Facial recognition is coming to US airports, fast-tracked by Trump
Facial recognition critics have also raised concerns over racial bias. American recognition systems are typically trained on datasets of mostly white subjects, which leads to higher error rates when scanning other races. An FBI study in 2012 found three popular US algorithms were five to ten percent less accurate scanning African-American faces, with similar declines for women and younger subjects. If that bias isn’t corrected, it could present a serious civil rights problem — particularly since visa holders tend to be younger and less white than the US population at large.
We’re working on building a series of interactive installations to raise awareness around the underlying concepts of AI and machine learning, such as predictive algorithms, competitive algorithms, cooperative algorithms, algorithmic control, robotics and automation. We want people to be more aware of the fundamental principles underlying technology because it’s evolving so quickly — to be able to have a dialogue and an understanding of the basics.
What would an example of an AI awareness project look like?
Using existing machine learning software, we’re going to build an interactive installation in a public space, where the experience explains what’s happening behind the technology. The space would also feature a public projection in order to generate discussion and engagement. I can’t say too much about this project because it’s still in development, but it’s something we’re excited about launching.
We want these projects to be able to tackle complicated concepts and really break them down: “What is a predictive algorithm really?” “How is a computer actually doing this?” Eventually, we also want to dive deeper into the ethics of artificial intelligence and the future of work through these installations. Asking questions like, “What is our society going to look like in twenty or fifty years?” “What do we want it to look like?” How do we have this conversation?
Ohnehin könnte die Praxis zum eigentlichen Problem des Gesetzes werden: wenn nämlich Polizisten, die einfach mal behaupten, das Hacken eines Verdächtigen sei alternativlos, auf überlastete Richter treffen, die das schon aus Zeitmangel gerne glauben und genehmigen. Dann kann der Staatstrojaner, so aufwendig die technische Entwicklung oder Beschaffung sein mag, zum alltäglichen Werkzeug der Polizeiarbeit werden. Unsicher gemachte IT-Systeme werden dann zum Standard. Die rechtliche Grundlage dafür schafft der Bundestag heute.
Kann wohl nicht oft genug festgestellt werden.
Zeugen sind künftig verpflichtet, Vorladungen der Polizei Folge zu leisten und zur Sache auszusagen.
Bisher war das völlig anders. Mit der Polizei musste niemand reden, auch wenn das landläufig vielleicht gar nicht so bekannt ist. Es gab keinerlei Verpflichtung, sich auf Gespräche mit Polizeibeamten einzulassen. Das galt völlig unabhängig davon, ob dem Zeugen darüber hinaus noch besondere Zeugnisverweigerungsrechte (zum Beispiel Verwandtschaft mit dem Beschuldigten) oder Aukunftsverweigerungsrechte (Gefahr der Selbstbelastung) zustehen. Wer nicht mit der Polizei reden wollte, musste dies nicht. Die Polizei hatte keinerlei Zwangsmittel, um nicht aussagebereite Zeugen zu Angaben zu zwingen.
Diese Zeiten sind nun vorbei.
We’ve devised an algorithm that has culled the faces from 130 executives at leading biometric corporations around the world and transformed them into masks for you to print out and wear. Since they’ve chosen to profit by face-snatching the rest of us, we figured that we would resist by doing the same in reverse. The difference is that by not matching their names to their faces, we’ve chosen to grant these executives the very thing their industry denies to us: anonymity.
What this shows is that the deadliness of urban inequality is enabled and compounded by the politics of agenda setting. Wealthy city dwellers enjoy an outsized ability to define what counts as an urgent problem, while poor communities struggle to be heard. Decision-makers tend to come from privileged backgrounds, so they see the world through the eyes of the well-off and discount others’ protests. The result is that risks to the lives of poor people and people of colour are not taken seriously by those in power.
All of these tragedies are symptomatic of a broader process of redistributing risk and vulnerability. Those who control wealth and power are becoming ever more adept at protecting themselves from the perils that the rest of us face. Living in gated communities with private security infrastructure, and enjoying forms of global mobility that allow them to escape from dangerous situations as need be, today’s off-shored elites are able to dodge many of the problems caused by climate change, political instability, and inadequate regulation.
