Category: Technology

  • Web Desk:

    According to Ary News, the popular messaging platform, WhatsApp has announced that it will stop functioning on some outdated iPhones including iOS 10 and iOS 11 later this year.

    WhatsApp has begun notifying iPhone users running iOS 10 or iOS 11 that they must update their devices in order to continue using WhatsApp beyond October 24.

    As per the announcement made by messaging platform, the app will stop working on the iPhone 5 and iPhone 5c after October 24.

    “After October 24, 2022, WhatsApp will no longer support this version of iOS”. To get the newest iOS version, navigate to Settings > General > Software Update,” the notification says.

    WhatsApp already states on its Help Center page that iPhone users must be running iOS 12 or above to continue using the application. WhatsApp requires Android 4.1 or newer for Android users.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Climate & Capitalism editor Ian Angus presents six new books for understanding and changing the world.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • For centuries, fossil fuels have been associated with prosperity, progress, and growth. But more and more economists say that the continued use of coal, oil, and gas is now driving the world in the opposite direction — toward a lower standard of living and a global economic slump.

    A new report from the consulting firm Deloitte, released during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Monday, found that if the world stayed on its current course, it would cost $178 trillion over the next 50 years. For perspective, roughly $500 trillion of wealth exists on Earth today. On the other hand, swift action to zero out global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could add $43 trillion to the global economy over the same period and, according to the analysis, plant the seeds for a green Industrial Revolution.

    “Economics is on the side of a low-emissions future,” Punit Renjen, CEO of Deloitte Global, wrote in the report’s introduction, declaring that a coordinated, worldwide investment in climate action would “pay handsome dividends for the global economy.”

    Deloitte’s report says that if the world warmed by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, it would hinder economic growth in every region. Economic opportunities would dwindle, since countries would have to spend money on repairing damages from climate change instead of on new innovations, and much of the world’s population would live a worse life.

    “Translated into human terms, job opportunities would dry up,” the report says. “Crops would fail. Health care spending would rise.”

    Economic models can sometimes be narrow in scope, but the researchers at Deloitte attempted to provide a fuller picture of the damages that global warming will inflict. They accounted for changing weather patterns, sea-level rise, and the spread of disease, calculating the toll on the labor force’s productivity, urban and agricultural land, infrastructure, people’s health, crop yields, and tourism. 

    “That’s what we factor now into the baseline,” said Pradeep Philip, a partner at the Deloitte Economics Institute in Australia and one of the paper’s authors. “Most economic analysis assumes that economies will grow on-trend, and that’s because they don’t take into account these factors.”

    A man walks across the dried bed of the Belan river in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India, May 20, 2022. A severe heat wave has caused drought-like conditions in vast swaths of India’s agricultural heartlands. Ritesh Shukla / Getty Images

    Deloitte’s report reflects a growing awareness that economic estimates have been providing a skewed view of the cost of protecting the climate. Starting in the early 1990s, oil companies and other high-emitting corporations looking to avoid regulation began paying economists to produce studies that looked solely at the costs of climate policies, making them appear prohibitively expensive to policymakers and the public. These models usually ignored the real-world costs that come with a hotter planet as well as the benefits of cutting emissions, like better air quality and healthier people.

    “If the economic impacts of a changing climate are left out of economic baselines, the result is likely to be poor decision-making, ineffective risk management, and dangerously inadequate efforts to address the climate crisis,” the report’s authors write. Yet this narrow economic analysis is still the dominant frame for politicians. Consider President Joe Biden’s dying climate and social policy agenda, which Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has said he can’t support because of the sticker price — $1.7 trillion over 10 years. The policies are key to meeting Biden’s goal of cutting U.S. emissions in half by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.

    The new report helps “bust the myth that staying still, or accepting the status quo, somehow had no cost attached to it economically,” said Claire Ibrahim, a partner at Deloitte Access Economics and an author of the report.

    Countries in the Asia Pacific region, including China, Japan, India, Australia, and places in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, would see the worst losses with unchecked climate change: $96 trillion by 2070. By that year, the region’s GDP would be $16 trillion lower than in an undamaged world — roughly equivalent to the current value of the entire Chinese economy, the world’s second-largest. 

    Europe will likely be better off, according to the modeling, but its economy would still lose $10 trillion and 110 million jobs over the same time period. By 2070, the United States would suffer $14.5 trillion in economic losses, and GDP would be $1.5 trillion lower.

    If countries quickly shift away from fossil fuels and limit warming to just above 1.5 degrees C, however, modeling shows “the equivalent of an Industrial Revolution occurring in 30 years,” Ibrahim said — a huge boost to the global economy.

    Although people often talk about jobs and industries vanishing if the world shifted to a low-carbon economy, Ibrahim said, they won’t simply disappear. “They transform into something else in line with what is more productive, what is more competitive, what makes sense as part of global trade,” she said. “It is a more modern economy. There are higher-paying jobs.”

    There’s some appetite for that transformation. According to a survey by Deloitte last fall, 89 percent of C-level executives around the world agree that there is a “global climate emergency,” and 79 percent believe the world is at a tipping point for responding to it.

    While the initial switch to a carbon-free energy system would temporarily lower economic activity, thanks to the combination of upfront investments and the already locked-in damages of climate change, the benefits would come to outweigh the costs for every region on Earth, adding new sources of growth and job creation. Deloitte expects this turning point, where the benefits of taking action exceed the costs, to come the earliest for the Asia Pacific region — during our current decade, the 2020s. On the other end of the spectrum, it may come as late as the 2050s for Europe and 2048 for the United States. That’s because these regions have more emissions-intensive structures to replace and aren’t seeing as severe consequences from climate change as some parts of the world.

    Philip said he hopes that the report can help leaders see that everybody benefits by taking coordinated steps to reduce emissions, breaking through some of the deadlock in global climate discussions. “Because now, those who said, ‘You can’t make us bear the costs’” — like China and India — “can see they can gain the most,’” he said. And the rich countries that have previously benefited from fossil fuels can see that taking action is also less costly for them in the long run.

    “We have squandered the chance to decarbonize at our leisure,” the report says. “Given the costs associated with each tenth of a degree of temperature increase, every month of delay brings greater risk and forestalls the eventual economic gains.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Think climate action is expensive? Inaction could cost $178 trillion. on May 24, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • In some ways, electric vehicles are everywhere these days: With gas prices soaring and climate warnings becoming more urgent, many drivers are searching online for EVs; major car companies like Ford have released electric versions of their classic models; and several states have introduced EV rebates. With all those incentives in place, perhaps it’s a bit surprising that, in reality, less than 1 percent of all vehicles in the U.S. are electric.

    Now, researchers at the University of Geneva say they have identified a potential reason: cognitive bias.

    “Until now, initiatives related to the energy transition generally focused on the technological and financial barriers to their realization. Psychological factors have been given very little consideration,” said Mario Herzberz, one of the researchers. “Many studies show that individuals do not automatically adopt the behaviors most beneficial for themselves or society, often due to a lack of access to complete information.”

    Herzberz and his colleagues conducted their study, published last week in the journal Nature Energy, by contacting almost 900 people split roughly evenly between Germany and the U.S. about their perception of EVs. They asked each person how often they make trips of different distances, and then asked them how much mileage they thought they’d need from an EV battery to complete each task. The researchers found that respondents significantly underestimated – by as much as 30 percent – how many of their daily tasks an EV could support.

    So why did so many respondents mistakenly think EVs couldn’t go the distances they required on a regular basis? The researchers theorized it might have to do with humans’ tendency to remember big events instead of commonplace ones. For example, a potential car buyer might measure an EVs utility against a recent cross-country road trip as opposed to their routine trips to the grocery store. It didn’t matter that the cross-country road trip was a rare event; consumers were psychologically primed to conclude that an EV couldn’t meet their transportation needs.

    To get consumers and electric car advocates on the same page, the researchers suggested looking to a “compatibility intervention” versus relying on a financial argument. Programs to encourage EV sales often revolve around price – either lowering the price of EVs, or showing potential buyers how much they might save over the vehicle’s lifetime. A compatibility intervention, in contrast, focuses on whether an EV can suit an individual’s lifestyle. 

    Once a compatibility intervention was given to the respondents, their views on EVs shifted dramatically. One test found that American respondents were willing to spend over $2,000 more on EVs once they were given a compatibility intervention. This change in perception was even more pronounced among car owners who spend the most on their current, gas-powered cars. Those with monthly car costs of $1,250 were willing to pay nearly twice as much on an EV as those paying $750 in monthly payments.

    That’s not to say financial interventions aren’t also important to facilitate EV uptake. Even as batteries have gotten cheaper, the cost of purchasing a new electric car in the United States has skyrocketed over the last several years. Also, many of the climate-friendly tax incentives put in place to encourage people to choose EVs over gas guzzlers don’t necessarily benefit lower-income buyers

    The results of this study speak to the need to address consumer fears and misconceptions around electric vehicle adoption. Otherwise, the climate benefits of EVs could be limited – or even reduced. Consumer concerns about EV batteries dying mid-trip have encouraged battery manufacturers to consider making larger batteries with more charge. Larger, heavier batteries financially cost more to transport, while also contributing to higher transportation emissions. Additionally, larger batteries require more cobalt and lithium. The mining process for these precious metals is carbon-intensive and it has also led to conflicts and environmental concerns in communities where these metals are extracted. 

    By showing car buyers that they can complete most of their activities with the size and charge of current batteries, these researchers hope to show that bigger batteries are not a key part of the energy transition.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The mental block preventing people from buying electric vehicles on May 24, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • patent is for inventing pathbreaking technology which can convert any 2D image to a stereoscopic 3D one while maintaining its original depth

    This post was originally published on The Asian Age | Home.

  • Amid a historic and ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, Facebook recently added the head of one of the country’s most important domestic aid groups to its Dangerous Individuals terror blacklist, The Intercept has learned.

    Internal company materials reviewed by The Intercept show that Matiul Haq Khalis — head of the Afghan Red Crescent Society, or ARCS; son of a famed mujahedeen commander, Mohammad Yunus Khalis; and a former Taliban negotiator — was added to the company’s stringent censorship list in late April, joining a group of thousands of people and organizations deemed too dangerous to freely discuss or use the platform, including alleged terrorists, hate groups, drug cartels, and mass murderers. But Facebook’s designation now means that the list, ostensibly created and enforced to stop offline harm, could disrupt the work of a globally recognized organization working to ease the immiseration of tens of millions of civilians.

    After the collapse of the U.S.-backed government and withdrawal of American military forces, Khalis was named president of the organization, which helps provide health care, food, and other humanitarian aid to civilians there since its founding in 1934. In a country where half the population is going hungry and American sanctions threaten a total economic collapse, the ARCS is a bulwark against even greater suffering. Following Khalis’s addition to the Dangerous Individuals list under its most restrictive “Tier 1” category for terrorists due to his Taliban affiliation, the over 2 billion Facebook and Instagram users around the world are now barred from praising, supporting, or representing Khalis; this means even an anodyne photo of him at an official ARCS event, quotation of remarks, or positive mention of him in the context of the organization’s aid work would risk deletion, as would any attempt on his part to use the company’s platform to communicate, either in Afghanistan or abroad.

    “The Afghan Red Crescent continues to provide lifesaving assistance across the country, to the most vulnerable people in the country, working in all provinces,” said Anita Dullard, spokesperson with the International Committee of the Red Cross. “They’re dealing with a range of things including severe drought, Covid, economic hardship, and working to support the healthcare system in Afghanistan. We work closely with Afghan Red Crescent to ensure that we can deliver humanitarian assistance.”

    A senior official with a major international aid organization in Afghanistan, who spoke with The Intercept on the condition of anonymity due to avoid jeopardizing operations in the country, described ARCS as “one of the major humanitarian actors delivering services to a growing number of people in need” and “a huge contributor to the collective humanitarian efforts” pursued in conjunction with other NGOs. This aid official expressed surprise that Khalis would be singled out for censorship despite his Taliban affiliation, saying he had “never held a gun,” and expressed concern over the potential to impede lifesaving humanitarian work. “For sure the ARCS is using Facebook as a tool of communication” with the public, this source continued. “If [the blacklisting] has an effect it will be negative” for Afghanistan, they added.

    Chinese Ambassador to Afghanistan Wang Yu L, front and Secretary General of the Afghan Red Crescent Society ARCS Mawlawi Matiul Haq Khalis R, front attend a handover ceremony for China-donated supplies in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan, Dec. 21, 2021. The ARCS has received a batch of assistance donated by the Red Cross Society of China. (Photo by Saifurahman Safi/Xinhua via Getty Images)

    Secretary General of the Afghan Red Crescent Society Mawlawi Matiul Haq Khalis, right, attends a handover ceremony for donated supplies in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Dec. 21, 2021.

    Photo: Saifurahman Safi/Getty Images)


    Khalis has had an “extremely varied career” in Afghanistan, according to Graeme Smith, an Afghanistan analyst at the International Crisis Group and former United Nations officer stationed in the country. Smith noted that Khalis was in recent history considered an ally of the U.S., having served with the anti-Soviet mujahedeen led by his father, who in 1987 was feted by President Ronald Reagan at a White House reception. Following the American invasion in 2001, Khalis sided with the Taliban. “In other words he’s from a prominent family with pedigree rooted in tribal support from eastern Afghanistan and a history of fighting invaders,” explained Smith. “I have spent the better part of my career studying Afghan politics and I have never met any important politician who is not ‘dangerous’ in some way. Afghans have learned through bitter experience that Western politicians are also dangerous, at times.”

    Facebook’s designation of Khalis, considered in a vacuum, is unsurprising. The company’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals roster generally mirrors the foreign policy stances of the United States, blacklisting federally sanctioned and terror-designated entities like the Taliban as a matter of course while granting great latitude to Western allies. In Afghanistan, Facebook’s near-total mimicry of State Department decision-making has meant that the ruling government of a sovereign country, as repressive of its own people and despised as it may still be in the U.S., is unable to freely use the internet to communicate with its citizenry. The U.S. government and Facebook share not only a common dilemma over how to treat the Taliban now that the group has won the war and assumed control of the country, but seem to be taking the same punitive approach to that matter. Just as the Biden administration continues to punish the Taliban at the expense of the people of Afghanistan by withholding billions of dollars in frozen cash, Facebook now sanctions the head of one of Afghanistan’s most important humanitarian organizations at a time when Afghans are selling their kidneys to avoid starvation. “It goes without saying that the Red Crescent plays a crucial humanitarian role in Afghanistan’s ongoing armed conflicts,” added Smith.

    John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, told The Intercept that he doubted the blacklisting would have a significant impact on relief efforts inside the country, given the relatively small scope of the ARCS compared to larger international organizations. “It’s not going to somehow significantly impact their operations or outreach,” he said. “It’s more illustrative of Facebook having a policy that doesn’t make a lot of sense.” Sifton questioned the extent to which letting people speak freely of Khalis would endanger anyone or anything. “How is he ‘dangerous’? He’s like 65 years old. He has no militia. His father was a mujahedeen commander, but what is the problem here?” Sifton pointed to groups that are actively using the platform to incite violence. “There are hate guys in India that are spreading toxic anti-Muslim violence across Facebook, Hindu nationalist groups, hateful Buddhist groups in Burma, that’s a real problem. Having Khalis online posting about how he cut the ribbon at a new hospital in Afghanistan, that’s not part of the problem.”

    Facebook has at times defended the breadth of its blacklist by claiming, without evidence, that it’s legally required to censor discussion of certain entities in order to comply with U.S. sanctions law, though neither the ARCS nor Khalis are currently named in the Treasury or State Department’s counterterrorism sanctions lists. And although the Taliban has an inarguably ugly human rights record and a long history of civilian brutalization, so do many governments left untouched by the Dangerous Organizations policy. The Dangerous Organizations and Individuals list is often criticized for its lack of flexibility and country-specific nuance, and though the company has shown that it is at times willing to make drastic exceptions, these exceptions generally also jibe with American policy determinations.

    “The fact that Twitter is doing the exact opposite tells you everything you need to know.”

    While Sifton is critical of Facebook’s rigid censorship policies, he also assigns blame to “scattershot” and outdated federal anti-terror policies and dismissed the company’s claims that it has any legal obligation to mimic them: “The fact that Twitter is doing the exact opposite tells you everything you need to know.” Sifton said that by following the “absurdities” of counterterrorism sanctions lists, Facebook is replicating the government’s mistakes. While he emphasized that he was not defending the “misogynist, authoritarian, rights-abusing” Taliban, he questioned the notion that the aging mujahedeen of the 1980s still represent a “danger” to the global community. “The Taliban was dangerous because they hosted Al Qaeda between 1996 and 2001, and Al Qaeda used their territory to plan 9/11 … and all the guys who did that are dead, and all the Arabs they hosted are either dead or very old or at Guantánamo.” To the extent that the Taliban writ large represents a genuine danger to Afghan civilians, it’s unclear how restricting global discussion of Khalis might help.

    Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

    Khalis was added to the social network’s blacklist alongside some two dozen other Taliban-affiliated individuals, including others in humanitarian or public health roles, like Afghanistan’s minister of public health, deputy minister of disaster management, and deputy minister of refugees. But unlike these latter offices, the ARCS is nongovernmental, part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement of humanitarian relief organizations.

    In response to a request for comment, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies provided a statement from ARCS Acting Secretary General Mohammad Nabi Burhan, stating that the Taliban government has not affected the group’s mission or ongoing work. “The Afghan Red Crescent Society delivers impartial, neutral and independent humanitarian services across all provinces in Afghanistan, in its role as auxiliary to public authorities in accordance with the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,” he wrote. “Afghan Red Crescent Society has been operating under a new leadership since October 2021. It is not unusual for changes in leadership of a Red Cross or Red Crescent National Society to follow a change in leadership at a national level.”

    The post Facebook Anti-Terror Policy Lands Head of Afghan Red Crescent Society on Censorship List appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The economic theory behind solar tariffs is simple: Solar cells and panels made abroad are often cheaper, thanks to lower manufacturing costs and generous government subsidies from countries like China. So taxing imported panels should give the U.S. solar industry a fighting chance at survival. 

    At least that has been the thinking over the last 10 years and under three different presidential administrations. There’s just one problem – the majority of the U.S. solar industry has never supported them, arguing the tariffs have done nothing to bolster domestic production and have actually slowed the pace of decarbonization.

    This contradiction has become abundantly clear over the last two months. In late March, the Biden administration quietly announced plans to investigate a complaint from a small solar manufacturer called Auxin Solar, which argued that Chinese firms are circumventing trade restrictions by manufacturing solar panels and cells in Southeast Asia.  

    The response from the U.S. solar industry was swift. Trade groups called the investigation a “disaster,” “devastating,” and a move that would “effectively freeze” solar development at a time when more renewable energy sources are desperately needed. Eighty percent of the solar panels imported into the U.S. come from Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand. If the investigation supports Auxin’s complaint, those countries would be subject to additional tariffs on imports to the U.S. Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of 22 senators sent a letter urging President Joe Biden to quickly issue a preliminary finding, or risk “massive disruption” to solar companies unsure if prices for panels are about to skyrocket. 

    Some negative consequences from the investigation have already come to pass. Two weeks ago, an Indiana utility announced that several solar projects had been delayed due to the upheaval in the market, and that as a result, two coal-fired power plants will now stay open until 2025, instead of 2023. The Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group, estimates that 81 percent of solar installers in the U.S. have seen shipments canceled or delayed. According to an analysis from the Oslo-based energy research firm Rystad, the U.S. was estimated to install around 27 gigawatts of solar capacity in 2022; now, that number could be as low as 10 gigawatts. 

    trump solar panel installation tariffs
    Workers install solar panels on a home in Palmetto Bay, Florida in 2018. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    But the Auxin case is only the latest event to raise questions about the effectiveness of solar tariffs. The U.S. has multiple layers of overlapping tariffs on solar panels manufactured in China, Southeast Asia, and most other foreign countries. At the same time, 86 percent of American solar jobs are in installing panels, not creating them. If tariffs increase the cost of the technology, they could slow growth and increase costs for the rest of the industry. Many analysts argue that tariffs are responsible for U.S. solar prices being 43 to 57 percent higher than the global average.  

    President Biden has promised to cut emissions by 50 percent over the next eight years. That move would require an increase in solar capacity of 10 percent every year. If Biden — and the rest of the U.S. — is serious about addressing climate change, are tariffs really the best option? And if not, can anything be done about them?


    To understand U.S. solar tariffs, you first have to understand the essential components of solar panels. Panels are made in four essential steps. First, chunks of polysilicone are melted at high temperatures into heavy, cylindrical blocks, or ingots; the ingots are sliced into thin sheets, called “wafers”; the wafers are then embellished with phosphorus and semiconductors to make solar cells. Finally, the cells are soldered together to make “modules” — better known as solar panels.

    American scientists invented the solar cell, and for many years the U.S. was a leader in manufacturing cells and solar panels. But in the 2000s, China, in an attempt to secure energy independence and dominate the renewable energy market, began to accelerate its solar industry, ramping up production of polysilicone and taking control of every level of its solar supply chain. (The country was also accused of providing unfair subsidies and utilizing forced labor.) Prices for panels dropped precipitously. By the time the U.S. instituted its first set of tariffs on imported panels and cells from China in 2012, during Obama’s presidency, domestic manufacturing had already plummeted, and some American producers had been forced out of the market. The solar start-up Solyndra, for example, went bankrupt in 2011. Installations, however, soared, thanks to the low-cost technology available abroad. 

