renegadetribune--2020-04-22--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 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : 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. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” 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 ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” Given that the document makes it quite clear that “ legacy systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 • 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , 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 “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
In addition , both Kadlec and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , which was intimately involved in Event 201 , have direct ties to the controversial June 2001 biowarfare exercise “ Dark Winter , ” which predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks that transpired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though efforts by media and government were made to blame the anthrax attacks on a foreign source , the anthrax was later found to have originated at a U.S. bioweapons lab and the FBI investigation into the case has been widely regarded as a cover-up , including by the FBI ’ s once-lead investigator on that case .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 Whitney Webb is a MintPress News contributing journalist based in Chile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlets including Global Research , EcoWatch , the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire , among others .
She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism .

By Whitney Webb
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 is 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.
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.
In addition, both Kadlec and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which was intimately involved in Event 201, have direct ties to the controversial June 2001 biowarfare exercise “Dark Winter,” which predicted the 2001 anthrax attacks that transpired just months later in disturbing ways. Though efforts by media and government were made to blame the anthrax attacks on a foreign source, the anthrax was later found to have originated at a U.S. bioweapons lab and the FBI investigation into the case has been widely regarded as a cover-up, including by the FBI’s once-lead investigator on that case.
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
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News contributing journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-04-22--UN Secretary General: “The Vaccine is Trust”

Why don ’ t you trust the honorable people on the television ?
The UN Secretary General is rather upset @ @ @ @ @ in our leaders and is going to wage war on the “ mis-infodemic .
”

Why don't you trust the honorable people on the television? The UN Secretary General is rather upset in your lack of faith in our leaders and is going to wage war on the "mis-infodemic."


renegadetribune--2020-04-22--MSNBC Panel: ‘Overwhelmingly White’ ReOpen Protesters Are ‘Nazis’ And ‘Racists’ Who ‘Want More Black

MSNBC Panel: ‘Overwhelmingly White’ ReOpen Protesters Are ‘Nazis’ And ‘Racists’ Who ‘Want More Black And Brown People to Die’

The protesters calling for America to reopen are “ overwhelmingly white ” and “ want more black and brown people to die , ” according to MSNBC ’ s crazed analysts .
“ One thing I think is really interesting is how these protests have started after all the headlines last week or so about the disproportionate effect the virus is having in communities of color , ” Boston Globe opinion writer Renee Graham said Sunday on Joy Reid ’ s AM Joy .
“ And so when I look at these protests what I see are a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s affecting those people , so why do I have to change my life for them . '
” As Townhall.com reported , The Root ’ s Michael Harriot said the protesters are saying “ quite clearly ” that they “ want more black and brown people to die.
” “ If you want the government to open up , then you want more black and brown people to die , ” Harriot said .
Right before this hysterical segment , The Nation ’ s “ political sportswriter ” Dave Zirin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Fox News , Nazi , confederate death cult of the Republican Party ” and their actions were a “ slap in the face ” to “ black and brown people.
” Reid responded by saying it was a “ good point .
”

By Chris Menahan
The protesters calling for America to reopen are “overwhelmingly white” and “want more black and brown people to die,” according to MSNBC’s crazed analysts.
“One thing I think is really interesting is how these protests have started after all the headlines last week or so about the disproportionate effect the virus is having in communities of color,” Boston Globe opinion writer Renee Graham said Sunday on Joy Reid’s AM Joy. “And so when I look at these protests what I see are a bunch of white people essentially saying ‘oh, it’s affecting those people, so why do I have to change my life for them.'”
As Townhall.com reported, The Root’s Michael Harriot said the protesters are saying “quite clearly” that they “want more black and brown people to die.”
“If you want the government to open up, then you want more black and brown people to die,” Harriot said.
.@michaelharriot adds: “What they’re saying, quite clearly [is], 'I want more black and brown people to die.’” pic.twitter.com/SgE5I54GwV — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 19, 2020
Right before this hysterical segment, The Nation’s “political sportswriter” Dave Zirin said the protesters were part of a “Fox News, Nazi, confederate death cult of the Republican Party” and their actions were a “slap in the face” to “black and brown people.”
Reid responded by saying it was a “good point.”
This article originally appeared on Information Liberation.
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-04-23--British Artist Samuel Colman’s Dramatic Paintings

Samuel Colman ( 1780 – 1845 ) is also sometimes known as Samuel Coleman .
There is another painter by @ @ @ @ @ , but he is an American .
Colman largely painted religious subjects in dramatic style @ @ @ @ @ shame that a talented artist like Samuel had Biblical imagery hammered into his head from @ @ @ @ @ , and that is what he was drawn to paint .
The artist was a @ @ @ @ @ church , but still embracing the Bible .
There is a decent biography of the @ @ @

Samuel Colman (1780 – 1845) is also sometimes known as Samuel Coleman. There is another painter by the name of Samuel Colman, but he is an American. Colman largely painted religious subjects in dramatic style. It’s a shame that a talented artist like Samuel had Biblical imagery hammered into his head from the moment he was born, and that is what he was drawn to paint. The artist was a Noncomformist, opposing the established church, but still embracing the Bible. There is a decent biography of the artist here.
A View of Bristol from Ashton Park St James's Fair Belshazzar's Feast The Destruction of the Temple A Romantic Landscape with the Arrival of the Queen of Sheba The Death of Amelia The Temple of Flora The Destruction of the Temple The Edge of Doom The Rock of Salvation Tintern Abbey With Elegant Figures
Share now!
Author: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: Thanks for being a reader of this site. Your contributions make this all possible. You can send support to: Kyle Hunt, PO Box 1052, Sorrento FL 32776. Bitcoin address: 1AfppjYZddJzc2C15PXKMsnyBPjPJQezwA . CashApp: https://cash.app/$thekylehunt


renegadetribune--2020-04-23--The Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names

