Category Archives: Autonomous Vehicles

“THE AGE OF DISRUPTION” ‘a Perfect Storm’ goes Viral

In the public interest.

I felt to explore the disruption. It led me to the Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. His speech is about digital disruption. I contemplate in the midst of the Coronavirus we all have to go online. Yet the virus is called mild I think people are sensing this perfect storm.

Perfect Storm: noun a detrimental or calamitous situation or event arising from the powerful combined effect of a unique set of circumstances:
a perfect storm battering corporate pension plans.

Yet the Prime Minister on the 15 March 2020 at his press conference stated the virus is mild…

“…But the truth is that while many people will contract this virus that it’s clear, just as people get the flu each year, it is a more severe condition than the flu, but for the vast majority, as I said last week, for the majority, around 8 in 10 is our advice, it will be a mild illness and it will pass. “ Prime Minister Scott Morrison..

Excerpts from Josh Frydenberg speech below:

“This perfect storm – decades in the making – has delivered what now seems like the overnight arrival of something that was previously inconceivable: artificial intelligence and machine learning...

In simple language, machines are providing insights and recognising patterns by rapidly processing data which allows predictions, and in many cases decisions, to be made….As companies adapt to this era of disruption, business transformation has become the order of the day....

This is where ensuring our education system, including early childhood, schools, VET and universities effectively respond to this challenge will be critical. Problem solving, data science and creative thinking are among the capabilities that will be in demand in this new work environment...

The services sector which makes up around 70 per cent of the Australian economy compared to around 60 per cent three decades ago, tends to by its nature to have lower levels of productivity. Services are more labour intensive and less likely to see capital substitution. However, with the maturation of emerging technologies this could change…

Moreover, the nature of the services offered by both Google and Facebook allow them to collect an unprecedented amount of personal data, which is then monetised by providing advertisers with highly targeted opportunities…

While the opportunities are boundless, with McKinsey suggesting that automation technologies could add up to $4 trillion to the Australian economy over the next 15 years, the threats are also real…

So how much and how quickly our productivity increases from here will depend in part on how governments, employees and employers respond to this changing technology landscape...

Our goal – which I am confident that we can achieve with the right policy settings across both the public and private spheres – is to ensure that when these technologies become part of our everyday life they will contribute to a more prosperous, secure and harmonious future for all Australians.

A few questions:

Should we as Australians or anyone in the global community have a vote on whether we want this digital future that gathers our data and knows everything about our lives ?

Who truly benefits – the community or global IT business?

What about public needs, wants and rights to privacy?

What about the vulnerable and the homeless?
How will they survive in disruption? To-date clearly the money to house every person is there but not actioned. What of the treatment of those vulnerable in detention centres? Who truly cares?

Will this imposed future be democratic and foster happiness in our society or will our lives be automated and focused on the cryptocurrency of inclusion and exclusion?

What of breaching ecological tipping points given economics is about growth not balance?

Lastly, and most importantly, what are the health impacts from electromagnetic frequency (EMF)?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

Refer links:

https://www.gaia.com/article/5g-health-risks-the-war-between-technology-and-human-beings

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

There needs to be a broader discussion to ascertain if this adverse health impact is true. Does it create a major health problem greater than the coronavirus?

The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP
Treasurer
Federal Member for Kooyong

SPEECH

“THE AGE OF DISRUPTION”

SIR ZELMAN COWEN ORATION

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE

29 August 2019

***CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY***

It’s a great privilege to deliver this oration in Sir Zelman Cowen’s name and I want to thank the Cowen family and Victoria University for the opportunity.

As Glyn Davis and Peter Dawkins wrote in The Australian just a few days ago, Victoria University is one of only a small number of dual-sector universities providing a highly innovative and quality education both in the tertiary and vocational streams.

With the wave of new technology challenging our traditional methods of learning and the institutions that provide it, it is only appropriate that the Sir Zelman Cowen Centre is hosting key stakeholders for an important upcoming discussion about the future of universities.

As a Vice-Chancellor, Provost and Dean, Sir Zelman was a great educator and reformer, always appreciating the wonders of learning and curious about the future.

He would be proud that the Centre in his name is promoting this important debate.

Sir Zelman Cowen was a giant of a man and a dear friend and mentor.

I will never forget his generosity of spirit and his intense loyalty as a friend as we sat together each weekend for many years talking about his life and the changing world in which we lived.

While never a meeting of equals, he ensured age was no barrier to friendship, always putting me at ease.

He never needed to demand respect or command obedience but by virtue of his very nature and being, he simply earned it.

He was always proud of his immigrant background and his Jewish faith and he never sought to distance himself from his heritage during his long and distinguished career.

He is an inspiration to many.

And as our nation’s nineteenth Governor-General, he brought a touch of healing to the country and set a standard that is the benchmark for those who have followed.

He was always above the rancour of partisanship – earning respect from all sides, devoting his life as he did to public service.

But for all that Zelman achieved in public life, he knew none of it would have been possible without the support of his wife of sixty years, Anna.

Their marriage was a true partnership based on eternal love and respect, and I want to thank Anna for being here today, pass on our best wishes for a speedy recovery after a recent fall, and thank her for her enduring friendship.

