Ever wonder what you’re really drinking when you pick up that bottled water? And I don’t just mean what’s in the water: where’s it come from? What’s its impact? What’s its future? These questions have been bugging me, so I set out to discover the answers. Turns out, there’s a lot of reasons why you shouldn’t buy bottled water any more. So, here’s the seven deadly sins of bottled water.

Continue reading »

Business Week are running a piece on motion capture technology, saying that it is transforming the way companies do business, as well as advertise. From the article:

Motion capture is starting to transform how businesses market their products as well as design and manufacture them. This spring the Las Vegas McCarren International Airport will set up large plasma screens with a motion- tracking component that lets advertisers bring pedestrians into their commercials. When you walk past a car ad, for example, the vehicle might move at the same speed you’re walking. When you turn to look at the driver, he’ll turn to look at you, and you’ll be staring into an image of your own face. Dozens of blue-chip aerospace, auto, and heavy-equipment makers, from Lockheed Martin to BMW to Caterpillar already use motion tracking to let workers collaborate in shared virtual environments, sometimes when they are thousands of miles apart. Together they can test the ergonomics of a design for a car or a plane. “Any company that creates a product used by people needs to understand how the human body moves,” says Iek van Cruyningen, head of securities at Libertas Capital Group, a specialist investment bank. “Motion-tracking systems and virtual simulations accelerate product development and boost productivity.”

Some interesting questions arise from all this, all of them to do with privacy (aside from the fact that most billboards are just damn ugly monstrosities invading our personal space). What if I don’t consent to having my face and body displayed on a massive billboard or an advert? Whose permission do they ask for in order to film me? How do I opt out so that any possible cameras they’re using don’t film me? How long before ubiquitous advertising such as this essentially becomes out-sourced surveillance for the city’s/country’s law enforcement?

I’m pretty sure that Second Life - or, at least, a business in Second Life - must be looking at this and thinking, “Wouldn’t it be cool to have a motion capture system that overlaid our real world store into the virtual world?” Tie that in with arphid store-loyalty cards, and you’ve got a perfect real-world simulation of your store and everyone in it.

Pretty much what I had pictured before. Yeah, pretty cool. Too bad it’ll be used to just track everything you do.

I’m also curious as to how long it’ll be before ad busters and culture jammers start hacking into these 21st Century billboards to replace them with their own. Looking forward to that one.

Today’s quote comes from Bernard Meunier, Nestlé’s country manager, quoted in Business Week (2006) on why they’ve “pumped $500 million into Russia to date”:

“As soon as people step out of poverty, they become potential Nestlé customers.”

I suppose that’s really good news for Russia’s 53 billionaires, but probably bad news for the 20% that live below the poverty line, and the 30% whose wages are below the required minimum to live. It seems that the poorest segments of the population, like pensioners, the unemployed and government employees like teachers are not likely to be Nestlé customers.

(There is of course the exception to the rule, and that’s probably when they want to give free breast milk substitutes that helps contribute to the problem of 1.5 million children dying every year from inadequate breast feeding).

One of my favourite books from last year was the superb “Spychips” by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre (they have a blog), examing the RFID industry and its threat to privacy. What I found to be of particular interest was the strategy developed by the Auto-ID Centre - the primary research group behind the Internet of Things concept, backed by some major corporations like Procter & Gamble and Gillette, and also the Department of Defense - to overcome the privacy concerns of consumers.

The Auto-ID Centre hired the pricey public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard and set out to “develop best messages to pacify” consumers. Yes, pacify. They came up with a plan to “identify potential consumer road blocks/fears, construct a proactive message framework to minimize negatives arising [and] assess consumer reaction if [the] press develop scare stories.”

[…]

The Auto-ID Centre’s advisers knew it would be tough [but] they hoped consumers would feel hopeless and too “apathetic” to react (their exact quote was “on balance they are negative by apathetic”). […] “The best communication strategy appears to be positioning the technology simply as an improved barcode,” the advised, noting that, ” … discussing any benefits or using rational argument is largely ineffective and is perceived as ’spin’. Once consumers are concerned, they remain concerned, no matter what we tell them.” (Spychips, pg 156-7)

So, next time you hear it’s an improved barcode, or someone refers to a “radio barcode” (Tesco), “intelligent label” (Marks & Spencer), an “electronic product code” (Wal-Mart), or “green tag” (Auto-ID Centre), remember that someone is trying to “pacify” you.

I wonder how long before we’ll be told that arphids enable and enhance who you really are?

AllAfrica.com is running a Business Day article on South Africa’s interests at the upcoming China-Africa Forum in Beijing. it would appear that, while South Africa is “keen to see increased aid to” Africa, it is particularly “interested in gaining greater access to the vast Chinese manufactured goods market”, mainly in the form of cuts “in Chinese tariffs on goods to which value has been added” since it is “the only country in Africa that exports manufactured goods to any large extent”.

Furthermore, much like happened when South Africa and China reached an agreement on SA’s textile industry, the article points out that “SA is likely to push for a Chinese commitment to voluntarily restrict exports when local industries are threatened”.

