Criminalizing Reproduction: President's poisonous rhetoric insults science and truth. (So what else is new? HL): Guardian story by reporter Julie Carrie Wong effectively makes this point. "Anti-choice individuals and groups have been emboldened by the rhetoric of President Trump, Vice President Pence and other elected officials and we are seeing this play out in more instances of activities meant to intimidate abortion providers and disrupt patient services,” said Katherine Ragsdale, interim president and CEO of NAF, in a statement. Trump and other politicians advocating for the restriction of access to abortion have frequently engaged in false and inflammatory rhetoric about the practice, using emotive and inaccurate language such as “infanticide” or “late-term abortion”. makes this point: "

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:


I have taken on the  theme of 'criminalizing reproduction' - a natural theme for a Blog concerned with  flawed science in its myriad forms  and its flawed devotees (like Charles Smith), as I am utterly opposed to the current movement in the United States and some other countries - thankfully not Canada any more - towards imprisoning women and their physicians on the basis of sham science (or any other basis). Control over their reproductive lives is far too important to women in America or anywhere else so they can  participate  equally in the economic and social life of their nations without fear for  loss their freedom at the hands of political opportunists and fanatics. I will continue to follow relevant cases such as  Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai - and the mounting wave of  legislative attacks aimed at chipping away at  Roe V. Wade and ultimately dismantling it.


Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.


-----------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The new abortion bans in Alabama and Missouri are expected to be blocked by lower courts, just as the Mississippi law was. They are designed to be appealed to the US supreme court, which anti-abortion activists hope will reverse the precedent of Roe v Wade. In his order granting a preliminary injunction against the Mississippi law, Judge Carlton Reeves appeared to express a certain amount of irritation with the tactic, writing: “Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability … The parties have been here before.” Reeves had previously ruled against a 15-week ban on abortion, he wrote, and the passage of “an even more restrictive bill” did not move him to reconsider. “This Court previously found the 15-week ban to be an unconstitutional violation of substantive due process because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that women have the right to choose an abortion prior to viability, and a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp,” he wrote, using the initialism to denote weeks after a woman’s “last menstrual period”. “If a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp, it is not viable at 6 weeks lmp.”

STORY: "Abortion clinics report 'alarming' rise in picketing, vandalism and trespassing," by reporter Julie Carrie Wong, published by The Guardian on May 25, 2019. (Julia Carrie Wong is a technology reporter for Guardian US, based in San Francisco.)

GIST: "US abortion providers reported an “alarming escalation” in incidents of disruption and intimidation in 2018, according to new findings report by their professional association, the National Abortion Federation (NAF). Trespassing reached the highest level since the NAF began recording such incidents in 1999, while incidents of obstruction of facilities grew 78% from 2017 to 2018. Providers also reported record levels of picketing (99,409 incidents) since recording began in 1977, and the highest number of incidents of vandalism (125) since 1990. The group also recorded decreases in incidents of stalking, burglary, and assault and battery. The report comes amid continuing fallout from the recent spate of anti-abortion legislation in statehouses across the country. On Friday, a federal judge in Mississippi blocked that state’s recently enacted ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy; civil liberties and reproductive rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s extreme new abortion ban; and Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, signed a ban on abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy. “Anti-choice individuals and groups have been emboldened by the rhetoric of President Trump, Vice President Pence and other elected officials and we are seeing this play out in more instances of activities meant to intimidate abortion providers and disrupt patient services,” said Katherine Ragsdale, interim president and CEO of NAF, in a statement. Trump and other politicians advocating for the restriction of access to abortion have frequently engaged in false and inflammatory rhetoric about the practice, using emotive and inaccurate language such as “infanticide” or “late-term abortion”. In recent weeks, several state legislatures have enacted so-called “heartbeat” bills . These laws criminalize abortion after six weeks, when what anti-abortion activists call a “fetal heartbeat” is detected. At six weeks, a pregnancy involves an embryo, not a fetus, and while some tissue does throb, the embryo has not yet developed an actual heart. “Demonizing health care providers and women who rely on them for abortion care has become one of the go-to tactics for anti-choice politicians,” added Ragsdale. “Those lies have consequences and it is not the anti-choice politicians who are facing those consequences; it is those who are denied abortion care and the providers targeted by threats, harassment, and violence who are.” NAF began tracking violence and disruption against abortion providers in 1977, though the categories it tracks have changed over the years. The new abortion bans in Alabama and Missouri are expected to be blocked by lower courts, just as the Mississippi law was. They are designed to be appealed to the US supreme court, which anti-abortion activists hope will reverse the precedent of Roe v Wade. In his order granting a preliminary injunction against the Mississippi law, Judge Carlton Reeves appeared to express a certain amount of irritation with the tactic, writing: “Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability … The parties have been here before.” Reeves had previously ruled against a 15-week ban on abortion, he wrote, and the passage of “an even more restrictive bill” did not move him to reconsider. “This Court previously found the 15-week ban to be an unconstitutional violation of substantive due process because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that women have the right to choose an abortion prior to viability, and a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp,” he wrote, using the initialism to denote weeks after a woman’s “last menstrual period”. “If a fetus is not viable at 15 weeks lmp, it is not viable at 6 weeks lmp.”

