While the world is still very much in the transition phase with 5G, research is already well underway for the next iteration of the technology standard for mobile broadband networks – 6G.
Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that, according to a whitepaper by Samsung it takes an average of ten years for a new standard to become ready for commercialization, with 5G taking eight years. The tech giant suggested a potential rollout date of 2028-2030 for 6G, highlighting the urgent need for progress to be made.
As this infographic shows, the country at the front of this new charge is China.
Data from the Cyber Creative Institute as covered by Nikkei Asia shows that of around 20,000 6G-related patent applications as of August 2021, 40.3 percent originated from the Asian superpower. The United States isn’t far behind, however, claiming 35.2 percent of the applications. The home of Samsung, South Korea, is in fifth place (when combining applications for European countries) with 4.2 percent.
The source assessed patent applications for nine core 6G technologies including communications, quantum technology, base stations and artificial intelligence. 6G is expected to be about ten times faster than 5G.
An expanding category of software, apps, and devices is normalizing cradle-to-grave surveillance in more and more aspects of everyday life. At EFF we call them “disciplinary technologies.” They typically show up in the areas of life where surveillance is most accepted and where power imbalances are the norm: in our workplaces, our schools, and in our homes.
At work, employee-monitoring “bossware” puts workers’ privacy and security at risk with invasive time-tracking and “productivity” features that go far beyond what is necessary and proportionate to manage a workforce. At school, programs like remote proctoring and social media monitoring follow students home and into other parts of their online lives. And at home, stalkerware, parental monitoring “kidware” apps, home monitoring systems, and other consumer tech monitor and control intimate partners, household members, and even neighbors. In all of these settings, subjects and victims often do not know they are being surveilled, or are coerced into it by bosses, administrators, partners, or others with power over them.
Disciplinary technologies are often marketed for benign purposes: monitoring performance, confirming compliance with policy and expectations, or ensuring safety. But in practice, these technologies are non-consensual violations of a subject’s autonomy and privacy, usually with only a vague connection to their stated goals (and with no evidence they could ever actually achieve them). Together, they capture different aspects of the same broader trend: the appearance of off-the-shelf technology that makes it easier than ever for regular people to track, control, and punish others without their consent.
The application of disciplinary technologies does not meet standards for informed, voluntary, meaningful consent. In workplaces and schools, subjects might face firing, suspension, or other severe punishment if they refuse to use or install certain software—and a choice between invasive monitoring and losing one’s job or education is not a choice at all. Whether the surveillance is happening on a workplace- or school-owned device versus a personal one is immaterial to how we think of disciplinary technology: privacy is a human right, and egregious surveillance violates it regardless of whose device or network it’s happening on.
And even when its victims might have enough power to say no, disciplinary technology seeks a way to bypass consent. Too often, monitoring software is deliberately designed to fool the end-user into thinking they are not being watched, and to thwart them if they take steps to remove it. Nowhere is this more true than with stalkerware and kidware—which, more often than not, are the exact same apps used in different ways.
There is nothing new about disciplinary technology. Use of monitoring software in workplaces and educational technology in schools, for example, has been on the rise for years. But the pandemic has turbo-charged the use of disciplinary technology on the premise that, if in-person monitoring is not possible, ever-more invasive remote surveillance must take its place. This group of technologies and the norms it reinforces are becoming more and more mainstream, and we must address them as a whole.
To determine the extent to which certain software, apps, and devices fit under this umbrella, we look at a few key areas:
The surveillance is the point. Disciplinary technologies share similar goals. The privacy invasions from disciplinary tech are not accidents or externalities: the ability to monitor others without consent, catch them in the act, and punish them is a selling point of the system. In particular, disciplinary technologies tend to create targets and opportunities to punish them where none existed before.
This distinction is particularly salient in schools. Some educational technology, while inviting in third parties and collecting student data in the background, still serves clear classroom or educational purposes. But when the stated goal is affirmative surveillance of students—via face recognition, keylogging, location tracking, device monitoring, social media monitoring, and more—we look at that as a disciplinary technology.
Consumer and enterprise audiences. Disciplinary technologies are typically marketed to and used by consumers and enterprise entities in a private capacity, rather than the police, the military, or other groups we traditionally associate with state-mandated surveillance or punishment. This is not to say that law enforcement and the state do not use technology for the sole purpose of monitoring and discipline, or that they always use it for acceptable purposes. What disciplinary technologies do is extend that misuse.
With the wider promotion and acceptance of these intrusive tools, ordinary citizens and the private institutions they rely on increasingly deputize themselves to enforce norms and punish deviations. Our workplaces, schools, homes, and neighborhoods are filled with cameras and microphones. Our personal devices are locked down to prevent us from countermanding the instructions that others have inserted into them. Citizens are urged to become police, in a digital world increasingly outfitted for the needs of a future police state.
Disciplinary technologies disproportionately hurt marginalized groups. In the workplace, the most dystopian surveillance is used on the workers with the least power. In schools, programs like remote proctoring disadvantage disabled students, Black and brown students, and students without access to a stable internet connection or a dedicated room for test-taking. Now, as schools receive COVID relief funding, surveillance vendors are pushing expensive tools that will disproportionately discriminate against the students already most likely to be hardest hit by the pandemic. And in the home, it is most often (but certainly not exclusively) women, children, and the elderly who are subject to the most abusive non-consensual surveillance and monitoring.
And in the end, it’s not clear that disciplinary technologies even work for their advertised uses. Bossware does not conclusively improve business outcomes, and instead negatively affects employees’ job satisfaction and commitment. Similarly, test proctoring software fails to accurately detect or prevent cheating, instead producing rampant false positives and overflagging. And there’s little to no independent evidence that school surveillance is an effective safety measure, but plenty of evidence that monitoring students and children does decrease perceptions of safety, equity, and support, negatively affect academic outcomes, and can have a chilling effect on development that disproportionately affects minoritized groups and young women. If the goal is simply to use surveillance to give authority figures even more power, then disciplinary technology could be said to “work”—but at great expense to its unwilling targets, and to society as a whole.
The Way Forward Fighting just one disciplinary technology at a time will not work. Each use case is another head of the same Hydra that reflects the same impulses and surveillance trends. If we narrowly fight stalkerware apps but leave kidware and bossware in place, the fundamental technology will still be available to those who wish to abuse it with impunity. And fighting student surveillance alone is untenable when scholarly bossware can still leak into school and academic environments.
The typical rallying cries around user choice, transparency, and strict privacy and security standards are not complete remedies when the surveillance is the consumer selling point. Fixing the spread of disciplinary technology needs stronger medicine. We need to combat the growing belief, funded by disciplinary technology’s makers, that spying on your colleagues, students, friends, family, and neighbors through subterfuge, coercion, and force is somehow acceptable behavior for a person or organization. We need to show how flimsy disciplinary technologies’ promises are; how damaging its implementations can be; and how, for every supposedly reasonable scenario its glossy advertising depicts, the reality is that misuse is the rule, not the exception.
We’re working at EFF to craft solutions to the problems of disciplinary technology, from demanding anti-virus companies and app stores recognize spyware more explicitly, pushing companies to design for abuse cases, and exposing the misuse of surveillance technology in our schools and in our streets. Tools that put machines in power over ordinary people are a sickening reversal of how technology should work. It will take technologists, consumers, activists and the law to put it right
With the USA Biden Presidency, Washington has rejoined the Global Warming agenda of the Paris Accords. With China making loud pledges about meeting strict CO2 emission standards by 2060, now the World Economic Forum is about to unveil what will transform the way we all live in what WEF head Klaus Schwab calls the Great Reset.Make no mistake. This all fits into an agenda that has been planned for decades by old wealth families such as Rockefeller and Rothschild. Brzezinski called it the end of the sovereign nation state.
After Covid, Davos Moves To Great Reset
David Rockefeller called it “one world government.” George H.W. Bush in 1990 called it the New World Order. Now we can better see what they plan to impose if we allow.The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum is a 21st Century rollout for a new form of global total control.“We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind. We have to decarbonise the economy in the short window still remaining and bring our thinking and behaviour once more into harmony with nature,” declared WEF founder Schwab about the January 2021 agenda.The last time these actors did something at all similar in scope was in 1939 on the very eve of World War II.
War & Peace Studies
At that time the Rockefeller Foundation financed a top secret strategy group working out of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. It was known as the War and Peace Studies and headed by ‘America’s Haushofer,’ geographer Isaiah Bowman of Johns Hopkins University.Before German Panzer tanks had even rolled into Poland, they were planning a postwar world where the United States would emerge as the sole victor and replace the British as the global hegemonic power.Formulation of a US-dominated United Nations and Bretton Woods monetary order based on the dollar was part of their project.In 1941 as America formally entered the war, the CFR group sent a memo to the US State Department:“If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect.”That successful project has been the framework of what Henry Luce in 1941 called the American Century, and lasted until quite recently.Now those same families, again including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rothschilds in the person of Lynn de Rothschild’s “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican,” are moving to create the next generation in their pursuit of global domination.It’s being called the Great Reset. It requires global government, a plank significantly endorsed by the Jesuit Pope Francis.Its PR man, Klaus Schwab, is a self-admitted protégé of Rockefeller insider Henry Kissinger, from their days 50 years ago at Harvard.‘Build Back Better’Joe Biden’s Campaign Slogan ‘build Back Better’ Was Actually Taken From Un’s New World Order AgendaIn May, 2020 as the coronavirus had caused global panic lockdowns far beyond the initial outbreak in Wuhan, the British Crown Prince Charles, together with the World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, unveiled what they gleefully named the Great Reset.Increasingly world political and business leaders are using terms such as “the Great Reset,” or “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and the call to “Build Back Better” which the Biden Administration prefers.They all are anchored on the same set of dramatic global changes. The US Green New Deal and the EU European Green Deal are all part of it.The most striking fact about the agenda of the Great Reset is that it is being advanced by the same giga-rich plutocrat families responsible for the flaws of the present world economic model.They, not we, have created ruin of organic fields and nature with their Roundup glyphosate and toxic pesticides. They have ruined the air quality in our cities by the transportation models they force on us.They created the “free market” model of globalization that has ruined the industrial base of the United States and the industrial EU nations.Now, as they blame us for an alleged catastrophic emission of CO2, we’re being conditioned to accept guilt and be punished in order to “save the next generation” for Greta and friends.
