Tag Archives: Human rights

Technological delusions

We all have a side we hide, it does not matter how you live and how outspoken you are. It is a truth that we have seen in movies, TV Series and other media. In this I like the outspoken truth of the series House the best: ‘Everybody lies!‘ This is not some extreme form of expressionism; it is the truth in many ways. Whether we are in denial or whether we outspokenly remain silent on the matter, we lie!

Now do not think of this in a too negative a light, marketing is all about lying and they call it specific presentation. Whether this is the launch of the Samsung S8, the upcoming Xbox Scorpio, the iPhone 7, there is misrepresentation which shows itself as non-mentioned facts for now.

Is a known fact, remaining unmentioned a lie?

That is no just at the heart of the matter, it is what makes it worse than it already is. An example is seen in software corporations that state ‘We do not expect any issues with the software upgrade’. Is it a lie? Consider that any change will introduce new unknown factors, so as such, is the person not speaking a party line that is wishful thinking, and as such is it a lie?

You might at this point wonder where this is going, so here we get to “Facebook told advertisers it can identify teens feeling ‘insecure’ and ‘worthless’” (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens), when you consider that a person (especially a teen) needs psychological assessment to ascertain whether insecurity comes from mere angst or whether there are underlying issues, we need to become very careful when anyone offers an algorithm to ascertain that. Big data is nowhere near any level of certainty in this matter. You see, with data and especially with big data the decades old expression ‘Garbage in, Garbage out‘ applies and the ability to sift through these mountains of data per person requires a level of scrutiny that software cannot provide and more important, that data becomes useless if there is no ‘beyond the data box view’. This is not some cheap Mark Zuckerberg app called ‘Snog, Marry, Avoid’ which is basically to the better degree harmless entertainment. This is to set a psychological classification on a group of people who tends to be least secure of themselves in their entire lifespan. In all this the quote “Facebook, which has faced severe criticism in the past over research in which it sought to alter the emotions of users, without their consent, provided somewhat contradictory statements in response to the story in the wake of its publication on Sunday” makes it even a worse joke. Consider in addition the dangers that Facebook no opens with “In its original statement to the Australian, Facebook apologized and said it had “opened an investigation to understand the process failure and improve our oversight”“, which is a joke when you consider that the researchers must have had access to data that only the deepest insiders on DBA cloud levels could have had. To get anything that is even close to the minimum level of reliability the researchers did not just have access to the data, they required assistance from the database system engineers to get anything useful out of that collected mountain of data and that is per person. So, basically I cannot get a job because Australia is in a wave of intentional age discrimination and Facebook casually assists in a system that “can monitor posts and photos in real time to determine when young people feel “stressed”, “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless” and a “failure”“, which impacts the job market even further, yet requires accurate parsed data going back many months.

Consider the reality here. to get a Facebook account, you need to be over 13, which means that 3 years of a teenager history is not available. In addition, these kids go through puberty between 10-17 (depending on gender and additional factors), so not only do you need the track of a person, you need to know how a person is socially (not socially networked) is connected to peers, parents and siblings. That data is not available. Now consider that interactions and events that are geographically locked are also an influence. I am not talking about an extreme example like the Columbine disaster, the mere effect of a traffic accident that can start more than angst and in that data will always be missing and more dangerously, data can be wrongly categorised which could result in red flags of psychosomatic interactions, that whilst the person was never there. How many pictures are there in your social media account, which were accidentally wrongly tagged? All basic elements that will give a shift in any assessment that will lead the algorithm down the wrong track. So when we read: “a Facebook Australia executive dismissed the report and criticized the reporter who broke the story, saying the article was “written by a journalist who writes inflammatory articles … every Monday”“, we need to ask a few additional questions. The dangers of social media data that I have been warning about for at least 3 years is now showing us additional dangers of software misrepresenting social media data and could have dire imprints on the actions of anyone using social media and the repercussions of their future down the track. The quote “Facebook declined to rule out whether similar research on the emotional vulnerability of teenagers had been conducted for advertises in markets outside of Australia” could imply that the teenagers that are already getting shot at American High Schools and colleges will soon have additional worries as they approach their exams with all levels of angst. So when we consider on how ‘Facebook has detailed information on mood shifts based on “internal Facebook data” that is not available to the public’ the social media users will have to worry on what data they have and more important has Facebook been collecting and matching other outside data sources to get anywhere near the minimum dataset to get even the smallest of insight.

