amount of bitcoin, 21 million Bitcoin, are mined each year. 

Additionally, to create a consensus protocol, the communication network only adds and accepts new blocks after proof-of-work, a specific computation that verifies transactions, is established through the computer system. 

Cryptocurrency stands apart from traditional currency due to its distributed ledgers and model. Since Bitcoin, countless other digital currencies have hit the market, including Ethereum, released in 2014, and Tether.

Although initially primarily used in the underground economy and illegal activity, cryptocurrency started boosting value and becoming mainstream. Yet, due to their politically decentralized nature, cryptocurrencies are generally highly volatile and face low scalability. Thus, outside of El Salvador and the Central African Republic, which became the first countries to legalize Bitcoin as legal tender to settle debts, cryptocurrencies are today traded and used as speculative financial assets for consumers and investors. At its peak in 2021, the total crypto market was valued at $2.9 trillion. 

Current Situation and FTX

So how did FTX enter the scene? The introduction of cryptocurrency helped start its capital market and various trading companies were established for selling, buying and managing the currencies beginning with the industry giant Binance in 2017. Binance was followed in 2019 by the creation of FTX, which quickly established itself as a player in cryptocurrency exchange. FTX created and introduced its denomination of cryptocurrency, or token, known as FTT. The company became the third largest exchange company in the international market, helping bail out several other firms after the crypto-winter price fall in the spring of 2022. 

Co-founded by American Sam Bankman Fried, the FTX entrepreneur became a public figure, frequently appearing in US congressional panels to talk about cryptocurrency.  

FTX worked in coordination with its hedge fund, Alameda Research, but the company’s story began unraveling in November when another cryptocurrency exchange company, Coinbase, released information FTX was performing a series of high-risk trades and loans through their FTTs. Coinbases’ information release led to a decrease in consumer confidence that, fueled by the public statements of other exchange companies, sparked a consumer-run that uncovered several weaknesses and pains in the corporate model. The company did not hold enough reserve resources and after a failed acquisition plan, it filed for bankruptcy. After further investigation, its American CEO was extradited from the Bahamas, then FTX’s less regulatory operations center, on claims of company-wide defrauding; the scandal even rendered many investors unable to withdraw their initial investments. 

Broader developments and debates

FTX’s collapse marked one of the most notable developments in the timeline of cryptocurrency. Following the fall of FTX, many in the financial sector began criticizing the exchange market as an overly centralized environment, with few companies dominating and monopolizing much trade. 

The long-term ramifications on the value of crypto-assets remain fluctuating, but FTX’s first hearings in the US Congressional House Committee have led to talks regarding regulatory policies.  

In the wake of FTX, on Jan. 2, the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance issued a joint statement regarding crypto-asset risks on banking organizations. Additionally, Coinbase reached a 100 million dollar settlement with New York regulators after failing to comply with New York’s reporting requirements. FTX’s fall has led to wavering consumer trust and placed a heavier spotlight on the possible weaknesses and effects of the exchange market. 

Furthermore, on Nov. 18-19, the Group of 20 countries, or G20, issued in their leaders’ declaration support for the Financial Stability Board’s proposal for creating an international regulatory framework of crypto activity to promote consistency.  

This has led to increasing talks on regulation programs, including the European Union’s approval of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation Bill (MiCA) in October 2022. MiCA was one of the first international efforts to regulate digital market assets. The bill, which will be brought before the EU Parliament for Voting in early 2023, would require crypto companies to register with national authorities and meet a series of guarantees for investors. 

The fall of FTX came at a time when cryptocurrency had grown extremely prevalent, a recent poll showing as many as 1 in 5 Americans had contact with or held cryptocurrency. Looking forward, investors and regulators must track the international community’s continued response,  determine how to place cryptocurrency in the market and what types of regulations will or should be implemented. 

Despite recent price falls, cryptocurrencies and assets do not seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. In the economic game of risk and expected values, FTX has jump-started discussion on how countries should navigate domestic and international supervision and standards of the digital market.  

