ACLU: There’s a Lot That Can Go Wrong With ‘Vaccine Passports’

There’s a Lot That Can Go Wrong With ‘Vaccine Passports’

With COVID-19 vaccination rates accelerating, governments around the world have begun to consider implementing a standardized credential or “vaccine passport” that would let people prove that they’ve been vaccinated. And the idea became more real when the Washington Post reported on Sunday that the Biden administration was working with companies to develop such a structure.

Our nation’s primary push right now should be equitable vaccine distribution that gets as many people as possible vaccinated and reaching herd immunity. If we can do so, epidemiologists say, we’ll reach a point where COVID no longer has enough vulnerable hosts to circulate within our communities. This means that most people most of the time — even those who can’t get vaccinated — won’t have to worry about the disease.

When that happens and COVID comes to resemble other dangerous diseases where there are occasional flareups but little spread, such as measles, the need for a COVID passport will seem much less urgent. Nobody is demanding we provide proof of measles vaccination everywhere we go. And in the limited circumstances where such proof is required (school enrollment, some medical jobs, and some overseas travel), it’s far from clear that the existing system of paper documents is somehow deeply broken and in need of fixing. That’s especially true given that creating a passport system would be a herculean task.

As privacy advocates and civil libertarians, there are several factors to consider on vaccine passports.

There is a difference between a standardized system for presenting proof of vaccination, and a digital system for doing so. With more and more of our credentials being displayed through apps on our phones — from airline boarding passes to concert tickets to gym memberships — it strikes many people as an obvious and overdue step to create a similar digital credential for those occasions when a person has to prove that they’ve been vaccinated. But digital credentials present a number of new potential problems, and we would oppose a vaccination credential system that does not meet three crucial criteria:

1. It is not exclusively digital. A system that is exclusively digital, whether by design or as a practical matter, would be a nonstarter because it would increase inequality. Many people don’t have smartphones, including disproportionate numbers from some of our most vulnerable communities, such as people who are low-income, have disabilities, or are homeless, as well as more than 40 percent of people over age 65. As a result, any vaccine credential system would need to include a paper-based version for those who don’t have a smartphone or simply don’t want to use one. The paper option should not be a difficult or disadvantageous afterthought; a standardized credential should be primarily a paper-based system with an optional digital component, not the other way around. Our health care system is already ridden with inequities from top to bottom; we don’t want to worsen that situation by closing off even more societal benefits from those who can least afford it, or who have reason to fear such a system — including immigrant communities and communities of color who are already subject to over-policing and surveillance.

2. It is decentralized and open source. The quest for a digital identity and credentialing system has become an entire field unto itself. Numerous companies, technologists, and academics have already generated a variety of concepts, standards, and products that would let us use cryptographic files or “tokens” on our phones to prove things about ourselves across our lives. The best of these schemes — and the only ones that should be considered for any digital elements of a vaccine credential system — take a decentralized and open source approach that puts individuals in control of their credentials and identity data, which they would hold in a digital wallet. But given the difficulty of creating a digital vaccine passport, we could see a rush to impose a COVID credential system built on an architecture that is not good for transparency, privacy, or user control. That could lock us into a bad standard as other parties that need to issue credentials piggyback upon it to offer everything from age verification to health records to hunting licenses to shopping accounts, memberships, and web site logins.

3. It does not allow for tracking or the creation of new databases. Unless a vaccine credential system is completely decentralized and user-centric, it creates the potential for amassing new personal data. If some big company is getting notified any time someone reads one of your credentials, that would let them track your movements and interests — the stores, concerts, and transportation venues you visit, and much more. In the absence of airtight legal protections for privacy, any such information could then be sold for commercial purposes or shared with law enforcement. That would affect all of our freedoms, but will have a particular chilling effect on communities of color, including immigrant communities, that are already over-policed. Fear of tracking could lead people to opt out of participation, resulting in further marginalization as they are denied access to certain public spaces. Worse, without privacy protections strong enough to create public confidence, it could even deter people from getting vaccinated in the first place.

Although those are the three most significant issues we see now, the devil is often in the details, and any proposed system will have to be examined closely. Another issue is the handling of people who can’t get vaccines because, for example, they have certain medical conditions or simply don’t have access to the vaccine. Will the system distinguish between such people and those who have simply decided they won’t get vaccinated? If so, how will people obtain a certification that they are medically contraindicated? One of the reasons it’s important to reach herd immunity is precisely because there are some people who can’t get vaccines that protect them personally. Those people shouldn’t get shut out of full participation in our society.

We also worry that a vaccine passport will encourage over-use. The issues around passport design are separate from the question of where and when people can be required to furnish proof of vaccinations, but if a passport system makes it very easy to ask for and to provide proof of vaccination, it’s likely that such requests will become over-used as people get asked for credentials at every turn. While there are legitimate circumstances in which people can be asked for proof of vaccination, we don’t want to turn into a checkpoint society that outlasts the danger of COVID and that casually excludes people without credentials from facilities where vaccine mandates are not highly justified.

We were heartened to see that the Biden administration appears to be aware of many of these concerns: White House coronavirus coordinator Jeff Zients declared earlier this month that “any solutions in this area should be simple, free, open source, accessible to people both digitally and on paper, and designed from the start to protect people’s privacy.” The administration has also repeatedly stated that vaccines must be accessible to people regardless of immigration status, and therefore any unintended deterrence must also be considered. Such statements show a thoughtful awareness of the landscape here.

We don’t oppose in principle the idea of a requiring proof of vaccination in certain contexts. But given the enormous difficulty of creating a digital passport system, and the compromises and failures that are likely to happen along the way, we are wary about the side effects and long-term consequences it could have. We will be closely watching developments in this area.

Published April 1, 2021 at 03:01AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3rJCoQV

ACLU: There’s a Lot That Can Go Wrong With ‘Vaccine Passports’

There’s a Lot That Can Go Wrong With ‘Vaccine Passports’

With COVID-19 vaccination rates accelerating, governments around the world have begun to consider implementing a standardized credential or “vaccine passport” that would let people prove that they’ve been vaccinated. And the idea became more real when the Washington Post reported on Sunday that the Biden administration was working with companies to develop such a structure.

Our nation’s primary push right now should be equitable vaccine distribution that gets as many people as possible vaccinated and reaching herd immunity. If we can do so, epidemiologists say, we’ll reach a point where COVID no longer has enough vulnerable hosts to circulate within our communities. This means that most people most of the time — even those who can’t get vaccinated — won’t have to worry about the disease.

When that happens and COVID comes to resemble other dangerous diseases where there are occasional flareups but little spread, such as measles, the need for a COVID passport will seem much less urgent. Nobody is demanding we provide proof of measles vaccination everywhere we go. And in the limited circumstances where such proof is required (school enrollment, some medical jobs, and some overseas travel), it’s far from clear that the existing system of paper documents is somehow deeply broken and in need of fixing. That’s especially true given that creating a passport system would be a herculean task.

As privacy advocates and civil libertarians, there are several factors to consider on vaccine passports.

There is a difference between a standardized system for presenting proof of vaccination, and a digital system for doing so. With more and more of our credentials being displayed through apps on our phones — from airline boarding passes to concert tickets to gym memberships — it strikes many people as an obvious and overdue step to create a similar digital credential for those occasions when a person has to prove that they’ve been vaccinated. But digital credentials present a number of new potential problems, and we would oppose a vaccination credential system that does not meet three crucial criteria:

1. It is not exclusively digital. A system that is exclusively digital, whether by design or as a practical matter, would be a nonstarter because it would increase inequality. Many people don’t have smartphones, including disproportionate numbers from some of our most vulnerable communities, such as people who are low-income, have disabilities, or are homeless, as well as more than 40 percent of people over age 65. As a result, any vaccine credential system would need to include a paper-based version for those who don’t have a smartphone or simply don’t want to use one. The paper option should not be a difficult or disadvantageous afterthought; a standardized credential should be primarily a paper-based system with an optional digital component, not the other way around. Our health care system is already ridden with inequities from top to bottom; we don’t want to worsen that situation by closing off even more societal benefits from those who can least afford it, or who have reason to fear such a system — including immigrant communities and communities of color who are already subject to over-policing and surveillance.

2. It is decentralized and open source. The quest for a digital identity and credentialing system has become an entire field unto itself. Numerous companies, technologists, and academics have already generated a variety of concepts, standards, and products that would let us use cryptographic files or “tokens” on our phones to prove things about ourselves across our lives. The best of these schemes — and the only ones that should be considered for any digital elements of a vaccine credential system — take a decentralized and open source approach that puts individuals in control of their credentials and identity data, which they would hold in a digital wallet. But given the difficulty of creating a digital vaccine passport, we could see a rush to impose a COVID credential system built on an architecture that is not good for transparency, privacy, or user control. That could lock us into a bad standard as other parties that need to issue credentials piggyback upon it to offer everything from age verification to health records to hunting licenses to shopping accounts, memberships, and web site logins.

3. It does not allow for tracking or the creation of new databases. Unless a vaccine credential system is completely decentralized and user-centric, it creates the potential for amassing new personal data. If some big company is getting notified any time someone reads one of your credentials, that would let them track your movements and interests — the stores, concerts, and transportation venues you visit, and much more. In the absence of airtight legal protections for privacy, any such information could then be sold for commercial purposes or shared with law enforcement. That would affect all of our freedoms, but will have a particular chilling effect on communities of color, including immigrant communities, that are already over-policed. Fear of tracking could lead people to opt out of participation, resulting in further marginalization as they are denied access to certain public spaces. Worse, without privacy protections strong enough to create public confidence, it could even deter people from getting vaccinated in the first place.

Although those are the three most significant issues we see now, the devil is often in the details, and any proposed system will have to be examined closely. Another issue is the handling of people who can’t get vaccines because, for example, they have certain medical conditions or simply don’t have access to the vaccine. Will the system distinguish between such people and those who have simply decided they won’t get vaccinated? If so, how will people obtain a certification that they are medically contraindicated? One of the reasons it’s important to reach herd immunity is precisely because there are some people who can’t get vaccines that protect them personally. Those people shouldn’t get shut out of full participation in our society.

We also worry that a vaccine passport will encourage over-use. The issues around passport design are separate from the question of where and when people can be required to furnish proof of vaccinations, but if a passport system makes it very easy to ask for and to provide proof of vaccination, it’s likely that such requests will become over-used as people get asked for credentials at every turn. While there are legitimate circumstances in which people can be asked for proof of vaccination, we don’t want to turn into a checkpoint society that outlasts the danger of COVID and that casually excludes people without credentials from facilities where vaccine mandates are not highly justified.

We were heartened to see that the Biden administration appears to be aware of many of these concerns: White House coronavirus coordinator Jeff Zients declared earlier this month that “any solutions in this area should be simple, free, open source, accessible to people both digitally and on paper, and designed from the start to protect people’s privacy.” The administration has also repeatedly stated that vaccines must be accessible to people regardless of immigration status, and therefore any unintended deterrence must also be considered. Such statements show a thoughtful awareness of the landscape here.

We don’t oppose in principle the idea of a requiring proof of vaccination in certain contexts. But given the enormous difficulty of creating a digital passport system, and the compromises and failures that are likely to happen along the way, we are wary about the side effects and long-term consequences it could have. We will be closely watching developments in this area.

Published March 31, 2021 at 10:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3rJCoQV

ACLU: Student Debt is a Racial Justice Issue. Here’s What President Biden Can Do to Help.

Student Debt is a Racial Justice Issue. Here’s What President Biden Can Do to Help.

Student loan debt burdens more than 44 million Americans, and prevents millions from buying homes, starting businesses, saving for retirement, or even starting families. This debt is disproportionately affecting Black families, and Black women in particular.  

Higher education has long been held as a critical gateway to getting a job and achieving economic stability and mobility. But because of long-standing systemic racial discrimination, Black families have far less wealth to draw on to pay for college, creating barriers for Black communities to access higher education and build wealth. Black families are more likely to borrow, to borrow more, and to have trouble in repayment. Two decades after taking out their student loans, the median Black borrower still owes 95 percent of their debt, whereas the median white borrower has paid off 94 percent of their debt. 

Students of color pursue higher education in a social and economic system built on racist ideologies that is set up to work against them and perpetuate racial wealth and income and achievement gaps. To redress this systemic inequality, the ACLU, Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), and more than 300 other organizations are calling on the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to use their authority under the Higher Education Act to cancel $50,000 of student debt per borrower, and Congress must act as well.

To understand the systemic issues rooted in the student debt crisis, we must start with its history. Though we have normalized the idea that students must take on debt for college, historically students benefited from broad public investment in higher education. However, not all students benefited equally: Black students had little access to GI Bill benefits and, even a decade after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), predominately white institutions (PWIs) in many states resisted integration and equal treatment. Further, state and federal governments continued to inadequately and inequitably fund historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) despite the high-quality opportunities they provided and the critical function they performed for Black students and communities. This created and cemented the racial wealth and resource gap in institutions of higher education.

It was in this context that Congress and President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Higher Education Act of 1965. Recognizing the value of broad higher education access, Johnson hoped the legislation would open the doors of opportunity to everyone, especially Black students and other students of color, through Pell Grants and other subsidies.

Yet by the end of the 20th century, just as Black and Brown students and women gained entry after decades-long legal battles and social struggles, reactionary policymakers shifted the significant costs of higher education from the public to individual families. What had been considered a public good when it was predominantly for white men, became a public burden to be shifted to families. 

This shift away from public financing, which accelerated after the Great Recession, led to predictable and damaging results: Today the cost of higher education is beyond imagination. It is out of reach for most families, especially Black and Brown students, unless they agree to unsustainable debt. In effect, we are perpetuating the ugly legacy of redlining and housing discrimination by requiring the same Black families that were historically denied wealth to take on a greater debt burden than their white peers. 

The student debt crisis is just one of the latest iterations in the long and shameful history of too many unkept promises to Black and Brown communities. This country didn’t keep its promise to give formerly enslaved people the land that they worked on to build wealth following the Civil War. Then from redlining, inaccessible GI benefits, and now the decreased value of college degrees, Black people have continuously had the roads to economic success blocked outright.  

Canceling $50,000 in student debt can help secure financial stability and economic mobility for Black and Brown borrowers who are disproportionately burdened by this student debt crisis and the impacts of the racial wealth gap in this country. But even after graduation, Black and Latinx people face substantial job discrimination and earn far less than their white counterparts. This income gap makes building financial stability and managing student loan repayment even harder. A college education actually deepens the wealth gap due to the high costs and structural issues in our system. Yet, higher education is a necessity, not a luxury, for today’s workforce.

Due to these persisting inequalities, even with $50,000 cancelation per borrower, there will still be millions of borrowers with debt. That number will only grow unless we overhaul loan repayment altogether and create a debt-free college system. The Center for Responsible Learning argues that the federal government should improve repayment by: (1) clearing the books of bad debts, such as debts that have been in repayment for longer than 15 years; (2) restoring limitations on collections and making student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy; and (3) making repayment truly affordable and budget-conscious through a new income-driven repayment plan open to all borrowers. For new students, a new social contract could also double the Pell Grant and increase funding and support for HBCUs.

We have an opportunity to help millions of families realize their American Dreams, secure financial stability and economic mobility for Black and Brown families, and take a critical step toward closing the racial wealth gap. The charge is clear, the moment is here, and the time for action is now: The Biden administration must cancel $50,000 in student debt per borrower.

Published March 30, 2021 at 08:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2PCGmxA

ACLU: Student Debt is a Racial Justice Issue. Here’s What President Biden Can Do to Help.

Student Debt is a Racial Justice Issue. Here’s What President Biden Can Do to Help.

Student loan debt burdens more than 44 million Americans, and prevents millions from buying homes, starting businesses, saving for retirement, or even starting families. This debt is disproportionately affecting Black families, and Black women in particular.  

Higher education has long been held as a critical gateway to getting a job and achieving economic stability and mobility. But because of long-standing systemic racial discrimination, Black families have far less wealth to draw on to pay for college, creating barriers for Black communities to access higher education and build wealth. Black families are more likely to borrow, to borrow more, and to have trouble in repayment. Two decades after taking out their student loans, the median Black borrower still owes 95 percent of their debt, whereas the median white borrower has paid off 94 percent of their debt. 

Students of color pursue higher education in a social and economic system built on racist ideologies that is set up to work against them and perpetuate racial wealth and income and achievement gaps. To redress this systemic inequality, the ACLU, Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), and more than 300 other organizations are calling on the Biden-Harris administration and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to use their authority under the Higher Education Act to cancel $50,000 of student debt per borrower, and Congress must act as well.

To understand the systemic issues rooted in the student debt crisis, we must start with its history. Though we have normalized the idea that students must take on debt for college, historically students benefited from broad public investment in higher education. However, not all students benefited equally: Black students had little access to GI Bill benefits and, even a decade after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), predominately white institutions (PWIs) in many states resisted integration and equal treatment. Further, state and federal governments continued to inadequately and inequitably fund historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) despite the high-quality opportunities they provided and the critical function they performed for Black students and communities. This created and cemented the racial wealth and resource gap in institutions of higher education.

It was in this context that Congress and President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Higher Education Act of 1965. Recognizing the value of broad higher education access, Johnson hoped the legislation would open the doors of opportunity to everyone, especially Black students and other students of color, through Pell Grants and other subsidies.

Yet by the end of the 20th century, just as Black and Brown students and women gained entry after decades-long legal battles and social struggles, reactionary policymakers shifted the significant costs of higher education from the public to individual families. What had been considered a public good when it was predominantly for white men, became a public burden to be shifted to families. 

This shift away from public financing, which accelerated after the Great Recession, led to predictable and damaging results: Today the cost of higher education is beyond imagination. It is out of reach for most families, especially Black and Brown students, unless they agree to unsustainable debt. In effect, we are perpetuating the ugly legacy of redlining and housing discrimination by requiring the same Black families that were historically denied wealth to take on a greater debt burden than their white peers. 

The student debt crisis is just one of the latest iterations in the long and shameful history of too many unkept promises to Black and Brown communities. This country didn’t keep its promise to give formerly enslaved people the land that they worked on to build wealth following the Civil War. Then from redlining, inaccessible GI benefits, and now the decreased value of college degrees, Black people have continuously had the roads to economic success blocked outright.  

Canceling $50,000 in student debt can help secure financial stability and economic mobility for Black and Brown borrowers who are disproportionately burdened by this student debt crisis and the impacts of the racial wealth gap in this country. But even after graduation, Black and Latinx people face substantial job discrimination and earn far less than their white counterparts. This income gap makes building financial stability and managing student loan repayment even harder. A college education actually deepens the wealth gap due to the high costs and structural issues in our system. Yet, higher education is a necessity, not a luxury, for today’s workforce.

Due to these persisting inequalities, even with $50,000 cancelation per borrower, there will still be millions of borrowers with debt. That number will only grow unless we overhaul loan repayment altogether and create a debt-free college system. The Center for Responsible Learning argues that the federal government should improve repayment by: (1) clearing the books of bad debts, such as debts that have been in repayment for longer than 15 years; (2) restoring limitations on collections and making student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy; and (3) making repayment truly affordable and budget-conscious through a new income-driven repayment plan open to all borrowers. For new students, a new social contract could also double the Pell Grant and increase funding and support for HBCUs.

We have an opportunity to help millions of families realize their American Dreams, secure financial stability and economic mobility for Black and Brown families, and take a critical step toward closing the racial wealth gap. The charge is clear, the moment is here, and the time for action is now: The Biden administration must cancel $50,000 in student debt per borrower.

Published March 30, 2021 at 04:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2PCGmxA

Mali : Second and Third Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement. Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria and Modification of Performance Criterion-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Mali

Mali : Second and Third Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement. Requests for Waivers of Nonobservance of Performance Criteria and Modification of Performance Criterion-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Mali
Published March 30, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Artist and Writer Chanel Miller on Surviving, Identity, and Activism

Artist and Writer Chanel Miller on Surviving, Identity, and Activism

This week on At Liberty, we’re rounding out our Women’s History Month series with writer and artist Chanel Miller. Miller jumped into the spotlight back in 2015. First known to the public as “Emily Doe,” Miller’s victim impact statement from the sentencing hearing of Brock Turner, who sexually assaulted her on Stanford University’s campus, went viral. The statement she wrote helped spark the #MeToo movement, but her name was nowhere to be found.

In 2019, Chanel stepped out from her anonymity and into authoring her own story. She published the New York Times bestselling memoir, Know My Name. She is now known as a leading voice for survivors of sexual violence and as an emerging artist, currently debuting work at San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum.

Behind every social issue are survivors, often of discrimination, of atrocity, and of violence. Everyone has had an experience that made them feel nameless and faceless. But Chanel knows that in owning our own power and stories, we can gain strength for both ourselves and those around us. She joined us this week to share more about her own journey.

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/writer-and-artist-chanel-miller-on-surviving-identity-and-activism

Published March 26, 2021 at 11:56PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39AeD83

ACLU: Artist and Writer Chanel Miller on Surviving, Identity, and Activism

Artist and Writer Chanel Miller on Surviving, Identity, and Activism

This week on At Liberty, we’re rounding out our Women’s History Month series with writer and artist Chanel Miller. Miller jumped into the spotlight back in 2015. First known to the public as “Emily Doe,” Miller’s victim impact statement from the sentencing hearing of Brock Turner, who sexually assaulted her on Stanford University’s campus, went viral. The statement she wrote helped spark the #MeToo movement, but her name was nowhere to be found.

In 2019, Chanel stepped out from her anonymity and into authoring her own story. She published the New York Times bestselling memoir, Know My Name. She is now known as a leading voice for survivors of sexual violence and as an emerging artist, currently debuting work at San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum.

Behind every social issue are survivors, often of discrimination, of atrocity, and of violence. Everyone has had an experience that made them feel nameless and faceless. But Chanel knows that in owning our own power and stories, we can gain strength for both ourselves and those around us. She joined us this week to share more about her own journey.

