Zimbabwe: Technical Assistance Report-Undertaking Supervisory Examinations Remotely Due to COVID-19 Operational Restrictions

Zimbabwe: Technical Assistance Report-Undertaking Supervisory Examinations Remotely Due to COVID-19 Operational Restrictions
Published February 28, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Arab Republic of Egypt: Technical Assistance Report-Improving Surveillance of Public-Private Partnerships

Arab Republic of Egypt: Technical Assistance Report-Improving Surveillance of Public-Private Partnerships
Published February 26, 2022 at 01:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of Moldova: Selected Issues

Republic of Moldova: Selected Issues
Published February 23, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Fight for Voting Rights: How the Past Informs the Current Discriminatory Landscape

The Fight for Voting Rights: How the Past Informs the Current Discriminatory Landscape

The right to vote was by no means ensured to Black Americans throughout the country’s history. It took decades of demonstrations and activism in the face of violence and repression for people of color to achieve the same right to participate in democracy that their white counterparts were granted, and today, efforts to suppress the voting power of Black communities are still rampant.

While looking back on historical moments that advanced and hindered voting rights, it’s crucial to remember that many voters, particularly Black voters, still struggle against modern tactics to disenfranchise them. However, activists and lawmakers are also pushing policies that would ensure every eligible individual can cast their ballot — while making it harder for voter suppression tactics to thrive.

https://infogram.com/copy-copy-vr-timeline-3-1h7z2l8kz50wx6o?live

What you can do:

Congress: Protect Our Voting Rights

Send your message

Published February 23, 2022 at 07:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MevktRy

ACLU: The Fight for Voting Rights: How the Past Informs the Current Discriminatory Landscape

The Fight for Voting Rights: How the Past Informs the Current Discriminatory Landscape

The right to vote was by no means ensured to Black Americans throughout the country’s history. It took decades of demonstrations and activism in the face of violence and repression for people of color to achieve the same right to participate in democracy that their white counterparts were granted, and today, efforts to suppress the voting power of Black communities are still rampant.

While looking back on historical moments that advanced and hindered voting rights, it’s crucial to remember that many voters, particularly Black voters, still struggle against modern tactics to disenfranchise them. However, activists and lawmakers are also pushing policies that would ensure every eligible individual can cast their ballot — while making it harder for voter suppression tactics to thrive.

https://infogram.com/copy-copy-vr-timeline-3-1h7z2l8kz50wx6o?live

What you can do:

Congress: Protect Our Voting Rights

Send your message

Published February 23, 2022 at 02:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/MevktRy

Republic of Congo: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Congo

Republic of Congo: Request for a Three-Year Arrangement Under the Extended Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Congo
Published February 17, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

United Kingdom: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Financial System Stability Assessment

United Kingdom: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Financial System Stability Assessment
Published February 23, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

United Kingdom: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United Kingdom
Published February 23, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Republic of Tajikistan: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by Executive Director for the Republic of Tajikistan
Published February 18, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Colombia: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Soundness Indicators Mission

Colombia: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Soundness Indicators Mission
Published February 18, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Our Vision to Achieve True Public Safety

Our Vision to Achieve True Public Safety

For decades, local, state and federal public officials from both political parties and powerful interest groups engineered the system of mass incarceration. They did this in part by constructing a narrative of fear fueled by racism through which they passed laws, spent billions of dollars, and separated millions of families. It was a disaster of epic proportions that unfolded in slow motion and for which we are still paying the price today as a nation.

The movement to end and repair the damage of mass incarceration has made some gains, but that progress is now at risk. As we near the second-year anniversary of a global pandemic that has taken almost one million lives in our country, the collateral damage is everywhere. While the stock market surged, communities have been in a constant state of distress, from the loss of lives, health, housing, and jobs; to tensions over mask mandates and vaccinations; to school closures that have disrupted the lives of children, teens, and parents alike.

In the early months of the pandemic when the nation was sequestered and reeling from fear of infection, the filmed murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked a ubiquitous intergenerational mass movement that poured into previously empty streets demanding justice. After decades of witnessing and enduring police brutality disproportionately against Black people, a collective demand rose: not just for police accountability, but to reimagine the role of police to be far narrower, while investing in supportive, community-based solutions for public safety independent of the criminal legal system.

Today, the social and economic disruptions caused by the pandemic and the failure to build adequate community-based care strategies have led to conditions that are truly distressing. Many cities are struggling with mass homelessness and an unprecedented epidemic of substance use disorder and overdose.

In the face of this rising poverty and despair, we might expect efforts to build out strong, sufficient interventions that meaningfully respond to these conditions. Instead, we are witnessing a backlash from the forces in power — especially police unions — to reverse recent gains and return us to the policies of criminalization, surveillance, and incarceration.

San Francisco is no exception to the rising anxiety about crime, and we are now in danger of public officials backsliding into old, harmful answers. In contrast to Mayor London Breed’s statements during the summer protests of 2020, she recently displayed a shift in her messaging, emphasis, and policy during her press conference in December. Deeply concerned about the conditions in the Tenderloin district, she invoked the need for tough love and pledged to “be more aggressive with law enforcement, more aggressive with the changes in our policies.”

In practice, Mayor Breed has pursued some important measures focusing on public health, including opening the Linkage Center to connect residents with services and fast-tracking the hiring of public health workers. These and other public health efforts deserve strong support — and on these counts, she has ours.

Nonetheless, the ACLU and the ACLU of Northern California unequivocally oppose several of Mayor Breed’s and the San Francisco Police Department’s recent policy proposals that will not address systemic problems and will undermine the rights and safety of the people of San Francisco. These misguided proposals are not prudent components in a balanced approach, and they are taking us down the wrong path.

Continuously since 1934, the ACLU has endeavored to hold law enforcement in San Francisco accountable to the Constitution. Yet violations and abusive policing persist, especially against those groups most at risk for having their rights denied.

We will continue to fight any attempt to gut the San Francisco surveillance ordinance that ensures proper public oversight over police use of powerful surveillance technology. If it proceeds, we will vigorously oppose the proposed ballot measure that gives unilateral power to the police to deploy surveillance with no guardrails.

We have strongly opposed the allocation of additional millions of dollars to the police department when we should instead be investing every available dollar in the housing and public health emergency that is ravaging the Tenderloin. We oppose unconstitutional efforts to curtail people’s freedom of movement, as we’ve done in a case in the Tenderloin where the city government is using civil injunctions to exclude persons from entering the neighborhood, rather than targeting actual illegal conduct.

And we strongly oppose the SFPD’s attempt to unilaterally terminate a memorandum of understanding that makes the district attorney’s office the independent and primary investigator of police use of force. The termination of this legal agreement was announced by Police Chief Bill Scott on the eve of the district attorney’s office proceeding in the first jury trial of an officer on charges of excessive use of force, after decades of the San Francisco Police Officers Association resisting every reform and every effort by the SFPD itself to hold its officers to account.

Let us be clear: There are real impacts of crime, and too often it is the most vulnerable among us who suffer. Our neighbors in the Tenderloin and other systemically impoverished districts in San Francisco and throughout our nation deserve to be safe. But reverting to the tools of incarceration and over policing, and failing to build adequate community-based care strategies and strong, sufficient interventions will not bring these communities the systems of safety they deserve. We must protect the recent gains made in police accountability and reducing incarceration, while we also pursue the transformative change that communities demand.

In the words of Austrian philosopher Viktor Frankl, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

We urge our fellow residents to make the most of that space between the stimulus — rising poverty and despair — and our collective response in a democratic society. We must not succumb to the backlash and once again criminalize, surveil, and incarcerate. We have the power to choose our response: real solutions that increase equality and justice, and also safety.

