Wednesday, May 13, 2020


South Korea raises age of consent from 13 to 16  

AFP / Ed JONESUnder the revised law, adults who have sex with under-16-year-olds will be prosecuted for child sexual abuse or rape regardless of any alleged consent
South Korea has raised the age of consent for sex to 16 from 13 as it seeks to strengthen protection for minors following accusations the existing law on sex crimes was too weak.
Under the revised law, adults who have sex with under-16-year-olds will be prosecuted for child sexual abuse or rape regardless of any alleged consent.
Previously, teenagers aged 13 or older were held to be legally capable of consenting to sex, resulting in controversial cases and critics saying that sex offenders were escaping without punishment due to the low benchmark.
In 2017, a 42-year-old man was found not guilty of raping a then 15-year-old on the grounds she had consented, provoking outrage and calls for the age limit to be raised.
Despite its economic and technological advances, South Korea remains a traditional and patriarchal society, where victims of sexual assault have been shamed for coming forward.
The age of consent was raised to 16 in order to "protect teenagers from sex crimes at a fundamental level", the South's Justice Ministry said in a statement.
The amended law also eliminated statutes of limitation for sexual crimes against minors under 13.

IN CANADA AGE OF CONSENT WAS 14 THE HARPER CONSERVATIVE GOVT RAISED IT TO 16 IN 2010
Australian arm of group that wrote to Trump peddling bleach as coronavirus cure fined $150,000

Product from Genesis II ‘healing church’ poses serious health risks, Therapeutic Goods Administration says, but it remains for sale on chur
ch website


Melissa Davey Wed 13 May 2020 THE GUARDIAN


 RIGHT CLICK TO ENLARGE



The Genesis II Church of Health and Healing’s Australian chapter has been fined for selling a solution containing sodium chlorite, a chemical used as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant, online as a Covid-19 cure. Photograph: MMS Australia

A “healing church” that promoted a solution containing industrial bleach as a cure for coronavirus has been fined more than $150,000 for multiple allegedly unlawful advertising offences.

On Wednesday Australia’s drugs regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), said the Australian chapter of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing had been fined for selling and promoting a solution containing sodium chlorite, a chemical used as a textile bleaching agent and disinfectant.

The Australian website for the church, MMS Australia, falsely claimed the solution could treat, cure, prevent and alleviate diseases including Covid-19, HIV and cancer, the TGA said.

It has been revealed that Genesis II church US leader, Mark Grenon, wrote to Donald Trump just days before the US president claimed disinfectant could be a coronavirus cure.

The letter stated that chlorine dioxide – a powerful bleach used in industrial processes such as textile manufacturing that can have fatal side-effects when drunk – is “a wonderful detox that can kill 99% of the pathogens in the body”. He added that it “can rid the body of Covid-19”.

In a statement the TGA said there was no clinical, scientifically-accepted evidence showing the solution could cure or alleviate any disease. The use of the solution “presents serious health risks, and can result in nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and severe dehydration, which in some cases can result in hospitalisation”, it said.

The TGA also alleges MMS Australia implied a health practitioner had endorsed the product, and that the website included a testimonial endorsing the product from someone directly involved with the production, sale, supply and marketing of it.

MMS Australia has not removed the products from its website. It has updated the website to say those seeking miracle cures “should pray to The Lord for healing and guidance”. The website also says those seeking the bleach solution and other products urgently could add a $5 express shipping voucher to their online shopping basket to jump to the front of the queue.

“Our products, their descriptions and other information posted here are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease, and any apparent reference to same is inadvertent and purely coincidental,” MMS Australia said. “We do not believe in miracle cures, but in healthy, wholesome living and good nutrition to keep the temple of our souls, our bodies, clean and free of harmful chemicals and poisons. We also believe in the power of quiet contemplation, meditation and prayer.”

An Australian representative of the church’s MMS Australia Foundation previously told Guardian Australia: “Do you go into the Catholic church and question them about the wine or the bread that they serve in the Eucharist? No, so why doesn’t the world leave us alone? These are our sacraments and we should be free to use it and teach other people to use it.”

US orders group to stop selling bleach 'miracle cure' for coronavirus
Read more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/bleach-coronavirus-us-orders-group-stop-selling


The TGA has been engaged in a long-running battle to stop false claims around the solution. Four people were taken to hospital in 2014 in Victoria after ingesting the solution, prompting the TGA to issue a warning that products with high concentrations of sodium chlorite are considered poison.

Victoria’s Department of Health has also issued warnings. At the time, a department spokesman said: “This isn’t like drinking bleach, it literally is drinking bleach.”

Dr Ken Harvey, an associate professor of public health from Monash University, said he welcomed the fine but it was not a strong enough deterrent given the product had been causing issues for years.

“Yes the TGA issued infringement notices but this is just essentially an invitation to pay the fine or go to court and argue their case,” Harvey said. “In the meantime the MMS website is still up selling the products, with a few extras disclaimers, and they are now trying to label it as some kind of religious sacrament.

“What the TGA needs to do is order the website be taken down and a safety and warning notice and apology put in its place. While an infringement notice is a good step, it hasn’t done anything to stop the website, which is still promoting and selling it.”

Australian 'healing church' defends bleach sales after US coronavirus cure claims

Exclusive: Group claims it should be allowed to promote its Miracle Mineral Solution on freedom of religion grounds


Ben Smee THE GUARDIAN Wed 6 May 2020

 
The Australian chapter of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing sells industrial bleach, or chlorine dioxide – marketed as Miracle Mineral Solution – online. The US branch of the church has claimed it can cure coronavirus, among other things. Photograph: Genesis II Church of Health and Healing Australian website


Representatives of an international group that calls itself a “healing church” and promotes industrial bleach as a cure for coronavirus say they should be allowed to continue selling the potentially toxic “miracle” solution in Australia on religious freedom grounds.

The ABC reported on Tuesday the Australian chapter of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing is selling chlorine dioxide – marketed as Miracle Mineral Solution – online.

The website selling the product in Australia states the solution is the formulation “approved” by church founder, Jim Humble, who has published claims that people with Covid-19 recovered after taking MMS.

Guardian Australia spoke with an Australian representative of the church’s MMS Australia Foundation, which is selling the solution online and operates from an address in Hervey Bay, Queensland. The man would not identify himself due to “hate mail and hate phone calls” received in recent days.