The 4th Industrial Revolution
Behind the seductive rhetoric of the Powers That Be on creating a “sustainable” world, lies an agenda of raw eugenics, depopulation on a scale never before tried. It is not human, in fact, some call it “transhuman.”In 2016 WEF head Schwab wrote a book titled Shaping the Future of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.In it, he describes the technological changes coming with the 4th Industrial Revolution of 5G smart phones, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence that link everything to everything to make the most banal decisions for us such as buying more milk or turning down the stove.At the same time data is centralized in private corporations such as Google or Facebook to monitor every breath we take.Schwab describes how new generation technologies, already being rolled out by Google, Huawei, Facebook and countless others, will allow governments to “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior… Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us — they will become part of us,” said Schwab.“Today’s external devices — from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets — will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains.”Schwab adds, “What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.” Among those fusion technologies are, “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies,” Schwab explained.These “implantable devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally, through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals.”I don’t know about you but I am not eager to have the state or Google read my brainwaves.Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned To Usher In The New World Order
Control Our Food
The confusing aspect for many is the plethora of front groups, NGOs and programs which all lead to the same goal: the drastic control over every member of society in the name of sustainability — UN Agenda 2030. Nowhere is it more ominous than in their plans for the future of our food.Also read: Bill Gates Buying Up Huge Amount Of Farmland While ‘Great Reset’ Tells Americans Future Is No Private Property AND Why Is Bill Gates Buying Up Farmland Across America?After creating the present system of globalized industrial agriculture, agribusiness, a project begun in the 1950s by the Rockefeller Foundation, the same circles now advocate “sustainable” agriculture which will mean a shift to genetically edited fake foods, lab-made synthetic meats and such, even including worms and weeds as new food sources.The WEF’S Schwab has partnered with something called EAT Forum, which describes itself as a “Davos for food” that plans to “set the political agenda.”EAT was created in Sweden in 2016 with support from the UK Wellcome Trust (established with funds from GlaxoSmithKline), and the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Lab-grown synthetic gene-edited meats are being supported among others by Bill Gates, the same one backing Moderna and other genetically edited vaccines.EAT works among others with Impossible Foods and other biotech companies. Impossible Foods was initially co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Recent lab results showed the company’s imitation meat contained toxic glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor.In 2017 EAT launched FReSH (Food Reform for Sustainability and Health) with the backing of Bayer AG, one of the world’s most toxic pesticide and GMO producers that now owns Monsanto; the China-owned GMO and pesticide giant Syngenta, Cargill, Unilever, DuPont and even Google.This is the planned food future under the Great Reset. Forget the traditional family farmer.In his 2020 book on The Great Reset, Schwab argues that biotechnology and genetically modified food should become a central pillar to global food scarcity issues, issues which COVID has exacerbated. He is pushing GMO and especially the controversial gene-editing.He writes “global food security will only be achieved if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.”Gates, a project partner with Schwab since years, has argued the same.EAT has developed what it refers to as “the planetary health diet,” which the WEF champions as the “sustainable dietary solution of the future.”But according to Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels:“The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”Like everything else with the Great Reset, we will not be given a real choice in food. EAT notes it will be forced on us by, “hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.”We will all be forced to eat the same synthetic diet or starve.This is just a hint of what is being prepared under the guise of COVID-19 lockdowns and economic collapse, and 2021 will be a decisive year for this anti-human agenda.The introduction of AI, robots, and other digital technologies will enable the Powers That Be to dispose of hundreds of millions of workplaces.Contrary to their propaganda, new jobs will not be sufficient. We will become increasingly “redundant.” This all seems too surreal until you read from their own descriptions.The fact that the cabal of the world’s most influential corporations and billionaires sit on the board of WEF with Kissinger’s student, Klaus Schwab, along with the head of the UN and of the IMF, with the CEOs of the world’s largest financial giants including BlackRock, BlackStone, Christine Lagarde of the European Central Bank, David Rubenstein of Carlyle group, Jack Ma, richest billionaire in China, is proof enough this Great Reset is not being done with our true interests at heart, despite their silky words.This dystopian agenda is 1984 on steroids. COVID-19 was merely the prelude.
-By F. William Engdahl, strategic risk consultant and lecturer. He holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”