What you can do:

End Over-policing in Our Communities Now.

Send your message

Published February 18, 2022 at 04:51AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3BZyk02

ACLU: Our Vision to Achieve True Public Safety

Our Vision to Achieve True Public Safety

For decades, local, state and federal public officials from both political parties and powerful interest groups engineered the system of mass incarceration. They did this in part by constructing a narrative of fear fueled by racism through which they passed laws, spent billions of dollars, and separated millions of families. It was a disaster of epic proportions that unfolded in slow motion and for which we are still paying the price today as a nation.

The movement to end and repair the damage of mass incarceration has made some gains, but that progress is now at risk. As we near the second-year anniversary of a global pandemic that has taken almost one million lives in our country, the collateral damage is everywhere. While the stock market surged, communities have been in a constant state of distress, from the loss of lives, health, housing, and jobs; to tensions over mask mandates and vaccinations; to school closures that have disrupted the lives of children, teens, and parents alike.

In the early months of the pandemic when the nation was sequestered and reeling from fear of infection, the filmed murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked a ubiquitous intergenerational mass movement that poured into previously empty streets demanding justice. After decades of witnessing and enduring police brutality disproportionately against Black people, a collective demand rose: not just for police accountability, but to reimagine the role of police to be far narrower, while investing in supportive, community-based solutions for public safety independent of the criminal legal system.

Today, the social and economic disruptions caused by the pandemic and the failure to build adequate community-based care strategies have led to conditions that are truly distressing. Many cities are struggling with mass homelessness and an unprecedented epidemic of substance use disorder and overdose.

In the face of this rising poverty and despair, we might expect efforts to build out strong, sufficient interventions that meaningfully respond to these conditions. Instead, we are witnessing a backlash from the forces in power — especially police unions — to reverse recent gains and return us to the policies of criminalization, surveillance, and incarceration.

San Francisco is no exception to the rising anxiety about crime, and we are now in danger of public officials backsliding into old, harmful answers. In contrast to Mayor London Breed’s statements during the summer protests of 2020, she recently displayed a shift in her messaging, emphasis, and policy during her press conference in December. Deeply concerned about the conditions in the Tenderloin district, she invoked the need for tough love and pledged to “be more aggressive with law enforcement, more aggressive with the changes in our policies.”

In practice, Mayor Breed has pursued some important measures focusing on public health, including opening the Linkage Center to connect residents with services and fast-tracking the hiring of public health workers. These and other public health efforts deserve strong support — and on these counts, she has ours.

Nonetheless, the ACLU and the ACLU of Northern California unequivocally oppose several of Mayor Breed’s and the San Francisco Police Department’s recent policy proposals that will not address systemic problems and will undermine the rights and safety of the people of San Francisco. These misguided proposals are not prudent components in a balanced approach, and they are taking us down the wrong path.

Continuously since 1934, the ACLU has endeavored to hold law enforcement in San Francisco accountable to the Constitution. Yet violations and abusive policing persist, especially against those groups most at risk for having their rights denied.

We will continue to fight any attempt to gut the San Francisco surveillance ordinance that ensures proper public oversight over police use of powerful surveillance technology. If it proceeds, we will vigorously oppose the proposed ballot measure that gives unilateral power to the police to deploy surveillance with no guardrails.

We have strongly opposed the allocation of additional millions of dollars to the police department when we should instead be investing every available dollar in the housing and public health emergency that is ravaging the Tenderloin. We oppose unconstitutional efforts to curtail people’s freedom of movement, as we’ve done in a case in the Tenderloin where the city government is using civil injunctions to exclude persons from entering the neighborhood, rather than targeting actual illegal conduct.

And we strongly oppose the SFPD’s attempt to unilaterally terminate a memorandum of understanding that makes the district attorney’s office the independent and primary investigator of police use of force. The termination of this legal agreement was announced by Police Chief Bill Scott on the eve of the district attorney’s office proceeding in the first jury trial of an officer on charges of excessive use of force, after decades of the San Francisco Police Officers Association resisting every reform and every effort by the SFPD itself to hold its officers to account.

Let us be clear: There are real impacts of crime, and too often it is the most vulnerable among us who suffer. Our neighbors in the Tenderloin and other systemically impoverished districts in San Francisco and throughout our nation deserve to be safe. But reverting to the tools of incarceration and over policing, and failing to build adequate community-based care strategies and strong, sufficient interventions will not bring these communities the systems of safety they deserve. We must protect the recent gains made in police accountability and reducing incarceration, while we also pursue the transformative change that communities demand.

In the words of Austrian philosopher Viktor Frankl, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

We urge our fellow residents to make the most of that space between the stimulus — rising poverty and despair — and our collective response in a democratic society. We must not succumb to the backlash and once again criminalize, surveil, and incarcerate. We have the power to choose our response: real solutions that increase equality and justice, and also safety.

What you can do:

End Over-policing in Our Communities Now.

Send your message

Published February 17, 2022 at 11:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3BZyk02

Albania: Technical Assistance Report-Tax Policy Reform Options for the MTRS

Albania: Technical Assistance Report-Tax Policy Reform Options for the MTRS
Published February 17, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Your Guide to Talking About Attacks on Trans Youth

Your Guide to Talking About Attacks on Trans Youth

Misinformation is fueling an attack on trans youth in state legislatures. These attacks overwhelmingly focus on youth and schools. They try to make being trans shameful — but they won’t stop youth from being trans. They will only make it harder for kids to grow up at all and make it harder to access the support, education, and community that all young people deserve.

While everyone should be contacting lawmakers and expressing their support for trans youth, we know that these attacks aren’t limited to statehouses. The lies about trans youth spread at the dinner table, PTA meetings, and many other places. It takes all of us speaking out and speaking up.

Watch ACLU’s Ambassador for Trans Justice, Miss Peppermint, and LGBTQ & HIV Project Staff Attorney Taylor Brown tell us the truth about trans youth and then check out these resources, so you know how to respond the next time you hear a lie about trans youth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqUk0tdjkg

Using people’s names and pronouns is a matter of respect.

“It’s hard not to take it personally, but over the years I have grown numb to the discrimination. Sometimes, these experiences made me want to give up. But that’s not true happiness. That’s not what I’m here for. I’m here to identify myself accurately and get respect. So, I have no choice but to keep pushing through.” — Erica Aries

• We all want to be respected and seen for who we are. When a young person’s name and pronouns are respected, they do better in school, have more confidence, and have lower rates of suicide.
• People change their names for a variety of reasons. If the only time you have difficulty using someone’s name and pronouns is when they are trans, ask yourself why.
• It doesn’t hurt you to be kind and be respectful. But it could be very meaningful to someone else. There’s no reason not to try.

Trans women are women.

“Cisgender women should be concerned whenever an alleged concern for ‘protecting’ our well-being is invoked to justify exclusion.” — Shayna Medley & Galen Sherwin

• Attempts to legislate who is or isn’t a woman are not new. Lawmakers have often tried to exclude poor women, unmarried women, Black women, and others from legal protections. Across time and cultures, trans women have often been not only accepted but revered.
• There’s nothing wrong with saying “woman.” Just ask yourself if that’s the most specific and inclusive language you can use.
• Policing what it means to be a woman hurts everyone. That’s why the ACLU fights against sexist dress code policies and practices that push women out of the workforce.

School sports are about participation and belonging. It’s wrong to deny students the chance to try out for a team.

“The false rhetoric taking hold is a distraction to the real threats to girls and women in sports, such as lack of Title IX understanding and compliance; inequity in compensation, resources, sponsorship, and media attention; harassment and abuse of female athletes and women working in sports, the list goes on.” — Women’s Sports Foundation

• Transgender people want to participate in school sports for the same reasons as their peers: to challenge themselves, improve fitness, and be part of a team. Excluding trans youth from sports sends them the message that they are not worthy of the same kinds of opportunities as their classmates.
• Professional women athletes and organizations fighting to end discrimination against girls in school sports are all speaking up to oppose these bills. They are saying girls’ sports need more funding and resources.
• We’re talking about kids. Growing up is hard for all of us, but imagine if your ability to simply go to school and try out for a team was up for debate. No young person should have to fight this hard just to be on a team.

Trans youth know who they are. They should be able to ask questions and discuss their gender with their parents and medical professionals without inference from politicians.

“[After starting hormone therapy,] I now feel a level of confidence I never knew was possible. I can easily and confidently interact with other people, whether I know them or not. My body is finally beginning to match who I am.” — Dylan Brandt

• What you won’t hear from many supporting these bills: None of the care being provided to transgender youth is new or provided only to trans youth. We’re talking about care that has been given to youth with a wide range of diagnoses for decades.
• These bills are ultimately about stopping trans youth from experiencing joy. Denying medical care and support to transgender youth has been shown to contribute to depression, social isolation, self-hatred, risk of self-harm and suicidal behavior, and more. In short: It’s life threatening.
• Doctors and major medical associations have spoken out against these bills and in support of trans youth having access to gender affirming care.

Trans people have always been here.

“Trans people are not new. We have always been here. As long as there’s been recorded human history, we have always existed. But we have been written out of the human story — and when you come from a community that is without a full range of possibility models, it raises the question, in yourself as well as others, of whether or not you deserve rights or a place in society.” – Imara Jones

• If you aren’t aware of any trans people you’ve met, then you might not be aware of how many trans people have existed throughout human history. Just because something is new to you, it doesn’t mean it’s new to everyone.
• It’s okay for you to learn about trans people on your own time — the ACLU’s Trans in America documentary series is a good start, and the ACLU’s advocacy on behalf of transgender people goes back decades.
• You can speak up against these harmful attacks even if you have questions and are still learning.

You can take action by following your local ACLU affiliate, supporting grassroots organizations led by trans people, or sharing this resource with others. And be sure to check out our Know Your Rights information so you know how the law protects trans and non-binary people from discrimination.

Learn more:

• Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age
• The Coordinated Attack on Trans Student Athletes
• Doctors Agree: Gender-Affirming Care is Life-Saving Care
• Five Things to Know About Gender-Affirming Health Care
• Trans in America Documentary Series

https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/transgender-rights/trans-america

What you can do:

Join our volunteer team to make calls

Sign up

Published February 18, 2022 at 03:12AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fFL2rOG

ACLU: Your Guide to Talking About Attacks on Trans Youth

Your Guide to Talking About Attacks on Trans Youth

Misinformation is fueling an attack on trans youth in state legislatures. These attacks overwhelmingly focus on youth and schools. They try to make being trans shameful — but they won’t stop youth from being trans. They will only make it harder for kids to grow up at all and make it harder to access the support, education, and community that all young people deserve.

While everyone should be contacting lawmakers and expressing their support for trans youth, we know that these attacks aren’t limited to statehouses. The lies about trans youth spread at the dinner table, PTA meetings, and many other places. It takes all of us speaking out and speaking up.

Watch ACLU’s Ambassador for Trans Justice, Miss Peppermint, and LGBTQ & HIV Project Staff Attorney Taylor Brown tell us the truth about trans youth and then check out these resources, so you know how to respond the next time you hear a lie about trans youth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfqUk0tdjkg

Using people’s names and pronouns is a matter of respect.

“It’s hard not to take it personally, but over the years I have grown numb to the discrimination. Sometimes, these experiences made me want to give up. But that’s not true happiness. That’s not what I’m here for. I’m here to identify myself accurately and get respect. So, I have no choice but to keep pushing through.” — Erica Aries

• We all want to be respected and seen for who we are. When a young person’s name and pronouns are respected, they do better in school, have more confidence, and have lower rates of suicide.
• People change their names for a variety of reasons. If the only time you have difficulty using someone’s name and pronouns is when they are trans, ask yourself why.
• It doesn’t hurt you to be kind and be respectful. But it could be very meaningful to someone else. There’s no reason not to try.

Trans women are women.

“Cisgender women should be concerned whenever an alleged concern for ‘protecting’ our well-being is invoked to justify exclusion.” — Shayna Medley & Galen Sherwin

• Attempts to legislate who is or isn’t a woman are not new. Lawmakers have often tried to exclude poor women, unmarried women, Black women, and others from legal protections. Across time and cultures, trans women have often been not only accepted but revered.
• There’s nothing wrong with saying “woman.” Just ask yourself if that’s the most specific and inclusive language you can use.
• Policing what it means to be a woman hurts everyone. That’s why the ACLU fights against sexist dress code policies and practices that push women out of the workforce.

School sports are about participation and belonging. It’s wrong to deny students the chance to try out for a team.

“The false rhetoric taking hold is a distraction to the real threats to girls and women in sports, such as lack of Title IX understanding and compliance; inequity in compensation, resources, sponsorship, and media attention; harassment and abuse of female athletes and women working in sports, the list goes on.” — Women’s Sports Foundation

• Transgender people want to participate in school sports for the same reasons as their peers: to challenge themselves, improve fitness, and be part of a team. Excluding trans youth from sports sends them the message that they are not worthy of the same kinds of opportunities as their classmates.
• Professional women athletes and organizations fighting to end discrimination against girls in school sports are all speaking up to oppose these bills. They are saying girls’ sports need more funding and resources.
• We’re talking about kids. Growing up is hard for all of us, but imagine if your ability to simply go to school and try out for a team was up for debate. No young person should have to fight this hard just to be on a team.

Trans youth know who they are. They should be able to ask questions and discuss their gender with their parents and medical professionals without inference from politicians.

“[After starting hormone therapy,] I now feel a level of confidence I never knew was possible. I can easily and confidently interact with other people, whether I know them or not. My body is finally beginning to match who I am.” — Dylan Brandt

• What you won’t hear from many supporting these bills: None of the care being provided to transgender youth is new or provided only to trans youth. We’re talking about care that has been given to youth with a wide range of diagnoses for decades.
• These bills are ultimately about stopping trans youth from experiencing joy. Denying medical care and support to transgender youth has been shown to contribute to depression, social isolation, self-hatred, risk of self-harm and suicidal behavior, and more. In short: It’s life threatening.
• Doctors and major medical associations have spoken out against these bills and in support of trans youth having access to gender affirming care.

Trans people have always been here.

“Trans people are not new. We have always been here. As long as there’s been recorded human history, we have always existed. But we have been written out of the human story — and when you come from a community that is without a full range of possibility models, it raises the question, in yourself as well as others, of whether or not you deserve rights or a place in society.” – Imara Jones

• If you aren’t aware of any trans people you’ve met, then you might not be aware of how many trans people have existed throughout human history. Just because something is new to you, it doesn’t mean it’s new to everyone.
• It’s okay for you to learn about trans people on your own time — the ACLU’s Trans in America documentary series is a good start, and the ACLU’s advocacy on behalf of transgender people goes back decades.
• You can speak up against these harmful attacks even if you have questions and are still learning.

You can take action by following your local ACLU affiliate, supporting grassroots organizations led by trans people, or sharing this resource with others. And be sure to check out our Know Your Rights information so you know how the law protects trans and non-binary people from discrimination.

