The Weekly Weird #47

Panopticon: Aussie Edition, Australian Associated Press self-owns in a fact check, North Korean fap attack, the Guardian axes X, China's live mannequins

Nov 14, 2024

Welcome once more to your Weekly Weird, a cornucopia of concerning calamities and comedic carry-ons concatenating continuously here on Spaceship Earth!

Up-fronts:

A post on X has drawn attention to China’s use of live mannequins in shops, i.e. human women on treadmills walking in place to model the clothing on offer. The New York Post called the footage “somewhat unsettling,” and in the same sentence referred to the models as “sentient clothing racks,” which seems even more demeaning than the job in question. The models have to look happy because the Chinese Communist Party uses facial recognition to gauge emotions and Chairman Winnie the Pooh wants “positive energy.”
The UK’s policing minister Diana Johnston told Parliament that “the current Labor government will hold a series of discussions on police use of live facial recognition before the end of the year,” according to Biometric Update. Footage of the debate, featuring her face, is available to download from Parliament’s website, but is “protected by parliamentary copyright and all rights are reserved.” The Brits are masters of irony.
Proving why the public is askance of “pay-per-mile” road pricing plans that figure big in many government transportation schemes, a Virginia man named Jeff Landry drove his family’s RV 45 miles round-trip on a toll road to cut twenty minutes off their journey and was charged $579.50 for the privilege, according to MotorBiscuit. The charges are considered “legitimate” because of the size of the vehicle and the increasingly common practice of “dynamic pricing.”

Moving on…

Panopticon: Aussie Edition

Australians are being asked to say “G’day” to a new level of surveillance.

The Australian government is launching a new ‘service’ with the queasy name of Trust Exchange (TEx), which will centralise all ID documents and accreditation into a single app that promises to make life “voluntary, secure, [and] easy” for the denizens of the Land Down Under.

For example, instead of showing a passport or driver’s license to check into a hotel, Aussies will proffer a QR code generated by the app, which will reassure the reception desk that the guest is who they say they are. By side-stepping the question of why anyone should need a photo ID to check into a hotel in the first place, the Albanese government has instead made it sound attractive to have all of your identity and labour verification transactions take place through a government database that will log everything you do.

Did they mention that it’s “easier, more secure, and voluntary”?

When I visited Australia, I noticed that government slogans or signs usually used rhymes, presumably to make the exhortations more memorable. On one desolate stretch of highway, I drove past a sign that told me to “ARRIVE ALIVE”.

So it didn’t surprise me when 7News opened their segment on the new system by saying: “Australians are happy to tap and go, now the government wants them to tap and show.”

Yes, buying a sandwich in a private shop with a debit card is exactly the same as using a government app to access services. If the bank cuts off your card, you can’t have a sandwich. If the government restricts your use of the app because you are a dissident, or donated to a frowned-upon political party or organisation, you get locked out of society. Same thing, right?

“The information will be heavily encrypted,” declares the voiceover in the above video just before murdering the word “data.” I thought encryption was encryption. Is it possible to have light or heavy encryption? Is that like being very pregnant as opposed to just a bit pregnant? Could this be a sales pitch rather than a news report, by any chance?

The system is “all about putting citizens at the centre of their identity management,” says Jane Standish, in a segment that looks like something Charlie Brooker parodied on Newswipe.

Pauline Hanson, looking like your wacky aunt who wears red to ward off the evil eye, read out her objection to the Digital ID bill back in May while presenting a petition signed by over 65,000 Australians “calling on the Senate to repeal this insidious legislation.”

She closed her statement as follows:

We know the former Coalition government spent about 600 million dollars preparing for a national digital ID system. We know Labor has allocated another 288 million dollars in the Budget. We know this bill was rushed through the Senate with no debate and no scrutiny. We can safely predict it will sail through the House of Representatives – perhaps even today. We know Labor says it will be voluntary, but we also know this is a lie because the bill has provisions to make it mandatory in several circumstances. But thanks to this petition, we also know that many Australians are opposed to it and I call on the Senate to act accordingly.

The Senate didn’t “act accordingly,” unless that meant making sure the law passed and the ID technology is deployed by the end of this year.