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/24/abortion-providers-disruption-intimidation-report?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0xOTA1MjU%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&CMP=GTUS_email

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Criminalizing Reproduction: (Attacks on Science, Medicine and the Right To Choose.) Major Development: Mississippi: "Federal judge blocks Mississippi abortion ban," NBC News reports. (Reporters Charlie Gile and Dartunorro Clark.) "A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi's fetal heartbeat anti-abortion law from going into effect, saying it infringes on women's health care rights.''

----------------------------------------------------------

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:


I have taken on the  them of criminalizing reproduction - a natural theme for a Blog concerned with  flawed science in its myriad forms  and its flawed devotees (like Charles Smith), as I am utterly opposed to the current movement in the United States and some other countries - thankfully not Canada any more - towards imprisoning women and their physicians on the basis of sham science (or any other basis). Control over their reproductive lives is far too important to women in America or anywhere else so they can  participate  equally in the economic and social life of their nations without fear for  loss their freedom at the hands of political opportunists and fanatics. I will continue to follow relevant cases such as  Purvi Patel and Bei Bei Shuai - and the mounting wave of  legislative attacks aimed at chipping away at  Roe V. Wade and ultimately dismantling it.


Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.


-----------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in his order. "By banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, SB 226 prevents a woman’s free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy,” he continued."

--------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Though the law does provide an exception if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, it does not provide an exception in cases of rape or incest. The Republican governors of Kentucky, Ohio and Georgia have signed similar bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. On Friday, Missouri's Republican Gov. Mike L. Parson signed legislation banning abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy with an exception for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest. Also on Friday, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit over Alabama's near-total abortion ban that makes performing an abortion a felony with little to no exceptions. The law, signed by GOP Gov. Kay Ivey on May 15, is the most restrictive in the nation."

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Federal judge blocks Mississippi abortion ban," by reporters Charlie Gile and Dartunorro Clarke) , published by NBC News on May 24, 2019.

SUB-HEADING: "Under the Mississippi law, doctors could have their medical licenses revoked if they perform the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected."

GIST: "A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction blocking Mississippi's fetal heartbeat anti-abortion law from going into effect, saying it infringes on women's health care rights.

“Here we go again. Mississippi has passed another law banning abortions prior to viability,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in his order. "By banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, SB 226 prevents a woman’s free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy,” he continued. The Mississippi ban prohibited abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, or around six weeks, which is before many women might know they are pregnant. Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill into law in March. The lawsuit was filed by the Jackson Women's Health Organization against Thomas Dobbs, the state health officer of Mississippi. Reeves ruled last year that Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban was unconstitutional, The Associated Press reported. Mississippi is appealing that ruling, and is likely to appeal this one, as well. The judge's ruling comes as dozens of conservative states across the country have passed or proposed bills that would place strict limitations on abortion. Anti-abortion advocates have said that they hope the bills, which have prompted swift legal challenges, will ultimately lead to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. Under the Mississippi law, doctors could have their medical licenses revoked if they perform the procedure after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Though the law does provide an exception if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, it does not provide an exception in cases of rape or incest. The Republican governors of Kentucky, Ohio and Georgia have signed similar bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. On Friday, Missouri's Republican Gov. Mike L. Parson signed legislation banning abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy with an exception for medical emergencies, but not for rape or incest. Also on Friday, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit over Alabama's near-total abortion ban that makes performing an abortion a felony with little to no exceptions. The law, signed by GOP Gov. Kay Ivey on May 15, is the most restrictive in the nation. “The Alabama Legislature has been pushing abortion care further and further out of reach for years with medically unnecessary and politically-motivated restrictions, and this extreme abortion ban shows us just how far they’ll go to push their anti-abortion agenda,” Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project attorney, said in a press release."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/federal-judge-blocks-mississippi-anti-abortion-law-n1010196

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Technology Series: (Part Eleven): Extremely important article from writer Lily Hay Newman in Wired: "Facial Recognition Has Already Reached Its Breaking Point." (After this avalanche of unchecked technology is there still time to put this dangerous genie back in the bottle? HL)..."As facial recognition technologies have evolved from fledgling projects into powerful software platforms, researchers and civil liberties advocates have been issuing warnings about the potential for privacy erosions. Those mounting fears came to a head Wednesday in Congress. Alarms over facial recognition had already gained urgency in recent years, as studies have shown that the systems still produce relatively high rates of false positives, and consistently contain racial and gender biases. Yet the technology has proliferated unchecked in the US, spreading among law enforcement agencies at every level of government, as well as among private employers and schools. At a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the lack of regulation garnered bipartisan concern. "Fifty million cameras [used for surveillance in the US]. A violation of people's First Amendment, Fourth Amendment liberties, due process liberties. All kinds of mistakes. Those mistakes disproportionately affect African Americans," marveled Representative Jim Jordan, the Republican of Ohio. "No elected officials gave the OK for the states or for the federal government, the FBI, to use this. There should probably be some kind of restrictions. It seems to me it's time for a time-out."

