Opening what I suspect will become a very long [Thread] on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (#PCSCBill) which, having been introduced last Tuesday, gets its #SecondReading *next* Tuesday - #precipitous, to say the least...
While it is all too often merely lip service, the Ministerial statement of #HumanRights compliance on the cover of this Bill 👇 is particularly #hypocritical, given its actual contents...
Many have been writing about the impact of this proposed legislation on lawful #protest, notably @IanDunt...
What perhaps fewer are noting is the assault on specific people's ways of life; the #criminalisation of gypsies, Roma & travellers, also homeless rough sleepers, is not only blatantly #discriminatory, it's bound to inflame existing tensions & #prejudice:
...given the Bill now defines "memorial" as broadly as "a building", "a garden", or "a bunch of flowers" 🤦🏻♂️ ...
And (winding up for now) anyone who's given their kid a #smartphone might care to read & understand Chapter 3 👇 which, as written, would empower ANY strange adult, apart from the person wanting to extract data, to give #permission for YOUR child's phone data to be #extracted...
...which doesn't even get into the utterly spurious notion that "voluntarily provided" and "agreed to the extraction of information from the device" will EVER amount to #FreelyGiven, #InformedConsent for such #intrusion from many adults (e.g. rape victims) in many circumstances.
N.B. His point about perpetuating powers created under #COVID is one to watch for in EVERY piece of legislation coming forward. Who wants a "#NewNormal" that normalises #abuse and #suppression of rights?
I note @ukhomeoffice issued a slew of so-called "factsheets" on aspects of the #PCSCBill. Unsurprisingly, there's not a single mention of what can be done with the data on #children's phones in its one on #Chapter3 (#DataExtraction):
On "serious #annoyance" 👇 - which, as many have pointed out, is the basic *point* of a #protest - it turns out there is a definition in UK law, e.g. in the context of #RestrictiveCovenants against "‘nuisance or annoyance" in #PropertyLaw.
...it seems that (risk of) "#annoyance" in the context of the #PCSCBill goes FAR more towards establishing a "right to be #offended" than anything in UK law currently recognises. Which is very, very bad.
There will always be *someone* who takes offence at the focus, if not...
...the means & manner of a protest (else why protest?) and if it's the #police themselves deciding - not e.g. the #Courts, applying a "reasonable person" test - then this'll clearly have a #ChillingEffect on #protest, even if it doesn't end up being used to outright #suppress it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Noting that, just like the #AppsLibrary, #DTAC *still* doesn't have a required section on clinical #efficacy - and that #impacts are much more than just (avoiding) #risks - alongside focusing on the #algorithms and #data, have you considered asking a few more basic questions...
1) Will the proposed intervention have a direct impact on health, mental health and/or wellbeing?
If so, what specifically is the intended impact and how will it be measured? If not, why are you doing it?
2) Will the proposed intervention interact with or have...
...any impacts on social, economic and/or environmental factors that would 'indirectly' affect health?
If so, what are they and how will they be measured - and, if necessary, mitigated? If not, provide evidence of ALL of the potential impacts you have actually considered...
"We are the #Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. #ResistanceIsFutile."
So if one-fifth of @Facebook's employees work on #AR/#VR, have all of them done a stint as a content #moderator? And given its toxic business model why doesn't #Facebook have at least as many *employees* (not contractors) working on #ContentModeration as it does AR?
I have a few questions on the whole #Article16 row, and row-back.
Though I understand it's FAR more exciting to report on the inevitable political #PileOn / #AxeGrinding / #CasusBelli, there is actually an agreed Protocol and procedures.
1b) Have they read Annex 7 [right pic, p62 of PDF] which describes the procedures to be followed?
Assuming the answers to (1a) & (1b) are Yes:
2) Given the EU appears to have considered these to be "exceptional circumstances" was the UK notified via the #JointCommittee, and was all relevant information provided?
...so will #YellowCards [left 👇] morph into 'just an #app on your #phone' [right 👇] - claimed to be 'not #mandatory', of course (unless you want to live your life, work or travel...) and with the centralised #biometric#registration Government has wanted all along.
So here's a few questions the #HealthPassport headbangers must answer:
1a) When Heathrow re-opens, given (current) #vaccines don't prevent #transmission, aren't people still going to have to be #tested?
1b) If people have to be tested anyway, what's the point of the 'passport'?
Apropos of @thesundaytimes article, a few thoughts: firstly, as I tweeted 2 days ago 👇 & in stark contrast to the #transparency around other tech/data intitiatives - *cough* @NHSEngland#DataStore *cough* - the team published a blog on what it was doing:
In this blog, the app team gave an explanation of the latest changes it had made - including a reduction in the #RiskThreshold, which took account of TWO factors: the inclusion of a measure of #infectiousness in the API *and* a new #distance algorithm...