The post The Economics of Risk and the Future of Cryptocurrency appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Beyond those impressions, the country has also been carrying out cyberattacks as an alternative form of warfare for the last decade, first becoming relevant to the U.S. government in 2014. North Korean hackers compromised computers at Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) in retaliation for Sony releasing The Interview, a political satire about North Korea and Kim Jong Un. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the hackers “gained access to SPE’s network by sending malware to SPE employees, and then stole confidential data, threatened SPE executives and employees and damaged thousands of computers.” 

Sonygate might sound frivolous, but the FBI declared it one of the largest cyberattacks in U.S. history. It was the dawn of North Korea’s information warfare.

Before they began attacking the United States, the DPRK hit two South Korean banks and three of the country’s largest news broadcasts in 2013. The attack rendered ATMs useless and disrupted the television station’s systems. 

In 2016, Lazarus, a government-sponsored hacking team in North Korea, targeted the Bangladesh Bank. Hackers spent almost a year figuring out a backway into the bank’s systems and learning about its operations. 

The Bangladesh Bank has an account with the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City, and in February of 2016, the Federal Reserve Bank was sent instructions from Lazarus posing as the Bangladesh Bank to make over thirty payments totaling nearly one billion USD to multiple accounts. They were successful in receiving $81 million, but the Federal Reserve blocked the other transactions. Lazarus was also linked to the Sony attack.

In 2017, a cyberattack called WannaCry 2.0 targeted hundreds of thousands of computers in major cities and then demanded money in exchange for unfreezing the computers and the accounts. WannaCry was also linked to North Korea. 

According to a report by the United Nations, North Korea used cyberattacks to accumulate around $2 billion for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in 2019. The attacks were aimed at various banks and financial institutions through money laundering to disguise the income as coming from a legitimate source. According to the National Intelligence 2021 Annual Threat Assessment, these were deeply problematic developments: “North Korea’s cyber program poses a growing espionage, theft, and attack threat.” 

The regime has reportedly stolen almost $400 million in cryptocurrency in 2021, giving more credibility to the accusation that North Korea uses cyberattacks to fund its economy and proliferation programs due to heavy sanctions. According to some estimates, North Korea employs around 7,000 people in its cyber programs across multiple departments. 

In 2016, hackers in the capital city of Pyongyang gained access to hundreds of gigabytes of South Korean Army data which had documents detailing a plan if North Korea were to invade the South and even had a plot to assassinate Kim Jong Un. 

What’s revelatory about North Korean cyberattacks is that despite its isolation, it is able to have such a widespread impact on the rest of the world. North Korea is aided by Russia and China, as virtual private networks (VPNs) are often connected through China to conduct cyberattacks. Russia and China have not acknowledged their hand in cyberattacks, but a member of the U.S. Department of Justice claimed that China helps North Korea with its cyberattacks because of their alliance and illegal trade across China-North Korea borders. 

Beyond the Soviet Union’s early involvement in the formation of North Korea, more recently, Putin and Kim have gotten closer over the last few years. North Korea has publicly supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian officials have discussed the possibility of employing dozens of thousands of North Korean laborers to help reconstruct after the war. 

Each time an attack happens, the FBI and other national security agencies urge U.S. organizations and companies to protect their data from potential hacks and attempt to prevent ransomware. Aside from that, there isn’t much more that the government can do because North Korea does not claim responsibility for their attacks. 

In 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice charged three North Korean hackers who reportedly worked for the government for conspiring to steal the billion dollars from the Bangladesh Bank, the Sony Pictures attack, and multiple other attacks on other institutions. Director of the FBI Christopher Wray announced that this charge “demonstrates the FBI’s unceasing commitment to unmasking and stopping the malicious actors and countries behind the world’s cyberattacks.” However, the FBI conceded that this was unlikely to lead to the arrest of the alleged hackers but the point of this very public charge was to “name and shame” to bring more attention to the public. 

Despite the Justice Department’s charges, they have no ability to stop or fully prevent North Korea’s cyberattacks. Cyberwarfare is not well-known by the public, nor are the attacks that North Korea carries out to further its military and/or political aspirations. When Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections, a federal grand jury indicted 12 Russians for their alleged roles but a federal judge dismissed the charges and the trial in 2020.

Cyberattacks are a key component of North Korea’s alternative warfare that will continue as North Korea ramps up its proliferation efforts in an attempt to curb Western hegemony. With China’s complicity with the regime’s attacks, it will be important for the United States to watch both countries as China continues to rise in the global world order, taking North Korea with it.

The post North Korean Cyberattacks: America’s Response to Rising Forms of Information Warfare appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Internet Research Agency, and the Wagner Group

At the center of Russia’s disinformation machine sits Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch, financier and member of Putin’s inner circle. Prigozhin (known as “Putin’s chef” because of his extensive catering contracts with Vladimir Putin) is well known for financing the Internet Research Agency (IRA) — a troll farm that was key in spreading disinformation in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Prigozhin also manages and finances the Wagner Group, which is interchangeably described as a private military company, a network of mercenaries or Putin’s de facto private army (though officially, this group does not exist). 

The Wagner Group has overseen Russia’s strategic push in Africa, with media reports of their presence in the Central African Republic (CAR), Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan and Zimbabwe. These reports detail how the group allies with military commanders in conflict zones and receive payment for their services via cash or lucrative mining concessions for precious minerals like gold, diamonds, and uranium. They have been implicated in human rights violations in CAR and Mali. The latter recently welcomed Wagner Group mercenaries onto their borders following the pullout of French troops, and a coordinated network of Russian-linked social media accounts promoted Russian intervention prior to their arrival. 

Common Themes

In addition to pushing for pro-Russian intervention sentiments, the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns promote false narratives about vaccines, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West and the food insecurity crisis. Russia also seeks to present itself as a viable economic alternative to the West.

Vaccine Narratives: As vaccines were being developed during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, U.S. analytics company Novetta found that the Russian Sputnik V vaccine received disproportionate coverage on African social media – with a combined 6.4% of quotes in all vaccine stories published by traditional African sources. Once information on Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines overshadowed these narratives, Novetta found that WhatsApp messages from Nigerian phone numbers were sent to devices in the DRC with links to fake news stories promoting Russian vaccines and discrediting American-made vaccines.

Anti-democracy and Anti-West Narratives: A State Department report has highlighted the ways in which Russian networks have promoted Russian policies in CAR and convinced journalists to write positively about Russia in Central and Western African states. In a report published by the Digital Forensic Research (DFR) Lab at the Atlantic Council, Russian networks promoted the Front du Refus aux Elections Imposees (FREI), an organization mobilizing anti-democracy protests in Mali.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: In an effort to encourage support for its war of aggression in Ukraine, Russia has sowed misinformation into the African continent. Using whataboutism to divert attention, Russian media emphasized the treatment of African exchange students fleeing Ukraine and other global crises like in Yemen, Syria and Ethiopia, claiming that they are being overshadowed by coverage of Ukraine. State-affiliated media outlet Russia Today, the Russian Embassy of South Africa and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are among the most retweeted platforms spreading whataboutism. These platforms have also pushed anti-West and anti-NATO narratives, with hashtags like #abolishnato, #istandwithputin, #istandwithrussia, and #racistineu. These narratives pick up traction by inflaming existing tensions and grievances across the continent.

The Food Insecurity Crisis: One of the biggest repercussions of Russia’s invasion has been the global disruption of food security. Because of Ukraine’s role as the “breadbasket of Europe” (it is one of the world’s leading exporters in grain, particularly wheat and sunflower products) the war — and subsequent destruction of Ukraine’s agricultural infrastructure – has devastated millions. While food prices were rising before the war, Putin’s invasion has led to prices of food, fuel and fertilizer skyrocketing. To deflect blame from these economic shocks, Russian government officials, state-funded media and Kremlin-aligned proxy disinformation actors have taken coordinated efforts to falsely blame Western sanctions for worsening food insecurity. These campaigns specifically target Africa and the Middle East, the regions hurt most by the food insecurity crisis and are amplified by Kremlin-controlled state outlets such as RT Arabic and RT en Francais. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov used a trip to the African continent to spin the crisis in favor of Russia.

Big Tech’s Lack of Action

While there has been a bigger investment in content moderation, Facebook has shown little ability to curb harmful disinformation campaigns despite its rapid expansion across Africa. 

