Trump lawyer Giuliani 'confused' in claiming attorney-client privilege, Michael Cohen’s attorney says
By MITCHELL ALVA Jul 29, 2018, 1:49 PM ET
President Donald Trump's legal team is on the attack against former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, saying he violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a taped conversation of him and Trump about payments to a former Playboy model.
But Cohen attorney Lanny Davis called the attack baseless, and ABC News' chief legal analyst also said Trump's lawyers may have difficulty backing up their claim.
The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told ABC News on Saturday that Cohen violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a tape of him discussing with Trump, his client at the time, payments for former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story alleging an affair with Trump.
"We have complained to them that he's violated the attorney-client privilege, publicly and privately," Giuliani said.
Rudy Giuliani visits the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, June 7, 2018.
But Davis said the president's team "forfeited all confidentiality" when Giuliani talked publicly last week about the tape.
“Mr. Giuliani seems to be confused," Davis said. "He expressly waived attorney-client privilege last week and repeatedly and inaccurately - as proven by the tape - talked and talked about the recording, forfeiting all confidentiality."
On "This Week" Sunday, ABC Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams told Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz that Giuliani has "waived attorney-client privilege" in regard to the tape.
"On the question of the attorney-client privilege that Giuliani is talking about, I don't know exactly what he's talking about, meaning, when it comes to the tape that we've heard about, apparently Giuliani has waived attorney-client privilege," Abrams said.
The comments about whether Cohen’s release of the tape violated attorney-client privilege comes as sources tell ABC News that Cohen claims Trump knew in advance about a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign members and Russians who were expected to provide dirt on rival candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump has denied knowing in advance about the meeting.
(MORE: Joint defense with Cohen over; experts hired to analyze Trump-Cohen tape: Giuliani)
Raddatz asked Abrams and Chris Christie, a former US prosecutor and New Jersey governor who is an ABC News contributor, for their thoughts on the Trump team’s legal strategy in regard to Cohen.
She noted that Giuliani called Cohen an “honest, honorable lawyer” on “This Week” in May. “Now he's saying [Cohen] has been lying for years, and President Trump is bringing up that Cohen said that Don Jr. was an honest broker just last year. What are they trying to do here?”
“Look, they’re obviously trying to undermine Cohen’s credibility,” Abrams said. “And there is a real concern about Michael Cohen’s credibility. I mean, he is under serious investigation for a wide variety of crimes … The FBI raided his office not to get information on Donald Trump but because there was evidence of a possible crime and crimes by Michael Cohen.”
Christie said that if Cohen wants to make a deal with prosecutors, he may be hurting himself by making claims publicly about Trump.
“It is not in Michael Cohen's best interests when he does not have a deal yet,” Christie said. As a prosecutor, Christie said that before he would make a deal with Cohen “there would be a long come-to-Jesus meeting with [him] and with his attorneys about from this moment forward, if you have a deal, keep your mouth shut, because it doesn't help the prosecution to have all this information out there.”
(MORE: President denies knowing about Trump Tower meeting with Russians, despite Michael Cohen's claim)
ABC News' Tara Palmieri contributed to this report.
Monday, July 30, 2018
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal - Financial Times
July 30, 2018
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal
Europe’s commissioner for justice demands Trump administration comply with pact
Trump administration's criticisms of European privacy laws have thrown the viability of the Privacy Shield agreement into doubt © Reuters
Mehreen Khan in Brussels 7 HOURS AGO Print this page6
Brussels has warned the Trump administration it has three months to comply with demands made under a landmark EU-US data sharing agreement or risk throwing the deal into jeopardy.
Vera Jourova, the EU’s commissioner for justice, has written to Wilbur Ross, US commerce secretary, complaining that the White House has failed to appoint senior personnel to oversee the “ Privacy Shield” deal agreed during the Obama administration.
The pact allows more than 3,350 US and EU companies to freely transfer information, such as pictures and emails, from European and American citizens across the Atlantic. It was hastily agreed in 2016 after a previous agreement was struck down by the European Court of Justice.
But the viability of the Privacy Shield has been thrown into doubt by the Trump administration’s criticisms of European privacy laws and Washington’s failure to appoint a senior ombudsman to deal with complaints from EU citizens.
In a letter dated July 26 to Mr Ross and seen by the Financial Times, Ms Jourova demanded progress in appointing an ombudsman by October, ahead of a visit to Brussels by Mr Ross in the same month.
“Now that the new state secretary is in office and we are almost two years into the term of this administration, the European stakeholders find little reason for the delay in the nomination of a political appointee for this position,” wrote the commissioner.
Recommended
The Big Read
Smartphone addiction: big tech’s balancing act on responsibility over revenue
Europe’s concerns over the Privacy Shield come at a sensitive point for transatlantic tensions, particularly in the area of technology. Brussels earlier this month fined Google a record €4.3bn for abusing its market dominance with its Android mobile phone operating system. Donald Trump said the decision was another example of the EU “ taking advantage of the US”.
Brussels is increasing pressure on US authorities to enforce the Privacy Shield in the wake of the Facebook data scandal where the personal information from up to 87m US voters was harvested and passed to Cambridge Analytica, a company employed by Mr Trump’s presidential campaign team.
The EU estimates that the data of 2.7m European citizens was improperly shared by Cambridge Analytica.
The European Parliament has called for the Privacy Shield to be suspended on September 1 if the US does not better monitor the companies signed up to the pact and remove those that have engaged in the misuse of the personal data of EU citizens.
The agreement is also being challenged in the ECJ by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.
Ms Jourova told the FT she was not yet ready to suspend the pact but would press Mr Ross to make the full enforcement of the Privacy Shield a priority for the Trump administration in light of the Facebook scandal.
“If we suspend the system [the US] will see how quickly it will be on the top of their agenda. So let’s be smart and act,” said Ms Jourova.
Can Big Tech’s threat to democracy be tamed?
She added that the EU needed “certainty” that the illegal data sharing in the Facebook case — which happened before the agreement of the Privacy Shield in 2016 — was not taking place when the pact was in force.
“Facebook is a typical case for the enhanced due diligence provided by the Privacy Shield and it is big enough to attract the attention of US authorities,” said Ms Jourova, referring to the US administrations lack of urgency on addressing privacy issues.
The Privacy Shield is due for its second review from the European Commission in October. Brussels has the power to unilaterally revoke the agreement if Washington is not meeting its commitment to ensure the rights of EU citizens are adequately protected in the US.
Senior US officials have complained about the rigour of Europe’s personal privacy protections. In May, Mr Ross warned of the disruptive impact that Europe’s tough new personal privacy laws — known as the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR) — would have on American businesses.