“Do you go into the Catholic church and question them about the wine or the bread that they serve in the Eucharist? No, so why doesn’t the world leave us alone?” he said.

“These are our sacraments and we should be free to use it and teach other people to use it.”

It has been revealed that Genesis II church US leader, Mark Grenon, wrote to Donald Trump just days before the US president claimed disinfectant could be a coronavirus cure.

The letter stated that chlorine dioxide – a powerful bleach used in industrial processes such as textile manufacturing that can have fatal side-effects when drunk – is “a wonderful detox that can kill 99% of the pathogens in the body”. He added that it “can rid the body of Covid-19”.





The group has previously claimed the bleach can be used to treat diseases including cancer, HIV/Aids, asthma, ­autism and Ebola.

Health authorities in the US and Australia have previously warned that MMS poses a “serious health risk if consumed by humans” and was not approved for any therapeutic use. The product has been linked to hospitalisations in several Australian states. Dr Tony Bartone, president of the Australian Medical Association, called for the product to be banned in 2014 ahead of a visit to Melbourne by Humble.




The church representative said chlorine dioxide was commonly used for water purification, and that bottles were clearly labelled poison and carried appropriate disclaimers. But he conceded that in large enough doses, the solution could be fatal.

“Here is the big lie which the ABC could not resist perpetuating. The big bleach lie. You take enough water, you drink enough water, you kill yourself. You kill yourself by drinking enough water.

“Similarly we kill ourself by taking our sacrament full strength. You take two maybe three drops and you dilute it in a lot of water.

“Ask yourself, who is doing all this in the background, who is trying to sink us? There are dark forces against us. There are spiritual dark forces trying to get a hold of us. We are under assault. We are inundated with hate phone calls and hate mail.”

A complaint to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, lodged by public health expert Ken Harvey, urges immediate action against the church and its MMS Australia website, and calls for “substantial fines”.

The church’s MMS Australia website includes a disclaimer that “we do not list or sell any therapeutic goods, as defined by legislation, and any apparent mention or reference to same is inadvertent and coincidental”.

“Our products, their descriptions and other information posted here are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease, and any apparent reference to same is inadvertent and purely coincidental.
Anyone seeking medical products, should consult their physician.”


‘Please don’t inject bleach’: Trump’s wild coronavirus claims prompt disbelief


Harvey’s complaint says the site also: “links to (and thus endorses) a number of videos, testimonials, protocols and other material invoking Jim Humble who alleges that MMS, ‘has proven to restore partial or full health to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from a wide range of diseases.

“These include prohibited representations such as Covid-19, cancer, coronary heart disease, depression and multiple sclerosis.”

The Therapeutic Goods Administration does not typically regulate water purification products, but has previously published warnings about MMS out of concern that some people are using the solution for therapeutic purposes.

It warns that using the solution for purposes other than water purification, or at higher concentrations, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and severe dehydration.


‘Please don’t inject bleach’: Trump’s wild coronavirus claims prompt disbelief

During Thursday’s coronavirus briefing the president floated the idea of ‘an injection inside’ – and medical doctors were quick to denounce it


Poppy Noor THE GUARDIAN Fri 24 Apr 2020



1:58 Trump floats dangerous coronavirus treatment ideas as Dr Birx looks on – video


Donald Trump had barely distanced himself from statements that malaria treatment could cure the coronavirus before he had moved on to another, even more unorthodox suggestion.

On Thursday night White House officials shared pretty predictable findings: that sunlight and common cleaning supplies can kill a virus within minutes when applied to different surfaces. But then the president had to take it to another level.


“I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute,” Trump said. “One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”



   JIM CARRY 

Reactions were, as one would expect, quite swift.


Medical doctors have been quick to denounce the idea of injecting cleaning products to clear the virus. Just watch Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator Dr Deborah Birx’s face turn from shock to bemusement as she hears his suggestion.
Daniel Lewis(@Daniel_Lewis3)

Here is Dr. Birx's reaction when President Trump asks his science advisor to study using UV light on the human body and injecting disinfectant to fight the coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/MVno5X7JMAApril 24, 2020

If a qualified physician – who nonetheless has spent enough time with Trump to know his tendency to fabricate – is this shocked, it’s hard not to feel sorry for Trump’s base. Which story are they supposed to believe?

Matt Haig(@matthaig1)

Donald Trump supporters are struggling right now. They are having to simultaneously think Coronavirus is just the flu while also thinking it is a Chinese bio weapon designed to turn them communist all while standing in their kitchens injecting disinfectant into themselves. Hard.April 24, 2020




Many have analyzed the way in which Trump uses simple, accessible language in his speeches – around the level of what an eight-year-old could understand. Some are now suggesting his own processing capabilities might be in line with that.
Glenn Kirschner(@glennkirschner2)


Trump absorbs/processes info on a 3rd grade level. Doctors talk about the impact of disinfectant & UV rays on the virus on surfaces/outside the body. Trump’s inability to intelligently process info leads him to suggest putting dsinfectants & sunlight INSIDE the body. #unfit https://t.co/FGP6Hg84HoApril 24, 2020

Harvard’s toxicology Twitter account felt the need to issue medical advice online following Trump’s statement, giving a scientific reason for why you shouldn’t swallow bleach (you know, for when common sense won’t suffice).
Harvard Toxicology(@Harvard_Tox)

Please don’t inject bleach or drink disinfectant. Bleach injections cause hemolysis (where your red blood cells that carry OXYGEN break apart) and cause liver damage, and many disinfectants can cause dangerous burns or bleeding in your stomach. This tweet IS medical adviceApril 24, 2020

Comments such as these, which could potentially harm the public, should be taken seriously. But some took the slapstick approach (making memes) to help them digest.



David Mandel(@DavidHMandel\
pic.twitter.com/oJr8jgGbigApril 24, 2020
And it makes sense. Because at a time like this, you have to laugh, because truly there are no tears left.

Sarah Cooper(@sarahcpr)
How to medical pic.twitter.com/0EDqJcy38pApril 24, 2020

Employees at Clorox and Lysol must be thinking: “This is not the job I signed up for.”
Celeste Ng(@pronounced_ing)

I have a lot of sympathy for every PR people at every single disinfectant company who was told yesterday, “Look, we need to you write a serious non-profane press statement telling people not to inject bleach—in the next 10 min, please.”April 24, 2020

Neuroscientist Dr Sanjay Gupta, on the other hand, felt more sorry for the doctors who have to spend their time advising Trump.
New Day(@NewDay)

.@drsanjaygupta on Dr. Birx and officials' reactions to Trump’s comments about sunlight and disinfectant: “I don't know how they continue to do the job sometimes because they just have to spend as much time spinning around this stuff as they do actually talking about the science” pic.twitter.com/33sYsooSBAApril 24, 2020

Political pundits likened the speech to something that you might find on a satirical news website such as the Onion. The only thing more satirical, surely, is that this is real life.
Jim Pickard(@PickardJE)
this is not The Onion
this is not Brass Eye
this is actual news:
disinfectant manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser has put out a statement advising people not to *inject disinfectant* after the US president suggested it might help treat coronavirus https://t.co/a3lqPrFMvsApril 24, 2020

'Don't inject Lysol': maker of household cleaner hits back at Trump virus claim

‘Under no circumstance’ should Lysol be used in human body
President floated idea of product as Covid-19 treatment or cure



We must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route),” said a spokesperson for Reckitt Benckiser. Photograph: Joshua L Jones/AP

The maker of a popular brand of household cleaner has urged users not to inject it into their bodies in the wake of comments by Donald Trump at the daily White House briefing that injections of disinfectant might be a treatment or cure for the coronavirus.

Lysol, which is owned by a British company, is widely used as a spray to clean household surfaces and has become a vital tool for Americans seeking to disinfect their houses and apartments during the pandemic.

But the firm was clear no one should do anything else with its product, despite Trump’s bizarre claims at his daily press conference on Thursday evening and which were denounced widely by health experts as “jaw-dropping”.

“We must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route),” said a spokesperson for Reckitt Benckiser, the United Kingdom-based owner of Lysol, in a statement to NBC News.

“As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information,” the statement continued.





At Thursday’s White House coronavirus taskforce briefing, Trump had discussed new government research on how the virus reacts to different temperatures, climates and surfaces.

“Is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning?” Trump had mused.

Trump has a record of defying science – from pollution to the climate crisis – and also used the briefing to float the idea of treating coronavirus patients’ bodies with ultraviolet (UV) light.

When he turned to the senior member of the White House coronavirus taskforce present, health expert Deborah Birx, to ask if she had heard about light





WITH A DISTRACTED PUBLIC, THE PENTAGON TRIES TO GET AWAY WITH KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Murtaza Hussain
May 8 2020

Smoke from a U.S.-led coalition airstrike is seen over buildings near the front line on Feb. 10, 2019 in Bagouz, Syria. Photo: Chris McGrath/Getty Image

THE UNITED STATES’S WARS continue to rage in the Middle East and Africa against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even in normal times, these conflicts got little public scrutiny. But with attention more occupied than usual, some U.S. military operations have been escalating even further. In recent years, these conflicts have become even deadlier for innocent people. The Trump administration has shown itself to be not just indifferent, but positively encouraging of the killing of civilians in foreign wars.

If there is a time to get away with killing people with no fear of accountability, it’s now. Yesterday, the Pentagon released its annual report on civilian casualties in its wars for the year 2019. According to the report, 132 civilians were killed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Syria. In Yemen and Libya, countries where the U.S. also carries out airstrikes, the report simply claimed that no civilians were killed last year. “All DoD” — Department of Defense — “operations in 2019 were conducted in accordance with law of war requirements,” the report flatly stated, “including law of war protections for civilians.”

We already know from independent reports that Pentagon official figures on civilian casualties are, in general, woefully underreported. A 2017 investigation published by the New York Times found that, during a U.S. air campaign in Iraq, potentially thousands more civilians were killed than reported in official figures. In some cases, the military used video footage showing strikes on Islamic State positions as propaganda material, when in reality the footage showed airstrikes hitting homes full of civilians. Independent monitoring groups like Airwars have also documented thousands of civilian deaths from U.S. aerial campaigns that have gone unacknowledged in official figures.

The report issued to Congress this year was in line with new reporting requirements intended to provide more oversight about the impact of U.S. military operations on civilians. But the utility of these reported figures seems questionable: The military conducts almost no on-the-ground investigations of the impact of its strikes and is evidently willing to report figures that are absurdly low — literally incredible — for the sake of political expediency.

“The military often says that they don’t have the capacity to do this type of investigation. If that’s truly the case, they shouldn’t be bombing.”
In the past, the Pentagon suggested that it does not have the resources to conduct on-the-ground investigations in cases in which civilians are alleged to have been killed. Recently, reports surfaced that the military has begun requesting more funds to help track civilian deaths. But independent researchers and nongovernmental organizations have already been carrying out such investigations for years, with far few resources than the Pentagon — with its vast budget — has at its disposal. All this raises the question of who exactly the military has been killing over nearly two decades of war.

“It’s the military’s responsibility, if they’re going to carry out a strike, to have some way of knowing who they’re killing or injuring and what the impact is,” said Daphne Eviatar, director of the Security with Human Rights program at Amnesty International. “In this congressional report, the Pentagon stated that all their operations were in line with the laws of war. But if they don’t even have a basic understanding of the impact of their strikes, it is difficult to see how they can conclude that.”

THE NUMBER OF airstrikes carried out by U.S. forces has declined over the last two years, as military campaigns in Iraq and Syria wound down. American forces still carry out periodic operations in those countries, however, as well as undertaking strikes in Yemen and Somalia ostensibly aimed at terrorist groups. In Somalia in particular, U.S. operations have been ramping up heavily in recent months. While the military maintains that these strikes are not killing any civilians, reports published by The Intercept and elsewhere suggest a deadlier impact on innocent people in the country than the Pentagon is acknowledging. In some cases, the military has dismissed credible reports that its operations have killed Somali civilians.


Related
New Data Shows the U.S. Military Is Severely Undercounting Civilian Casualties in Somalia



With loosened targeting rules under President Donald Trump and a public that is even more distracted than usual, the conditions are ripe for negligent behavior that will result in the deaths of innocents. Nongovernmental organizations that devote resources to investigating the impact of U.S. airstrikes have noted with frustration that, despite tighter reporting requirements from Congress, a gigantic budget, and a sprawling organizational footprint, the military is still not giving an honest account of the impact of its actions. The obviously underreported figures provided in this report will do little to change the perception that the ugly truth is still being hidden.

“We do lots of research on the impact of airstrikes, visiting places they’ve taken place, interviewing survivors, analyzing satellite imagery, and working with weapons experts,” said Eviatar, noting that even limited investigations have turned up far more civilian casualties than the military acknowledges. “The military often says that they don’t have the capacity to do this type of investigation. If that’s truly the case, they shouldn’t be bombing places if they don’t even have the ability to know who they’re killing.”


CONTACT THE AUTHOR:


Murtaza Hussainmurtaza.hussain@​theintercept.com@mazmhussain

ERIK PRINCE OFFERED LETHAL SERVICES TO SANCTIONED RUSSIAN MERCENARY FIRM WAGNER

Photo illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept, Getty Images


ERIK PRINCE, FOUNDER of the private security firm Blackwater and a Trump administration adviser, has sought in recent months to provide military services to a sanctioned Russian mercenary firm in at least two African conflicts, according to three people with knowledge of the efforts.

Prince, who is the brother of Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, met earlier this year with a top official of Russia’s Wagner Group and offered his mercenary forces to support the firm’s operations in Libya and Mozambique, according to two people familiar with Prince’s offer.

Wagner officials said they are not interested in working with Prince, three people familiar with their decision told The Intercept.

A lawyer for Prince denied that his client met anyone from Wagner.

The Wagner Group is a semi-private military force that operates in countries or conflicts where the Russian government seeks plausible deniability for its activities. It is often equipped and supported directly by the Russian Ministry of Defense, according to reports and experts who track Wagner’s activities. The U.S. State Department website also lists Wagner as an entity connected to the “Defense Sector of the Government of the Russian Federation.” Any business relationship between Prince and Wagner would, in effect, make the influential Trump administration adviser a subcontractor to the Russian military.

In recent years, the Russian government has deployed Wagner to several African countries, Ukraine, and Syria, where the U.S. military killed dozens of Wagner fighters in 2018 after the Russians and their Syrian allies attacked an oil facility that the United States was defending.

“Wagner Group is an instrument of Russian policy. It works under the GRU, which is the Russian military intelligence,” said Sean McFate, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former military contractor who has written about mercenaries.

In attempting to do business with Wagner, Prince may have exposed himself to legal liability.

In attempting to do business with Wagner, Prince may also have exposed himself to legal liability. In 2017, the Trump administration sanctioned Wagner, as well as its founder and head Dmitry Utkin, for having “recruited and sent soldiers to fight alongside [Russian-backed] separatists in eastern Ukraine” during the 2014 Russian invasion. The Russian government denied involvement in the invasion, even as its forces occupied and took control of Crimea, also in Ukrainian territory, in violation of international law.

The sanctions prohibit individuals or companies from providing “financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.” They also forbid anyone “to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf” of Wagner. The 2017 addition of Wagner to the sanctions list builds on a 2014 executive order signed by President Barack Obama.

“In my experience, the act of soliciting from a sanctioned party would indeed be an apparent violation,” said Brian O’Toole, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council and former senior sanctions official at the Treasury Department. “Whether you make that [legal] case is an entirely separate matter,” he said, adding that pitching business to Wagner “would seem to be a fairly egregious thing to do.”

Related
The FBI Is Investigating Erik Prince for Trying to Weaponize Crop Dusters



When Prince met with Wagner leadership, he was already under federal investigation for violating arms trafficking regulations. The proposal to the Russian firm also raises questions about whether Trump administration officials authorized the meeting or were aware of Prince’s efforts to work with the group.

A former Navy SEAL who rose to prominence and notoriety as head of the private security firm Blackwater, Prince has been a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, serving as an unofficial adviser on military and foreign policy issues in Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. Prince was a Trump donor in 2016 and has worked to support the president politically while proposing private military solutions that would benefit his companies financially.

Early in the Trump administration, Prince proposed privatizing the war in Afghanistan and supplying Trump with a private spy service intended to circumvent the U.S. intelligence community. Neither proposal succeeded, despite having support for some of his ideas from senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

For years, Prince has tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to win military contracts with governments in Africa and the Middle East. Wagner has become an increasingly visible player in the region as Russia’s influence there has grown, allowing the country to operate under the radar at a time when “plausible deniability is more powerful than firepower,” according to McFate, the mercenary expert.

“The reason why groups like Wagner exist is that modern war is getting sneakier and mercenaries are a great way to get things done in the shadows.”

“The reason why groups like Wagner exist, and the reason why people like Erik Prince [are] succeeding, is that modern war is getting sneakier and mercenaries and groups like Wagner are a great way to get things done in the shadows,” McFate said.

Libya has been divided and in conflict since the U.S. and NATO allies removed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. The United Nations and most of the international community, including the U.S, recognize the Government of National Accord in the Libyan capital Tripoli as the country’s official leaders. But the eastern portion of the country is led by strongman Khalifa Hifter, who tried last year to take Tripoli. Both sides are backed by foreign powers that have continually violated a U.N. embargo on military support. Turkey and Qatar have supported the GNA, while Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt have backed Hifter.

Last spring, Hifter’s forces, the Libyan National Army, moved to take Tripoli, but were thwarted within days. Hifter turned to Moscow and Wagner. Americans are prohibited from aiding either side of the conflict without U.S. government authorization.

At the same time, Prince sought to provide a force in Mozambique, where the government has been fighting a small insurgency over the past two years. President Filipe Nyusi of Mozambique flew to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in August 2019. The countries signed several trade pacts, and Russia agreed to send military aid. Russian military hardware and Russian nationals working for Wagner arrived in Mozambique in September, according to news reports.

After Wagner lost more than a dozen fighters in Mozambique, Prince sent a proposal to the Russian firm offering to supply a ground force as well as aviation-based surveillance, according to documents viewed by The Intercept and a person familiar with Prince’s proposal.

Prince has also served as an adviser to the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, known as MBZ, for more than a decade. Under bin Zayed’s leadership, the UAE, a close regional ally of the U.S., has intervened militarily in several regional wars in the Middle East and Africa. A pariah during the Obama administration, Prince was taken in by the Emirati crown prince and awarded a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to create and train a presidential guard for the royal family. He was later removed for mismanagement, among other reasons.

Prince also has ties to China. He is co-chair of Frontier Services Group, a Hong-Kong based logistics company he founded and whose largest investor is the Chinese government. The Intercept has previously reported that the U.S. government has investigated Prince for his ties to China’s intelligence service. The conflicts between Prince’s commercial interests and the goals of the many governments that retain his services have piled up as Prince has tried to sell military and mercenary capabilities around the world. FSG, for example, signed a contract for fishing rights in Mozambique around the same time Prince began exploring defense contracts there. The fishing contract has since been dissolved, according to the company.

“The conflicts of interest are deep and threaten democracy when you have a free agent going between the U.S. and its main power rivals,” said McFate. “It would never clear an intelligence community background check. This is a dangerous thing for any democracy.”



Matthew ColeAlex Emmons
April 13 2020

THE INTERCEPT

Gerry Adams illegally held during Troubles, supreme court rules

Ex-Sinn Féin leader wins fight to overturn two convictions for attempting to escape from Maze prison


Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent 
THE GUARDIAN Wed 13 May 2020
 
Gerry Adams’s convictions were unsafe because his detention was not personally considered by the secretary of state for Northern Ireland. Photograph: Brian Lawless/PA

The former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams was interned illegally at the height of Northern Ireland’s Troubles because the wrong minister approved his detention order, the supreme court has ruled.

His two convictions for attempting to escape from the Maze prison in the 1970s have also been quashed by the UK’s highest court.

The unanimous decision follows a hearing in London last year at which lawyers for the 71-year-old challenged the way he was held under emergency legislation.

Delivering judgment, Lord Kerr said: “We hold that the power [to make a detention order] should have been exercised by the secretary of state and that therefore that the making of the interim custody order was invalid since the secretary of state had not himself considered it. In consequence, Mr Adam’s detention was unlawful.”

Adams, who has always denied being a member of the IRA, was taken into custody under article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which covered anyone whom the secretary of state for Northern Ireland “suspected of having been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism”.

The regulations required that the Northern Ireland secretary be involved personally in making any such decision.

Documents released to the public records office under the 30-year rule revealed that the government knew there had been a procedural irregularity in relation to the detention of Adams and other republicans who tried to escape with him from the heavily guarded internment camp.

A note dated 17 July 1974 recorded a meeting held by the then Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, called to consider “an urgent problem which the attorney general had brought to his attention”.

The note explained that “following a recent attempt to escape by four prisoners [a reference to Adams and others] from the Maze, an examination of the papers concerning those prisoners revealed that applications for interim custody orders concerning three of them had not been examined personally by the previous secretary of state for Northern Ireland during the Conservative administration.

“It now appeared that the [previous] Conservative administration had left both tasks to junior ministers in the Northern Ireland office and, according to [the attorney general’s] information, there might be as many as 200 persons unlawfully detained in Northern Ireland.” Adams’s order had been signed by a minister of state.

The supreme court was asked to decide whether it was parliament’s intention that only the secretary of state for Northern Ireland should have the power to make an interim custody order.

The director of public prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who was the respondent in the case, successfully argued in the Northern Ireland courts that the Carltona principle – based on a 1943 test case – allows that “where parliament specifies that a decision is to be taken by a specified minister, generally that decision may be taken by an appropriate person on behalf of the minister”.

Adams, who was a Sinn Féin TD for Louth in the Irish Dáil until February, was not present at the supreme court hearing in London last November.

The case was heard by five justices including the lord chief justice of England and Wales, Lord Burnett. Kerr, a former lord chief justice of Northern Ireland, presided.

Adams was first interned in March 1972 and was released in June that year to take part in secret talks with the Conservative government in London. More than 1,900 suspects were interned in the early years of the Troubles as violence spiralled out of control. Those held were overwhelmingly nationalists or republicans; not all were members of paramilitary organisations.

Adams was rearrested in July 1973 in Belfast and taken to the Maze, also known as Long Kesh detention centre. On Christmas Eve 1973 he was one of four detainees caught attempting to break out. A hole had been cut in a perimeter fence and all four men were already out of the prison.

His second escape attempt, in July 1974, was a more elaborate scheme involving kidnapping a man who had a striking resemblance to him from a bus stop in west Belfast. The man was taken to a house where his hair was dyed and he was given a false beard, the lower courts in Belfast were told.

His double was driven to the Maze where the plan was that he would be swapped for Adams in a visiting hut. Prison staff had been alerted, however, and Adams was arrested in the car park of the jail. He was later sentenced to 18 months in jail for the first escape attempt and an additional three years for the second attempt, after two separate trials before single judges sitting without a jury.

Presenting Adams’ appeal at the supreme court, Sean Doran QC said: “Everything goes back to the original order … We would ask the court to rule that those convictions are now unsafe.”

Kerr said: “The structure of the 1972 [Detention of Terrorists] Order is such that it was clearly intended that the making of an ICO, as opposed to the signing of the order had to be the outcome of personal consideration by the secretary of state. In this case, a minister in the Northern Ireland Office had made the ICO. That minister could have signed the order, but he could not validly make it.

“As a result, Mr Adams’ detention had not been lawfully authorised. His detention was therefore invalid, and it followed that he should not have been convicted of attempting to escape from lawful custody for the elementary but inevitable reason that the custody in which he had been detained was, in fact, not lawful. His appeal is therefore allowed, and his convictions are quashed.”

Naomi Klein: How big tech plans to profit from the pandemic 


Eric Schmidt, Google’s former executive chair, left, with the New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Photograph: Getty

As the coronavirus continues to kill thousands each day, tech companies are seizing the opportunity to extend their reach and power. By Naomi Klein
Republished with permission from The Intercept

THE GUARDIAN
Wed 13 May 2020

For a few fleeting moments during the New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s daily coronavirus briefing on Wednesday 6 May, the sombre grimace that has filled our screens for weeks was briefly replaced by something resembling a smile.

“We are ready, we’re all-in,” the governor gushed. “We are New Yorkers, so we’re aggressive about it, we’re ambitious about it … We realise that change is not only imminent, but it can actually be a friend if done the right way.”

The inspiration for these uncharacteristically good vibes was a video visit from the former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who joined the governor’s briefing to announce that he will be heading up a panel to reimagine New York state’s post-Covid reality, with an emphasis on permanently integrating technology into every aspect of civic life.


“The first priorities of what we’re trying to do,” Schmidt said, “are focused on telehealth, remote learning, and broadband … We need to look for solutions that can be presented now, and accelerated, and use technology to make things better.” Lest there be any doubt that the former Google chair’s goals were purely benevolent, his video background featured a framed pair of golden angel wings.

Just one day earlier, Cuomo had announced a similar partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop “a smarter education system”. Calling Gates a “visionary”, Cuomo said the pandemic has created “a moment in history when we can actually incorporate and advance [Gates’s] ideas … all these buildings, all these physical classrooms – why, with all the technology you have?” he asked, apparently rhetorically.

It has taken some time to gel, but something resembling a coherent pandemic shock doctrine is beginning to emerge. Call it the Screen New Deal. Far more hi-tech than anything we have seen during previous disasters, the future that is being rushed into being as the bodies still pile up treats our past weeks of physical isolation not as a painful necessity to save lives, but as a living laboratory for a permanent – and highly profitable – no-touch future.

Anuja Sonalker, the CEO of Steer Tech, a Maryland-based company selling self-parking technology, recently summed up the new virus-personalised pitch. “There has been a distinct warming up to humanless, contactless technology,” she said. “Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”

It’s a future in which our homes are never again exclusively personal spaces, but are also, via high-speed digital connectivity, our schools, our doctor’s offices, our gyms, and, if determined by the state, our jails. Of course, for many of us, those same homes were already turning into our never-off workplaces and our primary entertainment venues before the pandemic, and surveillance incarceration “in the community” was already booming. But in the future that is hastily being constructed, all of these trends are poised for a warp-speed acceleration.

This is a future in which, for the privileged, almost everything is home delivered, either virtually via streaming and cloud technology, or physically via driverless vehicle or drone, then screen “shared” on a mediated platform. It’s a future that employs far fewer teachers, doctors and drivers. It accepts no cash or credit cards (under guise of virus control), and has skeletal mass transit and far less live art. It’s a future that claims to be run on “artificial intelligence”, but is actually held together by tens of millions of anonymous workers tucked away in warehouses, data centres, content-moderation mills, electronic sweatshops, lithium mines, industrial farms, meat-processing plants and prisons, where they are left unprotected from disease and hyper-exploitation. It’s a future in which our every move, our every word, our every relationship is trackable, traceable and data-mineable by unprecedented collaborations between government and tech giants.
 
Eric Schmidt, via video call, joins the media briefing given by the New York governor Andrew Cuomo on 6 May 2020. Photograph: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/Rex/Shutterstock

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because, pre-Covid, this precise app-driven, gig-fuelled future was being sold to us in the name of friction-free convenience and personalisation. But many of us had concerns. About the security, quality and inequity of telehealth and online classrooms. About driverless cars mowing down pedestrians and drones smashing packages (and people). About location tracking and cash-free commerce obliterating our privacy and entrenching racial and gender discrimination. About unscrupulous social media platforms poisoning our information ecology and our kids’ mental health. About “smart cities” filled with sensors supplanting local government. About the good jobs these technologies wiped out. About the bad jobs they mass produced.

And most of all, we had concerns about the democracy-threatening wealth and power accumulated by a handful of tech companies that are masters of abdication – eschewing all responsibility for the wreckage left behind in the fields they now dominate, whether media, retail or transportation.

That was the ancient past, also known as February. Today, a great many of those well-founded concerns are being swept away by a tidal wave of panic, and this warmed-over dystopia is going through a rush-job rebranding. Now, against a harrowing backdrop of mass death, it is being sold to us on the dubious promise that these technologies are the only possible way to pandemic-proof our lives, the indispensable keys to keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe.

Thanks to Cuomo and his various billionaire partnerships (including one with Michael Bloomberg for testing and tracing), New York state is being positioned as the gleaming showroom for this grim future – but the ambitions reach far beyond the borders of any one state or country.

And at the dead centre of it all is Eric Schmidt.

Well before Americans understood the threat of Covid-19, Schmidt had been on an aggressive lobbying and public-relations campaign, pushing precisely the Black Mirror vision of society that Cuomo has just empowered him to build. At the heart of this vision is seamless integration of government with a handful of Silicon Valley giants – with public schools, hospitals, doctor’s offices, police and military all outsourcing (at a high cost) many of their core functions to private tech companies.

It’s a vision Schmidt has been advancing in his roles as chair of the Defense Innovation Board, which advises the US Department of Defense on increased use of artificial intelligence in the military, and as chair of the powerful National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, or NSCAI, which advises Congress on “advances in artificial intelligence, related machine learning developments and associated technologies”, with the goal of addressing “the national and economic security needs of the United States, including economic risk”. Both boards are crowded with powerful Silicon Valley CEOs and top executives from companies including Oracle, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and of course, Schmidt’s former colleagues at Google.

As chair, Schmidt – who still holds more than $5.3bn in shares of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), as well as large investments in other tech firms – has essentially been running a Washington-based shakedown on behalf of Silicon Valley. The main purpose of the two boards is to call for exponential increases in government spending on research into artificial intelligence and on tech-enabling infrastructure such as 5G – investments that would directly benefit the companies in which Schmidt and other members of these boards have extensive holdings.

First in closed-door presentations to lawmakers, and later in public-facing opinion articles and interviews, the thrust of Schmidt’s argument has been that since the Chinese government is willing to spend limitless public money building the infrastructure of high-tech surveillance, while allowing Chinese tech companies such as Alibaba, Baidu and Huawei to pocket the profits from commercial applications, the US’s dominant position in the global economy is on the precipice of collapsing.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic) recently got access, through a freedom of information (FOI) request, to a presentation made by Schmidt’s NSCAI in May 2019. Its slides make a series of alarmist claims about how China’s relatively lax regulatory infrastructure and its bottomless appetite for surveillance are causing it to pull ahead of the US in a number of fields, including “AI for medical diagnosis”, autonomous vehicles, digital infrastructure, “smart cities”, ride-sharing and cashless commerce.

The reasons given for China’s competitive edge are myriad, ranging from the sheer volume of consumers who shop online; “the lack of legacy banking systems in China”, which has allowed it to leapfrog over cash and credit cards and unleash “a huge e-commerce and digital services market” using digital payments; and a severe doctor shortage, which has led the government to work closely with tech companies such as Tencent to use AI for “predictive” medicine. The slides note that in China, tech companies “have the authority to quickly clear regulatory barriers, while American initiatives are mired in HIPPA compliance and FDA approval”.

A slide from the Chinese Tech Landscape Overview (NSCAI presentation) discussing surveillance. Photograph: NSCAI
More than any other factor, however, the NSCAI points to China’s willingness to embrace public-private partnerships in mass surveillance and data collection as a reason for its competitive edge. The presentation touts China’s “Explicit government support and involvement eg facial recognition deployment”. It argues that “surveillance is one of the ‘first-and-best customers’ for Al” and further, that “mass surveillance is a killer application for deep learning”.

A slide titled “State Datasets: Surveillance = Smart Cities” notes that China, along with Google’s main Chinese competitor, Alibaba, are racing ahead.
A slide from the Chinese Tech Landscape Overview (NSCAI presentation) discussing surveillance. Photograph: NSCAI

This is notable because Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has been pushing this precise vision through its Sidewalk Labs division, choosing a large portion of Toronto’s waterfront as its “smart city” prototype. But the Toronto project was just shut down after two years of ceaseless controversy relating to the enormous amounts of personal data that Alphabet would collect, a lack of privacy protections, and questionable benefits for the city as a whole.

Five months after this presentation, in November, NSCAI issued an interim report to Congress further raising the alarm about the need for the US to match China’s adaptation of these controversial technologies. “We are in a strategic competition,” states the report, obtained via FOI by Epic. “AI will be at the centre. The future of our national security and economy are at stake.”
 
Sidewalk Labs, an Alphabet affiliate, planned to build a neighbourhood ‘from the internet up’ on Toronto’s lakefront. But the project has been shut down after two years of controversy Photograph: AFP via Getty

By late February, Schmidt was taking his campaign to the public, perhaps understanding that the budget increases his board was calling for could not be approved without a great deal more buy-in. In a New York Times article headlined “I used to Run Google. Silicon Valley Could Lose to China”, Schmidt called for “unprecedented partnerships between government and industry” and, once again sounding the yellow peril alarm, wrote:

“AI will open new frontiers in everything from biotechnology to banking, and it is also a defense department priority … If current trends continue, China’s overall investments in research and development are expected to surpass those of the United States within 10 years, around the same time its economy is projected to become larger than ours.

Unless these trends change, in the 2030s we will be competing with a country that has a bigger economy, more research and development investments, better research, wider deployment of new technologies and stronger computing infrastructure … Ultimately, the Chinese are competing to become the world’s leading innovators, and the United States is not playing to win.”

The only solution, for Schmidt, was a gush of public money. Praising the White House for requesting a doubling of research funding in AI and quantum information science, he wrote: “We should plan to double funding in those fields again as we build institutional capacity in labs and research centres … At the same time, Congress should meet the president’s request for the highest level of defence R & D funding in over 70 years, and the defense department should capitalise on that resource surge to build breakthrough capabilities in AI, quantum, hypersonics and other priority technology areas.”

That was exactly two weeks before the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic, and there was no mention that a goal of this vast, hi-tech expansion was to protect American health. Only that it was necessary to avoid being outcompeted by China. But, of course, that would soon change.

In the two months since, Schmidt has put these pre-existing demands – for massive public expenditures on high-tech research and infrastructure, for a slew of “public-private partnerships” in AI, and for the loosening of myriad privacy and safety protections – through an aggressive rebranding exercise. Now all of these measures (and more) are being sold to the public as our only possible hope of protecting ourselves from a novel virus that will be with us for years to come.

And the tech companies to which Schmidt has deep ties, and which populate the influential advisory boards he chairs, have all repositioned themselves as benevolent protectors of public health and munificent champions of “everyday hero” essential workers (many of whom, like delivery drivers, would lose their jobs if these companies get their way). Less than two weeks into New York state’s lockdown, Schmidt wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that both set the new tone and made clear that Silicon Valley had every intention of leveraging the crisis for a permanent transformation.

“Like other Americans, technologists are trying to do their part to support the front-line pandemic response …

But every American should be asking where we want the nation to be when the Covid-19 pandemic is over. How could the emerging technologies being deployed in the current crisis propel us into a better future? … Companies like Amazon know how to supply and distribute efficiently. They will need to provide services and advice to government officials who lack the computing systems and expertise.

We should also accelerate the trend toward remote learning, which is being tested today as never before. Online, there is no requirement of proximity, which allows students to get instruction from the best teachers, no matter what school district they reside in …

The need for fast, large-scale experimentation will also accelerate the biotech revolution … Finally, the country is long overdue for a real digital infrastructure … If we are to build a future economy and education system based on tele-everything, we need a fully connected population and ultrafast infrastructure. The government must make a massive investment – perhaps as part of a stimulus package – to convert the nation’s digital infrastructure to cloud-based platforms and link them with a 5G network.”

Indeed, Schmidt has been relentless in pursuing this vision. Two weeks after that article appeared, he described the ad-hoc home schooling programming that teachers and families across the country had been forced to cobble together during this public health emergency as “a massive experiment in remote learning”.

The goal of this experiment, he said, was “trying to find out: how do kids learn remotely? And with that data we should be able to build better remote and distance learning tools which, when combined with the teacher … will help kids learn better.” During this same video call, hosted by the Economic Club of New York, Schmidt also called for more telehealth, more 5G, more digital commerce and the rest of the preexisting wish list. All in the name of fighting the virus.

His most telling comment, however, was this: “The benefit of these corporations, which we love to malign, in terms of the ability to communicate, the ability to deal with health, the ability to get information, is profound. Think about what your life would be like in America without Amazon.” He added that people should “be a little bit grateful that these companies got the capital, did the investment, built the tools that we’re using now, and have really helped us out”.

Schmidt’s words are a reminder that until very recently, public pushback against these companies was surging. Presidential candidates were openly discussing breaking up big tech. Amazon was forced to pull its plans for a New York headquarters because of fierce local opposition. Google’s Sidewalk Labs project was in perennial crisis, and Google workers were refusing to build surveillance tech with military applications.

In short, democracy – inconvenient public engagement in the designing of critical institutions and public spaces – was turning out to be the single greatest obstacle to the vision Schmidt was advancing, first from his perch at the top of Google and Alphabet, and then as chair of two powerful boards advising US Congress and the Department of Defense. As the NSCAI documents reveal, this inconvenient exercise of power by members of the public and by tech workers inside these mega-firms has, from the perspective of men such as Schmidt and the Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, maddeningly slowed down the AI arms race, keeping fleets of potentially deadly driverless cars and trucks off the roads, protecting private health records from becoming a weapon used by employers against workers, preventing urban spaces from being blanketing with facial recognition software, and much more.

Now, in the midst of the carnage of this ongoing pandemic, and the fear and uncertainty about the future it has brought, these companies clearly see their moment to sweep out all that democratic engagement. To have the same kind of power as their Chinese competitors, who have the luxury of functioning without being hampered by intrusions of either labour or civil rights.
 
Schoolchildren walking below surveillance cameras in Akto in China’s Xinjiang region. Photograph: Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images

All of this is moving very fast. The Australian government has contracted with Amazon to store the data for its controversial coronavirus tracking app. The Canadian government has contracted with Amazon to deliver medical equipment, raising questions about why it bypassed the public postal service. And in just a few short days in early May, Alphabet has spun up a new Sidewalk Labs initiative to remake urban infrastructure with $400m in seed capital. Josh Marcuse, the executive director of the Defense Innovation Board chaired by Schmidt, announced that he was leaving that job to work full-time at Google as head of strategy and innovation for global public sector, meaning that he will be helping Google to cash in on some of the many opportunities he and Schmidt have been busily creating with their lobbying.

To be clear, technology is most certainly a key part of how we must protect public health in the coming months and years. The question is: will that technology be subject to the disciplines of democracy and public oversight, or will it be rolled out in state-of-exception frenzy, without asking critical questions that will shape our lives for decades to come? Questions such as these, for instance: if we are indeed seeing how critical digital connectivity is in times of crisis, should these networks, and our data, really be in the hands of private players such as Google, Amazon and Apple? If public funds are paying for so much of it, should the public also own and control it? If the internet is essential for so much in our lives, as it clearly is, should it be treated as a nonprofit public utility?

And while there is no doubt that the ability to teleconference has been a lifeline in this period of lockdown, there are serious debates to be had about whether our more lasting protections are distinctly more human. Take education. Schmidt is right that overcrowded classrooms present a health risk, at least until we have a vaccine. So how about hiring double the number of teachers and cutting class size in half? How about making sure that every school has a nurse?

That would create much-needed jobs in a depression-level unemployment crisis, and give everyone in the learning environment more elbow room. If buildings are too crowded, how about dividing the day into shifts, and having more outdoor education, drawing on the plentiful research that shows that time in nature enhances children’s capacity to learn?

Introducing those kinds of changes would be hard, to be sure. But they are not nearly as risky as giving up on the tried-and-true technology of trained humans teaching younger humans face-to-face, in groups where they learn to socialise with one another to boot.

Upon learning of New York state’s new partnership with the Gates Foundation, Andy Pallotta, the president of the New York State United Teachers union, was quick to react: “If we want to reimagine education, let’s start with addressing the need for social workers, mental health counsellors, school nurses, enriching arts courses, advanced courses and smaller class sizes in school districts across the state,” he said. A coalition of parents’ groups also pointed out that if they had indeed been living an “experiment in remote learning” (as Schmidt put it), then the results were deeply worrying: “Since the schools were shut down in mid-March, our understanding of the profound deficiencies of screen-based instruction has only grown.”

In addition to the obvious class and race biases against children who lack internet access and home computers (problems that tech companies are eager to be paid to solve with massive tech buys), there are big questions about whether remote teaching can serve many kids with disabilities, as required by law. And there is no technological solution to the problem of learning in a home environment that is overcrowded and/or abusive.

The issue is not whether schools must change in the face of a highly contagious virus for which we have neither cure nor inoculation. Like every institution where humans gather in groups, they will change. The trouble, as always in these moments of collective shock, is the absence of public debate about what those changes should look like, and who they should benefit – private tech companies or students?

The same questions need to be asked about health. Avoiding doctor’s offices and hospitals during a pandemic makes good sense. But telehealth misses a huge amount. So we need to have an evidence-based debate about the pros and cons of spending scarce public resources on telehealth – rather than on more trained nurses, equipped with all the necessary protective equipment, who are able to make house calls to diagnose and treat patients in their homes. And, perhaps most urgently, we need to get the balance right between virus tracking apps, which, with the proper privacy protections, have a role to play, and the calls for a “community health corps” that would put millions of Americans to work, not only doing contact-tracing, but making sure that everyone has the material resources and support they need to quarantine safely. 
 
A teacher in Maryland, US, handing out computers to students for remote learning. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images

In each case, we face real and hard choices between investing in humans and investing in technology. Because the brutal truth is that, as it stands, we are very unlikely to do both. The refusal to transfer anything like the needed resources to states and cities in successive federal bailouts means that the coronavirus health crisis is now slamming headlong into a manufactured austerity crisis. Public schools, universities, hospitals and transit are facing existential questions about their futures. If tech companies win their ferocious lobbying campaign for remote learning, telehealth, 5G and driverless vehicles – their Screen New Deal – there simply won’t be any money left over for urgent public priorities, never mind the Green New Deal that our planet urgently needs. On the contrary: the price tag for all the shiny gadgets will be mass teacher layoffs and hospital closures.

Tech provides us with powerful tools, but not every solution is technological. And the trouble with outsourcing key decisions about how to “reimagine” our states and cities to men such as Bill Gates and Schmidt is that they have spent their lives demonstrating the belief that there is no problem that technology cannot fix.

For them, and many others in Silicon Valley, the pandemic is a golden opportunity to receive not just the gratitude, but the deference and power that they feel has been unjustly denied. And Andrew Cuomo, by putting the former Google chair in charge of the body that will shape the state’s reopening, appears to have just given him something close to free rein.

• Republished with permission from The Intercept.

• Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread