USA
House passes sweeping pro-union legislation to protect workers' rights

Rep. Bobby Scott (C) called his bill, which passed the House on Tuesday, "a critical step to secure workers' rights to join a union." Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo


March 9 (UPI) -- House Democrats on Tuesday passed sweeping pro-union legislation to protect workers' rights to organize and to allow for employers to be punished over wrongful termination.

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled House 225-206 along party lines on Tuesday, said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the bill's sponsor, who called it "a critical step to secure workers' right to join a union."

"The Protecting the Right to Organize Act makes the most significant upgrades to the [National Labor Relations Board] in 85 years by providing new tools to protect workers from intimidation and retaliation, introducing meaningful penalties for companies that violate workers' rights and allowing workers to hold free, fair and safe union elections," he said in a statement.

According to the bill, it will support unionization through streamlining access to justice for workers punished for exercising their rights, giving workers the power to override so-called right-to-work laws that prevent unions from collecting dues for those they represent, allowing workers to seek justice in court against employers who interfere with their rights and enhancing workers' right to support boycotts, strikes and other acts of solidarity.

It also enables the National Labor Relations Board to assess monetary penalties for each violation of a worker being wrongfully fired while closing so-called loopholes that permitted employers to misclassify employees while preventing immigrants from being exploited. Employers will also be prohibited from subjecting their employees to anti-union propaganda and allow workers to vote away from their places of work, preventing employer interference.

President Joe Biden, who has previously voiced support for the bill, urged Congress on Tuesday to send it to his desk so he can sign it into law so "we can summon a new wave of worker power and create an economy that works for everyone."

"I believe every worker deserves a free and fair choice to join a union -- and the PRO Act will bring us closer to that reality," he tweeted.

He also published a statement on Tuesday, stating rebuilding unions with help deliver "America's promise in full."

"The middle class built this country, and unions built the middle class," he said. "Unions give workers a stronger voice to increase wages, improve the quality of jobs and protect job security, protect against racial and all other forms of discrimination and sexual harassment and protect workers' health, safety and benefits in the workplace."

A similar bill sponsored by Scott in 2019 passed the house in February of last year by failed to make it out of the then-Republican-controlled Senate. It now faces a split Senate, but will require 10 Republicans to cross the aisle to avoid a filibuster.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has railed against the bill, stating on its website that the PRO Act "would destabilize America's workplaces and impose a long list of dangerous changes into labor law."

"The proposal ... is a litany of almost every failed idea from the past 30 years of labor policy," the chamber said. "The PRO Act would undermine workers rights, drag employers into unrelated labor disputes disrupt the economy and force individual Americans to pay union dues regardless of this wishes."

Nonpartisan think tank the Economic Policy Institute cheered the House's passing of the PRO Act, stating helps "bring U.S. labor law into the 21st century."

"The Senate should pass the PRO Act Immediately and ensure that all workers have a voice on the job," Celine McNicholas, director of government affairs at the EPI and its policy analyst, Margaret Poydock, said in a joint statement.

PATRIARCHIAL EVANGELIST WAR ON WOMEN

Arkansas governor signs near-total abortion ban

US state of Arkansas bans abortions even in cases of rape or incest

Anti-abortion activists PAID FOR BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

gather behind the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in January. Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo

March 9 (UPI) -- Arkansas on Tuesday enacted a near-total ban on abortion, setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle over reproductive rights.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed SB6 into law, allowing providers to only perform abortions "to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" while providing no other exceptions for instances such as rape, incest or fetal anomalies.




The law also institutes a fine of up to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison for medical practitioners who violate the ban.

The bill is not set to take effect until 90 days after the Republican-held state legislature adjourns this year's session, currently set to end on May 3.

The Arkansas ACLU said on Twitter that it would sue to challenge the law before that date.

"This extreme abortion ban is cruel and unconstitutional and it will have accomplished nothing but cause stress for patients while ignoring the pressing challenges Arkansans face," it said.

Hutchinson issued a statement saying he signed the bill due to his "long-held pro-life convictions" while acknowledging it was likely to face challenges in the Supreme Court.

"SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law," he said. "I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view and such exceptions would increase chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court."

USPS mail truck contract hits snag as lawmakers ask, 'Why not totally electric?'

Sean Szymkowski 

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have questions following the USPS' decision to award its future mail truck, the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh. Reuters first reported Tuesday that three members of the House of Representatives want to freeze the USPS contract until they can get some answers.

© Provided by Roadshow Lawmakers have some questions. USPS

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and Reps. Tim Ryan and Jared Huffman, all Democrats, called for a halt to the process to investigate possible political influence in the awarding of the contract. They also want to see if the contract meets President Joe Biden's pledge to transform the entire federal fleet into electric vehicles.

The latter is a question I dug into previously, noting odd language in the announcement that noted Oshkosh will build "fuel-efficient low-emission internal combustion engine vehicles," as well as electric mail trucks . We later learned the USPS planned for just one in 10 of the new trucks to feature an electric powertrain -- a statement at odds with the Biden administration's EV pledge. Notably, the USPS did not select Ohio-based EV-maker Workhorse, a contender for the NGDV contract. Reps. Kaptur and Ryan both represent districts in Ohio.

Rep. Huffman also expressed concern to Reuters that he's been unable to view the Oshkosh contract in its entirety. The USPS plans to spend $482 million initially on the new trucks, but the sum could grow to $6 billion over the 10-year-long contract, according to the previous announcements. Oshkosh could get the green light to build up to 165,000 new mail trucks in the current deal. While the lawmakers question political influence, the bigger question is why not go completely electric? Huffman told the publication Oshkosh would build these vehicles for "obsolescence," adding it's "insane."

A USPS spokesperson told Roadshow, "We imagined an electric vehicle future, committing $482 million at contract award to prepare for it. The challenge remains the Postal Service's billions in annual operating losses."

House Democrats this week introduced a bill, sponsored by Rep. Huffman, to serve the USPS up to $6 billion to purchase a totally electric fleet of mail carriers. US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said at a previous congressional hearing the agency would need $3 or $4 billion more beyond its current investment to achieve something like a 90% EV fleet.

"We welcome and are interested in any support from Congress that advances the goal of a Postal Service vehicle fleet with zero emissions, and the necessary infrastructure required to operate it," the USPS spokesperson said on the possibility of more funding. "With the right level of support, the majority of the Postal Service's fleet can be electric by the end of the decade."

The White House did not immediately return Roadshow's request for comment.
USPS, Oshkosh Defense reveal Next Generation Delivery Vehicle






a close up of a truck: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has contracted with Oshkosh Defense to manufacture a next-generation postal delivery vehicle.

6 SLIDES © Provided by Roadshow

The United States Postal Service (USPS) has contracted with Oshkosh Defense to manufacture a next-generation postal delivery vehicle.

This was originally published on Roadshow.

#ABOLISHMONARCHY 

IT'S NOT WORTH IT IF IT AIN'T DIFFICULT

Abolishing the monarchy in Canada would be ‘enormously difficult,’ experts say

Emerald Bensadoun GLOBAL NEWS

Calls for Canada to rethink its relationship to the monarchy have been mounting after an explosive interview between Prince Harry, Meghan and Oprah Winfrey on Sunday.

© Provided by Global News LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - NOVEMBER 25: Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau meets Queen Elizabeth II during a private audience at Buckingham Palace on November 25, 2015 in London, England. This is the first visit of Trudeau in Britain since his election as Canadas Prime Minister. (Photo by Yui Mok - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

In a damning tell-all, Meghan revealed living with the royals left her feeling suicidal and unsupported, prompting her and her husband's royal departure in January of last year. She also indicated there were racist undertones in Buckingham Palace, claiming there were discussions where concerns were expressed over how dark the colour of her son's skin would be.

"I think it's clear. I've said it in the past: I don't see the benefit of the monarchy in Canadians' lives," NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Tuesday.

"There's no benefit to them and now even more so with concerns about racism in the institution that were raised, and pressures that were placed on Meghan Markle."

Read more: Unaired ‘Oprah With Meghan and Harry’ clips shed more light on royal rift

Canada first became part of the British Commonwealth in 1931 as an independent state, and remains one of 54 Commonwealth nations to this day. The country is considered a constitutional monarchy, a system which allows the monarch -- in this case, Queen Elizabeth II -- to exercise power in accordance with Canada's Constitution.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has refused to comment directly on the interview. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, he said he wouldn't comment on "what's going on over in the U.K., but I will continue to endeavour to fight against racism and intolerance every single day in Canada."

"There are many institutions that we have in this country, including that big building right across the street from us, parliament, that has and is built around a system of colonialism, of discrimination, of systemic racism in all of our institutions," he said.

"But the answer is not to suddenly toss out all the institutions and start over."

But even if it were, experts say it would be a near-futile effort for the federal government to extricate itself from the monarchy, and a process that could take years to complete.

The monarchy versus the Royal Family

First and foremost, what the Royal Family does differs greatly from the monarchy's role in Canada.

"Most often, people will just associate the fact of Canada's status as a monarchy with the queen and with the rest of the royals, but they actually play almost no role whatsoever in Canadian governance," Emmett Macfarlane, an associate professor with the University of Waterloo, told Global News.

"Even the Queen herself, almost all of her duties are actually accomplished in practice by the Governor-General as her representative in Canada."

Read more: Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s comments raise race issue in Commonwealth nations

What does the monarchy do for Canada?

The monarchy plays two roles in Canada: constitutional and ceremonial.

Much of Canada's Constitution is based on unwritten customs and traditions. The Queen possesses emergency powers that are there to be used by the Crown if need be, such as refusing royal assent or dismissing a government.

"Our constitution vests executive power in the Queen. Not Parliament, not the people; it's vested in the Queen. Of course, that doesn't mean she actually governs," Robert Finch, dominion chairman and president of the Monarchist League of Canada, told Global News.

The Queen acts solely on the advice of elected politicians.

Video: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle interview: The most shocking revelations of the night

"The notion that the prime minister and cabinet governs by using power that belongs to a non-partisan monarch is a fundamental feature of Canada's system of government," he said.

The monarchy also acts as a symbol. Finch said the Queen and the Crown can be a "wonderful force" for national unity and Canadian identity, which is why awards such as the Order of Canada are given in the name of the Queen, for instance.

A good example of this is the Royal Tour, he added.

"Look at the crowds that come out to see the Queen or a member of the Royal Family when they are in Canada," said Finch.

"Nobody else can garner such a crowd — diverse in age, ethnicity, politics, language, social-economic background, etc. — as they can. That's the ceremonial role of the Crown."

Read more: Royal Family remains ‘stoic and silent’: Experts react to tell-all Oprah interview

Abolishing the monarchy could prove a royal pain

According to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, the full abolition of the "office of the Queen" would require Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate and all 10 provinces and territories to unanimously agree to amend the Constitution.

Macfarlane said this process could take years, and there would also need to be "intensive consultations with Canada's Indigenous populations," given the historical connections between the Crown and Indigenous peoples as part of the treaty system.

"Politicians are enormously reluctant, even unwilling to touch the Constitution because it's automatically seen as a national unity issue," Macfarlane said.

"It would be an enormously difficult undertaking, especially in the case of full abolition."

In fact, it would be easier to get rid of the monarchy in the U.K. than it would be in Canada, as Britain's governing structure requires fewer permissions before making fundamental changes.

Video: The Queen reacts to Meghan and Harry interview, says issues raised including race ‘concerning’
What would replace it?

If Canada were to abolish the monarchy, Macfarlane said the next natural step would be from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, like that of the United States.

In a republic, the head of state is elected separately from the legislature in what is known as a "diffusion of power."

According to Macfarlane, this is the core distinction between a parliamentary constitutional monarchy and a republic.

"By having a separate elected head of state, you have another locus of power separate from the legislative branch, where(as) in our system, traditionally the legislature or the elected parliament is the supreme locus of power in that it is what determines who serves in government," he said.

However, Macfarlane noted that republics don't always produce good governance. He said interactions between the White House and Congress can be "unhealthy" and "divisive," and make it harder to get things done.

An example of this is the use of executive orders, which political leaders use to issue directives without having to put them to a vote of any kind.

"We saw Trump initiate basically a ban on immigration or travel from certain countries. We saw him reallocate funds designed for other purposes to be put towards the border wall. Many of these things were done with legislation in mind," he said.

"Through executive orders and when you have elected actors (or even unelected actors), there's always a threat in state governance for expanding that locus of power beyond its its proper limits."

Rising number of Canadians support dropping monarchy: poll

A new B.C. poll suggests more and more Canadians are ready to rethink our royal relationship. Kylie Stanton has more on what may be driving the shift to ditch the monarchy and reaction from those defending the Canadian Crown.

Rising number of Canadians support dropping monarchy: poll | Watch News Videos Online (globalnews.ca)

• 
  
• Embed this video on youShare this item on Facebook
• Share this item onShare this item on Googl 
• Send this page to someo

UPDATE

Harrowing Report Finds 110,000 People Were Contaminated by French Nuclear Tests

Peter Dockrill 

The horrific extent of decades of controversial nuclear tests conducted by France in the islands of French Polynesia has been revealed in a new report, calculating the true scale of an unmitigated health disaster that researchers say has been hidden or ignored for decades.

© Moruroa Files France’s first nuclear test in Polynesia in 1966.

Beginning in 1966, France began in secret a new round of nuclear tests at the Polynesian atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa – a classified military program that continued for 30 years before ending amidst mass protests in 1996, almost 200 nuclear explosions later.

In a new two-year investigation conducted by an international group of security researchers, data scientists, and investigative journalists, the team stitched together and analyzed an archive of approximately 2,000 pages of now declassified French government and military documents.

In addition, they interviewed dozens of people of interest – including Polynesian inhabitants, former military personnel, and scientists – all to put together a clearer picture of the 193 nuclear tests fired at the Moruroa and Fangataufa sites, which up to now have been shrouded by secrecy and red tape.

With new 3D modeling based on the data to extrapolate the extent of the populated regions showered with radioactive fallout in the wake of the blasts, the report comes to uncomfortable and shocking conclusions.

"According to our calculations, based on a scientific reassessment of the doses received, approximately 110,000 people were infected, almost the entire Polynesian population at the time," the researchers explain.

Evidence in the documentation suggests the contamination of radioactive particles settling onto populated regions was the basis for a 'cluster' of cancer cases affecting local Polynesians, which were secretly known to be linked to the tests by French military officials.

"It was when our elders began to die that we really started to ask questions," says one woman, whose mother died from breast cancer in 2009.

While numerous unsafe tests were conducted in the first few years of the program, more powerful weapons fired in the 1970s presented even graver risks to the civilians of French Polynesia – with tests in 1971 and 1974 unleashing huge clouds of radioactive particles carried by the wind onto inhabitants who were never warned.

Military scientists at the time were aware that contamination on the ground, in the air, and in drinking water posed serious dangers – especially to vulnerable children, many of whom went on to develop cancer in the years following the tests.

Nonetheless, even when weather forecasts indicated the wind would carry the toxic clouds onto populated islands, officials did not delay testing. Most notoriously, an explosion in 1974 of a device called Centaure is estimated to have exposed 110,000 Polynesians to significant amounts of radiation. At the time, the total population of French Polynesia was 125,000.

Over the decades, internal military assessments of the exposure risk have consistently underestimated and denied the scope of the dangers, researchers say.

To date, only 454 people have ever received compensation from the French government in recognition of health impacts stemming from the testing, with over 80 percent of applications being rejected by authorities without explanation.

Based on the new findings, tens of thousands of people may now stand to rightfully claim compensation for these wrongs of the past, with the new data supporting their case with a giant trove of publicly available evidence, surfaced for the first time.

"There are about 110,000 people – and not 10,000, as the local health authorities suspect – who could potentially demand compensation from the French state, should they develop one of the recognized cancers," the researchers write.

"Yet up until now, the number of Polynesians from the civilian population – that is, those who were not in the military nor among those specifically contracted as service providers – who have received compensation total just 63. That [is] a veritable fiasco."

The damage done went far beyond native Polynesians. According to email correspondence exchanged within the French defense ministry, an estimated 2,000 of the 6,000 former military and civilian staff who were involved in the tests were also exposed, and either already have "or will contract a radio-induced cancer", with compensation expected to cost in the amount of 100 million euros.

Much of the data assessed by the researchers comes from now declassified and open-access sources, and the researchers have provided details of their methodology, and pledged to further share their results with the public and the scientific community.

After decades of being hidden and denied, the truth of these terrible events is finally being heard.

"The state has tried hard to bury the toxic heritage of these tests," Geoffrey Livolsi, editor-in-chief of nonprofit media organization Disclose, which helped produce the report, told The Guardian.

"This is the first truly independent scientific attempt to measure the scale of the damage and to acknowledge the thousands of victims of France's nuclear experiment in the Pacific."

The findings are summarized here, and a new book based on the research is available here.

SEE 

WHY GREENPEACE WAS FORMED

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment (plawiuk.blogspot.com)

Letters From Tesla’s Counsel to California DMV Show Greater Wariness of

 Self-Driving Capability Than Elon Musk’s Public Comments

Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica:

In a pair of letters last November and December, officials at the California DMV asked Tesla for details about the FSD beta program. Tesla requires drivers using the beta software to actively supervise it so they can quickly intervene if needed. The DMV wanted to know if Tesla planned to relax requirements for human supervision once the software was made available to the general public.

In its first response, sent in November, Tesla emphasized that the beta software had limited functionality. Tesla told state regulators that the software is “not capable of recognizing or responding” to “static objects and road debris, emergency vehicles, construction zones, large uncontrolled intersections with multiple incoming ways, occlusions, adverse weather, complicated or adversarial vehicles in the driving path, and unmapped roads.”

In a December follow-up, Tesla added that “we expect the functionality to remain largely unchanged in a future, full release to the customer fleet.” Tesla added that “we do not expect significant enhancements” that would “shift the responsibility for the entire dynamic driving task to the system.” The system “will continue to be an SAE Level 2, advanced driver-assistance feature.”

Apparently this is the year that we get fully autonomous transportation — assuming Tesla manages to resolve that enormous list of things not recognized by its “full self-driving” software. So this is not the year that we get fully autonomous transportation, and the name of Tesla’s “Autopilot” software is still writing cheques that it cannot cash. Some things never change.

⌥ MARCH 9, 2021

A Digital New Deal: How Can We Tackle the Worst Economy Since the Great Depression?

ROY ZUR·MARCH 4, 2021

There are twice as many people looking for a job as there are job openings, and securing a stable career has become more difficult than ever in the past year. Through changing times, there has been a shift in the way professionals enter the workforce, as well as how they work. Securing a career is no longer limited to professionals with university degrees—and it is no secret that since the onset of the pandemic, any role that could be made remote quickly underwent the transition.

These drastic shifts in the structure of our economy took place right in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression. Hospitality, retail, manufacturing, and support services are among the industries that have been hit hardest, with massive layoffs and pay declines for employees that were on payroll. The industries that either stayed afloat or thrived managed to do so thanks to remote work, creating a shift in the workforce, both remote and otherwise, and universities are expected to take note of these shifts in the workforce, and how they will lead to shifts in educational training.

Just as in the previous Great Depression jobs were created to tackle the challenges society faced, culminating in factory jobs to power the Allied victory in World War Ⅱ, the jobs that will fuel our recovery today lie in fields tackling 21st-century challenges, and these roles don’t necessarily require degrees. In fact, most of the employers of today value skillsets over degrees, unlike the employers of yesteryear. As such, universities must be aware, and adapt to the fact that in the current economy, students are looking for jobs within future-proofed fields that quickly secure stable employment. The first step in adapting to the change in demands and times is by offering skill learning as part of a Digital New Deal.

The role of educational facilities in a Digital New Deal

Traditional four-year degrees are as much a promising investment as ever, but the current job crisis, especially with regards to filling roles in high-demand industries such as cybersecurity, calls for high intensity training that can help professionals secure roles within a matter of months instead of years. COVID-19 sped up the changes in higher education that were already on track and ultimately begging for a shift to alternative career tracks. In order to truly help their students develop skills for employability and to diversify revenue streams, universities must offer highly technical training in additional forms, such as bootcamps, in addition to the general education curriculum.

Cybersecurity bootcamps, for instance, serve as the fast track to a fulfilling career in the space. While there are plenty of speedier certification programs out there, they ultimately fall short across multiple fronts. The training behind those programs don’t translate to a well-rounded set of skills, and pale in comparison to bootcamps, which are far more hands-on and align with industry demands.

Careers in cybersecurity, even at the entry level, are future-proofed, and do not require prior IT experience, which is a big deal considering many entry-level positions elsewhere call for an unrealistic number of years of experience out of young adults.

Reversing the effects of the Great Recession

Many of the effects of the Great Recession can be reversed if anyone who is unemployed, underemployed, or simply looking to switch careers, takes the initiative to switch over to the world of cybersecurity, which boasts tremendous job satisfaction. Career options within the space are plentiful, and they pay more than most other IT jobs. That’s true even at the entry level, by as much as a full 16 percent more—or about $13,000—than the average for all IT jobs.

Positions in this field are also far more stable than other positions in the tech sector. Some of the entry-level roles in cybersecurity that don’t require prior IT experience include SOC Operator, Information Security Analyst, Junior Penetration Tester, and Systems Administrator. More often than not, professionals in cybersecurity earn six-figure salaries, even at an early stage in their career.

#Cybersecurity bootcamps in collaboration with educational facilities worldwide can play a pivotal role in filling roles and improving the earning potential of professionals. #respectdataClick to Tweet

As part of a Digital New Deal, in collaboration with educational facilities worldwide, cybersecurity bootcamps will play a pivotal role in improving the earning potential of professionals in a space that is desperately looking to fill roles. The fact that there are millions of positions available (and barely enough qualified people to fill the roles) puts those who enroll in bootcamps at an advantage on the fast track to expansion of employment prospects. Collectively, a Digital New Deal would make a tremendous impact in tackling the worst economy since the Great Depression. Its successful deployment would also reduce the risk of cyber crimes and their repercussions across the board, from businesses, to governments, to individuals.

Roy Zur

Founder and CEO at Cybint

Roy Zur is the founder and CEO of Cybint, a cyber education company. As a retired Israeli Defense Forces Major, Roy has more than 15 years of experience in cybersecurity and intelligence operations and has developed cyber education programs and technological solutions for companies, educational institutions and government agencies around the world.

Facial Recognition Systems Scan 23 Million People at US Borders, Come up With Zero Imposters

SCOTT IKEDA·FEBRUARY 23, 2021

Though international travel was down in 2020 due to the protracted coronavirus pandemic, there were still 23 million border crossers entering the United States that were subject to facial recognition scans. Of these, it appears not one was determined to be an imposter at any of the country’s airports according to an annual U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) report.

These numbers are generally low each year; the agency caught 100 imposters out of 19 million scans in 2019, but it has been as high as 285 among fewer scans in recent years since more advanced (and more numerous) facial recognition systems have been implemented and statistics have been tracked.
Facial recognition system catches no imposters among 4 million more travelers

The system did have some luck with pedestrian border crossers, where it identified just under 100 people attempting to cross national borders on foot under an assumed identity. It completely struck out at airports in spite of a substantially increased amount of facial recognition scans, however. Commercial airlines have been using facial recognition since 2017, and it has also been used at seaports for international cruise passengers since 2018.

CBP has been in some trouble over the accuracy of this program since it began publicly reporting numbers several years ago. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) took the CBP to task in late 2020 over a general poor quality of operations, from unhelpful traveler-facing signage and program information in airports to questionable accuracy audits.

James McQuiggan, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, points out that given the small sample size of data and relative newness of the technology it is impossible to say if this is a case of unique coronavirus conditions limiting attempts or if the system simply is no good at picking out fraudulent travel documents: “Having no imposters come through in 2020 and with 23 million coming into the U.S. could be due to lockdowns in various countries and restrictions on travel, which might have slowed imposters’ progress to gain entry in the U.S. illegally … While the report does not provide any data or audit results, it’s unclear whether the Government Assurance Office (GAO) conducted any test with a “fake” imposter to see if they could bypass the CBP. In cybersecurity or physical security, organizations want to test and monitor their perimeters, whether electronic or physical. These audits can determine any areas of improvement and if the processes and procedures are operating as required.”

It is known that CBP auditing of each airport’s scans is fairly limited: only two flights from each airport are examined by the department each week and that process can take weeks to detect issues in how scans are being done.

Are border facial recognition systems failing?

The airport facial recognition scan essentially compares the travelers face to their passport photo, looking for a match and for signs that the passport may be illegitimate. INTERPOL maintains an international database of reported lost and stolen passports that the US and other countries use as part of these checks, but a 2014 government hearing found that many countries were not reporting these passports to the agency.

Stuart Sharp, Vice President of Technical Services at OneLogin, expanded on the screening system that is in use at airports: “We should not assume that the CBP facial recognition tools have failed simply by a lack of imposter identification, as this may simply be the result of fewer individuals attempting to enter the country as a result of Covid. Nevertheless, while biometrics have a role to play in identification, it does face significant limitations. Most people don’t realise that Biometric authentication relies on a probabilistic model, not deterministic. When comparing a facial or fingerprint scan to the stored value, the system accepts a degree of variation. This is called the False Acceptance Rate (FAR) metric, which is the probability that the system will incorrectly identify a user as valid. Realizing that facial recognition is simply verifying that the scan is ‘similar’ to the stored image, you can see that there is a real risk that the CBP tools are not detecting skillful imposters.”

Facial recognition has also run into its own inherent accuracy problems. An NIST study in late 2019 found that the facial scanning systems used by border control and law enforcement agencies had serious inaccuracy problems for specific demographics of people: African-American and Asian people specifically, and it was considerably more inaccurate for women and older people than men and middle-aged data subjects. These inaccuracies were tracked back to the possibility of biased facial samples used to train the AI algorithms, with the data sets simply not containing enough members of these demographics to be able to accurately identify them. As of late 2020 a number of companies have claimed that they are working to fix these inherent bias issues, but due to the secretive nature of the industry it is difficult for the general public to tell how successful these efforts are or if real world improvements are being seen.

Out of 23 million border crossers entering the US, none were determined to be an imposter from #facialrecognition scans, raising questions on the tech. #privacy #respectdataClick to Tweet

There are also questions about the security of the facial recognition systems used at the border, and the prospect of attackers gaining illicit access to them. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) experienced a breach by way of a vendor in 2019, which caused the photos and personal data (including license plate numbers) of thousands of border-crossing travelers to be leaked to the dark web. The vendor had apparently stored these images on its own local servers against DHS policy; a rogue employee gained access to the photos between 2018 and 2019 and exfiltrated them, later attempting to ransom the vendor for Bitcoin and leaking the images to the dark web when the ransom was not paid. The incident was not confirmed by DHS until 2020. While there have not been any known incidents of CBP’s facial comparison biometrics or the screening processes used at airports being hacked, the vendor compromise demonstrates that the entire facial recognition system relies on a massive network of subcontractors that each represent potential points of vulnerability

PRC Spying, Malware and Disinformation Campaigns Push Hong Kong Dissidents to Underground Communications Channels

DATA PRIVACYNEWS·

SCOTT IKEDA·FEBRUARY 19, 2021

Following the anti-extradition protests that spanned from 2019 into 2020, the Chinese Communist Party has stepped up its digital actions against Hong Kong activists and dissidents. A new report from threat intelligence firm Intsights finds that aggressive disinformation campaigns and related measures have forced organizers to move to the digital underground, using encryption and the dark web to keep the PRC from observing and inserting itself into their communication

Disinformation campaigns, mass surveillance drive “dark web” uptick in Hong Kong

Though the Hong Kong street protests have since dissipated, tensions have nevertheless remained high as the Chinese government has aggressively moved to control the flow of information in the region. It has also made mass arrests of protesters under charges such as “subverting state power.” The PRC has also been conducting blanket surveillance that sweeps up even those that are not politically involved, for example monitoring and censoring Zoom conferences organized by businesses and schools. The country’s national security laws require companies based in its territory to turn over any information requested by the government.

Dissidents have responded to disinformation campaigns and surveillance by moving their communications to encrypted messaging apps and dark web forums. However, the researchers warn that this opens up inexperienced navigators to a new realm of criminal threats; some paid services have sprung up to safely guide activists and dissidents to the clandestine meeting places and resources that they are seeking.

The dark web is best known for the sale of illicit goods, everything from credit card skimming equipment to illegal drugs. This is the world that novices must learn to navigate, generally without assistance (unless they pay for it). And when they do find homes for political discussion, they are not necessarily ideologically friendly. The report finds that the most popular Chinese-language discussion forums on the dark web actually tend to be pro-PRC. And the dark web is not free from the eyes of the government; posts from users indicate that Chinese espionage agents monitor at least some of these sites and will occasionally make attempts to disrupt or take down the servers that host them

The move away from mainstream social media sites has largely been driven by disinformation campaigns, even when those sites do not fall under the influence of China’s government. The PRC is also able to weaponize false claims of “disinformation” against activists by placing the poster in jail for spreading “fake news.” The government’s reach into foreign social media companies is substantial, at least judging by Twitter’s own internal numbers. The social media giant reports finding over 23,000 accounts spreading “geopolitical narratives favorable to the CCP” as part of disinformation campaigns in the past year, taking down thousands of them for abuse of the terms of service. These accounts appear to be supported by an additional network of at least 150,000 accounts that serve to “signal boost” the information that the primary accounts post by “liking” and retweeting it.

And when the Chinese government identifies and targets a dissident, surveillance and arrest is not their only concern. The government has been known to target activists with malware dating back to at least 2014. A recent example that has been seen in the wild is the use of the LightSpy malware, which targets iOS devices and allows the attacker to remotely execute commands. It is able to vacuum up quite a bit of a phone’s data: contact lists, call history, geolocation data and lists of installed apps among other items. A similar piece of malware called dmsSpy was seen to be targeting Android users via a fake app claiming to be associated with the Hong Kong Democracy and Freedom Movement.

The Chinese government has also been observed targeting dissidents with malicious PDF files that appear to come from trusted sources. This aspect of the disinformation campaigns is usually topical and ties into items of great interest to protestors; for example, one recent attack claimed to provide an update to United Kingdom PM Boris Johnson’s announcement that the country would take in up to three million refugees from Hong Kong.

Usage of encrypted communications

In addition to the dark web, activists are responding with an uptick in usage of encrypted communications apps and VPNs located outside of China to counter the disinformation campaigns. The messaging app Signal has become very commonly used in recent months; other popular choices are Telegram, Proton and the local mesh networking app Bridgefy.

Dissidents need all of the assistance they can get from these various tools, as they are up against one of the world’s most formidable hacking forces in addition to the social media disinformation campaigns. The report indicates that state-backed advanced persistent threat (APT) groups have turned their attention from cyber attacks to the business of tracking and exposing Hong Kong activists. These include Winnti Group (APT 41), known for attacking online games for over a decade, and Gothic Panda (APT 3).
Dissidents have responded to #disinformation campaigns and #surveillance by moving their communications to encrypted messaging apps and #darkweb forums. #respectdataClick to Tweet

Hong Kong is supposed to be politically and legally independent from China until 2047, but the PRC has called the treaty “unequal.” The UK views the implementation of the new security laws as a violation of the treaty and is considering sanctions as a response.

New Polling Reveals Increasingly Negative Views of Big Tech, Strong Public Support for Regulation

DATA PRIVACYNEWS·

SCOTT IKEDA·MARCH 3, 2021

As of August 2019, Big Tech companies were not particularly popular. At that time, only 46% of Americans had at least a “somewhat” positive view of them according to Gallup polling. A new poll shows that negative views have increased since then, with only 34% of Americans now expressing any level of positive opinion.

Due to the timing, the polls are thought to be influenced by the then-recent riots at the U.S. Capitol. However, that source of displeasure has typically come from the political left; the right has perhaps even more negative views of Big Tech due to a perception of ongoing censorship and political bias on social media platforms.

Big Tech struggling to please anyone

45% of US adults express some level of negative view of Big Tech in the recent polling, and 20% are neutral. The survey defined “Big Tech” as mostly Silicon Valley-rooted companies that are among the biggest names in social media and retail, for example listing Amazon and Facebook by name as well as Google. The swap from positive to negative sentiment was close to uniform, and the percentage of those indicating that they had the lowest possible view of Big Tech firms (a response of “very negative”) more than doubled from 10% to 22%.

The poll also indicates that Americans have an increasing appetite for regulation of Big Tech firms. The number that wanted to see an increase in government regulation moved from 48% to 57%.

The poll was conducted from January 21 to February 2, so Gallop speculates that the events of January 6 may have been an influence on respondents. In response to the riots that saw a pro-Trump mob storm into the US Capitol and several deaths resulting from clashes between rioters and security forces, a number of major social media platforms banned Donald Trump. Additionally Google, Amazon and Apple took action to terminate hosting of Parler, an alternative social media platform that conservatives had been favoring recently.

While these are all moves that would primarily rile up right-wing supporters, political animus against the Big Tech platforms had previously come in great quantities from the left as well. Prior to Trump’s deplatforming, many on the left felt that the social media platforms were too permissive with Trump and those in his political orbit as well as various campaigns in support of him. Platforms such as Twitter had previously implemented fact-checking notifications as a specific response to this discontent from the left.

The Gallup poll did ask respondents for their political affiliation, and among those that opted to respond there was an unsurprising trend of conservative politics correlating with more negative views of Big Tech. Republicans with a negative view of Big Tech ballooned from 37% to 65% in 18 months, and independents grew from 33% to 44%. Democrat views were almost unchanged since 2019; 49% continue to view Big Tech in some sort of a positive light, with the share of negative views increasing only 1% to 30%. However, Democrats remain more in favor of increased regulation at a rate of 60% to 58% of independents and 53% of Republicans. Republican interest in regulation has increased since 2019, however, gaining 5% to go to a majority among those respondents.

Negative views coming from differing sources

While both ends of the political spectrum are distrustful of Big Tech and would like to see government put reins on the industry, the concerns stem from differing sources.

American conservatives are staunchly anti-regulation when it comes to private businesses, and the polling indicates that many are holding to that principle even as they decry Big Tech’s practices. Their concerns center on a presumed connection between the Democratic party and Big Tech as a general industry, a partnership that causes their content and posts to be flagged more frequently and to be unfairly subject to removal and limitation. Democrats have relatively little concern about censorship on social media, but have led the charge in pushing for antitrust investigations into companies such as Facebook and tighter regulation of how personal data is collected and used.

45% of US adults express some level of negative view of #BigTech in recent polling by Gallup. #respectdata

While one can argue about what (if any) side of the political aisle Big Tech tends to fall on, it has shown a decided preference for government regulation of technology: a hands-off “self regulation” approach. A number of its recent voluntary moves, such as increased policing of alleged misinformation, have ultimately been to this end. Big tech faces some inherent (and significant) problems here. The Gallup poll illustrates one of them; selling self-regulation to the public does not seem to be going well given that there is a bipartisan preference for increased government intervention and a negative view of everything associated with the industry. The other major issue is that any attempt to police information will have a negative impact on user engagement, which social media platforms are fine-tuned to maximize (and which profits greatly depend on).