<h2>Get Furlough</h2>
When NASA&#8217;s New Horizons spacecraft <a href="https://futurism.com/new-horizons-visit-ultima-thule-most-distant-object">soars by the space rock Ultima Thule</a> on New Years Eve, it will be the most distant object humankind has ever explored.
Though you&#8217;ll be able to stream the historic flyby on the YouTube channel of Johns Hopkins Univerisity&#8217;s Applied Physics Laboratory, the event — which is <a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/52102-how-can-i-watch-the-new-horizons-flyby-of-ultima-thule">arguably the most awe-inspiring item</a> of space news all year — won&#8217;t be available on NASA TV, which typically offers extensive commentary and access to subject matter experts regarding the space agency&#8217;s projects. The reason: the ongoing government shutdown means that 95 percent of NASA&#8217;s workforce is <a href="https://www.space.com/42823-nasa-government-shutdown-plan-2018.html">home on furlough</a>.
<h2>&#8220;Act of Ineptitude&#8221;</h2>
NASA employees are disgusted by the legislative dysfunction that&#8217;s keeping all but the most mission-critical workers home during the historic flyby, <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/space/article/NASA-other-federal-workers-not-as-supportive-of-13491632.php">according to the</a> Houston Chronicle — and their ire is reportedly focused on politicians who have allowed the science agency&#8217;s work to grind to a halt.
&#8220;We have not heard from a single member who supports the president&#8217;s inaction,&#8221; said the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a union that represents federal workers, in a statement quoted by the paper. &#8220;Most view this as an act of ineptitude.&#8221;
<h2>Heat Death</h2>
The Chronicle also pointed to <a href="http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2018/1222-happy-holidays-nasa-is-shut-down.html">a post</a> by Casey Dreier, a senior space policy adviser to the nonprofit scientific advocacy organization The Planetary Society, that chastised leaders for failing the nation&#8217;s scientific workers — and worried that the political brinkmanship of a shutdown could lead talented workers away from government work entirely, altering the dynamics of space exploration.
&#8220;I fear that we will see more and more NASA employees ask themselves why they put up with such needless disruptions and leave for jobs the private sector,&#8221; Dreier wrote. &#8220;We know that NASA can get back to work, but how long will the best and the brightest want to work at an agency that continues to get callously tossed into political churn?&#8221;
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/space/article/NASA-other-federal-workers-not-as-supportive-of-13491632.php">NASA, other federal workers not as supportive of government shutdown as Trump claims, union rep says</a> [Houston Chronicle] 

More on government shutdowns and space travel: <a href="https://futurism.com/government-shutdown-hampers-spacexs-falcon-heavy-testing">Government Shutdown Hampers SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Testing</a>

A political impasse is hurting space exploration.

Gov shutdown means 95 percent of NASA employees aren't at work

Space Case

The ongoing government shutdown means that 95 percent of NASA's workforce is home on furlough during New Horizons' historic flyby.

Gov Shutdown Means 95 Percent of NASA Employees Aren’t At Work

"Most view this as an act of ineptitude."

<h2>More Sanctions</h2>
U.S. regulators are taking a stronger stance against Iran&#8217;s plans to develop its own sovereign cryptocurrency.
Congress introduced a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr7321/BILLS-115hr7321ih.pdf">bill</a> on December 17 called the &#8220;Blocking Iran Illicit Finance Act&#8221; that threatens Iran with more sanctions in response to activity that could see Iran develop its own national cryptocurrency. The U.S. is worried that the development of such a cryptocurrency could allow Iran to launder money, thereby dodging U.S. sanctions.
A <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3758/text">corresponding bill</a> sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX) calls for additional sanctions against anybody who could be aiding Iran to develop such a digital currency, including sanctions against any foreign person that might facilitate transactions for the &#8220;sale, supply, or transfer&#8221; of such a currency.
<h2>Existing Tension</h2>
And tensions between the U.S. and Iran are already high after the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655">Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action</a> (JCPOA) in May 2018. Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit any nuclear activity, and allow international actors to inspect any nuclear plants in the country. In return, economic sanctions would be lifted.
And Iran has been busy laying the groundwork for an official national digital currency. The country has been in the news recently, promising that blockchain technology could give Iran a much-needed <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/iranian-official-says-blockchain-could-deliver-economic-boost">economic boost</a>, Coindesk reports.
Officials <a href="https://www.ccn.com/iran-inches-closer-to-national-cryptocurrency-in-plan-to-evade-us-sanctions/">announced in July</a> that Iran was planning to issue its own national cryptocurrency. Months later, Iran agreed to <a href="https://news.bitcoin.com/iran-officially-recognizes-cryptocurrency-mining/">officially recognize</a> crypto mining as an industry in the government.
<h2>The Petro</h2>
There&#8217;s a precedent for a country developing its own sovereign cryptocurrency — without the best of intentions. Venezuela&#8217;s <a href="https://futurism.com/venezuela-cryptocurrency-petro-blockchain">highly controversial &#8220;petro&#8221;</a> — an oil- and state-backed cryptocurrency pushed by president Nicolas Maduro — is meant to give the South American nation a way out of crippling hyperinflation. So far, the people of Venezuela have yet to see any tangible benefits from the petro.
In fact, the Trump administration has also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/world/americas/trump-venezuela-sanctions-petro.html">expanded sanctions</a> in March against Venezuela to include any trade of the petro.
Will Iran comply with Congress&#8217; demands — if the bill passes — and cease any activity related to the issuing of a digital currency? Unlikely. But it could have a negative effect on already poor relations between the two countries.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/us-lawmakers-seek-sanctions-against-irans-cryptocurrency-efforts">US Lawmakers Seek Sanctions Against Iran’s Cryptocurrency Efforts</a> [Coindesk] 

