Who owns data

AS humanity stands at the peak of the greatest technological revolution in history, an invisible but intense competition is unfolding — not only on the ground, but also in the skies above us. At the heart of this struggle lies a single resource: the internet. Once expected to liberate us, this powerful tool is now so deeply embedded in our lives that it risks turning us into mere dependents. Among the key players shaping this new digital era is Elon Musk’s Starlink network — a sweeping constellation of thousands of satellites promising high-speed, low-latency internet even in the world’s remotest corners. The conveniences are dazzling, but the implications are profoundly unsettling.
There is no doubt that satellite internet constellation’s promise electrifies the imagination. One can picture students in remote Balochistan or upper Hunza attending global classrooms; doctors in tribal districts conducting live consul-tations with world-renowned specialists; artisans in Tharparkar selling their crafts to international buyers with a few taps; farmers making informed decisions using real-time weather data — all thanks to a stable, fast connection.
This dream of democratising informa- tion is not merely appealing; it is seriously transformative. Starlink seems to unlock a future where knowledge is no longer a privilege, but a universal right. However, as history teaches us, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When a technology arrives with extraordinary benefits, it often brings invisible strings attached. Digital services that appear free fre-quently operate on a hidden currency: user data. Just as traditional slaves exchanged labour for basic survival, modern digital users exchange their personal information for access, convenience and speed. Independence from such systems comes at a high cost.
Starlink exemplifies this dilemma well. While it equips people with fast internet, entertainment and instant global reach, the same infrastructure can quickly morph into a geopolitical weapon. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a stark illustration. Starlink’s terminals enabled battlefield communication, drone navigation and troop tracking. A simple internet service thus became a tactical asset, and a re-minder that whoever controls informa-tion flow also controls the battlefield. Even more alarming is Musk’s admission that he knew which Starlink terminals were active inside Iran, coupled with his cryptic message, “The beams are on.” This single statement hinted at a private company’s capability to influence — even disrupt — sovereign communication networks. In such a world, one must wonder if a nation can still call itself sovereign when its digital arteries lie in the hands of a foreign corporation.

SANAULLAH MIRANI
DAHARKI