As I stated before: ‘garbage in, garbage out’, in that I can add that in the past some lovely lady asked me on Facebook if I wanted to fuck her. I know she would never offer it to begin with, so the reliable issue was that someone has quickly grabbed her phone and he offered in her place that her vagina was open for #censored activity#. So at that point, how could Facebook see her as stupid or silly, or even worse: a nymphomaniac? The article has more than a few issues, but in that they should be placed at the doors of Facebook, because with the revelation of data abuse we clearly see announced, there is a growing danger with the Facebook classification system, whether actual, factual or psychological.

Sam Levin at the Guardian is asking the right questions, yet I think that this is not going far enough. I think that the events when we include the ’emotional contagion’ issues that happened some time ago. The fact that is ignored that all this was only possible to the slightest degree by seeding the database with data collections and hidden markers that facilitated the creation of mental properties to collect. A data system cannot facilitate for this without adding hundreds of elements that were never visible and I am not merely talking about the date and time of posting. It required levels of geographical location and social background data that is not part of the Facebook social media system. I wonder if the Guardian article will renew the questions on both European and Commonwealth levels as this American company seems to be swimming in a sea that might ignore this, but it can only do that as long as we are unaware. In this I reckon that it becomes imperative that the Australian political engine makes official enquiries with the two top Australian executives, David Fernandez and Andy Sinn. In this we get one additional part that is very much a danger, if we accept the quote: “The presentation, which the Australian has not published, was reportedly written for one of Australia’s top banks and stated that the company has a database of its young users – 1.9 million high schoolers, 1.5 million tertiary students and 3 million young workers“, which now implies that banks are setting a person’s psychological profile into classifications. This is not merely discriminatory, it implies that we could all end up being seen as bankable or not, so in that it goes beyond mere insurances and credit ratings, the dangers of our freedom of speech and expression will now result in a possible credit rating and job eligibility. How is that fair on any 15 to 19 year old person trying to get anywhere in this world?

In final part, it is the excuse by Facebook on making this a mere ‘process failure‘, if there are enough pieces of evidence (and that seems to be the case), it is a complete ‘institutional failure‘ and in that the Guardian/Australian article might just be the beginning of a real ugly side of social media that will hit the mainstream media on a global scale soon enough.

So how vulnerable are you and is exploitation of that side of you acceptable to you?

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Insomnia Rules, OK?

It is 3:30, for some weird reason, I cannot fall asleep and I have no intentions to play a game until I get tired, so what do you do? You start looking a little more intense at twitter and that’s how I got into the twitter tweets with a Human Rights Lawyer. Now, I am all for human rights, were it not for that pesky HRA at times, but that is not the issue. There actually is no issue. You see the tweet that got this all started was :

hr_tweet

The issue given was “I, for one, have always been somewhat bemused by the concept of a right to life. What about the young girl who tragically dies of leukemia? What happened to her right to life?” To be that made sense. You see, I am not against a right to life at all, I just wonder how you can set a phrase like that to law. You see, I have been on the other side of matters, so the right to life as seen as a concept where it is not under scrutiny of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia and justifiable homicide is very much the core of the matter, The one part some add, mainly ‘public health care‘ is not in question in this case (it should be a given right no matter when, how or who). I am not against capital punishment and war allows for the situation where lives are lost, hence the right to life is not a given here. I feel different about abortion and euthanasia. You see, I do not agree with either pro-abortion or pro-life. They are stigmatised and polarised opposites of different currencies at time. Pro-lifers are all willing to hang an abortion doctor at the nearest tree, whilst pro-abortion seems to see it as a solution for unadulterated sex (read: exaggeration for dramatic effect), which is how I see these two players. In my view the truth is in the middle.

There are clear cases where abortion needs to be valid, yet I feel uncertain on the wisdom to where the line should be drawn, on the same issue, I see that pro-life doesn’t always have a clear case beyond their conviction. That view tends to be smitten with parts of religion and natural law, yet the full acceptance of both cannot be maintained, so a blanket pro-life abolishing abortion as a whole is equally unthinkable to me.