Even posts that are clear evidence of a coordinated political agenda are sometimes not removed because they don’t meet Facebook’s definition of “inauthentic.” Disinformation experts have also warned that social media companies’ content moderators will inherently do an inadequate job policing extremist content due to their lack of proficiency in local dialects. Facebook is not the only popular platform where Russian disinformation spreads — apps like WhatsApp, Twitter and Telegram also facilitate outsourced disinformation campaigns.

Assessing the Impact

Though sometimes difficult, identifying disinformation is significantly easier than assessing its impact. Facebook has removed tens of thousands of posts across several different regions and countries, but it is often too early to assess the campaign’s success. In some instances, the campaigns appear to gain little traction in their environment. In Kenya, Russian campaigns that mischaracterize the Ukrainian invasion have had little impact on the population. 

Other campaigns, however, experience more success. In Mali, for example, Russian-aligned social media campaigns building support for Wagner mercenaries have received notable traction. Facebook pages pushing pro-Russian views and support of Malian armed forces post frequently in coordination with identical accounts, with the largest page in this network having more than 90,000 followers. 

Similarly, pro-Russia sentiments have become more visible during recent anti-France protests in Mali and in neighboring Senegal. In Burkina Faso, Moscow-friendly disinformation has permeated Burkinabe social media and increased Russian popularity in the country. Investigative analysis has shown a network of 175 Facebook pages that advance pro-Russian, anti-Western narratives, with several pages having tens of thousands of followers. 

This engagement isn’t static, as local analysts have warned about its success. As Jordan Meda of FasoCheck said to the Washington Post, “We’re seeing a lot more fake news. More and more pro-Russia messages, and little by little, more calls for military collaboration with Russia from ordinary people.”

The uptick in pro-Russian media on the African continent has mirrored a rise in pro-Russian sentiments across several West African countries. 

Pro-Russian or anti-French demonstrations jumped in Burkina Faso, with 8 demonstrations just this year. Similarly, in Mali, demonstrations increased from 6 in 2021 to 9 so far in 2022. As the DFR Lab reported, local support for Russia increased before the military coup in Burkina Faso. Pro-Wagner demonstrations grew in Mali before the mercenaries arrived. The spike in pro-Russian Facebook posts in the broader Sahel region has been met with growing, visible pro-Russian sentiments by the public. 

While it is unclear if these sentiments are directly linked to persistent digital disinformation efforts, the permeation of Russian influence in fragile African states creates fertile ground for violent extremism, anti-democratic tendencies and human rights abuses.

The post Russia is Using Disinformation to Increase Favorable Views of Putin in Africa appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Just look at the film Uncharted, released earlier this March. Uncharted, directed by Ruben Fleischer, is a film adaptation of the popular video game franchise of the same name. The events of the film focus on Nathan Drake  (Tom Holland), or Nate for short, who embarks on an adventure to find the lost treasure of Ferdinand Magellan with treasure hunter Victor Sullivan, or Sully for short (Mark Wahlberg). 

The film Uncharted reached the Netflix Top Ten list upon being released on the streaming platform, and it also achieved a successful box office run in March. Yet beyond the commercial success of the film, the inspiration for the story has to be commended for its depiction of international developments, particularly the historical expedition of Ferdinand Magellan.

Magellan, a Portuguese explorer, was best known for his journey leading the expedition that circumnavigated the globe in 1519. After departing from Spain, Magellan, who sought to establish trade routes, perished along the way. Despite the fact that he did not complete the journey, his legacies remain. 

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Magellan’s expedition is relevant to international affairs because it illustrates the concept of globalization in the past — and where it can develop in the future. In fact, CFR’s writers Stewart M. Patrick and Kyle L. Evanoff label Magellan’s journey as a “seminal moment in the history of globalization” that “inaugurated the threading of the planet.” 

In other words, Magellan’s expedition — which the Uncharted story pays tribute to — established the burgeoning relationships across the globe. This link between Europe and the world contributed to European imperialism and colonization. These developments should not be overlooked for how such power relations have shaped international history and the inequalities that persist today.