Learn more:

• Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age
• The Coordinated Attack on Trans Student Athletes
• Doctors Agree: Gender-Affirming Care is Life-Saving Care
• Five Things to Know About Gender-Affirming Health Care
• Trans in America Documentary Series

https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/transgender-rights/trans-america

What you can do:

Join our volunteer team to make calls

Sign up

Published February 17, 2022 at 09:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/fFL2rOG

United Arab Emirates: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report

United Arab Emirates: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published February 17, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

United Arab Emirates: Selected Issues

United Arab Emirates: Selected Issues
Published February 17, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Republic of North Macedonia: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of North Macedonia
Published February 16, 2022 at 01:00PM
Read more at imf.org

Republic of North Macedonia: Selected Issues

Republic of North Macedonia: Selected Issues
Published February 16, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Spain: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Spain
Published February 16, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Spain: Selected Issues

Spain: Selected Issues
Published February 16, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Jamaica: Selected Issues

Jamaica: Selected Issues
Published February 15, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Jamaica: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jamaica
Published February 15, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Dominica: Selected Issues

Dominica: Selected Issues
Published February 14, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Guinea-Bissau: Second Review Under the Staff Monitored Program-Press Release; and Staff Report

Guinea-Bissau: Second Review Under the Staff Monitored Program-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published February 14, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Dominica: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Dominica
Published February 14, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Peru: Technical Assistance Report-Tax Regime for Small Taxpayers and Special Economic Zones

Peru: Technical Assistance Report-Tax Regime for Small Taxpayers and Special Economic Zones
Published February 11, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

South Africa: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for South Africa
Published February 11, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

South Africa: Selected Issues

South Africa: Selected Issues
Published February 11, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

South Africa: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Financial System Stability Assessment

South Africa: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Financial System Stability Assessment
Published February 11, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: The Most Racist Supreme Court Cases You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

The Most Racist Supreme Court Cases You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

Over 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of rulings known as the Insular Cases that still prevent millions of people — overwhelmingly, people of color — from accessing certain constitutional rights and protections. These rulings continue to uphold systemic racism today.

In the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court spoke to whether, and to what extent, the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution applied to residents in the then-new territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. In this string of cases decided from 1901 to 1922, the court described the territories’ inhabitants as “alien races” and “savage tribes.” The court based its views squarely on the presumed racial inferiority of the non-white people who lived there. In doing so, the Supreme Court showed obvious contempt for the predominately Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and Pacific Islander residents of these territories.

The Insular Cases are unabashedly racist, firmly rooted in white supremacy, and still haunt the day-to-day lives of millions of people. This is why today, the ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights groups, sent a letter to the Biden administration urging them to condemn the these cases and stop relying on the precedent they set in present or future cases.

As usually understood, these decisions held that constitutional provisions and safeguards do not automatically apply to people living in the territories. The rationale for that view was explicitly race-based. In the leading Insular case, Downes v. Bidwell, the court considered whether the phrase “United States,” as used in a specific constitutional provision, included Puerto Rico. Informed by disdain for Puerto Rico residents, the court said it did not. The opposite result — acknowledging the Constitution fully applied in Puerto Rico — was too alarming to consider. As one justice put it, doing so would “inflict grave detriment to the United States,” indicating that affirming constitutional rights applied to people in a predominantly BIPOC-populated territory would be a threat to the broader country.

Since the United States’ founding, there was a long-held presumption that the Constitution’s protections would naturally apply in the nation’s territories. The court broke away from this practice with the Insular Cases to keep the new territories from enjoying full constitutional protections. When the U.S. acquired Florida in 1819, for example, few seriously questioned whether the Constitution applied there. Key differences between territories acquired before 1898 and those acquired later — particularly the people who lived there and their location — made all the difference to the court.

The later-acquired territories were, for the first time, populated mostly by people of color and so far from the U.S. mainland that they were unlikely to be settled by white people. To ensure the Constitution would not block U.S. expansion, the court made up a new doctrine — so-called “territorial incorporation” — that said some constitutional provisions and protections could be switched off in those islands and for those residents until Congress said otherwise.

Despite many justices criticizing this doctrine in the ensuing 120 years, the “territorial incorporation” doctrine still effectively allows federal courts to question, on a case-by-case basis, whether certain protections apply to the territories’ residents. In one 2016 case, a federal court wrongly cast doubt on the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in Puerto Rico. In another recent decision, a federal court of appeals held that U.S. agents did not need a warrant to search a person’s property as it arrived to the U.S. Virgin Islands from South Carolina. Because it was a so-called “unincorporated territory,” the court reasoned Congress could establish an “artificial customs border” between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the rest of the United States that would infringe on the rights of any person passing through.

Reliance on these racist cases must end. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice, a key voice federal courts regularly hear from, continues to depend on them. It hasn’t yet seen fit to renounce them, as it did with Korematsu v. United States, a case that rested on similarly odious racial assumptions. Instead, the DOJ relies on the Insular Cases even as it acknowledges, as it did recently at oral argument before the Supreme Court, that their reasoning and rhetoric are “obviously anathema,” alluding to the racist origin of the very doctrine the DOJ continues to rely on when convenient. This reliance on case law grounded in white supremacy contravenes the Biden administration’s stated goals of redressing systemic racism.

While dismantling systemic racism is a necessary but complicated goal, the Insular Cases give the Biden administration a perfect opportunity to back up words with action. The DOJ should publicly condemn the Insular Cases and stop relying on them in future court filings. The department’s refusal to disavow them when recently invited to do so by the Supreme Court perpetuates a painful legacy akin to Jim Crow, and risks undermining its credibility on issues of race. The presumed inferiority of territorial residents is archaic, offensive, and racist. It was wrong at the time of the Insular Cases, and cannot justify differential treatment today.

What you can do:

Take the pledge: Systemic Equality Agenda

Sign up

Published February 11, 2022 at 12:08AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/C5DzMJq

ACLU: The Most Racist Supreme Court Cases You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

The Most Racist Supreme Court Cases You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

Over 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of rulings known as the Insular Cases that still prevent millions of people — overwhelmingly, people of color — from accessing certain constitutional rights and protections. These rulings continue to uphold systemic racism today.

In the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court spoke to whether, and to what extent, the rights and protections guaranteed by the Constitution applied to residents in the then-new territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. In this string of cases decided from 1901 to 1922, the court described the territories’ inhabitants as “alien races” and “savage tribes.” The court based its views squarely on the presumed racial inferiority of the non-white people who lived there. In doing so, the Supreme Court showed obvious contempt for the predominately Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and Pacific Islander residents of these territories.

The Insular Cases are unabashedly racist, firmly rooted in white supremacy, and still haunt the day-to-day lives of millions of people. This is why today, the ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights groups, sent a letter to the Biden administration urging them to condemn the these cases and stop relying on the precedent they set in present or future cases.

As usually understood, these decisions held that constitutional provisions and safeguards do not automatically apply to people living in the territories. The rationale for that view was explicitly race-based. In the leading Insular case, Downes v. Bidwell, the court considered whether the phrase “United States,” as used in a specific constitutional provision, included Puerto Rico. Informed by disdain for Puerto Rico residents, the court said it did not. The opposite result — acknowledging the Constitution fully applied in Puerto Rico — was too alarming to consider. As one justice put it, doing so would “inflict grave detriment to the United States,” indicating that affirming constitutional rights applied to people in a predominantly BIPOC-populated territory would be a threat to the broader country.

Since the United States’ founding, there was a long-held presumption that the Constitution’s protections would naturally apply in the nation’s territories. The court broke away from this practice with the Insular Cases to keep the new territories from enjoying full constitutional protections. When the U.S. acquired Florida in 1819, for example, few seriously questioned whether the Constitution applied there. Key differences between territories acquired before 1898 and those acquired later — particularly the people who lived there and their location — made all the difference to the court.

The later-acquired territories were, for the first time, populated mostly by people of color and so far from the U.S. mainland that they were unlikely to be settled by white people. To ensure the Constitution would not block U.S. expansion, the court made up a new doctrine — so-called “territorial incorporation” — that said some constitutional provisions and protections could be switched off in those islands and for those residents until Congress said otherwise.

Despite many justices criticizing this doctrine in the ensuing 120 years, the “territorial incorporation” doctrine still effectively allows federal courts to question, on a case-by-case basis, whether certain protections apply to the territories’ residents. In one 2016 case, a federal court wrongly cast doubt on the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in Puerto Rico. In another recent decision, a federal court of appeals held that U.S. agents did not need a warrant to search a person’s property as it arrived to the U.S. Virgin Islands from South Carolina. Because it was a so-called “unincorporated territory,” the court reasoned Congress could establish an “artificial customs border” between the U.S. Virgin Islands and the rest of the United States that would infringe on the rights of any person passing through.

Reliance on these racist cases must end. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice, a key voice federal courts regularly hear from, continues to depend on them. It hasn’t yet seen fit to renounce them, as it did with Korematsu v. United States, a case that rested on similarly odious racial assumptions. Instead, the DOJ relies on the Insular Cases even as it acknowledges, as it did recently at oral argument before the Supreme Court, that their reasoning and rhetoric are “obviously anathema,” alluding to the racist origin of the very doctrine the DOJ continues to rely on when convenient. This reliance on case law grounded in white supremacy contravenes the Biden administration’s stated goals of redressing systemic racism.

While dismantling systemic racism is a necessary but complicated goal, the Insular Cases give the Biden administration a perfect opportunity to back up words with action. The DOJ should publicly condemn the Insular Cases and stop relying on them in future court filings. The department’s refusal to disavow them when recently invited to do so by the Supreme Court perpetuates a painful legacy akin to Jim Crow, and risks undermining its credibility on issues of race. The presumed inferiority of territorial residents is archaic, offensive, and racist. It was wrong at the time of the Insular Cases, and cannot justify differential treatment today.

What you can do:

Take the pledge: Systemic Equality Agenda

Sign up

Published February 10, 2022 at 06:38PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/C5DzMJq

Morocco: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report

Morocco: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release and Staff Report
Published February 09, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Union of the Comoros: First Review Under the Staff-Monitored Program and Request for Extension; and Staff Report

Union of the Comoros: First Review Under the Staff-Monitored Program and Request for Extension; and Staff Report
Published February 08, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Central African Republic: Request for a Staff Monitored Program

Central African Republic: Request for a Staff Monitored Program
Published February 07, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Airlines Want the Government to Create a New Passenger No-Fly List

Airlines Want the Government to Create a New Passenger No-Fly List

The CEO of Delta Airlines recently wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking the Department of Justice to support a “no-fly” list of people convicted of “an on-board disruption” during flights. According to the CEO, Edward H. Bastian, “the rate of incidents with unruly passengers on Delta has increased nearly 100 percent since 2019.” Other airlines have been reporting a similar trend, and the industry has been pushing Congress to enact this kind of list for months. The existing no-fly list is a civil liberties nightmare, and expanding it should be a non-starter.

It’s not clear why rates of disruptive behavior on flights have been rising, though the politicized and false conviction of many that wearing a mask is useless, and therefore that being forced to do so is an incursion on personal freedom, has led to many incidents. The stresses of the pandemic may also have led to a general increase in free-floating hostility within the American population. But a significant element of most airlines’ business model is literally to intentionally make passengers feel uncomfortable during flights, and then sell minor comforts (as well as petty feelings of superiority) to those unhappy and/or affluent enough to pay for the privilege. If Congress wants to address bad behavior on aircraft, one thing it could do is take steps to make flying less miserable.

Regardless of the cause, we certainly have sympathy for flight attendants and other airline workers, who shouldn’t have to deal with passengers who are disruptive, unruly, or violent, no matter how infuriating flying can be at times. But this proposal raises a number of civil liberties issues.

The government has a terrible record of treating people fairly with regard to the existing no-fly list and other watch lists that are aimed at alleged terrorists. The key word there is “alleged,” because the government rarely provides any evidence to back up its watch-listing decisions, and seems to put fairness last when it comes to these bloated lists. My ACLU colleagues have been suing the government for years on behalf of innocent people who aren’t informed that they’re on the list, can’t find out why they’ve been put on it or what information their inclusion might be based upon, or how they can get their names removed. Getting information from the government about its treatment of these people, and getting the government to put in place some basic checks and balances against unfair treatment, has been like pulling teeth. It’s a battle we’re still waging, especially because lists like these are often prone to abuse. The FBI has put some people on the no-fly list just to pressure them to become informants and spy on their communities on behalf of the agency.

None of this inspires confidence around the creation of a brand new list.

Many questions remain over how such a list would be run. Who decides who goes on that list, how long they stay on it, and how they get off? How would cases of mistaken identity or other errors be handled? What offenses would land a person on the list? Aviation staff are only human — and being human, some will treat passengers badly and then, when those passengers become upset, seek to put them on the list. Anyone with the power to punish others needs to be subject to checks and balances.

Some proposals we’ve seen would include only those who have been convicted in court of breaking the law with their behavior on airplanes. That narrower approach would take care of some due process concerns, because it would require conviction in a court of law before this punishment would be meted out. But that would still raise problems. First, it would create a new punishment for things that are already illegal. If you commit assault, for example, whether on a plane or off, you can go to jail, and the Justice Department has already said it is stepping up punishment of such offenses. It has plenty of existing authority to do so, and one thing our criminal justice system does not need is more punishments. Experience shows they are likely to be over-used and unjustly applied.

In addition, these proposals would effectively make a ban on flying a new mandatory minimum punishment. Such sentencing schemes have many problems, including the fact that they remove discretion from judges over who is banned from flying and for how long. A person who only flies once a year might shrug off a flight ban, while for another person who depends on weekly travel to make a living, it could be a devastating and disproportionate punishment. And as travel expert Edward Hasbrouck points out, such a punishment would also disproportionately punish those who live in parts of our country that are on islands, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, none of which have regular boat service to the mainland United States. Alaska residents also depend heavily on air travel. We have judges to take into account the particularities of each person’s situation and choose a punishment that fits. Mandatory minimums remove that power.

We don’t think creating an “abusive passenger no-fly list” is the right thing to do. When people commit crimes, we don’t punish them by cutting off their right to obtain electricity or water service. Airline travel should be in the same category. The right to travel is a human and constitutional right that can be crucial to people’s happiness (as when they need to fly to visit a dying loved one) and economic well-being. Loss of that right shouldn’t be added to the criminal justice system’s myriad punishments, at least absent extraordinary circumstances. There is a reason that airlines are legally classified as “common carriers.”

Individual airlines already maintain their own lists of passengers they’ve decided to ban; what they want is for there to be a unified one so people who are banned can’t use any airline. But these airline-maintained lists also raise due process concerns: It’s not clear what process if any airline personnel go through before banning a passenger, whether passengers have rights of appeal, and so forth. Of course, the consequences of any unfair bans are reduced if you can go to a competitor, but given the importance of airline travel to modern life as well as consolidation in the airline industry, it raises real issues if the airlines are banning people on their own whims.

It’s understandable that airlines, flight attendants, and others want to address what appears to be a growing problem of bad behavior, but, as is so often the case, seeking to punish our way out of the problem is unlikely to be effective. We shouldn’t create a new mandatory minimum punishment when there are other ways of addressing the problem without creating a new machinery of government that, experience strongly suggests, will introduce new injustices to American life.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published February 9, 2022 at 05:55PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/c0oQVt8

Nigeria: Selected Issues

Nigeria: Selected Issues
Published February 09, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Nigeria: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement, and Statement by the Executive Director for Nigeria
Published February 09, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Airlines Want the Government to Create a New Passenger No-Fly List

Airlines Want the Government to Create a New Passenger No-Fly List

The CEO of Delta Airlines recently wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking the Department of Justice to support a “no-fly” list of people convicted of “an on-board disruption” during flights. According to the CEO, Edward H. Bastian, “the rate of incidents with unruly passengers on Delta has increased nearly 100 percent since 2019.” Other airlines have been reporting a similar trend, and the industry has been pushing Congress to enact this kind of list for months. The existing no-fly list is a civil liberties nightmare, and expanding it should be a non-starter.

It’s not clear why rates of disruptive behavior on flights have been rising, though the politicized and false conviction of many that wearing a mask is useless, and therefore that being forced to do so is an incursion on personal freedom, has led to many incidents. The stresses of the pandemic may also have led to a general increase in free-floating hostility within the American population. But a significant element of most airlines’ business model is literally to intentionally make passengers feel uncomfortable during flights, and then sell minor comforts (as well as petty feelings of superiority) to those unhappy and/or affluent enough to pay for the privilege. If Congress wants to address bad behavior on aircraft, one thing it could do is take steps to make flying less miserable.

Regardless of the cause, we certainly have sympathy for flight attendants and other airline workers, who shouldn’t have to deal with passengers who are disruptive, unruly, or violent, no matter how infuriating flying can be at times. But this proposal raises a number of civil liberties issues.

The government has a terrible record of treating people fairly with regard to the existing no-fly list and other watch lists that are aimed at alleged terrorists. The key word there is “alleged,” because the government rarely provides any evidence to back up its watch-listing decisions, and seems to put fairness last when it comes to these bloated lists. My ACLU colleagues have been suing the government for years on behalf of innocent people who aren’t informed that they’re on the list, can’t find out why they’ve been put on it or what information their inclusion might be based upon, or how they can get their names removed. Getting information from the government about its treatment of these people, and getting the government to put in place some basic checks and balances against unfair treatment, has been like pulling teeth. It’s a battle we’re still waging, especially because lists like these are often prone to abuse. The FBI has put some people on the no-fly list just to pressure them to become informants and spy on their communities on behalf of the agency.

None of this inspires confidence around the creation of a brand new list.

Many questions remain over how such a list would be run. Who decides who goes on that list, how long they stay on it, and how they get off? How would cases of mistaken identity or other errors be handled? What offenses would land a person on the list? Aviation staff are only human — and being human, some will treat passengers badly and then, when those passengers become upset, seek to put them on the list. Anyone with the power to punish others needs to be subject to checks and balances.

Some proposals we’ve seen would include only those who have been convicted in court of breaking the law with their behavior on airplanes. That narrower approach would take care of some due process concerns, because it would require conviction in a court of law before this punishment would be meted out. But that would still raise problems. First, it would create a new punishment for things that are already illegal. If you commit assault, for example, whether on a plane or off, you can go to jail, and the Justice Department has already said it is stepping up punishment of such offenses. It has plenty of existing authority to do so, and one thing our criminal justice system does not need is more punishments. Experience shows they are likely to be over-used and unjustly applied.

In addition, these proposals would effectively make a ban on flying a new mandatory minimum punishment. Such sentencing schemes have many problems, including the fact that they remove discretion from judges over who is banned from flying and for how long. A person who only flies once a year might shrug off a flight ban, while for another person who depends on weekly travel to make a living, it could be a devastating and disproportionate punishment. And as travel expert Edward Hasbrouck points out, such a punishment would also disproportionately punish those who live in parts of our country that are on islands, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, none of which have regular boat service to the mainland United States. Alaska residents also depend heavily on air travel. We have judges to take into account the particularities of each person’s situation and choose a punishment that fits. Mandatory minimums remove that power.

We don’t think creating an “abusive passenger no-fly list” is the right thing to do. When people commit crimes, we don’t punish them by cutting off their right to obtain electricity or water service. Airline travel should be in the same category. The right to travel is a human and constitutional right that can be crucial to people’s happiness (as when they need to fly to visit a dying loved one) and economic well-being. Loss of that right shouldn’t be added to the criminal justice system’s myriad punishments, at least absent extraordinary circumstances. There is a reason that airlines are legally classified as “common carriers.”

Individual airlines already maintain their own lists of passengers they’ve decided to ban; what they want is for there to be a unified one so people who are banned can’t use any airline. But these airline-maintained lists also raise due process concerns: It’s not clear what process if any airline personnel go through before banning a passenger, whether passengers have rights of appeal, and so forth. Of course, the consequences of any unfair bans are reduced if you can go to a competitor, but given the importance of airline travel to modern life as well as consolidation in the airline industry, it raises real issues if the airlines are banning people on their own whims.

It’s understandable that airlines, flight attendants, and others want to address what appears to be a growing problem of bad behavior, but, as is so often the case, seeking to punish our way out of the problem is unlikely to be effective. We shouldn’t create a new mandatory minimum punishment when there are other ways of addressing the problem without creating a new machinery of government that, experience strongly suggests, will introduce new injustices to American life.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published February 9, 2022 at 11:25PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/c0oQVt8

ACLU: A Scary Demonstration of What Unchecked Face Recognition Could Look Like

A Scary Demonstration of What Unchecked Face Recognition Could Look Like

A face recognition and video analytics company has created a product that provides a stark reminder of the power of these technologies and how they are likely to be used over time by law enforcement, powerful corporations, and others, if we as a society allow it.

The technology in question involves video search, which we described in our 2019 video analytics report. In the past, video operators looking for something would have to manually scroll through many hours of video, but technology is increasingly automating such searches. In a presentation for subscribers of the surveillance research group IPVM, a company called Vintra presented on its technology for quickly searching through large stores of video footage

The relevant three-minute part of the full presentation is worth watching. In it, a company executive searches through a month’s worth of video footage captured by around 10 fixed cameras, plus body cameras, in a transit center in San Jose, California. He feeds the system with the photograph of a male subject, and the system does a face recognition search through all the stored video from that month and produces 23 snapshots of the man from the center’s cameras. Clicking on any of the snapshots plays the video in which he was captured.

Already, that’s a demonstration of the stunning new power that surveillance camera systems create when combined with face recognition and today’s search capabilities.

But there’s more. The Vintra executive then presses a button called “Find associates.” He selects a time period — he uses 10 minutes but it could have been shorter or longer — and then runs a new search. This search yields snapshots of 154 other people, each of whom was seen on camera within 10 minutes of the subject.

In other words, this system allows face recognition to be used to track not just one person, but to map out people’s associations with each other.

Of the people spotted with the subject in the demo, 150 appeared on camera with him only once, and another three appeared with him twice. One man, however, had 14 “co-appearances” with the subject — clearly not coincidence, but a result of some association between the two men. The system displayed snapshots of the 14 co-appearances, and clicking on them instantly played the video of the two of them together.

The men could be anything from co-workers to commuting partners to lovers. Perhaps clicking through to view their joint appearances would shed light on which. But whatever the case, their association has now been revealed to the prying eyes of this camera network and its operators. One of Vintra’s mottos is “Know what the cameras know,” and if this product lives up to the demo, it’s a spookily accurate slogan, not least because it captures the way that AI is allowing video cameras to “wake up” — rendering them able not just to dumbly record video, but increasingly to understand what they’re seeing.

With this kind of technology, as the Vintra pitchman put it, “You can really start building out a network. You may have one guy, that showed up a few times, that you’re interested in — you can start looking at windows of time around him to see who else is there at the same time, and build out the networks of those people.”

Too many conversations about surveillance focus on how information could be used in isolation against a specific individual. But analytics is a powerful tool, and when information is collected not about just one suspect, but about large numbers of people, we often forget that such data can be cross-referenced to create maps of associations. I wrote this piece in 2013 to try to hammer home that often non-intuitive point, but maps of people’s associations (called “social network analysis”) have long been a product of mass surveillance. It has been done using cellphone data by the NSA, and by the U.S. military overseas using wide-area aerial surveillance, for example.

Now, face recognition and other analytic techniques appear to have brought social network analysis to video surveillance. And who knows what purposes such mining could be used for. The Vintra pitchman told his security audience that his product “will plug in to BI tools” — referring to Business Intelligence, a catch-all buzzword referring to non-security uses of data such as competitive research and marketing: “You may be using the cameras for security, but 94, 96 percent of the time there’s no event that security’s interested in — but there’s always information that the system is generating on those that you can plug into your BI.”

The bottom line is that when we see a video camera today, we need to update our intuitions about what it’s capable of. It may no longer be just collecting inert and unused video, but, especially if that camera is part of a larger network, the data it collects could be mined for insights about our lives across space and time. Communities and policymakers considering the installation of surveillance cameras — especially camera networks — should take heed.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published February 8, 2022 at 08:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dxhkw5K

ACLU: A Scary Demonstration of What Unchecked Face Recognition Could Look Like

A Scary Demonstration of What Unchecked Face Recognition Could Look Like

A face recognition and video analytics company has created a product that provides a stark reminder of the power of these technologies and how they are likely to be used over time by law enforcement, powerful corporations, and others, if we as a society allow it.

The technology in question involves video search, which we described in our 2019 video analytics report. In the past, video operators looking for something would have to manually scroll through many hours of video, but technology is increasingly automating such searches. In a presentation for subscribers of the surveillance research group IPVM, a company called Vintra presented on its technology for quickly searching through large stores of video footage

The relevant three-minute part of the full presentation is worth watching. In it, a company executive searches through a month’s worth of video footage captured by around 10 fixed cameras, plus body cameras, in a transit center in San Jose, California. He feeds the system with the photograph of a male subject, and the system does a face recognition search through all the stored video from that month and produces 23 snapshots of the man from the center’s cameras. Clicking on any of the snapshots plays the video in which he was captured.

Already, that’s a demonstration of the stunning new power that surveillance camera systems create when combined with face recognition and today’s search capabilities.

But there’s more. The Vintra executive then presses a button called “Find associates.” He selects a time period — he uses 10 minutes but it could have been shorter or longer — and then runs a new search. This search yields snapshots of 154 other people, each of whom was seen on camera within 10 minutes of the subject.

In other words, this system allows face recognition to be used to track not just one person, but to map out people’s associations with each other.

Of the people spotted with the subject in the demo, 150 appeared on camera with him only once, and another three appeared with him twice. One man, however, had 14 “co-appearances” with the subject — clearly not coincidence, but a result of some association between the two men. The system displayed snapshots of the 14 co-appearances, and clicking on them instantly played the video of the two of them together.

The men could be anything from co-workers to commuting partners to lovers. Perhaps clicking through to view their joint appearances would shed light on which. But whatever the case, their association has now been revealed to the prying eyes of this camera network and its operators. One of Vintra’s mottos is “Know what the cameras know,” and if this product lives up to the demo, it’s a spookily accurate slogan, not least because it captures the way that AI is allowing video cameras to “wake up” — rendering them able not just to dumbly record video, but increasingly to understand what they’re seeing.

With this kind of technology, as the Vintra pitchman put it, “You can really start building out a network. You may have one guy, that showed up a few times, that you’re interested in — you can start looking at windows of time around him to see who else is there at the same time, and build out the networks of those people.”

Too many conversations about surveillance focus on how information could be used in isolation against a specific individual. But analytics is a powerful tool, and when information is collected not about just one suspect, but about large numbers of people, we often forget that such data can be cross-referenced to create maps of associations. I wrote this piece in 2013 to try to hammer home that often non-intuitive point, but maps of people’s associations (called “social network analysis”) have long been a product of mass surveillance. It has been done using cellphone data by the NSA, and by the U.S. military overseas using wide-area aerial surveillance, for example.

Now, face recognition and other analytic techniques appear to have brought social network analysis to video surveillance. And who knows what purposes such mining could be used for. The Vintra pitchman told his security audience that his product “will plug in to BI tools” — referring to Business Intelligence, a catch-all buzzword referring to non-security uses of data such as competitive research and marketing: “You may be using the cameras for security, but 94, 96 percent of the time there’s no event that security’s interested in — but there’s always information that the system is generating on those that you can plug into your BI.”

The bottom line is that when we see a video camera today, we need to update our intuitions about what it’s capable of. It may no longer be just collecting inert and unused video, but, especially if that camera is part of a larger network, the data it collects could be mined for insights about our lives across space and time. Communities and policymakers considering the installation of surveillance cameras — especially camera networks — should take heed.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published February 8, 2022 at 03:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/dxhkw5K

Republic of Moldova: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Sector Stability Review

Republic of Moldova: Technical Assistance Report-Financial Sector Stability Review
Published February 07, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

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

Republic of Nauru: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Nauru
Published February 07, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Euro Area Policies: 2021 Article IV Consultation with Member Countries on Common Euro Area Policies-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Member Countries

Euro Area Policies: 2021 Article IV Consultation with Member Countries on Common Euro Area Policies-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Member Countries
Published February 07, 2022 at 08:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age

Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age

In 2021, Arkansas passed a law banning gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. This discriminatory law would not only prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or referring transgender youth for medically necessary health care, it would also allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for transgender people of any age. If it is allowed to go into effect, the law will have detrimental effects on the mental, emotional, and physical health of transgender people across the state.

Though the ACLU has won a temporary pause on Arkansas’ health care ban, the fight continues in federal appeals court and in statehouses around the country, which is why allies’ stories are so important. While Arkansas is the first — and so far, only — state to pass such legislation, similar bills have been introduced in over 30 states around the country.

An amazing 58 transgender and non-binary adults including actor Elliot Page, activist Miss Major Griffin-Gracey, media personality Jazz Jennings, and filmmaker Lilly Wachowski have stood up in defense of ACLU’s clients. They shared their stories in a “friend of the court” amicus brief filed by the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in support of plaintiffs in the ACLU’s case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Brandt v. Rutledge.

Read their stories below about how gender-affirming care has changed their lives for the better, the hardships of gender dysphoria, and the joys of transitioning.

Many trans youth have a clear sense of their gender at a very young age.

North Carolina-raised film producer Rhys Ernst remembers: “One of my earliest conscious memories, in which I felt the most alive and like myself, was at age 3, when I realized quite clearly that I was a boy. I felt a strong jolt of purpose and belonging claiming that identity for myself.”

Jazz Jennings, now a 21-year-old student from Florida, began gender-affirming treatment when she began puberty and then went on to receive gender-affirming hormones. She told the court how having a typical female puberty helped her: “I never looked masculine. I developed alongside my peers as a female teenager. I was able to lead a happy childhood because I was able to live as the girl I knew I was.”

Noted transgender activist Major Griffin-Gracy, an Arkansas resident who is now over 70, first began receiving gender-affirming care in the form of hormones when she was 16 years old. While the discrimination she has faced as a transgender woman has made her life challenging, she reflects that receiving hormone treatment as a teen “made life easier than it would have been.”

Miss Major joined the trans youth who are suing the state of Arkansas for the district court hearing in this case (credit: Sydney Rasch/ACLU of Arkasnas).

https://twitter.com/ArkansasACLU/status/1417896099432566794?s=20&t=QdFNLZeZGbQvoBJbl6AAng

Receiving gender-affirming care has wide-ranging benefits

Amici Dr. Gwendolyn Herzig of Alexander, Arkansas owns and operates an independent pharmacy. She shared with TLDEF how much coming into her identity empowered her to take a leadership role in the community:

“Living authentically has allowed me to better stand up and provide support for minority communities that need it the most. Especially, being the only trans female pharmacy owner in Arkansas, and maybe the South, in the face of a pandemic, I have been able to provide immunizations, resources, and guidance. Before, it was easier to hide away and to cope day by day. Now I try to take each day by storm and help everyone I can!”

Gender-affirming care cemented Witt Major’s relationship with his father.

“A gender-affirming therapist helped our whole family come to terms with what was happening, and I think helped my dad the most,” Major told TLDEF. “Before he passed, he loved and accepted me totally and would even send me cards saying things like Happy Birthday, Son.”

While his transition began in adulthood, Elliot Page agreed, sharing how his life completely changed once he was able to receive top surgery. “I couldn’t believe the amount of energy I had, ideas, how my imagination flourished, because the constant discomfort and pain around that aspect of my body was gone,” Page told the court.

Team USA athlete Chris Mosier recalled his first triathlon race after top surgery as a moment of gender euphoria: “The feeling of being able to run freely in a body that more closely matched the way I’ve always seen myself was overwhelming.”

https://twitter.com/TheChrisMosier/status/1483934176093032449?s=20&t=QdFNLZeZGbQvoBJbl6AAng

Transgender young people know what they need

Overall, the story told by this incredible array of transgender and non-binary supporters is that the treatment for gender dysphoria — gender affirmation — works.

Cecilia Gentili, a 49-year-old small business owner and transgender rights advocate, first received self-managed gender-affirming care at age 17, which she said was “great” and “changed her life,” but would have been even more beneficial if she had been able to obtain it through a doctor, rather than on her own. Gentili told the court:

“Transgender youth know who they are, and they know what they need. Our job is to listen to them.”

Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund is committed to ending discrimination based upon gender identity and expression and to achieving equality for transgender people through public education, test-case litigation, direct legal services, and public policy efforts.

What you can do:

Support Trans Athletes

Add your name

Published February 7, 2022 at 10:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yK9zjMX

ACLU: Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age

Transgender and Non-Binary Leaders Tell Federal Court Trans People Deserve Joy at Any Age

In 2021, Arkansas passed a law banning gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. This discriminatory law would not only prohibit healthcare professionals from providing or referring transgender youth for medically necessary health care, it would also allow private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for transgender people of any age. If it is allowed to go into effect, the law will have detrimental effects on the mental, emotional, and physical health of transgender people across the state.

Though the ACLU has won a temporary pause on Arkansas’ health care ban, the fight continues in federal appeals court and in statehouses around the country, which is why allies’ stories are so important. While Arkansas is the first — and so far, only — state to pass such legislation, similar bills have been introduced in over 30 states around the country.

An amazing 58 transgender and non-binary adults including actor Elliot Page, activist Miss Major Griffin-Gracey, media personality Jazz Jennings, and filmmaker Lilly Wachowski have stood up in defense of ACLU’s clients. They shared their stories in a “friend of the court” amicus brief filed by the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in support of plaintiffs in the ACLU’s case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Brandt v. Rutledge.

Read their stories below about how gender-affirming care has changed their lives for the better, the hardships of gender dysphoria, and the joys of transitioning.

Many trans youth have a clear sense of their gender at a very young age.

North Carolina-raised film producer Rhys Ernst remembers: “One of my earliest conscious memories, in which I felt the most alive and like myself, was at age 3, when I realized quite clearly that I was a boy. I felt a strong jolt of purpose and belonging claiming that identity for myself.”

Jazz Jennings, now a 21-year-old student from Florida, began gender-affirming treatment when she began puberty and then went on to receive gender-affirming hormones. She told the court how having a typical female puberty helped her: “I never looked masculine. I developed alongside my peers as a female teenager. I was able to lead a happy childhood because I was able to live as the girl I knew I was.”

Noted transgender activist Major Griffin-Gracy, an Arkansas resident who is now over 70, first began receiving gender-affirming care in the form of hormones when she was 16 years old. While the discrimination she has faced as a transgender woman has made her life challenging, she reflects that receiving hormone treatment as a teen “made life easier than it would have been.”

Miss Major joined the trans youth who are suing the state of Arkansas for the district court hearing in this case (credit: Sydney Rasch/ACLU of Arkasnas).

https://twitter.com/ArkansasACLU/status/1417896099432566794?s=20&t=QdFNLZeZGbQvoBJbl6AAng

Receiving gender-affirming care has wide-ranging benefits

Amici Dr. Gwendolyn Herzig of Alexander, Arkansas owns and operates an independent pharmacy. She shared with TLDEF how much coming into her identity empowered her to take a leadership role in the community:

“Living authentically has allowed me to better stand up and provide support for minority communities that need it the most. Especially, being the only trans female pharmacy owner in Arkansas, and maybe the South, in the face of a pandemic, I have been able to provide immunizations, resources, and guidance. Before, it was easier to hide away and to cope day by day. Now I try to take each day by storm and help everyone I can!”

Gender-affirming care cemented Witt Major’s relationship with his father.

“A gender-affirming therapist helped our whole family come to terms with what was happening, and I think helped my dad the most,” Major told TLDEF. “Before he passed, he loved and accepted me totally and would even send me cards saying things like Happy Birthday, Son.”

While his transition began in adulthood, Elliot Page agreed, sharing how his life completely changed once he was able to receive top surgery. “I couldn’t believe the amount of energy I had, ideas, how my imagination flourished, because the constant discomfort and pain around that aspect of my body was gone,” Page told the court.

Team USA athlete Chris Mosier recalled his first triathlon race after top surgery as a moment of gender euphoria: “The feeling of being able to run freely in a body that more closely matched the way I’ve always seen myself was overwhelming.”

https://twitter.com/TheChrisMosier/status/1483934176093032449?s=20&t=QdFNLZeZGbQvoBJbl6AAng

Transgender young people know what they need

Overall, the story told by this incredible array of transgender and non-binary supporters is that the treatment for gender dysphoria — gender affirmation — works.

Cecilia Gentili, a 49-year-old small business owner and transgender rights advocate, first received self-managed gender-affirming care at age 17, which she said was “great” and “changed her life,” but would have been even more beneficial if she had been able to obtain it through a doctor, rather than on her own. Gentili told the court:

“Transgender youth know who they are, and they know what they need. Our job is to listen to them.”

Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund is committed to ending discrimination based upon gender identity and expression and to achieving equality for transgender people through public education, test-case litigation, direct legal services, and public policy efforts.

What you can do:

Support Trans Athletes

Add your name

Published February 7, 2022 at 05:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yK9zjMX