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/writer-and-artist-chanel-miller-on-surviving-identity-and-activism

Published March 26, 2021 at 06:26PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39AeD83

Sudan : Enhanced Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative-Preliminary Document

Sudan : Enhanced Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Initiative-Preliminary Document
Published March 26, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Government is Racing to Deploy AI, But at What Cost to Our Freedom?

The Government is Racing to Deploy AI, But at What Cost to Our Freedom?

The U.S. government is embarking on an all-out sprint to develop and deploy artificial intelligence in the name of national security, but its plans for protecting civil rights and civil liberties have barely taken shape. Based on a sweeping new report by a congressionally-mandated commission, it’s clear that U.S. intelligence agencies and the military are seeking to integrate AI into some of the government’s most profound decisions: who it surveils, who it adds to government watchlists, who it labels a “risk” to national security, and even who it targets using lethal weapons.

In many of these areas, the deployment of AI already appears to be well underway. But we know next to nothing about the specific systems that agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, and National Security Agency are using, and even less about the safeguards that exist — if any.

That’s why the ACLU is filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today seeking information about the types of AI tools intelligence agencies are deploying, what rules constrain their use of AI, and what dangers these systems pose to equality, due process, privacy, and free expression.

Earlier this month, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence issued its final report, outlining a national strategy to meet the opportunities and challenges posed by AI. The commission — composed of technologists, business leaders, and academic experts — spent more than two years examining how AI could impact national security. It describes AI as “a constellation of technologies” that “solve tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action; and technologies that may learn and act autonomously whether in the form of software agents or embodied robots.” AI systems are increasingly used to make decisions, recommendations, classifications, and predictions that impact Americans and people abroad as we all go about our daily lives.

The report urges the federal government — and especially intelligence agencies — to continue rapidly developing and deploying AI systems for a wide range of purposes. Those purposes include conducting surveillance, exploiting social media information and biometric data, performing intelligence analysis, countering the spread of disinformation via the internet, and predicting threats. The report notes that individual intelligence agencies have already made progress toward these goals, and it calls for “ubiquitous AI integration in each stage of the intelligence cycle” by 2025.

While artificial intelligence may promise certain benefits for national security — improving the speed of some tasks and augmenting human judgment or analysis in others — these systems also pose undeniable risks to civil rights and civil liberties.

Of particular concern is the way AI systems can be biased against people of color, women, and marginalized communities, and may be used to automate, expand, or legitimize discriminatory government conduct. AI systems may replicate biases embedded in the data used to train those systems, and they may have higher error rates when applied to people of color, women, and marginalized communities because of others flaws in the underlying data or in the algorithms themselves. In addition, AI may be used to guide or even supercharge government activities that have long been used to unfairly and wrongly scrutinize communities of color — including intrusive surveillance, investigative questioning, detention, and watchlisting.

The commission’s report acknowledges many of these dangers and makes a number of useful recommendations, like mandatory civil rights assessments, independent third-party testing, and the creation of robust redress mechanisms. But ultimately the report prioritizes the deployment of AI, which it says must be “immediate,” over the adoption of strong safeguards. The commission should have gone further and insisted that the government establish critical civil rights protections now, at the same time that these systems are being widely deployed by intelligence agencies and the military.

One threshold problem is that, when it comes to AI, even basic transparency is lacking. In June 2020, the Office for the Director of National Intelligence released its Artificial Intelligence Framework for the Intelligence Community — and identified “transparency” as one of the framework’s core principles. But there is almost nothing to show for it. The public does not have even basic information about the AI tools that are being developed by the intelligence agencies, despite their potential to harm Americans and people abroad. Nor is it clear what concrete rules, if any, these agencies have adopted to guard against the misuse of AI in the name of national security.

Our new FOIA request aims to shed light on these questions. In the meantime, the work of fashioning baseline AI protections must move ahead. If the development of AI systems for national security purposes is an urgent priority for the country, then the adoption of critical safeguards by Congress and the executive branch is just as urgent. We cannot wait until dangerous systems have already become entrenched.

Published March 26, 2021 at 09:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/31miels

ACLU: The Government is Racing to Deploy AI, But at What Cost to Our Freedom?

The Government is Racing to Deploy AI, But at What Cost to Our Freedom?

The U.S. government is embarking on an all-out sprint to develop and deploy artificial intelligence in the name of national security, but its plans for protecting civil rights and civil liberties have barely taken shape. Based on a sweeping new report by a congressionally-mandated commission, it’s clear that U.S. intelligence agencies and the military are seeking to integrate AI into some of the government’s most profound decisions: who it surveils, who it adds to government watchlists, who it labels a “risk” to national security, and even who it targets using lethal weapons.

In many of these areas, the deployment of AI already appears to be well underway. But we know next to nothing about the specific systems that agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, and National Security Agency are using, and even less about the safeguards that exist — if any.

That’s why the ACLU is filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today seeking information about the types of AI tools intelligence agencies are deploying, what rules constrain their use of AI, and what dangers these systems pose to equality, due process, privacy, and free expression.

Earlier this month, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence issued its final report, outlining a national strategy to meet the opportunities and challenges posed by AI. The commission — composed of technologists, business leaders, and academic experts — spent more than two years examining how AI could impact national security. It describes AI as “a constellation of technologies” that “solve tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action; and technologies that may learn and act autonomously whether in the form of software agents or embodied robots.” AI systems are increasingly used to make decisions, recommendations, classifications, and predictions that impact Americans and people abroad as we all go about our daily lives.

The report urges the federal government — and especially intelligence agencies — to continue rapidly developing and deploying AI systems for a wide range of purposes. Those purposes include conducting surveillance, exploiting social media information and biometric data, performing intelligence analysis, countering the spread of disinformation via the internet, and predicting threats. The report notes that individual intelligence agencies have already made progress toward these goals, and it calls for “ubiquitous AI integration in each stage of the intelligence cycle” by 2025.

While artificial intelligence may promise certain benefits for national security — improving the speed of some tasks and augmenting human judgment or analysis in others — these systems also pose undeniable risks to civil rights and civil liberties.

Of particular concern is the way AI systems can be biased against people of color, women, and marginalized communities, and may be used to automate, expand, or legitimize discriminatory government conduct. AI systems may replicate biases embedded in the data used to train those systems, and they may have higher error rates when applied to people of color, women, and marginalized communities because of others flaws in the underlying data or in the algorithms themselves. In addition, AI may be used to guide or even supercharge government activities that have long been used to unfairly and wrongly scrutinize communities of color — including intrusive surveillance, investigative questioning, detention, and watchlisting.

The commission’s report acknowledges many of these dangers and makes a number of useful recommendations, like mandatory civil rights assessments, independent third-party testing, and the creation of robust redress mechanisms. But ultimately the report prioritizes the deployment of AI, which it says must be “immediate,” over the adoption of strong safeguards. The commission should have gone further and insisted that the government establish critical civil rights protections now, at the same time that these systems are being widely deployed by intelligence agencies and the military.

One threshold problem is that, when it comes to AI, even basic transparency is lacking. In June 2020, the Office for the Director of National Intelligence released its Artificial Intelligence Framework for the Intelligence Community — and identified “transparency” as one of the framework’s core principles. But there is almost nothing to show for it. The public does not have even basic information about the AI tools that are being developed by the intelligence agencies, despite their potential to harm Americans and people abroad. Nor is it clear what concrete rules, if any, these agencies have adopted to guard against the misuse of AI in the name of national security.