It would be remiss of me as well not to plug her recent brilliant book titled My Vice-Regal Life which published her personal diaries from the Cowens’ time at Yarralumla.

Like Zelman, Anna possesses a sharp wit and a great sense of humour.

For example, recording on one occasion an investiture by Sir Zelman where he was waving a sword wildly around, saying after the event that it was remarkable that they didn’t have to pick up peoples’ ears from the floor!

This evening I ask you to lend me your ears as I share some thoughts on an issue that affects the future of all of us – namely that we are living in the age of disruption.

The world has seen nothing like it. Big data, artificial intelligence and the explosion in connectivity.

It is the fourth industrial revolution.

The first being the use of steam to mechanise industries and the Dickensian conditions it created in the factories of England in the 1800s.

The second saw the arrival of electricity and the third the development of the computer and with it the proliferation of information technology.

This fourth revolution is different in both nature and scope. Developing exponentially rather than in a linear fashion.

It is less about disseminating information to the wider public, as was the case with the invention of the printing press, but more about algorithms and data as new building blocks to fundamentally change the way we do thing across every sector of the economy.

From energy to education, health and hospitality, mining and manufacturing and even to administration and agriculture.

While the opportunities are boundless, with McKinsey suggesting that automation technologies could add up to $4 trillion to the Australian economy over the next 15 years, the threats are also real.

Cyber security, privacy concerns, competition issues, the integrity of the future of our tax base and the future of work are among them.

A little less than a century ago John Maynard Keynes gave a famous lecture entitled ‘Economic possibilities for our grandchildren’ where he predicted an era of progress where by 2030, technology would not only boost incomes and ultimately solve the production problem, but also reduce the need for labour to a 15 hour work week.

So far he been broadly right on incomes and production, but as for his concept of ‘technological unemployment’ society has found new ways to productively deploy labour in response to the age of disruption.

Our task today as the French Noble Prize winning economist Jean Tirole has pointed out, is to anticipate the challenge that has come with the digital revolution so we can adapt to it as we have done with previous revolutions, rather than merely endure them.

Against this backdrop, I want to talk about three things tonight:

First, how this digital disruption is playing out and how it will continue to evolve;
Second, the implications of this for the Australian economy; and
Third, how the Government is responding to these developments.

* * * * *

Disruption that is unfolding around us

The ability to deconstruct information into bits – ones and zeroes – and seamlessly duplicate and distribute this data through a network of networks has led to an explosion of connectivity and facilitated the rise of the digital economy.

More than half the world’s population are using the internet, and as at December 2018, the United Nations estimated there were some 5.2 billion active mobile broadband subscriptions globally.

Network effects, which occur when the usefulness of a service grows exponentially with the number of users and providers, are flourishing now – and at a scale never seen before.

For example in Australia, there are now more than 80,000 active drivers using the Uber platform, supplying services to around 4 million Australian customers.

Two sided digital platforms are allowing unprecedented numbers of buyers and sellers to come together and interact.They are empowering consumers to make better choices about the products and services they purchase, including a more personalised matching to an individual’s preferences.

These platforms are enabling unused capacity to be filled and utilised more efficiently.

Today we are seeing play out before our eyes the combined effects of:

a massive increase in digital data;
the growing force of computer power;
the ascent of new platforms;
new organising principles of powerful algorithms;
the development of advanced analytical tools and techniques; and
unprecedented ease of connectivity between people.

This perfect storm – decades in the making – has delivered what now seems like the overnight arrival of something that was previously inconceivable: artificial intelligence and machine learning.

In simple language, machines are providing insights and recognising patterns by rapidly processing data which allows predictions, and in many cases decisions, to be made.

For example, Qantas has partnered with the University of Sydney’s Centre for Field Robotics to create a new system called ‘Constellation’ which brings together a database with a decade of weather patterns and combines it with aircraft capability to map out the optimal flight path.

Qantas believes that by sending its aircraft into the strongest jet streams, the system can reduce its fuel bill by $40 million a year and reduce its CO2 emissions substantially.

With greater connectivity and growing networks the so-called Internet of Things is also coming into its own.

Cheaper and more widely available broadband along with huge advances in Wi Fi and sensor technologies has meant that more and more devices and equipment can be connected to the internet.

Business equipment, vehicles, household appliances and wearable devices can communicate with each other and generate data.

For example, your mobile device can be used both remotely or automatically, to change the temperature settings in your house, such as through the air-conditioning system to respond to the movement in electricity prices through the day.

This saves customers money and improves the reliability of the system.

We are now only at the very nascent stage of the Internet of Things and the upward trend in data generated will accelerate into the future.

A super-connected world, combining billions of people with artificial intelligence, online transistors and real life data sets the scene for a process of constant change and improvement.

* * * * * *

As companies adapt to this era of disruption, business transformation has become the order of the day.

For many companies this means devising new digital strategies, new business models and more.

As reported in The Economist last year, of America’s 20 most valuable non-tech firms, 14 have a digital dimension to their strategies.

The message is every firm needs to adapt and look for new opportunities.

Mining

In Australia we’re seeing a big transformation in our world leading mining companies.

Rio Tinto for example has recognised that its future success cannot solely rely on traditional mining mindsets and its legacy asset bases.

It is leading the way internationally with autonomous mining operations in the Pilbara.