Considering speech from a Gricean perspective may also be a way to begin the break the tedious stalemate of freespeech debates against on whose terms almost all language politics is now forced to be evaluated. The asymmetries of power in the context of speech is a much more lucid framework for assessing rudeness vs abuse, name-calling vs slurs. It is the uneven power relations of the common ground of political communication, and the extent to which speakers construct them with reference to broader structural dynamics, that create real differences between ‘melt’ and ‘bitch’, between ‘slug’ as spoken to a politician, and ‘cockroach’ as said of millions of refugees. It is difficult to successfully argue this point in public, particularly when it is assumed that the left will always treat language for its own nefarious authoritarian purpose. It is noteworthy that the Corbynite slang is remarkably unproblematic in its derivation. Despite the irreverent laddishness of much of the current electoral left meme culture, these insults are neither gendered, racist, nor homophobic. What that might reveal about the power relations expressed in this new language has gone totally ignored.
These distinctions are not absolute, and the status of words change as the power behind them shifts; they are varied in the same moment depending on whose mouths they escape and their relative status as speakers in a world of strict and violent categories of worth. The argument is not that as long as you’re fighting the good fight and speaking truth to power you can always be righteous in saying what you like. Rather, it is important to have an accurate lens on power relations upheld and challenged by words as they stand currently, in order that the linguistic choices we make now and in the future are radical and useful.
what is happening on the ground is disturbingly familiar to gaslighting. Anyone who has had any dealings with state bureaucracy knows that the strategy employed to exhaust citizens fighting for their rights is one of indifference, misinformation and endless deferment to so called decision makers. Here is what is happening on the ground that I have been able to observe:
• The death toll is being downplayed. According to off-the-record sources from the police and fire services the death toll was around 160 people by the 20th floor of the block and rising.
• The agenda setting media is being pressured to kick the stats into the long grass: the idea, according to unofficial sources, is to slowly trickle out the real numbers over a period of two weeks, in the hope that attention and outrage will have ‘died down’.
• Provisions are not getting to people: all the clothes, food, and material resources are reportedly being held in storage by the council. The reason being the council do not know, and are avoiding, releasing an official tally of who has survived, although some tower residents and residents in surrounding areas have been housed in hotels.
• People in temporary hotels are being moved from hotel to hotel: A strategy of displacement and disorientation seems to be being employed by government. Kids and families are stuck in hotel rooms and are stuck in information systems of unpredictability, which is increasing the trauma, and there are no services for counseling.
• There is absolutely no support from the council: There is no counseling, no information centres, and no official representative walking around talking to people. What is needed is a 24hr emergency centre on site which will be the central point of focus, and additional hotel rooms that can act as temporary service centers need to be rented at the hotels where former residents are temporarily housed.
• Where is Mayor Sadiq Khan?: London’s mayor is not here. People are calling this London’s Hurricane Katrina, but where is our Russel L. Honore?
"The media are openly and sometimes even enthusiastically branding Turkey a dictatorship under Erdogan. This was not the case fifteen years ago, when Erdogan’s party came to power. Back then, the international media was dancing around him as a representative of the ‘real people’ and a saviour of ‘real democracy’ – just like all those other populist leaders in Europe today. Although, those days back then, fifteen years ago, were also the days when Erdogan’s party started putting women in their place.
First they began with erasing the word ‘woman’. Like any good old conservative they replaced the word ‘woman’ with ‘lady’. There were the ‘ladies’; and then there were the ‘women’. The word woman slowly began to connote something relatively obscene, sex-related – dirty. I remember one day my mother told me that, when riding on the bus, the ‘lady’ with the headscarf had been offered a place by a man, whereas she, who wore no headscarf, had not. It is no wonder that women, especially secular and progressive women, even in the early days, were far more alert than men were about the nature of this new government. In their daily lives, they were already observing tiny little changes that prefigured what was to come....
The ones who resisted the regime from the very beginning were secular lower- and middle-class women living in big cities; the ones who weren’t offered a seat at the bus, if you will. Their concern was met with enflaming criticism, mostly centered on the theme of being ‘disrespectful’ of other identities, such as the ‘Muslim woman’ identity. Of course, the mainstream media did not miss this chance of exhibiting and sometimes celebrating tensions between women.
During the first term of Erdogan, mainstream channels were full of debate programmes that operated on the crude dichotomy of the ‘lady with headscarf’ vs the ‘open’ woman. As one might easily assume, the word ‘open’ has a lot of connotations – such as ‘open to sexual suggestions’. Being one of those ‘open women’, I took part in one of the most popular programmes. I still recall the amused face of the male anchor watching this political ‘catfight’, even though I had laid bare the stupidity of pitting women against each other like this. Once you accept to play on their stage – or sit at the boys table – it is impossible to escape primitive male profiling.
As women, we resisted this crude dichotomy by making joint statements with women who would identify themselves as Muslim, making it very clear that with or without a headscarf, we believe in multi-culturalism, democracy, human rights and equality. But these almost naïve statements were lost in the flood of history, which was flowing towards an authoritarian, Islamist, one-man show....
... starting from the top, the first lady and Erdogan’s daughters did not force women to wear headscarves, but they always encouraged it. For many years, until it became too dangerous, the change in the clothing of the wives of AKP politicians was a running joke in the newspapers. As soon as the husband became a prominent figure in the governing party, the wife acquired the proper ‘lady look’, which obviously included an ostentatious headscarf. The way to climb the political ladder was clear; you had to look like them. The attitude caught on quickly, and soon all the women knew how to dress in order to be passed off as suitable mannequins of the new Turkey.
One might think that this backward change in Turkish society happened by force. There was threatening force coming from the top for sure, but it was not all about that. Many women unfortunately consented to this new way for the sake of a more prosperous life, and a more powerful position in this new society. However they could not, or just did not, consider that this change that they consented to was creating a very dangerous development for women who did not dance to the tune of political power."
Christina Dongowski rechnet mit der SPD ab und das ist wieder mal wunderbar geschrieben: "Einerseits hat die SPD größte Verdienste bei der Transformation eines Haufens Unzufriedener und Verdammter dieser Erde in eine sprechfähige, zeitweise sehr schlagkräftige, politisch agierende Truppe, die schon Bismarck ernst nehmen musste. Andererseits zeigt/e sich vor allem bei den Politik-Profis der Partei schon früh eine gewisse Verachtung für den ungewaschenen Plebs, den man mit Mühe und Not in eine repräsentable Arbeiterklasse verwandeln muss/te. Und der bei jeder Gelegenheit droht/e, sich das politische Feld zu erobern und dabei die staatliche Ordnung zu destabilisieren – von deren Übernahme man sich den eigentlichen sozialen Fortschritt erwartete."
We need to understand ourselves as nervous systems that are virtually continuous with the world beyond the walls, fused to it through the juncture of our smartphones. And what keeps us twitching at our screens, more even than the satisfaction of any practical need, is the continuously renewed opportunity to bathe in the primal rush of communion.
The smartphone as we know it is a complicated tangle of negotiations, compromises, hacks and forced fits, swaddled in a sleekly minimal envelope a few millimeters thick. It is, by any reckoning, a tremendously impressive technical accomplishment. Given everything it does, and all of the objects it replaces or renders unnecessary, it has to be regarded as a rather astonishing bargain. And given that it is, in principle, able to connect billions of human beings with one another and the species’ entire stock of collective knowledge, it is in some sense even a utopian one.
But behind every handset is another story: that of the labor arrangements, supply chains and flows of capital that we implicate ourselves in from the moment we purchase one, even before switching it on for the first time.
In What Algorithms Want Finn shows how algorithms make money by placing themselves in the middle of our interactions, taking a small slice out of each. In doing so, algorithms have moved the place where serious money is made “from end result to process.” Monetary value is no longer attached to the content we are searching for, but to the search itself: Uber has moved value from the taxi drive to the hailing process, Apple from music making to music distribution. In a detailed analysis, Finn shows how Bitcoin’s digital currency algorithms make computation a form of financial value, storing transactions on its distributed ledger and creating new coins by digital “mining.”
Just because it's a performance doesn't mean it's not real.
Es ist von keinem richtigen Journalisten zu verlangen, über gezielten Hass und traditionelle Dummheit "ausgewogen" zu berichten. Er sollte dann aber nicht fahrlässig Lücken lassen, durch die der Zweifel einsickern kann. Was stimmt, das muss auch sitzen. Seine Unschärfen sind es, mit denen der Film im Eifer des Gefechts seine eigene Haltung schwächt. Deshalb ist kein Verdienst, dass diese Dokumentation nun über Umwege doch gezeigt wurde. Mit ein wenig mehr Arbeit hätte sie wesentlich mehr Wucht entfalten können.
In ihrem gegenwärtigen Zustand ist sie nur etwas, das man im Internet sehen, das man glauben kann oder auch nicht. Und das ist schlimm.
But often we don’t know enough about how ADM systems work to know whether they are fairer than humans would be on their own. In part because the systems make choices on the basis of underlying assumptions that are not clear even to the systems’ designers, it’s not necessarily possible to determine which algorithms are biased and which ones are not. And even when the answer seems clear, as in ProPublica’s findings on COMPAS, the truth is sometimes more complicated.
What should we do to get a better handle on ADMs? Democratic societies need more oversight over such systems than they have now. AlgorithmWatch, a Berlin-based nonprofit advocacy organization that I cofounded with a computer scientist, a legal philosopher, and a fellow journalist, aims to help people understand the effects of such systems. “The fact that most ADM procedures are black boxes to the people affected by them is not a law of nature. It must end,” we assert in our manifesto. Still, our take on the issue is different from many critics’—because our fear is that the technology could be demonized undeservedly. What’s important is that societies, and not only algorithm makers, make the value judgments that go into ADMs.
An den meisten Orten geht es weniger um die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung, sondern darum, die öffentliche Ordnung herzustellen. Heißt: Dass ein Vollrausch schädlich ist für den Körper, möge ja sein. Die australischen Erstsemester-Studenten sollen aber bitte vor allem aufhören, marodierend um die Häuser zu ziehen, und die Menschen in Duisburg und Cottbus sich vor Pöbeleien Trunkener in Sicherheit wissen.
Die Australierin Amy Pennay aus Melbourne ist eine der wenigen, die solche Verbote wissenschaftlich begleitet hat. Ihrer Erfahrung nach habe die Prohibition nicht dazu geführt, dass weniger Alkohol getrunken wurde. Stattdessen habe man Trinker aus der Öffentlichkeit bloß ins Private gedrängt: "Obdachlose und Indigene mit einem Alkoholproblem mussten mitunter Strafen bezahlen, für die sie das Geld nicht aufbringen konnten, und wurden aus den Stadtzentren vertrieben", sagt die Gesundheitswissenschaftlerin.
"Seit kurzem aber geistert die Postmoderne von neuem durch die Feuilletons, und dies hat nicht mit den Künsten zu tun, sondern mit Philosophiepolitik. Genaugenommen sind es mindestens drei Gruppen, die eine Abrechnung mit der Postmoderne im Sinn haben. Erstens sind das die ‚neuen Realisten‘ in der Philosophie, die sich unbedingt als Nachfolger ins Spiel bringen wollen, zweitens gibt es eine Gruppe von konservativen Feuilletonisten, Philosophen und Historikern, deren Postmodernepolemik politisch funktioniert: Sie feuern gegen die „kulturwissenschaftliche Linke“ oder schlicht „die Linke“. Die angeblich „postmodernen Narrative“ halten sie nicht nur für grundsätzlich falsch, sondern machen sie auch für allerlei Gegenwärtiges verantwortlich: für die Wahl von Donald Trump, für Fake News, für den Populismus… Die dritte Gruppe bilden rechtspopulistische Politiker, Blogger und Medienmanager, die diejenigen postmodernen Begriffe für sich in Anspruch nehmen, gegen die die ersten beiden Gruppen in ihrem Kampf gegen Windmühlen Sturm laufen."
Or as Sam Tarry, a Labour activist, put more bluntly it in an interview this morning: “People don’t believe the bollocks of the Sun any more. And that is a massive, massive moment of emancipation for the working class in this country who have been mugged off by those newspapers for decades on end.” [https://twitter.com/chunkymark/status/873033733430890496]
On its own, this election result means little, unless it can be built upon. Theresa May will continue to try and push her exclusionary, authoritarian policies. The slow car crash of Brexit will unfold. And Labour continues to be riven with conflicts and contradictions: the party’s immigration policy, for example is a mess. But we’ve found an opening. I hope we make the most of it.
The idea would have been unthinkable before the advent of a technology developed in 1976: real-time ultrasound. At six weeks, the “heartbeat” is not audible; it is visible, a flickering that takes place between 120 and 160 times per minute on a black-and-white playback screen. As cardiac cells develop, they begin to send electrical pulses that cause their neighbors to contract. Scientists can observe the same effect if they culture cells in a petri dish.
Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a “fetus” until nine weeks into pregnancy. Yet, the current debate shows how effectively politicians have used visual technology to redefine what counts as “life.”
If thou needest an explainer on the UK Election, look no further. 😄👌
Das Gesetz hält keine einzige Regelung bereit, die Sexarbeiter*innen zum Schutz gereichen würde, es enthält keine Angebote, die sie persönlich oder strukturell in eine selbstbestimmtere Position bringen. Wohl aber eine ansehnliche Liste von Verpflichtungen und Einschränkungen. Dieses Gesetz ist ein Regelwerk der Repression und umfassenden Kontrolle. Es erschwert das Arbeitsleben und bedeutet für manche das berufliche Aus. Und damit den Entzug der vielleicht einzigen finanziellen Existenzgrundlage. Die Folgen sind absehbar: Viele Sexarbeiter*innen werden im Untergrund weiterarbeiten und sind somit im rechtsfreien Raum noch weniger geschützt als zuvor.
As Fiske notes:
“A text that is to be made into popular culture must, then, contain both the forces of domination and the opportunities to speak against them, the opportunities to oppose or evade them from subordinated, but not totally disempowered, positions. Popular culture is made by the people at the interface between the products of the culture industries and everyday life”.
Nowhere is this more apparent than the internet, where we are surrounded by issues as they unfurl, with many layers of commentary, and many attempts to create ‘popular culture’. Thus popular culture becomes a battleground as multiple forces attempt to create the narrative of the news and shape popular culture out of the remnants of mass culture. The news then is not the battleground here, instead it is people’s reaction to the news. In otherwords, the news is arguably less important today than the reaction to the news.
"“When you visit a school like this, it feels like the future — it feels like a start-up,” Mr. Zuckerberg told an audience last fall in Peru. “You get the feeling this is how more of the education system should work.”"
The "Education Disrupted" Series about tech giants sliding into your schools like ohaiwegottechandmoneyandyoudontsogiveusyourchildren is really worth a read.
This one is about Facebook / Summit Schools , Netflix / DreamBox Learning, Salesforce.
Last one was about Google.
Teachers who "found the system problematic ... asked that their names be withheld, saying they feared repercussions for their careers."
Ein Artikel zu Deutschland: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/digitalisierung-google-erobert-die-schulen-14973399.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2
I'm all for including more digital tech in learning but I want teachers and sociologists aka education experts to work and decide on which tech is useful (and not some tech billionaires who don't think outside of their tech-solutionist and capitalist box. The borders between philanthropy and eugenics sometimes seem to wear thinner than Lady Cassandra's skin within that tech bubble.)
Fascinating read on the deeply interdisciplinary problem of designing warning memorials for nuclear waste sites that still can be understood 100.000 years from now.
In 1981, consulting on a study submitted by the Bechtel Group to the Department of Energy, Thomas Sebeok, a Budapest-born semiotician known for arguing that apes would never understand language, suggested an “atomic priesthood” who would safeguard knowledge of the waste over millennia while scaring people away. Specifically, he recommended they spread a threat of “supernatural retribution.” Among the declassified information that is searchable online, I find little to indicate the government’s reaction to this proposal. In 1994, Susan Garfield, a psychotherapist, wrote that the report “demonstrates that the very premise of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ deep geological burial of radioactive materials leads inevitably to procedures in the social, political and spiritual life of the people that are not any less destructive because they are absurd.”
"language keeps me locked and repeating" (Fugazi)
Hey, burying my face into a book or phone is my ting! It is how I demonstrate to men in public spaces that I'm not "paying attention to" their gazing or chat-up "performance". ^^
Israel’s Sephardi Chief Rabbi compared "immodestly"-dressed secular women to “animals” and proposed a unique form of protest for Orthodox male soldiers compelled to attend official army ceremonies in which women sing. He said they should remove their glasses so as to blur the offending view and bury their faces in a holy book in a “conspicuous” fashion so as to demonstrate they were not paying attention to the performance.
This is good. It's pretty much the opposite of regular mainstream stories about manhood or masculinity. It gives room to the differences between all those men* instead of writing about masculinity as if it was Highlander. (= As if there could only exist 1 so all kinds of masculinities had to constantly battle each other) .