    The 2012 tariffs were aimed specifically at China, then later expanded to include Taiwan. So-called “anti-dumping and countervailing duties” tariffs, they were intended to counteract the effects of Chinese subsidies for the solar industry. According to a decades-old trade law — the Tariff Act of 1930 — the U.S. is legally obligated to impose tariffs if there is evidence of unfair subsidies by foreign countries. “China is effectively a non-market economy,” said William Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, in Washington, D.C. “The concept is that you offset the harm that has been done.”

    When President Donald Trump was in the White House (and waging a trade war with China), another set of tariffs was added — this time on imports of cells and modules from a much longer list of countries, including many in Southeast Asia. These “safeguard” tariffs were intended to step down every year until 2022; but in January, President Biden extended them for four more years, with a few key exemptions

    Trump solar tariffs
    President Donald Trump holds up a Section 201 action issuing tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines in January 2018. Mike Theiler-Pool/Getty Images

    All these tariffs should be helping to boost solar manufacturing in the U.S., but many solar and trade experts claim they are doing nothing of the sort. “Tariffs have had no impact on creating solar manufacturing,” said Pol Lezcano, the lead North America solar analyst for BloombergNEF, a New York City-based energy research firm. “The only thing the tariffs have accomplished is to really bring costs up for everybody else.” According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the cost of installing utility-scale solar in the U.S. is among the highest in the world.

    Other experts have argued that the tariffs were too little, too late. Varun Sivaram, a former senior research scholar at Columbia University and current member of the Biden administration, argued in 2018 that if a tax on imports had been put into place earlier than 2012, it could have helped “level the playing field.” “But if Obama’s tariffs closed the barn door after the horse bolted,” he wrote, “then Trump’s [2018] tariffs amount to putting a lock on the door.”

    There is evidence that the tariffs did boost panel assembly in the U.S., even if they didn’t boost the manufacturing of solar cells themselves. “There was a large increase in PV module assembly,” said David Feldman, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Washington, D.C. Companies from South Korea and China, Feldman explained, set up assembly plants in the U.S., even though the cells they were using were imported from abroad. 

    But Lezcano argues that the increase in the U.S.’s assembly capacity — from 1 gigawatt to approximately 5 gigawatts over the past decade — doesn’t come close to what is needed to meet the country’s projected demand. “Module assembly in the U.S. is very small and supplies mostly small-scale solar projects,” he said. 

    The Solar Energy Industries Association, which has been an outspoken opponent of the solar tariffs, argues that Trump’s – and now Biden’s – “safeguard” tariffs alone have cost the industry 62,000 jobs and an estimated 10.5 gigawatts of installed solar panels. (That’s about 8.5 percent of the entire installed solar capacity in the country today.) “There’s now more than a decade of evidence proving that tariffs do not encourage U.S. solar manufacturing,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the association, said via email. “Even after multiple layers of tariffs over the years, the United States solar manufacturing sector has failed to meet domestic demand for solar equipment.”

    China solar panels manufacturing
    Employees work on the production line of a solar panels manufacturing facility in Hai an, Nantong City, China in April. Zhai Huiyong/VCG via Getty Images

    Some members of the industry do support the tariffs: Auxin Solar, for example, is among a handful of manufacturers that have filed trade complaints. These companies argue that American solar manufacturing is critical to the industry. “We are grateful Commerce officials recognized the need to investigate this pervasive backdoor dumping and how it continues to injure American solar producers,” Mamun Rashid, the CEO of Auxin Solar, said in a statement.

    In recent weeks, many of the complaints about the Auxin investigation – and solar tariffs in general – have been targeted at the Biden administration. The Department of Commerce is responsible for investigating the complaint and determining a response. But according to Reinsch, the Biden administration has little leeway in how the U.S. levies tariffs; those decisions are baked into national trade law. “The law is not optional,” he said. 

    But some have begun to suggest other ways around the tariffs. Emily Benson, an associate fellow at CSIS, argues that Congress could pass a law that would limit the executive branch’s ability to levy tariffs on goods needed to quickly transition to clean energy. “It’s in our best interest to achieve one ultimate goal, which is a reduction of emissions,” she said. Allowing coal plants to remain on the grid as investigations are resolved, she argued, “is, from a climate perspective, not something we can afford.”

    Bills to repeal solar tariffs are already floating around in Congress. Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Republican Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas introduced a bill in mid-February that would repeal the 2018 “safeguard” tariffs and also create a Department of Energy program to encourage domestic solar manufacturing. “Solar tariffs are hurting America’s clean energy economy,” Rosen said in a statement.

    Reinsch is skeptical that a tariff carve-out for solar energy would pass Congress — and argues that it would be a dangerous precedent to set. “The allegation here is that the Chinese are cheating,” he said. “And a lot of people are going to say, ‘If the Chinese are cheating, they ought to pay the price.’”

    Benson understands that, for many trade experts, the idea of carving out an exemption from tariffs might seem radical. But she argues that the urgency of the situation may make it necessary. “Are the trade rules we have today suited to combat climate change?” she said. “That’s the very heart of the question.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How ‘USA-first’ failed the solar industry on May 19, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Google and Amazon are both set to help build “Project Nimbus,” a mammoth new cloud computing project for the Israeli government and military that is spurring intense dissent among employees and the public alike. Shareholders of both firms will soon vote on resolutions that would mandate reconsideration of a project they fear has grave human rights consequences.

    Little is known of the plan, reportedly worth over $1 billion, beyond the fact that it would consolidate the Israeli government’s public sector cloud computing needs onto servers housed within the country’s borders and subject solely to Israeli law, rather than remote data centers distributed around the world. Part of the plan’s promise is that it would insulate Israel’s computing needs from threats of international boycotts, sanctions, or other political pressures stemming from the ongoing military occupation of Palestine; according to a Times of Israel report, the terms of the Project Nimbus contract prohibit both companies from shutting off service to the government, or from selectively excluding certain government offices from using the new domestic cloud.

    It remains unclear what technologies exactly will be provided through Nimbus or to what end, an ambiguity critics say is unnerving. Google in particular is known for the sophistication of its cloud-based offerings that are perfectly suited for population-scale surveillance, including powerful image recognition technology that made the company initially so alluring to the Pentagon’s drone program. In 2020, The Intercept reported that Customs and Border Protection would use Google Cloud software to analyze video data from its controversial surveillance initiative along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    While a wide variety of government ministries will make use of the new computing power and data storage, the fact that Google and Amazon may be directly bolstering the capabilities of the Israeli military and internal security services has generated alarm from both human rights observers and company engineers. In October 2021, The Guardian published a letter from a group of anonymous Google and Amazon employees objecting to their company’s participation. “This technology allows for further surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians, and facilitates expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land,” the letter read. “We cannot look the other way, as the products we build are used to deny Palestinians their basic rights, force Palestinians out of their homes and attack Palestinians in the Gaza Strip — actions that have prompted war crime investigations by the international criminal court.” In March, an American Google employee who had helped organize the employee opposition to Nimbus said the company abruptly told her she could either move to Brazil or lose her job, a move she said was retaliation for her stance.

    Nimbus will now face a referendum of sorts among Google and Amazon shareholders, who next month will vote on a pair of resolutions that call for company-funded reviews of their participation in that project and others that might harm human rights. The filers of the resolutions collectively own roughly $1.8 million in shares, according to Parker Breza of the Institute for Middle East Understanding, which is helping coordinate the filings. While these investors object to Nimbus on largely the same moral grounds as the authors of the Guardian letter, they’re also tapping into the specific anxieties of the Wall Street investor: What if bad press from Project Nimbus loses us money? Citing the very public controversies surrounding Project Nimbus and other prior contracts with various governmental security agencies, the Google shareholder resolution warns that “employee and public opposition to such contracts will increase and pose a risk to Google’s reputation and its strategic positioning on social responsibility,” and asks that “the company issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, reassessing the Company’s policies on support for military and militarized policing agency activities and their impacts on stakeholders, user communities, and the Company’s reputation and finances.”

    The Amazon resolution, filed by Investor Advocates for Social Justice, also calls for an independent inquiry into Nimbus and other surveillance contracts, stating: “Amazon’s government and government-affiliated customers and suppliers with a history of rights-violating behavior pose risks to the company” and “Inadequate due diligence presents material privacy and data security risks, as well as legal, regulatory, and reputational risks.”

    Ed Feigen, a Google shareholder since 2014 and lead filer of that resolution, told The Intercept he and several fellow investors felt compelled to oppose Nimbus as soon as they learned of it. “I’m also a member of the organization Jewish Voice for Peace,” Feigen said, “which works to ensure US foreign policy advances peace, human rights, and follows international law so we can ensure freedom and justice for Palestinians.” Feigen added that the resolution was drafted in collaboration with Google employees who similarly oppose the contract on human rights grounds. “We also felt the need to support Google employees who’d spoken out against contracts Google was pursuing with militaries and police agencies like CBP and ICE,” Feigen said, “both because we believe that profiting from violence is plainly immoral, and because we see pursuing such contracts as a liability for investors––especially given the history of Google employees protesting such contracts.”

    A Google software engineer who provided feedback for the resolution and spoke on the condition of anonymity told The Intercept that they’re concerned employees are just as much in the dark about Nimbus as the general public, and fear how the company’s technology would be used to repress Palestinians. “It became a point of shame,” they said in an interview. “We know that the IDF, one of its projects is mass constant surveillance of various areas of the Occupied Territories, and I don’t believe there are any restrictions on which cloud services the Israeli government wants to procure from [Google] Cloud. Google offers big data analysis, machine learning, and AI tool suites through Cloud; I don’t think there’s any reason to assume they aren’t consuming all of these products to help them work on this.”

    “If workers are working on cloud AI products or large scale data management, they should think of themselves as working on technology that is oppressing people.”

    This engineer added that while they have found like-minded colleagues who are similarly disturbed by the prospect of their cloud technologies being used to fortify the Israeli occupation, employee activism against Nimbus is much diminished since the waves of worker-led protests against prior Google contracts like Project Maven and Dragonfly, the company’s planned custom-built Chinese search engine. “Right now we’re kind of in a slump,” they said. While past employee movements spurred heated discussions on internal chat forums, they said, “We haven’t had anything like that from Nimbus, which is really unfortunate.” In addition to fearing retaliation from Google itself, this source said Google employees who might otherwise vocally oppose the Nimbus contract have remained quiet in order to avoid accusations of antisemitism. “The harm is documented, putting Palestinians under constant surveillance is very well documented, and yet [this contract] is the one where even if workers care about it, not only do they face retaliation from management, some coworkers might retaliate in their own ways.” Googlers could stand to think more about how their creations could be misused, they added: “If workers are working on cloud AI products or large scale data management, they should think of themselves as working on technology that is oppressing people.” But the engineer pointed to the fact that Google engineers likely trust the company’s vague public commitments to human rights values and “AI principles,” even if naively. “Leadership has failed to take these commitments seriously, so they’ve passed responsibility to ensure our technology is used responsibly on to us.”

    As with most activist shareholder resolutions, these will likely be a difficult sell. Government contracts like Nimbus are enormously lucrative, and both Amazon and Google have made it clear they are continuing to seek them even in the face of protest from within and without. Global internet giants have seen their profits soar in recent years, a trend they hope to continue by taking on military and law enforcement work that in previous eras may have been handed to traditional defense contractors. It will be difficult to convince investors chiefly concerned with maximizing share prices that these firms should walk away from the giant payouts defense or national security-related projects would bring. Even if successful, neither resolution would end Project Nimbus or thwart either company’s involvement. The Google software engineer added that most of his fellow anti-Nimbus colleagues don’t believe the resolution goes far enough: “It calls for a report on potential impacts to be prepared, but otherwise does not propose any binding action.” Still, they hope that the resolution, doomed or not, will help draw scrutiny and public pressure to the project, a sentiment Feigen shares: “This is the first time a resolution like this has ever been introduced, so we know it’s a big challenge,” he said. “It’s still too early to know whether the resolution will pass, but whether it does or not, this is just the first step in calling attention to these important concerns.”

    The post Google and Amazon Face Shareholder Revolt Over Israeli Defense Work appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • In the summer of 2020, the liberal city council of Flagstaff, Arizona, passed a resolution to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, tasking the city’s sustainability office with figuring out a plan to get there. 

    The agency’s small team got to work gathering input from the community and modeling different options for reducing emissions. But the tight deadline backed them up against a wall. The best plan they could come up with, one that felt both ambitious and realistic, would only lower emissions by 44 percent by the end of the decade. That’s how Ramon Alatorre, Flagstaff’s climate and energy coordinator, found himself in front of the city council last May, arguing that Flagstaff would need to do something that few other local governments had even contemplated — it would need to balance out those emissions by sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 

    Delivering a PowerPoint over video conference, Alatorre described various approaches to drawing down carbon from the atmosphere, including planting trees and restoring ecosystems, crushing up minerals in order to enhance their carbon-absorbing properties, and building futuristic factories that pull in large volumes of air, separate out the carbon dioxide, and send it to underground storage sites. He warned the city council that most were still in early stages of research and development and were expensive. 

    “We cannot delay when it comes to developing carbon dioxide removal,” he said. “It will take time to scale, and there will be barriers to navigate.” 

    The city council was convinced. Two weeks later, Flagstaff became one of the first cities in the country with a climate action plan that included carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. But Alatorre’s presentation also resonated far beyond Flagstaff’s borders. A few months later, he was talking with Susie Strife, the director of sustainability in Boulder County, Colorado, who heard about his presentation and was also working on starting a carbon removal program. 

    Now, Flagstaff and Boulder County are teaming up to form a coalition of local governments that will pool resources to fund CDR projects in the Four Corners region. By working together, Strife and Alatorre hope not only to help grow the carbon removal industry, but also to give local communities a say in the deployment of these projects, which can come with myriad tradeoffs and risks. 

    “If we’re not involved, we’re sort of at the mercy of whatever those that are involved are putting in place as their guardrails, or their parameters,” Alatorre told Grist.

    To date, the development of carbon removal has largely been steered by a few big tech companies like Microsoft, and billionaires like Elon Musk, that are funding early-stage projects. Interest in CDR began to grow after a 2018 report by the United Nations’ panel of climate scientists said the world would need to remove a lot of carbon from the atmosphere, potentially billions of metric tons per year, to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.) 

    Alatorre and Strife want their communities to be climate leaders, but CDR is hard to tackle on a limited municipal budget. “If one local government tries to do this on their own, it’s gonna be extremely costly and time intensive, and we don’t have the technical expertise,” said Strife. “We’re trying to aggregate resources and create a sort of a local government platform for CDR.”

    The idea for the coalition was, in part, inspired by Strife’s experience forming an initiative called Colorado Communities for Climate Action, a coalition of 40 local governments that collectively lobby for stronger state and federal climate policy. She and Alatorre also likened it to Solarize, a grassroots strategy that has empowered groups of homeowners across the country to pool their demand for solar panels and solicit competitive bids from companies, resulting in reduced costs.

    Strife and Alatorre were initially put in touch by members of the OpenAir Collective, a national volunteer network of carbon removal enthusiasts and advocates. Christopher Neidl, an OpenAir cofounder who has been advising the coalition, said that by pooling resources, it can be an engine for more innovative, creative deployment of CDR — solutions with a “high-magnitude upside.”

    Neidl compared this strategy to that of Stripe, a Silicon Valley payment software company that has made a name for itself in CDR. Rather than paying for relatively inexpensive tree-planting projects, Stripe has dedicated millions of dollars to buying carbon removal from startups, in many cases as the very first customer to companies that have yet to fully prove their methods, in order to spur innovation and speed up development.

    A carbon sequestration factory with mountains in the background
    A direct air capture plant in Iceland built by Climeworks, of which Stripe and Microsoft were early customers. Halldor Kolbeins/AFP via Getty Images

    The Four Corners coalition is still in early stages. It has a one-page mission statement that lists a goal of raising $1.25 million to support the removal of 2,500 metric tons of CO2, meaning they could end up spending as much as $500 per metric ton. (Currently, the most expensive forms of carbon removal can cost several hundred to more than a thousand dollars per metric ton.) Flagstaff and Boulder County have together committed $300,000 to start. Boulder will use funds from its sustainability tax, a program that diverts a portion of sales tax in the county toward sustainability programs. Alatorre said his department is contributing funding it received from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, the COVID-19 stimulus package that Congress passed in March 2021.

    The coalition’s first request for proposals, which it will issue later this summer, will solicit projects that involve capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it in concrete. “Concrete is incredibly distributed, there are concrete producers in pretty much every single community,” said Alatorre. “So if you were to have that be what you build our sidewalks with, that could be really interesting.”

    Alatorre and Strife are also excited about other local benefits that carbon removal projects could bring to the region, like job creation and ecosystem health. Both expounded on the potential to take wood debris from overgrown forests and turn it into biochar, a very stable charcoal-like substance. Scientists believe biochar can store the carbon locked in wood and other organic waste for hundreds to thousands of years — and when added to soil, it can potentially improve water retention and yields. Separate from the coalition’s work, Strife’s office recently put out a request for proposals offering $450,000 to support local projects that both remove carbon from the atmosphere and support “landscape resilience and restoration.”

    Stefan Sommer, an ecologist who lives in Flagstaff and is on the board of a grassroots climate group called the Northern Arizona Climate Change Alliance, said he was concerned when the city incorporated carbon dioxide removal into its climate plan. “We need to focus more on reducing emissions, given that carbon capture and sequestration has so much uncertainty involved in it,” he said. “I worry about it because it really depends on which avenue they take.” 

    He mentioned tree-planting programs that were found to be using faulty carbon accounting, the enormous energy use required for air-filtering machines, and the challenges of measuring and monitoring the carbon removed by ocean-based methods, like growing kelp and then sinking it to the bottom of the ocean.

    But Sommer was more optimistic when he heard that the coalition planned to look at ways to store carbon in the concrete. “I think that’s wonderful that they’re considering that option,” he said. “That’s something that has the potential to take a little bit of CO2 out of the atmosphere and stop putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, because cement production is about 8 percent of global emissions.”

    Sommer isn’t alone in his skepticism of carbon removal. Many climate and environmental justice advocates are worried that chasing after these solutions will detract attention and resources from cutting emissions today — in no small part because some of the largest carbon removal projects in development today are backed by fossil fuel companies. There are also concerns that any potential environmental and economic impacts from carbon removal projects will fall on historically overburdened communities. 

    A group of researchers recently argued in The New Republic that carbon removal should eventually be a public service, like waste removal, and fully owned and operated by communities. This structure could ensure that CDR is deployed in the public interest, as a source of good-paying jobs, and in a way that is most beneficial to communities. Toly Rinberg, a doctoral physics student at Harvard University studying carbon removal and one of the authors of the piece, is concerned that if carbon removal projects are owned by private companies, the incentives will be purely about carbon and profit, and not about looking out for public health or local economies. 

    He said that carbon removal is currently so nascent and small-scale that it makes sense for governments to use public money to finance private projects in a way that builds trust in communities. But he wants to see companies and governments alike thinking about how to embed community control early on, so that when these projects scale up 1,000 times, they’ll still align with local priorities.

    Alatorre and Strife are hopeful that spearheading projects at the local level will help build more support for carbon removal from the ground up. “We are talking to people who are part of our community and asking what their concerns are, and educating our constituents about it who might be skeptical,” said Strife.

    Stephanie Arcusa, a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University who previously interned with the Flagstaff sustainability office, said she’s excited about the coalition because it will give everyday people more exposure to carbon removal, and help ensure that the benefits go straight to the community.

    “I don’t think they believe they can cover their entire emissions through their coalition, but maybe that’s a way to reduce costs and catalyze change and make it more visible for the local person,” she said. “I think it’s more of a perception and appearance kind of thing than materially making a difference — for now.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why Boulder and Flagstaff are enlisting cities to suck carbon out of the atmosphere on May 17, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Web Desk:

    According to the Associated Press (AP News), Twitter fired two of its top managers Thursday, the latest sign of internal turmoil amid Tesla billionaire Elon Musk’s planned buyout of the company. One Twitter general manager, Kayvon Beykpour, is leaving after 7 years.

    In a series of tweets, Beykpour said, CEO Parag Agrawal “asked me to leave after letting me know that he wants to take the team in a different direction.”

    According to a tweet that has since been deleted, Bruce Falck, Twitter’s revenue and product lead, was also fired. His Twitter bio now says “unemployed.”

    “I dedicate this Tweet to those engineers and thank you ALL for the opportunity to serve alongside you. It’s been awesome. There is a lot more to do so get back to work, I can’t wait to see what you build,” Falck tweeted.

    Twitter confirmed both departures and said the company is pausing most hiring except for business-critical roles.

    In addition, it said in a statement, “we are pulling back on non-labor costs to ensure we are being responsible and efficient.”

    Beykpour was the general manager of consumer Twitter, leading design, research, product, engineering, and customer service and operations teams, according to his Twitter bio. A co-founder of the live-streaming app Periscope, Beykpour joined Twitter when the social media company bought his startup in 2015.

    “I hope and expect that Twitter’s best days are still ahead of it. Twitter is one of the most important, unique, and impactful products in the world. With the right nurturing and stewardship, that impact will only grow,” he said on Twitter.

    Beykpour did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Photography by Ted Wood, courtesy of E360.

    In the rolling hills around San Diego and its suburbs, the rumble of bulldozers and the whine of power saws fill the air as a slew of new homes and apartments rise up. The region is booming, its population growing at a rate of about one percent a year.