“Complying with GDPR will exact a significant cost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers who rely on digital services and may lose access and choice as a result of the guidelines,” Mr Ross wrote in the FT.
Any companies that use the personal information of EU citizens must comply with the requirements of the GDPR.
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal
Europe’s commissioner for justice demands Trump administration comply with pact
Trump administration's criticisms of European privacy laws have thrown the viability of the Privacy Shield agreement into doubt © Reuters
Mehreen Khan in Brussels 7 HOURS AGO Print this page6
Brussels has warned the Trump administration it has three months to comply with demands made under a landmark EU-US data sharing agreement or risk throwing the deal into jeopardy.
Vera Jourova, the EU’s commissioner for justice, has written to Wilbur Ross, US commerce secretary, complaining that the White House has failed to appoint senior personnel to oversee the “ Privacy Shield” deal agreed during the Obama administration.
The pact allows more than 3,350 US and EU companies to freely transfer information, such as pictures and emails, from European and American citizens across the Atlantic. It was hastily agreed in 2016 after a previous agreement was struck down by the European Court of Justice.
But the viability of the Privacy Shield has been thrown into doubt by the Trump administration’s criticisms of European privacy laws and Washington’s failure to appoint a senior ombudsman to deal with complaints from EU citizens.
In a letter dated July 26 to Mr Ross and seen by the Financial Times, Ms Jourova demanded progress in appointing an ombudsman by October, ahead of a visit to Brussels by Mr Ross in the same month.
“Now that the new state secretary is in office and we are almost two years into the term of this administration, the European stakeholders find little reason for the delay in the nomination of a political appointee for this position,” wrote the commissioner.
Recommended
The Big Read
Smartphone addiction: big tech’s balancing act on responsibility over revenue
Europe’s concerns over the Privacy Shield come at a sensitive point for transatlantic tensions, particularly in the area of technology. Brussels earlier this month fined Google a record €4.3bn for abusing its market dominance with its Android mobile phone operating system. Donald Trump said the decision was another example of the EU “ taking advantage of the US”.
Brussels is increasing pressure on US authorities to enforce the Privacy Shield in the wake of the Facebook data scandal where the personal information from up to 87m US voters was harvested and passed to Cambridge Analytica, a company employed by Mr Trump’s presidential campaign team.
The EU estimates that the data of 2.7m European citizens was improperly shared by Cambridge Analytica.
The European Parliament has called for the Privacy Shield to be suspended on September 1 if the US does not better monitor the companies signed up to the pact and remove those that have engaged in the misuse of the personal data of EU citizens.
The agreement is also being challenged in the ECJ by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.
Ms Jourova told the FT she was not yet ready to suspend the pact but would press Mr Ross to make the full enforcement of the Privacy Shield a priority for the Trump administration in light of the Facebook scandal.
“If we suspend the system [the US] will see how quickly it will be on the top of their agenda. So let’s be smart and act,” said Ms Jourova.
Can Big Tech’s threat to democracy be tamed?
She added that the EU needed “certainty” that the illegal data sharing in the Facebook case — which happened before the agreement of the Privacy Shield in 2016 — was not taking place when the pact was in force.
“Facebook is a typical case for the enhanced due diligence provided by the Privacy Shield and it is big enough to attract the attention of US authorities,” said Ms Jourova, referring to the US administrations lack of urgency on addressing privacy issues.
The Privacy Shield is due for its second review from the European Commission in October. Brussels has the power to unilaterally revoke the agreement if Washington is not meeting its commitment to ensure the rights of EU citizens are adequately protected in the US.
Senior US officials have complained about the rigour of Europe’s personal privacy protections. In May, Mr Ross warned of the disruptive impact that Europe’s tough new personal privacy laws — known as the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR) — would have on American businesses.
“Complying with GDPR will exact a significant cost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers who rely on digital services and may lose access and choice as a result of the guidelines,” Mr Ross wrote in the FT.
Any companies that use the personal information of EU citizens must comply with the requirements of the GDPR.
Facial recognition gives police a powerful new tracking tool. It's also raising alarms. - NBC News
Facial recognition gives police a powerful new tracking tool. It's also raising alarms.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said the CEO of a facial recognition company.
by Jon Schuppe / Jul.30.2018 / 6:08 PM ET
RESTON, Va. — Picture a crowded street. Police are searching for a man believed to have committed a violent crime. To find him, they feed a photograph into a video surveillance network powered by artificial intelligence.
A camera, one of thousands, scans the street, instantly analyzing the faces of everyone it sees. Then, an alert: The algorithms found a match with someone in the crowd. Officers rush to the scene and take him into custody.
But it turns out the guy isn’t the one they’re looking for ─ he just looked a lot like him. The machines were wrong.
This is what some makers of this technology fear might happen if police adopt advanced forms of facial recognition that make it easier to track wanted criminals, missing people and suspected terrorists ─ while expanding the government’s ability to secretly monitor the public.
Facial recognition and law enforcement: Are we ready?
JUL.28.201804:50
Despite “real-time” facial recognition’s dazzling potential for crime-prevention, it is also raising alarms of the risks of mistakes and abuse. Those concerns are not only coming from privacy and civil rights advocates, but increasingly from tech firms themselves.
In recent months, one tech executive has vowed never to sell his facial recognition products to police departments, and another has called on Congress to intervene. One company has formed an ethics board for guidance, and another says it might do the same. Employees and shareholders from some of the world’s biggest tech firms have pressed their leaders to get out of business with law enforcement.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening."
“Time is winding down but it’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said Brian Brackeen, the CEO of the facial recognition firm Kairos, who wants tech firms to join him in keeping the technology out of law enforcement’s hands.
Brackeen, who is black, said he has long been troubled by facial recognition algorithms’ struggle to distinguish faces of people with dark skin, and the implications of its use by the government and police. If they do get it, he recently wrote, “there’s simply no way that face recognition software will be not used to harm citizens.”
With few scientific standards or government regulations, there is little preventing police departments from using facial recognition to target immigrants or identify participants in a political protest, critics say.
“There needs to be greater transparency around the use of these technologies,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at the AI Now Institute at New York University. “And a more open, public conversation about what types of use cases we are comfortable with — and what types of use cases should just not be available.”
TECHNOLOGY’S SPREAD
Facial recognition — using algorithms to match someone’s facial characteristics across photos and video — is already commonplace in many aspects of contemporary life. It is used to tag people on Facebook, to unlock iPhones and PlayStations and to focus cellphone photographs, and soon will be used to admit fans to Major League Baseball games. Most adult Americans are already in a facial recognition database of some kind, the result of governments formatting driver’s license and passport photos for such use, according to the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.
