Aotearoa New Zealand makes up a small portion of the world’s population, yet the country is being hit by a relatively bigger share of cyber attacks.

Chances are, you’re familiar with the term ‘distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack’. Not because your organisation has been subjected to one, but instead, the recent numerous, high profile attacks on local and global businesses have captured your attention.

With cyber attacks ramping up across the globe and Aotearoa New Zealand an attractive target, every business—no matter the size—must put protections in place.

What’s a DDoS attack?

Designed to disrupt the normal function of a server, DDoS attacks harness compromised computers and hardware like Internet of Things (IoT) devices to flood the target or its surrounding infrastructure with traffic. This influx can slow down or overwhelm a website or service, denying access to genuine traffic.

DDoS attacks are on the rise across the world, with attackers using different styles of malicious activity to take down websites and even using them as an attempt to extort money. Businesses from all industries were victims of ransom DDoS (RDDoS) attacks in 2021, and Q4 saw a 29% YoY and 177% QoQ increase.

New Zealand is a prime target

Only three active undersea submarine cables connect Aotearoa New Zealand to the outside world. In comparison to the rest of the world, this relatively small number makes it easier for the country’s networks to be overwhelmed.

In fact, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) reported an increase in criminal or financially motivated actors with a significant national impact or potential to cause serious harm in its 2020-21 threat report (27% compared to 14% the year prior).

A spate of high profile, local businesses experienced repeated DDoS attacks over the last 18 months—from Vocus to one coordinated attack on NZ Post, MetService, Kiwibank, ANZ and Inland Revenue.

However, it is critical to note that organisations of any size can fall victim to a DDoS or RDDoS attack. No business is immune, and the impacts can be significant.

How can businesses prevent these types of attacks?

Most organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand are still trying to protect themselves using traditional security measures that are no match for a burgeoning tide of bots, ready to be mobilised against them in a few strokes of a keyboard.

While this might sound daunting, implementing good cyber security protections against DDoS attacks does not need to be.

1. Speak with your network provider to understand what DDoS mitigation services they offer and how much traffic they can mitigate before your organisation is affected. This is an added service for some providers, while others might charge surge pricing in the unlucky instance that your website is bombarded with traffic during a DDoS attack.
2. Ramp up your front-line protection. Engage a provider with specially designed network equipment or a cloud-based protection service to mitigate your business from incoming threats. Here, it’s essential to consider the potential risk to your company and consider the scalability, flexibility, reliability and network size of potential providers. For example, large-scale attacks have the potential to take out on-site network infrastructure, while cloud-based solutions can scale when mitigating attacks.

3. Create a DDoS attack incident response plan. The overwhelming nature of a DDoS attack can take out multiple systems and services, not just your website. And in the moment, it’s easy for panic to set in. Be proactive, create a dedicated DDoS incident response plan, and conduct exercises to ensure its effectiveness.

4. Regularly patch your systems, software and hardware. Developers regularly release updates to decrease or eliminate vulnerabilities in software. Applying these patches to operating systems, applications, and all network-connected devices in real-time is the simplest way to mitigate a cyber security attack. There’s a reason why patching is CERT NZ’s top critical control to protect organisations from being breached—don’t leave your business wide open.

Vodafone has made its entry back into the Papua New Guinea market as Digitec-Vodafone to operate as the third mobile operator company.

In the next two weeks the PNG market will see the new look Vodafone operate in 25 different locations of the country, selling mobile phones and SIM cards to customers by April 21, 2022.

Minister for Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu announced this last night at the launching of the new look Digitec office in Port Moresby.

With around 3 million current users in the existing networks, Masiu said there was room for another operator to create competition and bring prices down and this had now happened with Digitec-Vodafone’s entry.

He said Digitec’s investment showed trust and confidence in PNG’s economy.

“On behalf of the Marape government, I welcome your entry into the PNG market,” Masiu said.

“It is the government’s policy objective to promote sustainable competition in the information and communications technology sector and to ensure affordability, accessibility, connectivity and we believe your entry into the market as the third mobile telecommunication operator will rejuvenate competition in the market.”

Headquarters in PNG
He said having the headquarters in PNG showed the government their commitment towards investing in the country’s telecommunications sector.

The move comes against the backdrop of a “super tax” saga, where market dominance levy in the sector has created a stir with the enforcement of an additional K350 million demanded by the state following reports of Digicel refusing to pay.