Autonomous long distance trains, autonomous haul trucks and autonomous drill systems – all monitored from a control centre located 1,500 kilometres away in Perth.

Its ‘Mine of the Future’ programme will allow assets to be networked together across all components of the mining value chain.

Machines talking to machines will help reduce variability through the system and improve both safety and productivity.

Today’s mining engineers – and those into the future – will be equally specialised in data analytics and artificial intelligence, as they will be in their knowledge of ore bodies.

Autonomous vehicles

Disruptive technologies like autonomous vehicles are likely to profoundly reshape mobility within cities – they will fundamentally change the way people get around and will shape how cities grow into the future.

General Motors has said it is committed to introducing an autonomous ride sharing service to several big cities in the United States and is aiming for a future of zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion.

As with other digital technologies there will be powerful network effects at play.

Of course when it comes to autonomous vehicles, there has been a great deal of promise.

But we should remember Amara’s Law – that we tend to overestimate the impact of a new technology in the short-run, but we underestimate it in the long run.

Healthcare

With a growing and ageing population, there is tremendous upside potential from technology innovation in the health care sector.

As the Productivity Commission has noted, the health sector is very good at generating and storing data, but less effective at translating this data into useful information.

The expanded use of health information and digital technologies – including e health records – can help establish a better evidence base, deliver better quality care, reduce medical errors and streamline administration and overall healthcare efficiency.

Data that allows performance monitoring and comparison of government activities in the healthcare space is a fundamental starting point for improving the delivery of those activities to the community.

At an individual level, data collected through personally controlled devices such as smartphones and health monitors have huge potential to assist medical practitioners and patients.

Looking back over the twentieth century the advancements in health technology have been astounding, for example the introduction of magnetic resonance imaging machines, DNA mapping and antibiotics.

Advances in artificial intelligence are adding to these. For example, we don’t just have MRI’s, we can now use machines to help interpret MRI’s.

Financial Services and Digital Currencies

Australia’s financial sector is also experiencing a wave of innovation-driven disruption with the emergence of the ‘fintech’ sector, using data and latest technology to design and offer better and bespoke products and services.

For example, it is facilitating the development of new payment products with financial services firms having begun to collaborate with technology firms, including most notably Apple’s agreement with the major banks to allow their customers to use Apple Pay.

Closely related to disruption in financial services has been the development and substantial interest in virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies as they are better known.

As the Reserve Bank Governor Phil Lowe has noted, as people’s needs change and technology improves so too does the form that money takes.

Already in Australia we have seen a significant shift to electronic payments with the proportion of cash transactions made by households falling from around 70 per cent in 2007 to 37 per cent by 2016 – with Australians enthusiastic adopters of ‘tap and go’ payments.

The Reserve Bank’s New Payments Platform launched in early 2018 has leveraged digital technologies to improve payment services – allowing Australians to settle their bills in seconds, 24/7 with instant settlement and funds availability.

Cryptocurrencies are designed to mimic cash transactions allowing peer-to-peer transfers of value, without the need to know or trust the other party in the transaction or for any central body to act as an intermediator.

For all of the noise around cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the reality is that they are not currently being widely used for everyday payments.

However Bitcoin’s creation and that of the new Libra currency still in development by Facebook has been instigated through the development of blockchain technology.

These are developments that regulators are watching closely.

It is worth remembering that Governments exist to provide essential public goods and money is one of these very important public goods, providing a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of exchange.

* * * * *

The implications of digital disruption for the Economy

The underlying characteristics of digital technologies – and their application – are having profound impacts on the economy.

These impacts spread across jobs; competition, productivity; and of increasing focus, the tax base.

The future of work

The future of work looms large in the transition to a digital economy as it has done with the previous three industrial revolutions.

Technology has always led to a shift in the types of jobs and skills required.

This does cause people concern as they feel more insecure, not just about their job today but also the future job prospects, including for their children.

This can play out in two ways with the rise of automation and robots taking what would otherwise have been the work of people and the existence of the gig economy which sees workers on short-term contracts or undertaking freelance work paid for a service as opposed to being a permanent employee.

This could include everything from ride share drivers, freelance journalists, self-employed independent contractors and a myriad of services like bookkeeping.

This on-demand workforce is made available by platforms like AirTasker, Freelancer and Uber.

The gig economy which is still emerging may provide for some people greater flexibility, job entry opportunities and satisfaction to workers on the one hand, but on the other, raises challenges around the regulatory framework and its enforcement and the constancy and security of employment.

In each of the industrial revolutions, there has been a shift in the makeup of the workforce.

The question that still remains unanswered for the future of digital revolution is will technology complement and augment the capabilities of workers leading to higher productivity, higher wages and higher output as has been the case with the arrival of the three previous revolutions?

This is where ensuring our education system, including early childhood, schools, VET and universities effectively respond to this challenge will be critical. Problem solving, data science and creative thinking are among the capabilities that will be in demand in this new work environment.

Technology’s impact on productivity

For all of its promise, the digital revolution has been slow to show up in the measured productivity figures as might have been expected.

As I said earlier this week in a speech to the Business Council, there seems to be three main factors at play.

First, as the OECD has found, while innovations are clearly occurring giving benefit to some firms, they have not spread as widely to other firms across the economy as one would hope.