Brief Note on “ The Central Database of Shoah Victims ’ Names ” and the Number of Dead Reported therein Inspired by another paper , this paper briefly probes the Yad Vashem database of Holocaust victims .
It turns out that the database contains many names of survivors , and that individuals are listed in it twice or even numerous times .
The comment of a reader about the Yad Vashem “ database ” ( which has supposedly recorded “ the names and biographical details of two thirds of the six million jews murdered by the “ Nazis ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain unidentified , ” i. e. , approximately 4 million in total ) is noteworthy , too , but rather for the problems he ( indirectly ) presents than for the solutions he believes to offer : “ Even if a million names have been made up out of thin air , there are still the other millions of names which are documented in detail ” .
What does that mean , in concrete terms , “ names which are documented in detail ” ?
The question , in more explicit terms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sources that allow us to identify the names of Holocaust victims ?
In the case of “ jews murdered by the ‘ Nazis ’ and their accomplices ” , given that there is not a single documented name of a supposedly gassed victim ( since there is neither documentary evidence of “ gas chambers ” nor of “ gassings ” ) , there is no list of names of jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen in conjunction with the Police .
There remain only the lists of jews killed in retaliation by order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escape etc .
which are extremely small categories from a numerical point of view .
If we talk about dead jews , there are two main groups of documentary sources : • None The lists of those deceased in concentration camps ( especially the • None The lists of deaths in the ghettos .
These deaths fall into the category of what the SS called “ natural mortality.
” It is difficult to evaluate these fatalities by name .
From a letter of the Standesamt Arolsen of May 11 , 1979 , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certified deaths until the end of 1978 in all German concentration camps was 271,304 .
This figure naturally includes both jewish and non-jewish prisoners .
The subsequent delivery of death lists by the Russian authorities to the Auschwitz Museum has brought the number of deaths for this camp up from 52,389 to 68,864 , which doesn ’ t change anything in the big picture .
There ’ s no general data about the ghettos .
For Warsaw , among the larger ones , there are about 10,000 documented names of deceased persons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for Theresienstadt about 34,000 in total .
Adding any possible death lists from other ghettos , one would hardly arrive at 350,000 .
Where , then , do the alleged four million names suddenly appear from ?
In part from the lists of deportees to concentration camps and alleged extermination camps ; in the “ database ” of Yad Vashem , the deported persons of whom there are no further news are ipso facto considered as murdered ( “ gassed ” ) on the date of arrival of the transport .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name lists of transports that have been preserved contain more than ( 4,000,000 – 350,000 = ) 3,650,000 names .
The most important name registries ( Germany , France , Belgium , Theresienstadt , Netherlands ) contain a total amount of about 280,000 names .
It should be noted that the deportation lists to Theresienstadt refer to the “ Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia ” , roughly the present Czech Republic , but include deportees from Germany , as well ; furthermore , all the deceased deportees confirmed by documents are already included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ghettos .
In particular , most of the jews deported from the abovementioned countries were sent to Auschwitz and the deceased are contained in the respective death registers .
For the eastern camps there is a deportation list with about 34,000 names of “ Dutch ” jews to Sobibór ( already included in the above figure of 280,000 ) .
Putting together all the other transport lists , it ’ s possible to get 300,000 , up to 350,000 names , yet there would still remain 3,300,000 missing names : where do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of repeated entries with the same name ( for example , because of different documents and/or various reports from “ witnesses ” or simply duplication of the same document ) can not explain this huge difference , so we have to ask Yad Vashem : historians , pull out your documents , if they exist !
But the matter has all the appearances of a giant sham .
One thing even less known is that the “ database ” in question also records the names of survivors !
The reports below , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brief survey conducted in the “ database ” on the basis of a list of certified survivors of a transport from Prague to the Lodz ghetto on 16 October , 1941 .
Many of these survivors are registered as dead , some even twice !
Source : Terezínská pemĕtní kniha .
Terezínská Iniciativa .
Melantrich , 1995 , vol .
I , p. 90 ( the names of 24 survivors are listed in there ) .
Furthermore , there are two identical names which are phonetically similar : • None Alerová Doris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Aadler , Doris , 17/01/1929 , liberated at Birnbämel [ • None Max Beck , registered as Max Bek , 02/06/1895 , liberated at ( not specified ) [ • None , here ’ s another Eugen Berg , born in 1894 but with the same wartime address • None , registered once again as Erwin Flamenhoft • None Reiser Egon , 01/01/1895 , registered as Reiser Egon , 1895 , liberated at Sachsenhausen ( this is the only Reiser egon appearing in the deportation lists ) • None Rosenfeld Moses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transported to Lodz on 16/10/1941 , liberated at Sonnenberg [ For further illustration , a random sample from a very cursory research .
In the “ database ” the following jews transferred from Riga to Stutthof on July 19 , 1944 , are listed as dead and are regularly registered there : • None Goldbaum Ge [ r ] trude , 03/05/1900 , Czech , registered as Goldbaumova Ge [ r ] truda : list number 684 , registration number 48577 ; the “ database ” says : “ Transport H from Praha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Czechoslovakia to Theresienstadt , Ghetto , Czechoslovakia on 30/11/1941 ” .
The “ type of material ” is a “ List of Theresienstadt camp inmates ” and the status is “ murdered/perished ” [ now the status is only “ murdered ” In the aforementioned register of Czech jews deported to Theresienstadt , Ms. Goldbaum is deported to Riga on January 9 , 1942 ( p. 160 ) , but isn ’ t listed among the survivors .
• None Todtenkopf Lina , 30/11/1901 , Germany , registered under the same name : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The “ database ” cites the source “ Gedenkbuch – Opfer der Verfolgung der juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933–1945 , Bundesarchiv ( German National Archives ) , Koblenz 1986 ” ( Memorial Book of the Victims of Persecution of jews under National Socialist Tyranny in Germany 1933–1945 , Federal Archive , Koblenz ( German National Archives ) , Koblenz .
1986 ) .
Her status is : missing .
The material type is : “ List of murdered jews from Germany ” .
[ This entry has the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itemId=11646746 . ]
Todtenkopf Lina , 30/11/1901 , Germany , recorded a second time ; the type of material is “ List of deportations from Berlin ” , the source is another edition of Gedenkbuch ( Gedenkbuch Berlins der jüdischen Opfer des Nazionalsozialismus [ sic ] , Freie Universität Berlin , Zentralinstitut für sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung , Edition Hentrich , Berlin 1995 ) ; the place of presumed death is “ Riga , Rigas , Vidzeme , Latvia ” .
[ This entry has status “ missing ” http : //yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html ?
itemId=4137320 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , n.d.l 292 , registration number 48195 , appears in “ a list of jews murdered in Klooga camp , 1941–1944 ” , but the Klooga massacre took place on September 19 , 1944 , after the prisoner had been transferred to Stutthof .
[ There ’ s no date of birth in this entry • None Schick , T [ h ] eresia , 12.08.1897 , list number 1921 , registration number 48924 , appears in a “ List of murdered jews from Austria ” , but her status is “ murdered/perished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth date , the status has changed to “ murdered ” Whether these jews have died , or have rather been executed , doesn ’ t follow from any document .
This is a small but significant sample of the seriousness and “ scientific rigor ” of this “ database ” and of those who filled it .
Which results would a systematic and thorough study bring ?

Brief Note on “The Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names” and the Number of Dead Reported therein
By Carlo Mattogno
Inspired by another paper, this paper briefly probes the Yad Vashem database of Holocaust victims. It turns out that the database contains many names of survivors, and that individuals are listed in it twice or even numerous times.
The comment of a reader about the Yad Vashem “database” (which has supposedly recorded “the names and biographical details of two thirds of the six million jews murdered by the “Nazis” and their accomplices. Two million more still remain unidentified,” i. e., approximately 4 million in total) is noteworthy, too, but rather for the problems he (indirectly) presents than for the solutions he believes to offer:
“Even if a million names have been made up out of thin air, there are still the other millions of names which are documented in detail”.
What does that mean, in concrete terms, “names which are documented in detail”?
The question, in more explicit terms, that should be asked: which are the sources that allow us to identify the names of Holocaust victims?
In the case of “jews murdered by the ‘Nazis’ and their accomplices”, given that there is not a single documented name of a supposedly gassed victim (since there is neither documentary evidence of “gas chambers” nor of “gassings”), there is no list of names of jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen in conjunction with the Police. There remain only the lists of jews killed in retaliation by order of SS courts, while attempting to escape etc. which are extremely small categories from a numerical point of view.
If we talk about dead jews, there are two main groups of documentary sources:
The lists of those deceased in concentration camps (especially the Sterbebücher , Death Books, Totenbüche r, Books of Deceased Prisoners) The lists of deaths in the ghettos.
These deaths fall into the category of what the SS called “natural mortality.”
It is difficult to evaluate these fatalities by name. From a letter of the Standesamt Arolsen of May 11, 1979, we know with certainty that the number of certified deaths until the end of 1978 in all German concentration camps was 271,304.
This figure naturally includes both jewish and non-jewish prisoners.
The subsequent delivery of death lists by the Russian authorities to the Auschwitz Museum has brought the number of deaths for this camp up from 52,389 to 68,864, which doesn’t change anything in the big picture. There’s no general data about the ghettos. For Warsaw, among the larger ones, there are about 10,000 documented names of deceased persons, for Lodz perhaps about 47,000 in total and for Theresienstadt about 34,000 in total. Adding any possible death lists from other ghettos, one would hardly arrive at 350,000.
Where, then, do the alleged four million names suddenly appear from?
In part from the lists of deportees to concentration camps and alleged extermination camps; in the “database” of Yad Vashem, the deported persons of whom there are no further news are ipso facto considered as murdered (“gassed”) on the date of arrival of the transport.
However, it is highly doubtful that the name lists of transports that have been preserved contain more than (4,000,000 – 350,000 =) 3,650,000 names. The most important name registries (Germany, France, Belgium, Theresienstadt, Netherlands) contain a total amount of about 280,000 names. It should be noted that the deportation lists to Theresienstadt refer to the “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia”, roughly the present Czech Republic, but include deportees from Germany, as well; furthermore, all the deceased deportees confirmed by documents are already included in the death books of the camps or ghettos. In particular, most of the jews deported from the abovementioned countries were sent to Auschwitz and the deceased are contained in the respective death registers. For the eastern camps there is a deportation list with about 34,000 names of “Dutch” jews to Sobibór (already included in the above figure of 280,000). Putting together all the other transport lists, it’s possible to get 300,000, up to 350,000 names, yet there would still remain 3,300,000 missing names: where do they come from?
Settling the question of repeated entries with the same name (for example, because of different documents and/or various reports from “witnesses” or simply duplication of the same document) can not explain this huge difference, so we have to ask Yad Vashem: historians, pull out your documents, if they exist!
But the matter has all the appearances of a giant sham.
One thing even less known is that the “database” in question also records the names of survivors!
The reports below, as an example, are the result of a brief survey conducted in the “database” on the basis of a list of certified survivors of a transport from Prague to the Lodz ghetto on 16 October, 1941. Many of these survivors are registered as dead, some even twice! Source: Terezínská pemĕtní kniha. Terezínská Iniciativa. Melantrich, 1995, vol. I, p. 90 (the names of 24 survivors are listed in there).
Furthermore, there are two identical names which are phonetically similar:
Alerová Doris, registered in the “database” as Aadler, Doris, 17/01/1929, liberated at Birnbämel [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4444282 , as Doris Adler http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4444364 ]
Max Beck, registered as Max Bek, 02/06/1895, liberated at (not specified) [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4452530 ]
Berg, Evžen, registered as Berg, Eugen, 06/01/1897, liberated at Friedland [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4454189 , here’s another Eugen Berg, born in 1894 but with the same wartime address http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4454190 ]
Daschová, Hana, registered twice as Dasch, Chana, 20/12/1921, [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4480194 ] Dasch, Hanna, 20/12/1921, liberated at Wittenberg [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4480197 ]
Dub, Alfréd, registered twice as Dub Alfred, 03/05/1923 [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4483673 ] Dub Alfred, 05/03/1923, liberated at Bergen-Belsen [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4483674 ]
Ebenová Lotte, registered as Eben Lotte, 1921, liberated at Ravensbrück [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4485657 ]
Eisenová Irená, registered two times as Eisner, Irene, 02/02/1910, [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4486826 ] Eisner, Irene, 02/02/1910, liberated at Ravensbrück [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4486827 ] Ajzner, Irene, 16/10/1910, [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4445903 ] Ajzner, Irene, 16/10/1910, [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4445902 ]
Flaumenhaft, Ervín, registered as Flaumenhaft, Erwin, 07/10/1904, liberated at Althammer [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4497327 , registered once again as Erwin Flamenhoft http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4497077 ]
Glaser, Leo, registered twice as Glazer Leo, 07/07/1911, [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4509931 ] Glazer Leo, 07/07/1911, liberated at Königswusterhausen [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4510347 ]
Reiser Egon, 01/01/1895, registered as Reiser Egon, 1895, liberated at Sachsenhausen (this is the only Reiser egon appearing in the deportation lists)
Rosenfeld Moses, registered as Rosenfeld Moses, 11/08/1911, transported to Lodz on 16/10/1941, liberated at Sonnenberg [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4625477 , http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4628482 ]
For further illustration, a random sample from a very cursory research. In the “database” the following jews transferred from Riga to Stutthof on July 19, 1944, are listed as dead and are regularly registered there:
Goldbaum Ge[r]trude, 03/05/1900, Czech, registered as Goldbaumova Ge[r]truda: list number 684, registration number 48577; the “database” says: “Transport H from Praha,Praha Hlavni Mesto,Bohemia,Czechoslovakia to Theresienstadt,Ghetto,Czechoslovakia on 30/11/1941”. The “type of material” is a “List of Theresienstadt camp inmates” and the status is “murdered/perished” [now the status is only “murdered” http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4851724 ].
In the aforementioned register of Czech jews deported to Theresienstadt, Ms. Goldbaum is deported to Riga on January 9, 1942 (p. 160), but isn’t listed among the survivors.
Todtenkopf Lina, 30/11/1901, Germany, registered under the same name: list number 826, registration number 48729.
The “database” cites the source “Gedenkbuch – Opfer der Verfolgung der juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933–1945, Bundesarchiv (German National Archives), Koblenz 1986” (Memorial Book of the Victims of Persecution of jews under National Socialist Tyranny in Germany 1933–1945, Federal Archive, Koblenz (German National Archives), Koblenz. 1986). Her status is: missing. The material type is: “List of murdered jews from Germany”. [This entry has the status “murdered” http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=11646746.]
Todtenkopf Lina, 30/11/1901, Germany, recorded a second time; the type of material is “List of deportations from Berlin”, the source is another edition of Gedenkbuch (Gedenkbuch Berlins der jüdischen Opfer des Nazionalsozialismus [sic], Freie Universität Berlin, Zentralinstitut für sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, Edition Hentrich, Berlin 1995); the place of presumed death is “Riga,Rigas,Vidzeme,Latvia”. [This entry has status “missing” http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4137320.]
Weil Mariane, 14/02/1909 is registered as Marianne Weil; list number 706, registration number 48599. [ http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=11651708 .]
Levitan Leiba, 25.02.1932, n.d.l 292, registration number 48195, appears in “a list of jews murdered in Klooga camp, 1941–1944”, but the Klooga massacre took place on September 19, 1944, after the prisoner had been transferred to Stutthof. [There’s no date of birth in this entry http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=5853081 .]
Schick, T[h]eresia, 12.08.1897, list number 1921, registration number 48924, appears in a “List of murdered jews from Austria”, but her status is “murdered/perished”. [This entry has no birth date, the status has changed to “murdered” http://yvng.yadvashem.org/nameDetails.html?itemId=4972967 .]
Whether these jews have died, or have rather been executed, doesn’t follow from any document.
This is a small but significant sample of the seriousness and “scientific rigor” of this “database” and of those who filled it.
Which results would a systematic and thorough study bring?
Share now!
Author: Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician Aryan - "National Socialist" - Musician