The best term is the worst classification

You see, for the most I am not against the concept of right to life, but the title itself is unrealistic in a few ways, making me side with the member that started ‘House of Lords member is unsure about a legal right to life‘. You see as stated, my issue makes the ‘right’ almost null and void. In that same setting, the quote “An obligation on its members not unnecessarily to hazard the safety of others” comes as a light in the dark. For the most, we have an obligation not to endanger the lives of others, we get this for the most when we consider the military. They get to endanger themselves and defend that life by taking the lives of those who endanger that life. In this age of terrorism and extremism (like that place you can find on historical maps, namely Aleppo).

A pro-life polarisation cannot survive, and as such the right to life comes under attack and whilst the attack on it might seem correct, the sentiment itself should never be under attack. We all have a right to life and at some point some people throw that right away and the blanket ‘right to life‘ cannot correctly deal with that situation, which is why the House of Lord member makes perfect sense. Yet telling all this in 144 characters was never a possibility, which is why today is all about that tweet.

The strongest opponents in all this is Capital Punishment and Euthanasia. At times I have had a much polarised view on those proclaiming justice here. You see, from my point of view, those who cannot hand out the death penalty might be hypocritical cowards. This is way too strong an expression, so let me explain this (I think I did in a much older blog). You see, we all adhere to the law. Now let’s say that we have a rounded 70% lawful and 30% criminal population, the law will take care of that, and for the most, all laws, even those who have no death penalty do that. I am fine with that. Yet the crime part is not 30%, within that group is a 0.000001% sub group that is so extreme, so willing to take the lives of others (like terrorists) that the law can never properly deal with them. So we either wait for that person to get in a court of law (which could be after the death of many more lives). So where was the right to life for those victims? We have a duty to hunt those extreme cases down and put them to death if need be, either by death penalty or by targeted killings. Now consider the number I gave. On this world, that would amount to 8,000 people. When you consider that as per last year 2,984 were on death row in the United States, the number I grasped at is not that far a reach. You see, when we holster the ‘right to life’ and the Crimes Act as golden calves onto our field of vision, worshipping that principle beyond all, is it not fair to say that these people are willing to set the victims of these extreme criminals as human sacrifices? How is human sacrifice seen in view of a right to life? As for Euthanasia, how much suffering should a person endure until he is either constantly drugged or died from pain and suffering? I am not stating that I have the wisdom, but I reckon that at times physicians need to be able to offer such an option, especially when there is no option to manage the pain or outcome.

In this regard I now need to address the issue that some call ‘justifiable homicide’. You see, just like ‘right to life’ I have an issue with that term. I am all for targeted killing, because it comes with a switch. Targeted killing is not the same and I am not sure if ‘justifiable homicide’ is legally acceptable as homicide is a clear crime in the 1900 Crimes Act (or other Common Law equivalent). You see, the term comes with this dictionary explanation: ‘the killing of a person in circumstances which allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt‘, that could apply to the act of a Sociopath or a Psychopath. Some could proclaim: “homicide is justified when it prevents greater harm to innocents“, you see, we now get dangerously close to Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven where we hear: “killing an infidel is not murder. It is the path to heaven“, which is not the only quote, I reckon that Ridley got part of one characters dialogue from Pope Urban II, who at the Council of Clermont in 1095 is witnessed to have stated: “Deus lo vult! – ‘God wills it!’“, which is my issue, as religion needs to stay far away from today’s Laws. I just feel too uneasy on something that can be ‘justified’ especially when a militant mass comes with hate speech and offs people to safe others. Targeted killing is not like that and as far as I can tell, from my legal point of view, ‘Justifiable Homicide‘ should not be allowed either. The fact that a valid action (like that of a policeman) resulted in the death of a person would always be investigated and the officer would either be prosecuted or be cleared from prosecution, these events have clear mechanics and when we resort to targeted killings, that too comes with a machine of checks and balances. Justifiable homicide could theoretically avoid some of these checks and balances and I really have an issue with that.