More on Iran&#8217;s cryptocurrency: <a href="https://futurism.com/iran-national-cryptocurrency">Iran May Move to Create Its Own National Cryptocurrency</a>
&nbsp;

Tensions are already high between the two countries.

The U.S. challenges Iran's attempt to develop a cryptocurrency

Iran Crypto

Congress just introduced a bill calling for sanctions against Iran's efforts to develop its own national cryptocurrency.

The U.S. Challenges Iran’s Attempt to Develop a Cryptocurrency

According to the U.S., entering the crypto space would let Iran dodge sanctions.

<h2>Grilling Executives</h2>
Another day, another tech executive being grilled in front of Congress. On the menu today: Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
Pichai had a lot of questions to answer at a hearing in front of a stern-faced House Judiciary Committee. He was asked to to attend the hearing to discuss topics ranging from Google&#8217;s data collection policies to why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/11/18136114/trump-idiot-image-search-result-sundar-pichai-google-congress-testimony">Donald Trump&#8217;s face shows up</a> when you google the word &#8220;idiot.&#8221;
<h2>Dragonfly</h2>
But the topic that kept coming up throughout the hearing was Google&#8217;s Dragonfly — a secretive mission to develop a censored search engine in China, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/08/08/google-censorship-china-blacklist/">first uncovered</a> by The Intercept back in August.
Dragonfly allegedly is — or was — a modified search engine that blacklists controversial search terms, tracks the user&#8217;s IP address, and shares sensitive data with Chinese authorities.
But in today&#8217;s hearing, Pichai denied that Google had any plans to launch any search product in China — at least any time soon. He didn&#8217;t even mention China at all in his opening remarks, as Recode <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/12/11/18134984/live-google-ceo-congress-hearing-china-testimony-house-judiciary-committee-censored-search">pointed out</a>.
“Right now we have no plans to launch in China,” said Pichai at the hearing.
<h2>But It&#8217;s Real</h2>
Pichai didn&#8217;t deny Dragonfly&#8217;s existence, though. According to Pichai, Google had over <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/12/11/18134984/live-google-ceo-congress-hearing-china-testimony-house-judiciary-committee-censored-search">100 people working on it</a> at one point, and the project had been &#8220;underway for a while.&#8221;
But will Google&#8217;s Dragonfly ever launch in China? That&#8217;s becoming increasingly unlikely.
The project has been extremely controversial ever since news broke over its existence, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18118711/google-strike-project-dragonfly-fundraising">prompting walkouts</a> of Google employees. The Verge <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18118711/google-strike-project-dragonfly-fundraising">reports</a> there might even be plans for a strike circulating.
READ MORE: <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gy7mnx/google-ceo-says-no-plans-to-launch-dragonfly-chinese-search-engine-sundar-pichai">Google CEO Says No Plan to ‘Launch’ Censored Search Engine in China</a> [Motherboard]
More on Dragonfly: <a href="https://futurism.com/google-future-china-internet">The World of the Future Will Have Two Separate Internets, Former Google CEO Predicts</a>

This secretive Google project is going nowhere fast.

Google CEO: "No plans" to launch censored Chinese search engine

Dragonfly

In a hearing in front of a House Committee, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that Google had "no plans" to launch a search product in China.

Google CEO: “No Plans” To Launch Censored Chinese Search Engine

But project Dragonfly is very real.

