thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-04-25--How the National Security State Is Using Coronavirus to Push AI-Driven Mass Surveillance

WASHINGTON DC ( The Last American Vagabond ) — Last year , a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can “ address the national security and defense needs of the United States ” discussed in detail the “ structural ” changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China , according to a recent document acquired through an FOIA request .
This document suggests that the U.S. follow China ’ s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies , particularly their use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China , who have labeled the Chinese government ’ s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major “ threat ” to Americans ’ “ way of life.
” In addition , many of the steps for the implementation of such a program in the U.S. , as laid out in this newly available document , are currently being promoted and implemented as part of the government ’ s response to the current coronavirus ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that many members of this same body have considerable overlap with the taskforces and advisors currently guiding the government ’ s plans to “ re-open the economy ” and efforts to use technology to respond to the current crisis .
The FOIA document , obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC ) , was produced by a little-known U.S. government organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence ( NSCAI ) .
It was created by the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence ( AI ) , machine learning , and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.
” The NSCAI is a key part of the government ’ s response to what is often referred to as the coming “ fourth industrial revolution , ” which has been described as “ a revolution characterized by discontinuous technological development in areas like artificial intelligence ( AI ) , big data , fifth-generation telecommunications networking ( 5G ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Internet of Things ( IoT ) , and quantum computing.
” However , their main focus is ensuring that “ the United States … maintain a technological advantage in artificial intelligence , machine learning , and other associated technologies related to national security and defense.
” The vice-chair of NSCAI , Robert Work – former Deputy Secretary of Defense and senior fellow at the hawkish Center for a New American Security ( CNAS ) , described the commission ’ s purpose as determining “ how the U.S. national security apparatus should approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the government can work with industry to compete with China ’ s ‘ civil-military fusion ’ concept.
” The recently released NSCAI document is a May 2019 presentation entitled “ Chinese Tech Landscape Overview.
” Throughout the presentation , the NSCAI promotes the overhaul of the U.S. economy and way of life as necessary for allowing the U.S. to ensure it holds a considerable technological advantage over China , as losing this advantage is currently deemed a major “ national security ” issue by the U.S. national security apparatus .
This concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in several other U.S. military documents and think tank reports , several of which have warned that the U.S. ’ technological advantage is quickly eroding .
The U.S. government and establishment media outlets often blame alleged Chinese espionage or the Chinese government ’ s more explicit partnerships with private technology companies in support of their claim that the U.S. is losing this advantage over China .
For instance , Chris Darby , the current CEO of the CIA ’ s In-Q-Tel , who is also on the NSCAI , told CBS News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ main competitor in terms of technology and that U.S. privacy laws were hampering the U.S. ’ capacity to counter China in this regard , stating that : In another example , Michael Dempsey – former acting Director of National Intelligence and currently a government-funded fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations – argued in The Hill that : In fact , the national security apparatus of the United States is so concerned about losing a technological edge over China that the Pentagon recently decided to join forces directly with the U.S. intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of Chinese advances in artificial intelligence.
” This union resulted in the creation of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center ( JAIC ) , which ties together “ the military ’ s efforts with those of the Intelligence Community , allowing them to combine efforts in a breakneck push to move government ’ s AI initiatives forward.
” It also coordinates with other government agencies , industry , academics , and U.S. allies .
Robert Work , who subsequently became the NSCAI vice-chair , said at the time that JAIC ’ s creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to Chinese , and to a lesser extent , Russian , plans to dominate these technologies.
” Similar concerns about “ losing ” technological advantage to China have also been voiced by the NSCAI chairman , Eric Schmidt , the former head of Alphabet – Google ’ s parent company , who argued in February in the New York Times that Silicon Valley could soon lose “ the technology wars ” to China if the U.S. government doesn ’ t take action .
Thus , the three main groups represented within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon and Silicon Valley – all view China ’ s advancements in AI as a major national security threat ( and in Silicon Valley ’ s case , threat to their bottom lines and market shares ) that must be tackled quickly .
In the May 2019 “ Chinese Tech Landscape Overview ” presentation , the NSCAI discusses that , while the U.S. still leads in the “ creation ” stage of AI and related technologies , it lags behind China in the “ adoption ” stage due to “ structural factors.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by “ adoption ” and “ iteration ” are the three phases of the “ life cycle of new tech ” and asserts that failing to dominate in the “ adoption ” stage will allow China to “ leapfrog ” the U.S. and dominate AI for the foreseeable future .
The presentation also argues that , in order to “ leapfrog ” competitors in emerging markets , what is needed is not “ individual brilliance ” but instead specific “ structural conditions that exist within certain markets.
” It cites several case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ leapfrogging ” the U.S. due to major differences in these “ structural factors.
” Thus , the insinuation of the document ( though not directly stated ) is that the U.S. must alter the “ structural factors ” that are currently responsible for its lagging behind China in the “ adoption ” phase of AI-driven technologies .
Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dr. Robert Kadlec speaks before a Senate Health , Education , Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on the coronavirus on Capitol Hill , Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) Chief among the troublesome “ structural factors ” highlighted in this presentation are so-called “ legacy systems ” that are common in the U.S. but much less so in China .
The NSCAI document states that examples of “ legacy systems ” include a financial system that still utilizes cash and card payments , individual car ownership and even receiving medical attention from a human doctor .
It states that , while these “ legacy systems ” in the US are “ good enough , ” too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hinder the adoption of new things , ” specifically AI-driven systems .
Another structural factor deemed by the NSCAI to be an obstacle to the U.S. ’ ability to maintain a technological advantage over China is the “ scale of the consumer market , ” arguing that “ extreme urban density = on-demand service adoption.
” In other words , extreme urbanization results in more people using online or mobile-based “ on-demand ” services , ranging from ride-sharing to online shopping .
It also cites the use of mass surveillance on China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an example of how China ’ s “ scale of consumer market ” advantage allowing “ China to leap ahead ” in the fields of related technologies , like facial recognition .
In addition to the alleged shortcomings of the U.S. ’ “ legacy systems ” and lack of “ extreme urban density , ” the NSCAI also calls for more “ explicit government support and involvement ” as a means to speed up the adoption of these systems in the U.S .
This includes the government lending its stores of data on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial recognition databases , and mandating that cities be “ re-architected around AVs [ autonomous vehicles ] , ” among others .
Other examples given include the government investing large amounts of money in AI start-ups and adding tech behemoths to a national , public-private AI taskforce focused on smart city-implementation ( among other things ) .
With regards to the latter , the document says “ this level of public-private cooperation ” in China is “ outwardly embraced ” by the parties involved , with this “ serving as a stark contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. government.
” Examples of such controversy , from the NSCAI ’ s perspective , likely include Google employees petitioning to end the Google-Pentagon “ Project Maven , ” which uses Google ’ s AI software to analyze footage captured by drones .
Google eventually chose not to renew its Maven contract as a result of the controversy , even though top Google executives viewed the project as a “ golden opportunity ” to collaborate more closely with the military and intelligence communities .
The document also defines another aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulatory barriers.
” This term is used in the document specifically with respect to U.S. privacy laws , despite the fact that the U.S. national security state has long violated these laws with near complete impunity .
However , the document seems to suggest that privacy laws in the U.S. should be altered so that what the U.S. government has done “ in secret ” with private citizen data can be done more openly and more extensively .
The NSCAI document also discusses the removal of “ regulatory barriers ” in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though autonomous driving technology has resulted in several deadly and horrific car accidents and presents other safety concerns .
Also discussed is how China ’ s “ adoption advantage ” will “ allow it to leapfrog the U.S. ” in several new fields , including “ AI medical diagnosis ” and “ smart cities.
” It then asserts that “ the future will be decided at the intersection of private enterprise and policy leaders between China and the U.S. ” If this coordination over the global AI market does not occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ the U.S. ] risk being left out of the discussions where norms around AI are set for the rest of our lifetimes.
” The presentation also dwells considerably on how “ the main battleground [ in technology ] are not the domestic Chinese and US markets , ” but what it refers to as the NBU ( next billion users ) markets , where it states that “ Chinese players will aggressively challenge Silicon Valley.
” In order to challenge them more successfully , the presentation argues that , “ just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teenagers as a harbinger for new trends , we should look at China.
” The document also expresses concerns about China exporting AI more extensively and intensively than the U.S. , saying that China is “ already crossing borders ” by helping to build facial databases in Zimbabwe and selling image recognition and smart city systems to Malaysia .
If allowed to become “ the unambiguous leader in AI , ” it says that “ China could end up writing much of the rulebook of international norms around the deployment of AI ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sphere of influence amongst an international community that increasingly looks to the pragmatic authoritarianism of China and Singapore as an alternative to Western liberal democracy.
” Given that the document makes it quite clear that “ legacy systems ” in the U.S. are impeding its ability to prevent China from “ leapfrogging ” ahead in AI and then dominating it for the foreseeable future , it is also important to examine what the document suggests should replace these “ legacy systems ” in the U.S. As previously mentioned , one “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presentation is the main means of payment for most Americans , cash and credit/debit cards .