There is a clear gap between those at the frontier and the rest. Many firms appear to be waiting for technologies like Artificial Intelligence, autonomous vehicles or the Internet of Things to mature before they adopt them.

Second, for some technologies it takes time for the full benefits to be seen. This was the case for electrification which arrived in the United States in the 1890’s but took 30 years for factories to reconfigure their processes to enable them to maximise the gains.

A corollary today is the effective use of machine learning which requires a new approach with the right data sets, skill technicians and analysts as well as a regulatory framework fit for purpose.

And third, there is a long run structural shift in the Australian economy towards services as incomes rise.

The services sector which makes up around 70 per cent of the Australian economy compared to around 60 per cent three decades ago, tends to by its nature to have lower levels of productivity.

Services are more labour intensive and less likely to see capital substitution.

However, with the maturation of emerging technologies this could change.

So how much and how quickly our productivity increases from here will depend in part on how governments, employees and employers respond to this changing technology landscape.

* * * * *

How is the Government responding?

At a time of significant technological disruption, questions arise as to what role the government should play and to what extent will it need to impose new regulations?

As with many things governments do, this is all about getting the balance right and exercising judgement around the trade-offs that inevitably arise.

Too much regulation and the incentive to invest will be stifled, while too little regulation and consumers may not trust the products and new services that result.

Digitisation is having an impact in areas which are firmly within the realm of governments.

This includes intellectual property rights; privacy; competition law; employment law; regulation; taxation and cybersecurity.

Governments recognise their obligation to their citizens to ensure their interests are protected as are those of the community as a whole.

As digital revolution rolls on, people need to have confidence in the system’s underpinnings.

Again, as Jean Tirole has observed, social acceptability of digitisation depends on us believing our data will not be used against us; that online platforms will respect the terms of our contracts them; and that their recommendations will be reliable.

* * * * *

In this regard, I wanted to briefly mention tonight three areas of policy reform which fall within my remit as Treasurer and are directly related to the regulatory framework underpinning the growing digitisation of Australia’s economy.

There are the implementation of the Consumer Data Right; the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry; and reforms to ensure Australia’s tax system is able to meet the challenges of a more digitalised economy.

The Consumer Data Right

Earlier this month the Government passed through Parliament an important piece of legislation – the Consumer Data Right.

This law gives consumers new rights to their digital data.

It creates a new lens through which to view personal data – as a valuable asset that is being created and can be utilised.

Consumers will have a right to access information currently held by businesses about the transactions they enter into as consumers.

Importantly it will also allow consumers to request their data to be transferred to third parties which should help reinvigorate competition be it on someone’s mortgage, electricity bill or mobile phone plan.

At the most basic level, accessing this information will help consumers compare and switch products and provide them with scope to better manage their budgets.

More broadly, today one of the barriers to competition is the availability of information. Companies who have collected huge data sets on their customers have a substantial competitive advantage over other businesses trying to compete in the same space.

The consumer data right regime will go some way to addressing this.

The initial application of the law will be to the banking sector with the regime extended in future to the telecommunications and energy sectors.

Eventually we would like to see the Consumer Data Right extended across the economy.

* * * * *

Digital Platforms Inquiry

Last month the Government released a ground-breaking report prepared by the ACCC into digital platforms.

It examined the impact on competition, privacy and consumer outcomes arising from the significant market power of the leading search engines and social media platforms, and in particular Google and Facebook and their influence on the media and advertising market.

The report makes it clear that the digital platforms are an important innovation that have fundamentally changed the way the media content is produced, distributed and consumed.

However the ACCC found that Facebook and Google have grown rapidly over time to become the dominant players in important online markets in Australia, giving them immense market power.

For example, for every $100 spend by advertisers on online advertising, excluding classifieds, $47 goes to Google, $24 to Facebook and $29 to other participants. The market is worth nearly $9 billion annually in Australia, and has increased eight-fold since 2005.

Google and Facebook are dominant with 98 per cent of online searches on mobile devices are with Google and Facebook having approximately 17 million Australian users.

The scale of the advantage of incumbents is enormous.

Moreover, the nature of the services offered by both Google and Facebook allow them to collect an unprecedented amount of personal data, which is then monetised by providing advertisers with highly targeted opportunities.

Our legislative and regulatory framework did not and could not anticipate such a new paradigm – a paradigm which poses a real challenge to regulatory authorities the world over.

The Government is currently consulting on the report’s recommendations but has accepted the ACCC’s overriding conclusion that there is a need for reform – to better protect consumers, improve transparency, recognise power imbalances and ensure that substantial market power is not used to lessen competition in media and advertising services markets.

I expect that the Government will provide its final response to the report before the end of the year.

* * * * *

Digital Tax

The digitalisation of economies is also having far reaching implications for tax systems, both in Australia and around the world.

The current international tax framework applying to companies is based on the location of physical assets, labour and capital, the source of income and the residence of taxpayers and less from where businesses are deriving value from user data or user generated content.

This framework – developed in the 1920s – could not have envisaged the extent to which businesses would become globalised and digitalised.

Today, most major digital businesses are able to access markets via technology without necessarily having a physical presence in that market, allowing them under existing tax rules to pay a lower effective rate of tax then what may apply to other companies.

For example, in 2016-17, despite Google having around $1.5 billion of revenue in Australia, they only paid $33 million of tax on a taxable income of $177 million.

Their effective rate of tax is around 18 per cent, with large deductions before they even get to their taxable income.

Addressing these issues is by no means straightforward and is imposing challenges both for Australia and globally.

While other countries like France and the United Kingdom have sought to introduce a direct tax on digital services, our preference is to work with other countries to achieve a consensus-based solution through the OECD and G20.

We have an ambitious goal of reaching such a consensus by the end of 2020.

* * * * *

Conclusion

In an increasingly competitive and globalised economy, we need to recognise the unprecedented scope and speed of technological change.

It is creating both challenges and opportunities, as it changes every aspect of how we live and how we work.

We cannot stop technological change nor we should we try to. Rather we need to effectively adapt with a clear sense of what is important to us.

As Mark Weiser wrote in the Scientific American back in 1991, ‘The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.’

Our goal – which I am confident that we can achieve with the right policy settings across both the public and private spheres – is to ensure that when these technologies become part of our everyday life they will contribute to a more prosperous, secure and harmonious future for all Australians.

If Zelman was here today, this is not only what he would hope for but what he would use his great capacity to help achieve.

Ends.

Refer further link re: background Sir Zelman Cowen:

Sir Zelman Cowen Forest in Israel

Former Victorian Premier Brumby Quits Huawei Board and Joins La Trobe University

My first feeling in this is of the IT trade war between China and the United States. My next feeling is those in prominent positions joining industry and the revolving door that exists between government and industry. The original intent of government was that these entities were separate as government ensured neutrality so that it could represent the people. Unfortunately in the ruling class they all know each other, they discuss the Boards the are on and they have their own agendas. Business is business.

The video I produced today is on greed. I see the blindness of economic objectives outside of human wellbeing. The disconnect is furthered as industry profits become the goal and the impact on civil society a minor issue. This becomes increasingly evident when one investigates the range of views about 5G and the race between the US and China with IT industry lobbyists taking up positions in Communications as the regulator of the industry. Clearly it is not possible to regulate an industry in the public interest if a person has come from the very industry that is to be regulated. That means they know the people, and often, if not always, have an agenda to promote that industry. This is where the public interest is neglected. We have seen this in the United States and the health implications for civil society are sending out alarm around the world.

The article below informs that the former Victorian Premier John Brumby was on the board of Huawei. There is discussion about Chinese criminality and the potential for the Communist party to spy and gather data. I would assert all the IT companies are spying and data gathering and are contracted to share data with intelligence agencies, notably the 5 Eyes spy network. When you investigate the Boards of IT companies you see the vested interests sitting there which include multinational companies, big data, IT companies, military, intelligence, Accounting firms, universities, former government ministers or public servants and the list goes on. In the country they operate in, the people believe the company is owned by the nation or they have no idea that their data is traded without real consent and used to sell products and services. The greed is what moves this disregard for privacy.

Clearly Huawei would be influenced, if not directed, by the Chinese Communist Party, they are the largest telecommunications company in China note $8.7 billion in profits. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

The issues for Australia are to what extent can the Chinese government penetrate Australia through high level appointments and economic power? Refer foreign ownership of homes (real estate): https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/fears-one-million-aussie-homes-could-soon-be-owned-by-foreign-buyers/news-story/c50a4112bab4f3ed8fae27277f313f54

Australian land sales https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/china-increases-its-stake-in-australian-land-20181220-p50ng0.html

I recall Alexander Downer some years ago attempting to ban protests of Falun Gong outside the Chinese Embassy in Canberra. The government went to court with Falun Gong and the latter won. Refer http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1389732.htm

I interviewed on radio a Chinese woman whose husband had been murdered in China as they practiced Falun Gong. Just last week I noticed they were protesting in Melbourne about organ harvesting of practitioners. This is the very core of the argument about recoupling human rights to trade. Clinton was the one who decoupled human rights. This link refers to Hiliary Clinton favouring economics over human rights when it serves US interests refer https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4735087/Hillary-Clinton-Chinese-human-rights-secondary-to-economic-survival.html

The issue of Guantanamo Bay, 911, the Middle East wars, rendition and its own human rights violations inclusive of leaving the UN Human Rights Council are largely ignored internationally. One rule for one another rule for others. It is all about the money but the argument will frame it as benefiting the people.

The core issue is the economic war that seeks to use issues to weaken the competitor. This is where the nation state serves economic interests and is not representing the people. Refer https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/sanctions-over-china-human-rights-may-strengthen-us-position-in-trade-talks.html

Therefore, where do executives and high profiled people draw the line or is there no line? If the focus is strongly on career, profits, political and business interests at the expense of the public interest then where do we end up? We are walking in the shadow of the United States and the ideological economic rationalism of privatisation of public assets. This utilises government taxation to take on the risk in projects to enable the private sector to lower risk and project high profits and in some cases the public asset is transferred to them. This dominates the discussion as equity financing replaces government taxation attracting high interest rates (exponential) and demands profits through users pay e.g. toll ways. The original purpose of government provision of public services quietly transforms into private provision of government services in million and billion dollar public/private partnership deals.

The contraction of global markets with a mentality of cut and move on (acquisitions, arbitrage, futures markets, speculation in profit maximisation) diminishes the public purse which typically had longer horizons with cross subsidisation built into government funding planning to ensure egalitarianism as advancing Australia Fair and public order.