Today, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stood up in front of the Senate&#8217;s Intelligence Committee. They were prepared for a flogging — it was what they came for. Sandberg and Dorsey dutifully answered softball questions from senators, fielding them wearing their best poker faces.
It&#8217;s the fourth time social media executives have been grilled in front of Congress. The topic of conversation hasn&#8217;t really changed much since the first time, back in October of last year: Russia is interfering with democratic elections in the U.S. with the help of troll farms and billions of fake accounts on platforms including Facebook and Twitter.
But the stakes do seem higher now. The cards are on the table — everybody knows Russia is interfering, that platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-and-confusion-in-myanmar/">fueled hate speech</a> and <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/facebook-philippines-dutertes-drug-war">drug wars</a>, <a href="https://futurism.com/whatsapp-update-india-mob-violence/">inciting mass violence</a> or <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/asia/myanmar-facebook-social-media-genocide-intl/index.html">possible genocide</a>. We all know that fake news and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones are flourishing on social media.
No one can deny that these companies are manipulating core functions of our society in ways that we still don&#8217;t fully understand.
Social media giants are starting acknowledge that maybe they can&#8217;t handle all that on their own. &#8220;[&#8230;] we also recognize that we&#8217;re not going to catch everything alone,&#8221; a somber-faced Dorsey responded to a question by Sen. Susan Collins (R-MA), suggesting that Twitter needed help from U.S. intelligence partners.
That may mean that government regulation of these social media companies is a clearer possibility. “The era of the Wild West in social media is coming to an end,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) in his opening statement.
In their defense, Facebook and Twitter haven&#8217;t sat idly by, waiting for the government to impose rules on them. Facebook has started constructing a literal <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/inside-facebook-s-arms-race-protect-users-ahead-midterm-elections-n906046">war room</a> at its campus in Menlo Park, California to be &#8220;laser focused&#8221; — as Samidh Chakrabarti, product manager of Civic Engagement at Facebook put it in an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/inside-facebook-s-arms-race-protect-users-ahead-midterm-elections-n906046">NBC interview</a> — on protecting their users from foreign interference. And in today&#8217;s Congressional hearing, Sandberg said fake news sources and Facebook&#8217;s human and algorithmic moderators were locked in an &#8220;arms race.&#8221;
It&#8217;s not a stretch to call what&#8217;s going on a &#8220;war.&#8221; In fact, Facebook is barely stemming the tide: the company of over two billion active users deleted <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/5/15/17349790/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-accounts-content-policy-update">billions of fake accounts</a> since the beginning of this year. Twitter removed <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/technology/twitter-fake-followers.html">tens of millions of suspicious accounts</a> in July in its attempt to fight back.
But hate speech is still rampant on Burmese Facebook accounts, and we still don&#8217;t know the full extent of Russian influence on the platform. “There’s a lot we don’t know yet,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted on a conference call with reporters, as <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/world/facebook-takes-down-652-accounts-linked-to-russia-iran">quoted by National Post</a>.
Despite their efforts, Russian interference in the upcoming midterm elections is <a href="https://futurism.com/cyberattack-smaller-campaign-elections/">more than likely</a>. U.S. officials, including U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security, have <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-officials-raise-alarm-about-election-interference-ahead-of-midterms-1.4771632">repeatedly warned of Russian meddling</a> in the elections, but a meaningful long-term solution to thwart Russian efforts is still not on the table.
Realistically, though, regulation is still a ways off. Facebook and Twitter want help to identify suspicious accounts, but lawmakers have offered only a few tepid ideas so far. Warner, in fact, penned a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/385137394/MRW-Social-Media-Regulation-Proposals-Developed">white paper</a> earlier this year in which he suggests the government force social platforms to identify fake accounts as &#8220;bots&#8221; to its users.
But that would require Facebook and Twitter to be able to identify these bots in the first place. That&#8217;s becoming increasingly difficult, thanks to sophisticated tech behind troll farms, and a never-ending stream of new fake accounts.
No one, not regulators or the companies themselves, has found the right solution yet. But increasingly, the government seems willing to hold them accountable. Because the prize for getting this right? Control of information — and, more importantly, disinformation. There&#8217;s time to get it right before the midterm elections. We&#8217;ve just gotta go with whatever solutions might work, and implement them as quickly as possible.

Facebook and Twitter are caught in an "arms race" against those spreading misinformation.

Social media giants need regulation from a government that's unsure how to help

Sci-Fi Visions

Today, leadership from Facebook and Twitter testified in front of Congress. Regulation is on the table, but no one's quite sure what that would look like.

Social Media Giants Need Regulation From a Government That's Unsure How To Help

Congress is ready to help tech companies win the war against misinformation. If only it knew how. 

Social Media Giants Need Regulation From a Government That’s Unsure How To Help

YOU ARE <del>NOT</del> A MATCH. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) just spent $12.33 to test a system that could quite literally cost people their lives. On Thursday, the nonprofit organization, which focuses on preserving the rights of U.S. citizens, published a <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blog post</a> detailing its test of Rekognition, a facial identification tool developed and sold by Amazon.
Using Rekognition&#8217;s default setting of 80 percent confidence (meaning the system was 80 percent certain it was correct when it signaled a match), the ACLU scanned a database of 25,000 publicly available mugshots looking to match them to photos of every sitting representative in Congress, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Rekognition matched 28 Congresspeople to mugshots. It was wrong, but it found matches anyway.
THE POLICE AND P.O.C. Not only did Rekognition mistakenly believe that those 28 Congresspeople were the same people in the mugshots, the people it wrongfully matched were disproportionately people of color; while people of color make up just 20 percent of Congress, according to the ACLU, they accounted for 39 percent of the false matches.
&#8220;People of color are already disproportionately harmed by police practices, and it’s easy to see how Rekognition could exacerbate that,&#8221; wrote the ACLU in its post. &#8220;An identification — whether accurate or not — could cost people their freedom or even their lives.&#8221;
AMAZON&#8217;S RESPONSE. An Amazon spokesperson <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/17615634/amazon-rekognition-aclu-mug-shot-congress-facial-recognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told The Verge</a> that poor calibration was likely the reason Rekognition falsely matched so many members of Congress. “While 80 percent confidence is an acceptable threshold for photos of hot dogs, chairs, animals, or other social media use cases, it wouldn’t be appropriate for identifying individuals with a reasonable level of certainty,” said the spokesperson. They said Amazon recommends at least a 95 percent confidence threshold for any situation where a match might have significant consequences, such as when used by law enforcement agencies.
HALT! While anyone can use the system relatively cheaply (Rekognition, according to its web site, &#8220;charges you only for the images processed, minutes of video processed, and faces stored&#8221;), like the ACLU did, Amazon is actively marketing Rekognition to government and <a href="https://futurism.com/police-surveillance-gets-terrifying-boost-from-amazons-ai-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">law enforcement agencies</a>. Several are already using the service.
The ACLU isn&#8217;t the only organization actively petitioning against this use; Amazon <a href="https://www.aclu.org/letter/letter-shareholders-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-regarding-rekognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholders</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/amazon-rekognition-employees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">employees</a> have urged the company to stop providing Rekognition to government agencies. So have dozens of <a href="https://www.aclu.org/letter-nationwide-coalition-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-regarding-rekognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener">civil rights groups</a> and tens of thousands <a href="https://action.aclu.org/petition/amazon-stop-selling-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">members of the public</a>.
So far, Amazon has not indicated that it plans to comply with these requests. But perhaps, if members of Congress see just how flawed the system really is, they&#8217;ll be compelled to take action, placing a halt on any law enforcement use of facial recognition software, as the ACLU requests in its blog post.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon’s Face Recognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress With Mugshots</a> [ACLU]
More on Rekognition: <a href="https://futurism.com/police-surveillance-gets-terrifying-boost-from-amazons-ai-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police Surveillance Is Getting a Helping Hand From…Amazon!</a>

It also disproportionately matched people of color.

Amazon Rekognition falsely matched 28 members of Congress to mugshots

Artificial Intelligence

Amazon's facial recognition software is far from perfect, an ACLU experiment shows. Maybe Amazon should stop marketing it to government agencies.

Amazon Rekognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress to Mugshots

ACLU's test illustrates why law enforcement officials shouldn't rely on the system.

SORRY, DON. President Donald Trump has made it clear: he wants his legacy to include establishing the <a href="https://futurism.com/trump-announces-space-force/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">world&#8217;s first space force</a>, a military branch dedicated to off-world conflicts. Congress, however, doesn&#8217;t appear so keen on the idea — at least not right now.
On Monday, Congressional lawmakers agreed on a <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180723/CRPT-115hrpt863.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defense spending bill</a> for the fiscal year 2019. The bill directs the office of the secretary of defense to “develop a space warfighting policy.&#8221; What it doesn&#8217;t do is make any mention of a &#8220;space force.&#8221;
The House and Senate will vote on the bill this summer, and if it passes, it&#8217;ll move to President Trump&#8217;s desk to sign into law.
KICKING THE CAN. A U.S. space force will remain a pipe dream unless it garners support of those in Congress; they&#8217;re the only ones with the authority to establish and fund a new branch of the nation&#8217;s armed forces.
Still, the omission from the 2019 bill could have more to do with timing than Congress&#8217; actual opinion on the matter. Trump only gave the order to establish the branch in June, weeks after the administration submitted most of its other proposals for the bill, a White House official <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/trump-space-force-congress/565967/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told The Atlantic</a>.
CYBER WARFARE. While the bill didn&#8217;t include any mention of a space force, it did include something else groundbreaking: the establishment of the U.S.&#8217;s first policy on <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/398468-cyber-warfare-policy-included-in-final-version-of-an-annual-defense" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cyber warfare</a>. There have been a growing number of these kinds of <a href="https://futurism.com/russians-hacked-electric-companies/">attacks</a> in recent years (compared to the number of space attacks, which have so far been zero). So it&#8217;s not entirely surprising that Congress is choosing to first focus on that very immediate threat before committing resources to defending our interests in space.
READ MORE: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/07/trump-space-force-congress/565967/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump’s Space Force Will Have to Wait</a> [The Atlantic]
More on the space force: <a href="https://futurism.com/trump-announces-space-force/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The US May Soon Have The World’s First Space Force</a>

Congress isn't ready to launch a space force, at least not now.

Trump's space force isn't in Congress' 2019 spending bill

Off World

Congressional lawmakers just agreed on a defense bill for 2019 that does not include funding for the establishment of a space force.

Trump's Space Force Won't Happen in 2019, Congress Decides

Looks like it won't happen next year. 

Trump’s Space Force Isn’t in Congress’ 2019 Spending Bill

Yes, facial recognition is fun. We use it to effortlessly unlock our phones, find out which 18th century Renaissance painting our faces resemble the most, and make animated <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/apple-releases-ios-11-3-with-new-animojis/">poop emojis grimace</a>.
But there&#8217;s a darker side, which you&#8217;ve probably been hearing about a lot more lately. Facial recognition technology facilitates government surveillance, can be used without participants&#8217; explicit consent, and can even perpetuate <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recognition-race-artificial-intelligence.html">racial discrimination</a> and wrongful prosecution.
So far, companies developing and using facial recognition technology haven&#8217;t had any rules to follow. But as ethical concerns pile up, some nations have begun to pass laws to rein it in. The European Union has enacted its own far-reaching privacy regulations that require companies to get <a href="https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/gdpr-things-to-consider-when-processing-biometric-data">explicit consent from subjects</a> who have their faces scanned (companies face significant fines if they don&#8217;t follow the rules). But in the U.S., lawmakers have not passed an equivalent regulation.
Microsoft, one of the biggest names in facial recognition technology, thinks that&#8217;s a mistake.
Last week, in an unprecedented move, Microsoft president Bradford L. Smith called for facial recognition regulations in the U.S. &#8220;We live in a nation of laws, and the government needs to play an important role in regulating facial recognition technology,&#8221; Smith writes <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/07/13/facial-recognition-technology-the-need-for-public-regulation-and-corporate-responsibility/">in a blog post</a>.
Smith isn&#8217;t just concerned about how the tech sector uses facial recognition — regulation would also keep the government&#8217;s own use in check. “The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself,” Smith writes.
<figure id="attachment_134447" style="width: 1200px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img class="wp-image-134447 size-large" src="https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2018/07/cctv-1200x800.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="800" /><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Pexels/Victor Tangermann</figcaption></figure>
Smith is the most recent voice in a growing chorus against the problematic ways facial recognition is being used:
<ul>
<li>At Google: Google employees <a href="https://futurism.com/google-maven-drones-military-contract/">signed a public letter</a> demanding CEO Satya Nadella shut down Project Maven, a Department of Defense contract to create a “customized AI surveillance engine” that would allow military drones to use facial recognition software to identify threats.</li>
<li>At Microsoft: Microsoft employees <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/21/17488328/microsoft-ice-employees-signatures-protest">delivered their own letter</a> denouncing the company&#8217;s contract with the controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While CEO Satya Nadella downplayed their relationship with the agency that was largely responsible for the separation of children and families, employees were rightfully worried that Microsoft could one day work with them.</li>
<li>At Amazon: Amazon&#8217;s employees watched in horror as U.S. government authorities forcibly separated migrant children from their parents, and called for CEO Jeff Bezos to cease all sales of the company&#8217;s <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17492106/amazon-ice-facial-recognition-internal-letter-protest">Rekognition software to law enforcement contractors</a>.</li>
</ul>
There are, as Slate notes, cynical ways to read Smith&#8217;s post. &#8220;Microsoft’s largest tech rivals—Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook—all use face recognition in various forms and are leaders in developing the technology. Microsoft may reckon that taking a stand for regulation would serve its interests better than continuing to compete on an unregulated playing field,&#8221; Slate&#8216;s senior tech writer <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/why-microsoft-is-calling-for-government-regulation-of-face-recognition-technology.html">Will Oremus points out</a>.
Even so, the more earnest reading — that lawmakers can no longer ignore these concerns — shouldn&#8217;t be dismissed offhand. We have already seen facial recognition technology <a href="https://futurism.com/welsh-police-face-scanning-software-incorrect/">incorrectly flag thousands</a> of innocent people, and scan countless others at U.S. borders and airports <a href="https://futurism.com/facial-recognition-us-borders/">without the option to opt out</a>. Even Facebook was <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/23/facebook-face-recognition-error-looks-awkward-ahead-of-gdpr/">caught unprepared</a>, scanning users&#8217; faces without explicit consent when the EU&#8217;s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) were about to come into effect. All of these actions set a dangerous precedent, and could pose a threat to personal freedom if left completely unregulated.
Without sufficient oversight, border control and law enforcement could easily be swayed by subpar facial recognition software. And it&#8217;s not a ridiculous idea — in the case of the South Wales police force <a href="https://futurism.com/welsh-police-face-scanning-software-incorrect/">used facial recognition</a> to identify suspicious subjects at a soccer match, a whopping 87.5 percent of those identified were false positives. And without due process or regulated appeal procedures for the wrongly accused, innocent people could spend years behind bars as a result.
If the U.S. government doesn&#8217;t intervene in a meaningful way, Silicon Valley will be forced to navigate a moral conundrum: throw its moral values out the window — <a href="https://futurism.com/maven-google-military-tech/">&#8220;Don&#8217;t Be Evil&#8221; be damned</a> — or regulate itself. Neither option is particularly desirable — private companies will always have their own agendas, whether it is for the greater good or capital gain.
But at least Microsoft is setting the tone by exerting some pressure on regulators and taking a critical look at a technology that has &#8220;broad societal ramifications and potential for abuse,&#8221; as Smith puts it. As the sentiment spreads throughout Silicon Valley, regulators may have no choice but to intervene, ensuring our personal freedoms and safety in the process.
Read more about facial recognition technology: <a href="https://futurism.com/primnet-facial-recognition-primates/">New Facial Recognition Software Tracks and Protects Endangered Primates</a>

Why is Silicon Valley asking to be regulated?

Microsoft president calls for government rules for facial recognition technology

Last week, president of Microsoft wrote a blog post calling for the government to regulate facial recognition software. But why would he do that?

Microsoft President Calls For Government Rules For Facial Recognition Technology

It's the most recent voice in a growing chorus around Silicon Valley that sees the harm facial recognition could have.

Scott Pruitt&#8217;s tenure as head of the Environmental Protection Agency has been anything but smooth sailing.
<a href="https://futurism.com/scott-pruitts-epa-evil-transparency/">Disastrous environmental policies</a> aside, Pruitt has come under fire for <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/04/emails-show-epa-staff-was-concerned-that-pruitt-kept-repeating-false-information/">alienating longtime EPA staffers</a>. Has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-calendar-industries-coal-oil-environmentalists.html">notably opaque</a>, both within the agency and with the public, about who he meets with (many suspect he&#8217;s spending most of his time lending an ear to people from the oil and gas industries). He&#8217;s been criticized repeatedly for ethics violations — from flying first class to excessive spending on security detail to renting an apartment from a lobbyist for cutthroat rate — seemingly <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982770847046922240">by everyone but the President</a>.
People who care about the environment and (<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/">unlike Pruitt, the head of the E P freakin&#8217; A</a>) believe in climate change, have been calling for his ouster for a good while now.
Now, that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/white-house-will-investigate-pruitt-s-43-000-secure-phone-booth">$43,000 soundproof phone booth</a> (that some believe reeks of corruption) seems to be the final straw. Those calls have reached a fever pitch.
They&#8217;re coming loudly from lawmakers. Yesterday, a bipartisan coalition of 170 Senators and Representatives, led by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/376735298/Resolution-Calling-on-Resignation-of-EPA-Administrator-Scott-Pruitt">filed a resolution</a> calling for Pruitt to step down.
They call for this action based on, among other reasons, Pruitt&#8217;s &#8220;[misuse of] taxpayer dollars by spending those taxpayer dollars on excessive personal conveniences and unnecessary office enhancements while dramatically cutting budgets and staff for critically important enforcement, research, and implementation activities,&#8221; according to the resolution.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">
Today, I led a group of 39 senators and 131 representatives in calling on <a href="https://twitter.com/EPAScottPruitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPAScottPruitt</a> to step down. Our historic resolution sends an unequivocal message to the administration: the American people have lost faith in Pruitt, and it’s time for him to go. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BootPruitt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BootPruitt</a> <a href="https://t.co/xsDKKC3pwn">pic.twitter.com/xsDKKC3pwn</a>
&mdash; Tom Udall (@SenatorTomUdall) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorTomUdall/status/986677937696071680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And they&#8217;re coming from the unlikely alliance of labor and civil rights nonprofits. Yesterday, a coalition of NGOs including the NAACP and the Sierra Club, ran full-page ads in three major newspapers, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/18/labor-and-civil-rights-organizations-call-for-epa-chief-scott-pruitts-ouster/?utm_term=.3d6983a8b966">the Washington Post reports</a>.
President Trump would be foolish to ignore these calls. He risks a disagreeable Congress that might not cooperate when he demands immediate action on his pet legislation. He also risks further disapproval from his electorate, who may decide they no longer want Trump&#8217;s easy, breezy, Republican-dominated Congress in this year&#8217;s midterm election.
And, yet, Trump may not heed these calls. Pruitt has done exactly what Trump has wanted him to do (namely, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/02/12/trump-budget-seeks-23-percent-cut-at-epa-would-eliminate-dozens-of-programs/?utm_term=.98b862c654c2">gut the EPA</a>). And continuing to distract people while Pruitt quietly strips away any remaining environmental regulations fits neatly into that plan.
The White House has no choice but to <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/383745-white-house-budget-office-to-investigate-pruitts-soundproof-booth">investigate that pricey phone booth</a>. But for now at least, Pruitt&#8217;s tenure isn&#8217;t over.

Everybody (dozens of Senators, more than 100 Representatives, labor groups and civil rights nonprofits) hates Scott.

Basically everyone wants Scott Pruitt out of office

Earth & Energy

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has questionable ethics. The most recent scandal has legislators and nonprofits calling for his ouster.

Basically Everyone Wants Scott Pruitt Out of Office

It's one of the few things upon which everyone (except the President) pretty much agrees. 

As we learned from Mark Zuckerberg&#8217;s congressional testimony last week (in addition to the fact that <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-congress-tweets-reactions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">robots</a> can ingest water), many <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-testified-congress-day-1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senators</a> and <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-testified-congress-day-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Representatives</a> don&#8217;t entirely <a href="https://futurism.com/hearings-congress-doesnt-understand-facebook-regulation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">understand the basics of Facebook</a>, a platform that even they admit has become integral to the lives of their families and their constituents.
So how, then, are legislators going to protect us from the <a href="https://futurism.com/experts-warn-that-ai-enhanced-cyberattacks-are-an-imminent-threat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">growing threat</a> of cyberattacks? I&#8217;m putting my money on: they won&#8217;t.
You know who might, though? Tech companies. An announcement today indicates that they&#8217;re ready to at least <a href="https://cybertechaccord.org/accord/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">give it a shot</a>.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZfCUXq4V6ZY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Today, 34 tech companies, including Microsoft, Nokia, and Facebook, signed the <a href="https://cybertechaccord.org/">Cybersecurity Tech Accord</a>. In doing so, they pledged to protect customers from cyberattacks.
They&#8217;ll do it by focusing on improvements in four areas:
Stronger Defense: Pretty self explanatory (though, frankly, a bit scant on the details about what &#8220;defense&#8221; means, exactly). Also included in this section is a commitment to protect everyone from cyberattacks, regardless of location or attacker.
No Offense: If governments want to attack innocent citizens or businesses, they&#8217;ll have to figure out how to do so on their own — these companies won&#8217;t help them. What they will do: anything in their power to ensure their products don&#8217;t become tools for cyberattackers.
Capacity Building: The companies won&#8217;t simply protect customers from cyberattacks. They&#8217;ll follow in the footsteps of countless <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrainingThePeacefulVillagers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">heroes of fiction</a> by attempting to teach people to defend themselves.
Collective Action: Finally, the companies pledge to continue to work with others to address the cybersecurity problem. This may mean partnering with each other, security researchers, or even companies that may otherwise be their competitors.
By signing the Accord, the companies agree to publicly report their progress on meeting its goals. While a few notable companies weren&#8217;t among the first 34 signatories — Apple, Google, Amazon — they could join the Cybersecurity Tech Accord at a later date.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jHaOwOvcaoM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;s <a href="https://futurism.com/cyber-warfare-rules-protect-ourselves/">hard to overstate</a> how much we need someone — pretty much anyone — to commit to addressing the problem of cyberattacks. In the past couple of years, we&#8217;ve seen cyberattackers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">meddle in elections</a>, <a href="https://futurism.com/cyber-attack-forces-hospitals-to-cancel-hundreds-of-surgeries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shut down hospitals</a>, <a href="https://futurism.com/atlanta-hacking-ransomware-cybersecurity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hold a major U.S. city hostage</a>, and <a href="https://futurism.com/saudi-arabia-cyberattack/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attempt to blow up a chemical plant</a>. If we don&#8217;t up our protection game, all this could happen in the future, as our world becomes increasingly digital.
Just this week, the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/383169-pentagon-reports-increase-in-russian-trolls-since-syria-strike" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pentagon noted</a> a 2,000 percent increase in <a href="http://time.com/5168202/russia-troll-internet-research-agency/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Russian &#8220;trolls</a>&#8221; — people paid to spread propaganda or misinformation online — in the 24 hours surrounding the U.S. bombing of Syria. Afterward, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), one of the Senate Judiciary Committee members who questioned Zuckerberg last week, released a <a href="https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AC3A7146-B845-43FE-8FAE-384E6B276690" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>:
&#8220;Americans need to understand that the wars of the future will look more like this&#8230;the fog of war will not be limited to our situation rooms and battlefields; our enemies will work to create confusion and distrust among Americans here at home.&#8221;
Clearly, at least some members of Congress know cyberattacks are a problem likely to get worse. What they don&#8217;t seem to know is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/25/were-under-constant-threat-of-cyberattack-and-congress-cant-do-anything-about-it/?utm_term=.b980d13db3ab" target="_blank" rel="noopener">what to do about it</a>. Until they figure that out, companies like those committed to the Cybersecurity Tech Accord will have to take the lead.

While Congress contemplates, the industry takes action.

The tech industry pledge against cyberattacks could actually help keep us safe

Double exposure of the inside and out of a laptop computer showing the electronic components under the keyboard

Future Society

Some of the biggest tech companies just signed the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, a pledge to make improvements that could mitigate the problem of cyberattacks.

The Tech Industry Pledge Against Cyberattacks Could Actually Help Keep Us Safe

This is more than just PR posturing.

Ten. That&#8217;s how many times the names &#8220;Diamond and Silk&#8221; came up during Mark Zuckerberg&#8217;s <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-testified-congress-day-1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">testimony</a> <a href="https://futurism.com/mark-zuckerberg-testified-congress-day-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to Congress</a> this week.
Lawmakers seemed to really want to know what Facebook&#8217;s CEO specifically thought was so wrong with a pro-Trump online talk show run by South Carolinian sisters Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/DiamondandSilk/photos/a.415130365302749.1073741828.407279909421128/1048842801931499/?type=3&amp;theater">the sisters claim</a> Facebook shut down their show because it was &#8220;unsafe to the community,&#8221; which a Facebook spokesperson called the accusation &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/10/facebook-accused-of-deeming-black-pro-trump-sisters-unsafe/?utm_term=.916036d7ba91" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inaccurate</a>&#8220;).
But the subtext of their questioning was a rumor that&#8217;s <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/05/yes_facebook_is_biased_now_it_should_admit_it.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">floated in the ether</a> for years:
Facebook is biased, specifically against conservative and religious viewpoints.
&nbsp;
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DxrL8qMNbvA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This was far from the first time Facebook faced accusations of bias, though.
In 2016, former Facebook “news curators” <a href="https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told Gizmodo</a> that curators of Facebook&#8217;s &#8220;Trending&#8221; feature suppressed stories that might have appealed to conservative readers.
Over the years, the stories and pages reportedly censored by Facebook have included:
<ul>
<li>The <a href="https://mic.com/articles/11997/chick-fil-a-controversy-mike-huckabee-censored-by-facebook-for-supporting-anti-gay-company#.R781QSIzZ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day</a> page</li>
<li>More than <a href="https://churchpop.com/2017/07/18/a-catholic-purge-facebook-removes-big-catholic-facebook-pages-worldwide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">20 pages for Catholic churches</a></li>
<li>Posts about or by <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/21/13361908/facebook-employees-trump-ban-hate-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republican politicians</a></li>
<li>Posts <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/05/26/10-times-facebook-censored-conservatives.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticizing then-President Barrack Obama</a></li>
<li>A Catholic <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/facebook-apologizes-for-blocking-steubenvilles-ad-64858" target="_blank" rel="noopener">theology degree ad</a> (Facebook admits this one was a mistake)</li>
</ul>
Zuckerberg vehemently denied these claims. Following Gizmodo&#8217;s 2016 story, Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102830259184701" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a>: &#8220;We have rigorous guidelines that do not permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or the suppression of political perspectives&#8230;We have found no evidence that this [Gizmodo] report is true.&#8221;
And that&#8217;s the crux of the issue. Lots of people say Facebook is biased, but evidence is hard to come by. Facebook&#8217;s <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/cover_story/2016/01/how_facebook_s_news_feed_algorithm_works.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">algorithms are complex</a>, and every user&#8217;s Newsfeed shows something a little different. So there&#8217;s pretty much no way the average person can tell if the company is prioritizing one kind of post over another.
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y99HOU_mKQo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In front of Congress this week, Zuckerberg denied that Facebook is biased, as he did in 2016. But, legally, it could be. The First Amendment protects Americans&#8217; right to hold whatever beliefs they want so long as they don&#8217;t infringe upon the rights of others. <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/freedom-press" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New organizations</a> have the same right. In fact, research shows that the <a href="https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2018/02/28/Photos/NS/MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg?uuid=659e15a6-1ca8-11e8-83b2-9c8e992d421e" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority of news organizations</a> lean at least a little to the left or right, and from a legal perspective, that&#8217;s totally fine.
Also in the Bill of Rights: Americans have the right of freedom of association. But what exactly that means is a little less cut and dry. It&#8217;s where we run up against questions that have to be decided in court, like: Can a country club ban people of a certain race? <a href="http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/1958/150.html">No</a>. Can the Boy Scouts ban gay troop leaders? <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-699">Nope</a>.
Could Facebook outright ban Republicans from using the platform? If it wanted to, sure. Political affiliation isn&#8217;t protected under <a href="https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-classes-under-anti-discrimination-laws.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-discrimination laws</a>.
&nbsp;
So Facebook has every legal right to be biased. If it is, then, why not admit it?
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rgi2TDif0o0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So that leads to the inevitable question at the heart of this week&#8217;s hearings: what exactly is Facebook? Ask Zuckerberg (as lawmakers did during the hearing), and Facebook&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/?utm_term=.69256bf7e290" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a tech company</a>.&#8221; With few exceptions, Facebook doesn&#8217;t produce content. It merely gives others (more than <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2 billion</a> others) a platform to share their own content.
If, at its core, Facebook is a company, as Zuckerberg asserts, his top concern is (or should be) the bottom line. Without profits, companies fail. Facebook profits from its users, and the advertisers who target them (Facebook generated <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-adds-a-million-advertisers-in-7-months-2017-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$27 billion</a> in ad revenue in 2016, and ad sales account for the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120114/how-does-facebook-fb-make-money.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority of Facebook&#8217;s income</a>).
If Facebook did come out as a biased platform that attempts to silence conservative or religious voices, it could lose users. More importantly for the company&#8217;s future, it could lose advertisers who fear they can no longer reach such a broad swath of potential customers.
In other words: No advertisers, no Facebook (or no Facebook as we know it, at least).
So, &#8220;Diamond and Silk&#8221; may have come up 10 times during the hearing, but another phrase wasn&#8217;t too far behind it:  &#8220;Facebook is a platform for all ideas.&#8221;
Whether or not Facebook is biased is up for debate. But <a href="http://fortune.com/video/2016/11/10/mark-zuckerberg-fortune-business-person-2016/">to keep the business afloat</a>, Zuckerberg is saying exactly what he&#8217;s got to say.

"Facebook is a platform for all ideas." Rinse and repeat.

Facebook might be biased. But you'll never hear Zuckerberg admit it.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly denied assertions that Facebook is biased during his Congressional testimony. But was he telling the truth?

/Congress

Space Case

Gov Shutdown Means 95 Percent of NASA Employees Aren’t At Work

Iran Crypto

The U.S. Challenges Iran’s Attempt to Develop a Cryptocurrency

Dragonfly

Google CEO: “No Plans” To Launch Censored Chinese Search Engine

Sci-Fi Visions

Social Media Giants Need Regulation From a Government That’s Unsure How To Help

Artificial Intelligence

Amazon Rekognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress to Mugshots

Off World

Trump’s Space Force Isn’t in Congress’ 2019 Spending Bill

Sci-Fi Visions

Microsoft President Calls For Government Rules For Facial Recognition Technology

Earth & Energy

Basically Everyone Wants Scott Pruitt Out of Office

Future Society

The Tech Industry Pledge Against Cyberattacks Could Actually Help Keep Us Safe

Future Society

Facebook Might Be Biased. But You’ll Never Hear Zuckerberg Admit It.

Load More