South Africa’s overall thinking was quite clearly expressed by its Reserve Bank governor, Tito Mboweni, who said: “Let’s strengthen our relations with China.” He pointed out that while “The US might still be portrayed by some as the major economic growth engine in the world … in reality that picture was changing”, with China contributing more now (24.5%) to global domestic product than the US (16.3%). This should no doubt worry the US and Western markets, since they are the largest trading partner of South Africa in terms of total trade, with Germany and the UK falling second and third respectively. Historically, South Africa has always been within the Western sphere of influence, but this may change.

From China’s point of view, South Africa is probably the key to the continent, for two main reasons. The first, obviously, is trade related, because South Africa is quick becoming Africa’s new “colonial” power. While SA woos China to try and restrict its exports, SA has not been so kind to the rest of Africa. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, “South African foreign assets throughout Africa totaled about $5.1 billion in 2004, spanning a wide range of sectors from telecommunications to mining”.

South Africa accounts for about 25 percent of Africa’s total GDP and has produced striking trade balances with less developed African economies - a concern to regional leaders.

In Zambia, South Africa has supplanted former colonial power Britain as the country’s largest foreign investor. South Africans have poured about $300 million into Zambia since 1993, according to the Zambia Investment Centre. In 2005, Zambia held a trade deficit of more than $600 million with South Africa. Moreover, nearly half of Zambia’s imports are South African.

As David Robins, Pick n’ Pay’s deputy chairman acknowledged “[South African firms] have kind of moved in with a significant amount of brute force on the African continent.” This has led to the same sort of criticisms against South Africa that have been used regarding China’s threat to local businesses. It would seem, then, that being a favoured ally with South Africa would secure access to the rest of the continent, at least by proxy.

Secondly, South Africa is viewed as a top priority in terms of a possible diplomatic ally on the UN Security Council. Currently, SA holds a two-year, non-permanent seat on the Council, but has been pushing for the inclusion of African and Latin-American countries to have permanent seats on the council and a veto. As the Business Day article noted, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma held talks on Thursday with China’s equivalent, Li Zhaoxing “to discuss SA’s upcoming membership of the United Nations Security Council”.

Several studies have predicited that “globalization is likely to take on much more of a “non-Western face”", with China and India giving it “more of an Asian look and feel“. South Africa, it would seem, is fast becoming a poster-boy for this global trend, as is Africa as a whole.

There’s been a lot in the press recently regarding the upcoming China Africa forum to be held in Beijing this weekend. Officially, the purpose of the summit is clear: to promote political dialogue, and to boost trade ties between China and at least 48 Africa’s 53 states.

However, as the New York Times puts it, unofficially China is hoping to “redraw the world�??s strategic map by forming tighter political ties” with African states that have turned their back on Europe and the United States. No doubt this is both historical - African countries have never forgotten European colonial dominance, and US interference during the Cold War that led to such tyrrants as Mobutu - and it’s also pragmatic: China is the world’s fastest growing economy, has massive reserves of $US and, more importantly, they’re following a policy of don’t ask don’t tell:

“It is never our view that a country should interfere in another country’s internal affairs,” Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun said last week. “We’ve never imposed on other countries our values … and we do not accept other countries imposing their values on us either.”

This has proven beneficial for such countries as the Sudan. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, visiting China for the summit, “rejected a 22,500-strong U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur”, while at the same time he “thanked China for its support in the face of western pressure over a humanitarian crisis”. Another beneficiary has been Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, who has been shunned by the West due to his human-rights abuses, and has found support from China in helping to continue to sustain his regime in the face of massive unemployment, food and energy shortages, and economic meltdown. A deal with China and Angola for a $2 billion loan that helped that country avoid issues with the IMF regarding corruption.

The driving force for China’s interest in Africa is obviously driven by the need for oil and raw materials, such as iron ore and copper, to sustain its economic growth. Trade in the first ten months of 2005 jumped by a massive 39% on the back of massive investment into oil - primarily in Angola and the Sudan (25% of its oil imports come from these two countries), but also Nigeria, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “China’s manufacturing sector has created enormous demand for aluminum, copper, nickel, iron ore, and oil” and, because of instability in the Middle East, they are focusing elsewhere for suppliers instead, such as South America and Africa. In addition to raw materials, China also “sees Africa as a growth market for its military hardware”, and also “textile manufacturers, for example, are reportedly investing in African factories”.

The increase in Chinese influence and arms sales has drawn criticism because of the don’t ask, don’t tell, see no evil approach China has taken. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, for example, commented that “In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the Chinese government has shown that it is eager to embrace dangerous and or unsavory regimes in order, among other goals, to secure access to oil.” Former US assistant secretary of state for Africa Walter Kansteiner adds: “Does it worry the U.S. government that China is aiding and abetting Robert Mugabe? Yeah, it does and it should. You know, he’s a bad guy, doing bad things to his people. And so, if Beijing is supporting and helping him, from a policy-maker’s point of view, that’s counter-productive.” World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz also recently criticised China because “Chinese lenders “do not respect” a set of internationally agreed principles to ensure that loans to African countries fund projects that meet high social and environmental standards”.

All this is, of course, highly hypocritcal in light of the fact that US arms sales and military aid to Africa continue to increase (the US accounts for roughly 40% of the world’s arms sales). Also, as David Kang, a visiting professor of East Asia Studies at Stanford University, notes: “The United States is highly selective about who we’re moral about. We support Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia�??huge human-rights violators�??because we have other strategic interests. China’s not unique in cutting deals with bad governments and providing them arms.” Lastly, if the World Bank wishes to talk of “high social and environmental standards”, one only has to look at the Chad debacle (see also here) to understand that the World Bank has no leg to stand on.

US businesses also deal with less than wholesome regimes, such as in Azerbaijan where western countries turned a blind eye to corrupt elections in 2005, as well as brutal crushing of dissidents because Azerbaijan was a strategic Western ally (contrasted with support for Georgia’s revolution primarily where the western world had less influence). Despite being one of the world’s most corrupt countries, BP happily pointed out that “The desire of the [Azerbaijan] government to make this work has been key to our decision to stay. Conditions are very favorable to foreign investors here.” Oil trumps human rights, since the new Baku-Ceyhan pipeline will soon be transporting around one million barrels of oil per day for Western markets.

The real reason for criticism of China’s actions is, of course, their growing influence in the Third World, specifically Africa, in a way that undermines US strategic goals. As the New York Times pointed out, China believes its African influence “will give their diplomats an advantage at the United Nations and other international organizations, where African countries can constitute a powerful voting bloc”. Couple that with their growing influence in the traditional sphere of South America, and its easy to understand US concerns, especially since they’re mired in an increasingly unstable Middle East.

The US’s goal in the Middle East has always been about securing oil and energy, not necessarily only for its own possible consumption needs, but to ensure control of “two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions” which “would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination” (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard). As noted in the Monthly Review, since the National Security Strategy of the United States was announced in 2002, it has focused on increasing “its activities in West Africa, centering on those states with substantial oil production and/or reserves in or around the Gulf of Guinea”. They cite Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, as saying that “sub-Saharan Africa is likely to become as important as a source of U.S. energy imports as the Middle East”, and point out that the US has stationed bases throughout the region, primarily under the guise of the “war on terror”, but mainly because “the real issues are not the African states themselves and the welfare of their populations but oil and China�??s growing presence in Africa”:

For the Council on Foreign Relations, all of this adds up to nothing less than a threat to Western imperialist control of Africa. Given China�??s role, the council report says, �??the United States and Europe cannot consider Africa their chasse gardé [private hunting ground], as the French once saw francophone Africa. The rules are changing as China seeks not only to gain access to resources, but also to control resource production and distribution, perhaps positioning itself for priority access as these resources become scarcer.�?� The council report on Africa is so concerned with combating China through the expansion of U.S. military operations in the region, that none other than Chester Crocker, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration, charges it with sounding �??wistfully nostalgic for an era when the United States or the West was the only major influence and could pursue its…objectives with a free hand.�?�

The unfortunate reality is that, if history is any judge, the scramble for Africa between China and the United States shall have the same effects on Africa that occured during the Cold War: regimes playing the fears of both interested parties off one another; dictators and tyrrants kept in power in order to further strategic aims; wars fought by proxies in the battle for mineral resources; and the continued suffering of local populations. Some do express hope that the Chinese “will be forced to take account” of issues such as corruption, as well as the concerns of the African people and not just their elites. But, as long as competition between China and America persists in Africa, such concerns may well not be in their self-interest.

More4 (UK) screened a doc on TV the other night entitled “Tank Man”, covering the protestor who stood in front of a line of tanks at Tiannemen Square in 1989. (A homepage for the film can be found at PBS’s Frontline). The most amazing segment (for me, anyway) was when a group of Beijing university students (from one of the capital’s universities that were heavily involved in the protests at the time) were shown the infamous photo of the man against the machines of tyrrany. Not one of the students knew what it represented. China’s mastery over history appears to be complete, bringing George Orwell’s classic statement to life: “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” (Of course, China’s by no means unique; western democracies have learnt how to keep things quiet, too, albeit a bit differently).

Continue reading »

Great doc just screened on BBC called Is business the real Big Brother?

“As we move throughout cities, throughout our jobs and lives, there are technologies and devices everywhere which capture our movements, capture our activities, which are then stored on databases as evidence of what we’ve been doing.”
- Dr Kirstie Ball, Open University

You can download it here. (I just started reading Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID. Excellent, expect a review soon, but definitely read this book).

I’ve mentioned the Government-Private partnership on snooping before, in particular a speech given by Michael Chertoff who was remarkably candid on how the government and the private sector can work together, whereby the private sector can “create a marketplace for the technology and a marketplace for the systems”. He was talking specifically about screening travellers, but they apply equally well to the current NSA scandal. Business Week recently reported that purchasing “commercially collected data allows the government to dodge certain privacy rules”.

Continue reading »

It seems the NSA snooping scandal has taken a little twist. ABC News journalists Brian Ross and Richard Esposito have claimed that a federal source told them “the government is tracking the phone numbers we … call in an effort to root out confidential sources.”

Continue reading »