Magellan’s role in globalizing the world is perhaps not the crux of the Uncharted film, but an important background to the storyline nonetheless. It is noted that the supposed “treasure” of Ferdinand Magellan in the film is not real and was in fact a creative liberty taken with the film for cinematic purposes. By using this device and incorporating it with the adventure genre elements typically associated with video games, the Uncharted film is able to spotlight a historical event that fundamentally shifted perceptions of what the world was back in the sixteenth century. 

Along with this, the video game franchise transports viewers to “breathtaking locations across the globe,” as advertised on the Playstation website. Representation of what the website names as “iconic locations” like the Himalayan mountains within the video game can help shed light on globally relevant spots. Within both the video game and the film, this is executed in an intentional way that may otherwise be overlooked. 

Other video game adaptations, like the Resident Evil film franchise, are also relevant to the discussion about video games and their relationship with global politics and public health. The Resident Evil franchise is based on the premise of a T-virus impacting the world. 

Both the Resident Evil films and video games center on this virus that turns people into zombies. This is, of course, fiction. Still, during the coronavirus pandemic, many writers noted the connection between the events of Resident Evil as well as events going on in the real world. In this case, the video game world was able to offer a striking parallel with pressing international concerns.

The Netflix television series The Witcher is more known for its grounding in fantasy than its political connotations. The series does involve the politics characteristic of fantasy worlds, such as battles between kingdoms and warfare. In examining the international implications of the series, the case of The Witcher is significant not because of the content, although that it is important. It is significant for the fact that the story behind The Witcher, which began with Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski’s books and were later adapted into video games, has become internationally recognized as Poland’s cultural “soft power.”

Nikola Đorđević at Emerging Europe describes the gravity The Witcher possesses as a product from Poland, expressing that it is “Poland’s most successful cultural export.” Additionally, the fact that the books have become adapted into video games and into a Netflix show reflect the power of entertainment in the international space. 

Back in January, season two of the Netflix series became one of “Netflix’s most-watched shows of all time.” By reaching viewers across the world, the success of The Witcher shows the strength of media and entertainment globalization as a national asset, especially as a means of Polish cultural representation.

As video games continue to exhibit their relevance as source material and intellectual property in the entertainment realm, they have also proven to be much more than forms of entertainment. They are game changers that simultaneously show the effects of globalization and supply understandings of a global world. 

The post Video game adaptations reflect international focuses and concerns appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This is not simply an American problem. Trust in the Internet is declining worldwide, and social media companies play an outsized role in contributing to that distrust. According to a 2019 survey of over 25,000 Internet users worldwide, 75% of those who distrusted the Internet said that social media companies were a leading cause of their distrust — a 5% increase from 2018. 

Evidently, something needs to be done about this distrust in the Internet to keep its benefits accessible for all.

Although the United States is certainly not the only country with social media platforms, it is home to the largest and most influential ones. And while laws like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have shifted how people consume the Internet, the United States retains a position of authority over how the Internet and digital data can be used. Because of its unique position as the global leader in Internet technology, the United States needs to take strong action to build trust in the Internet.

It’s first worth considering why so many people distrust the Internet. The most prominent concerns over the Internet are related to data privacy. As targeted advertising and data collection become increasingly effective, many have grown concerned about its implications for broader society. Concerns about government surveillance, loss of privacy and interference by foreign governments have become increasingly salient.

The fundamental problem creating this distrust is not just that social media companies are collecting data. It is that no one really knows what data is being collected or what it is being used for. 

While agreements like privacy policies are supposed to explain the terms of data collection and use, they are often either extremely long, as in the case of Google, or extremely vague, as in the case of Facebook. The problems of these privacy policies are compounded by the fact that there is no incentive actually to read them. As a result, people don’t know what they are agreeing to, and social media companies have exploited this to the detriment of public trust in the Internet.

As distrust grows in social media, many countries and regions have turned to new solutions to address data privacy concerns. Unfortunately, many of those solutions fall short. One common solution, the “opt-out” model, involves allowing users to opt-out of various data collection schemes. 

You have very likely encountered this type of regulatory regime. It’s found in those annoying pop-ups asking for your cookie preferences and those complicated agreements which require you to scroll through hundreds of pages of legalese. As you have probably experienced, however, this type of regime is ineffective. Not only do most people not have the time or ability to opt-out of every instance of data collection, but this provides no way to remedy any harms arising from misuse of data. While allowing for opt-outs does represent some progress in protecting privacy, its opaqueness limits its ability to build trust in the Internet.

With how complex regulating data collection can be, especially on behalf of third parties, some countries have decided to pull out entirely. Brazil, China, India and Vietnam have all implemented what is known as “data localization” laws. In brief, these laws require that information about users from a given country be stored within its borders. For example, Facebook is required to store data about a Vietnamese user in Vietnam. This simple premise seems like a win for data security on the surface. It allows these countries, which increasingly have their information technology networks imposed upon from the outside, to regain control over data produced in their country.

However, data localization laws are flawed in their own way. Rather than fostering an open, interconnected Internet, data localization laws create a Balkanized Internet within which it is difficult for users to access services from outside their country. Although these countries are interested in protecting their citizens’ data security, data localization laws are too limiting. There is also the frequent fear that data localization laws may be used as a means for governments to limit their citizens’ access to the Internet, degrading trust in Internet governance institutions.

The United States must take the lead in developing innovative solutions to address data privacy concerns. First, the United States must develop some form of national legislation to govern digital data. Currently, the United States is governed by a patchwork of state laws with small federal carve-outs for certain data types. In turn, Internet companies can decide which states they do business in based on which have the low or limited regulations. Adopting a national regulation scheme would solve this problem.

Further, any rules the United States adopts must be built on the “opt-in” principle. As opposed to opt-out rules, opt-in rules require that users explicitly opt-in to various types of data collection. While these policies have not yet been adopted, prototypes and solutions using the opt-in principle do exist. Most notably, executive director of the California Privacy Protection Agency Ashkan Soltani has developed the Global Privacy Control browser extension. This browser extension automatically disables all forms of data collection on websites you visit, except for those you explicitly permit. While not a regulatory solution, this proves that opt-in rules which do not impinge on the user’s experience are technologically possible. The United States should adopt rules which mirror those that Global Privacy Control enforces.

In the meantime, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should use its existing powers to go after companies with misleading privacy policies. The FTC Act empowers the FTC to punish companies for false and incomplete privacy policies — a power the FTC has already used to mandate a clearer privacy policy from Facebook and punish Zoom for unfactual claims regarding user data privacy. The FTC already has broad leeway to interpret what “misleading privacy policies” are. The FTC should use its existing powers to demand greater transparency from Internet companies.

There’s a long way to go before trust in the Internet can be rebuilt. But the United States, home to some of the largest Internet companies in the world, cannot sit on the sidelines while the abuses of social media companies continue. To rebuild trust in the Internet, the United States must pass new laws to ensure that Internet users can feel secure in their data. Doing so will ensure that the Internet remains an accessible tool for users everywhere.

The post The United States Needs to Strengthen Trust in the Internet appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

So has war.

As the first Russian planes began to lay siege on Kyiv, Ukrainian citizens immediately took up arms. Members of parliament stood in line for weapons, civilian militias organized, and babushka grandmothers proudly flaunted their Kalashnikov rifles. However, Ukraine’s response wasn’t just on the ground. It was online as well, and one particular platform has become a hotbed for raw, unfiltered and short videos documenting real-time developments.

TikTok, a video-focused social networking app, has grown in popularity over the past couple of years. It has become known for its 30-second dances and lip-syncing mobile videos that can generate millions of views in a matter of days and thrust random teenagers into internet fame. This ability stems from its app-specific algorithm, which amplifies user-generated videos over professional content. Its free, decentralized method of content creation is perhaps the most evident reason why videos in Ukraine are gaining so much traction. The app’s translation technology makes captions and comments readable in several languages, thereby lowering the language barrier to understand the contents of a video. 

Ukrainian citizens, perhaps unknowingly, have used this design to their advantage. In recent days, videos have circulated TikTok showing Russian tanks completing training exercises, Ukrainian soldiers posing with weapons, families frantically searching for bomb shelters and even active combat footage. These videos demonstrate a fascinating phenomenon in the age of the internet.