The presentation asserts , in contrast to these “ legacy systems ” that the best and most advanced system is moving entirely to smartphone-based digital wallets .
It notes specifically the main mobile wallet provider in India , PayTM , is majority owned by Chinese companies .
It quotes an article , which states that “ a big break came [ in 2016 ] when India canceled 86 % of currency in circulation in an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the tax net by forcing them to use less cash.
” At the time , claims that India ’ s 2016 “ currency reform ” would be used as a stepping stone towards a cashless society were dismissed by some as “ conspiracy theory.
” However , last year , a committee convened by India ’ s central bank ( and led by an Indian tech oligarch who also created India ’ s massive civilian biometric database ) resulted in the Indian government ’ s “ Cashless India ” program .
Regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the NSCAI document then asserts that “ this would be unfathomable in the West .
And unsurprisingly , when 86 % of the cash got cancelled and nobody had a credit card , mobile wallets in India exploded , laying the groundwork for a far more advanced payments ecosystem in India than the US.
” However , it has become increasingly less unfathomable in light of the current coronavirus crisis , which has seen efforts to reduce the amount of cash used because paper bills may carry the virus as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ digital dollar.
” In addition , the NSCAI document from last May calls for the end of in-person shopping and promotes moving towards all shopping being performed online .
It argues that “ American companies have a lot to gain by adopting ideas from Chinese companies ” by shifting towards exclusive e-commerce purchasing options .
It states that only shopping online provides a “ great experience ” and also adds that “ when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want , consumers go online.
” Another “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overhaul is car ownership , as it promotes autonomous , or self-driving vehicles and further asserts that “ fleet ownership > individual ownership.
” It specifically points to a need for “ a centralized ride-sharing network , ” which it says “ is needed to coordinate cars to achieve near 100 % utilization rates.
” However , it warns against ride-sharing networks that “ need a human operator paired with each vehicle ” and also asserts that “ fleet ownership makes more sense ” than individual car ownership .
It also specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be composed of self-driving cars , but electric cars and cites reports that China “ has the world ’ s most aggressive electric vehicle goals….and seek [ s ] the lead in an emerging industry.
” The document states that China leads in ride-sharing today even though ride-sharing was pioneered first in the U.S .
It asserts once again that the U.S. “ legacy system ” of individual car ownership and lack of “ extreme urban density ” are responsible for China ’ s dominance in this area .
It also predicts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicle ] adoption before the U.S. , ” largely because “ the lack of mass car ownership [ in China ] leads to far more consumer receptiveness to AVs [ autonomous vehicles ] .
” It then notes that “ earlier mass adoption leads to a virtuous cycle that allows Chinese core self-driving tech to accelerate beyond [ its ] Western counterparts.
” In addition to their vision for a future financial system and future self-driving transport system , the NSCAI has a similarly dystopian vision for surveillance .
The document calls mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers ’ for AI ” and “ a killer application for deep learning.
” It also states that “ having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.
” It then discusses how “ an entire generation of AI unicorn ” companies are “ collecting the bulk of their early revenue from government security contracts ” and praises the use of AI in facilitating policing activities .
For instance , it lauds reports that “ police are making convictions based on phone calls monitored with iFlyTek ’ s voice-recognition technology ” and that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial recognition tech to assist in everything from catching traffic law violators to resolving murder cases.
” On the point of facial recognition technology specifically , the NSCAI document asserts that China has “ leapt ahead ” of the US on facial recognition , even though “ breakthroughs in using machine learning for image recognition initially occurred in the US.
” It claims that China ’ s advantage in this instance is because they have government-implemented mass surveillance ( “ clearing of regulatory barriers ” ) , enormous government-provided stores of data ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with private sector databases on a huge population base ( “ scale of consumer market ” ) .
As a consequence of this , the NSCAI argues , China is also set to leap ahead of the U.S. in both image/facial recognition and biometrics .
The document also points to another glaring difference between the U.S. and its rival , stating that : “ In the press and politics of America and Europe , Al is painted as something to be feared that is eroding privacy and stealing jobs .
Conversely , China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solving major macroeconomic challenges in order to sustain their economic miracle , and an opportunity to take technological leadership on the global stage.
” The NSCAI document also touches on the area of healthcare , calling for the implementation of a system that seems to be becoming reality thanks to the current coronavirus crisis .
In discussing the use of AI in healthcare ( almost a year before the current crisis began ) , it states that “ China could lead the world in this sector ” and “ this could lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norms.
” One reason for this is also that China has “ far too few doctors for the population ” and calls having enough doctors for in-person visits a “ legacy system.
” It also cited U.S. regulatory measures such as “ HIPPA compliance and FDA approval ” as obstacles that don ’ t constrain Chinese authorities .
More troubling , it argues that “ the potential impact of government supplied data is even more significant in biology and healthcare , ” and says it is likely that “ the Chinese government [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their DNA sequenced and stored in government databases , something nearly impossible to imagine in places as privacy conscious as the U.S. and Europe.
” It continues by saying that “ the Chinese apparatus is well-equipped to take advantage ” and calls these civilian DNA databases a “ logical next step.
” Who are the NSCAI ?
Given the sweeping changes to the U.S. that the NSCAI promoted in this presentation last May , it becomes important to examine who makes up the commission and to consider their influence over U.S. policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current crisis .
As previously mentioned , the chairman of the NSCAI is Eric Schmidt , the former head of Alphabet ( Google ’ s parent company ) who has also invested heavily in Israeli intelligence-linked tech companies including the controversial start-up “ incubator ” Team8 .
In addition , the committee ’ s vice-chair is Robert Work , is not only a former top Pentagon official , but is currently working with the think tank CNAS , which is run by John McCain ’ s long-time foreign policy adviser and Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other members of the NSCAI are as follows : • None Safra Catz , CEO of Oracle , with close ties to Trump ’ s top donor Sheldon Adelson • None Steve Chien , supervisor of the Artificial Intelligence Group at Caltech ’ s Jet Propulsion Lab • None Ken Ford , CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition • None Jose-Marie Griffiths , president of Dakota State University and former National Science Board member • None Gilman Louie , partner at Alsop Louie Partners and former CEO of In-Q-Tel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SRI International and former Lockheed Martin director • None Jason Matheny , director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology , former Assistant director of National Intelligence and former director of IARPA ( Intelligence Advanced Research Project Agency ) • None Katharina McFarland , consultant at Cypress International and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition As can be seen in the list above , there is a considerable amount of overlap between the NSCAI and the companies currently advising the White House on “ re-opening ” the economy ( Microsoft , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oracle ) and one NSCAI member , Oracle ’ s Safra Katz , is on the White House ’ s “ economic revival ” taskforce .
Also , there is also overlap between the NSCAI and the companies that are intimately involved in the implementation of the “ contact tracing ” “ coronavirus surveillance system , ” a mass surveillance system promoted by the Jared Kushner-led , private-sector coronavirus task force .
That surveillance system is set to be constructed by companies with deep ties to Google and the U.S. national security state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who create the operating systems for the vast majority of smartphones used in the U.S. , have said they will now build that surveillance system directly into their smartphone operating systems .
Also notable is the fact that In-Q-Tel and the U.S. intelligence community has considerable representation on the NSCAI and that they also boast close ties with Google , Palantir and other Silicon Valley giants , having been early investors in those companies .
Both Google and Palantir , as well as Amazon ( also on the NSCAI ) are also major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s involvement on the NSCAI is also significant because they have been heavily promoting mass surveillance of consumer electronic devices for use in pandemics for the past several years .
Much of that push has come from In-Q-Tel ’ s current Executive Vice President Tara O ’ Toole , who was previously the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and also co-authored several controversial biowarfare/pandemic simulations , such as Dark Winter .
In addition , since at least January , the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s still-classified “ 9/11-style ” response plans for the coronavirus crisis , alongside the National Security Council .
Few news organizations have noted that these classified response plans , which are set to be triggered if and when the U.S. reaches a certain number of coronavirus cases , has been created largely by elements of the national security state ( i.e .
the NSC , Pentagon , and intelligence ) , as opposed to civilian agencies or those focused on public health issues .
Furthermore , it has been reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. military intelligence knew by at least January ( though recent reports have said as early as last November ) that the coronavirus crisis would reach “ pandemic proportions ” by March .
The American public were not warned , but elite members of the business and political classes were apparently informed , given the record numbers of CEO resignations in January and several high-profile insider trading allegations that preceded the current crisis by a matter of weeks .
Perhaps even more disconcerting is the added fact that the U.S. government not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last October known as Event 201 , it also led a series of pandemic response simulations last year .
Crimson Contagion was a series of four simulations that involved 19 U.S. federal agencies , including intelligence and the military , as well as 12 different states and a host of private sector companies that simulated a devastating pandemic influenza outbreak that had originated in China .
It was led by the current HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response , Robert Kadlec , who is a former lobbyist for military and intelligence contractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” advisor .
Though the May 2019 NSCAI document was authored nearly a year ago , the coronavirus crisis has resulted in the implementation of many of the changes and the removal of many of the “ structural ” obstacles that the commission argued needed to be drastically altered in order to ensure a technological advantage over China in the field of AI .
