The Weaponization of Data

When I graduated with my MBA in 1975, the world’s six top companies were Exxon Mobil, General Motors, Ford, Texaco, and Mobil – two U.S. automobile manufacturers and four U.S. oil companies. 

Today, the top six companies are Apple, Saudi Aramco, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Tesla – three U.S. technology companies, one U.S. online retailer, one Saudi oil company, and one U.S. car company. Of these, only Saudi Aramco existed in 1975.

In 1975, companies focused on making products for sale to consumers. Information flowed one way, from the companies out, and information collection by companies was rudimentary at best given the technology available. Privacy was not a concern for most of us since mechanisms for compromising it did not exist.

One might say that today’s six top global companies are in the energy and technology business. But, in reality, five of them are also in the data management business. They control trillions of bytes of information on each and every one of us – from our purchasing tastes to our credit scores.

In this context, I also believe that banks and credit card companies today are starting to view data mining almost as important to them as money management. Among their main assets are the massive amounts of data that they control on every individual and company that use their services.

Banks and credit card services know your individual travel patterns and purchasing patterns. They can tailor marketing initiatives to individual tastes and “guide” consumers towards new products.

Similarly, Tesla controls all of the information that is downloads to and from its vehicles. It knows where you are and where you go. Last week, Ford and General Motors signed deals with Tesla to use its global charging network to fuel their electric vehicles. Suddenly, Tesla has potential to become a major global energy company.

Majority shareholder Elon Musk also owns Twitter, one of the world’s major disseminators of instant information. He is molding it to his own vision and political views a as the platform controls the flow of information to hundreds of millions of decision makers globally. 

More importantly, however, is Musk’s intention to turn Twitter into an online payment and banking service. With Twitter’s 350 million subscribers, it could quickly become the world’s largest financial services system – one capable not only of transferring funds and issuing loans and financing to corporate and individual account holders but also of tracking clients’ individual preferences through its control of trending topics and discussion threads and its massive and precise use of its own algorithms. 

The world’s largest and most powerful banking system composed of trillions of bytes could be here soon, and the global banking system could undergo a massive disruption and transformation sooner than we think.

Mark Zuckerberg is the majority shareholder of Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Most Gen Xers get their news from online platforms and not from traditional news sources. Again, Zuckerberg controls three major influencer sources and can mold public opinion to his tastes.

Technology has made us subservient to the wishes of those who control it. Data is power, and those who control it must be accountable to some authority to ensure that power is not abused and doesn’t place individuals and society in danger of losing freedom and anonymity.

Who can hold these powers accountable?

In a globalized world, national boundaries and legislation can be limited in their ability to control global companies. 

China has tried to control the influx of information by banning platforms from disseminating information that goes counter to its government’s interests. But can a major economy continue to thrive by choking off the flow of information from its global clientele? Can China continue to grow if its people are cut off from knowledge and exchanges of ideas and information with the rest of the world?

Can the United Nations do anything to provide a controlling mechanism when it is completely dysfunctional? Will individual states relinquish their national sovereignty to a global system that puts decision making beyond their exclusive control? 

On June 12th, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres announced plans to create a declaration of principles to govern artificial intelligence and social media platforms. States and companies would commit to avoid allowing disinformation and hate speech to circulate online.

While this sounds encouraging, most governments engage in some form of disinformation and outright hacking, using technology to penetrate and manipulate the data of friend and foe to control and influence elections and public opinion. 

Unfortunately, U.N. declarations are never enforced nor respected by signatories. States look for advantages over friends and foes, while companies look at the bottom line and more often than not place profits ahead of principle. 

Today we face an existential threat. Our survival as individuals enjoying a certain amount of freedom depends on our ability to limit the powers of those who can control and manipulate data. 

Absent this, we will fall prey to those who manage data for their own interests rather than ours.

[email protected]

Keep reading: The Latin American Left

dición: Fernando Sierra