We can watch war on Tiktok. And we can do so in real-time.

The phenomenon isn’t wholly unsurprising. The idea of reading, listening and watching war updates is not new, but the method by which information is disseminated has drastically changed. During the American Civil War, the only way the public stayed informed about campaigns, battles, casualties and other developments was through the local newspaper. Army correspondents, who journeyed alongside soldiers, reported stories to their respective outlets that reflected their own experiences or that of other soldiers. Similarly, during both World Wars — when war reporting really came of age — newspapers and television were the primary methods by which the general public got a glimpse of a war fought overseas. 

A uniting fact, however, is that this information could be — and was — heavily censored, altered or opinionated by members of a political and media elite that wanted to maintain an image of victory. Especially during World War II, war correspondents experienced censorship and control by the American government in order to perpetuate an idea of American success in the war effort and maintain morale at home. Additionally, it took days, weeks or even months to become aware of events that took place overseas. Anne Frank’s diary was published three years after it was discovered, meaning that many people were learning of the horrors of Nazi Germany after the war’s end, rather than being able to empathize with people on the ground as it happened.

But the 21st century has created a new digital landscape that has revolutionized how we see, hear and think about conflict. It has also provided a new medium through which war efforts can gain traction.

This phenomenon was especially poignant during the Arab Spring protests that took place from 2010 through 2012. Local citizens in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria used social media as a tool to organize protests, disseminate updates and spread information globally to raise awareness about grievances and abuse. Similar occurrences were seen in Sudan and Hong Kong as users around the world re-shared graphic videos of human rights abuses and tweeted messages from revolution leaders.

What makes Ukraine different?

As an authoritarian leader, Putin has near-complete control of the digital narrative in his country. When dissent boils, the regime employs a variety of tactics to censor it, including a centralized blacklist, internet filtering, media restrictions, virtual private network (VPN) bans and more. The same holds true for most recent civil wars and separatist movements that have been documented on social media. In Sudan, the 2017 civil war led the Sudanese government to install immense restrictions on the press and news media. Similarly, during the Hong Kong protests, the Internet was tightly restricted and the Chinese government shut down activist social media movements.

But dynamics change when you invade an independent sovereign country. The moment Russian troops crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border, Putin’s system for control essentially evaporated. Ukrainian citizens have no censorship restrictions holding them back from posting Russia-implicating content, thereby putting them almost entirely in control of the social media narrative. And so far, it appears to be working. #Ukraine has 17 billion views on TikTok, 31.9 million posts on Instagram and millions of tweets. The uncensored, archival media has lessened the degree of separation between the conflict and the world, creating a global movement against the Russian invasion. A fourteen-year-old in Seattle can be as close to the battlefront as those on the ground in Kyiv, and it results in a collective sentiment of shock.

“I can’t believe I’m watching a war on TikTok,” one user commented under a video showing active combat through a shaky phone camera.

Another video shows a Russian helicopter being shot down. One user commented, “[I’m] [w]atching war in real time on a dance app.”

For this reason, TikTok is the antithesis of the Russian communication strategy, and it is possible that it caught Putin off guard. The last thing an authoritarian aggressor wants is for his invasion to be humanized because if the public sees the faces of those in front of his gun — and those behind it as well — his lies to justify war lose all of their merit.

To combat this, Putin has employed familiar censorship tactics in his own country. After it was revealed that Russian soldiers were accidentally sharing army secrets on TikTok (and Ukrainian military analysts used them to predict troop movement), the military took efforts to dissuade soldiers from using the app. Putin has also recently blocked access to Twitter within his borders, further restricting the news that his own citizens can receive. The movement is also hurt by rampant misinformation and misleading videos, which NPR says have surged over the past week.

Perhaps this serves as evidence that Ukraine is winning the online war. Or, maybe it is a misleading victory that could be devastated by Russia’s Roskomnadzor, the Kremlin’s censorship and disinformation titans. The conflict is only days in its development, but for now, the fight to protect Ukrainian sovereignty remains steadfast online and on the ground.

The post Waging War Online: Ukraine’s TikTok Strategy appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.