Daily Archives: November 5, 2021

Cop26: What the optimists and the cynics are saying about progress so far – centralfifetimes.com

Posted: November 5, 2021 at 10:20 pm

High-profile climate activists are already branding Cop26 a failure but other voices are warning their message of doom could be as bad as denying climate change altogether.

The first week of the climate summit has brought some major commitments but critics say they are just more hot air.

Here is a guide to what big personalities in the climate fight are saying so far.

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg told protesters gathered in Glasgow on Friday: Many are starting to ask themselves, what will it take for the people in power to wake up?

But lets be clear, they are already awake. They know exactly what they are doing they know exactly what priceless values they are sacrificing to maintain business as usual.

Thunberg added: The leaders are not doing nothing, they are actively creating loopholes and shaping frameworks to benefit themselves and to continue profiting from this destructive system.

This is an active choice by the leaders to continue to let the exploitation of people in nature and the destruction of present and future living conditions to take place.

She described the summit as a beautiful PR event and a greenwash festival orchestrated by wealthy countries in the global north.

-John Kerry

Thunbergs words were in stark contrast to the optimism of John Kerry at a business dinner on Thursday evening, where he said that according to the International Energy Agency pledges made so far at the conference would limit warming to 1.8C.

Ahead of the Cop, analysis showed humanity was on course for 2.7C.

Mr Kerry also revealed the target of 100 billion dollars (74.1 billion) in climate finance pledged by wealthy nations to developing countries would be met by 2022, a year earlier than previously predicted.

The US climate envoy told delegates: I believe that we are going to be able to raise the ambition beyond anything we imagined already we have finance that is very significant.

Professor Michael E Mann

Pioneering climate scientist Professor Michael E Mann, one of the people behind the famous hockey stick graph of global warming, has criticised some activists for their outlook on social media.

In a tweet on Friday, he said: Beware of the slippery slope from cynicism to nihilism. It leads to the same place as denialism: inaction.

Which is precisely what polluters and those doing their bidding want.

In an earlier post he said: Cop26 has barely started. Activists declaring it dead on arrival makes fossil fuel executives jump for joy.

They want to undermine and discredit the very notion of multilateral climate action.

Vanessa Nakate

Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate struck a more optimistic note at the Fridays for Future protest.

Describing what the world could look like if humans tackle climate change, she said: The climate crisis is here now.

But the dry land can be glad again, the farms can blossom again, the animals can rejoice because there is water to drink, there is a loud singing in once parched lands.

The pain and suffering is gone, there is a celebration of the people because the disasters are gone.

She continued: We wont have to fight for limited resources, because there will be enough for everyone.

Professor Rebecca Willis, a specialist in environmental policy at the University of Lancaster, believes a little hope can be a powerful thing.

She told the PA news agency: It is really important not to terrify ourselves because the danger is that leads to absolute fatalism.

Prof Willis added: 1.5C is better than the 1.6C, which in turn is better than 1.7C, the more greenhouse gases we can keep out of the atmosphere, the better.

Go here to read the rest:

Cop26: What the optimists and the cynics are saying about progress so far - centralfifetimes.com

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off on Cop26: What the optimists and the cynics are saying about progress so far – centralfifetimes.com

Song of the Week: Radiohead Return to Their Roots with the Unearthed Follow Me Around – Consequence

Posted: at 10:20 pm

Song of the Week breaks down and talks about the song we just cant get out of our head each week. Find these songs and more on our Spotify Top Songs playlist. For our favorite new songs from emerging artists, check out our Spotify New Sounds playlist. This week, Radiohead dig out a fan favorite.

Even if theyre been one of the most consistent rock bands to have emerged in the 1990s, youd be hard-pressed to find a Radiohead fan who didnt want even more Radiohead. Thom Yorke and company know they have hundreds and thousands of listeners wrapped around their finger, and rightfully so. Follow Me Around, a deep cut recorded during the bands OK Computer sessions and officially released this week, only further evidences the alt-rock legends hot streak in the late 90s and early aughts.

Though OK Computer is defined by its blending of grunge roots and futuristic electronic elements (which, mind you, still sound pretty futuristic), Follow Me Around which you can hear on KID A MNESIA, the bands new compilation of unearthed material from the turn of the century is fully-analog Radiohead. Devoid of any of the percussion or effects that made OK Computer so monumental, the track is driven by a steady acoustic riff that sounds like Yorke had been listening to a little too much Willie Nelson; somehow, though, it works.

Lyrically, Follow Me Around follows the basic Radiohead formula, alluding to Englands political landscape and brooding existentialism. Nowadays I get panicked /I cease to exist, Yorke croons in his trademark wail, recalling the overwhelming stress he felt once his band broke the one-hit wonder curse threatened by Creep and began touring arenas. He disses Margaret Thatcher, envisions his own death, and luxuriates in nihilism: yep, it doesnt get much more on point than that.

Abby Jones

Go here to see the original:

Song of the Week: Radiohead Return to Their Roots with the Unearthed Follow Me Around - Consequence

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off on Song of the Week: Radiohead Return to Their Roots with the Unearthed Follow Me Around – Consequence

What if the truth about Jan. 6 is revealed and the American people just don’t care? – Salon

Posted: at 10:20 pm

Reality is being rewritten before our eyes. Some Americans can see this, and understand it. The results include an inescapablefeelingof dread and doom. The frustration mounts because as a group those who see thetruth and are ready to speak itdo not yet have the full vocabulary required to make sense of it all.

