Monthly Archives: June 2020

From: Tom Lane

Columbus

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to grasp the need to wear masks. Yes, the government is trying to control you. Just like driving your car every day. Do you seriously think it is "government oppression" to stop for red lights and stop signs? Do you think your freedom is impinged upon by going the speed limit (or close to it)? Is it somehow your "right" to put others at risk?

We live in a connected society and laws get made to protect the common good. The more we have people who seem clueless the "common good" the more we have to make laws to enforce safety and protection and allow the greatest good for the most people. At times, we have made laws that have protected some people more than others, and they have been changed or need to be changed. We are learning to live together and the idea that "freedom" means I can do anything I want, is childish.

I go to the store and about 50% have masks on and I do wonder if those without just dont understand, or more sadly, just dont care.

The rest is here:

Letter: Wearing masks isn't oppression - The Republic

Against police brutality

The police in India are not under civic management, but under the home department of the government (George Floyd: Minneapolis police department to be dismantled, Trump withdraws National Guard troops). Instead of that arrangement making for a more sensitive and accountable internal security force, it has been time and again accused to cater to the narrow political interests of whichever party is in power. This is regarded as a colonial inheritance and thought to prop up by force any ruling power that gives short shrift to ideas of justice and rule of law.

Is it now time that there is a country-wide clamour for police reform when the police appear to follow blindly dictates of autocrats in government? There is scandalous lack of application of mind in cases where victims of violence are charged with being perpetrators of violence. And any protest against the government is twisted into a case of sedition and criminal violence against the state. Police officers of integrity and conscience often feel frustrated at the state of things.

The courts have often castigated the police though that seems to rub off on the force without any effect. Widespread and sustained public condemnation could be the only course of action to bring the force into a sense of its own true role and responsibility. Hiren Gohain

***

Such height of anarchy! What a kind of an outpour of anger and revolt against authoritarianism! (George Floyd death: Donald Trump took shelter in White House bunker as protests raged, say reports). The issue is a grim reminder that oppression leads to revolt. One cannot hold a spring compressed for too long. The moment it is released, it rises back with renewed energy.

To quote Martin Luther King Jr, A riot is a language of the unheard. Let us not forget that discrimination of all kinds is detrimental to democratic dictums. Undoubtedly what Floyd did is wrong but the treatment meted out to him is inhuman. The incident has had deep-seated roots in the overall failures in the management of the pandemic and the repercussions thereof. The big boss hiding himself in a bunker reveals the extent of fury and might of the protest.

As if to adds fuel to fire, threatening to unleash vicious dogs and ominous weapons on the agitators and calling them thugs would unduly disturb a conciliatory path for peace, especially at a time when the country is fighting with an unprecedented health crisis. Ramana Gove

***

The opinion of a group of experts that the lockdown was of no use is incorrect in my opinion (Full Text: Draconian lockdown, incoherent strategies led to India paying a heavy price, say experts). It ensured that the numbers of cases remained low and occurred over a longer period of time. This allowed the government to mobilise medical resources and people to habituate themselves with the importance of avoiding various social activities.

A resource-poor country like ours could not have dealt with the kind of overwhelming experience of USA and European countries. Who is to say that the case numbers predicted by the modellers would not have happened without the lockdown? The way forward remains cautious, with restricted opening up of important economic activities.

The government should liberalise testing and provide more kits for common citizens to get tested with ease. No doubt, the lives of many have been disrupted and lost, but could it have been better without the lockdown? I personally dont think so. The hospitals would have been filled up with Covid-19 cases, keeping healthcare workers engaged, and patients with other diseases would not have gotten any treatment even in that situation.

At least today our Covid-19 death rate is not anywhere close to countries with similar number of positive cases. SK Gupta

***

A scientific study says that every weeks delay in lockdown adds to the number of lives lost (No, Mr Home Minister, migrant workers did not start walking home because they lost patience). If the lockdown was announced earlier, more lives would have been saved. Even in war, an operation is called off if the casualties are to be heavy. This is the crunch point. Its a difficult decision.

Our bureaucracy is not all that efficient to make arrangements quickly if lockdown had been delayed. This is evident by the manner in which migrants are being handled. Just to list out the names of those who want to go home by trains will take ages. Earlier, it would have compelled the government to divert their already-meagre resources at that time for this purpose. Meanwhile, Covid-19 would not have waited for administrative arrangements.