So as we are splitting hairs on murder versus killing, we are not digressing from the right to life, I am establishing (or trying to do so) that there is a right to life, yet people can act in ways to negate that right. This is why the member of the House of Lords struck a chord within me. I find myself in the same situation when I consider ‘right to family life’, to which I have had an issue or two in the past. I agree that a person should have the right to a family life. Yet in the same way as he/she has that right, he/she can also squander that right. It could be squandered through abuse, either sexual, physical or psychological, which now gets me on my issue with the HRA. You see, if the HRA was a piece with teeth, then there should be a majority who would allow for domestic abuse to be set within article 3 (torture) as it is a clear form of physical and psychological torture. The fact that this will not happen (and is unlikely to do so) makes me wonder why we have an HRA (or at least one lacking teeth under certain conditions), which might clearly be a short-sighted view and position from my side, yet as I saw my mother getting beaten to death when I was young, my sentiment remains to be on the right path as I personally see it.

All these thoughts resurfaced as that one tweet hit my eyes. Now, I have been following this Human Rights Lawyer and he makes great cases and sets the bar of Human Rights realistically high and it is always a delight when he has a go at everyone’s favourite piñata in the UK, Grayling.

So, I still feel that the tweet as exposed has an issue and I personally feel that I remain on the side of the member of the House of Lords, yet merely in the fact that the sentiment on right to life should exist, but I am not sure if that is what we should call it and in addition, we need to realise and accept that this right can be lost by the actions of the person who lost it. It has nothing to do with a child suffering from Leukaemia as stated, but from the acts of a person who does not respect the right to life of another, or the sanctity of a family without harm or suffering. Both laws, humane, yet I feel too humane and therefor I found them personally to be flawed.

I needed 7429 characters more than the 144 twitter offered.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Religion

The shrinking EEC

It has been in the papers and the paperwork for some time now. It is getting close to a certainty that the EEC is now in jeopardy of losing the UK as an EEC member.

And my reasoning is?

Well there is more than one reason, but the number one spot at present would be Ukip. As the EEC courts are adding legalisations into the mix of the UK stemming the influx of illegal wannabe residents, they are only fuelling the Ukip engine that will denounce membership to the EEC, it should be clear that this is getting to be an increasing view of consequence. I wonder how large the panic will be when the EEC GDP gets downgraded by 15%, which must be the stuff of legendary nightmares for Wall Street and several other zip codes that are managed by an abundance of financial institutions. Where their ‘survival’ depends on posting a +0.015%, -14.5% is ample reasoning for speculators of all shapes and sizes to leave the building via the exit in their windows (opposed to taking the stairs or elevator). Well, that at least might open up affordable housing for some, so there will be winners there too. That downgrade would potentially buckle two currencies and around half a dozen nations in one step.

So as we see these ‘humanitarians’ fight for the rights of those misusing their rights at the earliest convenience, be aware that once your savings are gone, feel free to thank those human rights courts as well. Now, let me be frank, I am all for human rights, I think that Human rights are essential, but what we now consider to be a Human Rights ‘issue’ should be regarded as debatable too. It is almost like faced with a group that will settle for any small ‘victory’ whilst ignoring the massive issues that should be on their actual radar. One could even speculate that these people and those judges will do ANYTHING to avoid making the changes that actually matter in a Human Rights environment.

The first issue linked in all this is the article we see titled ‘Migrant overstayer figures swell to more than 300,000, watchdog reveals‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/migrant-overstayer-figures-swell-watchdog-reveals). We see the quotes “John Vine, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, revealed the existence of a further 223,600 records of foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas, all dated before December 2008, in a report published on Wednesday”, as well as “fewer than 1% had left the country as a result of their intervention“, so we have a quarter of a million people, using a system where possible, where the system is not equipped to deal with such additional numbers. We can go all huffy and puffy on the quote “even killers had been given British passports because of lax Home Office character checks“, where were these crimes committed? And if the home office checks are lax, should we blame immigration, the system or the pressure of papers? I am asking as I am not certain where and if there is blame to dish out at that point. What is clear is that this system is broken and people have had enough. We do however need to take into mind the last quote there which is ““New powers in the Immigration Act are restricting access to work, housing, benefits, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences of illegal migrants, making it far tougher for those with no right to be in the country to stay here.”“, which of course will further drive up crime and disease issues. I know I am just stating the obvious, but at large I have seen people ignore the obvious for a decent long time, so there!

The second article ‘Non-EU family members do not need visa to enter UK, says European court‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/18/non-eu-family-members-visa-uk-european-court) is what is driving issues on several parts. If they do not require a visa, that means that they can enter whenever, which also means that they get limited access to services already stretched to the point of collapse as it is now. Ukip gets a lot of support when they translate the Dutch writings of R.H.J.M. Staring called ‘Reizen onder regie: het migratieproces van illegale Turken in Nederland‘, the migration of illegal Turks into the Netherlands. If we believe Geert Wilders from the Dutch party PVV, we see a cost in the Netherlands close to 13 billion for 2010 (when the article was written) against a total 200 billion for the 4 decades as mentioned. there is no real defining number, giving us no real inside whether these numbers are true or not, yet the fact that the Dutch government has abstained to truly investigate this, gives rise to the fact that the costs are a lot higher, and the consequence of those numbers becoming a factual dimension is what scares the current government, the numbers might be high enough for people to seriously regard the PVV as a party, as such that same fear would hit the UK as those shown costs would give further rise to the increasing growth of Ukip, one thing all three parties are truly scared of. So as we see the national population spread to a solution that lowers their costs, gives better care and reduce the abuse of a social system, the illegal immigrant is soon to become the new pariah in nearly any nation. As such, this European court finding is not just a nuisance, it is the tinderbox to a powder keg too many ignored for too long.

So as we see judgement on one case that might have been ignored, as an issue, where we see the quote “Colombian wife of Sean McCarthy, a dual British and Irish national living in Spain, did not need a UK visa or family permit to visit Britain“, we are confronted with the realistic fear of non-manageable influx. So the fear of what legal and valid immigrants like: 730,000 from India, 465,000 from Pakistan, 640,000 Polish, 180,000 Nigerians and 100,000 Romanians will bring the UK, if one in ten brings over a relative, the UK will be confronted with an additional quarter of a million, whilst this is only 5 from the top 20, that number could end up being a lot higher, well past the Home Offices ability to clean up a system, which might have been regarded as out-dated less than a decade ago, and the UK is not the only nation where this issue plays.

So overall this verdict could be the coffin nail, financial institutions has tried to avoid, hoping that they could leverage a ‘survivable’ solution for themselves, when this goes pear shaped, the courts will have an entirely different scope of horrors to contemplate. If we consider the consequences of the events in Martin Place in Sydney, where we see the unacceptable abuse of Muslims whilst in prayer (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29781967), we see a change to actual Human Rights that are not looked at to the extent they should be. It is a worry. When one crazy individual with a gun can get this started in Australia, what happens when the social system in the UK gets pushed beyond breaking? We have seen plenty of shouted claims against these 5 groups in the past, when the illegal immigration goes beyond a certain point, how safe will the legal and valid immigrants be? That is the worry some part that is overlooked at present. It is a part that Ukip cannot (and might not) ignore, but the fallout and the timeline of that fallout will push a lot of people and families in danger. As the European courts considered and possible did the legally right thing, they might end up not having done the correct thing.

In the end the EEC is an economic thing, the European Union is at its foundation a set of economic rules, the imposing of changed laws for nations, whilst it core is adhering to an economy is faulty at best (even more faulty when that economy collapses to the extent it has). By removing areas of self-governing the EEC is setting a different precedence, one must then wonder whether the identity of any nationality will allowed for the EEC to continue, once that is answered in the negative, those members might not want an EEC future, a danger that is not just contained within the United Kingdom, there is a growing wave of concern that France is getting to that consideration point a lot faster than most economies can correct for, France might not wait until 2017, the main reason is not just Marine Le Penn, it is French pride, which is not in light with the foundation of the EEC and we can add the lack of catering to French Pride by President Hollande, it only gives additional worry to all involved. We can admit that the economic slump was not due to Hollande, but not resolving it will be blamed on him. This beckons additional fears for the economy, once that critical point is surpassed all bets will be off and those with invested life savings might not have any savings left soon thereafter. So buy that house, that vineyard and that business, because owning what you have without debts will soon be a better position than having the status quo with your investments junked, the one fear Wall Street pushed forward too often with less and less options of keeping that value intact.

When people are in fear of losing the simple parts of life, parts that were always there, when that continuation is endangered, they will act in unexpected directions; Nigel Farage and Marine Le Penn are pretty much counting on that and so far they have yet to be proven wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized