THE WEAPONIZATION OF DIGITAL SPACE: A DOUBLE-EDGED REALITY

DR. ASOKE K. LAHA
Chairman-Emeritus and Founder, lnterralT

I receive hundreds of messages every day across the digital platforms I use-email, WhatsApp, lnstagram, and others. To make sense of this constant flow, I tried to broadly categorize them into four groups: critical information relevant to my personal and professional life; unsolicited messages such as product promotions; completely irrelevant communication; and messages deliberately designed to lure users into clicking harmful links or falling into misleading and fraudulent traps.

By and large, messages from friends, fellow professionals, and others known to me are genuine, often limited to inquiries about well-being, greetings on special occas10ns,   or   light-hearted   exchanges meant to revive old connections, while professional communications usually blend business-related queries with   personal interest depending on familiarity. However, unsolicited     inquiries    and    feedback-most of which I consciously ignore, are largely irrelevant, and many appear, from their tone and presentation, originate from fraudsters, online marketers, or similar actors.

When I analyzed how many messages were entirely irrelevant, I was dismayed to discover that they formed the majority, prompting me to reflect on whether this phenomenon could be described as the weaponization of digital tools. Yet this is the darker flip side of digital space, whose positive impact far outweighs its negative effects.

Regulatory systems aim to curb harmful uses while promoting beneficial ones, but the boundary between good and bad often remains blurred, as seen in debates around enhanced security  measures such as phone tapping, which may help identify criminals but simultaneously infringe upon the privacy of innocent individuals. Digital technology has effectively neutralized distance-something that earlier generations experienced when letters took days to reach overseas destinations and when international calls, fax machines, or teleprinters were inaccessible luxuries.

While communication is now   faster and more efficient, criminal activities using digital tools have multiplied, with individuals routinely receiving unsolicited calls, many of them fraudulent, ranging from fake banking alerts to extreme scams like so-called "digital arrests," where victims are threatened with legal action for crimes they never committed. This menace has grown so  pervasive  in India that the apex court has intervened, directing agencies to trace and dismantle such operations, yet despite repeated warnings from banks that sensitive information  is never sought through unsolicited calls, many people continue to fall prey.

Fraudsters often stay a step ahead of even tech-savvy users, exploiting conveniences such as "tap and pay" technologies, which have led to a rise in contactless scams where cards are discreetly scanned in crowded places, leaving victims unaware until a delayed bank alert reveals the loss. This persistent misuse of digital tools exemplifies their weaponization by unscrupulous elements, despite widespread sharing of cautionary advice across social media.

Artificial intelligence has further expanded the reach of digital technology, raising global concerns about large-scale job displacement, with international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum calling for responsible AI   deployment even as human replacement accelerates. This, too, can be seen as a form of digital weaponization, forcing us to decide whether humans or machines should take precedence, not by halting technological progress but by subordinating it to human welfare through a carefully calibrated balance.

Happily, there is an increasing awareness of this menace globally, because of the faster pick up of digital technologies. It is permeating into every societal segment, whatever be the economic status of the people. Even in the least developed countries, digital mode is used for transactional  purposes.  Many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where most of  the poor people live, digital  money is picking up at an increasing pace. Some of these countries have made bitcoins legal. That also instruct us to be more vigilant about the digital fraudsters since empirical evidence indicate that more incidence of scams take place in such regions, where regulatory systems are weak and not easy to enforce.

Therefore, we should strike at  a balance in the global pursuit of digitization, especially in a world of more than seven billion people marked by demographic decline in developed nations and unsustainable population growth in developing regions, compounded by strict immigration  barriers.  The  tragic  journeys of migrants   risking-and   often   losing­ their lives in search of better opportunities underscore this imbalance, even as modern economies continue to rely heavily on migrant labor, from historical examples like enslaved Africans in the U.S. cotton industry to contemporary professionals  contributing to the global digital economy.

Growth itself must therefore be redefined, as no nation can thrive in isolation in an interconnected world where globalization and international  partnerships  remain  essential. I sincerely hope that 2026 marks a new awakening-one that resists the weaponization of digital space and instead nurtures a digital environment that strengthens bonds among nations, communities, and people, ensuring that technology ultimately serves humanity rather than undermining it.

That takes me to discuss   the   ideal role of governments and institutions in addressing the digital menace. Shrieking off responsibility by terming  it  as the flip side of development is irresponsibility whether it  is  from  the  governments,  corporations, or multilateral organizations. Discussions at international forums about  digital frauds or its negative impact should not be intellectual or at peripheral fringes. They should be anchored in realism. Even now, a lot of people, particularly the older lots even in developed countries are outside the purview of digital   economy.   They   are   reluctant to use digital tools for two reasons. First, historically, they are not exposed to such technologies and their mind grooved to currencies for transactions. It is difficult for them to be brought into digital mainstream. Secondly, they are cagey about the traps and subsequent complications of the technology and refuse to use them, fearing that it may empty their hard -earned saving tucked away in safer vaults of the banks.

It may sound bit archaic but still practical that the pace of digitization in monetary realms is bit down and the options are available for transactions to be settled either in physical money or digital denominations. There are instances when the elderly are left with no choice but to settle the transactions digitally only. For such mandatory obligations, there should be options and the concerned departments where such  applications  must be filed should have both physical and digital options.

In many countries, switching over to digital space is a brownie point. Faster and intense they are construed to be testimonies of development. Instead, such switch overs should be grooved in realism. It should be convenient to people who exercise such options. That also will help mitigate the growing perception that large scale digitization is pushed  by technology  giants, which have a vested interest in such growth models. We cannot totally discount such arguments. Let us not forget that there is always a golden mean stemming from the concept that technology is always subordinated to human welfare and not otherwise.