The Conversation published an op-ed by two Research Fellows and the Director of the Deakin Cyber Research & Innovation Centre at Deakin University, which listed the issues with the government’s Digital ID plan:

First, it is a centralised system. Everything will be monitored, managed and stored by a single government agency. This will make it more vulnerable to breaches and diminishes users’ control over their digital identities.
Second, the system does not align with the World Wide Web Consortium’s verifiable credentials standards. These standards are meant to give users full control to selectively disclose personal attributes, such as proof of age, revealing only the minimum personal information needed to access a service.
As a result, the system increases the likelihood of over-disclosure of personal information.
Third, global standards emphasise preventing what’s known as “linkability”. This means users’ interactions with different services remain distinct, and their data isn’t aggregated across multiple platforms.
But the token-based system behind Australia’s digital ID system creates the risk that different service providers could track users across services and potentially profile their behaviours. By comparison, the EU’s system has explicit safeguards to prevent this kind of tracking – unless explicitly authorised by the user.
Finally, Australia’s framework lacks the stringent rules found in the EU which require explicit consent for collecting and processing biometric data, including facial recognition and fingerprint data.

Can the “voluntary, secure, easy” digital ID rollout really be that bad?

Well, when paired with the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill that passed the Australian Parliament’s lower house on 7 November with little fanfare, it could make for the early steps towards a Chinese-style social credit system, in which what you say is monitored and, if deemed problematic by the authorities, your ability to access services around the country can be limited by restricting your use of the myGov app and TEx.

One pundit on Sky News Australia, Gemma Tognini from GT Communications, referred to the Parliamentary vote on the Bill, done quietly during the US election, as “letting the fox into the henhouse in the dead of night.”

“The premise of a government deciding what is misinformation and disinformation in this context is absolutely terrifying.”

“They secretly censored us during Covid,” says the anchor, “and yet now they want more power over information and misinformation,” as he throws to a fellow host, Caroline di Russo, who then states that the Australian people have figured out that the government are “all fur coat no knickers, so can we please have an election.”

They certainly have a way with words down there.

Australian Associated Press Self-Owns In A Fact Check

Speaking of words and misinformation in Australia, we reported in a previous Weird on Canada’s Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63, which codifies into law prison sentences ranging from “no more than five years” to “imprisonment for life” for certain types of speech.

I was therefore surprised to see a ‘fact check’ called “No, Canadians won’t face life in prison for being offensive online” circulating on social media. I read the Canadian bill (you can too, here) before I wrote about it, and the text is pretty unequivocal (emphasis mine):

318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
[…]
320.‍1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

The “fact check”, published online by Australian Associated Press (AAP), dismisses the claims on social media that C-63 includes provisions for life sentences, saying that these are “based on a misreading of Bill C-63.”

The so-called fact checker concedes that “Life imprisonment is mentioned in the bill, as part of amendments to the Criminal Code, under “Advocating genocide” and “Offence motivated by hatred” – based on “race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression”.”

Then, the article quotes a legal expert who says that yes, life imprisonment is a penalty in the bill (emphasis mine):

Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor in Canada, told AAP FactCheck that in both cases – advocating genocide and committing a hate crime – life imprisonment was the maximum sentence available.
“No one would imagine a judge imposing such a severe penalty on a hate-motivated crime such as vandalising a synagogue by spray-painting a swastika on the wall,” Prof Moon said.
“And if by chance a judge did impose such a sentence, it would be overturned on appeal.”
However, Prof Moon said “hate crime” as defined in the bill did not include hateful words used online against someone else…

Do you see the sleight of hand employed there? The claims on social media they are “debunking” were that someone in Canada could get life in prison for what they say online. The legal expert consulted by AAP said that you can get life in prison for what you say, but it would be unlikely for a judge to hand down that sentence or for a court to uphold it on appeal. The fact-checker swapped could for definitely would and landed on false.

Elsewhere in the article, the writer asserts that “there’s also an important exclusion that clarifies an offence isn’t motivated by hatred just because someone “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends the victim”.”

But none of that changes the wording of the law as written, which does provide for life sentences for speech, and since the name of the bill is the Online Harms Act, it’s reasonable to infer that it aims to punish speech online.

The “Verdict” at the end of the article declares:

The claim that Canadians could soon be jailed for life if they offend someone on the internet is false.
The proposed piece of legislation makes clear that simply offending someone online cannot be punished with a life sentence.
[…]
False — The claim is inaccurate

Check the “fact check” itself, and the text of C-63, and tell me if I’m crazy for thinking this is bogus.

The kicker is that Australia is right now pushing through a Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, and the AAP is declaring as “False” something that I read with my own eyes. If the government can do that at scale, what are the chances it will be a good thing?

Share 1984 Today!

North Korean Fap Attack

The BBC reported this week that the first clashes have taken place between Ukraine’s defense forces and around 11,000 North Korean soldiers who have been deployed to fight under Russian command as part of Putin’s ongoing invasion and war.

In its eagerness to support Putin’s imperial ambitions, Kim Jong-Un’s regime seems to have overlooked that, once in eastern Europe, their soldiers won’t be as easily subjected to the restrictions they face at home. In particular, one type of restriction, according to Gideon Rachman, a columnist for the Financial Times:

“Gorging on pornography” certainly conjures up an image.

At least one reply on Rachman’s X thread appears to be from someone who vouches for the source.

Other journalists weighed in with exactly the right response to news of this kind.

“US Department of Defense spokesperson Major Charlie Dietz said he was unable to verify ‘any North Korean internet habits or virtual extracurriculars,’” according to the Daily Mail.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have released a dramatic reconstruction of their first encounter with the North Korean army:

The Guardian Axes X

The Guardian, the birdcage-liner and fish-and-chips wrap of choice for the discerning bien pensant, has announced that, after Trump’s election win, it will no longer post on X.

In an editorial titled Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X, the pearl-clutching rag huffed sniffily, with a total lack of self-awareness:

We wanted to let readers know that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X (formerly Twitter). We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.
This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.

Another allegedly “toxic media platform” whose owner Mark Zuckerberg “has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse” is Facebook.

The following is the lede from an article about a class action lawsuit brought in 2021 against Facebook by the Rohingya people of Myanmar:

Facebook’s negligence facilitated the genocide of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar after the social media network’s algorithms amplified hate speech and the platform failed to take down inflammatory posts, according to legal action launched in the US and the UK.

A few paragraphs down, a bit more on the substance of the complaint:

A letter submitted by lawyers to Facebook’s UK office on Monday says clients and their family members have been subjected to acts of “serious violence, murder and/or other grave human rights abuses” as part of a campaign of genocide conducted by the ruling regime and civilian extremists in Myanmar.

How would lawyers know if Facebook was allegedly instrumental in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar? Well, because Facebook said so.

Facebook admitted in 2018 that it had not done enough to prevent the incitement of violence and hate speech against the Rohingya, the Muslim minority in Myanmar. An independent report commissioned by the company found that “Facebook has become a means for those seeking to spread hate and cause harm, and posts have been linked to offline violence”.
The [plaintiff’s law firm’s] letter says: “Despite Facebook’s recognition of its culpability and its pronouncements about its role in the world, there has not been a single penny of compensation, nor any other form of reparations or support, offered to any survivor.”

The article that the above excerpts are taken from was published in 2021 by a media outlet called the Guardian, who you may recall being mentioned earlier in this segment because this week they took a principled stance on which social media outlets they will associate themselves with.

In the 2021 article, the Guardian gives the eye-watering figures associated with the Myanmar junta’s decades-long extermination campaign against the Rohingya: “The number of Rohingya killed in 2017, during the Myanmar military’s “clearance operations”, is likely to be more than 10,000…About 1 million Rohingyas live in Cox’s Bazar refugee camp, in south-eastern Bangladesh…”

Here’s the link to the Guardian’s current Facebook page, a social media platform they themselves reported on as being instrumental in the murderous ravaging of thousands of people, and the displacement of close to a million more.

Since the very same organisation is so concerned about “the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform [X], including far-right conspiracy theories and racism,” perhaps they should read their own reporting on Facebook in Myanmar, where posts like the following were cited in the class action lawsuit:

“We must fight them the way Hitler did the Jews, damn Kalars [a derogatory term for Rohingya people].”
[…]
Another post in 2018, showing a photograph of a boatload of Rohingya refugees, says: “Pour fuel and set fire so that they can meet Allah faster.”

Is this really about truth, justice, and protecting their brand from being associated with racists and extremists? Or could it possibly be that the Guardian is throwing its toys out of the pram after watching the candidate they hate win handily in the recent US election?

Elon’s role in Trump’s campaign has been called out as a typical money-in-politics move where a billionaire steps in to put his fingers on the scale, against the interests of voters and the country. It’s worth mentioning that Kamala Harris raised multiples of what Trump pulled in, roughly $1 billion versus just under $400 million. Kamala’s donors were also wealthy individuals with their own interests, and her campaign ended the race around $20 million in debt. The Harris campaign’s spending reads like Brewster’s Millions, except instead of spunking $30 million in thirty days, they burnt through $1 billion in 90 days.

The Guardian is no fan of wealth inequality either, so how they square their stance on that with Harris’s profligacy is beyond your humble correspondent. Would it be too cynical to see this as yet more hypocritical posturing, or, to be proverbial, the stone-throwing of a glass-house dweller?