The aforementioned move away from cash , which is taking place not just in the U.S. but internationally , is just one example of many .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores are now considering banning in-person shopping and that the U.S. Department of Labor has recommended that retailers nationwide start “ ‘ using a drive-through window or offering curbside pick-up ’ to protect workers for exposure to coronavirus.
” In addition , last week , the state of Florida approved an online-purchase plan for low income families using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) .
Other reports have argued that social distancing inside grocery stores is ineffective and endangering people ’ s lives .
As previously mentioned , the May 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in-person shopping is necessary to mitigate China ’ s “ adoption advantage ” and also argued that “ when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want , consumers go online.
” Reports have also argued that these changes in shopping will last far beyond coronavirus , such as an article by Business Insider entitled “ The coronavirus pandemic is pushing more people online and will forever change how Americans shop for groceries , experts say.
” Those cited in the piece argue that this shift away from in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also states that “ More people are trying these services than otherwise would have without this catalyst and gives online players a greater chance to acquire and keep a new customer base.
” A similar article in Yahoo !
News argues that , thanks to the current crisis , “ our dependence on online shopping will only rise because no one wants to catch a virus at a shop.
” In addition , the push towards the mass use of self-driving cars has also gotten a boost thanks to coronavirus , with driverless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two companies , one Chinese-owned and the other backed by Japan ’ s SoftBank , have since been approved to have their self-driving cars used on California roads and that approval was expedited due to the coronavirus crisis .
The CPO of Nuro Inc. , the SoftBank-backed company , was quoted in Bloomberg as saying that “ The Covid-19 pandemic has expedited the public need for contactless delivery services .
Our R2 fleet is custom-designed to change the very nature of driving and the movement of goods by allowing people to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicines , and packages are brought to them.
” Notably , the May 2019 NSCAI document references the inter-connected web of SoftBank-backed companies , particularly those backed by its largely Saudi-funded “ Vision Fund , ” as forming “ the connective tissue for a global federation of tech companies ” set to dominate AI .
California isn ’ t the only state to start using self-driving cars , as the Mayo Clinic of Florida is now also using them .
“ Using artificial intelligence enables us to protect staff from exposure to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology and frees up staff time that can be dedicated to direct treatment and care for patients , ” Kent Thielen , M.D.
, CEO of Mayo Clinic in Florida stated in a recent press release cited by Mic .
Like the changes to in-person shopping in the age of coronavirus , other reports assert that self-driving vehicles are here to stay .
One report published by Mashable is entitled “ It took a coronavirus outbreak for self-driving cars to become more appealing , ” and opens by stating “ Suddenly , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t just a sci-fi pipe dream .
What used to be considered a scary , uncertain technology for many Americans looks more like an effective tool to protect ourselves from a fast-spreading , infectious disease.
” It further argues that this is hardly a “ fleeting shift ” in driving habits and one tech CEO cited in the piece , Anuja Sonalker of Steer Tech , claims that “ There has been a distinct warming up to human-less , contactless technology .
Humans are biohazards , machines are not.
” Another focus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also seen its star rise in recent weeks .
For instance , several reports have touted how AI-driven drug discovery platforms have been able to identify potential treatments for coronavirus .
Microsoft , whose research lab director is on the NSCAI , recently put $ 20 million into its “ AI for health ” program to speed up the use of AI in analyzing coronavirus data .
In addition , “ telemedicine ” – a form of remote medical care – has also become widely adopted due to the coronavirus crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more widely adopted thanks to coronavirus , including the use of mass surveillance for “ contact tracing ” as well as facial recognition technology and biometrics .
A recent Wall Street Journal report stated that the government is seriously considering both contact tracing via phone geolocation data and facial recognition technology in order to track those who might have coronavirus .
In addition , private businesses – like grocery stores and restaurants – are using sensors and facial recognition to see how many people and which people are entering their stores .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now working to determine if “ smartphones and biometric wearables already contain the data we need to know if we have become infected with the novel coronavirus.
” Those efforts seek to detect coronavirus infections early by analyzing “ sleep schedules , oxygen levels , activity levels and heart rate ” based on smartphone apps like FitBit and smartwatches .
In countries outside the U.S. , biometric IDs are being touted as a way to track those who have and lack immunity to coronavirus .
In addition , one report in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing what types of biometrics should be used , asserting that a shift towards thermal scanning and facial recognition is necessary : Also benefiting from the coronavirus crisis is the concept of “ smart cities , ” with Forbes recently writing that “ Smart cities can help us combat the coronavirus pandemic.
” That article states that “ Governments and local authorities are using smart city technology , sensors and data to trace the contacts of people infected with the coronavirus .
At the same time , smart cities are also helping in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being followed.
” That article in Forbes also contains the following passage : Another report in The Guardian states that “ If one of the government takeaways from coronavirus is that ‘ smart cities ’ including Songdo or Shenzhen are safer cities from a public health perspective , then we can expect greater efforts to digitally capture and record our behaviour in urban areas – and fiercer debates over the power such surveillance hands to corporations and states.
” There have also been reports that assert that typical cities are “ woefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ smart cities.
” Yet , beyond many of the NSCAI ’ s specific concerns regarding mass AI adoption being conveniently resolved by the current crisis , there has also been a concerted effort to change the public ’ s perception of AI in general .
As previously mentioned , the NSCAI had pointed out last year that : Now , less than a year later , the coronavirus crisis has helped spawn a slew of headlines in just the last few weeks that paint AI very differently , including “ How Artificial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ How AI May Prevent the Next Coronavirus Outbreak , ” “ AI Becomes an Ally in the Fight Against COVID-19 , ” “ Coronavirus : AI steps up in battle against COVID-19 , ” and “ Here ’ s How AI Can Help Africa Fight the Coronavirus , ” among numerous others .
It is indeed striking how the coronavirus crisis has seemingly fulfilled the NSCAI ’ s entire wishlist and removed many of the obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies in the United States .
Like major crises of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be using the chaos and fear to promote and implement initiatives that would be normally rejected by Americans and , if history is any indicator , these new changes will remain long after the coronavirus crisis fades from the news cycle .
It is essential that these so-called “ solutions ” be recognized for what they are and that we consider what type of world they will end up creating – an authoritarian technocracy .
We ignore the rapid advance of these NSCAI-promoted initiatives and the phasing out of so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many long-cherished freedoms ) at our own peril .
Feature photo | A computer monitors some of Cadet Cheyenne Quilter ’ s reactions as she works with a virtual reality character named “ Ellie ” at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point , N.Y. Seth Wenig | AP Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers .
They are republished from a number of sources , and are not produced by MintPress News .
The views expressed in these articles are the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect MintPress News editorial policy .

WASHINGTON DC (The Last American Vagabond) — Last year, a U.S. government body dedicated to examining how artificial intelligence can “address the national security and defense needs of the United States” discussed in detail the “structural” changes that the American economy and society must undergo in order to ensure a technological advantage over China, according to a recent document acquired through an FOIA request. This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance. This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major “threat” to Americans’ “way of life.”
In addition, many of the steps for the implementation of such a program in the U.S., as laid out in this newly available document, are currently being promoted and implemented as part of the government’s response to the current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. This likely due to the fact that many members of this same body have considerable overlap with the taskforces and advisors currently guiding the government’s plans to “re-open the economy” and efforts to use technology to respond to the current crisis.
The FOIA document, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), was produced by a little-known U.S. government organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI). It was created by the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its official purpose is “to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.”
The NSCAI is a key part of the government’s response to what is often referred to as the coming “fourth industrial revolution,” which has been described as “a revolution characterized by discontinuous technological development in areas like artificial intelligence (AI), big data, fifth-generation telecommunications networking (5G), nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and quantum computing.”
However, their main focus is ensuring that “the United States … maintain a technological advantage in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other associated technologies related to national security and defense.” The vice-chair of NSCAI, Robert Work – former Deputy Secretary of Defense and senior fellow at the hawkish Center for a New American Security (CNAS), described the commission’s purpose as determining “how the U.S. national security apparatus should approach artificial intelligence, including a focus on how the government can work with industry to compete with China’s ‘civil-military fusion’ concept.”
The recently released NSCAI document is a May 2019 presentation entitled “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview.” Throughout the presentation, the NSCAI promotes the overhaul of the U.S. economy and way of life as necessary for allowing the U.S. to ensure it holds a considerable technological advantage over China, as losing this advantage is currently deemed a major “national security” issue by the U.S. national security apparatus. This concern about maintaining a technological advantage can be seen in several other U.S. military documents and think tank reports, several of which have warned that the U.S.’ technological advantage is quickly eroding.
The U.S. government and establishment media outlets often blame alleged Chinese espionage or the Chinese government’s more explicit partnerships with private technology companies in support of their claim that the U.S. is losing this advantage over China. For instance, Chris Darby, the current CEO of the CIA’s In-Q-Tel, who is also on the NSCAI, told CBS News last year that China is the U.S.’ main competitor in terms of technology and that U.S. privacy laws were hampering the U.S.’ capacity to counter China in this regard, stating that:
[D]ata is the new oil. And China is just awash with data. And they don’t have the same restraints that we do around collecting it and using it, because of the privacy difference between our countries. This notion that they have the largest labeled data set in the world is going to be a huge strength for them.”
In another example, Michael Dempsey – former acting Director of National Intelligence and currently a government-funded fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations – argued in The Hill that:
It’s quite clear, though, that China is determined to erase our technological advantage, and is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to this effort. In particular, China is determined to be a world leader in such areas as artificial intelligence, high performance computing, and synthetic biology. These are the industries that will shape life on the planet and the military balance of power for the next several decades.”
In fact, the national security apparatus of the United States is so concerned about losing a technological edge over China that the Pentagon recently decided to join forces directly with the U.S. intelligence community in order “to get in front of Chinese advances in artificial intelligence.” This union resulted in the creation of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), which ties together “the military’s efforts with those of the Intelligence Community, allowing them to combine efforts in a breakneck push to move government’s AI initiatives forward.” It also coordinates with other government agencies, industry, academics, and U.S. allies. Robert Work, who subsequently became the NSCAI vice-chair, said at the time that JAIC’s creation was a “welcome first step in response to Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian, plans to dominate these technologies.”
Similar concerns about “losing” technological advantage to China have also been voiced by the NSCAI chairman, Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet – Google’s parent company, who argued in February in the New York Times that Silicon Valley could soon lose “the technology wars” to China if the U.S. government doesn’t take action. Thus, the three main groups represented within the NSCAI – the intelligence community, the Pentagon and Silicon Valley – all view China’s advancements in AI as a major national security threat (and in Silicon Valley’s case, threat to their bottom lines and market shares) that must be tackled quickly.
Targeting China’s “adoption advantage”
In the May 2019 “Chinese Tech Landscape Overview” presentation, the NSCAI discusses that, while the U.S. still leads in the “creation” stage of AI and related technologies, it lags behind China in the “adoption” stage due to “structural factors.” It says that “creation”, followed by “adoption” and “iteration” are the three phases of the “life cycle of new tech” and asserts that failing to dominate in the “adoption” stage will allow China to “leapfrog” the U.S. and dominate AI for the foreseeable future.
The presentation also argues that, in order to “leapfrog” competitors in emerging markets, what is needed is not “individual brilliance” but instead specific “structural conditions that exist within certain markets.” It cites several case studies where China is considered to be “leapfrogging” the U.S. due to major differences in these “structural factors.” Thus, the insinuation of the document (though not directly stated) is that the U.S. must alter the “structural factors” that are currently responsible for its lagging behind China in the “adoption” phase of AI-driven technologies.
Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dr. Robert Kadlec speaks before a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on the coronavirus on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, March 3, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Chief among the troublesome “structural factors” highlighted in this presentation are so-called “legacy systems” that are common in the U.S. but much less so in China. The NSCAI document states that examples of “legacy systems” include a financial system that still utilizes cash and card payments, individual car ownership and even receiving medical attention from a human doctor. It states that, while these “legacy systems” in the US are “good enough,” too many “good enough” systems “hinder the adoption of new things,” specifically AI-driven systems.
Another structural factor deemed by the NSCAI to be an obstacle to the U.S.’ ability to maintain a technological advantage over China is the “scale of the consumer market,” arguing that “extreme urban density = on-demand service adoption.” In other words, extreme urbanization results in more people using online or mobile-based “on-demand” services, ranging from ride-sharing to online shopping. It also cites the use of mass surveillance on China’s “huge population base” is an example of how China’s “scale of consumer market” advantage allowing “China to leap ahead” in the fields of related technologies, like facial recognition.
In addition to the alleged shortcomings of the U.S.’ “legacy systems” and lack of “extreme urban density,” the NSCAI also calls for more “explicit government support and involvement” as a means to speed up the adoption of these systems in the U.S. This includes the government lending its stores of data on civilians to train AI, specifically citing facial recognition databases, and mandating that cities be “re-architected around AVs [autonomous vehicles],” among others. Other examples given include the government investing large amounts of money in AI start-ups and adding tech behemoths to a national, public-private AI taskforce focused on smart city-implementation (among other things).
With regards to the latter, the document says “this level of public-private cooperation” in China is “outwardly embraced” by the parties involved, with this “serving as a stark contrast to the controversy around Silicon Valley selling to the U.S. government.” Examples of such controversy, from the NSCAI’s perspective, likely include Google employees petitioning to end the Google-Pentagon “Project Maven,” which uses Google’s AI software to analyze footage captured by drones. Google eventually chose not to renew its Maven contract as a result of the controversy, even though top Google executives viewed the project as a “golden opportunity” to collaborate more closely with the military and intelligence communities.
The document also defines another aspect of government support as the “clearing of regulatory barriers.” This term is used in the document specifically with respect to U.S. privacy laws, despite the fact that the U.S. national security state has long violated these laws with near complete impunity. However, the document seems to suggest that privacy laws in the U.S. should be altered so that what the U.S. government has done “in secret” with private citizen data can be done more openly and more extensively. The NSCAI document also discusses the removal of “regulatory barriers” in order to speed up the adoption of self-driving cars, even though autonomous driving technology has resulted in several deadly and horrific car accidents and presents other safety concerns.
Also discussed is how China’s “adoption advantage” will “allow it to leapfrog the U.S.” in several new fields, including “AI medical diagnosis” and “smart cities.” It then asserts that “the future will be decided at the intersection of private enterprise and policy leaders between China and the U.S.” If this coordination over the global AI market does not occur, the document warns that “we [the U.S.] risk being left out of the discussions where norms around AI are set for the rest of our lifetimes.”
The presentation also dwells considerably on how “the main battleground [in technology] are not the domestic Chinese and US markets,” but what it refers to as the NBU (next billion users) markets, where it states that “Chinese players will aggressively challenge Silicon Valley.” In order to challenge them more successfully, the presentation argues that, “just like we [view] the market of teenagers as a harbinger for new trends, we should look at China.”
The document also expresses concerns about China exporting AI more extensively and intensively than the U.S., saying that China is “already crossing borders” by helping to build facial databases in Zimbabwe and selling image recognition and smart city systems to Malaysia. If allowed to become “the unambiguous leader in AI,” it says that “China could end up writing much of the rulebook of international norms around the deployment of AI” and that it would “broaden China’s sphere of influence amongst an international community that increasingly looks to the pragmatic authoritarianism of China and Singapore as an alternative to Western liberal democracy.”
What will replace America’s “legacy systems”?
Given that the document makes it quite clear that “legacy systems” in the U.S. are impeding its ability to prevent China from “leapfrogging” ahead in AI and then dominating it for the foreseeable future, it is also important to examine what the document suggests should replace these “legacy systems” in the U.S.
As previously mentioned, one “legacy system” cited early on in the presentation is the main means of payment for most Americans, cash and credit/debit cards. The presentation asserts, in contrast to these “legacy systems” that the best and most advanced system is moving entirely to smartphone-based digital wallets.
It notes specifically the main mobile wallet provider in India, PayTM, is majority owned by Chinese companies. It quotes an article, which states that “a big break came [in 2016] when India canceled 86% of currency in circulation in an effort to cut corruption and bring more people into the tax net by forcing them to use less cash.” At the time, claims that India’s 2016 “currency reform” would be used as a stepping stone towards a cashless society were dismissed by some as “conspiracy theory.” However, last year, a committee convened by India’s central bank (and led by an Indian tech oligarch who also created India’s massive civilian biometric database) resulted in the Indian government’s “Cashless India” program.
Regarding India’s 2016 “currency reform,” the NSCAI document then asserts that “this would be unfathomable in the West. And unsurprisingly, when 86% of the cash got cancelled and nobody had a credit card, mobile wallets in India exploded, laying the groundwork for a far more advanced payments ecosystem in India than the US.” However, it has become increasingly less unfathomable in light of the current coronavirus crisis, which has seen efforts to reduce the amount of cash used because paper bills may carry the virus as well as efforts to introduce a Federal Reserve-backed “digital dollar.”
In addition, the NSCAI document from last May calls for the end of in-person shopping and promotes moving towards all shopping being performed online. It argues that “American companies have a lot to gain by adopting ideas from Chinese companies” by shifting towards exclusive e-commerce purchasing options. It states that only shopping online provides a “great experience” and also adds that “when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want, consumers go online.”
Another “legacy system” that the NSCAI seeks to overhaul is car ownership, as it promotes autonomous, or self-driving vehicles and further asserts that “fleet ownership > individual ownership.” It specifically points to a need for “a centralized ride-sharing network,” which it says “is needed to coordinate cars to achieve near 100% utilization rates.” However, it warns against ride-sharing networks that “need a human operator paired with each vehicle” and also asserts that “fleet ownership makes more sense” than individual car ownership. It also specifically calls for these fleets to not only be composed of self-driving cars, but electric cars and cites reports that China “has the world’s most aggressive electric vehicle goals….and seek[s] the lead in an emerging industry.”