Too many other Americans appear not to care about the blatant effort by the Republican fascists and others to rewrite reality. They are indifferent ortired, orjust so hyper-focused on their own lives that nihilism and surrender are preferable to confrontation and engagement. Others are either incapable orunwilling, or remainin a profound state of denial.

This is not a claim about some grand secret conspiracy. It'san observation about how people function in a society caught in an interregnum, that time of in-betweenness when the old is giving way to something new (and potentially somethinghorrible), when truth and reality are being dismembered by fascists and their fellow travelers. Itall feels like aconfusing slow blur.

For those of us who do care and who choose to see the truth, what do we do when the final form, the entire uglinessbehind America's crisis of democracy,is finally revealed?

On Jan. 6, Donald Trump and his cabal attempted a coup to overthrow American democracy. As part of that coup plot, Trump's followers launched a lethal terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. These events were publicly announced by Trump, his spokespeople, alliesand followers. America's political elites, including too many among the news media, chose to ignore these warnings or somehow convince themselves that it was all "hyperbole."

RELATED:Will the mainstream media ever face its failure to tell the truth about Jan. 6?

With a few notable exceptions, the mainstream news media and other public voices described the right-wing terrorist attack on the Capitol in relatively benign terms asthe acts of a "disorganized mob"or as something "spontaneous" and "shocking."

Donald Trump and his propagandists and co-conspirators, on the other hand, created their own alternate reality in whichJan. 6 was a festive gathering, a "regular day" when many"tourists" decided to visitthe Capitol.

Alternatively, the right-wing propaganda machine argued that, yes, there waspolitical violence, but it was actually committed by antifaor Black Lives Matter activists,as part of afalse flag operation to harm Trump and the Republican Party's supposedly pristine reputation.

It'sall a lie, of course. Butpublic opinion polls and other evidence reveal that a large majority of Republicans and Trump supporters as though there weresomemeaningful distinction between those groupsbelieve in the Big Lie and the many little lies that support it.

As more information about how close Donald Trump and his cabalreally came tonullifying the 2020 election has becomeknown,the language has shifted. Now the mainstream media says"insurrection" rather than "mob." That's certainly a more accurate description, but it still fails to capture the scale of the Trump cabal'sefforts to overthrow American democracy.

"Insurrection" suggests something momentary, as opposed to a sustained attack whoseresult would be a long-term and perhapspermanent change in American society and government. Trump and his forces wanted to spark a fascist revolution in America; Jan. 6 was not intended as a one-off outburst of white authoritarian fascist rage.

In her review of the new HBO documentary "Four Hours at the Capitol,"Sophie Gilbert of theAtlantic grapples with the question of what language to use in describing those events:

In the days and weeks after the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, commentators and media outlets grappled with the question of what to call that event. Language is sticky; it clarifies and obfuscates the truth depending on who's wielding it. January 6 was described as or likened to a "riot," a "tourist visit," an "insurrection," a "peaceful protest," and a "coup attempt." And yet, watching Four Hours at the Capitol, Jamie Roberts's tight, unsettling new HBO documentary about that day, another word seemed more appropriate to me, one that most of the participants interviewed in the film might agree on. More than anything else, January 6 was war.

With his rigidly chronological framing and his interviews with people who were present at the Capitol that day, [director Jamie] Roberts captures the extent to which both sides were engaging in combat. This dynamic emerges over and over again throughout different accounts and video clips. One clash between Capitol Police officers and pro-Trump extremists is referred to by a participant as "the battle for the tunnel." Different interviewees describe fighting on "the front line," engaging in "hand-to-hand combat," and, in the case of one police officer, the strangeness of walking through his own colleagues' blood. In a scene that seems ripped right out of a Bruce Willis movie, a police commander shouts, "We are not losing the U.S. Capitol today, do you hear me?"

Gilbert continues by observing that Capitol Police are of course equipped to deal with violent threats, but are "not trained for warfare, which is what must have made January 6 and their task ofdefending the U.S. Capitolseem so absurd." It was the first time hostile forces had invaded the Capitol in large numbers since the War of 1812. What the film captures, Gilbert concludes, is simple: "Pro-Trump forces went to war against the American officers charged with defending democracy."

A series of recent books, most notably Bob Woodward and Robert Costa's "Peril,"have offered evidencethatTrump and his allies were following a detailed plan meant to replace our democratic system with an autocracy where Trump would remain president indefinitely. This plan cameclose to succeeding.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Rolling Stone reports thatdozens of meetingsoccurred between Trump's coup plotters and those others who organized the rallies on Jan. 6which served asa staging ground for the attack on the Capitol. At least one high-ranking Trump White House official and several Republican members of Congress allegedly took part in these meetings.

Donald Trump and his allies are continuing to encourageright-wing political violence as part of the "Big Lie" strategy to undermine Joe Biden's presidency and to further radicalize thesupporters of the Republican fascist movement.

Unfortunately, Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice have so far done nothingto hold Trump and other leaders of the coup plotaccountable for their apparent crimes. Biden and the Democraticleadership are also not exerting the pressure necessary to ensure that Trump and his co-conspiratorsare punished to the maximum extent of the law.

At the Nation, Elie Mystal lamentsthat the DOJ's failure "to investigate the planning of the putsch is all the more shameful given the publicly available evidence that the insurrectionists may have had help on the inside":

For instance: The people who sacked the Capitol made a beeline for the Senate parliamentarian's office. Pictures after the putsch showed that the office had been ransacked. The location of that office is not obvious; it's one of those places that is hard to find unless you've been there before. But the insurrectionists somehow got there and began looking for the hard copies of the electoral votes that Congress was meant to certify that day. Had they gotten their hands on those votes, even for a moment, they would have broken the chain of custody of the Electoral College count and at least delayed the certification of the election, as was their goal.

It strains credulity to think that a bunch of white supremacists and shamans knew precisely where to go and what to look for on their own. At the very least, a thorough criminal investigation of events would seek to uncover where these people got their information. It would look into claims that tours were given beforehand to eventual insurrectionists. Congress can piece together events, but the DOJ and the FBI are not supposed to wait until the political branches get it together before investigating and prosecuting people for crimes.

At some point in the near future, the American people and the world will likely learn the full details of the Trump regime's coup plot or at least, as full an accounting as we will ever get. But what if the American people simply don't care? What if the overall public responseis indifference and a feeling of futility, driven by the perceived"need to move on" or the feeling that "nothing matters anyway."

That will leave the door open for the next fascist coup attempt and serve as an act of surrender in advance which was very likely the plan from the beginning.

More from Salon's coverage of the Jan. 6 aftermath and America's democracy crisis:

See the original post here:

What if the truth about Jan. 6 is revealed and the American people just don't care? - Salon

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off on What if the truth about Jan. 6 is revealed and the American people just don’t care? – Salon

Research With Cellular Therapy Ramps Up in Mesothelioma – OncLive

Posted: at 10:20 pm

Mesothelin-directed CAR T-cell therapies, NF2 inhibitors, and EZH2 inhibitors are just 3 of a growing list of novel approaches under study in mesothelioma, renewing optimism in a field which has historically been colored with nihilism, said Marjorie G. Zauderer, MD.

Even just from when I started 10 to 12 years ago until now, the progress we have made has been slow, with only 1 approval, but its really snowballing now in terms of [our understanding of] biology and the discoveries and the models that we have to study and ask the right questions. We should all be optimistic about the things that we can do. Outcomes still have a long way to go, but theyre so much better than they used to be, said Zauderer.

In an interview with OncLive ahead of the 16th Annual New York Lung Cancers Symposium, Zauderer, co-director of the MSK Mesothelioma Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), previewed her presentation on some of the new approaches in mesothelioma.

Zauderer: I was tasked with talking about some new approaches for mesothelioma, and its an interesting time for that disease. Last fall, we had our first FDA approval since 2003 or 2004, which was when pemetrexed was approved for use in mesothelioma. Last year, we had the approval of ipilimumab [Yervoy] and nivolumab [Opdivo], which is exciting. Although that regimen really makes a difference for a lot of people, there are still a lot of people where that isnt the right magic sauce. We are always trying to push that envelope.

Ill be talking about a couple of different research endeavors and clinical trials that are ongoing to help figure out who responds to immunotherapy, who should still get chemotherapy and who should get chemoimmunotherapywhich is a lot like how we treat lung cancer today. Then, of course, we are looking at different ways of triggering the immune system. Lots of different clinical trials are looking to exploit the expression of different proteins on the surface of mesothelioma. One area we at MSK have been really involved in is the development of T-cell CARs targeting mesothelin. [In my PER presentation,] Ill be talking about that a little bit and some of the T-cell studies going on elsewhere.

Then of course, we always think about targeted therapies, and thats certainly been incredibly successful in lung cancer, but we havent had the same degree of success in mesothelioma. In part, that is because the genes are different; theyre tumor suppressor genes instead of oncogenic activating genes. In my presentation, I will briefly cover different ways of exploiting NF2 alterations. There have also been studies looking at BAP1, PIK3CA mutations and sort of how we are starting to put together this very complicated interconnected network with rationally designed experiments based on good preclinical science that were trying to translate into the clinic.

Right now, there are a couple different mesothelin-directed T-cell programs. One that we have at MSK is the interpleural injection of our homegrown construct that was developed and created by Prasad S. Adusumilli, MD, FACS, of MSK, who is a physician-scientist that I work with. There is another construct from a company called TCR2 Therapeutics known as TC-210.

There are programs elsewhere across the country, and in the Northeast, where there are a couple of different constructs [being developed]. Each T cell is a little bit different in terms of the signature in terms of how the cells are manipulated, so that they target mesothelin. People are playing around with whether they are given intravenously or into the pleura or into the abdomen, as well as what chemotherapy to give before to prepare people for the treatment. How many times do you give it? How close together? There are a lot of different manipulations around that. Nobody really knows the right answer yet.

Another pathway that weve been thinking a lot about and how to target it is looking at NF2 alterations in mesothelioma because its a common mutation. There have been a lot of studies with PI3K and mTOR inhibitors, but to date, it hasnt really been as effective in mesothelioma as we would like.

There are some studies now looking at other functions of NF2 and inhibiting that with inhibitors of a molecule that puts together these cullin-RINGs. By blocking the formation of that cullin-RING, you stop this prooncogenic cascade. Combining that [agent] with some of the PI3K and mTOR inhibitors has been productive in animal models. Were starting to look at that [approach] in humans and translate that [to practice].

The other study is evaluating the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat [Tazverik], which was approved in the past couple of years for INI-deficient sarcomas. There was a phase 2 trial in mesothelioma that was a positive study. Its one of these constructs that didnt show a ton of shrinkage. There were a few patients who had real responses, but there was a tremendous amount of stable disease [SD]. The kinetics of the patients who had SD was that over a long period of time, they trended towards tumor shrinkage, which is different than a lot of the other ways that we think about these drugs as working. We often classically have thought about having a response up front, and then maintaining it. However, the idea that there might be an evolution to response over time is a really different way of thinking about the kinetics of response.

[We are looking at ways] to target P16 loss, which is common in mesothelioma and is usually associated with more aggressive disease. By interfering with the MTAP pathway where adenine is made, you can hopefully disrupt that signaling pathway. There is a construct thats in development, and there are some other ones that are coming to the clinic too.

Its an exciting time for research because we are starting to extrapolate from other cancers, how they approach their diseases and break mesothelioma down into different subtypes based on biology. One of the biggest barriers is when we look at the SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database of how and where patients are treated; so many patients dont get much treatment, if any, for their disease.

Being seen by a center that has experience doesnt mean that youre always going to get treatmentsometimes thats the right decision for a particular patient. Seeing someone who doesnt see 1 or 2 cases a decade, but who [treats patients with this disease] day in and out, brings a lot of expertise to [an individual patients] case. There are good data that surgical outcomes are better in high-volume centers. One of the barriers is getting the patients to the best regional center to manage their disease.

More:

Research With Cellular Therapy Ramps Up in Mesothelioma - OncLive

Posted in Nihilism | Comments Off on Research With Cellular Therapy Ramps Up in Mesothelioma – OncLive

NASA: SpaceX Toilet Still Broken, Astronauts Will Have to Pee Themselves – Futurism

Posted: at 10:18 pm

Astronauts will have to rely on their "undergarments."Diapers Deployed

Despite their best efforts, engineers at SpaceX wont be able to fix the leaky toilet on board the companys Crew Dragon spacecraft in time for the NASA astronauts set to launch on it imminently.

Their solution for this weeks Crew-3 launch headed to the International Space Station: astronauts will have to resort to peeing their spacesuits, which essentially amount to diapers.

NASAs Commercial Crew Program manager Steve Stich told reporters on Friday that astronauts will have to rely on their undergarments, CNN reports a throwback to how astronauts used to have to do their business in the Apollo days, and still do during prolonged space walks.

The admission serves as yet another reminder that even after decades of spaceflight, space toilets remain an extraordinary engineering challenge.

While inspecting a different Crew Dragon spacecraft ironically dubbed Resilience last month, SpaceX engineers made a horrifying discovery. The toilet had sprayed human urine into a compartment underneath the capsules floor while four unsuspecting space tourists made their joyride around the Earth over three days.

The Inspiration4 crew also had their own issues with the lavatory during the jorney, struggling with a misfunctioning vent fan.

The same issue showed up in the other Crew Dragon capsule, dubbed Endurance, which was meant to carry a crew of four to the ISS on Sunday. The launch had to be delayed yesterday for the second time due to a seemingly unrelated minor medical issue. Its now scheduled to launch no earlier than this coming Saturday night.

Fortunately, the urine didnt cause any permanent damage to either of the two spacecraft but that wont provide much relief for astronauts stuck inside the capsule for as long as 24 hours while traveling to the orbital outpost or even longer, in the case of Inspiration4.

Last week, SpaceX officials announced they had found a solution to the spraying space toilet. But given Stichs comments on Friday, it sounds as though the fix has yet to be implemented.

Lets hope this weeks crew will have the Endurance it takes to travel all the way to the ISS with diapers. Space travel just isnt always as glamorous as one might hope.

READ MORE: Leaky SpaceX toilet problem will force astronauts to use backup undergarments [CNN]

More on the infamous toilet: Space Toilet No Longer Oozes Human Pee, SpaceX Proclaims

Care about supporting clean energy adoption? Find out how much money (and planet!) you could save by switching to solar power at UnderstandSolar.com. By signing up through this link, Futurism.com may receive a small commission.

See the rest here:
NASA: SpaceX Toilet Still Broken, Astronauts Will Have to Pee Themselves - Futurism

Posted in Futurism | Comments Off on NASA: SpaceX Toilet Still Broken, Astronauts Will Have to Pee Themselves – Futurism

SFSU President sides with tech giants on silencing of Palestinian voices – Mondoweiss

Posted: at 10:18 pm

Editors Note: The following press release was issued on November 4, 2021 by the International Campaign to Defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi. The press release comes as San Francisco State President Lynn Mahoney overturned the decision of a campus panel that ruled the school failed to protect Professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Tomomi Kinukawa from censorship when Zoom, Facebook, and YouTube denied their services for an event featuring Leila Khaled. For more on this story see here. Mondoweissoccasionally publishes press releases and statements from organizations in an effort to draw attention to overlooked issues.

PRESS RELEASE: November 4, 2021

In an outrageous and insulting decision, President Lynn Mahoney of SFSU has disregarded the legitimate reprimand of a faculty panel that recommended redress to Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, founding director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies (AMED) program, for the Universitys failure regarding violations of Professor Abdulhadis and her colleague Professor Tomomi Kinukawas academic freedom.

President Mahoneys decision upholds the Universitys corporatized acceptance of Big Techs increasing control over academic discussion and its complicity with Zionist organizations that stifles all discourse on issues of human rights and dignity for the Palestinian people.

The Presidents decision follows a ruling by the faculty member panel based on a six hour hearing following the arbitrary cancellation by Zoom and other social media outlets of Drs. Abdulhadi and Kinukawas online open classroom, Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled. The University is bound by contract, law and AAUP policy to protect academic freedom rather than subcontracting the responsibility to private companies. Further, universities must maintain structural independence from the whims and demands of partisan lobbying organizations, including Zionist groups like the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) and the Lawfare Project.

In its ruling, now vetoed by President Mahoney, the faculty panel affirmed that: San Francisco State University has inflicted harm upon Dr. Abdulhadi (and co-instructor, Dr. Kinukawa) and that her academic freedom was, in fact, violated. We characterize this harm in two ways: 1) that the university did not provide adequate support to Dr. Abdulhadi against the actions of the corporate entity, Zoom, and, more importantly against the outside organization, Lawfare Project. Furthermore, the panel ordered the university to provide remedy in the form of a public apology to Dr. Abdulhadi and to provide a site for rescheduling the event with Leila Khaled on an alternate platform, without interference.

Clearly, with this decision, SFSU is continuing its policy of harassment of Dr. Abdulhadi, intensifying its efforts to dismantle the AMED program, and confirming its complicity with Zionist organizations that seek to silence Palestinian voices on campuses across the country as Israel has pursued against Palestinian human rights organizations. SFSUs lip service to academic freedom flies in the face of limiting Palestinian speech in favor of an overriding concern for its corporate bottom line.

As with this weeks criminalization of 6 legitimate Palestinian human rights organizations by the Israeli government, SFSU chose to follow the Zionist playbook of demonizing all actions in support of Palestinian liberation and teaching about Palestine as terrorism and anti-Semitic.

President Mahoneys decision was written by Ingrid Williams, Vice President of Human Resources. According to University by-law, the Presidents veto will trigger an automatic and independent arbitration hearing for a final decision on Dr. Abdulhadis grievance.

Mondoweiss is a nonprofit news website dedicated to covering the full picture of the struggle for justice in Palestine. Funded almost entirely by our readers, our truth-telling journalism is an essential counterweight to the propaganda that passes for news in mainstream and legacy media.

Our news and analysis is available to everyone which is why we need your support. Please contribute so that we can continue to raise the voices of those who advocate for the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity and peace.

Support Mondoweiss from as little as $1. Thank you.

Continue reading here:

SFSU President sides with tech giants on silencing of Palestinian voices - Mondoweiss

Comments Off on SFSU President sides with tech giants on silencing of Palestinian voices – Mondoweiss

Explained: Where tech giants stand on use of controversial facial recognition tech – The Indian Express

Posted: at 10:18 pm

Facebook is phasing out its facial recognition tool, the company announced in a blogpost written by Jerome Pesenti, VP of Artificial Intelligence. Facebook claims while over one-third of its daily active users had the feature turned on and found it useful, it was moving away from the technology given regulatory uncertainty. But Facebooks step back comes at a time when there is growing scrutiny of the use of facial recognition technology, especially by the police in many countries.

We take a look at why facial recognition technology is viewed as controversial and where other tech companies and policy makers stand on it.

Facial recognition technology as the name suggests can identify a person by capturing his face from a photo or video. The technology can work in real-time as well and relies on advanced machine learning algorithms powered by deep neural networks to identify faces and map them to an existing data base.

For example, in Google Photos or even Apple Photos, the app will try and bucket photos of a person and ask users to identify the face. All of this is possible due to a form of facial recognition technology being used by these services.

On Facebook too, it was possible to turn on the feature and have the service automatically identify oneself if they were part of any photos or videos uploaded by friends or family. But companies such as Amazon, Microsoft have made it possible to use the technology at a much bigger scale and to analyse more than just images from your phones library. The technology is also outsourced to governments and law enforcement agencies, which has sparked concerns on its use.

While Facebooks facial recognition tool was only being used on the platform, the company is stopping the use of the tech given its controversial nature. There are several privacy concerns around the deployment of such tools, especially since Facebook is such a big social network with billions of users and many photos and videos being uploaded.

In the post, Facebook asaid it needs to weigh the positive use cases for facial recognition against growing societal concerns, especially as regulators have yet to provide clear rules, and it has taken this decision after careful consideration. The company has already settled a lawsuit in the state of Illinois in the US, where it paid nearly $550 million to a group of users who had argued that the facial recognition tool violated the states privacy laws.

The other bigger more controversial name around this is Amazon, which offers its Rekognition Software as a service (Saas) as part of its cloud services. But Rekognition has faced criticism because Amazon has offered the tool to law enforcement services as well.

Police enforcement groups prefer Rekognition because it can track and analyse people in real time and even identify up to 100 people in one single image. But the technology is not exactly accurate as it has been shown in the past by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

However, in a statement last year, Amazon said it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazons facial recognition technology. But it will continue to offer it to organisations such as a Thorn, the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Marinus Analytics in order to help rescue human trafficking victims and reunite missing children with their families.

The statement also called for governments to put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and hoped the US Congress would take a stand on the issue and put in place appropriate rules, around the use of the technology.

A major criticism of Amazons Rekognition tool in the past was around its accuracy, especially when identifying people of colour, and African-Americans in particular. The use of the technology by law enforcement could lead to wrongful arrests and more discrimination, according to experts. Regarding criticism from rights groups about inaccuracy with the software, Amazon had responded saying they were using an outdated version.

In June 2020, Microsoft also joined Amazon in saying it would not sell the technology to law enforcement until there was a federal law regulating this in the US.

Microsoft President Brad Smith had told the Washington Post that the company had not sold its technology called Face API, part of its Azure Cloud services, to police departments in the US. Smith was quoted as saying, We will not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights, that will govern this technology.

In the past, Microsofts Azure cloud services, which included facial recognition and identification, have been offered to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for which it faced criticism.

IBM, on the other hand, announced it was exiting the business of facial recognition entirely in June 2020. IBM CEO Arvind Krishna wrote a letter to the US Congress calling for regulations on the US of the technology. IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance, racial profiling, violations of basic human rights and freedoms, or any purpose which is not consistent with our values and Principles of Trust and Transparency, he wrote in a letter, according to CNBC.

In January 2020, Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai hailed the European Union for its temporary ban on the use of the technology. Google has been outspoken about the problematic nature of the technology for a while.

For instance, in a 2018 blog post, Google SVP of Global Affairs Kent Walker explained why Google Cloud does not offer general-purpose facial recognition APIs, adding that policy questions around its use need to be answered. working through important technology and policy questions.

As part of its AI responsibilities declaration, Google has also raised questions about the use of facial recognition saying, the technologys implementation needs to be fair, so it doesnt reinforce or amplify existing biases, especially where this might impact underrepresented groups. It has also said that the technology should not be used in surveillance that violates internationally accepted norms. and that it needs to protect peoples privacy, providing the right level of transparency and control.

The big problem with facial recognition is that as the technology gets faster and more accurate there are worries that it will be used for mass surveillance. There are also worries the technology could get so good, it could deduce intent and expressions, leading to real-time surveillance.

In China, the government has used the technology to track Uighurs, the Muslim minority in the country. It was also used in the UK to monitor football fans arriving for a match in 2020. In India too there have been concerns over the use of facial recognition technology by police, especially during protests.

Newsletter | Click to get the days best explainers in your inbox

In the US, the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act has been proposed by some members of Congress, which would ban the use of the technology by federal entities. It would also ban other biometrics such as voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, from being used by federal entities. The bill has been sent to House Committees for further consideration.

Meanwhile, the European Union has passed a resolution banning the use of facial recognition technology by the police. This is a non-binding resolution. However, the use of the technology is a major concern of the EUs upcoming AI Act, which will be debated and voted upon by the EU Parliament. The bill states that AI systems which are meant for real-time and post remote identification of people are high-level risk systems and would require compliance before the company can get access to the EU market. It also imposes restrictions on how real-time remote biometric identification systems can be used in public spaces for the purpose of law enforcement.

Read more from the original source:

Explained: Where tech giants stand on use of controversial facial recognition tech - The Indian Express

Comments Off on Explained: Where tech giants stand on use of controversial facial recognition tech – The Indian Express

UK warns Facebook to focus on safety as minister eyes faster criminal sanctions for tech CEOs – TechCrunch

Posted: at 10:18 pm

The U.K.s recently appointed secretary of state for digital, Nadine Dorries, has signalled she wants to take a tougher line on social media platforms than her predecessor telling a parliamentary committee shes looking at speeding up the application of criminal sanctions for breaches of incoming U.K. online safety legislation.

A provision to hold named individuals criminally accountable for failing to tackle illegal or harmful content spreading on their platforms was included in the draft Online Safety bill but deferred for two years.

In an evidence session earlier today, Dorries told the joint committee examining the bill that she wants to accelerate that time frame potentially cutting the deferral of criminal liability powers down to as little as three to six months after the bill becomes law.

The billwas published in draft form back in May, and last month Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested it will be presented to parliament before Christmas although reports have suggested that time frame may slip. Nonetheless, given Johnsons whacking Commons majority, it seems likely the bill will make it onto the statute books in 2022.

So, if Dorries gets her way, criminal liability for tech CEOs could be coming to the U.K. as soon as next year.

Dorries argued that tech giants already know the changes they need to make to remove illegal content (like terrorism) and legal but harmful content (like pro-anorexia or self-harm content) from their platforms implying they are holding off for financial reasons. Hence the tacit suggestion is that a pressing threat of criminal sanctions is needed to concentrate tech giants minds.

To platforms, take note now, she warned. It will not be two years we are looking at truncating it to a very much shorter time frame.

Thats one of the areas as the secretary of state that I want to go further with this bill, she went on.

I think its a nonsense that platforms have been given two years to get themselves ready for what would be criminal action. They know what they are doing now. They actually have the ability to put right what theyre doing wrong now. They have the ability now to abide by their own terms and conditions. They could remove harmful algorithms tomorrow.

The need for Facebook to make changes to its algorithm to reduce virality and prevent the amplification of misinformation has been a key call of the Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, who came forward last month as the source of a trove of leaked internal documents and has accused the tech giant of prioritizing profit over safety.

The notion of harmful algorithms and a systematic lack of attention to safety appears to have resonated with U.K. lawmakers who have spent years drafting legislation thats intended to reboot platforms attitudes around content by enforcing a duty of care.

Pointing to Facebooks recent rebranding to Meta and its self-trumpeted pivot toward directly massive resource into building the metaverse Dorries said the tech giant should instead apply the labour of the circa 10,000-20,000 engineers it wants to use to develop metaverse technology toward online safety and protecting children from internet content horrors.

Here she was directly echoing a point made by Haugen in her own earlier evidence to the U.K. committee when she described herself as shocked that Facebook wants to double down on the metaverse and suggested that the under-resourced safety teams inside the company, such as the civic integrity team where she worked, could have done many things to improve safety and reduce algorithmic amplification of toxic content if they had been given 10,000 engineers.

Instead, Haugen said, Facebooks safety teams struggled with chronic under-resourcing because the tech giant simply views safety as a cost, emphasizing that it is up to regulators to force platforms to prioritize safety.

Firing her own rocket at Facebooks founder Mark Zuckerberg and his chief spin doctor, Nick Clegg who happens to be a former liberal democrat MP (and deputy U.K. PM) Dorries warned: Rebranding does not work.

When harm is caused we are coming after it. Put those 10K or 20K engineers now onto abiding by your terms and conditions and to removing your harmful algorithms because if you dont this bill will be watertight.

Platforms know now, they know today, they know what theyre doing wrong. They have a chance to put that right absolutely right now why would we give them two years? she added, hammering her point into rhetoric by reiterating the question.

People like Mark Zuckerberg and Nick Clegg who are wanting to take off into the metaverse, Dorries went on. My advice would be: Stay in the real world. Because this bill is going to be an act very, very soon and its the algorithms that do the harm, and this act will be there and you will be accountable to this act.

She caveated that her preferred truncated time frame for criminal liability still requires sign-off through standard parliamentary and legislative procedures. But she told the committee shes pressing hard for three to six months for criminal liability which opens up a path for senior tech executives to be prosecuted for safety failures in the near future.

(Although its fair to say that the risk of criminal liability would most likely shrink down to zero the chance of Zuckerberg or Clegg ever personally setting foot back on U.K. soil. After all, the Facebook founder has already shown hes willing to avoid the U.K. entirely in order to evade parliamentary scrutiny. Enforced exile for Clegg, who is British, may sting rather more though )

During her testimony to the committee, Dorries also predicted that the Online Safety Bill will change internet culture for good.

I believe that there will be huge, huge [change]. This will set off a culture change in terms of our online environments and landscape, she said. There will be huge kickback. Because you have to follow the money people are making a huge amount of money from these platforms and sites. And of course there will be kickback. But we must not forget the world is watching what we are doing in terms of legislating to hold those platforms to account. That is why it has to be watertight.

The committee questioned Dorries closely on whether the bill gives enough powers to the independent regulator, Ofcom, which will be responsible for overseeing and enforcing the online safety rules to ensure platforms cant just wiggle through gaps and loopholes. Notably they were concerned about risk assessments, an area which Haugen had given detailed suggestions on.

The secretary of state said she was assured that the bill does give Ofcom adequate powers, including around transparency issues. She also emphasized the substantial fines it can issue, noting that the bills regime of financial penalties scales to up to 10% of global turnover.

Ofcom, I believe, with the regulatory framework we have set, has the powers to request full transparency of how those algorithms are used and promoted, she said. We think that Ofcom have the powers to lift the lid on the algorithms and they have the powers to set huge fines.

But Dorries also said shes keen to see the committee recommendations for beefing up the bill and would be open to relevant suggestions.

I can reassure you that if you have recommendations and they can pass parliamentary council and they will not dilute the scope of the bill and that they are in line with the three core principles and they will help to make this bill watertight and groundbreaking and assist with the novel nature of this bill if there is something that we can see helps deliver we will be very much open to your recommendations, she added.

Given what she described as the novel nature of the online safety legislation, Dorries said its her view that ongoing monitoring will be vital suggesting a joint parliamentary committee format may be required to keep a watching brief.

I dont believe the bill goes far enough in terms of scrutiny, she said. For example there is a clause in the bill which says that in two to five years we have to re-examine that is not good enough.

The reason why its not good enough is because when this bill, the idea of this bill, the genesis, TikTok had not even been heard of. Its a rapidly changing landscape and therefore I think its exceptional in terms of the parliamentary scrutiny required.

We dont know what is doing to happen the day after this bill receives royal assent. I think there is a role for a committee like yours to continue to work in the same way that the human rights joint committee does to continue to work to scrutinise this bill moving forward, she added.

Continue reading here:

UK warns Facebook to focus on safety as minister eyes faster criminal sanctions for tech CEOs - TechCrunch

Comments Off on UK warns Facebook to focus on safety as minister eyes faster criminal sanctions for tech CEOs – TechCrunch

UK minister tells Meta ‘rebranding doesn’t work,’ vows to fast-track criminal sanctions for Big Tech execs – CNBC

Posted: at 10:18 pm

A smartphone with Facebook's logo is seen in front of displayed Facebook's new rebrand logo Meta in this illustration taken October 28, 2021.

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

LONDON A top U.K. official has slammed Meta, the company formerly known as Facebook, for its rebrand, and promised to bring forward criminal sanctions for social media bosses under new laws tackling harmful content on the web.

"Rebranding doesn't work," Nadine Dorries, Britain's minister for digital, culture, media and sport, told lawmakers Thursday at a hearing on the Online Safety Bill. "When harm is caused, we are coming after it."

Meta was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC but has said the rebrand is focused on its effort to build a so-called "metaverse."

Facebook changed its name to Meta last week in a move that was criticized by some as an attempt to shift focus away from its recent problems.

The company is facing one of its biggest crises in recent history, following a series of revelations from a former employee-turned-whistleblower. One of the most notable is that the company knew about the harmful effects of its Instagram app on teenagers.

The whistleblower, Frances Haugen, appeared in U.K. Parliament last month, telling lawmakers that regulators have a "slight window of time" to act on the spread of hate speech and other harmful content on Facebook.

Meta says its name change is about a pivot to what it calls the "metaverse," a kind of shared virtual reality in which multiple users can interact with each other as avatars. The company recently said it plans to hire 10,000 engineers in the European Union to help with its efforts to build the metaverse.

Dorries said Meta should give those extra workers the task of "abiding by your terms and conditions and removing your harmful algorithms" instead.

The U.K. government is progressing with sweeping reforms which would hold social media companies to account over the sharing of harmful and illegal content on their platforms. The legislation threatens fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue or 18 million ($24.2 million), whichever is the higher amount, for failure to comply.

Under draft proposals, executives at social media firms could face criminal action within two years if they fail to stamp out toxic material. However, Dorries vowed to fast-track criminal penalties.

"It will not be two years," she said. "I'm looking at three to six months for criminal liability."

The bill is currently being examined by a committee of politicians led by Damian Collins, a lawmaker who took Facebook to task over the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal in 2018. Dorries urged the committee on Thursday to deliver their recommendations to the government as soon as possible.

Tech giants have said they welcome regulation and are investing heavily into improving safety on their platforms. For its part, Meta says it has 40,000 employees working specifically on platform safety.

Dorries, who is probably more well-known to Brits for her appearance on reality TV show "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!," took over the job of digital minister from Oliver Dowden earlier this year in a surprise reshuffle.

She has sharpened her rhetoric on reining in Big Tech companies in recent weeks, urging for an end to online abuse from anonymous trolls after the killing of British lawmaker David Amess. Some MPs in the ruling Conservative Party believe anonymity on social media platforms contributed to Amess' death.

"The question of anonymity has dominated the conversation about online abuse over the past week," Dorries wrote in a column for the Daily Mail newspaper last month. "Rest assured, this Bill will end anonymous abuse, because it will end abuse, full stop."

Read the original:

UK minister tells Meta 'rebranding doesn't work,' vows to fast-track criminal sanctions for Big Tech execs - CNBC

Comments Off on UK minister tells Meta ‘rebranding doesn’t work,’ vows to fast-track criminal sanctions for Big Tech execs – CNBC

The Facebook Papers: New documents expose tech giant’s greed that put profits before people – Milwaukee Independent

Posted: at 10:18 pm

Facebook wants you to believe that the problems were talking about are unsolvable. They want you to believe in false choices. They want you to believe that you must choose between a Facebook full of divisive and extreme content or losing one of the most important values our country was founded upon: free speech. That you must choose between public oversight of Facebooks choices and your personal privacy. That to be able to share fun photos of your kids with old friends, you must also be inundated with anger-driven virality. They want you to believe that this is just part of the deal. I am here today to tell you thats not true. These problems are solvable. A safer, free-speech-respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible. Frances Haugen, former Facebook product manager

Internal documents dubbed The Facebook Papers were published widely on October 25 by an international consortium of news outlets who jointly obtained the redacted materials recently made available to the U.S. Congress by company whistleblower Frances Haugen.

The papers were shared among 17 U.S. outlets as well as a separate group of news agencies in Europe, with all the journalists involved sharing the same publication date but performing their own reporting based on the documents.

The thousands of pages of leaked documents painted a damaging picture of a company that has prioritized growth over other concerns. And a summary concluded that the choices made by founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, as detailed in the revelations, led to disastrous outcomes for the social media giant and its users.

The papers themselves are redacted versions of disclosures that Haugen has made over several months to the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging Facebook was prioritizing profits over safety and hiding its own research from investors and the public. These complaints cover a range of topics, from its efforts to continue growing its audience, to how its platforms might harm children, to its alleged role in inciting political violence. The same redacted versions of those filings are being provided to members of Congress as part of its investigation. And that process continues as Haugens legal team goes through the process of redacting the SEC filings by removing the names of Facebook users and lower-level employees and turns them over to Congress.

One key revelation highlighted was that Facebook has been perplexed by its own algorithms, and another was that the company fiddled while the Capitol burned during the January 6th insurrection staged by loyalists to former President Donald Trump trying to halt the certification of last years election.

The totality of what was contained in the documents may be the biggest crisis in the companys history, but critics have long said that at the heart of the companys problem is the business model upon which it was built and the mentality that governs it from the top, namely Zuckerberg himself.

On October 22, following reporting based on a second former employee of the company coming forward after Haugen, Free Press Action co-CEO Jessica J. Gonzlez said the latest whistleblower revelations confirm what many of us have been sounding the alarm about for years.

Facebook is not fit to govern itself, said Gonzlez. The social-media giant is already trying to minimize the value and impact of these whistleblower exposs, including Frances Haugens. The information these brave individuals have brought forth is of immense importance to the public and we are grateful that these and other truth-tellers are stepping up.

While Zuckerberg has testified multiple times before Congress, Gonzlez said nothing has changed. Its time for Congress and the Biden administration to investigate a Facebook business model that profits from spreading the most extreme hate and disinformation, she said. Its time for immediate action to hold the company accountable for the many harms its inflicted on our democracy.

As Haugen testified before the U.K. Parliament on October 25, activists in London staged protests against Facebook and Zuckerberg, making clear that the giant social media company should be seen as a global problem.

Flora Rebello Arduini, senior campaigner with the corporate accountability group, was part of a team that erected a large cardboard display of Zuckerberg surfing a wave of cash outside of Parliament with a flag that read, I know we harm kids, but I dont care as a rip on a video Zuckerberg posted of himself earlier this year riding a hydrofoil while holding an American flag.

While Zuckerberg refused an invitation to testify in the U.K. about the companys activities, including the way it manipulates and potentially harms young users on the platform, critics like Arduini said the giant tech company must be held to account.

Kids dont stand a chance against the multibillion dollar Facebook machine, primed to feed them content that causes severe harm to mental and physical well being, she said. This industry is rotten at its core and the clearest proof of that is what its doing to our children. Lawmakers must urgently step in and pull the tech giants into line.

Right now, Mark [Zuckerberg] is unaccountable, Haugen told said ahead of her testimony. He has all the control. He has no oversight, and he has not demonstrated that he is willing to govern the company at the level that is necessary for public safety.

View post:

The Facebook Papers: New documents expose tech giant's greed that put profits before people - Milwaukee Independent

Comments Off on The Facebook Papers: New documents expose tech giant’s greed that put profits before people – Milwaukee Independent