This is amid fears that the deal between Telstra Australia and the dominant Digicel PNG would fall through, impacting on any new entrants into the lucrative mobile communications market.

Deputy Prime Minister Sam Basil said Digitec had a history in the Pacific for more than two decades and was known as an ICT technology sector innovator.

He said a strong ICT was vital for a strong economy and essential for healthy communities.

“Having access to modern technology was no longer for the rich or the big cities as it had been 20 years ago,” Basil said.

“Now, right down to village level, our people need access to technology.

“This is to conduct small businesses, stay in touch with loved ones and to access medical care.”

Tough business arena
Basil said ICT was a tough business to engage in, especially now that there were major changes in the sector with greater investment and competition.

“As a businessman, and now as a political leader, I believe that competition is healthy,” he said.

“It makes company operations more efficient and delivers savings to our people.

“I encourage the workers and management at Digitec to continue to provide outstanding service to our people and the business community.”

Digitec CEO Nirmal Singh said the country would in the next few weeks see some great products that he company would bring to the market.

Melisha Yafoi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tomorrow (February 19) marks the entry into force of a new international agreement promoting paperless trade, a timely reminder of how the COVID-19 pandemic has brought digital solutions to regional development challenges into the limelight.

Paperless trade across borders has proven an effective way to mitigate trade disruptions since the onset of the crisis, enabling commerce to continue while limiting physical contact. Yet, despite the increasing acceptance of electronic documents across borders, implementation of cross-border paperless trade remains low according to the United Nations Global Survey on Digital and Sustainable Trade Facilitation for Asia and the Pacific.

Across Asia and the Pacific, governments must move from time-consuming paper-based processes to electronic and traceable trade procedures that can significantly enhance competitiveness and address new challenges associated with e-commerce and the digital economy. In doing so, our region can also recover some of the $200 billion in illicit financial flows that sharply reduce the capacity of governments to put in place support measures for vulnerable groups.

At the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), in 2016, member States adopted the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade in Asia and the Pacific to accelerate trade digitalization – the electronic exchange of trade-related data across borders – while leaving no one behind.

More than 25 countries worked together to develop the treaty, which is now open for accession to all 53 members of ESCAP. The five countries that have ratified or acceded to the treaty — Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Philippines – represent a diverse group of countries spanning the wider Asia-Pacific region but all are committed to regional cooperation in this critical area. Armenia and Cambodia signed the treaty in 2017 while several other ESCAP members are in the process of completing their accession this year, before implementation of the agreement starts in earnest in 2022.

But we must do more to realize the transformative potential of trade digitalization.

First, we need to fully use the Framework Agreement to  provide a region-wide multilateral intergovernmental platform, a dedicated space for developing and testing legal and technical cross-border paperless trade solutions that build on national, bilateral, and subregional initiatives. This treaty marks the beginning of a new journey, one focused on turning cross-border paperless trade into reality through cooperation, testing, innovation, and implementation.

Second, we have to ensure that the Framework Agreement is catalyst for  those countries that become a party to it to implement key measures featured in the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including Single Windows and other actions requiring the use of information and communication technologies.

Third, we recognize that the Framework Agreement is an inclusive and highly flexible cooperation and capacity building opportunities that countries can participate in regardless of their levels of development and digitalization. The estimates presented in the most recent regional trade facilitation report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and ESCAP suggest that the Framework Agreement can help reduce trade costs by more than 20 per cent in most of the region’s developing countries. So, this is particularly important now when many bilateral or regional deals exclude some of the least developed countries.

I encourage all ESCAP member States to join the treaty as soon as possible and demonstrate political will. There is no deadline for acceding to the treaty but doing so early on will ensure a seat at the table when the Parties formally discuss the implementation of priorities. The benefits of cross-border paperless trade multiply with the number of countries involved. So, the more countries on board, the larger the development gains for all. It is time to accelerate the excellent bilateral and subregional paperless trade initiatives that have emerged across the Asia-Pacific region to build truly seamless and resilient supply chains as we recover better together in the post-COVID-19 era.

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP

The world is changing fast, with digital technological innovation that is both liberating and disturbing. The threats and opportunities this presents requires a massive debate, and intervention, to ensure such changes are as healthy as possible for humanity. The online dimension of the Christchurch terrorist attacks is now provoking a sea change in attitudes towards social media.