Ultimately under the new rules of private engagement the public pay more (in taxation, GST, direct fees, fines, taxes) out of ever more diminishing incomes. The multiple propensity to consume (MPC) shrinks which impacts economic growth but is hidden by activity from both foreign and domestic companies. The chairs rearrange.

This most favoured status given to the megolithic multi-nationals (changing names, subsidiaries, rebranding) gives the impression of wealth but the reality is equity finance is expensive, the risk is carried by the firm and attracts high costs and interest rates. It deepens indebtedness which is the lever that can be used to influence domestic policy that would have funded social programs. This is the opportunity cost in favour of business. Thus the left/right propaganda is used to weaken calls for public expenditure as unrealistic and economically unviable. This is how the middle class becomes pauparised as the extremes start to polarise between those with extreme wealth and those living in extreme poverty. This is how policy creates social unrest and blames the public through repressive techniques. The shape changer of democracy takes on a totalitarian profile with increasing calls for surveillance, funding a security apparatus with intrusive technologies (purchased from these IT companies) removing human rights and privacy to ensure control rather than squarely facing the reality of an economic mismanagement and greed as the driver of market concentration and serving of specific foreign interests. Egalitarianism and social democracy transforms into a compliance framework that favours the few over the rights of the many and is ultimately de-stabilising globally as we are all connected. The public believes the propaganda that budgets are balanced when the debt is off the balance sheet as the risk was transferred.

So powerful companies like Huawei and Google for example, both titans in the IT industry have disproportionate concentration of power and hence, political influence and penetration into markets to serve interests and agendas that may provide token jobs (benefits) but ultimately are the old paradigm of profit maximisation. The profits move off shore and we see the economic cake unravel to be replaced by AI and automation. At the same time ‘greed’ as dis-ease is not in balance with ecological limits (silent spring) takes more than it needs and is non responsive to natural rhythms that rebalance planetary systems. This is why the titanic is sinking and the planet is groaning under the strain of humans who have no real connection to themselves, each other or the natural sytems. The nature of ‘greed’ is to follow selfish interests not respond to expanded best interest that includes resources (natural bounty). This disconnect renders many of the capitalist/communist (whatever) business interests blind to the dangerous situation they have set up. Some may smile and decide to fly to the moon or mars, but ultimately karma follows as the real problem was never solved at its inception. The real insecurity, fear and greed fuelling imbalance. When this is investigated inequality disappears, natural imbalances recalibrate and we begin to see ourselves in each other. This is the shift in consciousness I refer to in my video. I felt the video permeate this blog as I feel inspired to integrate it into an example given by the article.

So a few questions for society to consider:

Is it in the national interest for political or influential figures to join with foreign multinational companies and share their knowledge, resources and networks?
Given the US trade war any persons or entities involved in Huawei becomes a ‘threat’ as US penetration in Australia evokes its influence in networks, government, policy, security and regulatory environments. Is this in the Australian public interest?

Thus the wicked webs we weave that continues on a trajectory spiralling to the bottom until we awaken. Only the truth sets us free.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/brumby-quits-huawei-board-days-after-us-criminal-charges-outlined-20190201-p50v10.html

Brumby quits Huawei board days after US criminal charges outlined

Former Victorian premier John Brumby has resigned from the board of Huawei’s Australian operations in a damaging blow to the Chinese technology giant just days after the US government outlined a criminal case against it.

Mr Brumby’s decision to quit comes two days after The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive at the centre of the alleged global criminal conspiracy, established and oversaw the company’s activities in Australia between 2005 and 2011.

The former Labor politician’s future at Huawei Technologies (Australia) has been under a cloud since June, after he announced he was reviewing all his directorships upon assuming the role of Chancellor of Melbourne’s La Trobe University.

This week’s release of an indictment against Huawei and key executives by the US Justice Department has increased interest in Mr Brumby’s position on the company’s board.

Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou arrives at a parole office.

NATIONAL SECURITY

China exec accused of criminal conspiracy set up Huawei in Australia

Mr Brumby said on Friday that the timing of his resignation, which will be effective from next month, was unrelated to the scandal enveloping the company.

He said he had informed the board a year ago of his intention to resign and was proud of the firm’s local growth.

‘‘We have had some challenging times … Huawei Australia has continued to go from strength to strength.’’

Ms Wanzhou is alleged by the US to have been a key player in a conspiracy to defraud international banks and US officials about the company’s Iran operations. The criminal case against Huawei also involves allegations it stole trade secrets from rival T-Mobile.

Though there is no suggestion that Ms Wanzhou was engaged in any criminal activity in Australia, the US Department of Justice case against her and the company includes the period of time she was overseeing Huawei’s corporate governance and strategy in Australia.

The December arrest of Ms Wanzhou in Canada at the request of the US government triggered a strong response from Beijing, with two Canadian citizens and Chinese-born Australian writer Yang Hengjun detained in China.

Mr Brumby will become Chancellor of La Trobe University in March.

Ms Wanzhou is the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, a former engineer in the Chinese military.

Mr Brumby joined the Huawei board in Australia in 2011 shortly before the departure of Ms Wanzhou. Former foreign minister Alexander Downer and former Navy rear-admiral John Lord were also appointed to the Huawei board in an effort by the company to build political and defence credibility.