    This, in spite of the fact that Southern California, along with much of the West, is in the midst of what experts call a megadrought that some believe may not be a temporary, one-off occurrence, but a recurring event or even a climate change-driven permanent “aridification” of the West. The drought is so bad that last year federal officials ordered cuts to water provided to the region by the Colorado River for the first time in history.

    Water officials in San Diego, though, say they are not worried. “We have sufficient supplies now and in the future,” said Sandra Kerl, general manager of the San Diego Water Authority. “We recently did a stress test, and we are good until 2045” and even beyond.

    San Diego is not alone. While the public image may be that booming southwestern cities such as San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Albuquerque are on the verge of a climate apocalypse, many experts agree that these metropolitan areas have enough of a water cushion to not only survive, but continue to grow into the surrounding desert for the foreseeable future, even during the worst drought in 1,200 years. Regardless of what the future holds, the search for water savings and more supply has so far been largely successful.

    It’s a remarkable case of adaptation to climate change that flies under the radar — the result of a quiet revolution in recent years in how these cities source and conserve their water supplies. From replacing water-guzzling lawns with native vegetation, to low-flow plumbing fixtures, to water recycling and desalination, to the shift of agricultural water to cities, governments in arid western regions are pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy.

    “When we had severe drought in the 1980s and early 90s we lost 32 percent of our supplies for 13 months,” said Kerl. “It had a devastating impact on our economy. And San Diego said, ‘Never again.’”

    These major cities have reduced their use of water so much through conservation measures, as well as creating new high-tech supplies, that they have so far been able to “decouple” the need for more water from growth. To be sure, the drought is taking a widespread toll on agriculture throughout the region, as well as on cities and towns that lack aggressive conservation measures and have only a single source of water, whether the Colorado River or groundwater. Page, Arizona, a town of roughly 7,500 people, could lose its municipal water supply if water levels in Lake Powell — already at historic lows — drop too far.

    Compliance office Michelle Peters tests filtered water at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant, which provides water to San Diego County.
    Compliance office Michelle Peters tests filtered water at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant, which provides water to San Diego County. Yale Environment 360

    There are also profound ecological effects of taking so much water out of a stressed system. “The [Colorado] river itself is bearing a huge burden for this, in terms of the environmental flows of the river,” said John Fleck, writer-in-residence at the Utton Center at the University of New Mexico School of Law. “Perhaps that’s the biggest cost, because we tend to give that part of the system short shrift. The environmental cost is substantial and probably not going away.” Among other things, low flows and warmer water often lead to the drying of riparian wetlands, endangering fish and wildlife.

    San Diego provides perhaps the best example of what cities are doing to make themselves drought-proof to continue business as usual in the face of deep water uncertainty. While such growth comes with serious problems — from traffic gridlock, to air and water pollution, to the destruction of nature — running out of water is not now on that list for most of the larger cities of the West.

    Beginning in the 1990s, the San Diego region embarked on one of the most aggressive water conservation plans in the country. An analysis last year showed that the city’s water use dropped from 81.5 billion gallons in 2007 to 57 billion gallons in 2020 — a 30 percent decline. Nine cities surveyed in the Colorado River Basin lowered their water demand in the range of 19 to 48 percent between 2000 and 2015.

    San Diego has pursued a multi-pronged approach. The city now requires an array of water-saving technology in new homes, such as low-flow toilets and showerheads. Perhaps the single biggest piece of the conservation solution is paying homeowners to tear out yards full of Kentucky bluegrass and replace them with far more water-efficient landscaping. The city-run program pays up to $4 a square foot for as much as 5,000 square feet, and so far has replaced 42 million square feet of water-thirsty lawns.

    Melanie Buck of Encinitas, a suburb of San Diego, tore out a grassy lawn and replaced it with a collection of desert plants, including asparagus ferns and several types of cactuses. “It’s quite a lot of maintenance,” moving plants around as they grow, she said. “But our water bill is 50 percent less.”

    Phoenix credits a similar program for its precipitous drop in water use. “In the 1970s, 80 percent of single-family homes had lush landscaping,” said Kathryn Sorensen, the former water services director for Phoenix and now research director at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, a think tank on water issues. “Today that number is 10 percent. It’s been a wholesale change in how people use water.”

    The key marker for residential use is gallons per capita per day. Right now, the average number of gallons used by homes that source their water from the San Diego County Water Authority is 135 gallons per capita per day, indoor and out, down from 235 daily gallons per capita in 1990 — a 43 percent decline.

    Melanie Buck tends to desert plants in her yard in Encinitas, California.
    Melanie Buck tends to desert plants in her yard in Encinitas, California. Yale Environment 360

    The new water future is not just about residential conservation — the overall strategy is diversification. “Just like you don’t want to put all of your eggs in one basket in your investment portfolio,” said Kelley Gage, director of water resources for the San Diego County Water Authority, “you shouldn’t do the same with your water portfolio.”

    At the time of the 1980s drought, San Diego had just one main source of water: the Metropolitan Water District, which brought Colorado River water to the city — across 242 miles of the Colorado River Aqueduct — to supply 95 percent of the San Diego region’s total. The rest came from local surface water.

    Officials embarked on a search for other sources. The agricultural sector uses about 80 percent of the water in the Colorado River, and so it is the place many cities and suburbs have turned to find more.

    San Diego’s single biggest source of water, secured two decades ago, is what is known as an ag-to-urban transfer. California was taking more of the Colorado River than its entitlement, and in 2003, as part of an agreement that reduced California’s reliance on the Colorado River, San Diego agreed to fund water-saving irrigation improvements for the Imperial Irrigation District — the single largest user of Colorado River water — and to lease the water that was saved.

    San Diego paid to line with concrete the 82-mile All American Canal — the largest irrigation canal in the United States — and the Coachella Canal. Unlined canals lose up to 50 percent or more of their water to seepage, and lining can reduce that loss by 95 percent.

    San Diego also paid farmers to switch from flood to drip irrigation. All told, these measures freed up about 280,000 acre-feet of water. (An acre-foot provides two families with a year’s worth of water.) That transfer of savings from agricultural conservation is now the San Diego region’s largest single water source, about 55 percent of its supply. Colorado River water is only 11 percent of the total these days.

    The San Diego County Water Authority has made large investments in “asset management” — the pipes that keep the water flowing. The county has 310 miles of large-diameter pipes — some of them up to 10 feet across — which deliver 900 million gallons of water a day. A major leak could spill large volumes of water in a short time, so monitoring the pipes and keeping them in good repair is an important part of conservation. Acoustic listening devices are a growing technology for saving water.

    “We can go to a fire hydrant and listen for leaks,” said Martin Coghill, an operations and maintenance manager at the San Diego County Water Authority. If a leak is detected, technicians insert cameras, and in the case of the big pipes, they can lower someone in to inspect and do repairs.

    This facility in Oceanside, California turns recycled water into potable water by running it through filtration tubes.
    This facility in Oceanside, California turns recycled water into potable water by running it through filtration tubes. Yale Environment 360

    The concrete pipes the county uses have a fiber optic cable that runs inside the pipe. If any of the strengthening wires embedded in the concrete snap or otherwise break, the cable is designed to detect that sound and notify headquarters.

    Water recycling is also playing an increasing role in water supply, in San Diego and elsewhere. Los Angeles has pledged to recycle all of its wastewater by 2035. Although San Diego’s climate is arid, with just 10 or fewer annual inches of precipitation, when it does rain the region captures 90 percent of the runoff in 24 reservoirs and treats that precipitation to drinking water standards.

    A growing amount of wastewater is also being recycled to drinking water standards. The city of Oceanside, near San Diego, just opened the first advanced water purification facility in the region that allows so-called “toilet to tap” recycling, using ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation to create 3 million gallons a day, about 20 percent of the city’s needs. The city of San Diego plans to have 40 percent of its potable water from similar advanced recycling by 2035.

    San Diego County’s ace in the hole is North America’s largest desalination plant, capable of turning seawater into fresh water in about two hours to create 50 million gallons of potable water a day. The water is so pure that minerals have to be added to improve the taste. The downside is that it’s extremely energy intensive to operate, a big part of why it is almost twice as expensive as imported water — $2,725 for an acre-foot, versus $1,090 for imported water. Desalination also comes with serious environmental problems, including killing large numbers of fish, fish eggs, larvae, and plankton when the facilities suck in seawater.

    Las Vegas, where only 4 inches of rain falls each year, has dramatically upped its conservation game, and Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, has a robust cash-for-grass program that pays more than $32 a square meter. It also uses a series of hydrophones in its pipes to listen for leaks and repair them quickly. The technique was created by WaterStart, a Nevada-based think tank established by the Desert Research Institute designed to accelerate the development of innovative water technology and help startup companies that work on water conservation technology become viable.

    Agriculture is also changing the way it does business. John Burr is a longtime avocado grower in Escondido, the heart of avocado growing in California. As he stood on a bluff above his avocado orchard, with a commanding view of the valley below, he explained how he and his daughter, Kyrsten, have brought precision agriculture to avocado growing.

    First, they planted a high-density avocado orchard — 400 trees per acre instead of 100 — which cuts water needs in half. Dendrometers on the trees measure how much water the tree is taking up and how much it is losing to transpiration.

    On Sunday mornings, John Burr looks at a spreadsheet on his computer. The California Irrigation Management Information System has 145 weather stations and two satellite systems that tell growers of all types how much water their crops have lost. “It pops out with how many inches of water we need to replace what was lost,” says Kyrsten Burr. “Then we can add precisely that much,” with micro jets that only spray water around the tree. “It’s not only more accurate, it also makes sure we are getting what the plant needs.”

    Farmer John Burr next to his avocado orchard, which uses micro jets to spray water around the trees and funnels water directly to the roots.
    Farmer John Burr next to his avocado orchard, which uses micro jets to spray water around the trees and funnels water directly to the roots. Yale Environment 360

    Use has come down so much in California that Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy at Stanford’s Water in the West program, says continued declines could upset water economics. “Everybody is still talking about investing in infrastructure,” she said. But officials need to better understand the demand for water, she says, which will continue to decrease as technology evolves.

    For example, she said, California is “moving closer to small-scale recycling.” In San Francisco every commercial building over 100,000 square feet has to have an on-site recycling system that turns graywater from sinks and showers, not including sewage, into non-potable water for toilets and irrigation. One building, the Salesforce Tower, treats both graywater and sewage, saving 30,000 gallons a day. And home water recycling units are now in the picture. Water use may drop so far “that utilities could end up with stranded assets or extra capacity that isn’t utilized,” Ajami said.

    How low can it go? “The decoupling can go on for a very long time,” says Fleck, especially in the U.S. where governments can afford the capital costs to assure alternative supplies. Las Vegas, for example, spent $1.5 billion to add a new outlet and massive pumps to assure a water supply from Lake Mead as levels drop. “I don’t think we know how long it goes on.” The question, he said “is at what point do cities become less livable because we have less green space around us.”

    With all of these water conservation efforts, experts say that the future of cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and San Diego is a sufficiently wet.

    “We know it’s a desert and we plan accordingly,” said Arizona’s Kathryn Sorenson. “Phoenix can survive dead pool” — the term for a nearly empty Lake Mead — “for generations. We have groundwater, we have done a good job of conservation and diversifying our portfolios. Desert cities are the oldest cities, and we will withstand the test of time.”

    Reporting for this article was supported by a grant from The Water Desk, an initiative based at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

    Correction, April 29, 2022: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the Desert Research Institute as part of the University of Nevada. The Desert Research Institute is part of the Nevada System of Higher Education but not associated with the University of Nevada.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A quiet revolution: Southwest cities learn to thrive amid drought on May 11, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Heat pumps – heating and cooling systems that run entirely on electricity – have been getting a lot of attention recently. They’ve been called the “most overlooked climate solution” and “an answer to heat waves.” And the technology is finally experiencing a global boom in popularity. Last year, 117 million units were installed worldwide, up from 90 million in 2010. As temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions rise, heat pumps, which can be easily powered by renewable energy, promise to provide a pathway to carbon-free home heating. Environmental activist Bill McKibben even suggested sending heat pumps to Europe to help wean the continent off Russian natural gas.

    But despite this global surge in popularity, heat pumps in the U.S. are belaboring under a misconception that has plagued them for decades: That if the temperature falls to below 30 or even 40 degrees Fahrenheit, their technology simply doesn’t work. “Do heat pumps work in cold weather” is even a trending question on Google. 

    It’s a narrative that Andy Meyer, a senior program manager for the independent state agency Efficiency Maine, has spent the past decade debunking for residents in one of the U.S.’s coldest states.  

    “There were two types of people in Maine in 2012,” he said. “Those who didn’t know what heat pumps were — and those who knew they didn’t work in the cold.” But while that concern may have been true years ago, he said, today “it’s not at all true for high-performance heat pumps.” 

    Air-source heat pumps — there are also geothermal heat pumps and water-source heat pumps — are poorly named and poorly understood. (According to one small 2020 study from the heating tech company Sealed, about 47 percent of homeowners in the U.S. Northeast had never even heard of heat pumps.) They are essentially reversible air conditioners: Like AC units, they can take heat from inside a home and pump it out to provide a cooling effect. But unlike air conditioners, they can also run backwards — drawing heat from outdoors and bringing it inside to warm a home. 

    That process of moving heat rather than creating it explains why heat pumps are mind-blowingly efficient. A gas furnace — which burns natural gas to create heat — can only reach around 95 percent efficiency. A heat pump can easily reach 300 or 400 percent efficiency; that is, it can make around 3 to 4 times as much energy as it consumes. 

    heat pump installation maine
    A worker installs a heat pump at home in Standish, Maine in 2018. Brianna Soukup/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

    Years ago, the technology really only worked in mild climates. The early generation of heat pumps were installed mostly in southern states that needed air conditioning and just a little bit of extra warmth in the winter. “They really gained traction in areas where it wasn’t cold,” said Ben Schoenbauer, a senior research engineer at the Center for Energy and Environment, or CEE, in Minnesota. 

    But over the past decade or so, heating companies began developing a new generation of heat pumps with “inverter-driven variable-speed compressors” — a mouthful of a term that essentially gives the heat pump the ability to more quickly transport heat from frigid outdoor air. 

    Soon, high-performance heat pumps were being produced that could warm a home even when outdoor temperatures were down to -31 degrees Fahrenheit. (Even in extreme sub-zero temperatures, there is still some amount of heat in outdoor air.) A heat pump’s efficiency does go down as it gets colder, but even in subzero temperatures high-end units can be over 100 percent efficient. And in recent years, some of the country’s coldest states have gone all-in on the technology. According to a study in Environmental Research Letters, heat pumps could reduce CO2 emissions in 70 percent of homes across the country; homes heated by inefficient electric heaters or fuel oil could particularly benefit. Utilities and states have started offering rebates for consumers to install heat pumps, even in colder states like New York, Massachusetts, or Maine. Many environmental groups and state agencies are working hard to convince residents that top-of-the-line heat pumps can function well in cold climates. 

    Efficiency Maine has been part of that trend. Early on, Meyer said, residents were deeply skeptical that a simple electric device could keep them warm in the state’s frigid conditions. But Efficiency Maine recruited installers, ran social media and radio ads, and released studies and reports showing that heat pumps could work. “It started in Northern Maine — a very close, tightly knit community,” Meyer said. Once a few people installed heat pumps, they began telling their friends, who told their friends, and so on. So far, Meyer says, Efficiency Maine has offered rebates for 100,000 heat pumps — in a state where there are less than 600,000 occupied housing units. Maine now has a higher rate of heat pump installations per capita than most European countries

    Other organizations are doing similar work. The Center for Energy and Environment in Minnesota has formed a collaborative with utilities to help boost heat pump adoption in the state; they also maintain a list of contractors who have been vetted to install the systems. The Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit, has resources for installers and consumers, including a list of air-source heat pumps that operate well under the climate conditions of Northeast states. Some heat pumps are even being installed in Alaska, where average winter temperatures hover around a high of 23 degrees Fahrenheit. 

    One of the benefits of installing heat pumps is cost-savings. In Maine, many homes are heated with fuel oil or propane. At current prices, Meyer says, running a heat pump costs half as much as oil and one-third as much as propane. According to Efficiency Maine’s analysis, that can save homeowners up to thousands of dollars in annual energy costs. A 2017 study by CEE similarly found that installing heat pumps in Minnesota could save residents between $349 and $764 per year, compared to heating with a standard electric or propane furnace. 

    There are some caveats. Lacey Tan, a manager for the carbon-free buildings program at the energy think tank RMI, says there is still a price premium for heat pumps: Some installers aren’t yet comfortable with how they work and try to reduce their risk by increasing up-front costs. In cold climates, some homes may want to have a back-up heating system for extremely frigid days or in the event of a power outage. (In Maine, Meyer says many homeowners use wood stoves as back-up for their heat pumps.) 

    But many experts believe more and more cold-weather heat pumps will be sold as homeowners learn about the new advances in the technology. Meyer says that Mainers who install heat pumps naturally begin to share their experience with friends and family. “We have over 100,000 salespeople who have already gotten heat pumps,” he said jokingly. “Not bad for a state where they ‘don’t work in the cold.’”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Heat pumps do work in the cold — Americans just don’t know it yet on May 9, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • During Donald Trump’s years in office, the media focused largely on the former president’s fixation with the giant border wall he was trying to have built, a xenophobic symbol so filled with racism that it was far easier to find people offended by it than towers like this one. From where I stood, the closest stretch of border wall was 10 miles to the south in Nogales, a structure made of 20-foot-high steel bollards and covered with coiled razor wire. (That stretch of wall, in fact, had been built long before Trump took office.)

    What I was now witnessing, however, could be called Biden’s wall. I’m speaking about a modern, high-tech border barrier of a different sort, an increasingly autonomous surveillance apparatus fueled by “public-private partnerships.” The technology for this “virtual wall” had been in the works for years, but the Biden administration has focused on it as if it were a humane alternative to Trump’s project.

    The post The Border-Industrial Complex In The Biden Era appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Following the publication by Politico of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Roberts authenticated the leaked document and stated that he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” Whether or not the leak itself was illegal, however, the question of how a technical investigation of this document would proceed raises some interesting issues for journalists as well as potential sources.

    Leak investigators have three key areas to analyze for clues: the document itself, the environment the document circulated in, and the potential identity of the leaker. Each area in turn presents lessons and opportunities for would-be leakers to adopt various counter-forensic strategies to subvert future leak investigations.

    The Document

    Since the leaked opinion appears to be a scan or photocopy of a paper document instead of a transcription or recreation, the image can be analyzed for any unique markings that might allow investigators to pinpoint which particular physical copy of the document was leaked.

    The first page includes several such potentially unique identifying markers, including a highlighted title, a page bend, and what appear to be staple perforations.

    s111

    Screenshot: The Intercept


    Other pages also reveal subtle markings that could identify the specific paper copy of the leaked document. For instance, the bottom-left region of page 90 has a singular speck; the fact that it is not present on other page images indicates that it is a stray mark present only on that physical page of the document, as opposed to being a dust flake on the scanner bed.
    s22

    Screenshot: The Intercept


    If investigators managed to locate a physical copy of the document matching the characteristics found in the leaked file, that would allow them to conclude that it was the physical copy that was leaked. This is significant, because it could establish the provenance of the document, which could in turn identify potential leakers.

    For instance, if it were known that this particular physical copy of the document was handled by certain specific persons, those individuals would naturally fall under suspicion — though of course a scenario exists in which someone outside the intended chain of custody could have obtained the physical copy, for instance, simply by picking it up from someone else’s desk or by finding it on a photocopier. Then again, there is also the possibility that the original source of the document is digital and that the source printed out a copy prior to leaking it, or that Politico itself printed out the digital copy prior to publishing it.

    Investigators could also analyze the metadata of the digital version of the document using software such as ExifTool for any clues about when, where, how, or by whom the digital copy was created. They could also exploit potential information-leaking vulnerabilities in the PDF creation and redaction process, which could inadvertently leave unintended and potentially identifying information in the digital document.

    The Environment

    In addition to the document itself, leak investigators will likely pay attention to the environment in which the leak originated. Modern commercial office printers generally come with a variety of ancillary functions like photocopying and scanning, while also typically keeping a running log of jobs the printer performs, which may include such information as the file name and page count of the document, the date and time the job was performed, as well as the username or IP address that initiated the job. If the printer also offers the capability to email a photocopy or scan of a document, a log may keep track of which jobs were sent to which email addresses and could even store a copy of the digital document in its memory.

    Investigators will likely perform an audit of printer and network logs to see which staff members opened or otherwise interacted with the document in question. Investigators could also explore who had occasion to access the document as part of their day-to-day duties, as well as where the particular copy of the leaked document was physically stored, and who had occasion to access that space.

    The Leaker

    The practice of anomaly-based insider threat detection involves investigating staff who display any kind of irregular behavior or activity. For instance, if a staff member usually swipes into the office on work days at 8 a.m. and swipes out at 5 p.m., but access logs show them coming into the office at 10 p.m. on a Saturday in the days leading up to the leak, this finding would likely subject that staff member to scrutiny, which could include analyzing available surveillance footage.

    Staff computer and phone usage, particularly web browsing, could also be analyzed to see if anyone previously visited the news site that published the leak, in this case Politico, or visited other webpages of potential interest, such as any that describe whistleblowers or leaking. Rudimentary analysis could include looking through desktop browsing history, while a more thorough and sophisticated investigation would involve analyzing network traffic logs to determine whether Politico was accessed from a mobile device connected to the office Wi-Fi. Though of course in the case of Politico, a news website that covers politics and policy, it is likely to show up in quite a lot of staff logs and thus would likely not be a particularly fruitful finding for investigators.

    “Sentiment analysis” may also be performed as part of an insider threat investigation by analyzing the various thoughts and opinions expressed by staff members in office communications. This kind of analysis could also utilize what’s often called “open source intelligence,” in the form of looking at staff social media postings to see if anyone had expressed interest in Politico, or any thoughts about the Alito opinion, or generally any signs of disgruntlement with their employer. Additionally, sentiment analysis may also include a review of staff postings on internal forums, as well as emails and private messages sent via channels controlled by the employer, such as direct messages sent over Slack.

    Takeaways for Would-Be Leakers

    These potential methods of leak investigation may also be interpreted as lessons for future leakers to evade identification by adopting a number of counter-forensic measures.

    To reduce the potential amount of information investigators may glean from a leaked document, leakers could send journalists a transcription or reproduction of the document instead of the original source document itself. While a transcription of the document will not successfully pass a barium meal test — in which each individual is given a uniquely phrased copy of the document, sophisticated forms of which may deploy natural language watermarking, subtly altering the syntactic structure of every version of a document — it would nonetheless neutralize all other attempts at source document identification. Transcription would bypass efforts at identifying either errant or intentional markings on a page, as well as attempts at identifying positional watermarks such as subtle shifts in character or line spacing unique to each version of a document. Of course, this also would make it harder for journalists to verify a document’s authenticity, and care would have to be taken to ensure that the source left no identifying metadata in the transcription file.

    Office equipment would best be avoided when making copies of a document, but using personal equipment can also be fraught with risk. Source camera identification is the forensic process of identifying the camera that took a particular photo. At times, this sort of identification may hinge on obvious features such as visible scratches on a lens or dead pixels on a screen. In other situations, the unique characteristics of an image might not be visible to the naked eye, but instead might be based on the unique image sensor noise each camera produces, otherwise known as photo response non-uniformity.

    In other words, if leaked photographs of a document were to emerge, and leak investigators had particular suspects in mind, they could analyze photos posted to social media by the suspects to see if they provide an algorithmic match to the noise pattern in the leaked photos. When making audio recordings or photographs, therefore, it would be best practice to adopt the principle of one-time use: Use a temporary device like a cheap camera or smartphone that will be used only for the purposes of the leak, and then discard the device.

    To avoid falling afoul of anomaly-detection triggers, would-be leakers might consider incorporating document acquisition as part of their normal routine instead of engaging in uncharacteristic behavior like clocking in at the office at odd hours or downloading files en masse. Likewise, leakers should avoid browsing news outlets while at work, both on their personal and of course work devices. Expressing any kind of disagreement or dissatisfaction with employer policies or decisions on either a company, public, or personal forum (such as during happy hour drinks) is also best avoided, as rigorous insider threat monitoring may keep tabs of any such behavior.

    Leaking and subsequent leak investigations are back-and-forth games of forensics and counter-forensics, of operational security and its failures. While the risk of source identification can never be entirely eliminated, there are nonetheless various practical technical countermeasures which can be adopted to reduce the additional risk to sources who are already risking a great deal.

    The post How a Supreme Court Investigation of the Roe v. Wade Leak Might Unfold appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has claimed that it can’t pay people more social security above this year’s real-terms cut of £10bn because its IT system are too old. Problem is, this is an outright lie. The Canary spoke to a former IT contractor for the department, who confirmed that its excuses were “horseshit”.

    DWP: computer says ‘no’

    The Times reported on the story. It said that “Whitehall sources” told the Treasury that “creaking government IT systems” meant that legacy benefits like Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) could not be increased more than once a year. This comes as the DWP has put up social security by just over 3%. Because of rocketing inflation, this means that it is actually cutting people’s money – to the tune of around £10bn.

    The Times noted:

    It has emerged that Sunak discussed raising payments only to be told by officials that it would be impossible. Whitehall sources said that the antiquated payments system could increase certain payments only once a year. “There were definitely discussions about how you could raise benefits but the message came back that you could only do it once a year and this was not the time of year that you could do it,” a government source said. “The system was simply not built to be flexible.”

    It also said that:

    hundreds of thousands of people remain on the old benefits system administered using an inflexible IT system operating since the 1980s.

    It is set up to change benefit levels automatically at the start of the new financial year in April.

    The Guardian also ran the story – repeating the DWP’s claims about the “antiquated” IT system. Here’s why the department is lying.

    “Creaking” IT that’s only a year old?

    The DWP began upgrading its IT infrastructure for legacy benefits in 2016 and it now works off a new system. It’s called VME-R. Without getting too technical, a case study on the issue by Micro Focus noted:

    Also, the VME-R system can now rapidly change the way benefits work. This admission comes from Mark Bell, the deputy director responsible for the project. He told Micro Focus:

    Thanks to the flexible and agile new environment we could quickly make government-mandated policy changes to allow for COVID-19, such as increasing our capacity for additional users, and supporting quicker benefit processing changes.

    DWP: 800 updates a year – just not to pay claimants more

    Perhaps the most crucial factor is the number of changes the DWP can now make a year under VME-R. The Times article claimed that the DWP said it could only change benefit rates once a year. But as Bell himself admitted in a DWP blog:

    At last count we had already delivered over 800 updates across the various platforms in the last year thanks to a more flexible implementation system. Previously we planned two major releases a year on each system.

    So, it seems that the claims by the DWP that it can’t make changes to benefit rates appears to be nonsense.

    Stopping change

    The Canary spoke to a former outsourced contractor from the original Department for Social Security (DSS) systems who designed code for the now-replaced IT. They told us:

    The DWP had a two year planning cycle to get to know how to do things quickly. So two years of learning to be faster at code and system changes. Which means, as an organisation the DWP is now more capable of rapid response.

    That two years of planning at the tail of a decade of work brings valuable skills and experience into the DWP. It could be kicked out the door in the next “reorganisation”. So, again, the DWP has no great interest in saying that “we trained people up in the DWP to make changes really fast”. Because that might oblige it to… make changes really fast.

    No technical barriers

    Overall, they told The Canary that, as an example, the moving of Winter Fuel Payments to the VME-R system in 2016:

    shows proof of concept for rapid change which can be driven by political will not technical constraints. If you can change Winter Fuel Payments in 24 hours then rerating legacy payments of any kind loses the technical barrier.

    In other words, Winter Fuel Payment transference to VME-R demonstrates something beyond the technical. The civil service is capable of delivering the technical infrastructure rapidly. It has been able to conceptually do that since 2016 and not only conceptually but practically since 2020.

    But there is one issue, this time with Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), which doesn’t come under VME-R. The Canary‘s source told us that because ESA did not exist in the 1980s, it’s already operating off modern IT anyway. They said:

    It’s effectively the code standards that the VME-R programme is updating to… so is not really requiring the VME-R process. In theory, any code for ESA should already be adaptable.

    The DWP says…

    The Canary asked the DWP for comment. Specifically, we wanted to know why the DWP is claiming its IT cannot update legacy benefit rates more than once a year. Because this appears not to be the case. A spokesperson said:

    Universal Credit is a dynamic system which adjusts as people earn more or less, and simplifies our safety net for those who cannot work. It makes it easier for people to claim support they are entitled to, is more generous overall than the old benefits, and it successfully met the demands of the pandemic in 2020.

    Parliament voted to end the complex web of six legacy benefits in 2012, and as this work approaches its conclusion in 2024 we are fully transitioning to a modern benefit, suited to the 21st Century.

    We recognise the pressures people are facing with the cost of living, which is why we’re providing support worth £22 billion across the next financial year including our Household Support Fund. Parliament voted in March 2022, to uprate benefits by the usual measure.

    They pointed The Canary to the fact that legacy benefits’ changes take “several months” to process (contrary to what the Times reported as once a year). Under Universal Credit the DWP can make the same changes in weeks. The DWP cited the volume of new claims to Universal Credit during the pandemic as being one such example.

    “Useless fuckers”

    The former DSS contractor summed the situation up:

    • DWP systems can be uprated at a technical level three times a day.
    • It requires parliament to instruct the DWP if the change involves money.
    • The parliamentary process of legislation cannot make three changes a day.
    • The decision to uprate yearly was made in 1970’s.
    • The technical systems have supported that since then VME-R simply makes faster change possible.
    • The rate of changing of benefits is limited by Parliament not the Civil Service.
    • The story is horseshit.

    Overall, they said that the story may show several things:

    First, it suggests that ministers do not really understand technology. No surprise there. They are not understanding just how rapidly they can change technical support for policies. Winter Fuel Payments being changed in 24 hours is a technical change. But it could equally be a technical change that reflects a policy change. Technology could be used to support policy.

    Second, it suggests that the civil service are not really supporting the government, technically. Because the government has no idea what support it actually needs. It is now technically possible to update Winter Fuel Payments in 24 hours. So that technical update needs the government to be able to formulate policy in 24 hours. That is a radical disconnect between ministerial ability and technical delivery.

    So, third, it suggests the government are actually very much out of their depth. Not from an ideological point of view but just from being useless fuckers. They’ve failed upwards as far as they can. That makes it dangerous for them – and us.

    It’s one thing for the DWP to lie about its IT systems. It’s another for the Guardian and Times to repeat the lie like it’s a statement of fact. But it’s entirely heinous that the DWP thinks it can lie to make excuses for not paying social security claimants more during a time of state-sanctioned class war.

    Featured image via Johnny Magnusson – Free Stock Photos and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Last month, some of the biggest tech companies in America made headlines when they announced an unusual partnership to tackle one part of the climate crisis. The group, which included Google and Facebook’s parent companies and the payment software company Stripe, committed to spending $925 million over the next eight years to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    A week earlier, two members of Congress barely made a splash when they put forth a similar but much more ambitious plan — albeit more of a proposal. Representatives Paul Tonko of New York and Scott Peters of California introduced the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, a bill that would direct the Department of Energy to pay for an increasing amount of carbon to be removed from the atmosphere each year at a cost of about $9.6 billion over the first 12 years.

    Both plans attempt to address a pressing question: How do you build a new industry to clean up the carbon in the atmosphere, a service that would benefit everyone in the world but that has no immediate utility?

    “Carbon removal is unique,” said Erin Burns, executive director of the carbon removal advocacy nonprofit Carbon180. “For the most part, we’re talking about something we need to do to meet climate goals, but it’s not creating electricity or another product.” 

    Cutting fossil-fueled emissions from cars, power plants, buildings, and industry is key to limiting global warming, but it won’t be enough to stave off the worst effects. Experts say the world must also try to suck down carbon dioxide that’s already been emitted into the atmosphere, eventually on the order of billions of metric tons per year. Carbon removal can include schemes to enhance natural carbon sinks like soils and seawater, as well as novel technological systems that filter carbon from the air and sequester it securely, either in long-lived products or underground. 

    One day, governments might force polluting companies to pay for carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, to make up for their continued emissions or clean up past emissions. Companies might also do this voluntarily to fulfill sustainability goals, as some are beginning to today. Alternatively, progressive scholars have argued that CDR should be treated as a necessary public service, much like waste disposal, with regional agencies overseen by communities.

    But in the near term, fundamental uncertainty about the business model for CDR makes it hard for scientists and entrepreneurs to get funding to research, test, and scale up solutions. Relatively little carbon has been intentionally and permanently pulled out of the atmosphere to date, and the few projects that exist are trivially small and expensive to operate. 

    “One of the things we hear from early-stage project developers is that the most useful thing they can have is a customer,” said Burns. She applauded the tech companies for sending a strong market signal — if you build it, we will buy it — that will help drive innovation. But she was more bullish on the potential of a government procurement program like the one laid out in the CDR Leadership Act. “This is not something that’s going to be solved with a billion dollars in advanced market commitments,” she said, referring to the tech initiative. “That’s a huge deal today, but long term, we’re going to need a much bigger customer. The federal government is really, from our perspective, the answer here.”

    The government isn’t just a bigger customer. Burns said a procurement program could help ensure that carbon removal is scaled up responsibly by creating standards. The CDR Leadership Act directs the Department of Energy to set “best practices” for monitoring, reporting, and verifying how much carbon is actually removed by any given approach. It also calls on the agency to prioritize social factors like how many jobs a carbon removal project will create, carbon removal companies’ engagement with the public, and their plans to alleviate potential impacts on communities, like pollution. 

    The tech companies might eventually claim that the tons of carbon they paid to remove cancel out their own continued emissions — a key motivation for them to help these solutions scale up. But notably, the program outlined by the federal bill is designed to remove carbon for its own sake, not to offset emissions in some larger accounting framework, preempting a common criticism that scaling up carbon removal could reduce incentives to cut emissions. 

    Peters and Tonko were not the first elected officials to propose such a program. Last November, while the U.N. climate conference was happening in Glasgow, a state assemblymember from New York named Patricia Fahy introduced the New York Carbon Removal Leadership Act. If passed, the program would function similarly to the federal one, with New York state paying for an increasing amount of carbon to be removed from the atmosphere each year. Both bills set a maximum price per metric ton removed that decreases over time, spurring companies to innovate and bring their costs down. 

    While the federal bill doesn’t specify a funding source, the New York bill suggests using the revenue from the repeal of a state tax exemption on jet fuel — which had already been proposed by a separate piece of legislation — to fund the CDR program. 

    “That more than pays for the bill,” said Toby Bryce, a member of a volunteer-run carbon removal advocacy group called the Open Air Network who helped write the New York legislation. Open Air is working on finding sponsors and funding sources to introduce similar legislation in other states. 

    “We’re really at the stage now where we need to start funding deployment, and not just demonstrations and not just R&D,” said Bryce, referring to research and development.

    The federal omnibus spending bill that Congress passed at the end of 2020 authorized nearly $450 million for carbon removal research, development, and demonstration projects over five years. Last year’s bipartisan infrastructure package also contained $3.5 billion to establish four regional “direct air capture hubs,” where machines designed to remove carbon dioxide molecules directly from the air could be clustered near each other and share the infrastructure required to transport the captured CO2 to wherever it will be sequestered. 

    “The only way to really know how these systems perform in practice, is to go build them,” said David Victor, a professor of public policy at the University of California, San Diego. 

    Victor has studied how society has sought to solve global problems when there has been very strong motivation to find a solution but nobody really knows how, so firms and governments begin to run experiments. He said that’s what’s happening now with CDR. Victor stressed that key to whether or not these various experiments to foster a new CDR industry succeed is having some sort of built-in review mechanism, wherein policymakers and companies continuously review what’s working, what’s not, and refine the experiments in response. 

    “If it just pushes money out the door, that doesn’t actually improve our knowledge of which of these options could really scale and which business models really work,” he said. “It’s that knowledge that makes it possible to scale.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Tech companies are spending big to suck carbon from the atmosphere. Should the government, too? on May 5, 2022.

  • Web Desk:

    According to the International Pakistan, WhatsApp has introduced another feature, allowing users to add up to 32 people at a time to one voice call.

    The Meta-owned messaging app made the announcement in a tweet, stating: “Now you can put 32 of your favorite people in ONE voice call”. “Sharing good news with your whole family means hearing all the joy and laughter in one easy call,” it added.

    This new capability is included in the update version 22.8.80, which is 109.7MB in size for iOS devices. Android users will get a similar upgrade with these additional features in the near future, but it will not be available on the windows or desktop versions.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • The Staten Island district attorney’s use of the highly controversial Clearview face recognition system included attempts to dig up the social media accounts of homicide victims and was paid for with equally controversial asset forfeiture cash, according to city records provided to The Intercept.

    Clearview has garnered international attention and intense criticism for its simple premise: What if you could instantly identify anyone in the world with only their picture? Using billions of images scraped from social media sites, Clearview sells police and other governmental agencies the ability to match a photo to a name using face recognition, no search warrant required — a power civil libertarians and privacy advocates say simply places too much unsupervised power in the hands of police.

    The use of Clearview by the Staten Island district attorney’s office was first reported by Gothamist, citing city records obtained by the Legal Aid Society. Subsequent records procured via New York State Freedom of Information Law request and provided to The Intercept now confirm the initial concerns about the tool’s largely unsupervised use by prosecutors. According to spokesperson Ryan Lavis, the DA’s office “completely stopped utilizing Clearview as an investigative tool last year.”

    Yet the documents provide new information about how Staten Island prosecutors used the notorious face recognition tool and show that the software was paid for with funds furnished by the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program. The program lets state and local police hand seized cash and property over to a federal law enforcement agency, whereupon up to 80 percent of the proceeds are then sent back the original state or local department to pocket.

    A May 2 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland by Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Nancy Mace, R-S.C., alleged that the federal program is routinely abused by police. “We are concerned that the Equitable Sharing Program creates a loophole allowing state and local law enforcement to seize assets from individuals without bringing criminal charges or a conviction, even in states that prohibit civil asset forfeiture,” reads the letter, first reported by The Hill.

    Public records turned over to the Legal Aid Society in response to its request for information about how the Staten Island DA’s office paid for Clearview included a document titled “Guide to Equitable Sharing for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies,” which outlines the program and how state entities can make use of it. In a letter sent to the Legal Aid Society and shared with The Intercept, the DA’s office confirmed that federal forfeiture proceeds had paid for its Clearview license. Asset forfeiture has become a contentious and frequently abused means of padding department budgets around the country, and critics say the Equitable Sharing program provides police in states with laws constraining asset seizures with a convenient federal workaround. While civil asset forfeiture is permitted in New York, the state places some limits on how and when seizures can be conducted, rules that the federal program could let a local district attorney skirt.

    “The revelation that the funds used to access the Clearview AI service was derived from property obtained without due process, from the same individuals who are most at risk to the devastating consequences of its flaws, is nearly dystopian,” said Diane Akerman, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society’s Digital Forensics Unit. “Perversely, the most overpoliced and targeted communities would be footing the bill for such surveillance through police seizures of their assets,” Akerman added.

    “These sorts of search tools not only destroy our privacy, but erode the bedrock of democracy.”

    Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the New York-based Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told The Intercept that there’s a troubling aptness to the funding. “You have New Yorkers whose assets are being stolen by the police to pay for facial recognition software that works by stealing our faces from social media,” Cahn noted in an interview. To face recognition critics like Cahn, Clearview is emblematic of the technology’s ability to simultaneously eradicate privacy expectations and enhance the surveillance powers of the state. “There’s this pattern here of the public’s money and data being taken without consent in these ways that are deemed lawful but seem criminal. … These sorts of search tools not only destroy our privacy, but erode the bedrock of democracy.”

    Among the disclosed records is a long list, albeit almost entirely redacted, of Clearview searches conducted by the DA’s office from 2019 to 2021, including the general purpose of the queries and names of the targets, which The Intercept has redacted to protect the privacy of those scrutinized by the DA. These search logs indicate that on many occasions, Clearview was tapped not to identify suspects in criminal investigations but to find and search through the social media histories of people whose identities were already known, including homicide victims and unspecified “personnel.” A handwritten note appended to a search conducted in January 2020 also indicates that the DA’s office used Clearview to assist in a “deportation case” — a law enforcement investigation not typically within the DA’s remit, particularly given New York’s status as a so-called sanctuary city. “Despite what we claim as being a sanctuary city, there’s no law in New York whatsoever that stops a conservative DA’s office like Staten Island from partnering with ICE,” said Cahn, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The search records are indicative of how face recognition technology isn’t just proliferating among government agencies but also becoming used in applications broader than the public may expect. “Typically, the NYPD’s use of facial recognition technology has been to attempt to identify unknown witnesses or suspects,” Akerman explained. “The Richmond County District Attorney’s Office” — Richmond County is coextensive with the Staten Island borough, and the DA operates as a county official — “is engaging in a new use of the technology — as a form of surveillance of a known person’s social media.” Akerman pointed to the fact that the New York Police Department, the country’s largest police force, already makes use of face recognition technologies and questioned why the smallest DA’s office in the city needed such a powerful tool. Akerman also questioned the need for such a powerful tool given that prosecutors already routinely obtain intimately personal data about individuals during criminal investigations. “DA’s offices already obtain warrants, which are largely rubber-stamped, to search individuals’ cellphones, social media, phone location records, etc., regardless of whether there is a connection to the incident.”

    Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, Palantir Technologies, and Founders Fund, holds hundred dollar bills as he speaks during the Bitcoin 2022 Conference at Miami Beach Convention Center on April 7, 2022 in Miami, Florida.

    Right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel holds $100 bills as he speaks during the Bitcoin 2022 conference on April 7, 2022, in Miami.

    Photo: Marco Bello/Getty Images


    Although face recognition is a potentially invasive and dangerous technology no matter how or where it’s deployed, the Peter Thiel-backed Clearview and its right-wing founder have become emblematic of the threat that the powerful and typically unsupervised software poses, particularly given its rapid adoption by police forces across the country. While the company is already eagerly selling its software to surveillance-hungry police departments, its ambitions are far greater. In February, the Washington Post reported that Clearview recently boasted to investors that it was working toward growing its database of faces to 100 billion images by next year, a number it says would mean “almost everyone in the world will be identifiable” with a simple snapshot. In a sign that the company is expanding its clientele in addition to its capabilities, the Ukrainian military has reportedly begun using Clearview to identify Russian corpses.

    Critics of Clearview say the technology represents an untenable threat to personal privacy and, by virtue of the fact that it requires no judicial oversight, an assault on Fourth Amendment protections against undue searches. Clearview’s degree of accuracy is unclear, providing another klaxon for civil liberties advocates regardless of efficacy: If the technology works as advertised, its surveillance powers are an existential threat to privacy rights, but if it’s inaccurate, it risks implicating innocent people — particularly people of color — in crimes.

    The Staten Island DA’s office declined to answer questions about the expansive use of Clearview documented in the search logs.

    Cahn, of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, agreed that the disclosed records are a worrying sign that Clearview is being used far more broadly than initially advertised. “It’s increasingly clear that Clearview is not just a facial recognition tool, it’s a social media monitoring tool,” he said. “When so many people have social media accounts that they try to keep anonymous, where they try to keep their names off of the account, this becomes yet another tool to map out what people say, what they post, when they’re trying to keep their identities secret.”

    The post Staten Island DA Bought Clearview Face Recognition Software With Civil Forfeiture Cash appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Four years ago, Nicole Macri, a Washington state representative from Seattle, met Matthew Metz for coffee. Metz had founded Coltura, an organization advocating for the end of gasoline, a few years earlier. He explained his vision for the state: to stop the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2030, just 12 years on. 

    Macri, a Democrat, was new to climate policy, having worked mainly on housing and health care, and she was compelled by the simplicity of Metz’s idea. It wasn’t tied to abstract, hard-to-grasp metrics around fuel efficiency or emissions reductions. “Everyone can understand that in 2030, if you buy a new car, if you register a new car in our state, it has to be electric,” she told Grist. “It was like, OK, this is a policy I can understand, that I can talk to my constituents about and they can understand.” 

    Macri started pushing to introduce the policy when the Washington state legislature convened in 2019. According to Macri, her Democratic colleagues discouraged her, saying the idea was too radical. “It was like, ‘Well, that’s nice for you to say, you’re an urban liberal Democrat, but this is pretty inflammatory in suburban areas and other areas where people are far more car-dependent,” Macri said. She remembers one Democrat telling her that introducing the bill would make her “the downfall of the Democratic Party.”

    Legislators who were working to pass other climate measures, like a clean fuel standard, said she should wait to introduce the bill, warning that a mandate could spark legal backlash and distract from the rest of their agenda. It was the same year that Washington ended up passing a package of bills that would move the state to a fossil fuel-free grid, expand electric vehicle incentives, and build out the state’s network of chargers. Jake Fey, the state’s House Transportation Committee chair and a fellow Democrat, told Grist that his priority was more about “actions that accomplish things” than setting goals, which are too often abandoned “without a strategy to actually make it happen.”

    For most people at the time, it seemed beyond belief that the internal combustion engine was on its way out. But in just the span of a few years, the switch to electric cars has become less like a futuristic vision and more like an impending economic reality. Fast forward to today, and Washington state has officially taken on the 2030 target, after almost adopting it last year. Governor Jay Inslee signed the broader “Move Ahead Washington” transportation package into law at the end of March, setting a deadline for all new cars registered in the state to be electric. 

    It’s not a mandate, but the timeline is the most aggressive in the country. California, by contrast, is on its way to finalizing a mandate to ban the sales of gas cars by 2035, with implications for more than a dozen other states that follow its emissions standards, including New York, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. President Joe Biden has called for half of new car sales to be electric by 2030.

    A woman in a blue blazer speaks into a microphone as others watch.
    Representative Nicole Macri speaks on the House floor in Olympia, Washington, before a vote on a measure to prevent sexual harassment, January 24, 2019. Ted S. Warren / AP Photo

    The adoption of electric cars is speeding up, even as it runs into obstacles like backlogged supply chains and a lack of charging infrastructure. Consider, for example, that the majority of the world’s electric vehicles on the road today were added in the last year and a half.

    “It’s not really a question of, at this point, where’s the market going?” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean transportation program. “It is more of a question of how fast we can get there.”

    So what happened to turn the end of gasoline-powered cars from a radical idea into a legislative reality? Experts told Grist that economic, political, and cultural factors have been colliding to create the conditions for this seemingly sudden shift. 

    1. The growing market

    In the first three months of 2022, the only automakers to report sales gains in the U.S. were all-electric companies like Tesla and Polestar, as well as the outlier BMW. Most automakers saw sales drop by double digits while Tesla’s sales rose 88 percent compared to the same quarter last year. Car companies are looking at Tesla, the world’s 6th most valuable company on the market at a recent $902 billion, and want to show investors that “if they’re not there yet, they have a plan to get there,” Reichmuth said. Companies that have started producing EV models, like Ford, have found they can’t build them fast enough to keep up with demand.

    “The auto companies are seeing that electric is the future,” Reichmuth said. Many are promising to sell only electric options in the coming years, with Jaguar aiming for 2025, Volvo for 2030, and General Motors for 2035. But some of the biggest companies, like Toyota and Volkswagen, are still dragging their heels.

    2. Lower costs

    Electric vehicles require energy-dense, rechargeable batteries — technology that used to be very expensive. Since 2010, prices for lithium-ion battery packs have sunk 89 percent, though a shortage of key ingredients like cobalt and lithium carbonate are nudging them back up. Electric cars still tend to be more expensive than gas cars upfront: An average EV model runs about $70,000, compared to $48,000 for a gas car. That high price is thanks in part to a trend toward flashy, high-end models like Tesla’s Model 3, but electric cars are usually cheaper over the long term. That’s something Americans may be keeping in mind as they’ve watched gas prices climb to $5 or $6 a gallon in parts of the country this spring.

    3. The global picture

    Electric cars are no longer niche products for liberal-minded Americans. China and Europe are leading the switch to electric cars, accounting for 85 percent of worldwide EV sales last year. Some 3.2 million were sold in China and 2.3 million in Europe, compared to only 535,000 in the United States. 

    “Automakers, I think, are realizing that to be globally competitive they just have to have a very strong EV presence, otherwise they’re gonna miss out,” said Janelle London, the co-executive director of Coltura. Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, among other countries, aim to ban new fossil fuel-powered cars by 2030, on the same timeline as Washington state. 

    4. More regulation

    In April, the California Air Resources Board introduced a plan to ban the sale of new gas-fueled cars by 2035, following an executive order from Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020. “There’s broad consensus that phase-out policies, both in Europe and even what’s going on like California and Washington and all that effort, have actually been decisive in getting automakers to shift,” Metz said. “Without that, it wouldn’t have happened.

    Concerns about climate change and air pollution are driving the policies to phase out gasoline. Transportation accounts for about 30 percent of the country’s emissions, with the majority of that coming from gas-powered passenger vehicles. Gas cars are also a huge health hazard, spewing particulate matter and carbon monoxide out of tailpipes. Concentrations of toxic chemicals are even higher inside cars, where Americans get their biggest daily exposure to air pollution.

    5. More choices

    Ten years ago, there were just eight electric vehicle models to pick from in the United States, like the Tesla Model S or the Nissan Leaf. Over the course of 2022, the number of models is jumping from 62 to 100. “A lot of people are waiting for the type of model that they are looking for,” said Larry Chretien, the executive director at the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. “You know, not everyone wants a small car. Not everyone can afford a Tesla. They’re looking for something that’s bigger than small and moderately priced. And that’s all coming.”

    A man in a blue suit stands onstage, next to a Ford pick-up truck, as an audience watches.
    Ford CEO Jim Farley speaks at the launch of the all-new electric Ford F-150 Lightning pickup truck in Dearborn, Michigan, April 26, 2022. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    The electric version of the Ford F-150, the top-selling vehicle in the U.S., just arrived last week, with a starting price around $40,000 and the promise of going 230 miles on one charge. Ford had to cap the waitlist at 200,000 in December, which translates to a three-year backlog. “People are not going to care if they’re red state, blue state — they’re going to want this thing,” London said.

    6. More visibility

    It takes time to get used to new technology. With more electric vehicles on the road, and with chargers to support them popping up at grocery stores and office buildings, it’s easier for more people to imagine sitting behind the wheel of an EV themselves. “Your neighbor might have an electric vehicle, or somebody on your kid’s soccer team, or at school, at work,” Reichmuth said. “That makes it easier for people to get comfortable with a switch to an electric vehicle.”

    7. A changing public attitude

    Americans are beginning to grasp that the era of gas cars may be coming to an end. A poll commissioned by Coltura last October found that 55 percent of voters in the U.S. supported requiring new cars to be electric by 2030. And about half of people who were thinking of buying a car in the next five years said it was “somewhat” or “very” likely that they’d go electric. This was even before the onslaught of EV commercials during the Super Bowl this year.

    “People are understanding that it’s coming fast,” Chretien said. “They’re getting ready. They anticipate that they will be able to buy an electric car soon.”

    Of course, the shift to electric vehicles won’t be smooth. There are a number of barriers in the way, like an uncertain policy landscape and a lack of charging infrastructure. Macri says her constituents are concerned about the number of charging spots available at their apartment buildings or out on the street where they park their cars. Washington state’s newly approved transportation package directs the state to create a road map by the end of the year to figure out how to reach the 2030 target. “We’re not thinking about getting there until somebody says you have to, and then you start to figure out, ‘Oh, these are the five steps you need to do to get there,’” Macri said.

    Looking back, she observed just how much had changed. A few years ago, ending sales of gas-powered cars by 2030 “was truly seen as very, very, radical,” Macri said. “We’ve just seen a huge amount of progress.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Ending the sale of gas cars by 2030 was a radical idea. What changed? on May 2, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • By John Lewis of the Otago Daily Times

    Aotearoa New Zealand’s new NZ SeaRise website, designed to show how the country’s coastline will be affected by rising sea levels and land subsidence, has been hit by a cyber attack.

    Project co-leader and Victoria University of Wellington earth sciences Professor Tim Naish said the website went live this morning at 5am, and since then it had been getting 10,000 hits per second which had ”just killed” the website.

    ”We’re trying to get it back up and running,” he said.

    ”The guess is that these are anti-climate change people or the Russians — who knows.

    ”We don’t know for sure, but we think they’re using an autobot. They’re coming from an overseas IP address.

    ”It’s just hitting us with thousands of hits and our website can’t cope.”

    It was frustrating because local government mayors were being asked to comment on the website, but were unable to because it was inaccessible at the moment, he said.

    Frustrating for residents
    It was also frustrating for residents interested in what was going to happen on their own land.

    The NZ SeaRise website shows location-specific sea level rise projections to the year 2300, for every 2km of the coast of New Zealand.

    Climate change and warming temperatures are causing sea levels to rise by 3.5mm a year on average, but until now, the levels did not take into account local vertical land movements.

    Professor Naish said continuous small and large seismic events were adding up to cause subsidence in many parts of New Zealand, and the new projections showed the annual rate of sea level rise could double.

    Project co-leader and GNS Science associate professor Richard Levy said the team had connected vertical land movement data with climate-driven sea level rise to provide locally-relevant sea level projections.

    “Property owners, councils, infrastructure providers and others need to know how sea level will change in the coming decades so that they can consider how risks associated with flooding, erosion and rising groundwater will shift,” he said.

    ”We have estimated future sea levels for 7434 sites around our coastline. The largest increases in sea level will occur along the southeast North Island along the Wairarapa coast.

    Land subsidence rates are high
    ”Here, land subsidence rates are high and sea level could rise by well over 1.5m by 2100 if we follow the least optimistic climate change scenario.

    ”In contrast, land is rising near Pikowai, in the Bay of Plenty, and uplift rates may keep pace with climate change-driven sea level rise, causing a small fall in sea level if we follow the most optimistic climate scenario.”

    Dunedin and Invercargill were not likely to be any closer to inundation by the sea than had already been predicted, because ground movement in the South was ”quite stable”, he said.

    Based on present international emissions reduction policies, global sea levels were expected to have risen about 0.6m by 2100, but for large parts of New Zealand that would double to about 1.2m because of ongoing land subsidence.

    ”We know that global sea-level rise of 25cm-30cm by 2060 is baked in and unavoidable regardless of our future emissions pathway, but what may be a real surprise to people is that for many of our most populated regions, such as Auckland and Wellington, this unavoidable rise is happening faster than we thought.”

    Vertical land movements mean sea level changes might happen 20-30 years sooner than previously expected.

    For many parts of New Zealand’s coast, 30cm of sea-level rise is a threshold for extreme flooding, above which the 100-year coastal storm becomes an annual event.

    Climate change adaptation options
    Joint Otago Regional and Dunedin City Councils’ South Dunedin Future group programme manager Jonathan Rowe welcomed the new information and said it would feed into many aspects of the councils’ work, particularly that relating to the South Dunedin programme which was considering climate change adaptation options.

    ORC operations general manager Gavin Palmer said the information would also feed into flood protection planning to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise in other parts of coastal Otago, such as the Clutha Delta and the Taieri Plain.

    Rowe said for South Dunedin, the new data confirmed previous guidance, that further sea level rise of 24cm-35cm was predicted by 2050-60, and up to 112cm by 2100, depending on global emissions.

    A climate change adaptation plan would be presented to both councils in June, he said.

    Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the findings were “sobering” and the government’s first plan to cut emissions in every part of New Zealand, would be published later this month.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. It was first published on the Otago Daily Times website.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On Friday, Microsoft released the results of an independent study it commissioned exploring the environmental benefits of making its devices easier to repair. Its conclusions affirm what right-to-repair advocates have been saying for years: Fixing devices instead of replacing them reduces both waste and the emissions associated with manufacturing new ones.

    Based on these findings, Microsoft will be taking actions to enable greater repairability of its devices by the end of the year, as stipulated in an agreement the tech company reached with investor advocacy nonprofit As You Sow last fall.

    Microsoft’s study release came just two days after Apple launched “Self Service Repair,” a first-of-its-kind program that allows owners of recent iPhone models to order genuine Apple parts and tools to conduct basic smartphone repairs, like screen and battery replacements, at home. More such programs are coming: In late March and early April, Samsung and Google announced plans to sell genuine parts for smartphone repairs via partnerships with the repair guide site iFixit. Both of those programs appear on track to launch in the next few months.

    From a consumer perspective, these actions are small steps toward a world in which tech titans actively facilitate repair of their products rather than standing in the way of it. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google have not only historically designed products that are hard to fix, but also have a well-documented history of fighting bills that would support consumers’ right to repair them. For these corporations, repair audits and programs represent a major shift in policy that would not have come about without a mix of public and shareholder pressure, as well as the specter of looming laws and regulations aimed at curbing Big Tech’s anti-repair practices.

    Companies are also changing their tune on repair because restricting it is increasingly at odds with their climate and sustainability goals, something shareholders have been keen to point out.

    Microsoft’s new repair study affirms that independent repair has tangible environmental benefits. 

    Conducted by technical consultancy Oakdene Hollins, the study looked at how facilitating repair through design changes and an increase in repair options would affect the waste and carbon emissions associated with Microsoft Surface Pro, Surface Book, and Surface Laptop Studio devices. According to a summary Microsoft published today, repairing Microsoft products instead of replacing them can reduce waste and carbon emissions associated with manufacturing new devices by up to 92 percent. 

    The study found greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions when consumers had access to local repair options, underscoring the importance of supporting independent repair businesses and allowing capable fixers to repair their devices at home.

    Tech companies aren’t waking up to the environmental benefits of repair all on their own. As As You Sow investor advocate Kelly McBee previously told Grist, when she first reached out to Microsoft about its restrictive repair policies last spring, the company told her it saw no connection between repairability and sustainability. When she met with Microsoft earlier this month to review the results of its study — which came about through a shareholder agreement As You Sow and Microsoft reached in October — Microsoft’s attitude had changed.

    “They actually thanked us for bringing this to their attention,” McBee told Grist. “Which was a really different vibe from the first meeting — and they acknowledged that as well.”

    McBee is optimistic that Microsoft will follow through with the second part of its shareholder pledge, to act on the results of its study by the end of 2022. She noted that the company has already taken a few steps toward enabling independent repair, including releasing a video showing how to disassemble its Surface Laptop SE in January, and launching a program in December that allows independent repair professionals to purchase Microsoft service tools from iFixit. 

    “By the end of 2022, we will have expanded options in place for customers to have their devices repaired,” a Microsoft spokesperson told Grist in an emailed statement. “Independent repair is one piece of this portfolio of repair options and, by the end of 2022, we will undertake a limited pilot program to enable repair of certain devices by qualified independent repair shops.”

    As Microsoft was negotiating a shareholder agreement with As You Sow last fall, Apple was facing a similar shareholder resolution introduced by the mutual fund company Green Century — one that asked the iPhone maker to “reverse” its anti-repair practices in order to bolster its climate commitments. While Apple initially tried to block the resolution, it instead wound up announcing its plan to launch the Self Service Repair program just in time to prevent the resolution from moving forward with the Securities and Exchange Commision, the federal investor protection agency. 

    Apple has been tight-lipped about Self Service Repair since announcing it last fall, and before this week, Apple fans were starting to wonder if the company had forgotten about it. Now that it’s live, the repair community will be scrutinizing the program closely. Already, iFixit has raised concerns about how Apple parts are paired with individual devices based on their serial number — something that could allow Apple to restrict the use of those same parts to fix other phones in the future. Apple didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment on this concern.

    Over the shoulder view of man working on interior of smart phone with small screwdriver
    Apple’s Self Service Repair program allows owners of recent iPhone models to order genuine Apple parts and tools to conduct basic smartphone repairs at home. Apple

    The Self Service Repair program is also limited in scope, offering spare parts, repair tools and manuals only for Apple’s iPhone 12 and 13 lineups as well as the third generation iPhone SE — and only for U.S. customers. But Apple says it will be expanding the program to additional countries, as well as adding manuals and tools to repair M1 Mac computers, later this year.

    Despite the limitations of Apple’s program, its existence is symbolically a big deal. “For good and for ill, Apple has a huge influence on the behavior of competitors,” Nathan Proctor, who heads the right-to-repair campaign at the nonprofit U.S. Public Research Interest Group, told Grist. Apple’s effective capitulation to the right-to-repair movement last year by agreeing to launch a self-repair store very likely “turned up the heat on other companies,” Proctor says.

    That includes Google and Samsung, both of which now have self-repair programs in the works. The Samsung program, which the company says is slated to launch this summer, will allow owners of a Samsung Galaxy S20 or S21 smartphone or a Galaxy Tab S7+ tablet to purchase genuine display assemblies (screens with a glued-on battery), backglass, and charging ports via iFixit. The Google program, which will make genuine screens, batteries, and other parts needed for Pixel smartphone repairs available through iFixit, is also on track for the summer, iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens told Grist. The companies, Wiens says, have been enthusiastic partners on these programs, offering feedback on iFixit’s latest Samsung and Google repair guides in addition to developing the replacement parts pipeline.

    Various smartphones; some are open to show the battery and interior, along with a mix of different tools to fix the phones
    Google plans to make genuine screens, batteries, and other parts needed for Pixel smartphone repairs available through iFixit starting this summer. Andy Miller / iFixit

    Green Century shareholder advocate Annalisa Tarizzo, whose firm also filed a proposal with Google asking the company to increase access to repair, told Grist that Google has agreed to meet with shareholders twice over the next year to “talk through more details” of the program, something she sees as a “good-faith effort” to follow through with it.  

    All of these programs — if and when they come to fruition — are baby steps toward a world in which consumers are able to repair and maintain their devices indefinitely rather than being forced to upgrade every few years. Advocates say there is more each of these companies could be doing to bring about such a future. For instance, they could make parts and repair documentation available for more of their products: Tarizzo said she’d love to see Google expand its new iFixit partnership to include Nest thermostats. Tech companies could also come out vocally in favor of the right to repair at Congressional hearings and when submitting public comments to agencies, and distance themselves from anti-repair lobbying efforts. 

    Even industry leaders like Dell, which designs some of the most fixable devices out there in addition to regularly publishing repair manuals for, is still a member of trade groups that lobby against repair-friendly legislation, like TechNet and the Consumer Technology Association. If companies that lead on repairability within their own product lines took a more public stand by calling out their own trade groups or industry peers for retrograde positions on repair, Proctor told Grist, that could be game-changing for the industry.

    “If we actually want to make a huge change in the sustainability of our electronics, we need leadership,” Proctor said. “We need companies pushing the boundaries of what can be done.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Apple just launched its first self-repair program. Other tech companies are about to follow. on Apr 29, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Isn’t it always?

    With the start of World War III by the United States “declaring” war against Russia by its actions in Ukraine, we have entered a time when the end of time has become very possible.  I am speaking of nuclear annihilation.

    I look down at my great-uncle’s gold Elgin pocket watch from the 19th century.  His name was John Patrick Whalen, an Irish immigrant to the U.S. who fled England’s colonialist created famine in Ireland.  It tells me it is 5:15 PM on April 21, 2022, a date, coincidentlly, with a history.  No doubt John looked at his watch on this date in 1898 when the United States, after the USS Maine exploded from within in Havana harbor (a possible false flag attack), declared war on Spain in order to confiscate Spanish territories – Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.  One colonial power replaced another and then proceeded over the long decades to wage war and slaughter these island peoples.  Imperialism never dies.  It is timeless.

    One hundred-and twenty-four years go by in a flash and it’s still the same old story.  In 1898 the yellow press screamed Spanish devils and today it screams Russian devils.  Then and now the press called for war.  If the human race is still here in another 124 years, time and the corporate media will no doubt have told the same story – war and propaganda’s lies to an insouciant and ignorant population too hypnotized by propaganda to oppose them. This despite the apocalyptic sense that permeates our lives because of demonic technology and its use to transform humans into machines who can’t think clearly enough to perceive reality and realize the threat posed by that quintessential technological invention – nuclear weapons.

    This is not uplifting, but it’s true.  The nuclear weapons are primed and ready to fly.  The U.S. insists on its first-strike right to launch them.  It openly declares it is seeking the overthrow of the Russian government.  Russia says it will use nuclear weapons only if its existence is threatened, which has become increasingly so because of U.S. provocations over a long time period and its current expanding arming of Ukraine’s government and its neo-Nazi forces.

    The Russian President Vladimir Putin and its Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov have just warned the U.S. that such involvement has made nuclear war a “serious” and “real” risk, in Lavrov’s words “we must not underestimate it,” which is a mild form of diplomatic speech. Putin said that Russia has made all the preparations to respond if it senses a strategic threat to Russia and that response will be “instant, it will be quick.”  The U.S. response is to shrug these statements off, just as it has done so for many years with Putin’s complaints about NATO forces moving up to its border.  Incredibly, Biden has said, “For God’s sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power.”

    Despite endless media/intelligence anti-Russian propaganda – “a vast tapestry of lies,” to use Harold Pinter’s phrase – many fine writers have provided the historical details to confirm the truth that the U.S. has purposely provoked the Russian war in Ukraine by its actions there and throughout Eastern Europe, which the mainstream media avoid completely. This U.S. aggressive history against Russia is part of a much larger history of imperial hubris extending back to the 19th century.  I will therefore here follow Thoreau’s advice – “If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?” – since how many times do people need to hear lies such as “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” in order to justify wars of aggression around the world.  The historical facts are very clear, but facts and history don’t seem to matter to many people. Pinter again, in his Nobel Address, bluntly told the truth about the U.S.’s history of systematic and remorseless war crimes: “Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”  Which is still the case.

    So time is my focus, for the last days have arrived unless there occurs a radical awakening to the obvious truth that the U.S. government is pushing the world to the brink of disaster in full awareness of the consequences.  Its actions are insane, yet insanity has become the norm.  Insane leaders and a catatonic, hypnotized public lead to disaster.

    I write these words with an old fountain pen, a high school graduation gift, to somehow comfort and remind myself that when we were this close once before in October 1962, Kennedy and Khrushchev miraculously found a solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis; and to find hope now, and that when my time is up and I join John Patrick in the other world, things will have changed for my children and grand-children.  It is admittedly the hope of a desperado.

    The last few years of the Covid-19 propaganda have served to further distort people’s sense of time, a distortion years in the making through the introduction of digital technology with its accompanying numerical time clicks and its severing of our natural sense of time that is tied to the rising and falling of the tides and the turning of the days and seasons, a feeling that is being lost. Such felt sense of time’s texture could be slow or faster, but it had limits.  We now live in a world without limits, which, as the ancient Greeks knew, demands payback.

    For years before Covid 19, the sense of speed time was dominant, supported by the politically-introduced state of a constant emergency after September 11, 2001 with the urgency to hurry and keep up or one would fall behind.  Keep up with what was never explained.  Hurry why?  Fast and faster was the rule with constant busyness that served the very useful social function of leaving no time for thinking, which was the point, but it made many feel as though they were engaged.  And constantly alert for “terrorists” to come knocking.  Thus the long wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc., all of which continue via various subterfuges.

    Then, presto, all this frenzied time sense came to a stop with the 2020 lockdowns, when time got very slow, but not slow in the natural sense but an enforced slowness.  People were locked up.  Not only was it stupefying but stultifying and an existential drag.  This went on for two years with the prisoners allowed short respites only to be rounded back up and locked down again. Jabbed and jolted was the plan.  When will it ever end? was the common cry, as despair and depression spread and scrambled minds led to suicides and mindless screen entertainment.  This was planned education for a trans-human future in which the cell phone will be central to totalitarian control if people do not rebel.

    Those behind the Covid-19 and war propaganda are fanatical technocrats who seek total control of the world’s population through digital technology.  Now they have temporarily let the people out of one type of cell and dramatically sped up time with frantic war propaganda against Russia.  The great English writer John Berger said it perfectly:

    Every ruling minority needs to numb, and, if possible, to kill the time-sense of those whom it exploits. This is the authoritarian secret of all methods  of   imprisonment.

    Everyone is now doing time while scrolling messages on the walls of their cell phones.  A twisted, convoluted, distorted, mechanical time in which it seems that there is no history and the future is an endless road of more of the same.

    Some say we have all the time in the world.  I say no, that we have entered a new time, perhaps the end-time, when the world’s end is a very real possibility.  Hypnotized people can agree to anything, even mass-suicide, unless they snap out of it.  This can only happen with a return to slowness in the old sense, when people once felt time in their hearts, rhythms attuned to the rising and falling of nature’s reality.  Time to think and contemplate the fate of the earth when nuclear war is contemplated.  Yes, “We must not underestimate it.”

    It’s about time.

    Isn’t it always?

    The post It’s About Time first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • If the world has learned one thing from the adoption of wind, solar, and other green technologies over the past two decades, it’s this: Clean energy tends to get cheap as technology improves. 

    Since 2010, the cost of utility-scale solar power has declined by 82 percent; onshore wind has gone down by 39 percent. In many markets around the world, renewable energy is now cheaper than coal. The price of lithium-ion batteries has also plummeted: In 2011, a lithium-ion battery cost $946 per kilowatt-hour. Last year, it cost only $132. 

    Electric cars have long been expected to follow the same trajectory. But even as batteries have gotten cheaper, the cost of purchasing a new electric car in the United States has skyrocketed. According to data from Cox Automotive, an automotive services firm, in 2015 the average price paid for a new electric car was $35,880 — not much higher than the industry average of $33,543. By last December, however, the average price of an EV had ballooned to $63,821, an almost 80 percent increase — while the average cost of a gas car was around $47,000. 

    A line chart showing transaction prices for new vehicles from 2015 to 2022, broken down by industry average versus electric vehicles. EVs are still more expensive, relative to industry, though prices are rising across the board in recent years.
    Grist / Clayton Aldern

    For almost a decade, analysts of electric vehicles have whispered, analyzed, and projected a magic crossover point for EVs — “price parity,” or when electric cars will cost the same amount to produce as traditional, gas-powered cars. After that, if battery prices continue to fall, EVs would eventually cost even less than traditional cars. Analysts have long estimated that price parity would be reached when batteries cost less than $100 per kilowatt-hour. But even as battery prices inch toward that level, the magic crossover point seems further and further away. 

    “Battery prices are falling and that’s great,” said Scott Hardman, a researcher at the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis. “But when we look at the average starting price of a gas car and an electric car — they’re not getting closer. They’re diverging.” 

    For years, demand for electric cars grew steadily; but interest in EVs increased rapidly over the last few months, as gas prices rose and car companies rolled out new models. In the two-week period following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March, online searches for new and used EVs nearly doubled. And by some metrics, EVs are already cheaper than gas-powered cars. According to an analysis by Consumer Reports, many electric cars turn out to be cheaper than gas-guzzling cars over the entire lifetime of the vehicle; after all, electric cars cost significantly less to “fill up” than gas cars and, with fewer moving parts, they also cost less to maintain. 

    An area chart showing electric-vehicle battery pack and cell prices over time. Prices have dropped sharply between 2013 and 2021—from a total of roughly $700/kWh to roughly $130/kWh.
    Grist / Clayton Aldern

    But the sticker price of EVs continues to be higher than their gas counterparts — in some cases by a large margin. For example, the 2022 Hyundai Kona EV, a small electric SUV, starts at $32,000. The company’s gas-powered version, the 2022 Hyundai Kona, has a suggested retail price starting at $21,500. And research indicates that high up-front costs are a sticking point for many buyers. According to a recent survey from Cox Automotive, 51 percent of American consumers considered EVs “too expensive to seriously consider.” Morning Consult, a survey and research firm, similarly found that 47 percent of Americans said they weren’t willing to spend more to buy an EV. And, while some automakers still have the benefit of a federal tax credit for EVs — up to $7,500 off of a new car — the big players, like Tesla and General Motors, can no longer offer consumers the credit. (Manufacturers that have sold more than 200,000 electric cars are no longer eligible.) 

    So why have electric cars bucked the clean technology trend and gotten more expensive? Part of the reason is that cars generally have gotten pricier. As Nathaniel Bullard of the energy research firm BloombergNEF writes, “Inexpensive new cars have pretty much vanished in the U.S.” In 2012, more than half of new cars sold were priced under $30,000; in 2020, more than half of new cars were priced over $40,000. Inflation doesn’t fully explain this change: A $28,000 car in 2012 would only cost around $35,000 today. In the past two years, a semiconductor shortage and general supply chain problems have caused prices to spike even more

    But Hardman argues that doesn’t tell the whole story. According to a database of the make, model, and trim of every vehicle on the market in the U.S., the average cost of an EV model in 2014 was about $49,000, while gas-powered cars cost about $41,000 — a split of $8,000. Today, Hardman points out, an EV model costs on average $70,000, while a gas car costs about $48,000 — a bigger gap of $22,000.

    Cheaper EVs do exist — just not in U.S. markets. In China, the average cost of an electric car is $24,000; in Europe, it’s $46,000. But American automakers appear to be taking a different approach, one inspired by Tesla’s rollout of its sleek, high-end Roadster. “Automakers will first roll out their big, range-topping, super pricey — kind of like their halo model,” DeGraff said, referring to a marketing term for a high-end car designed to bring consumers into the brand. “Then after they’ve collected the money for the bills, they can start dumping money into R&D for lower models.” General Motors, for example, has debuted the monstrous Hummer EV (from $109,000), and Ford has created an all-electric Mustang Mach-E (from $44,000).

    Robby DeGraff, an industry analyst for AutoPacific, says that in some ways, automakers are just responding to the market. “Consumers right now are really, really hungry for crossovers,” he said, referring to the lighter, more fuel-efficient versions of SUVs. Since crossovers are often more expensive than compact cars or sedans, automakers can roll out EV crossovers — like Tesla’s $63,000 Model Y — and get a higher profit margin from them. 

    Corey Cantor, an analyst at BloombergNEF, says that car companies are also putting bigger and better bCar companies are also putting bigger and better batteries into their EVs, which contributes to higher prices, says Corey Cantor, an analyst at BloombergNEF. “Automakers have been focusing on range,” he explained. Nearly a decade ago, the best-selling fully electric car was the Nissan Leaf, a compact vehicle with a 24-kilowatt-hour battery, which provided a measly 84 miles in range. The 2022 Tesla Model 3, on the other hand, can carry a battery between 50 and 82 kilowatt-hours — for a range between 220 and 313 miles. “When you compare EVs today to EVs a decade ago, today’s EVs are killing it,” DeGraff said. 

    Whether EVs are closing in on price parity also depends on what the term means. According to data from Cox Automotive, electric cars are closing in on price parity with luxury vehicles — just not with the market overall. At the moment, the focus on expensive models may not be hurting adoption of EVs. The supply of EVs is so low — and demand so high — that some owners are selling their cars used for more than the original purchase price. Waitlists, such as that for the Ford F-150 Lightning, have reached hundreds of thousands of customers. With gas prices high, the demand for electric vehicles may outweigh the higher upfront price tag.

    But President Joe Biden has called for 50 percent of new car sales to be electric by 2030. In some states, including California, governors have vowed to make all new car sales electric by 2030 or 2035. For that to happen, there will have to be a shift toward lower-cost vehicles. “At some point it has to change,” Hardman said. “If we’re gonna get like 100% of car buyers to choose electric vehicles in California and other states it can’t, can’t continue.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Batteries are getting cheap. So why aren’t electric vehicles? on Apr 27, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Internal market commissioner raised concerns that hate speech will increase on the platform

    The EU has warned Elon Musk that Twitter must “comply with our rules” or face sanctions that range from fines to a total ban, as concerns were raised that hate speech will increase on the platform under his ownership.

    The world’s richest man has agreed a $44bn (£34bn) deal to buy the social media network, which will hand control of a platform with 217 million users to a self-confessed “free speech absolutist”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Russia is known for its army of hackers, but since the start of its invasion of Ukraine, dozens of Russian organizations — including government agencies, oil and gas companies, and financial institutions — have been hacked, with terabytes of stolen data leaked onto the internet.

    Distributed Denial of Secrets, the transparency collective that’s best known for its 2020 release of 270 gigabytes of U.S. law enforcement data (in the midst of racial justice protests following the murder of George Floyd), has become the de facto home of the hacked datasets from Russia. The datasets are submitted to DDoSecrets mostly by anonymous hackers, and those datasets are then made available to the public on the collective’s website and distributed using BitTorrent. (I am an adviser to DDoSecrets).

    “The flood of Russian data has meant a lot of sleepless nights, and it’s truly overwhelming,” Emma Best, co-founder of DDoSecrets, told The Intercept via an encrypted messaging app. “In its first 10 years, WikiLeaks claimed to publish 10 million documents. In the less than two months since the invasion began, we’ve published over 6 million Russian documents — and it absolutely feels like it.”

    After receiving a dataset, DDoSecrets organizes and compresses the data; it then starts distributing the data using BitTorrent for public consumption, publicizes it, and helps journalists at a wide range of newsrooms access and report on it. DDoSecrets has published about 30 hacked datasets from Russia since its invasion of Ukraine began in late February.

    The vast majority of sources who provided the hacked Russian data appear to be anonymous individuals, many self-identifying as part of the Anonymous hacktivist movement. Some sources provide email addresses or other contact information as part of the dumped data, and some, like Network Battalion 65, have their own social media presence.


    Still, with so many datasets submitted by anonymous hackers, it’s impossible to be certain about their motives or if they’re even truly hacktivists. For instance, in 2016 hackers compromised the network of the Democratic National Committee and leaked stolen emails to WikiLeaks in an attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Guccifer 2.0, the hacker persona responsible, claimed to be a lone actor but was later revealed to be an invention of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency.

    For this reason, the recent Russian datasets published by DDoSecrets include a disclaimer: “This dataset was released in the buildup to, in the midst of, or in the aftermath of a cyberwar or hybrid war. Therefore, there is an increased chance of malware, ulterior motives and altered or implanted data, or false flags/fake personas. As a result, we encourage readers, researchers and journalists to take additional care with the data.”

    Hacks Begin in February

    On February 26, two days after Russia’s invasion started, DDoSecrets published 200 gigabytes of emails from the Belarus weapons manufacturer Tetraedr, submitted by the hacktivist persona Anonymous Liberland and the Pwn-Bär Hack Team. Belarus is a close ally to Russia in its war against Ukraine. A message published with the dataset announced “#OpCyberBullyPutin.”


    On February 25, the notorious Russian ransomware gang known as Conti publicly expressed its support for Russia’s war, and two days later, on February 27, an anonymous Ukrainian security researcher who had hacked Conti’s internal infrastructure leaked two years of Conti chat logs, along with training documentation, hacking tools, and source code from the criminal hackers. “I cannot shoot anything, but I can fight with a keyboard and mouse,” the anonymous researcher told CNN on March 30 before he safely slipped out of Ukraine.

    In early March, DDoSecrets published 817 gigabytes of hacked data from Roskomnadzor, the Russian federal agency responsible for monitoring, controlling, and censoring Russian mass media. This data specifically came from the regional branch of the agency in the Republic of Bashkortostan. The Intercept made this dataset searchable and shared access with independent Russian journalists from Meduza who reported that Roskomnadzor had been monitoring the internet for “antimilitarism” since at least 2020. In early March, Roskomnadzor began censoring access to Meduza from inside Russia “due to systematic spread of fakes about the special operation in Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the agency told the Russian news site RIA Novosti.

    The hacks continued. In mid-March, DDoSecrets published 79 gigabytes of emails from the Omega Co., the research and development wing of the world’s largest oil pipeline company, Transneft, which is state-controlled in Russia. In the second half of March, hacktivism against Russia began to heat up. DDoSecrets published an additional five datasets:

    • 5.9 gigabytes of emails from Thozis Corp., a Russian investment firm owned by billionaire oligarch Zakhar Smushkin.
    • 110 gigabytes of emails from MashOil, a Russian firm that designs and manufactures equipment for the drilling, mining, and fracking industries.
    • 22.5 gigabytes of data allegedly from the central bank of Russia. The source for this data is the persona The Black Rabbit World on Twitter.
    • 2.5 gigabytes of emails from RostProekt, a Russian construction firm. The source for this data is the persona @DepaixPorteur on Twitter.
    • 15.3 gigabytes of data from Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corp., Russia’s state-run company that specializes in nuclear energy and makes up 20 percent of the country’s domestic electricity production. It’s also one of the world’s largest exporters of nuclear technology products. The source for this data included an email address hosted at the free encrypted email provider ProtonMail.

    On the last day of March, the transparency collective also published 51.9 gigabytes of emails from the Marathon Group, an investment firm owned by sanctioned Russian oligarch Alexander Vinokurov.

    April Is Cruel to Orthodox Church

    On the first day of April, DDoSecrets published 15 gigabytes of emails from the charity wing of the Russian Orthodox Church. Because the emails might include sensitive and private information from individuals, DDoSecrets isn’t distributing this data to the public. Instead, journalists and researchers can contact DDoSecrets to request a copy of it.

    On April 3, DDoSecrets published 483 gigabytes of emails and documents from Mosekspertiza, a state-owned corporation that provides expert services to the business community in Russia. On April 4, DDoSecrets published 786 gigabytes of documents and emails from the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Co., referred to with the English acronym VGTRK. VGTRK is Russia’s state-owned broadcaster; it operates dozens of television and radio stations across Russia, including regional, national, and international stations in several languages. Former employees of VGTRK told the digital publication Colta.ru that the Kremlin frequently dictated how the news should be covered. Network Battalion 65 is the source for both the VGTRK and Mosekspertiza hacks.


    Russia’s legal sector also got hacked. On April 8, DDoSecrets published 65 gigabytes of emails from the law firm Capital Legal Services. The persona wh1t3sh4d0w submitted the data to the transparency collective.

    In the following days, DDoSecrets published three more datasets:

    By April 11, DDoSecrets had published another three datasets:

    • 446 gigabytes of emails from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. This government agency is responsible for state policy regarding art, film, copyright, cultural heritage, and in some cases censorship.
    • 150 gigabytes of emails from the city administration of Blagoveshchensk. This is in the same region of Russia that the Roskomnadzor dataset was hacked from.
    • 116 gigabytes of emails from the governor’s office of Tver Oblast, a region of Russia northwest of Moscow.

    In mid-April, DDoSecrets published several datasets from the oil and gas industries:

    • 440 gigabytes of emails from Technotec, a group of companies that develops chemical reagents for and provides services to oil and gas companies.
    • 728 gigabytes of emails from Gazprom Linde Engineering, a firm that designs gas and petrochemical processing facilities and oil refineries. This company was a joint venture between the state-owned Russian gas company Gazprom — the largest corporation in Russia — and the German company Linde. In late March, in response to economic sanctions against Russia, Linde announced that it was suspending its Russian business ventures.
    • 222 gigabytes of data from Gazregion, a construction company that specializes in building gas pipelines and facilities. Three different sources — Network Battalion 65, @DepaixPorteur, and another anonymous hacker — hacked this company at roughly the same time and submitted data to DDoSecrets, which published all three overlapping datasets to “provide as complete a picture as possible, and to provide an opportunity for comparison and cross-checking.”

    On April 16, DDoSecrets published two more datasets:

    Just during the last week, DDoSecrets published these datasets:

    • 107 gigabytes of emails from Neocom Geoservice, an engineering company that focuses on oil, gas, and drilling.
    • 1.2 gigabytes of data from the Belarusian firm Synesis, which develops surveillance systems.
    • 9.5 gigabytes of emails from the General Department of Troops and Civil Construction, a construction company owned by the Russian Ministry of Defense. This was hacked by @DepaixPorteur.
    • 160 gigabytes of emails from Tendertech, a firm that processes financial and banking documents on behalf of businesses.
    • 130 gigabytes of emails from Worldwide Invest, a Russian investment firm.
    • 432 gigabytes of emails from the Russian property management firm Sawatzky. Its clients include major brands like Google, Microsoft, Samsung, and Johnson & Johnson
    • 221 gigabytes of emails from Accent Capital, a Russian commercial real estate investment firm.

    Earlier today, DDoSecrets published 342 gigabytes of emails from Enerpred, the largest producer of hydraulic tools in Russia that works in the energy, petrochemical, coal, gas and construction industries.

    Researching the Hacked Data

    Despite the massive scale of these Russian data leaks, very few journalists have reported on them so far. Since the war began, Russia has severely clamped down on its domestic media, introducing penalties of years in prison for journalists who use the wrong words when describing the war in Ukraine — like calling it a “war” instead of a “special military operation.” Russia has also ramped up its censorship efforts, blocking Twitter and Facebook and censoring access to international news sites, leaving the Russian public largely in the dark when it comes to views that aren’t sanctioned by the state.

    One of the barriers for non-Russian news organizations is language: The hacked data is principally in Russian. Additionally, hacked datasets always come with considerable technical challenges. The Intercept, which was founded in part to report on the archive of National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden, has been using our technical resources to build out tools to make these Russian datasets searchable and then sharing access to these tools with other journalists. Russian-speaking journalists from Meduza — which is forced to operate in Latvia to avoid the Kremlin’s reach — have already published a story based on one of the datasets indexed by The Intercept.


    The post Russia Is Losing a War Against Hackers Stealing Huge Amounts of Data appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • It may be hard to remember now — when Elon Musk is making headlines for attempting a hostile takeover of Twitter — but a year ago, the Tesla CEO made waves in the climate world when he announced that he was donating $100 million to the XPRIZE Foundation to run a competition for the best carbon removal solution. The grand prize won’t be awarded until 2025, but on Friday, the contest doled out $15 million of the prize purse to reward the 15 most promising contestants so far.

    Though Musk’s motivation for donating the money isn’t entirely transparent, the point of the contest is to catalyze innovation. The world has waited so long to cut greenhouse gas emissions that scientists now say we’ll need to phase out fossil fuels and actively remove carbon from the atmosphere to stabilize the climate at a relatively safe temperature. But the carbon removal techniques that exist today are extremely limited, small scale, and costly, and their effectiveness is difficult to measure. 

    Musk’s original announcement on Twitter was met with snarky replies like “ever heard of trees?” But while trees can remove carbon from the air, they are subject to fire and disease, and they compete with other essential uses for land, like housing and agriculture. Other possible solutions include machines that pull carbon directly out of the air; methods to enhance soils’, plants’, and the ocean’s ability to store carbon; and schemes to speed the uptake of CO2 by certain types of rock. 

    “Every solution has a weakness,” said Marcius Extavour, chief scientist and vice president of climate and environment at XPRIZE. “The winner of this competition is not just the team that can maximize its strengths, but the team that can minimize its weaknesses,” he said.

    Ultimately, the winning teams will have to demonstrate that they can remove 1,000 metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year, that the carbon will stay out for at least 100 years, and that they have a pathway to scaling up to 1 million metric tons removed per year. (The most conservative estimates say the world will eventually need to remove 1.5 to 3 billion metric tons of carbon per year.)

    But the 15 “milestone award” winners announced on Friday simply had to have a “great idea,” said Extavour, as well as be able to demonstrate some key component of it and provide cost estimates and life-cycle emissions data. More than 1,100 teams have applied to the contest so far, and 287 met the criteria for the milestone award. (XPRIZE is continuing to accept applications to compete for the grand prize.) XPRIZE asked expert reviewers from academia, nonprofits, and industry to narrow down the list to 60. Then the contest’s 12 official judges picked the winners.

    The winners are working on a variety of approaches across four categories: air, land, ocean, and rocks. Six teams are developing technologies to separate carbon dioxide directly from the air. Four plan to produce biochar, a charcoal-like substance made from plants that is extremely stable. Scientists believe that turning certain plants into biochar and burying it in soil can sequester carbon for hundreds to thousands of years. Another team, Global Algae Innovations, has pitched an idea to grow algae, which captures atmospheric carbon via photosynthesis, and then turn it into a nonbiodegradable form of plastic that can be used to make surfboards, shoes, and cars. Three others are working on ocean-based solutions that lower the concentration of CO2 in surface waters, which in turn can help the ocean absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. 

    A few teams might be familiar to anyone who’s been following carbon removal news. Heirloom, a company working on capturing CO2 directly from the air, recently made headlines after raising $53 million in venture capital. For the XPRIZE, Heirloom teamed up with a company called Carbfix, which specializes in turning CO2 into stone. Carbfix is already demonstrating its technology at a working carbon removal facility in Iceland.

    The Heirloom and Carbfix project has a full cradle-to-grave plan to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently underground, but for some of the winners, the plans advertised in publicly available materials are currently vague. Only half of the teams in the “air” category seem to specify how and where the carbon will be stored after it is captured. 

    In other cases, the ambiguity may be a symptom of how nascent the science is. Particularly for ocean- and land-based solutions, which involve complex biogeochemical dynamics, there aren’t yet established methods for measuring, reporting, and verifying how much carbon is being removed, raising questions about how the contest will ultimately weigh these projects. 

    For example, the teams working on ocean-based solutions plan to either alter the chemistry of surface waters or stimulate seaweed growth, both of which could lower the concentration of CO2 in the water. But David Ho, a professor of oceanography at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and one of the XPRIZE’s expert reviewers, said it’s not enough to know how much CO2 a project pulls out of the water. You also have to measure how much CO2 the ocean then absorbs from the atmosphere to replace it.

    “I think a lot of people assume that it’s 100 percent, or they don’t even think about that part,” he said, “but that number is likely a lot lower.”

    Ho said he’s not sure anyone has a good process for measuring that yet, or for assessing how permanent these forms of carbon removal are, or how they affect ocean ecosystems. He’s actually in the process of raising money to work on these issues himself.

    When asked if he thinks it will be possible to answer these questions by the time XPRIZE gives out its grand prize in 2025, Ho said it will be tight. We might be able to measure the flux of CO2 for various ocean carbon removal approaches on a large scale, he said, but it will be a lot harder to do at the scale of one project.

    Extavour was more optimistic about XPRIZE’s ability to verify contestants’ results. “It is possible today to do verification on any individual carbon removal project. It might be painful, but you can do it. At minimum, it’s a challenge that we at XPRIZE have to solve,” he said. But he admitted that it will not be easy to scale up verification to the point required for these teams to turn their carbon removal solutions into legitimate businesses. “Just because you can do it once doesn’t mean it’s a helpful or scalable or cost effective validation method.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Elon Musk-funded carbon removal prize announces 15 ‘milestone’ winners on Apr 22, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • In the months leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, two obscure American startups met to discuss a potential surveillance partnership that would merge the ability to track the movements of billions of people via their phones with a constant stream of data purchased directly from Twitter. According to Brendon Clark of Anomaly Six — or “A6” — the combination of its cellphone location-tracking technology with the social media surveillance provided by Zignal Labs would permit the U.S. government to effortlessly spy on Russian forces as they amassed along the Ukrainian border, or similarly track Chinese nuclear submarines. To prove that the technology worked, Clark pointed A6’s powers inward, spying on the National Security Agency and CIA, using their own cellphones against them.

    Virginia-based Anomaly Six was founded in 2018 by two ex-military intelligence officers and maintains a public presence that is scant to the point of mysterious, its website disclosing nothing about what the firm actually does. But there’s a good chance that A6 knows an immense amount about you. The company is one of many that purchases vast reams of location data, tracking hundreds of millions of people around the world by exploiting a poorly understood fact: Countless common smartphone apps are constantly harvesting your location and relaying it to advertisers, typically without your knowledge or informed consent, relying on disclosures buried in the legalese of the sprawling terms of service that the companies involved count on you never reading. Once your location is beamed to an advertiser, there is currently no law in the United States prohibiting the further sale and resale of that information to firms like Anomaly Six, which are free to sell it to their private sector and governmental clientele. For anyone interested in tracking the daily lives of others, the digital advertising industry is taking care of the grunt work day in and day out — all a third party need do is buy access.

    Company materials obtained by The Intercept and Tech Inquiry provide new details of just how powerful Anomaly Six’s globe-spanning surveillance powers are, capable of providing any paying customer with abilities previously reserved for spy bureaus and militaries.


    According to audiovisual recordings of an A6 presentation reviewed by The Intercept and Tech Inquiry, the firm claims that it can track roughly 3 billion devices in real time, equivalent to a fifth of the world’s population. The staggering surveillance capacity was cited during a pitch to provide A6’s phone-tracking capabilities to Zignal Labs, a social media monitoring firm that leverages its access to Twitter’s rarely granted “firehose” data stream to sift through hundreds of millions of tweets per day without restriction. With their powers combined, A6 proposed, Zignal’s corporate and governmental clients could not only surveil global social media activity, but also determine who exactly sent certain tweets, where they sent them from, who they were with, where they’d been previously, and where they went next. This enormously augmented capability would be an obvious boon to both regimes keeping tabs on their global adversaries and companies keeping tabs on their employees.

    The source of the materials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihood, expressed grave concern about the legality of government contractors such as Anomaly Six and Zignal Labs “revealing social posts, usernames, and locations of Americans” to “Defense Department” users. The source also asserted that Zignal Labs had willfully deceived Twitter by withholding the broader military and corporate surveillance use cases of its firehose access. Twitter’s terms of service technically prohibit a third party from “conducting or providing surveillance or gathering intelligence” using its access to the platform, though the practice is common and enforcement of this ban is rare. Asked about these concerns, spokesperson Tom Korolsyshun told The Intercept “Zignal abides by privacy laws and guidelines set forth by our data partners.”

    A6 claims that its GPS dragnet yields between 30 to 60 location pings per device per day and 2.5 trillion locational data points annually worldwide, adding up to 280 terabytes of location data per year and many petabytes in total, suggesting that the company surveils roughly 230 million devices on an average day. A6’s salesperson added that while many rival firms gather personal location data via a phone’s Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections that provide general whereabouts, Anomaly 6 harvests only GPS pinpoints, potentially accurate to within several feet. In addition to location, A6 claimed that it has built a library of over 2 billion email addresses and other personal details that people share when signing up for smartphone apps that can be used to identify who the GPS ping belongs to. All of this is powered, A6’s Clark noted during the pitch, by general ignorance of the ubiquity and invasiveness of smartphone software development kits, known as SDKs: “Everything is agreed to and sent by the user even though they probably don’t read the 60 pages in the [end user license agreement].”

    The Intercept was not able to corroborate Anomaly Six’s claims about its data or capabilities, which were made in the context of a sales pitch. Privacy researcher Zach Edwards told The Intercept that he believed the claims were plausible but cautioned that firms can be prone to exaggerating the quality of their data. Mobile security researcher Will Strafach agreed, noting that A6’s data sourcing boasts “sound alarming but aren’t terribly far off from ambitious claims by others.” According to Wolfie Christl, a researcher specializing in the surveillance and privacy implications of the app data industry, even if Anomaly Six’s capabilities are exaggerated or based partly on inaccurate data, a company possessing even a fraction of these spy powers would be deeply concerning from a personal privacy standpoint.

    Reached for comment, Zignal’s spokesperson provided the following statement: “While Anomaly 6 has in the past demonstrated its capabilities to Zignal Labs, Zignal Labs does not have a relationship with Anomaly 6. We have never integrated Anomaly 6’s capabilities into our platform, nor have we ever delivered Anomaly 6 to any of our customers.”

    When asked about the company’s presentation and its surveillance capabilities, Anomaly Six co-founder Brendan Huff responded in an email that “Anomaly Six is a veteran-owned small business that cares about American interests, natural security, and understands the law.”

    Companies like A6 are fueled by the ubiquity of SDKs, which are turnkey packages of code that software-makers can slip in their apps to easily add functionality and quickly monetize their offerings with ads. According to Clark, A6 can siphon exact GPS measurements gathered through covert partnerships with “thousands” of smartphone apps, an approach he described in his presentation as a “farm-to-table approach to data acquisition.” This data isn’t just useful for people hoping to sell you things: The largely unregulated global trade in personal data is increasingly finding customers not only at marketing agencies, but also federal agencies tracking immigrants and drone targets as well as sanctions and tax evasion. According to public records first reported by Motherboard, U.S. Special Operations Command paid Anomaly Six $590,000 in September 2020 for a year of access to the firm’s “commercial telemetry feed.”

    Anomaly Six software lets its customers browse all of this data in a convenient and intuitive Google Maps-style satellite view of Earth. Users need only find a location of interest and draw a box around it, and A6 fills that boundary with dots denoting smartphones that passed through that area. Clicking a dot will provide you with lines representing the device’s — and its owner’s — movements around a neighborhood, city, or indeed the entire world.

    As the Russian military continued its buildup along the country’s border with Ukraine, the A6 sales rep detailed how GPS surveillance could help turn Zignal into a sort of private spy agency capable of assisting state clientele in monitoring troop movements. Imagine, Clark explained, if the crisis zone tweets Zignal rapidly surfaces through the firehose were only a starting point. Using satellite imagery tweeted by accounts conducting increasingly popular “open-source intelligence,” or OSINT, investigations, Clark showed how A6’s GPS tracking would let Zignal clients determine not simply that the military buildup was taking place, but track the phones of Russian soldiers as they mobilized to determine exactly where they’d trained, where they were stationed, and which units they belonged to. In one case, Clark showed A6 software tracing Russian troop phones backward through time, away from the border and back to a military installation outside Yurga, and suggested that they could be traced further, all the way back to their individual homes. Previous reporting by the Wall Street Journal indicates that this phone-tracking method is already used to monitor Russian military maneuvers and that American troops are just as vulnerable.

    In another A6 map demonstration, Clark zoomed in closely on the town of Molkino, in southern Russia, where the Wagner Group, an infamous Russian mercenary outfit, is reportedly headquartered. The map showed dozens of dots indicating devices at the Wagner base, along with scattered lines showing their recent movements. “So you can just start watching these devices,” Clark explained. “Any time they start leaving the area, I’m looking at potential Russian predeployment activity for their nonstandard actors, their nonuniform people. So if you see them go into Libya or Democratic Republic of the Congo or things like that, that can help you better understand potential soft power actions the Russians are doing.”

    To fully impress upon its audience the immense power of this software, Anomaly Six did what few in the world can claim to do: spied on American spies.

    The pitch noted that this kind of mass phone surveillance could be used by Zignal to aid unspecified clients with “counter-messaging,” debunking Russian claims that such military buildups were mere training exercises and not the runup to an invasion. “When you’re looking at counter-messaging, where you guys have a huge part of the value you provide your client in the counter-messaging piece is — [Russia is] saying, ‘Oh, it’s just local, regional, um, exercises.’ Like, no. We can see from the data that they’re coming from all over Russia.”

    To fully impress upon its audience the immense power of this software, Anomaly Six did what few in the world can claim to do: spied on American spies. “I like making fun of our own people,” Clark began. Pulling up a Google Maps-like satellite view, the sales rep showed the NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, and the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia. With virtual boundary boxes drawn around both, a technique known as geofencing, A6’s software revealed an incredible intelligence bounty: 183 dots representing phones that had visited both agencies potentially belonging to American intelligence personnel, with hundreds of lines streaking outward revealing their movements, ready to track throughout the world. “So, if I’m a foreign intel officer, that’s 183 start points for me now,” Clark noted.

    The NSA and CIA both declined to comment.

    jordan-base-google-maps

    Anomaly Six tracked a device that had visited the NSA and CIA headquarters to an air base outside of Zarqa, Jordan.

    Screenshot: The Intercept / Google Maps


    Clicking on one of dots from the NSA allowed Clark to follow that individual’s exact movements, virtually every moment of their life, from that previous year until the present. “I mean, just think of fun things like sourcing,” Clark said. “If I’m a foreign intel officer, I don’t have access to things like the agency or the fort, I can find where those people live, I can find where they travel, I can see when they leave the country.” The demonstration then tracked the individual around the United States and abroad to a training center and airfield roughly an hour’s drive northwest of Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Zarqa, Jordan, where the U.S. reportedly maintains a fleet of drones.

    “It doesn’t take a lot of creativity to see how foreign spies can use this information for espionage, blackmail, all kinds of, as they used to say, dastardly deeds.”

    “There is sure as hell a serious national security threat if a data broker can track a couple hundred intelligence officials to their homes and around the world,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a vocal critic of the personal data industry, told The Intercept in an interview. “It doesn’t take a lot of creativity to see how foreign spies can use this information for espionage, blackmail, all kinds of, as they used to say, dastardly deeds.”

    Back stateside, the person was tracked to their own home. A6’s software includes a function called “Regularity,” a button clients can press that automatically analyzes frequently visited locations to deduce where a target lives and works, even though the GPS pinpoints sourced by A6 omit the phone owner’s name. Privacy researchers have long shown that even “anonymized” location data is trivially easy to attach to an individual based on where they frequent most, a fact borne out by A6’s own demonstration. After hitting the “Regularity” button, Clark zoomed in on a Google Street View image of their home.

    “Industry has repeatedly claimed that collecting and selling this cellphone location data won’t violate privacy because it is tied to device ID numbers instead of people’s names. This feature proves just how facile those claims are,” said Nate Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Of course, following a person’s movements 24 hours a day, day after day, will tell you where they live, where they work, who they spend time with, and who they are. The privacy violation is immense.”

    The demo continued with a surveillance exercise tagging U.S. naval movements, using a tweeted satellite photo of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Mediterranean Sea snapped by the commercial firm Maxar Technologies. Clark broke down how a single satellite snapshot could be turned into surveillance that he claimed was even more powerful than that executed from space. Using the latitude and longitude coordinates appended to the Maxar photo along with its time stamp, A6 was able to pick up a single phone signal from the ship’s position at that moment, south of Crete. “But it only takes one,” Clark noted. “So when I look back where that one device goes: Oh, it goes back to Norfolk. And actually, on the carrier in the satellite picture — what else is on the carrier? When you look, here are all the other devices.” His screen revealed a view of the carrier docked in Virginia, teeming with thousands of colorful dots representing phone location pings gathered by A6. “Well, now I can see every time that that ship is deploying. I don’t need satellites right now. I can use this.”

    Though Clark conceded that the company has far less data available on Chinese phone owners, the demo concluded with a GPS ping picked up aboard an alleged Chinese nuclear submarine. Using only unclassified satellite imagery and commercial advertising data, Anomaly Six was able to track the precise movements of the world’s most sophisticated military and intelligence forces. With tools like those sold by A6 and Zignal, even an OSINT hobbyist would have global surveillance powers previously held only by nations. “People put way too much on social media,” Clark added with a laugh.

    As location data has proliferated largely unchecked by government oversight in the United States, one hand washes another, creating a private sector capable of state-level surveillance powers that can also fuel the state’s own growing appetite for surveillance without the usual judicial scrutiny. Critics say the loose trade in advertising data constitutes a loophole in the Fourth Amendment, which requires the government to make its case to a judge before obtaining location coordinates from a cellular provider. But the total commodification of phone data has made it possible for the government to skip the court order and simply buy data that’s often even more accurate than what could be provided by the likes of Verizon. Civil libertarians say this leaves a dangerous gap between the protections intended by the Constitution and the law’s grasp on the modern data trade.

    “The Supreme Court has made clear that cellphone location information is protected under the Fourth Amendment because of the detailed picture of a person’s life it can reveal,” explained Wessler. “Government agencies’ purchases of access to Americans’ sensitive location data raise serious questions about whether they are engaged in an illegal end run around the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. It is time for Congress to end the legal uncertainty enabling this surveillance once and for all by moving toward passage of the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.”

    Though such legislation could restrict the government’s ability to piggyback off commercial surveillance, app-makers and data brokers would remain free to surveil phone owners. Still, Wyden, a co-sponsor of that bill, told The Intercept that he believes “this legislation sends a very strong message” to the “Wild West” of ad-based surveillance but that clamping down on the location data supply chain would be “certainly a question for the future.” Wyden suggested that protecting a device’s location trail from snooping apps and advertisers might be best handled by the Federal Trade Commission. Separate legislation previously introduced by Wyden would empower the FTC to crack down on promiscuous data sharing and broaden consumers’ ability to opt out of ad tracking.

    A6 is far from the only firm engaged in privatized device-tracking surveillance. Three of Anomaly Six’s key employees previously worked at competing firm Babel Street, which named all three of them in a 2018 lawsuit first reported by the Wall Street Journal. According to the legal filing, Brendan Huff and Jeffrey Heinz co-founded Anomaly Six (and lesser-known Datalus 5) months after ending their employment at Babel Street in April 2018, with the intent of replicating Babel’s cellphone location surveillance product, “Locate X,” in a partnership with major Babel competitor Semantic AI. In July 2018, Clark followed Huff and Heinz by resigning from his position as Babel’s “primary interface to … intelligence community clients” and becoming an employee of both Anomaly Six and Semantic.

    Like its rival Dataminr, Zignal touts its mundane partnerships with the likes of Levi’s and the Sacramento Kings, marketing itself publicly in vague terms that carry little indication that it uses Twitter for intelligence-gathering purposes, ostensibly in clear violation of Twitter’s anti-surveillance policy. Zignal’s ties to government run deep: Zignal’s advisory board includes a former head of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Charles Cleveland, as well as the CEO of the Rendon Group, John Rendon, whose bio notes that he “pioneered the use of strategic communications and real-time information management as an element of national power, serving as a consultant to the White House, U.S. National Security community, including the U.S. Department of Defense.” Further, public records state that Zignal was paid roughly $4 million to subcontract under defense staffing firm ECS Federal on Project Maven for “Publicly Available Information … Data Aggregation” and a related “Publicly Available Information enclave” in the U.S. Army’s Secure Unclassified Network.

    The remarkable world-spanning capabilities of Anomaly Six are representative of the quantum leap occurring in the field of OSINT. While the term is often used to describe the internet-enabled detective work that draws on public records to, say, pinpoint the location of a war crime from a grainy video clip, “automated OSINT” systems now use software to combine enormous datasets that far outpace what a human could do on their own. Automated OSINT has also become something of a misnomer, using information that is by no means “open source” or in the public domain, like commercial GPS data that must be bought from a private broker.

    While OSINT techniques are powerful, they are generally shielded from accusations of privacy violation because the “open source” nature of the underlying information means that it was already to some extent public. This is a defense that Anomaly Six, with its trove of billions of purchased data points, can’t muster. In February, the Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services issued a report on automated OSINT techniques and the threat to personal privacy they may represent: “The volume, nature and range of personal data in these automated OSINT tools may lead to a more serious violation of fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy, than consulting data from publicly accessible online information sources, such as publicly accessible social media data or data retrieved using a generic search engine.” This fusion of publicly available data, privately procured personal records, and computerized analysis isn’t the future of governmental surveillance, but the present. Last year, the New York Times reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency “buys commercially available databases containing location data from smartphone apps and searches it for Americans’ past movements without a warrant,” a surveillance method now regularly practiced throughout the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, and beyond.

    The post American Phone-Tracking Firm Demo’d Surveillance Powers by Spying on CIA and NSA appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • I remember when we first came to this small Mexican island in the Caribbean.  The pace of life was very slow and time seemed to spiral, not chug straight ahead.  It seemed as if local people far outnumbered visitors, most of whom came for the off-beat rhythm of life.  The days floated by as did the people along the narrow streets, in and out of the little cafes and aqua water as if everyone were a sea bird soaring on the up notes and dancing down with the swaying palms.  Celestial music filled the air.

    Now that we have returned to the place where destiny conceived me and I sit on the sandy shore looking out to sea, cut off for a few days from the news of another war and the endless staged propaganda pouring from the Western media about Ukraine – being out of touch, so to speak – I contemplate the sea’s musical cadence as it breaks on the shore under the rising sun.  The beach is deserted except for some singing birds and me.  I am for the birds, heart and soul.  They are beautiful spirits.

    Then he appears from the rear out of the coconut palm trees and dense flowering gardens.  A man armed with a drone and his Barbie Doll.  He launches his mechanical bird over the water while his lady friend prances and poses for its camera.  He shoots her again and again, as if once were not enough to still her mechanical gestures.

    I need no entrails to read this early sign.  Yet the Sphinx asks me its riddle anyway:  What at first can’t grasp its own image, then learns to see it, and finally can see nothing else?

    I get up and walk away down the beach.  When I look back, the drone man and his doll have disappeared.  The rosy-fingered dawn, like a radiant monstrance on the altar of the world, returns me to reality and I plunge into Aphrodite’s warm waters.  I float in her arms.  I swim and forget.  With each stroke of my pen the waters of forgetfulness grow stronger, and I turn on my back and spout winged words of joy and adoration.

    Many people have heard of Friedrich Nietzsche, and even many more, whose numbers are growing, have not.  Quite a few, who have, probably think he is a dead rapper and others, just some crazy artist like Van Gogh.  His general reputation is that of a dark and depressing thinker who went mad.  This negative reputation even holds for many somewhat familiar with his writing, the so-called educated classes who readily believe the media’s lies and erroneously associate him with supporting Nazis while they embrace the Nazis in Ukraine.

    I have little doubt that this rejection of Nietzsche, based on their groundless “knowledge,” is because he told his truths that few want to hear, because he long ago grasped what people would become.  And it’s not a pretty picture, which all the self-images they take and worship reveal.

    Nietzsche was obsessed with the theater and the theatrical nature of life.  Not in its aesthetic sense or theater on a literal stage, but life itself.  At the core of this was the actor, what was an actor, who was an actor, and what did it mean to act or to be “a genuine actor,” if possible.  This was because he saw acting as imitation at the core of epistemology, the fundamental issue of knowledge and reality.

    In his own way, he was true to ancient Greek philosophy whose core theme was the relationship between Being and Seeming.  “To stamp on Becoming the nature of Being” was his goal, which flipped the terms in a way that offers little solace to those who act as if their knowingness is not groundless and imitative, and their acting not a feigned relationship with reality.  Unable to play the music of forgetting, he knew they would turn on their false selves with every weapon at their disposal.

    Ah reality, here, with the sun risen, she comes down the beach with exposed buttocks quavering and cell phone and tripod in hand.  She sets her camera up and smiles at the machine in pose after pose.  She is so beautiful she tells herself and sees nothing else but her grotesque smiling image.  And she comes every morning to this stage of sand to play her part for an audience of one.

    Later, with the sun at its zenith, hordes of actors arrive with their image-making machines.  They primp and pose on the sand and in the sea, holding their little mechanical gods high above the water as they walk out up to their necks in the water, grinning and clicking their visages.  The sea bobs with hundreds of unreflective skulls, a watery cemetery for modern times.

    They are students in what Eduardo Galeano calls “the looking-glass school” where ignorance is the rule:

    There are no admission exams, no registration fees, and courses are offered free to everyone everywhere on earth as well as in heaven. It’s not for nothing that this school is the child of the first system in history to rule the world.

    In the looking-glass school, lead learns to float and cork to sink. Snakes learn to fly and clouds drag themselves along the ground.

    This is the world of nihilists that Nietzsche knew would come to dominate, the self-regarding ones for whom the world does not exist beyond the masks they wear to face the faces that they face.

    “Are you genuine?” he asked.  “Or merely an actor?  A representative?  Or that which is represented?  In the end, perhaps you are merely a copy of an actor?”

    Yes, I think, copies of copies of copies without end.  Nothing original, for that would suggest the groundless freedom of becoming when you forget yourself and move only to the music.

    It is sardonically comical to observe these actors playing the part of Dionysian people – those who once in their forgetfulness could live out life’s tragedy but who are now nearly extinct – parasitically imitating that which they cannot be or comprehend.  They cannot forget or open their eyes to reality because they must remember how to act, to imitate all the images, and perform their lives in front of their mirrors.  Do they think their machines can stop time for them, freeze their becoming, or “make memories” that prevent them from dying?

    I remember coming here when it wasn’t so, or at least when the performances were not so blatant.  The cell phone has unlocked the largely unconscious secret of the masses: That feigning is all we can do, but since we are doing it blatantly, it is real.  We are real fakes.

    The world has been turned inside out and upside down.  Some know it, most don’t, and then there are those who play the music of forgetting where each note, each word is forever new, a gift out of the blue.

    As for me, my name is Diego Sandoval, but my name it means nothing.  I come from this island, at least my parents told me I was conceived here when they were traveling to Cuba from Mexico City.  My father fought with Fidel, but Fidel knocked him out.  They had met in Los Angeles when Fidel was in Hollywood to make his movie debut and my father, who was a psychiatrist, was hired by the production company to analyze the acting because the film took place in a mental hospital where even the staff was crazy.  It was an unusual movie for its time.  It wasn’t a comedy, but my father laughed at one scene where Fidel, who was playing a young staff psychiatrist, flubbed his lines.  I never knew what my father found so funny, but Fidel was incensed and punched my father.  When my father woke up, he thought he was a patient in the hospital and Fidel was his doctor.  So many role reversals.  Fidel also woke up soon thereafter, abandoned Hollywood for a better role.  He became a genuine actor in a different world.

    Anyway, that’s the story my father told me, but being a psychiatrist, he often made stuff up.  He often wove tall tales to entertain me.  He loved magic and considered himself quite an amateur magician. I guess my interest in acting started then.

    Nietzsche?  Maybe that began when I was fourteen-years-old in a bi-lingual school in Mexico City and first saw his photo in a book with his Emiliano Zapata mustache. I had found a discarded Spanish copy of his book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and read it, although I must say I didn’t understand much, yet something in it struck a deep chord in me.  I only had some wispy hairs then but by seventeen you should have seen me; I was ferocious looking.  Still am, some say.  When I became a poet and singer, I took the stage name Mr. Z  to honor my heroes.  Perhaps you’ve heard of me.  Few who come to hear me perform know my name’s origins and I never explain.

    As my popularity grew and fame pursued me, I grew many disguises.  I answered questions with questions and gave answers so enigmatic that no one understood me.  I didn’t understand myself much of the time since more and more I said whatever popped out of my mouth, but this delighted me.  I laughed a lot and stopped taking myself seriously.  I kept forgetting more and more and my poetry and music seemed to come from some unbidden place.  I guess you could call it intuition.  But I’d often forget the lyrics and have to improvise.  That became so enjoyable that even when I remembered the lyrics I would change them just for fun.  The audience hated this, but I didn’t care.  Forgetting became my musical forte and over time I realized that it must permeate my life and so I became a genius at active, conscious forgetting.

    I even forget why I am writing this.  Perhaps it is to remind myself to forget what I have seen on my return to the island.  To write about it as a form of exorcism.  It is all so utterly changed.  To see all these poor players on the stage of self, so serious and self-absorbed makes me want to never return, to fly away. I ask myself how can I ever forget the images of all those shaking, flabby buttocks  staring me in the face.  Maybe if their cameras captured their asses, they would reconsider showing them.  As for me, to paraphrase a wise man, if you gaze too long into an ass, the ass gazes also into you.

    I should work on my music, so I can simply soar like a sea bird on the up notes and dance down with the swaying palms, and in the playing I will forget everything and be lost in the celestial music.

    I do not know of any more profound orientation of an artist than this, whether he looks at his work in progress (at himself) from the point of view of the witness, or whether he has forgotten the world, which is the essential feature of all monological art: it is based on forgetting, it is the music of forgetting.

    — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1882.

    The post The Music of Forgetting first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Diego Sandoval.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • An unprecedented spree of policy changes and carveouts aimed at protecting Ukrainian civilians from Facebook’s censorship systems has earned praise from human rights groups and free expression advocates. But a new open letter addressed to Facebook and its social media rivals questions why these companies seem to care far more about some attempts to resist foreign invasion than others.

    In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, rapidly changed its typically strict speech rules in order to exempt a variety of posts that would have otherwise been deleted for violating the company’s prohibition against hate speech and violent incitement.

    Internal Meta materials reviewed by The Intercept show that in early March the company temporarily enacted an exception to its hate speech policy permitting Facebook and Instagram users in Ukraine to call for the “explicit removal [of] Russians from Ukraine and Belarus,” posts that would have otherwise been deleted for violating the company’s ban on calling for the “exclusion or segregation” of people based on their national origin. The rule change, previously reported by the New York Times, was part of a broader package of carveouts that included a rare dispensation to call for the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin, use dehumanizing language against Russian soldiers, and praise the notorious Azov Battalion of the Ukrainian National Guard, previously banned from the platform due to its neo-Nazi ideology.

    While Meta has argued that these unusual steps are necessary to ensure that Ukrainian civilians can speak in their own defense online, critics say the changes highlight the extent to which non-Western civilian populations are neglected by the platform and illustrate the pitfalls of a California tech company equitably dictating what’s permissible in a foreign war zone.

    In a statement signed by 31 civil society and human rights groups, this criticism is directed squarely at American internet titans like Facebook. “While we recognize the efforts of tech companies to uphold democracy and human rights in Ukraine, we call for long term investment in human rights, accountability, and a transparent, equal and consistent application of policies to uphold the rights of users worldwide,” reads the letter, which was shared with The Intercept ahead of publication. “Once platforms began to take action in Ukraine, they took extraordinary steps that they have been unwilling to take elsewhere. From the Syrian conflict to the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar, other crisis situations have not received the same amount of support even when lives are at stake.”

    The open letter calls on Facebook and other American social media platforms to increase the scope and transparency of their human rights due diligence and to apply it equitably. “Currently, platforms are devoting greater time, attention, and resources to their users in the United States and Western Europe,” the letter says. “This happens both because of the potential for greater regulation by the United States and the European Union and because media based in the United States plays a significant role in influencing public discourse about companies, prompting greater attention to issues of public interest for the United States.”

    Dia Kayyali, a researcher who studies the offline effects of content moderation at the nonprofit Mnemonic and organized the open letter, said, “While initially it seemed like platforms were responding rapidly and forcefully, it became clear that the reality was more complicated.” Kayyali noted that “like activists from so many other conflict zones, Ukrainian civil society tried to get platforms to take their concerns seriously after Russia’s initial invasion in 2014. It wasn’t until media pressure and interest from the U.S. and Western European countries that platforms really started taking action.” As a result, civilians suffering in conflict zones that draw comparably little attention from Western media are still waiting for hands-on treatment from the American companies that dominate so much of the internet.

    Signage in front of Meta Platforms headquarters in Menlo Park, California, U.S., on Monday Jan. 31, 2022. Meta Platforms Inc. is scheduled to release earnings figures on Feb. 2. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Signage in front of Meta Platforms headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on Jan. 31, 2022.

    Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    The fact that Meta finds itself in the difficult position of policing the speech of a country defending itself against a foreign invader is a sign of its own incredible success and the extent to which it has consolidated control over global communications, with more than 2 billion users worldwide all subject to the company’s definitions of permitted speech. But the frequency of closed-door reversals and carveouts suggests that these rules are not rules at all, but buoys floated by the currents of popular opinion and American foreign policy. Critics say it’s no coincidence that Facebook’s decisions about global good guys and bad guys almost always match the official determinations of the United States, a national political bias that keeps the rules intact when an American ally (or the U.S. itself) is the invader, not the invaded.

    After Meta’s hate speech and incitement exemptions expired last month, a new internal policy memo distributed to Meta content moderators outlined the company’s current approach. Headlined “Removing ambiguity — Not permitting hate towards Russian citizens & allowing Ukrainians to call for self-defense from invasion,” the memo, reviewed by The Intercept, explained that the company is “allowing Ukrainians to call for national self defense in the context of the invasion. It applies only within Ukraine and only in the context of speech regarding the Russian military invasion of Ukraine.” Like the hate speech exemptions, the policy is a clear loosening of company rules to spare Ukrainians from running afoul of the company’s own twitchy censorship apparatus: “Our standard rules would limit our users ability to make their voices heard at a critical time in Ukrainian history,” as the company put it to moderators. It’s unclear how exactly Meta is defining a “call for self-defense from invasion,” and the only examples of the sort of speech the company is seeking to protect are very broad: “To call for national defense, discuss Ukraine’s military actions, and react to Ukrainian President Zelensky’s calls for civilians to take up arms in defense of their homes.”

    “They pretty consistently create policies that line up with Western goals.”

    “The entire guidance and language reeks of double standards,” said Marwa Fatafta, head of Middle East and North Africa digital rights policy at Access Now, a signatory to the new statement. Fatafta noted that the new language was encouraging because it suggested that Meta is “listening carefully, attuning, and adjusting their policies as the situation evolves,” but that enshrining expressions of “national self-defense” in Ukraine should mean enshrining resistance to military aggression outside Europe too. “Meta agrees that they should respect national calls for self-defense for Ukrainians, but they have never granted that to Syrians or Palestinians,” Fatafta noted. “Imagine Facebook making an exception for Hamas calling for resistance or self-defense against the Israeli occupation. It is unthinkable.”

    Protecting the ability of Ukrainians suffering at the hands of an invading army to freely express their pain and hope against defeat is uncontroversial. But this license to openly root against the opposing team is not doled out to all civilians equally: “Are Yemenis allowed to call for Saudis to leave their country? Are Palestinians allowed to call for Israelis to leave their country?” asked Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Meta did not respond when asked by The Intercept if it provides similar latitude to other populations to call for self-defense in the face of a foreign invasion or occupation. “We know they have done the exact opposite in Palestine,” York said, citing deletions of content protesting the Israeli occupation. “They pretty consistently create policies that line up with Western goals.”

    “There are other wars. Why can’t someone say similar things about U.S. soldiers?”

    Meta’s lopsided notions of whose “national self-defense” is worth protecting has spurred strife inside the company too. A Meta source familiar with the company’s content policy discussions told The Intercept that the changes “sparked heated and emotional debate on Meta’s internal Workplace,” a communication tool used at the company. “Voices of Russian employees were joined by the rest of Meta’s internal community, citing divergence from core principles and double standards in relation to other military conflicts.”

    Another Meta source, who also spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity to protect their livelihood, noted that internally “there have been a lot of questions about why it is OK to do this to Russians but no one else” since “there are other wars. Why can’t someone say similar things about U.S. soldiers?”

    Internal attempts to get any answers out of Meta’s policymaking black box have been as futile as those outside the company. “There is no actual transparency here as to why specifically this is OK for Ukraine but [nowhere] else,” this source said, explaining that Meta’s explanations to corporate staff haven’t gone beyond CEO Mark Zuckerberg tapping Facebook policy chief Monika Bickert “to repeat the talking points” that are provided to the media. The source said that the company response to the war in Ukraine struck them as a reaction to outside pressure — “‘Meta Censors Ukrainian Freedom Fighters’ is a bad look,” they remarked — rather than a reflection of any consistent principles. “We twist ourselves into knots creating incoherent carveouts about ‘public interest’ and ‘right to know,’ but it’s just to save our own asses. There isn’t rhyme or reason otherwise. And that is really, really bad for a company that controls a significant portion of the internet.”

    “We twist ourselves into knots creating incoherent carveouts about ‘public interest’ and ‘right to know,’ but it’s just to save our own asses.”

    Facebook’s swift tailoring of its speech rules to help the Ukrainian resistance has drawn particularly pointed comparisons to Palestine, where Meta users appear to enjoy no such protections for civilians who have long resisted a foreign military force.

    In Palestine, where the ongoing Israeli occupation has seen decades of violence against civilians and international human rights condemnations, Facebook and Instagram users who voice opposition to that unwanted foreign military presence often have their posts deleted without explanation or recourse. “Never, never, ever was there any carveout or exception for Palestinian speech on Facebook,” said Fatafta of Access Now. “I can say that with full confidence.”

    The open letter notes how “in May 2021, in anticipation of forcible evictions in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem, Palestinians engaged in protests that Israeli security forces violently suppressed. Social media platforms removed massive amounts of content posted by Palestinians and their supporters, who were trying to document and share these human rights violations, as well as political discussions about Palestine around the world.” The Palestinian digital rights group 7amleh “documented more than 500 violations against Palestinian content on these platforms between May 6 and May 19, 2021. … Speech was removed in this context that may have been left up had it received the kind of contextual analysis platforms are claiming to do in Ukraine now.”

    Far from loosening its rules to help Palestinians speak out against their occupation, Facebook has in fact implemented rule changes to aid the occupier: Last year The Intercept reported that the company had created stricter hate speech rules around using the term “Zionist,” a move experts said would make it even more difficult for Palestinians to protest their treatment by Israel.

    Just as longtime observers of Meta’s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy say the blacklist of terrorists and criminals is an avatar of American foreign policy values, content moderation experts told The Intercept that exceptions to the rule are fundamentally political choices. Civil society groups, including those that have discussed these issues with Meta, say there is no indication that the company similarly fine-tunes its policies to ensure the speech of other civilian populations under occupation and bombardment. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s York argued that in other Facebook-entangled conflicts, unlike Ukraine, “the U.S. has an interest in supporting the occupier. Facebook staff, especially their policy staff, are American and not immune to bias.”

    The post Facebook’s Ukraine-Russia Moderation Rules Prompt Cries of Double Standard appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • When you stop to think about it, it is mind-boggling that of the millions of biographies on Wikipedia, only 19% of them are about women. This statistic is even less for those working in the scientific sectors. What may not be as surprising is that the Wikimedia community of editors who create and maintain its content are predominantly male. What this means is one of the most visited websites in the world has ‘gender content bias’.

    As the founder of Franklin Women – a social enterprise that is committed to supporting women working across the health and medical research ecosystem – I understand the importance of ensuring that women and their important contributions to science and society are visible. Firstly, it is about equity, aligned with a national priority given to addressing the under-representation and participation of women in sciences in Australia. But it is also about ensuring that scientific discoveries and their impact on society are accurately captured and written into history.

    When people search for information online, Wikipedia is usually among the first results that appear and as such, it plays a big role in informing people about the role women play in science.

    This is as important now as ever after more than two years of a global pandemic that has seen women at the helm of the response here and globally. While Franklin Women has allowed me to learn a lot about gender bias online (and elsewhere!), I’ve also become aware of ways we can all play our part to help to reduce it.

    Wikipedia Edit-A-Thons are an exciting global movement working to close the content gap for under-represented groups like women, persons of colour, and the LGBTIQ+ community. They are grassroots events, which have been held across the UK, USA and Canada, where people come together to collectively edit and update Wikipedia entries to give recognition to those who deserve it, yet aren’t yet represented.

    Franklin Women contributed to this global movement by hosting its second Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon on World Health Day, 7th of April 2022. We had 40 women working in health, medical research and life sciences join us who not only gained new Wiki editing skills but also went on to add over 20 000 words of notability for women in our field. This grassroots event allowed us to combat gender bias head-on but also gave us an opportunity to amplify the message that it is time to drive change.

    Professor Carolyn Sue AM, Executive Director Kolling Institute. Picture: The Kolling Institute

    Professor Carolyn Sue AM, Executive Director Kolling Institute. Picture: The Kolling Institute

    During the event, we were able to create profiles for some amazing women working in the medical and health research sector so that you can now find their scientific achievements and accolades online.

    Like social researcher Professor Julie Leask from the University of Sydney, who has provided research and commentary on the Covid-19 pandemic and recognised through awards like the AFR 100 Women of Influence awards. Or Professor Caroline Sue, Executive Director of the Kolling Institute who also leads an impressive and internationally recognised program of work on better understanding neurological disorders and developing new treatment options for patients.

    This year’s event will also include a dedicated ‘Article Aftercare’ session. As Wikipedia is a completely crowd-sourced encyclopaedia, the content and the longevity of new pages are based on decisions among editors, who are mainly Anglo-Saxon men living in North America.  This puts pages for women at risk of deletion.

    The follow-up workshop, which will involve experienced editors from Wikimedia Australia, will support participants to make any follow-on page updates so their edits stand up to the test! We hope the whole experience leaves participants feeling empowered with the skills to continue editing Wikipedia after the event.

    The impact that 40 women with laptops had in one afternoon is humbling and motivating. We now have more scientists receiving the visibility they deserve, providing the community with a more accurate representation of Australian science and more women are upskilled as Wikipedia editors.

    • Feature image: Participants updating Wikipedia pages at yesterday’s event. Picture: Cain Cooper.

    The post Banding together to combat gender bias on Wikipedia appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.