Rail and bus services would have been used even by non-migrants resulting in more confusion and spread of Covid-19. But was there need to rush to the bus and rail stations without confirmation? Why did the government, politicians, bureaucracy and union leaders not make efforts to sort out the confusion once the migrants decided to rush like this? Why were the migrants not told that staying back would not cost them their lives because the mortality rate is less than 5%? The migrants will come back once the work commences. No one will give them jobs where they are. Sudhir Jatar

***

Honestly speaking, do you folks have nothing better to do? Can you not see entertainment for the sake of entertainment? Must you seek to politicise everything and make everything into a conspiracy? (Pakistan is obsessed with a Turkish drama that glorifies the sword and distorts Islamic history). Have you considered that people may enjoyed this series because of its production quality or because they are tired of misogynist Pakistani dramas that are mostly about absolute nonsense?

Instead of belittling someones efforts to portray their vision on screen, maybe the scribe could teach Pakistani producers and writers how to bring some quality entertainment. People may watch the show for entertainment and so they learn something useful. Have you thought that maybe you are biased and unflattering? Or do you consider all Pakistanis mindless drones who only deserve to watch the senseless content we are used to watching? Syed Talha Salman

***

I am an atheist in the USA and I love this programme (Pakistan is obsessed with a Turkish drama that glorifies the sword and distorts Islamic history). I understand that the series is only loosely based on historical figures and events. I dont mind that a lot of the combat scenes are preposterous. They are exciting to watch.

The religious views of the characters are not important to me. I enjoyed similar series and films about the Roman empire, the Vikings, King Arthur and his knights, and the Tudor dynasty. That the characters worshipped Jupiter, Odin, Jesus, or whoever did not matter. Its the stories and performances that drive my interest. The exploits of Ertugrul and his tribe are very exciting. After three years of living under a president who is a bigoted, hateful, corrupt, incompetent, and a morally bankrupt liar, watching a brave, honest and caring leader fight tyranny and corruption is a pleasant fantasy. Mark Murphy

***

It was so healing to read Vinod Mehtas piece on Vajpayee (Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1924-2018): A poet among bigots). In the midst of this euphoria over him, he was deeply blemished man, but climbed to the top as so many corrupt and megalomaniac men have. It is sad for India, which is a remarkable nation full of worthy, bright and idealistic people.

Vajpayees oratory got him accolades and indeed to watch him deliver a speech was truly seductive. But while he is no worse than many of our leaders and prime ministers, he certainly does not deserve the overarching praise and respect that we see pouring out. I prefer leaders like Karunanidhi or Jayalalitha. In fact, an aspect that I notice and abhor is the North Indianness of this sycophancy. I wish the idea of the South as a separate nation could have taken off. We would have been less myopic. Devaki Jain

***

I would like to make a very quick point about the article on Sadhguru (Opinion: The disturbing irrationalism of Jaggi Vasudev). It is poorly put together and biased. And for some reason there is no mention of the person who wrote the article maybe out of fear of receiving flak. I think you can do a much better job writing an article that communicates your guru-phobia from an objective standpoint.

Youre just another religion that of blind rationality trying to profess your beliefs. Others communicate through sermon, you do it with the pen. You are not invoking an objective outlook or even simple critical thinking. Instead of presenting the facts in absolute objectivity, youre only making sure they lean on your side by twisting the facts and presenting them as you want. I hope to see less hypocrisy from you and more objectivity with a thirst to deliver truth. Dilip Kandangath

Read more:

Readers Comments: If you oppress a people for too long, they will rise with greater force - Scroll.in

In the last few months, contact tracing, has exploded into our collective psyche.

COVID-19 has provided a need and an avenue for our governments to track us, citing our own best interests in the middle of a health crisis. But like anything, situations can change rapidly and solutions that were once deemed necessary can be used against us.

What was previously called surveillance now passes as contact tracing for public health purposes. Yet the risks regarding the use of peoples data gathered in this way remain.

At the Centre for AI and Digital Ethics (CAIDE) we wrote in April warning that freedoms could be put at risk by the need to combat COVID-19. Our concern then was that once surveillance is implemented it can be very hard to get rid of.

Read more

Surveillance measures that were once necessary and promised as only temporary actions can quickly be redefined and redeployed for very different purposes, in the absence of strong government mechanisms that regulate and restrict surveillance.

Just over two months later, the concerns raised around the world about the dangers of surveillance have come to a head in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner, John Harrington, made a statement that the state government would be using background checking analogous to contact tracing on people arrested during the protests that have been sparked by the death of African-American George Floyd.

His comments have stoked concerns about contact tracing and other public health measures being repurposed or their scope extended.

Other reports have indicated that the Minneapolis police have been trialing facial recognition technology, including Clearview AI, giving them the capacity to deploy facial recognition software on protestors.

The use of an unarmed predator drone circling above the protesters in Minneapolis only exacerbated these concerns.

While legislation should protect citizens, the unprecedented volume of data, coupled with the increased capabilities of computing to process images, voice, social media data and other data paves the way for potential misuse should security situations rapidly escalate, the way it has in the United States.

It is easy to see how COVID-19 has given rise to the next economic crisis but experts have also been predicting that COVID-19 could sow the seeds of political revolutions.

Read more

State of emergency laws give governments extraordinary powers.

With the development of contact tracing measures, many governments now have access to data and location information in ways they didnt have before COVID-19. Things can change exceptionally quickly and while legislation may be in place, state of emergency laws mean that governments can bring in new legislation very quickly, allowing them to adapt from tackling a pandemic to tackling civil unrest.

While many states of America have declared states of emergency and enacted new laws in response to protests, deploying surveillance technologies similar to those used for a public health crisis, raises even more concerns.

The USs much touted first amendment gives people the right to protest but doesnt include a clause exempting them from facial recognition technology.

Privacy activists across the world fear that increased surveillance capabilities will inevitably infringe on participation in political demonstrations.

Regardless of the situation that technology is being used to respond to, the surveillance techniques will be similar whether it is being used to control pandemics or control civil unrest.

The Australian government has made a huge effort to be transparent with its COVIDSafe app. But the same safeguards dont exist for policing purposes.

In February, Vox published an article about the New York Police Department refusing to disclose details of their surveillance technology despite it being known that they are using historical data to predict future crime with AI.

Read more

While many liberties have been curtailed during COVID-19, all modifications to existing rights are required, under law, to be legal, necessary and proportionate. They need to come to an end.

Several researchers, including University of Melbournes Associate Professor Ben Rubinstein and now-independent privacy researcher, Chris Culnane, have analysed the Privacy Impact Assessment of COVIDSafe and found that authorities have the ability to decrypt the provided data and contact those who have tested positive as well as monitor their usage.

Research has also shown that further risks arise with the tracking of Bluetooth data that provides far more information than necessarily required for tracking COVID19 in late May the Guardian reported that the app had so far identified only one case.

If governments can deploy this technology while being transparent, what is to stop governments that have no interest in transparency deploying even more invasive technology and utilising it against citizens?

While Australia has sunset clauses in place on COVIDSafe, the rate of downloads has been very low. Downloads are sitting at around 6 million, with the rate flattening after the initial hype when the app was first launched.

Research done by the Guardian has credited this to the lack of trust in government stating that it was hardly surprising. After all, this is the same government that has deployed technology to raid reporters homes, harangue welfare recipients and crash the census.

The Black Lives Matter protests in the US cut to the heart of the very issue that contact tracing creates.

When we give our data to governments, even with legislative protections, we do so in good faith. But for many citizens around the world, this requires trust in government. For many, institutionalised racism, massive income inequality, lack of legal support or protections, and violence at the hands of police, makes contact tracing measures frightening and dangerous.

Read more

Increased surveillance will disproportionately affect the safety and privacy of minority communities the world over.

Pandemics and other disasters call for measures that are permitted by law, and which require sunset clauses that expire when emergencies pass.

Governments have released these apps in response to extraordinary circumstances. However, consideration of privacy and the rights of all, especially minority and persecuted groups are paramount, not just in the initial disaster but because one disaster can easily perpetuate another.

The changes we make during crises need to ensure that rights are protected or they risk embedding values that may not be those that represent the society we wish to be particularly for those most at risk of exploitation and abuse.

Banner: John Moore/Getty Images

Read this article:

When tools for a health emergency become tools of oppression - Pursuit