The high-profile Australian trio have been outspoken in defending Huawei against criticism from Australia and the US, whose respective intelligence agencies fear the company could be vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party to spy on or sabotage data and phone networks.

Mr Brumby, Mr Lord and, until his 2014 appointment as Australia’s high commissioner to the UK, Mr Downer, have all previously pointed out that there has been no hard evidence produced anywhere to show Huawei was involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Chinese government.

The company has made a priority of ensuring its Australian directors have been looked after well at home and abroad. It is understood some Australian-based directors have been paid as much as $250,000 a year, though Huawei has declined to confirm this.

Despite its high-powered Australian board, Huawei has been prevented by successive Australian governments from participating in the NBN rollout and the 5G mobile network, with security agencies warning against the involvement of the Chinese firm.

Australia’s hard line position on Huawei has emboldened other western allies to restrict the Chinese company’s involvement in sensitive infrastructure.

In a statement released in the wake of the US charges, Huawei said it was disappointed to learn of the charges and believed the US courts would find no evidence Ms Meng or the company breached US laws.

Autonomous Vehicles Pros and Cons

This article is from a pro SMART Cities site. I will provide critical questions and comments in CAPITALS.

OPINION

The need for smart maintenance of autonomous vehicles

Though the timeline of AV development is hotly debated, every major manufacturer and a plethora of startups are involved in the race to deliver smarter, more efficient mobility options.

WHY?

AUTHOR

Amir Hever

PUBLISHED

June 10, 2019

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post from Amir Hever, co-founder and CEO of UVeye.

For years, the modern city has been built around the car, particularly privately-owned cars. Roads and parking structures take up enormous amounts of space, traffic dictates travel times, and inaccessible neighborhoods often suffer from lack of economic development. In short, modern cities are built around an inefficient, often inconvenient mode of transportation.

WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM: THE NUMBER OF CARS, PRIVATELY OWNED, LACK OF SPACE, TRAFFIC, LACK OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OR POOR PLANNING GIVEN JOBS ARE AVAILABLE IN CITIES NOT SPREAD OUT REGIONALLY?

NOTE: Why not encourage regional development, smaller villages, quality of life rather than economic growth given ecological impacts?

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the potential to solve many of these challenges. By shifting car use and encouraging more efficient ride-sharing models, AVs will reduce the need for parking structures. Ride-sharing will also reduce traffic as people use pool options rather than individual cars to commute during peak hours. Furthermore, accessible transit options will improve the economic conditions of neighborhoods that are otherwise difficult to reach.

HOW IS CAR USE SHIFTED? WILL PEOPLE RIDE OR SHARE GIVEN THEY ARE NOT NOW?

HOW WILL THEY REDUCE THE NEED FOR PARKING?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THOSE ON LOW INCOMES?

WHY NOT DECENTRALISE TO STOP CONGESTION?

IS ACCESSIBILITY TO TRANSIT A PROBLEM?

WHAT IF IT WAS UNDERGROUND AND FREE?

Fortunately, the auto industry has become more invested in delivering on AVs. Though the timeline of AV development is hotly debated, every major manufacturer and a plethora of startups are involved in the race to deliver smarter, more efficient mobility options.

WHY IS THE AUTO INDUSTRY INVESTING? IS IT TO ENSURE FOSSIL FUELS OR ELECTRIC CAR USE?

IS IT TO ENSURE THE USE OF CARS?

WHY ARE THEY USING START UPS (NON PROFITS)?

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE CORPORATE STRUCTURES TO NON PROFITS HENCE DOES THIS REDUCE TAXATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY? HOW IS THAT FAIR?

Every aspect of the modern vehicle is being questioned — from ownership (or lack thereof), to if they will even need steering wheels. But even as billions are being invested in building the autonomous, connected and environmentally-friendly car of the future, consumers are still wary of automated transportation.

WHO IS QUESTIONING? THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR?

OWNERSHIP IS BEING BROUGHT UP, IS THIS PART OF A PLAN TO REMOVE ALL OWNERSHIP TO RENDER THE PUBLIC DEPENDENT ON A CITY STATE THAT IS PRIVATE NOT PUBLIC?

ARE THE ELECTRIC CARS ENVIRONMENTAL WHEN USING FOSSIL FUELS? ARE THEY ZERO EMISSIONS?

Assuring the public

A key challenge to public adoption of autonomous driving is the lack of trust. Getting into an unfamiliar car has only recently started becoming a “normal” activity, and safety concerns still abound for both riders and drivers.

THE LACK OF TRUST IS BECAUSE OF GREED, PROFIT OVER PEOPLE IS A PATTERN THAT HAS NOT ABATED.

AN UNFAMILIAR CAR IS NOT AN ISSUE, IT IS THE COST AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS THAT IS IMPORTANT. I USED A TAXI THAT WAS A CAR IN BOLIVIA AND HAD NO ISSUE WITH SHARING IT. IT WAS A CHEAP TAXI.