Around the world we are now seeing attempts to rein in the tech giants with government regulations. There are blunt questions being asked about whether the likes of Facebook are “monetising hate”, and whether the dream of social media enhancing democracy and social connectedness is over.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Christchurch Call to Action campaign is currently at the most visible end of this new momentum, and commentators have declared her trip to Paris a success. For example, this afternoon Henry Cooke has concluded: Jacinda Ardern’s big day in Paris ends with her getting what she wanted.

Likewise, Gordon Campbell is impressed with how the final Paris manifesto has come together, apparently managing to satisfy all sides, including Facebook – see: On the Christchurch Call.

But the campaign isn’t over yet. According to Kelsey Munro, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Ardern’s bid is still a difficult one – see: Christchurch Call: Jacinda Ardern’s Paris pitch a sign of tech giants’ power.

Munro points out that attempts to regulate social media so far, have been fraught and dangerous: “Many nations around the world have concluded that the public sphere must reassert a regulatory role; the problem is how to do it within reasonable limits. No one wants anything resembling the Chinese model. Australia’s ‘knee-jerk’ reaction has been widely criticised by the tech industry and lawyers as rushed and ill-defined.”

Clearly Ardern has been keen to keep away from some of the issues around free speech that are brought up by government regulation, as I explained in my previous column – see: Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” might not be so simple.

So is her campaign going to work? There are all sorts of risks with this sort of attempt at regulation. And this is best dealt with in Henry Cooke’s article, The risks Jacinda Ardern faces with her ‘Christchurch Call’ in Paris. He outlines three broad threats: 1) Over-reach, 2) Under-reach, 3) Being used by Macron to launder his image.

In terms of those first two dangers, the Christchurch Call might end up being too strong or too weak. The third point is the idea that in collaborating so closely with the French President and other world leaders, Ardern is naively being exploited for their own electoral opportunism. Cooke suggests that Ardern might need to “make her disagreement with these other leaders clear”.

This is also the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper: “What is French President Emmanuel Macron playing at? The answer’s pretty obvious, he’s trying to boost his flagging popularity at home while at the same time trying to establish himself as a world leader on cleaning up the internet” – see: Jacinda Ardern being used by Emmanuel Macron to boost his image.

Soper suggests that Macron has been rather disingenuous in his role: “If you needed any convincing that she’s being used, get a load of what happened as she was packing her designer bags for the French capital. Macron releases a 33-page report he’d commissioned… Why he couldn’t delay the release until this week’s summit is an insult to those attending. And what’s more, the investigation was only halfway through but Macron decided to make a song and dance about how well France is doing.”

The bigger problem is that Macron has a terrible record in terms of civil liberties, and is clearly no friend of free speech, which could taint the ongoing campaign to regulate social media. This is all very well explained by leftwing journalist Branko Marcetic who puts forward “a brief review of what Macron’s done while in power” – see: Jacinda Ardern must not let Emmanuel Macron co-opt the Christchurch Call.

Marcetic then asks whether New Zealanders should be comfortable with such an alliance: “This is the man Ardern is teaming up with to figure out a way to regulate online spaces. Concerns over this shouldn’t be limited to the New Zealand right – with Macron at the helm, there are legitimate worries the outcome could threaten free speech, including for that of the liberals and left that are backing such measures right now.”

He concludes: “Ardern should be careful that Macron and any other embattled leaders in the G7 don’t use this meeting as an opportunity to push measures that harm not just journalism, but all of our civil liberties. But more importantly, the New Zealand public needs to hold her to account and make sure she doesn’t.”

And some are worried that the clampdown will inevitably intrude on the traditional media. Barry Soper criticises Ardern for “trying to reign in the mainstream media’s coverage of events to ensure it’s not gratuitous, and that for all of us should be worry. It’s not for the politicians to dictate how events should be covered” – see: The media here is generally self regulatory.

It’s clear that the task of social media regulation isn’t a simple one. And one of the best outlines of the pitfalls and best practices that Ardern and co should keep in mind can found in Dan Jerker B. Svantesson’s article, It’s vital we clamp down on online terrorism. But is Ardern’s ‘Christchurch Call’ the answer?

He cautions against the “risk of hasty, excessive and uncoordinated responses” to social media problems and suggests that we are currently seeing a rush of politicians who all want to gain political capital from coming up with fast answers. He says “as part of this we must avoid hasty ‘solutions’ that will only mask the issues in the long term, and potentially cause other problems such as excessive blocking of internet content.”