Our new FOIA request aims to shed light on these questions. In the meantime, the work of fashioning baseline AI protections must move ahead. If the development of AI systems for national security purposes is an urgent priority for the country, then the adoption of critical safeguards by Congress and the executive branch is just as urgent. We cannot wait until dangerous systems have already become entrenched.

Published March 26, 2021 at 04:29PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/31miels

Republic of Korea : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Korea

Republic of Korea : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Korea
Published March 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Korea : Selected Issues

Republic of Korea : Selected Issues
Published March 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Amidst a Wave of Voter Suppression Bills, Some States Expand Access to the Ballot

Amidst a Wave of Voter Suppression Bills, Some States Expand Access to the Ballot

The struggle for the right to vote is underway at state legislatures throughout the country. Following record voter turnout in the 2020 election, politicians are drumming up false concerns and baseless conspiracies about widespread voter fraud to justify suppressing the right to vote. More than 250 voter suppression bills have been introduced in 45 states. These bills seek to make it more difficult for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person. 

But voter suppression is only half of the story. In contrast, many other states have learned lessons from the successes of the 2020 election and are seeking to expand access to the ballot. Here are some of the most significant developments at state legislatures this year.

Iowa passes voter suppression bill limiting early voting and vote by mail

The governor of Iowa signed voter suppression legislation earlier this month that will greatly damage access to the ballot. The law cuts nine days of early voting, shortens the timeline for requesting and returning an absentee ballot, and requires that poll places close an hour earlier on Election Day. This bill was supported by politicians that could not provide a single case of voter fraud that the bill would prevent. A new poll shows a majority of Iowans oppose the new voting restrictions. 

In Georgia, every method of casting a ballot is under attack

The Georgia legislature is considering significant cuts to early voting, Election Day voting, and vote by mail. Current proposals that have passed at least one chamber of the legislature include cutting approximately 40 percent of weekend voting hours in Georgia’s five most populous counties, criminalizing providing food and water to people waiting in line to vote, repealing no excuse absentee voting, invalidating most provisional ballots, and making absentee ballot drop boxes functionally useless. These proposals will create unnecessary barriers to the ballot that will directly disenfranchise Georgia’s most vulnerable citizens.   

Florida bill seeks to severely restrict access to vote by mail 

Nearly 5 million Floridians cast their ballots by mail in 2020, and more than 1.5 million used a drop-box to return their ballot. As a direct response to this voter participation, the Florida legislature is considering legislation that will eliminate the use of drop boxes in the state, require voters to submit vote-by-mail applications more often than is currently required, and make it a crime for a friend or caregiver to assist a voter in returning their ballot.

In Montana, registration and voting may become much more difficult, especially for Indigenous and rural voters

The ACLU, ACLU of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) partnered last year to sue the state of Montana over a law that made it more difficult for Indigenous people living on rural reservations to access the ballot. The law would have effectively ended ballot collection efforts. Now, the legislature is considering passing a nearly identical bill.  

Additionally, the Montana legislature is considering a bill that would end Election Day registration. In 2016, over 12,000 Montanans — 4.5 percent of all registration applicants — were able to register and cast a ballot on Election Day. 

Kentucky, Delaware, and Vermont are poised to expand access to the ballot

After learning beneficial lessons from the 2020 election, the Kentucky legislature is positioned to expand access to the ballot. The Kentucky Senate has approved a bill that will offer the opportunity to vote early to all voters in Kentucky. If passed, Kentucky will join 43 states and D.C. in providing in-person early voting.

In Delaware, the general assembly is considering a variety of measures to improve access to the ballot. Automatic voter registration and same-day registration will be considered this session. Additionally, many state legislators are pushing to amend the state constitution to allow no-excuse absentee voting, which will open the door to permanent vote by mail options for Delawareans.

The Vermont Senate recently passed a bill that would allow for universally mailed ballots to be sent to every active registered voter. If passed, Vermont would be the sixth state in the nation to adopt this policy.  

The ACLU is combating legislation to suppress the right to vote in state legislatures, while at the same time advocating for policies that will expand access to the ballot. We need no excuse absentee voting, same day registration, automatic voter registration, and access to in-person early voting for every eligible voter. We won’t stop fighting until every eligible voter can cast their ballot. Let people vote!

Published March 25, 2021 at 03:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3lNFVN0

ACLU: Amidst a Wave of Voter Suppression Bills, Some States Expand Access to the Ballot

Amidst a Wave of Voter Suppression Bills, Some States Expand Access to the Ballot

The struggle for the right to vote is underway at state legislatures throughout the country. Following record voter turnout in the 2020 election, politicians are drumming up false concerns and baseless conspiracies about widespread voter fraud to justify suppressing the right to vote. More than 250 voter suppression bills have been introduced in 45 states. These bills seek to make it more difficult for people to register to vote, vote by mail, or vote in person. 

But voter suppression is only half of the story. In contrast, many other states have learned lessons from the successes of the 2020 election and are seeking to expand access to the ballot. Here are some of the most significant developments at state legislatures this year.

Iowa passes voter suppression bill limiting early voting and vote by mail

The governor of Iowa signed voter suppression legislation earlier this month that will greatly damage access to the ballot. The law cuts nine days of early voting, shortens the timeline for requesting and returning an absentee ballot, and requires that poll places close an hour earlier on Election Day. This bill was supported by politicians that could not provide a single case of voter fraud that the bill would prevent. A new poll shows a majority of Iowans oppose the new voting restrictions. 

In Georgia, every method of casting a ballot is under attack

The Georgia legislature is considering significant cuts to early voting, Election Day voting, and vote by mail. Current proposals that have passed at least one chamber of the legislature include cutting approximately 40 percent of weekend voting hours in Georgia’s five most populous counties, criminalizing providing food and water to people waiting in line to vote, repealing no excuse absentee voting, invalidating most provisional ballots, and making absentee ballot drop boxes functionally useless. These proposals will create unnecessary barriers to the ballot that will directly disenfranchise Georgia’s most vulnerable citizens.   

Florida bill seeks to severely restrict access to vote by mail 

Nearly 5 million Floridians cast their ballots by mail in 2020, and more than 1.5 million used a drop-box to return their ballot. As a direct response to this voter participation, the Florida legislature is considering legislation that will eliminate the use of drop boxes in the state, require voters to submit vote-by-mail applications more often than is currently required, and make it a crime for a friend or caregiver to assist a voter in returning their ballot.

In Montana, registration and voting may become much more difficult, especially for Indigenous and rural voters

The ACLU, ACLU of Montana, and Native American Rights Fund (NARF) partnered last year to sue the state of Montana over a law that made it more difficult for Indigenous people living on rural reservations to access the ballot. The law would have effectively ended ballot collection efforts. Now, the legislature is considering passing a nearly identical bill.  

Additionally, the Montana legislature is considering a bill that would end Election Day registration. In 2016, over 12,000 Montanans — 4.5 percent of all registration applicants — were able to register and cast a ballot on Election Day. 

Kentucky, Delaware, and Vermont are poised to expand access to the ballot

After learning beneficial lessons from the 2020 election, the Kentucky legislature is positioned to expand access to the ballot. The Kentucky Senate has approved a bill that will offer the opportunity to vote early to all voters in Kentucky. If passed, Kentucky will join 43 states and D.C. in providing in-person early voting.

In Delaware, the general assembly is considering a variety of measures to improve access to the ballot. Automatic voter registration and same-day registration will be considered this session. Additionally, many state legislators are pushing to amend the state constitution to allow no-excuse absentee voting, which will open the door to permanent vote by mail options for Delawareans.

The Vermont Senate recently passed a bill that would allow for universally mailed ballots to be sent to every active registered voter. If passed, Vermont would be the sixth state in the nation to adopt this policy.  

The ACLU is combating legislation to suppress the right to vote in state legislatures, while at the same time advocating for policies that will expand access to the ballot. We need no excuse absentee voting, same day registration, automatic voter registration, and access to in-person early voting for every eligible voter. We won’t stop fighting until every eligible voter can cast their ballot. Let people vote!

Published March 25, 2021 at 08:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3lNFVN0

Sweden : Selected Issues

Sweden : Selected Issues
Published March 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Sweden : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

Sweden : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published March 25, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School

Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School

B.L. was 14 years old when she posted eight words on Snapchat that got her kicked off her school’s cheerleading team. She never imagined that four years later, her snap would be the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

While hanging out with a friend at a convenience store on a Saturday afternoon, B.L., our client and a high school cheerleader who hadn’t made varsity, posted “Fuck school fuck cheer fuck softball fuck everything” on Snapchat. The words were superimposed over a photo showing B.L. and her friend with their middle fingers raised. The snap disappeared 24 hours later, long before school resumed. Yet, her school responded by kicking B.L. off the cheerleading team for an entire year. Although B.L.’s snap may seem trivial, the stakes could not be higher. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in B.L.’s case, and the decision could alter the free speech rights of millions of students and young people across the nation.

The court’s decision in this case, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, will define the scope of young people’s free speech rights whenever they are outside of school — whether they’re marching at a weekend protest or posting on social media — and determine whether schools have the right to punish students for speech and expression in these out-of-school contexts. Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP filed a brief arguing that outside of school, young people should have every right to express themselves and voice their opinion without worrying if their school will punish them for it.

Fifty years ago, the court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, under current law, school administrators can discipline students for speech inside school that is deemed likely to be “disruptive” or that interferes with the rights of others. That is not the standard that should apply once young people leave the school or a school-sponsored activity. At that point, they should be free to speak without fear that a principal or school administrator will punish them if they find their speech “disruptive.” The question before the court in this case is what happens beyond school — do young people keep their full free speech rights when they are off campus, or are they always subject to having their expression policed according to the lower protection they have as students in school?

Giving school officials power to monitor and punish off-campus speech just because they deem it “disruptive” would put an unprecedented limit on the free speech rights of students and all young people. Students’ off-campus speech can be punished if it threatens violence or engages in harassment or bullying, much like adult speech can be. But extending the in-school standard outside of school could lead to schools preventing young people and students from criticizing school policies, raising important concerns about racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic or just plain inappropriate behavior by school staff or other students, talking about religion, making a joke, or using profanity to emphasize frustration. Young people’s speech rights everywhere would be limited to what they can say in school.

In the past, schools have punished students for what they considered “disruptive” expressions inside school, including speech on racial justice and other social issues. For example, authorities have punished Latinx students for wearing shirts that read “We Are Not Criminals” to protest anti-immigrant legislation, religious students for speaking out against abortion or quoting Bible verses, and have punished students for displaying a Black Lives Matter slide as a background during remote school.

These examples of discipline show how often school officials misuse their authority to police student speech. Giving them the power to police young people’s speech will have even worse results: Students won’t be able to discuss their views on racism, national policy, or religion even outside of school. And, as with most government authority, it’s not hard to imagine how that power will be applied in discriminatory ways. In fact, we’ve already seen schools misuse their power in troubling ways to punish young Black people for what they say outside of school, including for posting a photo of a memorial commemorating a girl’s deceased father, a photo of a boy “holding too much money,” rap music videos, and posts calling out racist slurs used by their white classmates.

Protecting students’ and young people’s full free speech rights when they are outside of school is vital. Taking away that safeguard would have a chilling effect on free speech, deterring young people from engaging in political, social, or religious expression out of fear of punishment. If schools could control young people’s speech rights outside of school like they do inside, young people could never express themselves freely. They’d learn that, in our society, saying anything controversial, unpopular, or critical of the established order can lead to punishment. That’s certainly not the lesson that schools, or the Supreme Court, should be teaching.

Published March 24, 2021 at 09:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39cIdQN

ACLU: Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School

Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School

B.L. was 14 years old when she posted eight words on Snapchat that got her kicked off her school’s cheerleading team. She never imagined that four years later, her snap would be the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

While hanging out with a friend at a convenience store on a Saturday afternoon, B.L., our client and a high school cheerleader who hadn’t made varsity, posted “Fuck school fuck cheer fuck softball fuck everything” on Snapchat. The words were superimposed over a photo showing B.L. and her friend with their middle fingers raised. The snap disappeared 24 hours later, long before school resumed. Yet, her school responded by kicking B.L. off the cheerleading team for an entire year. Although B.L.’s snap may seem trivial, the stakes could not be higher. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in B.L.’s case, and the decision could alter the free speech rights of millions of students and young people across the nation.

The court’s decision in this case, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, will define the scope of young people’s free speech rights whenever they are outside of school — whether they’re marching at a weekend protest or posting on social media — and determine whether schools have the right to punish students for speech and expression in these out-of-school contexts. Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP filed a brief arguing that outside of school, young people should have every right to express themselves and voice their opinion without worrying if their school will punish them for it.

Fifty years ago, the court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, under current law, school administrators can discipline students for speech inside school that is deemed likely to be “disruptive” or that interferes with the rights of others. That is not the standard that should apply once young people leave the school or a school-sponsored activity. At that point, they should be free to speak without fear that a principal or school administrator will punish them if they find their speech “disruptive.” The question before the court in this case is what happens beyond school — do young people keep their full free speech rights when they are off campus, or are they always subject to having their expression policed according to the lower protection they have as students in school?

Giving school officials power to monitor and punish off-campus speech just because they deem it “disruptive” would put an unprecedented limit on the free speech rights of students and all young people. Students’ off-campus speech can be punished if it threatens violence or engages in harassment or bullying, much like adult speech can be. But extending the in-school standard outside of school could lead to schools preventing young people and students from criticizing school policies, raising important concerns about racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic or just plain inappropriate behavior by school staff or other students, talking about religion, making a joke, or using profanity to emphasize frustration. Young people’s speech rights everywhere would be limited to what they can say in school.

In the past, schools have punished students for what they considered “disruptive” expressions inside school, including speech on racial justice and other social issues. For example, authorities have punished Latinx students for wearing shirts that read “We Are Not Criminals” to protest anti-immigrant legislation, religious students for speaking out against abortion or quoting Bible verses, and have punished students for displaying a Black Lives Matter slide as a background during remote school.

These examples of discipline show how often school officials misuse their authority to police student speech. Giving them the power to police young people’s speech will have even worse results: Students won’t be able to discuss their views on racism, national policy, or religion even outside of school. And, as with most government authority, it’s not hard to imagine how that power will be applied in discriminatory ways. In fact, we’ve already seen schools misuse their power in troubling ways to punish young Black people for what they say outside of school, including for posting a photo of a memorial commemorating a girl’s deceased father, a photo of a boy “holding too much money,” rap music videos, and posts calling out racist slurs used by their white classmates.

Protecting students’ and young people’s full free speech rights when they are outside of school is vital. Taking away that safeguard would have a chilling effect on free speech, deterring young people from engaging in political, social, or religious expression out of fear of punishment. If schools could control young people’s speech rights outside of school like they do inside, young people could never express themselves freely. They’d learn that, in our society, saying anything controversial, unpopular, or critical of the established order can lead to punishment. That’s certainly not the lesson that schools, or the Supreme Court, should be teaching.

Published March 25, 2021 at 02:31AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/39cIdQN

Peru : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Peru

Peru : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Peru
Published March 24, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Colombia : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Colombia

Colombia : 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Colombia
Published March 23, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Colombia : Selected Issues

Colombia : Selected Issues
Published March 23, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Sierra Leone : Request for Disbursement under the Rapid Credit Facility

Sierra Leone : Request for Disbursement under the Rapid Credit Facility
Published March 23, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: New Mexico Showed Us What Protecting Abortion Rights Looks Like

New Mexico Showed Us What Protecting Abortion Rights Looks Like

Even though the Trump administration has ended, threats to reproductive rights have not. In the first months of 2021, states have introduced nearly 400 measures to restrict access to abortion in an effort to push abortion further out of reach or force the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. But reproductive freedom advocates aren’t taking this assault on our rights lightly: We’re fighting back. There are bright spots on the horizon. Just last month, our state, New Mexico, successfully repealed an abortion ban that had been on the books since 1969, and that we had been fighting to end for years.

We can’t understate the importance of this victory. If we hadn’t successfully removed the ban, and Roe were to fall, patients at any stage of pregnancy could have been forced to beg for permission to have an abortion in front of a panel of strangers. Anyone who performed an abortion outside of this inhumane process could have been charged with a felony. People receiving this care also could have been investigated and charged. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, outdated abortion bans still technically in place in other states could go back into effect.

New Mexicans no longer have to fear that reality. On February 26, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed S.B.  10, the Respect New Mexico Women and Families Act, into law. This bill is a repeal of New Mexico’s old, outdated abortion ban. It is validation of what we know: New Mexicans have long believed that politicians do not have any place in a person’s reproductive health care.

This victory did not come out of nowhere. In fact, efforts to repeal this ban failed before, in 2017, 2018, and again in 2019. We were several votes short just because of a few conservative lawmakers in the New Mexico Senate. In 2019 the measure failed by just three votes. So last May, we promised to work not only with our longstanding community partners and allied elected officials, but with our national organization to hold those lawmakers accountable. And that’s exactly what we did.

Together, the ACLU of New Mexico and the national ACLU organized a voter education and mobilization campaign. This voter education campaign zeroed in on key districts of state senators who voted to keep the abortion ban in 2019. In response, New Mexicans showed up and sent a clear message to these lawmakers: We support abortion rights. As a result, we wound up with a legislature that was willing to repeal this outdated law.

Then, we set our legislative strategy into motion. The Respect New Mexico Women and Families Act is a reminder of why efforts like these need to be led by on-the-ground activists and advocates. The Respect New Mexico Coalition in particular, co-chaired by Black and Indigenous women, has been a critical leader in this fight for years. As an intersectional movement of women, families, faith leaders, and medical providers, Indigenous, Black, and Latinx reproductive justice leaders alongside reproductive rights advocates, this coalition embodies what we know to be true: Reproductive health care impacts everyone in a community, and so must our organizing.

The bill had widespread support from a huge range of communities. Birth workers, nurses, and doctors testified and wrote public comments supporting the bill and their associations endorsed repeal. Indigenous, Black, Latinx, and Asian leaders, religious leaders, legal experts, LGBTQ-plus folks, people of color, and people from rural communities all supported this bill. Both teenagers and people who experienced the world before Roe v. Wade supported this bill.

Several organizations worked with local artists to commission posters, murals, and other art to inspire respect for what reproductive justice looks like. The ACLU of New Mexico sponsored a mural by New Mexican artist and advocate Jodie Herrera. State Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena and state Sen. Linda Lopez, both women of color, were the fearless lead sponsors on this bill; they were joined by Speaker of the New Mexico House Brian Egolf, Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, Reps. Joanne Ferrary, Georgene Louis, and Debbie Armstrong. And, 23 other state senators signed onto S.B. 10 when it was introduced.

The consequences of this win extend beyond our state. With attacks on abortion access in Arizona and the constant barrage of anti-abortion measures in Texas, it is critical that New Mexico remain a haven for reproductive health care for all pregnant people. As states around the country continue to dismantle abortion protection and access, we can now start to look forward and work to expand access to care, making abortion care, birth control, and period products even more equitably available, improving gender equity, and increasing training opportunities among medical professionals and birth workers to prevent maternal and infant mortality.

So, here is what we know: When we work together, locally and nationally, and mobilize all of our resources, we win. And that’s what we’ll continue to do. Together, our legislatures can reflect the will and needs of communities across the country.

Published March 24, 2021 at 01:50AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3rjFZFg

ACLU: New Mexico Showed Us What Protecting Abortion Rights Looks Like

New Mexico Showed Us What Protecting Abortion Rights Looks Like

Even though the Trump administration has ended, threats to reproductive rights have not. In the first months of 2021, states have introduced nearly 400 measures to restrict access to abortion in an effort to push abortion further out of reach or force the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. But reproductive freedom advocates aren’t taking this assault on our rights lightly: We’re fighting back. There are bright spots on the horizon. Just last month, our state, New Mexico, successfully repealed an abortion ban that had been on the books since 1969, and that we had been fighting to end for years.

We can’t understate the importance of this victory. If we hadn’t successfully removed the ban, and Roe were to fall, patients at any stage of pregnancy could have been forced to beg for permission to have an abortion in front of a panel of strangers. Anyone who performed an abortion outside of this inhumane process could have been charged with a felony. People receiving this care also could have been investigated and charged. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, outdated abortion bans still technically in place in other states could go back into effect.

New Mexicans no longer have to fear that reality. On February 26, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed S.B.  10, the Respect New Mexico Women and Families Act, into law. This bill is a repeal of New Mexico’s old, outdated abortion ban. It is validation of what we know: New Mexicans have long believed that politicians do not have any place in a person’s reproductive health care.

This victory did not come out of nowhere. In fact, efforts to repeal this ban failed before, in 2017, 2018, and again in 2019. We were several votes short just because of a few conservative lawmakers in the New Mexico Senate. In 2019 the measure failed by just three votes. So last May, we promised to work not only with our longstanding community partners and allied elected officials, but with our national organization to hold those lawmakers accountable. And that’s exactly what we did.

Together, the ACLU of New Mexico and the national ACLU organized a voter education and mobilization campaign. This voter education campaign zeroed in on key districts of state senators who voted to keep the abortion ban in 2019. In response, New Mexicans showed up and sent a clear message to these lawmakers: We support abortion rights. As a result, we wound up with a legislature that was willing to repeal this outdated law.

Then, we set our legislative strategy into motion. The Respect New Mexico Women and Families Act is a reminder of why efforts like these need to be led by on-the-ground activists and advocates. The Respect New Mexico Coalition in particular, co-chaired by Black and Indigenous women, has been a critical leader in this fight for years. As an intersectional movement of women, families, faith leaders, and medical providers, Indigenous, Black, and Latinx reproductive justice leaders alongside reproductive rights advocates, this coalition embodies what we know to be true: Reproductive health care impacts everyone in a community, and so must our organizing.

The bill had widespread support from a huge range of communities. Birth workers, nurses, and doctors testified and wrote public comments supporting the bill and their associations endorsed repeal. Indigenous, Black, Latinx, and Asian leaders, religious leaders, legal experts, LGBTQ-plus folks, people of color, and people from rural communities all supported this bill. Both teenagers and people who experienced the world before Roe v. Wade supported this bill.

Several organizations worked with local artists to commission posters, murals, and other art to inspire respect for what reproductive justice looks like. The ACLU of New Mexico sponsored a mural by New Mexican artist and advocate Jodie Herrera. State Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena and state Sen. Linda Lopez, both women of color, were the fearless lead sponsors on this bill; they were joined by Speaker of the New Mexico House Brian Egolf, Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, Reps. Joanne Ferrary, Georgene Louis, and Debbie Armstrong. And, 23 other state senators signed onto S.B. 10 when it was introduced.

The consequences of this win extend beyond our state. With attacks on abortion access in Arizona and the constant barrage of anti-abortion measures in Texas, it is critical that New Mexico remain a haven for reproductive health care for all pregnant people. As states around the country continue to dismantle abortion protection and access, we can now start to look forward and work to expand access to care, making abortion care, birth control, and period products even more equitably available, improving gender equity, and increasing training opportunities among medical professionals and birth workers to prevent maternal and infant mortality.

So, here is what we know: When we work together, locally and nationally, and mobilize all of our resources, we win. And that’s what we’ll continue to do. Together, our legislatures can reflect the will and needs of communities across the country.

Published March 23, 2021 at 08:20PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3rjFZFg

ACLU: Amazon Drivers Placed Under Robot Surveillance Microscope

Amazon Drivers Placed Under Robot Surveillance Microscope

Last month we learned that Amazon is planning to deploy AI cameras that will constantly scrutinize drivers inside the cabins of its delivery vehicles, and inform their bosses when the camera thinks they’ve done something questionable.

The device Amazon is installing (called “Driveri,” pronounced “driver eye”) has cameras pointing in four directions, one of which is toward the driver. In a video posted online, the company says the “camera records 100 percent of the time when you’re out on your route,” and watches for 16 behaviors that will “trigger Driveri to upload recorded footage.” These include not only accidents but also such things as following another car too closely, making a U-turn, failing to wear the seatbelt, obstructing the camera, “hard” braking or accelerating, and appearing to be distracted or drowsy — or what the AI interprets as those activities, anyway. Sometimes the robot camera will shout commands at you, such as “maintain safe distance!” or “please slow down!” One driver told CNBC that if the camera catches you yawning, it will tell you to pull over for at least 15 minutes — and if you don’t comply, you may get a call from your boss.

The cameras in this system are not streamed live to management; this is an AI monitoring system. The device itself decides when to send video clips to the bosses and when to issue verbal alerts to drivers. But as we have long argued, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that we can’t suffer many forms of privacy harm when being monitored by machines, not least because those machines are programmed to “snitch” to actual humans when they see something they think is bad. The company that makes Driveri, Netradyne, also advertises that its product keeps scores on drivers that are updated — and provided to management — in real time. (Such a function is not mentioned in Amazon’s video).

Given how bad AI is at understanding the subtleties of human behavior and dealing with anomalies, this system could lead to real fairness and accuracy issues. Automated test proctoring software, which also uses video to monitor people for subtle behaviors (in this case, cheating) has certainly been rife with bias and accuracy problems. Machine vision is very brittle and can fail spectacularly — even at the fundamentals, like recognizing a stop sign. Netradyne boasts that “every stop sign & traffic signal is identified and analyzed for compliance measurement.” But what happens when the AI thinks it sees a stop sign where there is none, and flags the driver for “running” it?

Ideally a human being would review the video and exonerate the driver, but given how automated Amazon’s management is, we don’t know how often that will happen. Workers in Amazon’s warehouses, for example, are constantly supervised by robots that judge whether they’re moving packages quickly enough. If they don’t like what they see, those robots issue warnings and even fire workers automatically — without any human input.

Amazon touts the system as a beneficial safety measure. It could indeed reduce accidents — though that should be proven — but as a society we’re going to need to figure out how much to allow ourselves to be overseen by automated AI cameras that engage in intrusive monitoring, judging, nagging, and reporting of our behaviors. Potential fairness issues aside, that kind of monitoring would probably make anyone miserable. There are almost certainly ways to be found to use AI to protect the safety of workers that feel empowering and protective, instead of infantilizing and oppressive.

Meanwhile, this kind of robot monitoring is becoming an increasingly prominent sore spot for workers. Some UPS drivers, for example, have opposed that company’s use of such cameras. (UPS drivers, unlike Amazon’s, are unionized and actually employed by the company whose uniforms they wear.)

Amazon workers’ complaints about robot management are part of growing labor tensions and criticism of the company for unethical labor practices. The company has been sued by the New York attorney general for failing to protect workers against COVID-19 and retaliating against those who complained, and was fined last month by the Federal Trade Commission for stealing workers’ tips. Amazon drivers in particular reportedly face brutal working conditions, and critics charge that the company places performance demands on them that pressure them to drive dangerously fast, while evading responsibility for the resulting accidents by insisting that they’re contractors. The Amazon drivers I have spoken to confirmed that they are urged to drive safely but also pushed to complete an unrealistic number of deliveries within a shift.

Driveri thus looks like a company’s attempt to use technology to solve a problem that its own managerial practices and profit drive may be creating. These technologies are like factory farms that pump our food with antibiotics — an attempt to use technology to unnaturally suppress the side effects of unhealthy and inhumane practices. This is something that we’ve already seen in the trucking industry: Instead of giving drivers protections from unhealthy productivity demands, they get micro-surveillance. And workers end up squeezed on both ends.

That squeeze may only increase as the AI is refined. For example, if sunglasses defeat Driveri’s drowsiness and inattentiveness detectors, drivers may be told they aren’t allowed to wear them. That could be just the beginning of many ways they are forced to conform their behavior, movements, and dress to the needs of the AI that is watching them. We’ve already seen that happen in other areas; we’re no longer allowed to smile in our passport photos, for example, because it reduces the effectiveness of face recognition technology. Ultimately, the technology threatens to enable a modern-day version of Taylorism, a 19th century industrial movement also known as “scientific management” that involved monitoring and controlling the minutiae of industrial workers’ bodily movements to maximize their productivity.

The issues raised by AI video monitoring extend far beyond Amazon and its particular practices. To begin with, Amazon is not the only company experimenting with this kind of robot surveillance; a number of trucking companies, for example, are imposing it on their drivers. More broadly, as AI cameras get smarter, there are many institutions that have different incentives to use them to visually monitor people. We could soon see not just employers but also everything from museums to restaurants to government agencies deploying this technology — anyone who wants to enforce a rule, protect an asset, or gain a new efficiency.

Technological monitoring of workers has long taken place through other data-collection devices, down to and including the time clock, but these new tools don’t require expensive or specialized data-collection devices, or efforts to get workers to use them properly. All that’s needed is a camera. And improving AI is likely to open up ever-wider possibilities for automated visual monitoring, as we discussed in our 2019 report, The Dawn of Robot Surveillance.

Employees like drivers and factory workers whose jobs are most at risk of being supplanted by AI (but for now are just being integrated with it) will be the first to be placed under oppressive AI surveillance microscopes, and we should support their rights to maximize their self-determination through unionization and other measures. But AI monitoring will soon move beyond those groups, starting with less powerful people across our society — who, like Amazon’s nonmanagerial workforce, are disproportionately people of color and are likely to continue to bear the brunt of that surveillance. And ultimately, in one form or another, such monitoring is likely to affect everyone — and in the process, further tilt power toward those who already have it.

Published March 24, 2021 at 12:32AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2NLewi9