THE SAFETY ISSUE IS BECAUSE IT IS DRIVERLESS. THERE IS NO CONTROL IF THE CAR IS INTERFERED WITH EXTERNALLY. WHAT IF A SOLAR FLARE TAKES OUT COMMUNICATIONS, OR SOME RANDOM EVENT, CYBER WARFARE ETC. THE AI IS NOT AS LATERAL AS A HUMAN BRAIN.

Though autonomous driving will eliminate some issues, others will certainly take their place. Driving is not just about steering a car from place to place; the driver’s seat is also central to ensuring that a car is functioning. Warning lights, fuel gauges and haptic feedback from the brakes and accelerator are all centered around the driver. Without a person behind the wheel, countless questions around reliability emerge.

WHAT ISSUES WILL AUTONOMOUS DRIVING ELIMINATE? WHO?

HOW IS THE DRIVERS SEAT CENTRAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CAR (ENGINE?).

I TRUST AND PREFER TO TALK TO A PERSON THAN A BLOODY PRETEND PERSON LOOKING HUMAN BUT ACTUALLY A ROBOT. IT IS DEHUMANISING AND IT IS TAKING JOBS.

THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IS ANTI-HUMAN.

New technologies such as machine learning and computer vision will be able to make maintenance checks faster and more accessible, ensuring that cars without a driver monitoring their performance will be safe and reliable. Starting with the assembly line, manufacturers will need to adopt new technology to reassure consumers and pave the way for AVs.

WHAT OF MECHANICS? HOW WILL MANUFACTURERS ADOPT NEW TECHNOLOGY?

HOW WILL THEY REASSURE CONSUMERS (WHAT OF THOSE ON LOW INCOMES?).

THIS CREATES A SOCIETY OF HAVES AND HAVE NOTS. THOSE WHO CAN’T AFFORD (40% UNEMPLOYMENT DUE TO AUTOMATION) WILL GROW.

THIS DISRUPTION IF ANALYSED WITHIN A COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BENEFIT PEOPLE OR THE ENVIRONMENT. IT SIMPLY COSTS LESS AND THE CONTROL MOVES FROM PEOPLE TO MACHINES.

As the technology inside cars becomes more advanced, so will the technology needed to build them. Manufacturers need to invest in their factories to ensure AVs can enter the mainstream with sufficient safety protocols throughout the entire lifecycle of the vehicle. As recently as 2017, manufacturers recalled more vehicles than they sold, a sign of an already outdated inspection system that can only react to dangerous defects, not prevent them.

DO WE WANT MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY OR IS IT THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY?

WE WANT PEOPLE TO BUILD SO THEY DON’T LOSE THE EXPERTISE.

DO WE WANT AV’S TO ENTER THE MAINSTREAM. I PREFER MY CAR AS ALL MY THINGS ARE IN IT GIVEN I AM HOMELESS. I LIKE TO DRIVE WHERE I WANT. I DON’T WANT TO DESIGN MY LIFE AROUND AUTOMATION.

IMPROVE THE INSPECTION SYSTEM BY FUNDING IT. RACQ/V USED TO HAVE SERVICE STATIONS THAT LOOKED OVER VEHICLES PRIOR TO REGISTRTION. LOOK AT TRAINING THE PUBLIC. HAS THE PRIVATISATION OF TRAINING CAUSED A DECREASE IN EXPERTISE GIVEN PROFIT MOVES STUDENTS THROUGH UNIVERSITIES AND ENSURES THEY GRADUATE (SATISFIED CUSTOMER) RATHER THAN A GOVERNMENT FUNDED SCHOOL WHERE THEY MUST BE ASSESSED PROPERLY AND THEY MAY FAIL IF NOT UP TO SPEED. WE SAW IN CONSTRUCTIONS STANDARDS FALLING DUE TO DEREGULATION. THIS ISSUE IS HAPPENING IN BUILDING INSPECTIONS WHERE THEY ARE SUB-STANDARD. SO THE REAL ISSUE IS QUALITY TRAINING AND GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

HARMONY IS ABOUT BALANCE. THE PUBLIC HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY INFORMED OR FORUMS CREATED TO DEBATE THESE ISSUES AS THEY IMPACT PEOPLE’S LIVES. WE ARE TOLD IT IS INEVITABLE – IS IT? ALWAYS INDUSTRY GOES AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC AND DESIGNS ON THEIR BEHALF WITHOUT REAL LISTENING. THEY DO NOT DESIGN OUT OF PUBLIC DEMAND THEY CREATE DEMAND BY DESIGN. THIS IS THE IMBALANCE.

IT IS ALL ABOUT PROFITS NOT WHAT THE REAL NEEDS OF PEOPLE ARE. THIS IS WHY THERE IS DISTRUST OF INDUSTRY. THERE MAY BE POCKETS WHO ARE INTERESTED, ENTHUSIASTIC AND EXCITED BY IT, BUT IF THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC YO MUST EVALUATE THE WHOLE PUBLIC IMPACT. EVALUATE THE SOCIO EMOTIONAL / LIFESTYLE IMPACTS. ASK HOW DOES IT DIVIDE SOCIETY OR DOES IT UNITE? WHAT ARE THE COSTS? WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? WHAT ABOUT POLLUTION (ELECTRICITY)? OR DOES IT JUST DO THE SAME THING AS BEFORE, JUST WITHOUT A DRIVER AND THE LOSS OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY AND CIVIL INDEPENDENCE.