Svantesson’s own list of requirements for new regulations are the following: “Effective legal regulation of the internet must be clear, proportional (balanced for all involved), accountable (able to be monitored and checked) and offer procedural guarantees (open to appeals).”

Similarly, Jordan Carter and Konstantinos Komaitis, of Internet NZ and the Internet Society, have put forward their own suggestions of what needs to underpin any new rules and laws – see: How to regulate the internet without shackling its creativity.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has also jumped into the debate this week with the launch of her own Foundation think tank report, titled “Anti-social Media”. This calls for a new body to be set up to regulate social media in this country in the same way that the New Zealand Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority does with traditional media. For an in-depth discussion of the report, see Thomas Coughlan’s How to regulate social media.

Clark has explained the thinking behind this, and how it’s partly based on her own personal experience: “What I’m concerned about is that the rising level of rhetoric on social media from people who think they can get away with just about anything… And let’s face it, they can. I have regularly reported very hateful content, and very often you just get these reports dismissed. So that’s why you now need what this report recommends, which is the statutory duty to self-regulate, and then you need the regulator overseeing that” – see 1News’ Changing hate speech laws would ‘not necessarily’ have prevented Christchurch attacks – Helen Clark.

For more on this, as well as other debates about regulation of social media in New Zealand, and what sort of agreement was expected from the Paris meetings, see Derek Cheng’s Christchurch Call summit: New rules must leave nowhere to hide. In terms of the Paris agreement, he notes that “whether it will have any teeth will be a key issue, given it will be a voluntary framework.”

A new survey out shows that there’s a strong demand amongst New Zealanders for this problem to be sorted out: “More than half of New Zealanders want livestreaming stopped until platforms work out a way to immediately remove violent or other harmful content, a survey indicates. The online survey of 1134 adults carried out in the second half of April, found 54 per cent of those questioned wanted a halt to livestreaming in the meantime. In contrast, 29 per cent thought platforms should be given time to sort out a solution” – see: Most Kiwis want livestreaming halted until violent content can be curbed: survey.

Much of the debate about the problems of online extremism and regulation comes back to The Matrix movie’s concept of being “red-pilled”, which is explained in today’s Christchurch Press editorial: “To be red-pilled is to have the shackles of delusion removed and to see things as they really are” – see: Cleaning up the dark corners of the internet. But if this sounds like a positive development, then for a bigger explanation of the problem, see Henry Cooke’s Christchurch Call could lead to work on ‘red-pilling’ of online radicalisation.

Despite the difficulties involved, there’s no doubt that the tide has turned, and there is now a significant public appetite for some sort of action to be taken that might deal with the tech giants. After all, their reach affects everything in society – including democracy and politics.

This is a point well made in a report released this week, “Digital Threats to Democracy”, which suggests that the way New Zealanders are interacting with information online “can lead to the rapid spread of incorrect information and hinder the discussion and debate of issues of public policy” – see Brittany Keogh’s Social media influences New Zealanders’ opinions on politics and hurts democracy, study says.

Finally, there’s plenty of other disturbing evidence of the brave new world we are moving into. For one of the best recent accounts of this, see Danyl Mclauchlan’s book review, Big Google is watching you. Looking at an important new book by Shoshana Zuboff, a professor of social psychology at Harvard Business School, called “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power”, Mclauchlan explains why he feels so uncomfortable at the supermarket.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

John Key was once very candid in explaining the realpolitik reason New Zealand had to send troops to assist the US war on terror: it was simply “the price of the club”. He was speaking of the intelligence alliance known as Five Eyes involving the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

The Labour-led Government is unlikely to be equally upfront that this week’s decision to ban the Chinese company Huawei from supplying the infrastructure for the new telecommunications 5G network is also due to New Zealand’s membership of the Western allies’ club.

That reality is clear to political journalist Richard Harman, who says the Huawei ban “was the only one it could have come to. To have let Huawei in would have placed New Zealand at odds with its traditional friends – Australia, the United States and Britain – and offside with the Five Eyes alliance” – see: How the Huawei decision saw the old friends prevail.

This article points out that the Huawei decision “came coincidentally with the presence in the capital of a top-level delegation from the British Foreign office and also a senior FBI official from the US. The FBI official was here to open a new FBI liaison office in Police Headquarters.” And although it’s not clear that there was any recent pressure on the GCSB to ban Huawei, Harman points out that the signals from Five Eyes partners were very clear on the matter – especially with a British Government report in July, and then in “August Australia barred Huawei from participating in its 5G network.”

There is certainly going to be a cost for the ban. First, it seems that there will be consequences in terms of inferior and more expensive communications for consumers. Second, this country’s economic and diplomatic ties with the superpower of China will now be strained as a result.

Such costs could end up being significant, and will affect every New Zealander. In terms of Spark’s planned new telecommunications network, Barry Soper explains today: “they’ll probably have to settle for a more expensive and less efficient option. Huawei points out that in a trial for 5G in March they achieved a world record of more than 18 gigabytes a second while their competitors could only manage one gig. With data transfer rates at that speed perhaps that’s what spooked the GCSB” – see: Spy agency’s Huawei ban conveniences Government.

Soper says that essentially New Zealand has “finally picked sides” in the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US. He also stresses the economic and diplomatic prices that New Zealand will have to pay, saying “This decision has wide-reaching implications for this country with our biggest trading partner” and the “renegotiation of our Free Trade Agreement will now be on the back burner”.

In terms of diplomatic reaction, Soper says: “Now this is all out in the open it can come as no surprise the Chinese couldn’t find the time to see Jacinda Ardern in Beijing before Christmas, she was ready to go at the drop of a hat.”

Leftwing commentator Gordon Campbell seems to agree, saying “the Huawei ban is a hostile act”, and the “indefinite postponing of PM Jacinda Ardern’s trip to China is probably the first symptom of the cooling in our relationship” – see: On how banning Huawei fits into our new hostility towards China.

Campbell also suggests that the Huawei ban on involvement in the 5G project will be costly. He points to the fact that “In Australia, the Huawei bid was reportedly 30% lower than competing tenders”, and concludes that it “is reasonable to assume there will be extra costs for consumers as a consequence”.

As to why the Government is suddenly so sensitive about this new telecommunications network, when they haven’t been so worried in the past, Gordon provides a good explanation: “5G will be the key piece of architecture in the so-called ‘Internet of things’ that’s envisaged to connect our electricity and water systems, medical and driverless technologies, systems in homes and hospitals, factories and farms. The security concerns about China being central to the provision, installation and maintenance of such a massively interlinked system is not hard to imagine”.

Campbell argues that the Huawei ban is part of “a trifecta of measures via which the 5 Eyes allies have been beefing up their stance towards China” – the other two components being “(a) the increased defence spending in Australia and New Zealand for which countering China expansionism is the only conceivable rationale and (b) the massive increase in Australasia’s aid and diplomatic profile in the Pacific, in order to counter China’s ‘cheque book’ diplomacy”.

New Zealand really had no choice but to ban Huawei according to intelligence expert Paul Buchanan: “Diplomatically, it would be very difficult for the GCSB to green light Huawei’s involvement in the 5G upgrade in the face of the US request to withhold approval” – see: Huawei vs Five Eyes: NZ diplomatic ties at centre of dilemma.

Furthermore, “The fallout from such a decision could open a rift within the Five Eyes partnership because New Zealand is already seen as the Achilles Heel of the network given its past record of poor cyber security awareness (say, in the overlap between professional and personal communications). It is therefore prudent for the GCSB to side with the US on the matter.”

Siding with Western allies over China is evidence of New Zealand’s shifting orientation towards its biggest trading partner, according to Victoria University of Wellington’s strategic studies professor, Robert Ayson – see his Newstalk ZB interview: NZ’s relationship with China could suffer after GCSB decision – academic.

On the Huawei decision, Ayson says: “I think it’s an important sign that New Zealand’s approach to China is becoming more cautious. I think the special friendship between New Zealand and China is now a little less special in some ways”.

Ayson believes the reasons behind the ban would have been both genuine concerns for national security and about New Zealand’s alignment with the Five Eyes countries. He concludes: “I guess one of the question is, does New Zealand want to be seen as a weaker link?”

The cost of the Huawei ban is also well canvassed by Jamie Ensor in his article, NZ could see major fallout from Huawei 5G decision – expert. In this, Richard Harman is quoted on its impact on diplomatic relations with China: “The frequency of contact between New Zealand and China, and the intimacy of that contact, might slow down for a while”.

In terms of economic ties, Harman points to tourism and education as being the most likely hit. In terms of “worst case scenarios”, he says the Chinese Government “might try and restrain Chinese students who come here for education” and they might “take New Zealand off the preferred list of tourist destinations”.

Condemnation of the Huawei ban has been coming from both left and right. The former general secretary of the Labour Party, Mike Smith, has been highly critical of his own government: “The GCSB ban on Spark’s use of Huawei technology means this government has gone from ‘honest broker’ to poodle in a very short time” – see: Spooked!

He also suggests that it might be time for New Zealand to withdraw from Five Eyes, and says we shouldn’t believe much of what is being said about Huawei: “Maybe it’s time we got out of that too – it was designed for war. GCSB Minister Andrew Little argues that the GCSB decision is about the technology not the country. Nobody else believes that, certainly not the lobbyists and commentators including security analyst Adam Boileau, who said that argument didn’t make a lot of sense. He says Huawei’s engineering is pretty good.”

Rightwing blogger David Farrar appears to be in agreement on much of that, saying “the reality is that no one anywhere has ever been able to point to an actual security problem with Huawei. It is basically scaremongering” – see: We join the nonsense ban on Huawei.

Farrar elaborates: “Basically New Zealand has succumbed to peer pressure from our five eyes partners, primarily the US. Their motivations are protecting US companies from competition. They have never ever been able to say what exactly is it that Huawei has done wrong or could do wrong. They’ve been banned purely because of the country they are based in. This will increase the costs of telecommunications in New Zealand, by removing a preferred supplier. It will also be seen as a deeply offensive move by the Chinese Government and our exporters will probably end up paying the cost.”

Finally, for a fictional conversation about how the politics of the Huawei decision might be explained, see Chris Trotter’s From a table by the window.

Remember the ‘knowledge economy’. It was a buzz-expression around 20 years ago. The impression was that the leading growth sectors would be in education, information, and communication. So, what has happened?
The chart converts employment numbers (fulltime equivalent jobs, where part-time jobs are counted as half a job) into indexes with a base of 1000 set at the year to March 2009 (the year of the Global Financial Crisis – GFC).
Prior to 2009, the growth sectors were ‘Information Media and Telecommunications’ and the assortment called ‘Professional, Scientific, Technical, Administrative and Support Services’. ‘Education’ and ‘Real Estate’ were slower growing sectors despite obvious boosts to the demand for these services in the 2000s’ decade.
After the GFC, the sector dominated by real estate (‘Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services’) grew sharply, until the last 12 months when it dropped off markedly. Few surprises, except that the same thing did not also happen from 2003 to 2008.
The big employment stories this decade are the dramatic retrenchment of the 2000s’ darling ‘Information Media and Telecommunications’. And the flatlining of the education sector.
To understand what has been happening – rather than what has not been happening – we need to unpack the ‘Professional …’ hodgepodge. This assortment of services now represents 15% of all employee jobs, up from 10% in 2000.
Basically, this industry sector is ‘non-financial business services’, though there are many services to businesses in the other sectors as well. (The chart only shows 4 of 16 employment sectors.) The keywords are: ‘design’, ‘legal’, ‘accounting’, ‘marketing’, ‘management’ and ‘consulting’ services. These are sometime called ‘transaction services’, which represent ‘transaction costs’; ie the outsourced costs of other businesses doing business. We note that these services are not growing as a direct response to increased desire by consumers for these activities. Increased productivity in these sub-sectors should mean them releasing workers into other parts of the economy.
Another way of characterising these services is as ‘problem-resolving’ services. That means the increased demand for them is generated by an increased incidence of problems faced by businesses in other sectors. It also suggests that these are sub-sectors that grow as a result of their own failure; and that growth here follows from the persuasiveness of these professionals in convincing other businesses to purchase more of their professional services.
If meaningful economic growth represents the removals of obstacles (problems, barriers) that absorb too many of our resources, then this kind of employment should decline as these problems are solved, while employment in high level consumer services (which include media and liberal education) should be expanding in line with those services capacities to satisfy the higher levels of Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ (see Youtube explanation).

Why is employment in education increasing so slowly compared to employment growth generally? Why do we need 100 percent more transaction service professionals in 2018 compared to 2000, but only 15 percent more teachers? These business service professionals are very much embedded in the marketplace, yet no orthodox economic theory can explain the dramatic increase in our purchases of their services.
——
Lists of industries within the broad sectoral categories:
Professional, Scientific, Technical, Administrative and Support Services

• architectural services
• surveying and mapping services
• gardening services
• engineering design and consulting services
• computer system design and related services
• other specialised design services
• scientific research services
• scientific testing and analysis services
• veterinary services
• professional photographic services
• legal services
• accounting services
• advertising services
• market research and statistical services
• corporate head office management services
• management advice and related consulting services
• travel agency services
• employment services
• other administrative services
• building and other industrial cleaning services
• building pest control services
• packaging and labelling services

Information Media and Telecommunications

• newspaper publishing
• newspaper, periodical, book and directory publishing
• software publishing
• motion picture and video activities
• sound recording and music publishing
• radio broadcasting
• television broadcasting
• internet publishing and broadcasting
• telecommunications services
• internet service providers and web search portals
• data processing and web hosting services
• electronic information storage services
• libraries and archives
• other information services

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services

• real estate services
• property operators
• non-financial intangible assets (except copyrights) leasing
• video and other electronic media rental and hiring
• farm animal and bloodstock leasing
• motor vehicle and transport equipment rental and hiring
• other goods and equipment rental and hiring

Education and Training

• preschool education
• school education
• tertiary education
• adult, community and other education
• educational support services.

OPINION: By Scott Waide in Lae

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue or a misinterpreted statement… But there is no doubt that whatever it was that Papua New Guinea’s Minister responsible for Communications and Information Technology, Sam Basil, said this week has created a storm now being reported on global media outlets.

While some commentators are screaming “fake news”, others are taking it all in as a fact.

What gave this statement its legitimacy was its publication on one of Papua New Guinea’s two dailies – the Post Courier. The online version of the story has been quoted numerous times that has become the top story out of Papua New Guinea in the last 24 hours.

READ MORE: Facebook shutdown outcry – ‘a mockery to APEC’

The country doesn’t usually make it into the tech pages of websites, but it has.

Matt Novak from Gizmodo wrote: “The (PNG) government also said that it’s exploring the creation of its own social media site to replace Facebook.”

-Partners-

John Russel from Techcrunch: “… the Facebook ban — however delicious it may sound given recent events — is not confirmed for Papua New Guinea. It remains a possibility once Basil has liaised with police.”

The suggestion to shut down Facebook is dangerous on many levels.

Papua New Guinea’s Facebook ‘ban’ … a global furore. Image: Scott Waide’s blog

PNG on back foot
Firstly, it places PNG on the back foot. It is a highly embarrassing position to be in as members of APEC discuss the region’s economic future with e-commerce and social media being a pivotal focus of the talks.

Any shutdown of Facebook for any length of time, is contrary to the spirit of the discussions where wider access to ICT forms the basis of future economic policies.

In Papua New Guinea, small businesses are starting to thrive. Their main avenue to sell to a wider customer base? Facebook pages. Not websites. Website developers charge a minimum of K2500 for a basic site. It is too big an amount for small businesses.

Not one to mince his words, the director of the Institute of National Affairs , Paul Barker, told The Fiji Times: “It would be a travesty if PNG sought to close down Facebook during the APEC month [in November], making PNG seem rather foolish, as it would be both an attack on embracing technology, undermining the information era and mechanisms for accountability, but also damaging business and welfare.

“Facebook is no longer just a platform for chatting to friends and relatives, and exchanging photos, it’s now a critical tool for information sharing and social auditing, and also a major platform for business, especially micro, small to medium enterprises (MSMEs).”

In Lae City where I live, Facebook is a primary means of reporting crimes to the police. The Lae Police Metropolitan Command has a Facebook page linked to its crime reporting systems and toll free number. It is an integral part of policing.

Primary disaster reporting tool
In Papua New Guinea, Facebook has become the primary disaster reporting tool used by rural communities.

In February, when the Highlands was struck by a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, the first pictures of the damage and deaths were posted on Facebook.

Yet it took at least two weeks before the National Disaster Center began collating the information that was readily available within 20 minutes of the disaster.

It is good that this debate is happening now instead of later.

Scott Waide’s blog columns are frequently published by Asia Pacific Report with permission. He is also EMTV deputy news editor based in Lae.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz