Wozniak

Wozniak: Apple Cofounder Says ‘Delete Your Facebook Account!’

Big Tech pioneer Steve Wozniak understands the industry like few others and he is pointedly warning about the loss of privacy, recommending in particular that people get off of Facebook. ⁃ TN Editor

Apple Cofounder Steve Wozniak deleted his Facebook account last year and is now telling anyone willing to listen to do the same before it’s too late.

TMZ interviewed Wozniak at Reagan National Airport in D.C. last Friday and asked him if he’s troubled by Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms infringing on his privacy. Woz responded by saying social platforms are eavesdropping on our private conversations, and sending personal data to advertisers. With the lack of privacy on social media, he said, most people should delete their accounts.

“There are many different kinds of people, and some the benefits of Facebook are worth the loss of privacy,” Woz told TMZ.

“But to many like myself, my recommendation is—to most people—you should figure out a way to get off Facebook.”

Woz suggested, that at this point, there’s no way to stop the invasion of privacy by Big Tech.

“But, everything about you… I mean, they can measure your heartbeat with lasers now, they can listen to you with a lot of devices. Who knows if my cellphone’s listening right now.Alexa has already been in the news a lot,” he told TMZ.

So I worry because you’re having conversations that you think are private… You’re saying words that really shouldn’t be listened to, because you don’t expect it. But there’s almost no way to stop it,” Woz said.

Woz’s solution: allow social media companies to give users a choice of premium subscription plans, one where they pay to have their data more secure.

“People think they have a level of privacy they don’t. Why don’t they give me a choice? Let me pay a certain amount, and you’ll keep my data more secure and private then everybody else handing it to advertisers.”

In an email response last April, Woz told USA Today that Facebook makes a lot of advertising money from personal information voluntarily shared with the company.

Woz said he’d rather pay for Facebook – adding that Apple “makes money off of good products, not off of you. As they say, with Facebook, you’re the product.”

What is far more fascinating to us is that it took years for brilliant people such as Wozniak to grasp what was obvious to most others, even if those “others” are what the dormant, quiet and largely daft majority, would call “conspiracy theorists.”

Read full story here…




facial recognition

Cities Take Lead On Blocking Facial Recognition Tech

Because there are no federal regulations to limit the spread of facial recognition technology, local activists across the nation are demanding action from cities, counties and states to stop it. ⁃ TN Editor

Cities and states are leading the crackdown on using facial recognition as lawmakers in Congress struggle to find a path to address concerns over the emerging technology.

Privacy and civil rights advocates have castigated facial recognition as overly invasive and potentially discriminatory. But with Washington appearing slow to act, critics are now targeting their efforts at the state and local level, where they believe legislation to restrict the technology can move faster and tougher action is likelier.

Their campaign has been bolstered by a series of wins in recent weeks. San Francisco last month became the first city to ban local government agencies from using facial recognition technology, followed last week by Somerville, Mass.

Meanwhile, several states are weighing proposals that would limit or temporarily halt the government’s use of the sensitive tech.

“The value of cities, and states as well, is that they are the laboratories of democracy,” Jacob Snow, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told The Hill in a phone interview. “It’s been heartening to see that right now they are leading the charge to limit face surveillance.”

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have pledged they will offer bipartisan legislation on facial recognition technology sometime this year, but so far the most substantive action has been limited to a series of House Oversight Committee hearings.

“Congress is still in the early stages of educating itself about facial recognition,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has been raising concerns over the technology for years, said in a statement to The Hill. “And I fear by the time it does, the train will have left the station.”

Activists are hoping to ultimately direct the local grassroots passion toward Congress as they push for a temporary ban or at least more regulation.

Facial recognition technology, which scans people’s faces for the purpose of identifying them, has swept across the country in recent years without any government regulation or oversight. There is no federal law that provides safeguards on face scanning, a form of biometric surveillance.

While it’s difficult to determine how many law enforcement agencies currently use facial recognition technology, a 2016 study by the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology found that at least one on in four police agencies can run facial recognition searches. And according to market research firm Grand View Research, the government “facial biometrics” market is expected to spike from $136.9 million in 2018 to $375 million by 2025.

Skeptics of the government’s use of the technology – a coalition that includes civil liberties and civil rights activists and some leading tech companies – warn that it can provide authorities with unprecedented access to the daily lives of every person in the U.S., opening the door to a litany of privacy violations that could erode freedoms and raise the specter of constant surveillance.

And multiple studies have shown that some facial recognition technology is more likely to misidentify women and people of color, an issue that emerges when the software is trained on datasets of largely white men.

As airlines set up face scanners and police officers deploy the technology to find criminals, critics uniformly are calling for a halt.

“If we don’t act quickly and harness the growing backlash to this technology … and get real restrictions in place at both the local, state and federal level, then I think this technology will spread very quickly,” Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, said. “And that will normalize a type of surveillance that is incredibly invasive.”

Activists have launched a number of grassroots campaigns over the past year in states including Washington, California, and Massachusetts to push for local and state crackdowns, tallying up wins despite pushback from law enforcement and some tech trade groups.

Massachusetts is considering a bill that would bar state government agencies from obtaining or using facial recognition technology until the legislature passes regulations.

And in California, legislation that would bar the installation of facial recognition software in police body cameras is making its way through the Senate.

“By adding facial recognition software to police body cams, you are deploying thousands of cameras in California immediately and surveilling ordinary citizens 24 hours a day,” California Assemblyman Phil Ting told The Hill, explaining the impetus behind the bill. “I don’t know that ordinary citizens like [that surveillance].”

There are no states actively considering all-out bans, largely due to a delicate strategy employed by the coalition of privacy activists across the country, driven by the ACLU. They have targeted cities for bans while calling for a temporary pause, also known as a moratorium, at the state and federal level.

“States and the federal government can do things that cities can’t do in terms of setting up regulatory frameworks,” Ben Ewen-Campen, the city council member who introduced Somerville’s facial recognition ban, told The Hill. “The state has control of our criminal justice system in a way that cities never can.”

San Francisco and Somerville are offering a model for other cities, including Oakland and Berkley, which are considering their own bans.

Ewen-Campen, who cited national polls indicating most voters are skeptical of facial scanning, said he believes cities are acting in the vacuum left by Congress.

“Cities have no choice,” Ewen-Campen said. “Given the fact that right now, there are no regulations at the state or federal level and the technology is light years ahead of any kind of regulation, I don’t see another option.”

Read full story here…




Pre-Crime AI: ‘It Wasn’t Telling Us Anything We Didn’t know’

It is encouraging that some police departments are already beginning to drop pre-crime AI systems because they have not delivered the intended results, much less “preempting criminal activity.” ⁃ TN Editor

The Los Angeles Police Department took a revolutionary leap in 2010 when it became one of the first to employ data technology and information about past crimes to predict future unlawful activity. Other departments around the nation soon adopted predictive policing techniques.

But the widely hailed tool the LAPD helped create has come under fire in the last 18 months, with numerous departments dumping the software because it did not help them reduce crime and essentially provided information already being gathered by officers patrolling the streets.

After three years, “we didn’t find it effective,” Palo Alto police spokeswoman Janine De la Vega said. “We didn’t get any value out of it. It didn’t help us solve crime.”

The Mountain View, Calif., Police Department spent more than $60,000 on the program between 2013 and 2018.

“We tested the software and eventually subscribed to the service for a few years, but ultimately the results were mixed and we discontinued the service in June 2018,” spokeswoman Katie Nelson said in a statement.

The program was designed to predict where and when crimes were likely to occur over the next 12 hours. The software’s algorithm examines 10 years of data, including the types of crimes and the dates, times and locations where they occurred.

Beyond concerns from law enforcement, the data-driven programs are also under increasing scrutiny by privacy and civil liberties groups, which say the tactics result in heavier policing of black and Latino communities.

In March, the LAPD’s own internal audit concluded there were insufficient data to determine if the PredPol software — developed by a UCLA professor in conjunction with the LAPD — helped to reduce crime. LAPD Inspector General Mark Smith said there also were problems with a component of the program used to pinpoint the locations of some property crimes.

In response, Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore ended a controversial program intended to identify individuals most likely to commit violent crimes and announced he would modify others.

But Moore defended the PredPol software, saying it augmented the department’s efforts to target property crimes and was more accurate than human analysts at pinpointing potential hot spots.

“I believe in it,” Moore said. “I believe in location-based strategies.”

PredPol Chief Executive Brian MacDonald said the software was never intended to be the solution to reducing and preventing crime.

“We present them with a set of tools,” he said. “It’s virtually impossible to pinpoint a decline or rise in crime to one thing. I’d be more surprised and suspicious if the inspector general found PredPol reduced crime.”

Lowered expectations

Some police leaders and academics expected predictive technology to revolutionize law enforcement by preempting criminal activity.

That didn’t happen.

Read full story here…




somerville

Somerville, MA: Second City Bans Facial Recognition Technology

TN predicts that the city rush is on to ban facial recognition tech. In this case, Somerville got this right: “the public use of face surveillance can chill the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech.” ⁃ TN Editor

Is it a movement? Or just a couple of outliers that will forever remain on the periphery of the surveillance state? It’s too early to say, but at least we can now say San Francisco isn’t an anomaly.

Somerville, Massachusetts just became the second U.S. city to ban the use of facial recognition in public space.

The “Face Surveillance Full Ban Ordinance,” which passed through Somerville’s City Council on Thursday night, forbids any “department, agency, bureau, and/or subordinate division of the City of Somerville” from using facial recognition software in public spaces. The ordinance passed Somerville’s Legislative Matters Committee on earlier this week.

Last month, San Francisco became the first city in the nation to ban the use of facial recognition tech by city government agencies. While it can’t keep the federales from rolling in and deploying the software against city residents, it does prevent local law enforcement from deciding this is the tech toy it can’t live without.

The ordinance passed in Somerville is pretty much the same thing. No local use, but federal-level use is OK. To be fair, the city can’t regulate the activities of the federal government. It could have forbidden local agencies from working with federal agencies using facial recognition tech, but it didn’t go quite that far.

This is a solid move, one that certainly looks smarter than allowing local cops to load up on tech that’s been roasted by Congress and (still!) sports a pretty gaudy failure rate.

If other cities are interested in joining the very short list of facial recognition banners, activists have created a few road maps for governments to use. At the moment, the greatest chance for success appears to be at the hyper-local level. The ACLU says it all comes down to cities making the most of their limited power.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a phone call that at the state level, the ACLU is advocating for a moratorium or pause of facial recognition technology, while at the local level, the ACLU is advocating for bans.

“At the municipal level, it’s different,” Crockford said. “State governments have the capacity to regulate, whereas local governments really don’t. They don’t have the ability, for example, to create new institutions that could oversee, with sufficient care and attention, the implementation of an oversight or accountability system to guard against civil rights and civil liberties abuses.”

Generating momentum at the state level may be difficult until more cities are on board. If bans like these become more common, state legislators may respond favorably to wind direction changes and finally push back a bit against entrenched interests with an inordinate amount of power, like police unions and incumbent politicians with an authoritarian bent.

Read full story here…

Ordinance: Banning the usage of facial technology surveillance in Somerville

(link)

WHEREAS, the broad application of face surveillance in public spaces is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to carry and display a personal photo identification card at all times.

WHEREAS, face surveillance technology has been shown to be far less accurate in identifying the faces of women, young people, and people of color, and that such inaccuracies place certain persons at an elevated risk of harmful “false positive” identifications.

WHEREAS many of the databases to which face surveillance technology is applied are plagued by racial and other biases, which generate copycat biases in face surveillance data.

WHEREAS, the public use of face surveillance can chill the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech.

WHEREAS, the broad application of face surveillance in public spaces is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to carry and display a personal photo identification card at all times.

WHEREAS, the benefits of using face surveillance, which are few and speculative, are greatly outweighed by its harms, which are substantial.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE SOMERVILLE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING:

Section 1. Definitions.

(A) “Face surveillance” shall mean an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying an individual, capturing information about an individual, based on the physical characteristics of an individual’s face.

(B) “Face surveillance system” shall mean any computer software or application that performs face surveillance.

(C) “Somerville” shall mean any department, agency, bureau, and/or subordinate division of the City of Somerville.

(D) “Somerville official” shall mean any person or entity acting on behalf of the Somerville, including any officer, employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor, or vendor.

SECTION 2. Ban on Government Use of Face Surveillance.

(A) It shall be unlawful for Somerville or any Somerville official to obtain, retain, access, or use:

(1) Any face surveillance system; or

(2) Any information obtained from a face surveillance system.

SECTION 3. Enforcement.

(A) Suppression. No data collected or derived from any use of face surveillance in violation of this Somerville and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Somerville. Face surveillance data collected or derived in violation of this Ordinance shall be considered unlawfully obtained, and shall be deleted upon discovery.

(B) Cause of Action. Any violation of this Ordinance constitutes an injury and any person may institute proceedings for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this Ordinance. An action instituted under this paragraph shall be brought against the respective City department, and the City and, if necessary to effectuate compliance with this Ordinance, any other governmental agency with possession, custody, or control of data subject to this Ordinance.

(C) Statutory Damages. Any person who has been subjected to face recognition in violation of this Ordinance, or about whom information has been obtained, retained, accessed, or used in violation of this Ordinance, may institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction against the City and shall be entitled to recover actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 for each violation, whichever is greater.

(D) Fees. A court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who is the prevailing party in an action brought under Section 3(B) or (C).

(E) Training. Violations of this Ordinance by a City employee shall result in consequences that may include retraining, suspension, or termination, subject to due process requirements.

###




hong kong

Young Hong Kong Protestors Outwit The Surveillance State

Necessity is the mother of invention as wary protestors dumped recognizable social media accounts for VPNs and end-to-end encrypted messaging apps. Basically, nobody trusts China anymore. ⁃ TN Editor

The moment the 25-year-old protester got home from demonstrations that turned violent – tear gas still stinging her eyes – she knew what she had to do: delete all of her Chinese phone apps.

WeChat was gone. So was Alipay and the shopping app Taobao. She then installed a virtual private network on her smartphone to use with the secure messaging app Telegram in an attempt to stay hidden from cyber-monitors.

“I’m just doing anything” to stay ahead of police surveillance and hide her identity, said the protester. She asked to be referred only by her first name, Alexa, to avoid drawing the attention of authorities amid the most serious groundswell against Chinese-directed rule in Hong Kong since 2014.

Protests that expanded over the past week against a bill allowing extraditions to mainland China were marked by something unprecedented: A coordinated effort by demonstrators to leave no trace for authorities and their enhanced tracking systems.

Protesters used only secure digital messaging apps such as Telegram, and otherwise went completely analogue in their movements: buying single ride subway tickets instead of prepaid stored value cards, forgoing credit cards and mobile payments in favor of cash, and taking no selfies or photos of the chaos.

They wore face masks to obscure themselves from CCTVs and in fear of facial recognition software, and bought fresh pay-as-you-go SIM cards.

And, unlike the pro-democracy movement in 2014, the latest demonstrations also have remained intentionally leaderless in another attempt to frustrate police, who have used tear gas and rubber bullets against the crowds.

On Saturday, Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam announced the postponement of the extradition bill, saying she hoped to return peace to the streets of the city. But the measure was not fully withdrawn and Lam still expressed support.

Protesters, meanwhile, have called for another major show of defiance on the streets on Sunday.

Amid the chaos, Hong Kong has offered a picture of what it looks like to stage mass civil disobedience in the age of the surveillance state.

“The Chinese government will do a lot of things to try to monitor their own people,” said Bonnie Leung, a leader of the Hong Kong-based Civil Human Rights Front.

Leung cited media coverage of Chinese use of artificial intelligence to track individuals and its social credit score system.

“We believe that could happen to Hong Kong, too,” she said.

The core of the protests is over the belief that Beijing – which was handed back control of the former British colony more than 20 years ago – is increasingly stripping Hong Kong of its cherished freedoms and autonomy.

But the identity-masking efforts by the protesters also reflects deep suspicions that lines between China and Hong Kong no longer exist – including close cooperation between Hong Kong police and their mainland counterparts who have among the most advanced and intrusive surveillance systems.

“It is the fundamental reason people are protesting in the first place,” said Antony Dapiran, who wrote a book on protest culture in Hong Kong. “They don’t trust Beijing, they don’t trust their authorities and the legal system, and they don’t like the blurring of lines between Beijing and Hong Kong.”

For many who had taken to the streets over the past week, the fight was a familiar one.

In 2014, protesters occupied Hong Kong’s main arteries for 79 days demanding full universal suffrage in the territory. Prominent student leaders and activists marshaled up support night after night in mini cities that had been set up on Hong Kong’s thoroughfares, until they were eventually cleared out by police.

Today, all of the most prominent leaders of that movement – Joshua Wong, only a teenager at the time of the protests, legal scholar Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man, a sociology professor – are in jail.

The masses gathered around government buildings this week were without clear leaders. Demonstrators shared protest tips and security measures with people they had met just hours before to avoid a similar fate. Meetups were primarily planned on Telegram, which became the top trending app on the iPhone app store in Hong Kong in the days leading up to the protest.

“Information on personal safety was passed around on Telegram channels and group chats,” said Caden, a 21 year-old Hong Kong student in Indiana who returned home early to participate. When he among estimated 1 million marching on June 7 to begin the protest movement.

On the group groups, Caden received a barrage of advice which included changing your username on Telegram so it sounds nothing like your actual name, changing your phone number associated with app and using SIM cards without a contract.

“We are much more cautious now for sure than in 2014. Back then, it was still kind of rare for the police to arrest people through social media,” Caden said, declining to give his full name for fear of retribution. “All of this is definitely new for most people there.”

Read full story here…




climate change

Extensive Anthology That Refutes Man-Made Global Warming

Here is an extensive collection of articles debunking global warming and man-made climate change, by experts and scientists around the world. This collection is worth saving for the next time you are challenged for facts and authoritative sources.  ⁃ TN Editor

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Countering The Fallacy Of Global Warming

Fifty Years Of Failed Apocalyptic Forecasts

The ever receding climate goalpost: IPCC and Al Gore “12 years to save the planet” (again)

https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/…

The Environmentalist Left Has to Grapple with Its Failed, Alarmist Predictions | National Review

18 Spectacularly Wrong Apocalyptic Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970 – Frontiers of Freedom

Earth Day, 2019: Fifty Years of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions and Why People Believe Them, Part 1

Al Gore’s 2007 prediction that all arctic ice would be gone by 2014 now proven to be alarming fear mongering

Deja Vu: Media Again Warn Only 10-12 Years for Climate Action

Apocalypse Delayed | National Review

Credit Rating Agencies and ‘Climate Change’ More absurd predictions

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/…

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming – Now a Skeptic

The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson

How UN Scientists Are Preparing For The End Of Capitalism

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Climategate 2.0

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Global Research

http://www.populartechnology.net…

Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism | David J. Theroux

‘Global warming is not a crisis!’: Studying climate change skepticism on the Web

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren’t.

Flawed Climate Models

New Paper: Computer Predictions Of Climate Alarm Are Flawed

World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER

Climate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years

What You Never Hear About Global Warming — Sott.net

Satellites and Global Warming: Dr. Christy Sets the Record Straight

An interesting plot twist – call it an anomaly

Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years | PSI Intl

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

BREAKING: NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

Massive Data Tampering Uncovered At NASA – Warmth, Cooling Disappears Due To Incompatibility With Models

Climate scientists versus climate data

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’

Climate Scientists Rewriting The Past

Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud? | PSI Intl

Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts

Doubling The Hockey Stick Fraud

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12…

IPCC HOCKEY STICK CURVE DEBUNKED STILL FURTHER

17 New (2017) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Is Not Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable

Global Warming Bombshell

Index of /FOIA

Learn More About Climate Change

A New Low in Climate Science

Medieval Warm Period

Erasing The Medieval Warm Period

Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 ice core data

In The Real World, Existential Threat of Global Warming + Climate Change Is A Double-Nothingburger

The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

https://www.friendsofscience.org…

Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts

‘97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Dispatch

The 97 Percent Solution | National Review

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

Cook’s 97% Scam Debunked

97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net…

Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry

https://www.investors.com/politi…

Curry Report: Sea-level rise within natural variation of past several thousand years

New Paper: Antarctic Sea Ice Growing, Not Shrinking

Ocean Acidification by Fossil Fuel Emissions

Ocean Acidification Claims are Misleading – and deliberately so | PSI Intl

Ocean Acidification is a lie

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11…

FOI’s Reveal How NOAA Spin Lies About Ocean Acidification

The Myth of Ocean Acidification by Carbon Dioxide

What does the science really say about global warming and Midwest floods?

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo

Ignore The Scare-Mongers: Number & Intensity Of US Hurricanes Have Remained Constant Since 1900 – The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper

The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The fallacy of the greenhouse effect

http://www.thesavvystreet.com/th…

Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC’s HadCRUT Data Confirms CO2’s Small Impact On Global Warming

CO2 Science

http://co2coalition.org/wp-conte…

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed

New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most”

Non-Existent Relationship …CO2-Temperature Correlation Only 15% Of Last 165 Years

Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010…

https://climatechangedispatch.co…

Editorial bias and the prediction of climate disaster: the crisis of science communication

Matt Ridley: The Climate Wars And The Damage To Science

Science Is In Deep Trouble, New Paper Shows

Fatally Flawed Climate Science Paper ‘Should Be Withdrawn’

Robust Evidence NOAA Temperature Data Hopelessly Corrupted By Warming Bias, Manipulation

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming – Wikipedia

A look at carbon dioxide vs. global temperature

The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations

Alleged Correlation between CO2 and Global Warming

Miami Herald: Search Results

Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change

Central England Temperatures: Do They Provide Evidence That Current Global Warming Scare Is Totally Blown Out of Proportion?

No Trend In Extreme Weather In The US

Embarrassing fail…IPCC

The History Of The Modern “Climate Change” Scam

Climate Racketeering

Climate “Science” on Trial; Data Chiropractioners “Adjust” Data

https://www.investors.com/politi…

Table of Contents

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoy…

3 Chemists Conclude CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is ‘Unreal’, Violates Laws Of Physics, Thermodynamics

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Full text of “Fritz Vahrenholt The Neglected Sun”

Solar Evidence of Global Warming

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges

The missing link between exploding stars, clouds, and climate on Earth: Breakthrough in understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth’s cloud cover and thereby climate

Cosmic influences on the atmosphere

Depak Lal: India Should Join U.S. And Abandon Paris Agreement – The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Temperature History

Historical Temperatures – Charts/Graphs

UK December coldest for 100 years

What Science Reveals About Climate Change

New Paper Documents Main Reasons For International Controversy About The IPCC’s SR1.5 Report

GWPF Welcomes Grantham Institute Acknowledgement That “CO2 Benefits Are Indeed Good News”

Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science

Pandelidis climate column riddled with errors

Evidence Mounts Against Climate Prediction That Inspired ‘Day After Tomorrow’ Disaster Flick

The global warming salesmen are polluting science again

Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is A Hoax

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality: The Former Vice President’s Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations, by Drew Johnson

C3

The March for … What?

Global Temperature Graphs

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate Will cause harmful global cooling!

A history of fears about the climate: Fabius Maximus website

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Obama’s Motorcade for Climate Change Talks Costing $784,825 – Washington Free Beacon

What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA

https://www.investors.com/climat…

https://www.investors.com/global…

Here are a few useful websites/blogs:

Watts Up With That?

The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) – Common Sense on Climate Change

JoNova

Climate Change Archives

climate science

Global Climate Scam

Climate Depot

Climate Etc.

Welcome

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

“Not here to worship what is known, but to question it” – Jacob Bronowski. Climate and energy news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

Youtube videos:

For light-hearted: Dilbert on Climate Change

Read full story here…




Human Rights Lawyer: Facial Recognition Is Arsenic In The Water Of Democracy

One critic of Social Engineering and Digital Slavery, aka Technocracy, suggests that “Mass surveillance has a chilling effect that distorts public behaviour.” Indeed, the world has little time left to reverse the trend. ⁃ TN Editor

Automated facial recognition poses one of the greatest threats to individual freedom and should be banned from use in public spaces, according to the director of the campaign group Liberty.

Martha Spurrier, a human rights lawyer, said the technology had such fundamental problems that, despite police enthusiasm for the equipment, its use on the streets should not be permitted.

She said: “I don’t think it should ever be used. It is one of, if not the, greatest threats to individual freedom, partly because of the intimacy of the information it takes and hands to the state without your consent, and without even your knowledge, and partly because you don’t know what is done with that information.”

Police in England and Wales have used automated facial recognition (AFR) to scan crowds for suspected criminals in trials in city centres, at music festivals, sports events and elsewhere. The events, from a Remembrance Sunday commemoration at the Cenotaph to the Notting Hill festival and the Six Nations rugby, drew combined crowds in the millions.

San Francisco recently became the first US city to ban police and other agencies from using automated facial recognition, following widespread condemnation of China’s use of the technology to impose control over millions of Uighur Muslims in the western region of Xinjiang.

When deployed in public spaces, automated facial recognition units use a camera to record faces in a crowd. The images are then processed to create a biometric map of each person’s face, based on measurements of the distance between their eyes, nose, mouth and jaw. Each map is then checked against a “watchlist” containing the facial maps of suspected criminals.

Spurrier said: “I think it’s pretty salutary that the world capital of technology has just banned this technology. We should sit up and listen when San Francisco decides that they don’t want this on their streets.

“It goes far above and beyond what we already have, such as CCTV and stop-and-search. It takes us into uncharted invasive state surveillance territory where everyone is under surveillance. By its nature it is a mass surveillance tool.”

She said a lack of strong governance and oversight could allow the police to roll out live facial recognition by stealth, without a meaningful debate on whether the public wanted it or not. The technology was developing so fast, she said, that government was failing to keep up.

“There is a real sense of technological determinism that is often pushed by the big corporations, but also by law enforcement and by government, that it’s inevitable we’ll have this, so we should stop talking about why we shouldn’t have it,” she said.

Read full story here…




Oakland

Pressure Builds In Oakland To Ban Facial Recognition Tech

TN has long claimed that city councils have the ultimate stopping power for intrusive technology. Pressure is also building in San Francisco to ban facial recognition. Loss of anonymity is the biggest concern. ⁃ TN Editor

Privacy advocates in Oakland are proposing a ban on the city’s use of facial recognition technology. The ban would prohibit the use of “any face recognition technology or any information obtained from face recognition technology.”

Brian Hofer, chair of the Oakland Privacy Commission said the San Francisco District Attorney’s office and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department have already reported using the technology to fight crime.

“We need to limit it now,” said Hofer. “We’re moving to amend the [Oakland Privacy Ordinance] to prohibit the use of facial recognition technology because of the dangers it possesses.”

The risks of Amazon’s facial recognition technology, Rekognition, were highlighted last year when the ACLU tested the software and found that it falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshots. In a statement, the ACLU said, “The false matches were disproportionately of people of color, including six members of the Congressional Black Caucus.”

“We know that it has a really high error rate, especially for women and people of color,” Hofer said. “The darker your skin is, the more trouble it has identifying you.”

People KPIX 5 spoke to in Oakland feared that the technology would not just make mistakes, but it would also take away a person’s anonymity.

“Anytime they run your face through the software I’m sure it’s going to log your address, the time and everything else so it’s kind of just keeping tabs on everybody,” said Richard Hogan, a supporter of the proposed ban.

Read full story here…




Biometric Smackdown: Backlash Grows Against Facial Recognition

Stories of resistance against biometric schemes are seldom seen in established media because Big Tech lawyers head off such stories by bullying outlets with legal threats. Monsanto and Big Pharma turned this into an art form. ⁃ TN Editor

A teenager is suing Apple for $1 billion. The lawsuit, filed Monday, hinges on the alleged use of an increasingly popular — and controversial — technology: facial recognition. The tech can identify an individual by analyzing their facial features in images, in videos, or in real time.

The plaintiff, 18-year-old college student Ousmane Bah, claims the company’s facial recognition tool led to him being arrested for Apple Store thefts he didn’t commit, by mistakenly linking his name with the face of the real thief. NYPD officers came to Bah’s home last autumn to arrest him at 4 in the morning, only to discover that they apparently had the wrong guy. Bah says the whole ordeal caused him serious emotional distress. Meanwhile, Apple insists its stores do not use facial recognition tech.

Whatever the truth turns out to be in this case, Bah’s lawsuit is the latest sign of an escalating backlash against facial recognition. As the tech gets implemented in more and more domains, it has increasingly sparked controversy. Take, for example, the black tenants in Brooklyn who recently objected to their landlord’s plan to install the tech in their rent-stabilized building. Or the traveler who complained via Twitter that JetBlue had checked her into her flight using facial recognition without her consent. (The airline explained that it had used Department of Homeland Security data to do that, and apologized.)

That’s in addition to the researchersadvocates, and thousands of members of the publicwho have been voicing concerns about the risk of facial recognition leading to wrongful arrests. They worry that certain groups will be disproportionately affected. Facial recognition tech is pretty good at identifying white male faces, because those are the sorts of faces it’s been trained on. But too often, it misidentifies people of color and women. That bias could lead to them being disproportionately held for questioning as more law enforcement agencies put the tech to use.

Now, we’re reaching an inflection point where major companies — not only Apple, but also Amazon and Microsoft — are being forced to take such complaints seriously. And although they’re finally trying to telegraph that they’re sensitive to the concerns, it may be too late to win back trust. Public dissatisfaction has reached such a fever pitch that some, including the city of San Francisco, are now considering all-out bans on facial recognition tech.

A vote to ban Amazon from selling Rekognition

Amazon is not exactly known for playing nice. It’s got a reputation for fighting proposed laws it doesn’t like and for aggressively defending its work with the police and government. For years, it could afford to behave that way. Yet the uproar over facial recognition is making that posture harder to sustain.

Amazon’s facial recognition tool, Rekognition, has already been sold to law enforcement and pitched to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But leading AI researchers recently argued in an open letter that the tech is deeply flawed. (Case in point: In a test last year, Rekognition matched 28 members of Congress to criminal mug shots.) And Amazon shareholders have been clamoring for a vote on whether the company should stop selling the tool to government agencies until it passes an independent review of its civil rights impact.

Amazon fought hard to keep the vote from happening, but the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled this month that the company has to let it go ahead. It’ll take place on May 22. Although the result will be largely symbolic — shareholder resolutions aren’t binding — the vote stands to bring negative attention to Amazon.

In the meantime, the company has been trying to soften its image by, for example, dialing back some of its aggressive promotional tactics. Kartik Hosanagar, a Wharton School of Business professor, said Amazon is taking “preemptive action” to make nice “before one of the [presidential] candidates makes Amazon the poster child of what they refer to as the problems with Big Tech.”

Microsoft’s mixed messages on the ethical use of facial recognition

Whereas Amazon is still a young company, founded in 1994, Microsoft has reached adulthood — it’s been around since 1975. That longer life span means it’s had more time to make mistakes, but also more time to learn from them. Kim Hart at Axios argues that’s why Microsoft has, for the most part, managed to avoid the backlash against big tech. “Microsoft, which trudged through its own antitrust battle with the Justice Department in the ’90s, has sidestepped the mistakes made by its younger, brasher Big Tech brethren,” she writes.

Yet Microsoft is by no means completely immune to the backlash. After it was reported this month that Microsoft researchers had produced three papers on AI and facial recognition with a military-run university in China, some US politicians lambasted the company for helping a regime that’s detaining a million Uighur Muslims in internment camps and surveilling millions more. Sen. Marco Rubio called it “deeply disturbing … an act that makes them complicit in aiding the Communist Chinese government’s totalitarian censorship apparatus.”

The press also pointed out that the company has sold its facial recognition software to a US prison, and that Microsoft president Brad Smith has said it would be “cruel” to altogether stop selling the software to government agencies.

Days later, the company took pains to show that it does care about the ethical use of AI. Smith announced that it had refused to sell its facial recognition software to a California law enforcement agency that wanted to install it in officers’ cars and body cams. He said Microsoft refused on human rights grounds, knowing use of the software would cause people of color and women to be disproportionately held for questioning.

The push to ban facial recognition tech outright

This month has made clear that public pressure is working when it comes to facial recognition. Behemoth companies know they can no longer ignore the criticisms — or, as they recently did, simply say they’d welcome regulation of this technology. Critics are making clear that’s not good enough — they want to see such companies “get out of the surveillance business altogether,” as the American Civil Liberties Union told Vox.

Read full story here…




HB57

HB57: Utah Now Requires Search Warrant To Access Electronic Data

Utah now has the strongest protection of your private data, including cell phone contents, by requiring police to get a search warrant before access. Law enforcement fought HB57 but lost to the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment. ⁃ TN Editor

Gov. Gary Herbert signed off on HB57 on Wednesday designating Utah as the state with the strongest data privacy laws in the country when it comes to law enforcement accessing electronic information.

House Bill 57 modified provisions about privacy of electronic information and data for Utahns. Rep. Craig Hall, R-Utah, pitched the bill in order to require police to get search warrants before accessing Utahns’ electronic information, which up until this point has not been a necessity.

“Traditionally, we have pretty good protection with case law and statutes that protect our physical stuff if law enforcement wants to search any of our belongings such as our homes, cars, or hard drives,” Hall explained. “If law enforcement wants to search any of those things, they have to get a warrant first.”

It’s a little vague with respect to the electronic world. Hall said the goal of HB57 “is to provide the same protections we have in the physical world and apply those to the electronic world.”

The Libertas Institute, a think-tank that seeks to create a freer Utah through legal research and lawsuits, was active in the passage of this bill. Connor Boyack, the organization’s founder, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court recently required that our cell phone location data be protected by a warrant, which is a small step in the right direction. Utah’s new law takes that principle and puts it on steroids, applying it to all of our electronic data.”

Specifically, HB0057 does the following:

  • Requires the issuance of a search warrant to obtain certain electronic information or data.
  • Necessitates that when someone’s electronic data or information has been obtained there will be notification.
  • Declares that electronic information and data obtained without a warrant be excluded from consideration in legal cases.
  • “Electronic information and data” was defined as being any information or data including a sign, signal, writing, image, sound, or intelligence of any nature transmitted or stored in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo optical system. The definition includes location information, stored data, and transmitted data of an electronic device.

“In particular it protects information that is passed on to a third party,” Hall said. “So, for example, if an individual decides to draft a document and they store it on their computer, then law enforcement would have to seek and obtain a warrant before that computer’s hard drive could be searched. But what happens if the individuals store their document with Dropbox or Google Drive? Well, in the past, law enforcement has not had the requirement to seek such information by warrant. This bill makes clear that the protections we have in the physical world are also given in the electronic world.”

The bill seeks to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy for electronic information and data that has been stored in digital devices or servers.

Read full story here…