Many law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and several departments in San Diego — have been using those databases for years, typically in static situations — comparing a photo or video still to a database of mugshots or licenses. Maryland’s system was used to identify the suspect who allegedly massacred journalists at the Capital Gazette newspaper last month in Annapolis and to monitor protesters following the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
As the technology advances, “real-time” facial recognition — which involves the constant scanning of live video feeds to match moving faces with a database of still images — is starting to spread. Police in China are reportedly using it to pick suspects out of crowds, and retailers there are using it to identify customers and their buying preferences. U.S. security agencies are testing the technology in some airports and border crossings. And now systems are being designed for use by local police.
Visitors check their phones behind the screen advertising facial recognition software during Global Mobile Internet Conference (GMIC) at the National Convention in BeijingA screen advertises facial recognition software at a conference in Beijing in April.Damir Sagolj / REUTERS
“This is a technology that is progressing so rapidly and is coming down in cost so rapidly that in the future we should expect it to be efficient, cheap and common,” said Gregory C. Allen, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “People have gotten used to Facebook using facial recognition on them and have come up with an understanding of why and when that is acceptable.”
TOO MANY MISTAKES?
But this new type of facial recognition technology has deepened concerns about mass surveillance, mistaken identifications and the unfair targeting of minorities.
That is because facial recognition has never been perfect, and probably never will be. It cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the faces in two images are the same; most current systems provide a score indicating how likely the match is. Police agencies can set thresholds, depending on how close of a match they're looking for, and then decide how to act on the results.
A system’s accuracy depends on several factors, starting with data used to “train” the algorithms. The broader the database of faces and conditions — people with varied skin tones, captured at various angles and distances and under different lighting conditions — the more accurate the algorithm will be.
Technological advances have improved the accuracy of facial recognition systems, which have evolved from old-style machine learning, based on comparisons of certain facial characteristics, to “neural networks” that take a more holistic view of faces. But the systems still are susceptible to misidentifying people of certain races. A recent MIT study found that facial recognition algorithms developed by Microsoft, IBM and China-based Face++ failed to identify black women far more frequently than white men. One of the MIT researchers, Joy Buolamwini, has also showed that facial recognition systems are unable to determine the gender of famous black women, including Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and Michelle Obama.
Microsoft and IBM have since announced efforts to lessen bias in their algorithms.
That reflects a shift in thinking over the last two years, as it has become clear that facial recognition algorithms are not “race neutral,” said Clare Garvie, a researcher at the Center on Privacy & Technology. “There’s an increased awareness on the part of companies that, hey, this technology isn’t magic,” she said.
A system’s accuracy can also vary based on the quality of cameras capturing video footage, the lighting conditions and how far away a camera is from someone’s face.
When police in Cardiff, Wales, ran its first test of a facial recognition system at a June 2017 soccer game, it wrongly identified thousands of people, a 92 percent “false positive” rate that authorities blamed on poor lighting, algorithm shortcomings and unfamiliarity with the system. The FBI’s facial recognition system has been found to misidentify people 14 percent of the time.
“We are at a moment where facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven as public safety tools,” said Matt Cagle, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which uncovered efforts by Amazon to market its facial recognition technology to police departments,and then tested it, finding that it mistakenly matched faces of 28 members of Congress with police mugshots.“We think it’s harmful because it’s unproven and it’s been deployed in some places without any rules.”
"Facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven."
In a recent demonstration for NBC News, the U.K.-based surveillance-software company Digital Barriers ─ which is marketing to U.S. police a facial recognition system that can run off footage from body cameras, surveillance cameras and cellphones ─ successfully identified a reporter as he crossed a street in suburban Virginia and at an office park that houses the firm’s U.S. headquarters. Technicians described having to set the equipment up in a way that made sure people’s faces were not obscured by shadows, and noted that the system’s accuracy depended on the type of camera used.
TECH’S SOUL-SEARCHING
Nobody knows for sure which law enforcement agencies are pursuing real-time facial recognition systems. There are few laws regarding the technology’s use. And many people don’t realize how easy it is to be put in a database that can be used by police for facial recognition.
That lack of scrutiny breeds distrust — not just from the public, but from within the tech industry.
“I would like to see a more public conversation,” Brackeen said. His Miami-based company develops facial recognition to safeguard consumers’ digital profiles, secure online financial transactions and allow cruise lines and theme parks to sell photographs to visitors. He announced last month that he would never sell his product to law enforcement.
“If a city council or state representatives decided it made sense, that’s a completely different thing. We are not against facial recognition’s existence,” Brackeen said. “But we are at a place where it’s being used when people don’t know it’s there, and when people have their driver’s license photo taken they have no idea they’re doing it for facial recognition.”
Miami Int'l Airport To Use Facial Recognition Technology At Passport ControlA U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer uses facial recognition technology to screen people entering the U.S. at Miami International Airport.Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Microsoft President Brad Smith echoed some of Brackeen’s concerns earlier this month, calling for Congress to create “a bipartisan expert commission” to explore how to regulate facial recognition’s use.
But tech companies should not be left to regulate themselves, Smith wrote in a blog post.
“After all, even if one or several tech companies alter their practices, problems will remain if others do not,” Smith wrote. “The competitive dynamics between American tech companies — let alone between companies from different countries — will likely enable governments to keep purchasing and using new technology in ways the public may find unacceptable in the absence of a common regulatory framework.”
China has gone further than any society to expand facial recognition, using it to create a national surveillance state in which the technology is used to shame jaywalkers and find criminal suspects in the crowds of sporting events.
The potential for something similar exists in places with expansive networks of surveillance cameras ─ such as New York, Chicago or London, researchers say.
Related
TECH
New systems are expected to transform shopping, banking, travel, and more.
Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said false identification is among her biggest concerns. She likened it to the use of license plate readers that aim to catch people breaking traffic laws but also identify the wrong cars ─ and make it difficult for the innocent to appeal.
Polls show a return of Democrats' 'Big Blue Wall'
If cities connect surveillance networks with live facial recognition, and then link them to municipal infrastructure, the technology could be used to accuse people of crimes or other transgressions and shut them out of public services, she said.
“My concern is that a city buys into this so deeply, and buys into a process that … forces people to defend themselves against things they haven’t done,” King said.
‘GREAT PROMISE ─ AND GREAT PERIL’
Axon, the country’s largest supplier of police body cameras — which could one day be outfitted with facial recognition tools to scan faces from an officer’s lapel — has also acknowledged the concerns of real-time facial recognition. In April, Axon set up an ethics board of outside experts to guide the company as it explores the use of artificial intelligence, which included filing a patent application ─ discovered recently by a technology watchdog ─ for a real-time facial recognition system. Nearly four-dozen civil rights groups sent an open letter to the board earlier this year urging the company to reject as “categorically unethical” any products that allow body cameras to use real-time facial recognition. Axon has repeatedly said it is not currently working on developing facial recognition for its devices.
“We see facial recognition as a technology which holds great promise ─ and great peril,” Steve Tuttle, an Axon spokesman, said in an email in response to news of the patent. “We do see a day when facial recognition, with the right controls and sufficient accuracy, could reduce bias and increase fairness in policing. However, we have elected to hold off on investing in developing this technology until we better understand the necessary controls and accuracy thresholds to ensure its benefits significantly outweigh its costs and risks.”
NEC Corporation of America, a major developer of facial recognition systems, is also considering whether to create an ethics board, said Benji Hutchinson, vice president of federal operations. The company isn’t marketing a real-time facial recognition product to American police, but has sold such technology to law enforcement elsewhere, he said.
“We hear the privacy discussion and we’re sensitive to it,” Hutchinson said. “NEC wants to be and we are a corporation that is interested in balancing the rights of citizens to privacy and law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety.”
Another big player, Amazon, came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California revealed the company’s efforts to sell its facial recognition software to American police forces. The findings included a deal with Orlando, Florida, where seven officers have volunteered to be subjects in a test of a system that can scan live feeds from surveillance cameras and determine whether anyone in the images matches photos in a database of wanted or missing people.
Amazon did not back down. Neither did Orlando, which chose to continue the pilot program.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said he wants to see if the system even works. He cited the 2017 killing of a city officer allegedly by a man who’d been wanted in the murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Before his fatal confrontation with the officer, the suspect moved around the city for weeks while police searched for him.
“What if that technology had been in place and recognized his image and in turn immediately notified law enforcement ─ and then we could have responded there, or anywhere, to arrest him,” Mina said.
“Ultimately, it’s about enhancing public safety.”
ONE COMPANY’S PLANS
Orlando is the only confirmed example of a local law enforcement agency in the United States using facial recognition in real-time video, even as a test. But as a handful of companies race to create products that will give police agencies similar capabilities, real-time facial recognition has taken on an air of inevitability.
“I think we’re very close to getting the technology into our law enforcement here,” said Nicola Dickinson, a Digital Barriers vice president who runs its operations in North and South America.
The firm first introduced its real-time facial recognition system last summer, and since then it has been adopted by law enforcement agencies in Europe and Asia, and within the U.S. government, the company says — although it won’t disclose the names of those clients.
Digital Barriers says it is trying to weigh the public-safety benefits of facial recognition and concerns that the technology will mushroom into a mass-surveillance apparatus.
Iphone X's Facial Scanning: What Are The Unintended Risks?
NOV.03.201701:58
The company says its products are equipped with tools that allow authorities to retain information about people on watch lists and ignore the rest.
While the company says facial recognition shouldn’t be used everywhere, or to look for anyone, it does not tell customers how its products can or cannot be used.
“We trust that our government has rules and regulations within their organizations to use it effectively and safely,” Dickinson said.
But, for the most part, the government does not.
LAWLESS FRONTIER
There are few regulations at the federal, state or local level regarding law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. The exceptions include Oregon and New Hampshire, which ban facial recognition on police body cameras, and Maine and Vermont, which prohibit the technology’s use with police drones. Six states — Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii — restrict law enforcement’s ability to use driver’s license databases for facial recognition systems, according to Garvie, of Georgetown’s Center on Privacy & Technology.
A few local governments have also stepped up. Among them are Oakland, California, which requires public input on any proposal to acquire government surveillance systems, and Seattle, Washington, which restricts police use of facial recognition to compare suspects’ images to jail mugshots — and prohibits the real-time scanning of video footage to find matches in that database.
In the rest of the country, policymaking resembles a frontier-like landscape where standards and rules are made on the fly.
"We don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy."
In Ohio, for example, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation began using facial recognition in 2013 to identify suspects from photographs or video stills. A backlash forced the agency to limit which officers can access the system, and to prohibit it from being used to monitor groups of people or their activities, Superintendent Thomas Stickrath said. The agency also formed an advisory group to help guide it through legal and ethical issues.
“This technology is helpful to law enforcement,” Stickrath said. “But like all evolving technologies, whether it’s GPS or license plate readers or body readers, there’s a proper balance. We’re trying to find the right balance.”
Oakland, too, faced resistance after planning a citywide network five years ago that would collect feeds from surveillance cameras, gunshot detectors, license plate readers and other communication systems into a centralized hub monitored by authorities. The public outcry forced the city to abandon much of the project, and led to the creation of a privacy advisory commission that must review any effort by the local government to obtain technology that could impact privacy.
So if Oakland ever sought out a facial recognition system, it would be debated publicly.
That’s a big “if.”
“I don’t know if we have any interest in using that technology, and if we did I don’t know how comfortable I’d feel going into the commission saying it’s something we need, not today,” said Timothy Birch, police services manager for the Oakland Police Department.
The department, he said, considers surveillance technologies by weighing their cost and benefits — not just money, but in public trust. “And we don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy,” Birch said. “Until we identify an incredible benefit for facial recognition, the cost is just too high.”
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said the CEO of a facial recognition company.
by Jon Schuppe / Jul.30.2018 / 6:08 PM ET
RESTON, Va. — Picture a crowded street. Police are searching for a man believed to have committed a violent crime. To find him, they feed a photograph into a video surveillance network powered by artificial intelligence.
A camera, one of thousands, scans the street, instantly analyzing the faces of everyone it sees. Then, an alert: The algorithms found a match with someone in the crowd. Officers rush to the scene and take him into custody.
But it turns out the guy isn’t the one they’re looking for ─ he just looked a lot like him. The machines were wrong.
This is what some makers of this technology fear might happen if police adopt advanced forms of facial recognition that make it easier to track wanted criminals, missing people and suspected terrorists ─ while expanding the government’s ability to secretly monitor the public.
Facial recognition and law enforcement: Are we ready?
JUL.28.201804:50
Despite “real-time” facial recognition’s dazzling potential for crime-prevention, it is also raising alarms of the risks of mistakes and abuse. Those concerns are not only coming from privacy and civil rights advocates, but increasingly from tech firms themselves.