The document states that China leads in ride-sharing today even though ride-sharing was pioneered first in the U.S. It asserts once again that the U.S. “legacy system” of individual car ownership and lack of “extreme urban density” are responsible for China’s dominance in this area. It also predicts that China will “achieve mass autonomous [vehicle] adoption before the U.S.,” largely because “the lack of mass car ownership [in China] leads to far more consumer receptiveness to AVs [autonomous vehicles].” It then notes that “earlier mass adoption leads to a virtuous cycle that allows Chinese core self-driving tech to accelerate beyond [its] Western counterparts.”
In addition to their vision for a future financial system and future self-driving transport system, the NSCAI has a similarly dystopian vision for surveillance. The document calls mass surveillance “one of the ‘first-and-best customers’ for AI” and “a killer application for deep learning.” It also states that “having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.”
It then discusses how “an entire generation of AI unicorn” companies are “collecting the bulk of their early revenue from government security contracts” and praises the use of AI in facilitating policing activities. For instance, it lauds reports that “police are making convictions based on phone calls monitored with iFlyTek’s voice-recognition technology” and that “police departments are using [AI] facial recognition tech to assist in everything from catching traffic law violators to resolving murder cases.”
On the point of facial recognition technology specifically, the NSCAI document asserts that China has “leapt ahead” of the US on facial recognition, even though “breakthroughs in using machine learning for image recognition initially occurred in the US.” It claims that China’s advantage in this instance is because they have government-implemented mass surveillance (“clearing of regulatory barriers”), enormous government-provided stores of data (“explicit government support”) combined with private sector databases on a huge population base (“scale of consumer market”). As a consequence of this, the NSCAI argues, China is also set to leap ahead of the U.S. in both image/facial recognition and biometrics.
The document also points to another glaring difference between the U.S. and its rival, stating that: “In the press and politics of America and Europe, Al is painted as something to be feared that is eroding privacy and stealing jobs. Conversely, China views it as both a tool for solving major macroeconomic challenges in order to sustain their economic miracle, and an opportunity to take technological leadership on the global stage.”
The NSCAI document also touches on the area of healthcare, calling for the implementation of a system that seems to be becoming reality thanks to the current coronavirus crisis. In discussing the use of AI in healthcare (almost a year before the current crisis began), it states that “China could lead the world in this sector” and “this could lead to them exporting their tech and setting international norms.” One reason for this is also that China has “far too few doctors for the population” and calls having enough doctors for in-person visits a “legacy system.” It also cited U.S. regulatory measures such as “HIPPA compliance and FDA approval” as obstacles that don’t constrain Chinese authorities.
More troubling, it argues that “the potential impact of government supplied data is even more significant in biology and healthcare,” and says it is likely that “the Chinese government [will] require every single citizen to have their DNA sequenced and stored in government databases, something nearly impossible to imagine in places as privacy conscious as the U.S. and Europe.” It continues by saying that “the Chinese apparatus is well-equipped to take advantage” and calls these civilian DNA databases a “logical next step.”
Who are the NSCAI?
Given the sweeping changes to the U.S. that the NSCAI promoted in this presentation last May, it becomes important to examine who makes up the commission and to consider their influence over U.S. policy on these matters, particularly during the current crisis. As previously mentioned, the chairman of the NSCAI is Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) who has also invested heavily in Israeli intelligence-linked tech companies including the controversial start-up “incubator” Team8. In addition, the committee’s vice-chair is Robert Work, is not only a former top Pentagon official, but is currently working with the think tank CNAS, which is run by John McCain’s long-time foreign policy adviser and Joe Biden’s former national security adviser.
Other members of the NSCAI are as follows:
Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle, with close ties to Trump’s top donor Sheldon Adelson
Steve Chien, supervisor of the Artificial Intelligence Group at Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Lab
Mignon Clyburn, Open Society Foundation fellow and former FCC commissioner
Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel (CIA’s venture capital arm)
Ken Ford, CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Jose-Marie Griffiths, president of Dakota State University and former National Science Board member
Eric Horvitz, director of Microsoft Research Labs
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (CIA contractor)
Gilman Louie, partner at Alsop Louie Partners and former CEO of In-Q-Tel
William Mark, director of SRI International and former Lockheed Martin director
Jason Matheny, director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, former Assistant director of National Intelligence and former director of IARPA (Intelligence Advanced Research Project Agency)
Katharina McFarland, consultant at Cypress International and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
Andrew Moore, head of Google Cloud AI
As can be seen in the list above, there is a considerable amount of overlap between the NSCAI and the companies currently advising the White House on “re-opening” the economy (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, Oracle) and one NSCAI member, Oracle’s Safra Katz, is on the White House’s “economic revival” taskforce. Also, there is also overlap between the NSCAI and the companies that are intimately involved in the implementation of the “contact tracing” “coronavirus surveillance system,” a mass surveillance system promoted by the Jared Kushner-led, private-sector coronavirus task force. That surveillance system is set to be constructed by companies with deep ties to Google and the U.S. national security state, and both Google and Apple, who create the operating systems for the vast majority of smartphones used in the U.S., have said they will now build that surveillance system directly into their smartphone operating systems.
Also notable is the fact that In-Q-Tel and the U.S. intelligence community has considerable representation on the NSCAI and that they also boast close ties with Google, Palantir and other Silicon Valley giants, having been early investors in those companies. Both Google and Palantir, as well as Amazon (also on the NSCAI) are also major contractors for U.S. intelligence agencies. In-Q-Tel’s involvement on the NSCAI is also significant because they have been heavily promoting mass surveillance of consumer electronic devices for use in pandemics for the past several years. Much of that push has come from In-Q-Tel’s current Executive Vice President Tara O’Toole, who was previously the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and also co-authored several controversial biowarfare/pandemic simulations, such as Dark Winter.
In addition, since at least January, the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have been at the forefront of developing the U.S. government’s still-classified “9/11-style” response plans for the coronavirus crisis, alongside the National Security Council. Few news organizations have noted that these classified response plans, which are set to be triggered if and when the U.S. reaches a certain number of coronavirus cases, has been created largely by elements of the national security state (i.e. the NSC, Pentagon, and intelligence), as opposed to civilian agencies or those focused on public health issues.
Furthermore, it has been reported that the U.S. intelligence community as well as U.S. military intelligence knew by at least January (though recent reports have said as early as last November) that the coronavirus crisis would reach “pandemic proportions” by March. The American public were not warned, but elite members of the business and political classes were apparently informed, given the record numbers of CEO resignations in January and several high-profile insider trading allegations that preceded the current crisis by a matter of weeks.
Perhaps even more disconcerting is the added fact that the U.S. government not only participated in the eerily prescient pandemic simulation last October known as Event 201, it also led a series of pandemic response simulations last year. Crimson Contagion was a series of four simulations that involved 19 U.S. federal agencies, including intelligence and the military, as well as 12 different states and a host of private sector companies that simulated a devastating pandemic influenza outbreak that had originated in China. It was led by the current HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Robert Kadlec, who is a former lobbyist for military and intelligence contractors and a Bush-era homeland security “bioterrorism” advisor.
Given the above, it is worth asking if those who share the NSCAI’s vision saw the coronavirus pandemic early on as an opportunity to make the “structural changes” it had deemed essential to countering China’s lead in the mass adoption of AI-driven technologies, especially considering that many of the changes in the May 2019 document are now quickly taking place under the guise of combatting the coronavirus crisis.
The NSCAI vision takes shape
Though the May 2019 NSCAI document was authored nearly a year ago, the coronavirus crisis has resulted in the implementation of many of the changes and the removal of many of the “structural” obstacles that the commission argued needed to be drastically altered in order to ensure a technological advantage over China in the field of AI. The aforementioned move away from cash, which is taking place not just in the U.S. but internationally, is just one example of many.
For instance, earlier this week CNN reported that grocery stores are now considering banning in-person shopping and that the U.S. Department of Labor has recommended that retailers nationwide start “‘using a drive-through window or offering curbside pick-up’ to protect workers for exposure to coronavirus.” In addition, last week, the state of Florida approved an online-purchase plan for low income families using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Other reports have argued that social distancing inside grocery stores is ineffective and endangering people’s lives. As previously mentioned, the May 2019 NSCAI document argues that moving away from in-person shopping is necessary to mitigate China’s “adoption advantage” and also argued that “when buying online is literally the only way to get what you want, consumers go online.”
Reports have also argued that these changes in shopping will last far beyond coronavirus, such as an article by Business Insider entitled “The coronavirus pandemic is pushing more people online and will forever change how Americans shop for groceries, experts say.” Those cited in the piece argue that this shift away from in-person shopping will be “permanent” and also states that “More people are trying these services than otherwise would have without this catalyst and gives online players a greater chance to acquire and keep a new customer base.” A similar article in Yahoo! News argues that, thanks to the current crisis, “our dependence on online shopping will only rise because no one wants to catch a virus at a shop.”
In addition, the push towards the mass use of self-driving cars has also gotten a boost thanks to coronavirus, with driverless cars now making on-demand deliveries in California. Two companies, one Chinese-owned and the other backed by Japan’s SoftBank, have since been approved to have their self-driving cars used on California roads and that approval was expedited due to the coronavirus crisis. The CPO of Nuro Inc., the SoftBank-backed company, was quoted in Bloomberg as saying that “The Covid-19 pandemic has expedited the public need for contactless delivery services. Our R2 fleet is custom-designed to change the very nature of driving and the movement of goods by allowing people to remain safely at home while their groceries, medicines, and packages are brought to them.” Notably, the May 2019 NSCAI document references the inter-connected web of SoftBank-backed companies, particularly those backed by its largely Saudi-funded “Vision Fund,” as forming “the connective tissue for a global federation of tech companies” set to dominate AI.
California isn’t the only state to start using self-driving cars, as the Mayo Clinic of Florida is now also using them. “Using artificial intelligence enables us to protect staff from exposure to this contagious virus by using cutting-edge autonomous vehicle technology and frees up staff time that can be dedicated to direct treatment and care for patients,” Kent Thielen, M.D., CEO of Mayo Clinic in Florida stated in a recent press release cited by Mic.
Like the changes to in-person shopping in the age of coronavirus, other reports assert that self-driving vehicles are here to stay. One report published by Mashable is entitled “It took a coronavirus outbreak for self-driving cars to become more appealing,” and opens by stating “Suddenly, a future full of self-driving cars isn’t just a sci-fi pipe dream. What used to be considered a scary, uncertain technology for many Americans looks more like an effective tool to protect ourselves from a fast-spreading, infectious disease.” It further argues that this is hardly a “fleeting shift” in driving habits and one tech CEO cited in the piece, Anuja Sonalker of Steer Tech, claims that “There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology. Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”
Another focus of the NSCAI presentation, AI medicine, has also seen its star rise in recent weeks. For instance, several reports have touted how AI-driven drug discovery platforms have been able to identify potential treatments for coronavirus. Microsoft, whose research lab director is on the NSCAI, recently put $20 million into its “AI for health” program to speed up the use of AI in analyzing coronavirus data. In addition, “telemedicine”– a form of remote medical care – has also become widely adopted due to the coronavirus crisis.
Several other AI-driven technologies have similarly become more widely adopted thanks to coronavirus, including the use of mass surveillance for “contact tracing” as well as facial recognition technology and biometrics. A recent Wall Street Journal report stated that the government is seriously considering both contact tracing via phone geolocation data and facial recognition technology in order to track those who might have coronavirus. In addition, private businesses – like grocery stores and restaurants – are using sensors and facial recognition to see how many people and which people are entering their stores.
As far as biometrics go, university researchers are now working to determine if “smartphones and biometric wearables already contain the data we need to know if we have become infected with the novel coronavirus.” Those efforts seek to detect coronavirus infections early by analyzing “sleep schedules, oxygen levels, activity levels and heart rate” based on smartphone apps like FitBit and smartwatches. In countries outside the U.S., biometric IDs are being touted as a way to track those who have and lack immunity to coronavirus.
In addition, one report in The Edge argued that the current crisis is changing what types of biometrics should be used, asserting that a shift towards thermal scanning and facial recognition is necessary:
At this critical juncture of the crisis, any integrated facial recognition and thermal scanning solution must be implemented easily, rapidly and in a cost-effective manner. Workers returning to offices or factories must not have to scramble to learn a new process or fumble with declaration forms. They must feel safe and healthy for them to work productively. They just have to look at the camera and smile. Cameras and thermal scanners, supported by a cloud-based solution and the appropriate software protocols, will do the rest.”
Also benefiting from the coronavirus crisis is the concept of “smart cities,” with Forbes recently writing that “Smart cities can help us combat the coronavirus pandemic.” That article states that “Governments and local authorities are using smart city technology, sensors and data to trace the contacts of people infected with the coronavirus. At the same time, smart cities are also helping in efforts to determine whether social distancing rules are being followed.”
That article in Forbes also contains the following passage:
…[T]he use of masses of connected sensors makes it clear that the coronavirus pandemic is–intentionally or not–being used as a testbed for new surveillance technologies that may threaten privacy and civil liberties. So aside from being a global health crisis, the coronavirus has effectively become an experiment in how to monitor and control people at scale.”
Another report in The Guardian states that “If one of the government takeaways from coronavirus is that ‘smart cities’ including Songdo or Shenzhen are safer cities from a public health perspective, then we can expect greater efforts to digitally capture and record our behaviour in urban areas – and fiercer debates over the power such surveillance hands to corporations and states.” There have also been reports that assert that typical cities are “woefully unprepared” to face pandemics compared to “smart cities.”
Yet, beyond many of the NSCAI’s specific concerns regarding mass AI adoption being conveniently resolved by the current crisis, there has also been a concerted effort to change the public’s perception of AI in general. As previously mentioned, the NSCAI had pointed out last year that:
In the press and politics of America and Europe, Al is painted as something to be feared that is eroding privacy and stealing jobs. Conversely, China views it as both a tool for solving major macroeconomic challenges in order to sustain their economic miracle, and an opportunity to take technological leadership on the global stage.”
Now, less than a year later, the coronavirus crisis has helped spawn a slew of headlines in just the last few weeks that paint AI very differently, including “How Artificial Intelligence Can Help Fight Coronavirus,” “How AI May Prevent the Next Coronavirus Outbreak,” “AI Becomes an Ally in the Fight Against COVID-19,” “Coronavirus: AI steps up in battle against COVID-19,” and “Here’s How AI Can Help Africa Fight the Coronavirus,” among numerous others.
It is indeed striking how the coronavirus crisis has seemingly fulfilled the NSCAI’s entire wishlist and removed many of the obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies in the United States. Like major crises of the past, the national security state appears to be using the chaos and fear to promote and implement initiatives that would be normally rejected by Americans and, if history is any indicator, these new changes will remain long after the coronavirus crisis fades from the news cycle. It is essential that these so-called “solutions” be recognized for what they are and that we consider what type of world they will end up creating – an authoritarian technocracy. We ignore the rapid advance of these NSCAI-promoted initiatives and the phasing out of so-called “legacy systems” (and with them, many long-cherished freedoms) at our own peril.
Feature photo | A computer monitors some of Cadet Cheyenne Quilter’s reactions as she works with a virtual reality character named “Ellie” at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Seth Wenig | AP
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-04-25--Jimmy Dore: Security State Using Coronavirus To Implement Orwellian Nightmare

^5000The mainstream imperialist media lie CONSTANTLY .
Literally 24/7 .
And it 's getting worse .
All of them do @ @ @ @ @ , the newspapers , the movies .
The internet .
No exceptions .
The corporate @ @ @ @ @ totalitarian .
CBS does it .
NBC does it .
ABC does it .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ it .
NPR does it .
And of course the NYTimes and WaPo do it @ @ @ @ @ '' voices telling you the same lies .
Enough to convince anyone .

Up to You.
^3000US citizens have no real political representation.
We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.
I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.
What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.
And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-04-25--David Sirota Documents More of Joe Biden’s Pervasive Corruption

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post .
Be sure to share it widely .
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse Shocking !
There ’ s rampant corruption in the bosom of the Democrat party !
“ Do You See What Happens , Larry ?
” iden signs up Larry Summers , after Summers destroyed the world and now wages a campaign against a wealth tax and against worker power .
And apparently , that ’ s somehow all fine and good at the highest reaches of the Democratic Party .
Summers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kochs If campaign contributions were the only form of political influence , then Summers ’ argument might make at least a little sense — because , yes , very rich people will always have a few million dollars lying around to bankroll candidates .
However , we know that political influence goes way beyond elections — and we know it from one of many examples that Summers somehow pretends to be unaware of : the Koch Brothers .
A wealth tax certainly wouldn ’ t solve the problem of billionaires having such massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
But yeah — the Kochs and other billionaires having 20 percent less money to rig our democracy might be slightly better than things now .
Oh , and it would also raise much needed revenue for stuff like health care and education and every other priority that ’ s been underfunded for decades .
Summers at one point insisted that a wealth tax would prompt billionaires to shelter even more of their money in nonprofits where the cash can be used for billionaires ’ political ends .
However , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaires — if they can just funnel their money into tax shelters and tax-exempt foundations , why even make them pay taxes ?
Hell , why have a tax code at all ?
We already have a problem of political spending being laundered through charitable organizations , and we should fix that with tougher IRS rules .
We shouldn ’ t let the Larry Summerses of the world use it as an argument against a common-sense wealth tax proposal .
Summers Insinuates That Rich People Are Smarter Than Everyone Else Inequality is fueled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and regulatory capture , as well as deunionization and the attendant loss of worker bargaining power .
But in his speech , Summers let slip that he believes rich people became rich , in part , because they are simply smarter than everyone else .
That phrase — “ smart enough to accumulate it ” — is the tell here .
And yet , Summers ’ effectively insinuates that a wealth tax is a reckless effort to “ punish ” intelligence .
That ’ s no accident — since the founding of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used by American aristocrats to depict populism as the ideology of anti-intellectual know-nothings .
But Summers smears employee-led companies , arguing that they are a bad idea because that model might end up allowing workers to get paid well .
“ When you put workers in charge of firms and you give them substantial control over the firms — see Israeli kibbutzes , see Yugoslav cooperatives , see universities where faculty have a powerful voice — one thing you do not get is expansion , ” he said .
“ You get more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That does not seem to me to be an attractive position for progressives to be taking.
” Setting aside that old-school 1980s red baiting , Summers — the guy billed as a dispassionate empiricist — is also just totally wrong , according to Loren Rodgers of the National Center for Employee Ownership .
It ’ s worth reiterating : these declarations from Summers aren ’ t ancient history from some distant era .
Summers said all these things barely six months ago .
The fact that this guy could have the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double down and wage a public campaign against a wealth tax , pretend oligarchs have no power , depict billionaires as a superhuman species of higher intelligence , rabbit punch the effort to give workers more power — and then nonetheless still be rewarded by the Democratic Party…it is…breathtaking .

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse
Shocking! There's rampant corruption in the bosom of the Democrat party!
“Do You See What Happens, Larry?”
[dropcap]B[/dropcap]iden signs up Larry Summers, after Summers destroyed the world and now wages a campaign against a wealth tax and against worker power.
Joe Biden infamously promised his big donors that if elected, “nothing would fundamentally change” for them. The news that Biden is being advised by Larry Summers suggests the presumptive Democratic nominee is dead serious about fulfilling that campaign promise.
Summers was the architect of major corporate trade policies that ended up offshoring America’s manufacturing capacity -- a development that left the United States in the unenviable position of begging China’s authoritarian regime to help produce the basic goods we need during the coronavirus emergency. Summers also sculpted Wall Street deregulation and was billed as one of three members of a “committee to save the world” -- a committee that ended up destroying the world when its bank-coddling policies culminated in the financial crisis.
That didn’t stop Summers -- he took a lucrative trip through the revolving door into a reportedly part-time job at a hedge fund that netted him $5 million . After that, he went back into government and fought against proposals to protect homeowners and crack down on the financial industry that had destroyed the global economy. He was also terrible on climate change
If Walter Sobchack was around, he’d angrily ask: do you see what happens, Larry? Do you see what happens when you screw over millions of people?
And Summers’ answer would likely be no -- he doesn’t see. He doesn’t see because no matter how many things he ruins, no matter how much pain his policies inflict , he continues to be rewarded -- this time by the Democratic nominee for president. He hasn’t renounced any of his past mistakes. In fact, during a recent speech attacking proponents of a wealth tax, Summers showed he is still the same power-worshiping ideologue -- and willfully ignorant of the oligarchic forces that own American politics.
And apparently, that’s somehow all fine and good at the highest reaches of the Democratic Party.
Summers Pretends He Has Never Heard of The Kochs
Following the Bush and Trump tax cuts, America recently hit a milestone in our ongoing journey from capitalism to feudalism: for the first time in history , billionaires are now paying a lower tax rate than ordinary workers.
To start dealing with this -- and to generate new revenues and combat economic inequality -- lawmakers such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed following European countries and instituting a wealth tax on billionaires.
Polls show this idea is wildly popular among Americans -- but it is not popular among one Democratic Party constituency: Summers.
In an October 2019 speech to the Peterson Institute, Summers predicated his opposition to the initiative, in part, on his belief that reducing the overall wealth of billionaires would not reduce their political influence.
“The arguments around political power have almost no validity,” Summers declared . “The truth is you can become one of the most powerful money people around the democratic party or the Republican party for $4 or $5 million a year. Nothing in this world is going to stop the wealthiest people in America from being able to come up with a vast multiple of $4 or $5 million a year.”
He later added : “I'm just looking for some actual credible story of a moment when taking wealth down by 20 percent, say, credibly would produce better balanced political decisions or policy decisions or cultural decisions or anything that you're saying. I'm just looking for one example.”
If campaign contributions were the only form of political influence, then Summers' argument might make at least a little sense -- because, yes, very rich people will always have a few million dollars lying around to bankroll candidates.
However, we know that political influence goes way beyond elections -- and we know it from one of many examples that Summers somehow pretends to be unaware of: the Koch Brothers.
The oil barons and their network of billionaires have spent billions of dollars on an entire architecture of political influence -- and they’ve done that year after year , resulting in legislative changes at every level of government.
A wealth tax certainly wouldn’t solve the problem of billionaires having such massive resources to totally and completely dominate our politics. But yeah — the Kochs and other billionaires having 20 percent less money to rig our democracy might be slightly better than things now. Oh, and it would also raise much needed revenue for stuff like health care and education and every other priority that’s been underfunded for decades.
Summers at one point insisted that a wealth tax would prompt billionaires to shelter even more of their money in nonprofits where the cash can be used for billionaires’ political ends. However, that’s a bullshit argument against ever taxing billionaires -- if they can just funnel their money into tax shelters and tax-exempt foundations, why even make them pay taxes? Hell, why have a tax code at all?
We already have a problem of political spending being laundered through charitable organizations, and we should fix that with tougher IRS rules. We shouldn’t let the Larry Summerses of the world use it as an argument against a common-sense wealth tax proposal.
Summers Insinuates That Rich People Are Smarter Than Everyone Else
Inequality is fueled by many factors -- like rapacious monopolies and regulatory capture, as well as deunionization and the attendant loss of worker bargaining power.
But in his speech, Summers let slip that he believes rich people became rich, in part, because they are simply smarter than everyone else.
“I don't think wealth is a particularly sensible way for judging or assigning taxes on an ability to pay,” he said . “There's the further point that what do we want to encourage or discourage the wealthy from doing? Activity A -- investing the money in the way they think are most productive based on the fact that they were smart enough to accumulate it in the first place. That's what we punish hardest with the wealth tax activity day.”
That phrase -- “smart enough to accumulate it” -- is the tell here.
Now sure, there are some geniuses who get rich because they had a brilliant idea. But there are also some failsons who get rich just because they happen to be born into a wealthy family (and I’m not just talking about Donald Trump and his kids ). Indeed, one recent report found that about a quarter of people who have more than $30 million had some kind of inheritance. A separate report found that one third of the Forbes 400 were recipients of an inheritance.
And yet, Summers’ effectively insinuates that a wealth tax is a reckless effort to “punish” intelligence. That’s no accident -- since the founding of the country, that whole trope has been used by American aristocrats to depict populism as the ideology of anti-intellectual know-nothings.
Summers Is Openly Hostile to Worker Power
Compared to many other countries -- and even compared to eras in its own past -- America is not a place where workers have a lot of power . The conservative crusade against unions and for policies that empower employers has resulted in workers’ productivity gains becoming outsized profits for corporate executives and shareholders, rather than pay increases for employees.
One thing that could combat these trends is employee ownership of companies, or at least passing Democratic legislation Elizabeth Warren ] emulating the German model of requiring employee representation on the boards that run corporations.
But Summers smears employee-led companies, arguing that they are a bad idea because that model might end up allowing workers to get paid well.
“When you put workers in charge of firms and you give them substantial control over the firms -- see Israeli kibbutzes, see Yugoslav cooperatives, see universities where faculty have a powerful voice -- one thing you do not get is expansion,” he said. “You get more for the people who are already there. That does not seem to me to be an attractive position for progressives to be taking.”
Setting aside that old-school 1980s red baiting, Summers -- the guy billed as a dispassionate empiricist -- is also just totally wrong, according to Loren Rodgers of the National Center for Employee Ownership.
“With all due respect to Larry Summers, in this case he is letting theory obscure his view of the facts,” Rodgers told me, citing extensive data about employee-owned companies, and firms with employee stock ownership (ESOP) structures. “The 6,000 privately owned ESOP companies in the U.S. have over 2.7 million employee-owners, and we have over 45 years of data and research on ESOPs. In fact, Dr. Summers' claim about worker owned businesses not expanding is simply not reflected in that research. It's quite the opposite: ESOP companies grow faster in both sales and employment and they lay people off at dramatically lower rates. They also generate much greater wealth for employees than traditional businesses, and they can do that because they have greater productivity.”
******
It’s worth reiterating: these declarations from Summers aren’t ancient history from some distant era. Summers said all these things barely six months ago.
The fact that this guy could have the past policy record he has, and then double down and wage a public campaign against a wealth tax, pretend oligarchs have no power, depict billionaires as a superhuman species of higher intelligence, rabbit punch the effort to give workers more power -- and then nonetheless still be rewarded by the Democratic Party...it is...breathtaking.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-04-26--Michael Moore’s New Documentary Planet of the Humans Triggers Controversy

Planet of the Humans is directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs , a self-proclaimed “ photographer , campaigner , adventurer , and storyteller ” who has co-produced some of Moore ’ s films .
The documentary came out on Earth Day , positioning itself up as some tough , real talk not just about renewable energy but environmental groups .
And by real talk , I mean it cast renewables as no better than fossil fuels and environmental groups as sleek corporate outfits in bed with billionaires helping kill the planet .
As Emily Atkin put it in her HEATED @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ntertaining good-faith arguments about how to stop climate change is my job , and I have no reason at present to believe Moore and director Jeff Gibbs argued in bad faith.
” Indeed .
So I decided to listen to what they had to say .
I ’ ll leave the film criticism to those wiser than me ( though I will say I feel like I didn ’ t watch three acts but three separate movies ) , but I will say this : The movie—which is available for free on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trending list with 1 million views in 24 hours—is deeply flawed in both its premise , proposed solutions , and who gets to voice them .
The movie ’ s central thesis is that we are on the brink of extinction and have been sold a damaged bill of goods about all forms of renewable energy by environmental groups motivated by profit .
Essentially , the argument is we ’ re all dirty and the stain will never come out no matter how hard we try .
The film also goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind in the same boat as burning biomass for power .
The latter relies on serious carbon accounting bullshittery to be carbon neutral .
A critique of biomass is fair and something I would honestly have watched a whole film about .
And ditto for the film ’ s critique of large environmental organizations , which rely on large funders that may provide money with strings attached ( though Bill McKibben , one of the film ’ s targets and founder of 350.org , came out strongly critiquing how he and the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , highlights the Sierra Club ’ s Beyond Coal campaign , which has helped shutter more than 300 coal plants around the U.S .
The program ’ s biggest donor is Mike Bloomberg , who sees natural gas—which has replaced much of that coal capacity—as a bridge fuel ( which it is decidedly not ) .
And this is where the narrative Gibbs tells and the one we need to be telling diverges .
Gibbs is happy to trash the unholy alliance between big green groups and big dollar funders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fortunes on extractive industries and the system that relies on their existence .
That can lead to conflicts—real or perceived—about how green groups spend their time .
And frankly , I ’ m there with him .
Gibbs ’ uses this situation to take the leap to population control as the only solution .
Yes , renewables are bad and so are billionaires and the corporate-philanthropic industrial complex so , Gibbs concludes , we should probably get rid of some humans ASAP .
Over the course of the movie , he interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are mostly men to make that case .
It ’ s got a bit more than a whiff of eugenics and ecofascism , which is a completely bonkers takeaway from everything presented .
If renewables are so bad , then what does a few million less people on the planet going to do ?
Oh , and who are we going to knock off or control for ?
Who decides ?
How does population control even solve the problem of corporate influence on nonprofits and politics ?
Those questions lead to a dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glimpse of what that ideology looks like in the hands of individuals .
The alleged manifesto penned by last year ’ s El Paso shooting suspect sounds an awful lot like Gibbs ’ movie , arguing that extractive companies “ are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources ” and that we to “ get rid of enough people ” to get things back in balance .
Which is a whole lot of nope .
I don ’ t mean to say Gibbs is therefore an ecofascist .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed by an influential filmmaker peddle these ideas is genuinely disturbing , especially at a time when we ’ re seeing it pop up elsewhere in response to the coronavirus .
Also side note that it ’ s also incredibly myopic that Gibbs goes after environmental nonprofits for taking corporate money while ignoring the Sierra Club ’ s and other early conservation group ’ s history of support for racist ideas about population control he nods to as a solution ( it should be noted some groups are trying to make up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most frustrating about Gibbs ’ film is he walks right up to some serious issues and ignores clear solutions .
The critique of the compromised corporate philanthropy model is legit .
We should absolutely hold nonprofits to account when they don ’ t live up to their missions .
But the solution isn ’ t to take the leap to population control .
It ’ s to tax the rich so they can ’ t use philanthropic funding as cover for their misdeeds while simultaneously filling government coffers to implement democratic solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breitbart and other conservative voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel companies have taken a shine to the film .
It ’ s because it ignores the solution of holding power to account and sounds like a racist dog whistle .
We also should absolutely interrogate the systems and supply chains of renewable energy .
The lithium industry ’ s violent toll on land and people in Latin American countries with vast reserves is real .
Letting corporations run the show promises to lead to future violence , regardless of how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t interview any of the new wave of environmental leaders who see the fight against these injustices and the climate crisis as intrinsically linked .
It ’ s too bad since that ’ s a message Gibbs—and the rest of the world—need to hear now more than ever .

Planet of the Humans is directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, a self-proclaimed “photographer, campaigner, adventurer, and storyteller” who has co-produced some of Moore’s films. The documentary came out on Earth Day, positioning itself up as some tough, real talk not just about renewable energy but environmental groups. And by real talk, I mean it cast renewables as no better than fossil fuels and environmental groups as sleek corporate outfits in bed with billionaires helping kill the planet. As Emily Atkin put it in her HEATED newsletter on Thursday, “[e]ntertaining good-faith arguments about how to stop climate change is my job, and I have no reason at present to believe Moore and director Jeff Gibbs argued in bad faith.” Indeed. So I decided to listen to what they had to say.
I’ll leave the film criticism to those wiser than me (though I will say I feel like I didn’t watch three acts but three separate movies), but I will say this: The movie—which is available for free on YouTube and is currently on the service’s trending list with 1 million views in 24 hours—is deeply flawed in both its premise, proposed solutions, and who gets to voice them.
The movie’s central thesis is that we are on the brink of extinction and have been sold a damaged bill of goods about all forms of renewable energy by environmental groups motivated by profit. Essentially, the argument is we’re all dirty and the stain will never come out no matter how hard we try.
that it’s “difficult to take the film seriously on any topic when it botches the solar portion so thoroughly. Although the film was released in 2020, the solar industry it examines, whether through incompetence or venality, is from somewhere back in 2009.” There are a few issues at play. One is that much of the issues the film takes with solar and wind are based on anachronistic viewpoints. PV Magazine, a solar trade publication, notes that it’s “difficult to take the film seriously on any topic when it botches the solar portion so thoroughly. Although the film was released in 2020, the solar industry it examines, whether through incompetence or venality, is from somewhere back in 2009.”
The film also goes through great lengths to throw solar and wind in the same boat as burning biomass for power. The latter relies on serious carbon accounting bullshittery to be carbon neutral. A critique of biomass is fair and something I would honestly have watched a whole film about. And ditto for the film’s critique of large environmental organizations, which rely on large funders that may provide money with strings attached (though Bill McKibben, one of the film’s targets and founder of 350.org, came out strongly critiquing how he and the organization were portrayed).
The film, for example, highlights the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, which has helped shutter more than 300 coal plants around the U.S. The program’s biggest donor is Mike Bloomberg, who sees natural gas—which has replaced much of that coal capacity—as a bridge fuel (which it is decidedly not).
And this is where the narrative Gibbs tells and the one we need to be telling diverges. Gibbs is happy to trash the unholy alliance between big green groups and big dollar funders who have, in some cases, made their fortunes on extractive industries and the system that relies on their existence. That can lead to conflicts—real or perceived—about how green groups spend their time. And frankly, I’m there with him.
Gibbs’ uses this situation to take the leap to population control as the only solution. Yes, renewables are bad and so are billionaires and the corporate-philanthropic industrial complex so, Gibbs concludes, we should probably get rid of some humans ASAP. Over the course of the movie, he interviews a cast of mostly white experts who are mostly men to make that case. It’s got a bit more than a whiff of eugenics and ecofascism, which is a completely bonkers takeaway from everything presented. If renewables are so bad, then what does a few million less people on the planet going to do? Oh, and who are we going to knock off or control for? Who decides? How does population control even solve the problem of corporate influence on nonprofits and politics?
Those questions lead to a dark place. We’ve already had a glimpse of what that ideology looks like in the hands of individuals. The alleged manifesto penned by last year’s El Paso shooting suspect sounds an awful lot like Gibbs’ movie, arguing that extractive companies “are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources” and that we to “get rid of enough people” to get things back in balance. Which is a whole lot of nope.
I don’t mean to say Gibbs is therefore an ecofascist. But to see an ostensibly serious environmental movie backed by an influential filmmaker peddle these ideas is genuinely disturbing, especially at a time when we’re seeing it pop up elsewhere in response to the coronavirus. Also side note that it’s also incredibly myopic that Gibbs goes after environmental nonprofits for taking corporate money while ignoring the Sierra Club’s and other early conservation group’s history of support for racist ideas about population control he nods to as a solution (it should be noted some groups are trying to make up for past misdeeds today).
What’s most frustrating about Gibbs’ film is he walks right up to some serious issues and ignores clear solutions. The critique of the compromised corporate philanthropy model is legit. We should absolutely hold nonprofits to account when they don’t live up to their missions. But the solution isn’t to take the leap to population control. It’s to tax the rich so they can’t use philanthropic funding as cover for their misdeeds while simultaneously filling government coffers to implement democratic solutions.
There’s a reason that Breitbart and other conservative voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel companies have taken a shine to the film. It’s because it ignores the solution of holding power to account and sounds like a racist dog whistle.
We also should absolutely interrogate the systems and supply chains of renewable energy. The lithium industry’s violent toll on land and people in Latin American countries with vast reserves is real. Letting corporations run the show promises to lead to future violence, regardless of how many people live on Earth. The film doesn’t interview any of the new wave of environmental leaders who see the fight against these injustices and the climate crisis as intrinsically linked. It’s too bad since that’s a message Gibbs—and the rest of the world—need to hear now more than ever.