In recent months, one tech executive has vowed never to sell his facial recognition products to police departments, and another has called on Congress to intervene. One company has formed an ethics board for guidance, and another says it might do the same. Employees and shareholders from some of the world’s biggest tech firms have pressed their leaders to get out of business with law enforcement.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening."
“Time is winding down but it’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said Brian Brackeen, the CEO of the facial recognition firm Kairos, who wants tech firms to join him in keeping the technology out of law enforcement’s hands.
Brackeen, who is black, said he has long been troubled by facial recognition algorithms’ struggle to distinguish faces of people with dark skin, and the implications of its use by the government and police. If they do get it, he recently wrote, “there’s simply no way that face recognition software will be not used to harm citizens.”
With few scientific standards or government regulations, there is little preventing police departments from using facial recognition to target immigrants or identify participants in a political protest, critics say.
“There needs to be greater transparency around the use of these technologies,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at the AI Now Institute at New York University. “And a more open, public conversation about what types of use cases we are comfortable with — and what types of use cases should just not be available.”
TECHNOLOGY’S SPREAD
Facial recognition — using algorithms to match someone’s facial characteristics across photos and video — is already commonplace in many aspects of contemporary life. It is used to tag people on Facebook, to unlock iPhones and PlayStations and to focus cellphone photographs, and soon will be used to admit fans to Major League Baseball games. Most adult Americans are already in a facial recognition database of some kind, the result of governments formatting driver’s license and passport photos for such use, according to the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.
Many law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and several departments in San Diego — have been using those databases for years, typically in static situations — comparing a photo or video still to a database of mugshots or licenses. Maryland’s system was used to identify the suspect who allegedly massacred journalists at the Capital Gazette newspaper last month in Annapolis and to monitor protesters following the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
As the technology advances, “real-time” facial recognition — which involves the constant scanning of live video feeds to match moving faces with a database of still images — is starting to spread. Police in China are reportedly using it to pick suspects out of crowds, and retailers there are using it to identify customers and their buying preferences. U.S. security agencies are testing the technology in some airports and border crossings. And now systems are being designed for use by local police.
Visitors check their phones behind the screen advertising facial recognition software during Global Mobile Internet Conference (GMIC) at the National Convention in BeijingA screen advertises facial recognition software at a conference in Beijing in April.Damir Sagolj / REUTERS
“This is a technology that is progressing so rapidly and is coming down in cost so rapidly that in the future we should expect it to be efficient, cheap and common,” said Gregory C. Allen, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “People have gotten used to Facebook using facial recognition on them and have come up with an understanding of why and when that is acceptable.”
TOO MANY MISTAKES?
But this new type of facial recognition technology has deepened concerns about mass surveillance, mistaken identifications and the unfair targeting of minorities.
That is because facial recognition has never been perfect, and probably never will be. It cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the faces in two images are the same; most current systems provide a score indicating how likely the match is. Police agencies can set thresholds, depending on how close of a match they're looking for, and then decide how to act on the results.
A system’s accuracy depends on several factors, starting with data used to “train” the algorithms. The broader the database of faces and conditions — people with varied skin tones, captured at various angles and distances and under different lighting conditions — the more accurate the algorithm will be.
Technological advances have improved the accuracy of facial recognition systems, which have evolved from old-style machine learning, based on comparisons of certain facial characteristics, to “neural networks” that take a more holistic view of faces. But the systems still are susceptible to misidentifying people of certain races. A recent MIT study found that facial recognition algorithms developed by Microsoft, IBM and China-based Face++ failed to identify black women far more frequently than white men. One of the MIT researchers, Joy Buolamwini, has also showed that facial recognition systems are unable to determine the gender of famous black women, including Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and Michelle Obama.
Microsoft and IBM have since announced efforts to lessen bias in their algorithms.
That reflects a shift in thinking over the last two years, as it has become clear that facial recognition algorithms are not “race neutral,” said Clare Garvie, a researcher at the Center on Privacy & Technology. “There’s an increased awareness on the part of companies that, hey, this technology isn’t magic,” she said.
A system’s accuracy can also vary based on the quality of cameras capturing video footage, the lighting conditions and how far away a camera is from someone’s face.
When police in Cardiff, Wales, ran its first test of a facial recognition system at a June 2017 soccer game, it wrongly identified thousands of people, a 92 percent “false positive” rate that authorities blamed on poor lighting, algorithm shortcomings and unfamiliarity with the system. The FBI’s facial recognition system has been found to misidentify people 14 percent of the time.
“We are at a moment where facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven as public safety tools,” said Matt Cagle, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which uncovered efforts by Amazon to market its facial recognition technology to police departments,and then tested it, finding that it mistakenly matched faces of 28 members of Congress with police mugshots.“We think it’s harmful because it’s unproven and it’s been deployed in some places without any rules.”
"Facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven."
In a recent demonstration for NBC News, the U.K.-based surveillance-software company Digital Barriers ─ which is marketing to U.S. police a facial recognition system that can run off footage from body cameras, surveillance cameras and cellphones ─ successfully identified a reporter as he crossed a street in suburban Virginia and at an office park that houses the firm’s U.S. headquarters. Technicians described having to set the equipment up in a way that made sure people’s faces were not obscured by shadows, and noted that the system’s accuracy depended on the type of camera used.
TECH’S SOUL-SEARCHING
Nobody knows for sure which law enforcement agencies are pursuing real-time facial recognition systems. There are few laws regarding the technology’s use. And many people don’t realize how easy it is to be put in a database that can be used by police for facial recognition.
That lack of scrutiny breeds distrust — not just from the public, but from within the tech industry.
“I would like to see a more public conversation,” Brackeen said. His Miami-based company develops facial recognition to safeguard consumers’ digital profiles, secure online financial transactions and allow cruise lines and theme parks to sell photographs to visitors. He announced last month that he would never sell his product to law enforcement.
“If a city council or state representatives decided it made sense, that’s a completely different thing. We are not against facial recognition’s existence,” Brackeen said. “But we are at a place where it’s being used when people don’t know it’s there, and when people have their driver’s license photo taken they have no idea they’re doing it for facial recognition.”
Miami Int'l Airport To Use Facial Recognition Technology At Passport ControlA U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer uses facial recognition technology to screen people entering the U.S. at Miami International Airport.Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Microsoft President Brad Smith echoed some of Brackeen’s concerns earlier this month, calling for Congress to create “a bipartisan expert commission” to explore how to regulate facial recognition’s use.
But tech companies should not be left to regulate themselves, Smith wrote in a blog post.
“After all, even if one or several tech companies alter their practices, problems will remain if others do not,” Smith wrote. “The competitive dynamics between American tech companies — let alone between companies from different countries — will likely enable governments to keep purchasing and using new technology in ways the public may find unacceptable in the absence of a common regulatory framework.”
China has gone further than any society to expand facial recognition, using it to create a national surveillance state in which the technology is used to shame jaywalkers and find criminal suspects in the crowds of sporting events.
The potential for something similar exists in places with expansive networks of surveillance cameras ─ such as New York, Chicago or London, researchers say.
Related
TECH
New systems are expected to transform shopping, banking, travel, and more.
Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said false identification is among her biggest concerns. She likened it to the use of license plate readers that aim to catch people breaking traffic laws but also identify the wrong cars ─ and make it difficult for the innocent to appeal.
Polls show a return of Democrats' 'Big Blue Wall'
If cities connect surveillance networks with live facial recognition, and then link them to municipal infrastructure, the technology could be used to accuse people of crimes or other transgressions and shut them out of public services, she said.
“My concern is that a city buys into this so deeply, and buys into a process that … forces people to defend themselves against things they haven’t done,” King said.
‘GREAT PROMISE ─ AND GREAT PERIL’
Axon, the country’s largest supplier of police body cameras — which could one day be outfitted with facial recognition tools to scan faces from an officer’s lapel — has also acknowledged the concerns of real-time facial recognition. In April, Axon set up an ethics board of outside experts to guide the company as it explores the use of artificial intelligence, which included filing a patent application ─ discovered recently by a technology watchdog ─ for a real-time facial recognition system. Nearly four-dozen civil rights groups sent an open letter to the board earlier this year urging the company to reject as “categorically unethical” any products that allow body cameras to use real-time facial recognition. Axon has repeatedly said it is not currently working on developing facial recognition for its devices.
“We see facial recognition as a technology which holds great promise ─ and great peril,” Steve Tuttle, an Axon spokesman, said in an email in response to news of the patent. “We do see a day when facial recognition, with the right controls and sufficient accuracy, could reduce bias and increase fairness in policing. However, we have elected to hold off on investing in developing this technology until we better understand the necessary controls and accuracy thresholds to ensure its benefits significantly outweigh its costs and risks.”
NEC Corporation of America, a major developer of facial recognition systems, is also considering whether to create an ethics board, said Benji Hutchinson, vice president of federal operations. The company isn’t marketing a real-time facial recognition product to American police, but has sold such technology to law enforcement elsewhere, he said.
“We hear the privacy discussion and we’re sensitive to it,” Hutchinson said. “NEC wants to be and we are a corporation that is interested in balancing the rights of citizens to privacy and law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety.”
Another big player, Amazon, came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California revealed the company’s efforts to sell its facial recognition software to American police forces. The findings included a deal with Orlando, Florida, where seven officers have volunteered to be subjects in a test of a system that can scan live feeds from surveillance cameras and determine whether anyone in the images matches photos in a database of wanted or missing people.
Amazon did not back down. Neither did Orlando, which chose to continue the pilot program.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said he wants to see if the system even works. He cited the 2017 killing of a city officer allegedly by a man who’d been wanted in the murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Before his fatal confrontation with the officer, the suspect moved around the city for weeks while police searched for him.
“What if that technology had been in place and recognized his image and in turn immediately notified law enforcement ─ and then we could have responded there, or anywhere, to arrest him,” Mina said.
“Ultimately, it’s about enhancing public safety.”
ONE COMPANY’S PLANS
Orlando is the only confirmed example of a local law enforcement agency in the United States using facial recognition in real-time video, even as a test. But as a handful of companies race to create products that will give police agencies similar capabilities, real-time facial recognition has taken on an air of inevitability.
“I think we’re very close to getting the technology into our law enforcement here,” said Nicola Dickinson, a Digital Barriers vice president who runs its operations in North and South America.
The firm first introduced its real-time facial recognition system last summer, and since then it has been adopted by law enforcement agencies in Europe and Asia, and within the U.S. government, the company says — although it won’t disclose the names of those clients.
Digital Barriers says it is trying to weigh the public-safety benefits of facial recognition and concerns that the technology will mushroom into a mass-surveillance apparatus.
Iphone X's Facial Scanning: What Are The Unintended Risks?
NOV.03.201701:58
The company says its products are equipped with tools that allow authorities to retain information about people on watch lists and ignore the rest.
While the company says facial recognition shouldn’t be used everywhere, or to look for anyone, it does not tell customers how its products can or cannot be used.
“We trust that our government has rules and regulations within their organizations to use it effectively and safely,” Dickinson said.
But, for the most part, the government does not.
LAWLESS FRONTIER
There are few regulations at the federal, state or local level regarding law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. The exceptions include Oregon and New Hampshire, which ban facial recognition on police body cameras, and Maine and Vermont, which prohibit the technology’s use with police drones. Six states — Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii — restrict law enforcement’s ability to use driver’s license databases for facial recognition systems, according to Garvie, of Georgetown’s Center on Privacy & Technology.
A few local governments have also stepped up. Among them are Oakland, California, which requires public input on any proposal to acquire government surveillance systems, and Seattle, Washington, which restricts police use of facial recognition to compare suspects’ images to jail mugshots — and prohibits the real-time scanning of video footage to find matches in that database.
In the rest of the country, policymaking resembles a frontier-like landscape where standards and rules are made on the fly.
"We don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy."
In Ohio, for example, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation began using facial recognition in 2013 to identify suspects from photographs or video stills. A backlash forced the agency to limit which officers can access the system, and to prohibit it from being used to monitor groups of people or their activities, Superintendent Thomas Stickrath said. The agency also formed an advisory group to help guide it through legal and ethical issues.
“This technology is helpful to law enforcement,” Stickrath said. “But like all evolving technologies, whether it’s GPS or license plate readers or body readers, there’s a proper balance. We’re trying to find the right balance.”
Oakland, too, faced resistance after planning a citywide network five years ago that would collect feeds from surveillance cameras, gunshot detectors, license plate readers and other communication systems into a centralized hub monitored by authorities. The public outcry forced the city to abandon much of the project, and led to the creation of a privacy advisory commission that must review any effort by the local government to obtain technology that could impact privacy.
So if Oakland ever sought out a facial recognition system, it would be debated publicly.
That’s a big “if.”
“I don’t know if we have any interest in using that technology, and if we did I don’t know how comfortable I’d feel going into the commission saying it’s something we need, not today,” said Timothy Birch, police services manager for the Oakland Police Department.
The department, he said, considers surveillance technologies by weighing their cost and benefits — not just money, but in public trust. “And we don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy,” Birch said. “Until we identify an incredible benefit for facial recognition, the cost is just too high.”
Why Donald Trump attacks the media
Why Donald Trump attacks the media
By Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
29 July 2018
Fox v MSNBC: How the news divides America
When President Donald Trump first called the media "enemy of the people" last year, it elicited outrage. Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake said it was an example of an "unprecedented" and "unwarranted" White House assault on the free press.
The second, third and fourth times Mr Trump used the phrase, it barely merited a shrug. Such is the unique talent of this president - an ability to take an action or opinion that once seemed outrageous and turn it into a new kind of normal.
Even if the line doesn't generate headlines anymore, however, journalists still take note. And when a newsroom in Maryland was sprayed with bullets just a few weeks ago, the perils of the profession - even in an established Western democracy, and with or without the president's instigation - were put in stark relief.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger clearly wanted to drive this point home in his previously secret meeting with Mr Trump nine days ago.
NYT urges Trump to end 'enemy' rhetoric
How Trump 'enemies' remark echoes tyrants
Reality Check: Are journalists increasingly under attack?
The message, however, may not have been received. In his Sunday morning tweet, the president appears to assert that it's the media's fault that he has decided to label them "enemies of the American people".
For Mr Trump, then, this kind of language - if it is a problem - is a problem for the media, not him, to fix.
'Enemy of the people' - Trump compared to Stalin for attacks on media
The irony, of course, is that Mr Trump cites New York Times reports about details of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation that are based on anonymous sources.
On Friday, he referred to the special counsel looking at his tweets - a bit of information drawn directly from a Times article.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....,the only Collusion with Russia was with the Democrats, so now they are looking at my Tweets (along with 53 million other people) - the rigged Witch Hunt continues! How stupid and unfair to our Country....And so the Fake News doesn’t waste my time with dumb questions, NO,....
9:38 PM - Jul 27, 2018
Whenever the Times runs a story about his administration with similar sourcing, however, it's "fake news".
And this gets to the heart of the matter.
The president wants positive news coverage for himself and critical coverage of his adversaries. "Fake news", "enemy of the people" and all the other media-bashing is simply a means to achieving that goal.
In sport, the strategy is called "working the referee". It's the same idea in politics - but the stakes are much higher.
NYTimes Communications
✔
@NYTimesPR
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in response to President Trump’s tweet about their meeting https://bit.ly/2LHSFoB
1:01 AM - Jul 30, 2018
There's more to it than that, however. Mr Trump doesn't just want the referee's "calls" to go his way. His goal is to question the reliability the referee entirely. And it's working - at least among the president's most loyal supporters.
In a recent CBS News poll, 91% of "strong supporters" of the president's said they trust Mr Trump to provide them with accurate information. Only 11% said the same thing about the "mainstream media", while 63% said they trusted their own "friends and family".
Mr Sulzberger warned that Mr Trump's rhetoric could lead to violence
The president's war of words with the media has contributed to a base of support that is, effectively, invulnerable to negative news.
The question now is whether that base is enough to prevail in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections and, eventually, carry him to re-election victory in 2020.
It is, at the very least, a good place to start - and a reason why the president may stick to his current course, in spite of Mr Sulzberger's words of caution.
By Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
29 July 2018
Fox v MSNBC: How the news divides America
When President Donald Trump first called the media "enemy of the people" last year, it elicited outrage. Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake said it was an example of an "unprecedented" and "unwarranted" White House assault on the free press.
The second, third and fourth times Mr Trump used the phrase, it barely merited a shrug. Such is the unique talent of this president - an ability to take an action or opinion that once seemed outrageous and turn it into a new kind of normal.
Even if the line doesn't generate headlines anymore, however, journalists still take note. And when a newsroom in Maryland was sprayed with bullets just a few weeks ago, the perils of the profession - even in an established Western democracy, and with or without the president's instigation - were put in stark relief.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger clearly wanted to drive this point home in his previously secret meeting with Mr Trump nine days ago.
NYT urges Trump to end 'enemy' rhetoric
How Trump 'enemies' remark echoes tyrants
Reality Check: Are journalists increasingly under attack?
The message, however, may not have been received. In his Sunday morning tweet, the president appears to assert that it's the media's fault that he has decided to label them "enemies of the American people".
For Mr Trump, then, this kind of language - if it is a problem - is a problem for the media, not him, to fix.
'Enemy of the people' - Trump compared to Stalin for attacks on media
The irony, of course, is that Mr Trump cites New York Times reports about details of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation that are based on anonymous sources.
On Friday, he referred to the special counsel looking at his tweets - a bit of information drawn directly from a Times article.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....,the only Collusion with Russia was with the Democrats, so now they are looking at my Tweets (along with 53 million other people) - the rigged Witch Hunt continues! How stupid and unfair to our Country....And so the Fake News doesn’t waste my time with dumb questions, NO,....
9:38 PM - Jul 27, 2018
Whenever the Times runs a story about his administration with similar sourcing, however, it's "fake news".
And this gets to the heart of the matter.
The president wants positive news coverage for himself and critical coverage of his adversaries. "Fake news", "enemy of the people" and all the other media-bashing is simply a means to achieving that goal.
In sport, the strategy is called "working the referee". It's the same idea in politics - but the stakes are much higher.
NYTimes Communications
✔
@NYTimesPR
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in response to President Trump’s tweet about their meeting https://bit.ly/2LHSFoB
1:01 AM - Jul 30, 2018
There's more to it than that, however. Mr Trump doesn't just want the referee's "calls" to go his way. His goal is to question the reliability the referee entirely. And it's working - at least among the president's most loyal supporters.
In a recent CBS News poll, 91% of "strong supporters" of the president's said they trust Mr Trump to provide them with accurate information. Only 11% said the same thing about the "mainstream media", while 63% said they trusted their own "friends and family".
Mr Sulzberger warned that Mr Trump's rhetoric could lead to violence
The president's war of words with the media has contributed to a base of support that is, effectively, invulnerable to negative news.
The question now is whether that base is enough to prevail in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections and, eventually, carry him to re-election victory in 2020.
It is, at the very least, a good place to start - and a reason why the president may stick to his current course, in spite of Mr Sulzberger's words of caution.
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe - BBC News
July 30, 2018.
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe
TopicsZimbabwe election 2018
Why Zimbabwe's election is historic
Voters in Zimbabwe are going to the polls in the country's first election without the involvement of long-time leader Robert Mugabe.
The country's founding president, Mr Mugabe, was ousted last year after almost four decades in power.
The main contenders in the presidential vote are incumbent Emmerson Mnangagwa, of the ruling Zanu-PF party, and opposition leader Nelson Chamisa.
Parliamentary and local elections are also taking place on Monday.
Polls give Mr Mnangagwa, thought to be 75, a narrow lead over his 40-year-old rival, who leads the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) Alliance.
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe - who first came to power after independence in 1980 - said he would not vote for his successor.
The country is expecting a high turnout of first-time voters. Younger voters are expected to be key - almost half of those registered are under the age of 35.
Hundreds of international observers have been deployed to ensure the vote goes smoothly, but the opposition has repeatedly alleged irregularities in the voter roll.
They have also expressed concern over the security of ballot papers and voter intimidation in mainly rural areas.
Mr Mnangagwa helped direct Zimbabwe's war of independence in the 1960s and 1970s
Known as "the crocodile" because of his political shrewdness - his party faction is known as "Lacoste"
Accused of masterminding attacks on opposition supporters after the 2008 election
Thought to be 75 years old, he promises to deliver jobs, and is seen as open to economic reforms
Survived several alleged assassination attempts, blamed on supporters of ex-President Mugabe
The 'crocodile' who snapped back
Nelson Chamisa, MDC Alliance
Mr Chamisa could become Zimbabwe's youngest ever president if elected
His skull was fractured when beaten up by state security agents in 2007
Became an MP at 25, a cabinet minister at 31 and could become the youngest president at 40
A recently qualified pastor, he has been using the hashtag #GodIsInIt for his campaign
Has promised to rebuild the country's devastated economy, but has been criticised for making extravagant promises - such as the introduction of a high-speed bullet train and bringing the Olympics to Zimbabwe
The crusader taking on Zimbabwe's 'crocodile'
The election follows decades of repressive rule which have brought severe economic challenges to Zimbabwe.
These include issues of investment, education, healthcare and jobs - some estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is as high as 90%.
Pumza Fihlani
@Pumza_Fihlani
Leaving the polling station, 68-year-old Sam Nkomo told me “This is the first time I’m seeing people from foreign media here, things really must be changing. It’s good to see you here, the election will be good, maybe there won’t be violence”. I got choked up. #ZimbabweVotes
5:38 PM - Jul 30, 2018
As Mr Chamisa cast his vote on Monday, he told the BBC's Africa editor Fergal Keane: "We will win this election to the extent it's free and fair... it's a done deal."
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe gave a surprise news conference where he refused to support his former ally Mr Mnangagwa.
Robert Mugabe refused to back Emmerson Mnangagwa
Mr Mugabe, who resigned in November after the military took control of the country, said: "I cannot vote for those who tormented me... I hope the choice of voting tomorrow will thrust away the military government and bring us back to constitutionality,"
The 94-year-old indicated that Mr Chamisa was the only viable candidate.
In response to the comments, Mr Mnangagwa accused his former boss of making a deal with the opposition.
Have Zimbabwe's generals turned into democrats?
"It is clear to all that Chamisa has forged a deal with Mugabe, we can no longer believe that his intentions are to transform Zimbabwe and rebuild our nation," he said.
Mr Mugabe also denied that, as president, he had planned to hand the leadership to his wife, Grace, saying it was "utter nonsense".
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe
TopicsZimbabwe election 2018
Why Zimbabwe's election is historic
Voters in Zimbabwe are going to the polls in the country's first election without the involvement of long-time leader Robert Mugabe.
The country's founding president, Mr Mugabe, was ousted last year after almost four decades in power.
The main contenders in the presidential vote are incumbent Emmerson Mnangagwa, of the ruling Zanu-PF party, and opposition leader Nelson Chamisa.
Parliamentary and local elections are also taking place on Monday.
Polls give Mr Mnangagwa, thought to be 75, a narrow lead over his 40-year-old rival, who leads the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) Alliance.
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe - who first came to power after independence in 1980 - said he would not vote for his successor.
The country is expecting a high turnout of first-time voters. Younger voters are expected to be key - almost half of those registered are under the age of 35.
Hundreds of international observers have been deployed to ensure the vote goes smoothly, but the opposition has repeatedly alleged irregularities in the voter roll.
They have also expressed concern over the security of ballot papers and voter intimidation in mainly rural areas.
Mr Mnangagwa helped direct Zimbabwe's war of independence in the 1960s and 1970s
Known as "the crocodile" because of his political shrewdness - his party faction is known as "Lacoste"
Accused of masterminding attacks on opposition supporters after the 2008 election
Thought to be 75 years old, he promises to deliver jobs, and is seen as open to economic reforms
Survived several alleged assassination attempts, blamed on supporters of ex-President Mugabe
The 'crocodile' who snapped back
Nelson Chamisa, MDC Alliance
Mr Chamisa could become Zimbabwe's youngest ever president if elected
His skull was fractured when beaten up by state security agents in 2007
Became an MP at 25, a cabinet minister at 31 and could become the youngest president at 40
A recently qualified pastor, he has been using the hashtag #GodIsInIt for his campaign
Has promised to rebuild the country's devastated economy, but has been criticised for making extravagant promises - such as the introduction of a high-speed bullet train and bringing the Olympics to Zimbabwe
The crusader taking on Zimbabwe's 'crocodile'
The election follows decades of repressive rule which have brought severe economic challenges to Zimbabwe.
These include issues of investment, education, healthcare and jobs - some estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is as high as 90%.
Pumza Fihlani
@Pumza_Fihlani
Leaving the polling station, 68-year-old Sam Nkomo told me “This is the first time I’m seeing people from foreign media here, things really must be changing. It’s good to see you here, the election will be good, maybe there won’t be violence”. I got choked up. #ZimbabweVotes
5:38 PM - Jul 30, 2018
As Mr Chamisa cast his vote on Monday, he told the BBC's Africa editor Fergal Keane: "We will win this election to the extent it's free and fair... it's a done deal."
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe gave a surprise news conference where he refused to support his former ally Mr Mnangagwa.
Robert Mugabe refused to back Emmerson Mnangagwa
Mr Mugabe, who resigned in November after the military took control of the country, said: "I cannot vote for those who tormented me... I hope the choice of voting tomorrow will thrust away the military government and bring us back to constitutionality,"
The 94-year-old indicated that Mr Chamisa was the only viable candidate.
In response to the comments, Mr Mnangagwa accused his former boss of making a deal with the opposition.
Have Zimbabwe's generals turned into democrats?
"It is clear to all that Chamisa has forged a deal with Mugabe, we can no longer believe that his intentions are to transform Zimbabwe and rebuild our nation," he said.
Mr Mugabe also denied that, as president, he had planned to hand the leadership to his wife, Grace, saying it was "utter nonsense".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