QUOTE ONE OF THE DAY: "We and others in the field have predicted for a long time that there would be misidentifications. We predicted there would be abuse. We predicted there would be state surveillance, not just after-the-fact forensic face identification," says Alvaro Bedoya, the founding director of Georgetown Law's Center for Privacy and Technology. "And all those things are coming true. Anyone who says this technology is nascent has not done their homework."

----------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE ONE  OF THE DAY: "A report last week from Georgetown Law researchers, for example, showed that both Chicago and Detroit have purchased real-time facial recognition monitoring systems—though each city says that it has not used the platforms. An additional Georgetown report offered evidence of facial recognition misuse and manipulation by the New York Police Department. Officers reportedly fed sketches into facial recognition systems, or photos of celebrities they thought resembled a suspect—Woody Harrelson, in one example—and tried to identify people off of those unrelated images."

-----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Facial Recognition Has Already Reached Its Breaking Point," by Lily Hay Newman, published by Wired on May 22, 2019. (Lily Hay Newman is a staff writer at WIRED focused on information security, digital privacy, and hacking. She previously worked as a technology reporter at Slate magazine and was the staff writer for Future Tense, a publication and project of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University.)

GIST: "As facial recognition technologies have evolved from fledgling projects into powerful software platforms, researchers and civil liberties advocates have been issuing warnings about the potential for privacy erosions. Those mounting fears came to a head Wednesday in Congress. Alarms over facial recognition had already gained urgency in recent years, as studies have shown that the systems still produce relatively high rates of false positives, and consistently contain racial and gender biases. Yet the technology has proliferated unchecked in the US, spreading among law enforcement agencies at every level of government, as well as among private employers and schools. At a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the lack of regulation garnered bipartisan concern. "Fifty million cameras [used for surveillance in the US]. A violation of people's First Amendment, Fourth Amendment liberties, due process liberties. All kinds of mistakes. Those mistakes disproportionately affect African Americans," marveled Representative Jim Jordan, the Republican of Ohio. "No elected officials gave the OK for the states or for the federal government, the FBI, to use this. There should probably be some kind of restrictions. It seems to me it's time for a time-out." The hearing's panel of experts—an assortment of legal scholars, privacy advocates, algorithmic bias researchers, and a career law enforcement officer—largely echoed that assessment. Most directly called for a moratorium on government use of facial recognition systems until Congress can pass legislation that adequately restricts and regulates the technology and establishes transparency standards. Such a radical suggestion might have seemed absurd on the floor of Congress even a year ago. But one such ban has already passed in San Francisco, and cities like Somerville, Massachusetts, as well as Oakland, California, seem poised to follow suit. "The Fourth Amendment will not save us from the privacy threat posed by facial recognition," said Andrew Ferguson, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, in his testimony. "Only legislation can respond to the real-time threats of real-time technology. Legislation must future-proof privacy protections with an eye toward the growing scope, scale, and sophistication of these systems of surveillance." A series of recent incidents and revelations have shown just how widely the technology has been adopted, and how problematic its shortcomings could become without oversight and increased transparency into who uses the technology and how those systems work. A report last week from Georgetown Law researchers, for example, showed that both Chicago and Detroit have purchased real-time facial recognition monitoring systems—though each city says that it has not used the platforms. An additional Georgetown report offered evidence of facial recognition misuse and manipulation by the New York Police Department. Officers reportedly fed sketches into facial recognition systems, or photos of celebrities they thought resembled a suspect—Woody Harrelson, in one example—and tried to identify people off of those unrelated images.

"Anyone who says this technology is nascent has not done their homework."

Separately, in April a facial recognition system incorrectly flagged Brown University student Amara Majeed as suspect in Sri Lanka's Easter church bombings. And on Wednesday, the Colorado Springs Independent reported that between February 2012 and September 2013, researchers at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs took photos of students and other passersby without their consent, for a facial recognition training database as part of a government-funded project. Similarly, NBC News reported at the beginning of May that the photo storage and sharing app Ever quietly started using photos from millions of its users to train a facial recognition system without their active consent. "We and others in the field have predicted for a long time that there would be misidentifications. We predicted there would be abuse. We predicted there would be state surveillance, not just after-the-fact forensic face identification," says Alvaro Bedoya, the founding director of Georgetown Law's Center for Privacy and Technology. "And all those things are coming true. Anyone who says this technology is nascent has not done their homework." At Wednesday's House hearing, witnesses similarly emphasized that facial recognition technology isn't just a static database, but is increasingly used in sweeping, real-time, nonspecific dragnets—a use of the technology sometimes called "face surveillance." And given the major shortcomings of facial recognition, especially in accurately identifying people of color, women, and gender nonconforming people, the witnesses argued that the technology should not currently be eligible for use by law enforcement. Joy Buolamwini, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher and founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, says she calls the data sets used to train most facial recognition systems "pale male" sets, because the majority of the photos used are of white men. "Just this week a man sued Uber after having his driver's account deactivated due to [alleged] facial recognition failures," Buolamwini told the Committee on Oversight and Reform on Wednesday. "Tenants in Brooklyn are protesting the installation of an unnecessary face-recognition entry system. New research is showing bias in the use of facial analysis technology for health care purposes, and facial recognition is being sold to schools. Our faces may well be the final frontier of privacy." Representatives across the political spectrum said on Wednesday that the committee is ready to develop bipartisan legislation limiting and establishing oversight for facial recognition's use by law enforcement and other US entities. But tangible results at the federal level have been scarce for years. And advocacy in the private sphere has faced major hurdles as well. On Wednesday, for example, Amazon shareholders rejected two proposals related to reining in use of the company's controversial Rekognition facial identification software to allow for research into privacy and civil rights safeguards. Still, with facial recognition's ubiquity becoming increasingly apparent, privacy advocates see 2019 as a potential turning point. "I think it’s too late to stop the proliferation of facial recognition tech. Both government and corporate actors are using it in new ways every day," says Tiffany Li, a privacy attorney at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. "Hopefully we reach a critical point where we start really working on those problems in earnest. Perhaps that moment is now.""

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.wired.com/story/facial-recognition-regulation/?CNDID=23031411&CNDID=23031411&bxid=MjM5Njc3NTA5MDA2S0&hasha=b06ce11218fae36a81180c431cf6e0da&hashb=7240b17716e82766688aeefaa0ef8683fcd869fb&mbid=nl_052319_daily_list1_p4&source=DAILY_NEWSLETTER&utm_brand=wired&utm_mailing=WIRED%20NL%20052319%20(1)&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Technical Series (Part Ten): Bulletin: "Amazon heads off facial recognition rebellion," the BBC reports. (Technology Desk Editor Lou Kelion)..."Shareholders seeking to halt Amazon's sale of its facial recognition technology to US police forces have been defeated in two votes that sought to pressure the company into a rethink. Civil rights campaigners had said it was "perhaps the most dangerous surveillance technology ever developed". But investors rejected the proposals at the company's annual general meeting."

PASSAGE ONE  OF THE DAY: " Amazon recommends that law enforcement agents should only use the facility if there is a 99% or higher confidence rating of a match and says they should be transparent about its usage. But one force that has used the tech - Washington County Sheriff's Office in Hillsboro, Oregon, - told the Washington Post that it had done so without enforcing a minimum confidence threshold, and had run black-and-white police sketches through the system in addition to photos. A second force in Orlando, Florida has also tested the system. But Amazon has not disclosed how many other public authorities have done so. Biased algorithms? Part of Rekognition's appeal is that it is cheaper to use than several rival facial recognition technologies. But a study published in January by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Toronto suggested Amazon's algorithms suffered greater gender and racial bias than four competing products. It said that Rekognition had a 0% error rate at classifying lighter-skinned males as such within a test, but a 31.4% error rate at categorising darker-skinned females. Amazon has disputed the findings saying that the researchers had used "an outdated version" of its tool and that its own checks had found "no difference" in gender-classification across ethnicities.Even so, opposition to Rekognition has also been voiced by civil liberties groups and hundreds of Amazon's own workers."

PASSAGE TWO  OF THE DAY:

STORY: "Amazon heads off facial recognition rebellion," by BBC Technology Desk Editor Lou Kelion, published on May  22, 2019.

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Rekognition can match photos to databases holding millions of people's faces."

PHOTO CAPTION: " Rekognition gives a confidence score as to whether a person's face is a match." 

PHOTO CAPTION: "Amazon has promoted its tech as a tool to fight crime." 

PHOTO CAPTION: "Image caption Rekognition can give a confidence score for several different features."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Rekognition can be used to flag "suggestive content." 

PHOTO CAPTION: "Amazon said that it ran tests against images of men and women from six ethnicities to check for signs of bias."

GIST: "Shareholders seeking to halt Amazon's sale of its facial recognition technology to US police forces have been defeated in two votes that sought to pressure the company into a rethink.

Civil rights campaigners had said it was "perhaps the most dangerous surveillance technology ever developed". But investors rejected the proposals at the company's annual general meeting. That meant less than 50% voted for either of the measures. A breakdown of the results has yet to be disclosed. The first vote had proposed that the company should stop offering its Rekognition system to government agencies. The second had called on it to commission an independent study into whether the tech threatened people's civil rights. The ballot in Seattle would have been non-binding, meaning executives would not have had to take specific action had either been passed. Amazon had tried to block the votes but was told by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it did not have the right to do so.  "We will see what the tally is, but one of our primary objectives was to bring this before shareholders and the board, and we succeeded in doing that," Mary Beth Gallagher from the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment told the BBC. "This is just the beginning of this movement for us and this campaign will continue. We have built links to civil rights groups, employees and other stakeholders. "And the most important thing is that regardless of the result, we still want the board to halt sales of Rekognition to governments, and it has the capacity to do that." The American Civil Liberties Union added that the very fact there had been a vote was "an embarrassment to Amazon" and should serve as a "wake-up call for the company to reckon with the real harms of face surveillance". Amazon has yet to comment. But ahead of the votes it said it had not received a single report of the system being used in a harmful manner."[Rekognition is] a powerful tool... for law enforcement and government agencies to catch criminals, prevent crime, and find missing people," its AGM notes state. "New technology should not be banned or condemned because of its potential misuse." Rekognition is an online tool that works with both video and still images and allows users to match faces to pre-scanned subjects in a database containing up to 20 million people provided by the client. In doing so, it gives a confidence score as to whether the ID is accurate. In addition, it can be used to:

• detect "unsafe content" such as whether there is nudity or "revealing clothes" on display
• suggest whether a subject is male or female
• deduce a person's mood
• spot text in images and transcribe it for analysis

Amazon recommends that law enforcement agents should only use the facility if there is a 99% or higher confidence rating of a match and says they should be transparent about its usage. But one force that has used the tech - Washington County Sheriff's Office in Hillsboro, Oregon, - told the Washington Post that it had done so without enforcing a minimum confidence threshold, and had run black-and-white police sketches through the system in addition to photos.A second force in Orlando, Florida has also tested the system. But Amazon has not disclosed how many other public authorities have done so. Biased algorithms?: Part of Rekognition's appeal is that it is cheaper to use than several rival facial recognition technologies. But a study published in January by researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Toronto suggested Amazon's algorithms suffered greater gender and racial bias than four competing products. It said that Rekognition had a 0% error rate at classifying lighter-skinned males as such within a test, but a 31.4% error rate at categorising darker-skinned females. Amazon has disputed the findings saying that the researchers had used "an outdated version" of its tool and that its own checks had found "no difference" in gender-classification across ethnicities.  Even so, opposition to Rekognition has also been voiced by civil liberties groups and hundreds of Amazon's own workers. Ms Gallagher said that shareholders were concerned that continued sales of Rekognition to the police risked damaging Amazon's status as "one of the most trusted institutions in the United States". "We don't want it used by law enforcement because of the impact that will have on society - it might limit people's willingness to go in public spaces where they think they might be tracked," she said. But one of the directors from Amazon Web Services - the division responsible - had told the BBC that it should be up to politicians to decide if restrictions should be put in place. "The right organisations to handle the issue are policymakers in government," Ian Massingham explained. "The one thing I would say about deep learning technology generally is that much of the technology is based on publicly available academic research, so you can't really put the genie back in the bottle. "Once the research is published, it's kind of hard to 'uninvent' something. "So, our focus is on making sure the right governance and legislative controls are in place.""

The entire story can be found at:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48339142

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Technology Series (Part Nine): Global News reports that "Canada lacks laws to tackle problems posed by artificial intelligence: Expert." (Associated Press reporter Chris Reynolds)...“We need the government, we need the regulation in Canada,” said Mahdi Amri, who heads AI services at Deloitte Canada. The absence of an AI-specific legal framework undermines trust in the technology and, potentially, accountability among its providers, according to a report he co-authored. “Basically there’s this idea that the machines will make all the decisions and the humans will have nothing to say, and we’ll be ruled by some obscure black box somewhere,” Amri said. Robot overlords remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, but AI is increasingly involved in decisions that have serious consequences for individuals."sTechnology Series: (Part Nine):

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In recent years, I have found myself publishing more and more posts on the  application of artificial intelligence technology to policing, public safety, and the criminal justice process,  not just in North America, but in countries all over the world, including China. Although I accept that properly applied science  can play a positive role in our society, I have learned over the years that technologies introduced for the so-called public good, can eventually be used against the people they were supposed to  benefit. As reporter Sieeka Khan  writes in Science Times:  "In 2017, researchers sent a letter to the secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security. The researchers expressed their concerns about a proposal to use the AI to determine whether someone who is seeking refuge in the US would become a positive and contributing member of society or if they are likely to become a threat or a terrorist. The other government uses of AI are also being questioned, such as the attempts at setting bail amounts and sentences on criminals, predictive policing and hiring government workers. All of these attempts have been shown to be prone to technical issues and a limit on the data can cause bias on their decisions as they will base it on gender, race or cultural background. Other AI technologies like automated surveillance, facial recognition and mass data collection are raising concerns about privacy, security, accuracy and fairness in a democratic society. As the executive order of Trump demonstrates, there is a massive interest in harnessing AI for its full, positive potential. But the dangers of misuse, bias and abuse, whether it is intentional or not, have the chance to work against the principles of international democracies. As the use of artificial intelligence grows, the potential for misuse, bias and abuse grows as well. The purpose of this 'technology' series, is to highlight the dangers of artificial intelligence -  and to help readers make their own assessments as to  whether these innovations will do more harm than good.

----------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Robot overlords remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, but AI is increasingly involved in decisions that have serious consequences for individuals. Since 2015, police departments in Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon and London, Ont. have implemented or piloted predictive policing _ automated decision-making based on data that predicts where a crime will occur or who will commit it. The federal immigration and refugee system relies on algorithmically-driven decisions to help determine factors such as whether a marriage is genuine or someone should be designated as a “risk”, according to a Citizen Lab study, which found the practice threatens to violate human rights law. AI testing and deployment in Canada’s military prompted Canadian AI pioneers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio to warn about the dangers of robotic weapons and outsourcing lethal decisions to machines, and to call for an international agreement on their deployment. “When you’re using any type of black box system, you don’t even know the standards that are embedded in the system or the types of data that may be used by the system that could be at risk of perpetuating bias,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at New York University’s AI Now Institute."

------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Canada lacks laws to tackle problems posed by artificial intelligence: Experts," by Associated press reporter Chris Reynolds,  published by Global News on May 19, 2019.

GIST: The role of artificial intelligence in Netflix’s movie suggestions and Alexa’s voice commands is commonly understood, but less known is the shadowy role AI now plays in law enforcement, immigration assessment, military programs and other areas. Despite its status as a machine-learning innovation hub, Canada has yet to develop a regulatory regime to deal with issues of discrimination and accountability to which AI systems are prone, prompting calls for regulation — including from business leaders.“We need the government, we need the regulation in Canada,” said Mahdi Amri, who heads AI services at Deloitte Canada. The absence of an AI-specific legal framework undermines trust in the technology and, potentially, accountability among its providers, according to a report he co-authored. “Basically there’s this idea that the machines will make all the decisions and the humans will have nothing to say, and we’ll be ruled by some obscure black box somewhere,” Amri said. Robot overlords remain firmly in the realm of science fiction, but AI is increasingly involved in decisions that have serious consequences for individuals. Since 2015, police departments in Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon and London, Ont. have implemented or piloted predictive policing _ automated decision-making based on data that predicts where a crime will occur or who will commit it. The federal immigration and refugee system relies on algorithmically-driven decisions to help determine factors such as whether a marriage is genuine or someone should be designated as a “risk”, according to a Citizen Lab study, which found the practice threatens to violate human rights law.AI testing and deployment in Canada’s military prompted Canadian AI pioneers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio to warn about the dangers of robotic weapons and outsourcing lethal decisions to machines, and to call for an international agreement on their deployment. “When you’re using any type of black box system, you don’t even know the standards that are embedded in the system or the types of data that may be used by the system that could be at risk of perpetuating bias,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at New York University’s AI Now Institute.She pointed to “horror cases,” including a predictive policing strategy in Chicago where the majority of people on a list of potential perpetrators were black men who had no arrests or shooting incidents to their name, “the same demographic that was targeted by over-policing and discriminatory police practices.”Richardson says it’s time to move from lofty guidelines to legal reform. A recent AI Now Institute report states federal governments should “oversee, audit, and monitor” the use of AI in fields like criminal justice, health care and education, as “internal governance structures at most technology companies are failing to ensure accountability for AI systems.”Oversight should be divided up among agencies or groups of experts instead of hoisting it all onto a single AI regulatory body, given the unique challenges and regulations specific to each industry, the report says. In health care, AI is poised to upend the way doctors practice medicine as machine-learning systems can now analyze vast sets of anonymized patient data and images to identify health problems ranging from osteoporosis to lesions and signs of blindness. Carolina Bessega, co-founder and chief scientific officer of Montreal-based Stradigi AI, says the regulatory void discourages businesses from using AI, holding back innovation and efficiency _ particularly in hospitals and clinics, where the implications can be life or death. “Right now it’s like a grey area, and everybody’s afraid making the decision of, ‘Okay, let’s use artificial intelligence to improve diagnosis, or let’s use artificial intelligence to help recommend a treatment for a patient,'” Bessega said.She is calling for “very strong” regulations around treatment and diagnosis and for a professional to bear responsibility for any final decisions, not a software program.Critics say Canada lags behind the U.S. and the EU on exploring AI regulation. None has implemented a comprehensive legal framework, but Congress and the EU Commission have produced extensive reports on the issue. “Critically, there is no legal framework in Canada to guide the use of these technologies or their intersection with foundational rights related to due process, administrative fairness, human rights, and justice system transparency,” states a March briefing by Citizen Lab, the Law Commission of Ontario and other bodies.Divergent international standards, trade secrecy and algorithms’ constant “fluidity” pose obstacles to smooth regulation, says Miriam Buiten, junior professor of law and economics at the University of Mannheim.Canada was among the first states to develop an official AI research plan, unveiling a $125-million strategy in 2017. But its focus was largely scientific and commercial. In December, Prime Minister Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron announced a joint task force to guide AI policy development with an eye to human rights. Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains told The Canadian Press in April a report was forthcoming “in the coming months.” Asked whether the government is open to legislation around AI transparency and accountability, he said: “I think we need to take a step back to determine what are the core guiding principles. “We’ll be coming forward with those principles to establish our ability to move forward with regards to programming, with regards to legislative changes — and it’s not only going to be simply my department, it’s a whole government approach.” The Treasury Board of Canada has already laid out a 119-word set of principles on responsible AI use that stress transparency and proper training. The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development highlighted the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, privacy legislation that applies broadly to commercial activities and allows a privacy commissioner to probe complaints. “While AI may present some novel elements, it and other disruptive technologies are subject to existing laws and regulations that cover competition, intellectual property, privacy and security,” a department spokesperson said in an email. As of April 1, 2020, government departments seeking to deploy an automated decision system must first conduct an “algorithmic impact assessment” and post the results online.:

The entire story can be read at:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5293400/canada-ai-laws/
 
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.

Arson 'Science': Cameron Todd Willingham: Stuart Miller review's Ed Zwick's 2018 film 'Trial by Fire' in the New York Daily News. (An important movie telling the tragic story of a glaringly innocent man who was executed by the State of Texas. HL)..."Ed Zwick’s new film recounts the notorious true story of how events spiraled after this Texas tragedy. Grievous errors by arson investigators led to Willingham getting charged with arson and murder. Then his defense lawyer’s apathy and incompetence coupled with the prosecutor’s misconduct — not to mention a class-driven society that is quick to blame an outsider — landed Willingham on death row. “He was from a certain section of society that is deprived of a voice,” says British actor Jack O'Connell, who portrays Willingham. “This is about class and poverty as a dividing line,” Zwick says. Just because Willingham was a hard-drinking, uneducated womanizer, does not mean he should be deprived of justice, Zwick says." The Stae; An important review. HL.Movie Review: Trial by Fire’ and its real life tragedy - New York Daily News

PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "Evidence of the mistakes and misconduct came to light while Willingham was on death row, but it was not enough to save him because Gov. Rick Perry was unwilling to accept the possibility that law enforcement was wrong. “There is quite overwhelming evidence that proves his innocence but he seems to have had no worth to them,” British actor Jack O'Connell, who plays Willingham, says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "In the years after Willingham's death, journalists and the New York-based Innocence Project continued pushing to reveal the truth. “The great tragedy is that the techniques used by the arson investigators highlighted in ‘Trial By Fire’ really had been discredited ten years before Todd was executed,” says Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck. “One of the great things they do in the movie is they really lay out visually and clearly what the investigators looked at and got wrong, like the scarring on the floor and ‘crazed’ glass.” “This was absolutely the worst,” adds John Lentini, who wrote the leading scientific book on arson and pioneered efforts to debunk the sort of mistakes made in cases like this one. When Zwick read a New Yorker article about Willingham's case in 2009, he “was in an inchoate rage and knew immediately I wanted to make a film.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY:  "Things have changed in the Lonestar state, Scheck says the Texas Forensic Science Commission is now one of the best in the country. “The Willingham case really brought these issues of junk forensic science to the forefront and in that context Todd did not die in vain,” Scheck says, although O'Connell adds that “it's just a shame it takes a catastrophe like that to effect change.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

MOVIE REVIEW: "'Trial by Fire’ and its real life tragedy," an Ed Zwick Film, reviewed by Stuart Miller in the New York Daily News on May 19, 2019.

FROM THE TRIAL BY FIRE WEB PAGE: "The tragic and controversial story of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for killing his three children after scientific evidence and expert testimony that bolstered his claims of innocence were suppressed."

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&q=%22trial+by+Fire%22

GIST: "As “Trial By Fire” opens, an inferno consumes the house of Cameron Todd Willingham. He races out, briefly tries to get back inside to save his children, then gives up hope. He is, at that moment, a doomed man. Inside were Willingham’s three toddlers, who all died in the blaze. Ed Zwick’s new film recounts the notorious true story of how events spiraled after this Texas tragedy. Grievous errors by arson investigators led to Willingham getting charged with arson and murder. Then his defense lawyer’s apathy and incompetence coupled with the prosecutor’s misconduct — not to mention a class-driven society that is quick to blame an outsider — landed Willingham on death row. “He was from a certain section of society that is deprived of a voice,” says British actor Jack O'Connell, who portrays Willingham. “This is about class and poverty as a dividing line,” Zwick says. Just because Willingham was a hard-drinking, uneducated womanizer, does not mean he should be deprived of justice, Zwick says. “One of the things that magnetized me to the story is that he was immediately pegged by everybody as the 'other,' because of his looks, lack of education and disreputable behavior.” Evidence of the mistakes and misconduct came to light while Willingham was on death row, but it was not enough to save him because Gov. Rick Perry was unwilling to accept the possibility that law enforcement was wrong. “There is quite overwhelming evidence that proves his innocence but he seems to have had no worth to them,” O'Connell says. In the years after Willingham's death, journalists and the New York-based Innocence Project continued pushing to reveal the truth. “The great tragedy is that the techniques used by the arson investigators highlighted in ‘Trial By Fire’ really had been discredited ten years before Todd was executed,” says Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck. “One of the great things they do in the movie is they really lay out visually and clearly what the investigators looked at and got wrong, like the scarring on the floor and ‘crazed’ glass.” “This was absolutely the worst,” adds John Lentini, who wrote the leading scientific book on arson and pioneered efforts to debunk the sort of mistakes made in cases like this one. When Zwick read a New Yorker article about Willingham's case in 2009, he “was in an inchoate rage and knew immediately I wanted to make a film.” But while most of his films, like “Glory,” “Blood Diamond” and “Defiance,” were profitable, getting financing took nearly a decade. Zwick aimed to focus the movie on the characters and their emotional journeys. “This is not an institutional lecture. I tend to tell stories of personal relationships in the context of bigger stories. It's that juxtapoisiton that interests me.” He first cast Laura Dern as the writer who takes up Willingham's cause in his final years of appeals, keeping his hopes and the case alive, at least temporarily. Then he added O'Connell for his “willingness to expose the darker colors.” O'Connell worked with dialect coach Tim Monich to get the right regional Texas accent. While Zwick briefly shows footage of Perry at the end to hold him accountable for as he says, “using the death penalty as a political tool.” Things have changed in the Lonestar state, Scheck says the Texas Forensic Science Commission is now one of the best in the country. “The Willingham case really brought these issues of junk forensic science to the forefront and in that context Todd did not die in vain,” Scheck says, although O'Connell adds that “it's just a shame it takes a catastrophe like that to effect change.” Not everyone is moving fast enough, including New York, says Adele Bernhard, an attorney who represented one of three men who were wrongfully convicted of arson and murder in a Park Slope fire that killed a mother and five children. William Vasquez and Amaury Villalobos spent 33 years behind bars for torching 695 Sackett St. in February 1980. The third man, Raymond Mora, died in prison in 1989. The woman who owned townhouse told police the trio set the fire because she had an ongoing drug beef with one of them. When Vasquez and Villalobos were paroled in 2012, Villalobos approached Bernhard, a law professor and director of the Post-Conviction Innocence Clinic to work on his case. The homeowner, Hannah Quick, admitted she lied about the men’s involvement. With Quick’s confession and the evidence of arson used by a fire marshal at the time of their 1981 conviction long since scientifically reputed, the men were exonerated in 2015. They were later awarded $31 million."

The entire review can be read at:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-trial-by-fire-movie-20190519-7d4etsudabetleddebudnzggte-story.html

 

 

 PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog."

Technology series: (Part Eight): Algorithms: Ethical considerations over use of artificial intelligence are also being raised in the UK - including concern over a computer tool used by police to predict which people are likely to reoffend.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In recent years, I have found myself publishing more and more posts on the  application of artificial intelligence technology to policing, public safety, and the criminal justice process,  not just in North America, but in countries all over the world, including China. Although I accept that properly applied science  can play a positive role in our society, I have learned over the years that technologies introduced for the so-called public good, can eventually be used against the people they were supposed to  benefit. As reporter Sieeka Khan  writes in Science Times:  "In 2017, researchers sent a letter to the secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security. The researchers expressed their concerns about a proposal to use the AI to determine whether someone who is seeking refuge in the US would become a positive and contributing member of society or if they are likely to become a threat or a terrorist. The other government uses of AI are also being questioned, such as the attempts at setting bail amounts and sentences on criminals, predictive policing and hiring government workers. All of these attempts have been shown to be prone to technical issues and a limit on the data can cause bias on their decisions as they will base it on gender, race or cultural background. Other AI technologies like automated surveillance, facial recognition and mass data collection are raising concerns about privacy, security, accuracy and fairness in a democratic society. As the executive order of Trump demonstrates, there is a massive interest in harnessing AI for its full, positive potential. But the dangers of misuse, bias and abuse, whether it is intentional or not, have the chance to work against the principles of international democracies. As the use of artificial intelligence grows, the potential for misuse, bias and abuse grows as well. The purpose of this 'technology' series, is to highlight the dangers of artificial intelligence -  and to help readers make their own assessments as to  whether these innovations will do more harm than good."

Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.

----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Ethics committee raises alarm over 'predictive policing' tool," by reporter Sarah Marsh, published by The Guardian on April 20, 2019.

SUB-HEADING:  "Algorithm that predicts who will reoffend may give rise to ethical concerns such as bias."

GIST: "A computer tool used by police to predict which people are likely to reoffend has come under scrutiny from one force’s ethics committee, who said there were a lot of “unanswered questions” and concerns about potential bias. Amid mounting financial pressure, at least a dozen police forces are using or considering predictive analytics, despite warnings from campaigners that use of algorithms and “predictive policing” models risks locking discrimination into the criminal justice system.
West Midlands police are at the forefront, leading on a £4.5m project funded by the Home Office called National Data Analytics Solution (NDAS). The long-term aim of the project is to analyse data from force databases, social services, the NHS and schools to calculate where officers can be most effectively used. An initial trial combined data on crimes, custody, gangs and criminal records to identify 200 offenders “who were getting others into a life on the wrong side of the law”.
A report by West Midlands police’s ethics committee, however, raised concerns about the project. They said there were a lot of “unanswered questions giving rise to the potential for ethical concerns”.
The committee noted that no privacy impact assessments had been made available, and there was almost no analysis of how it impacted rights. The new tool will use data such as that linked to stop and search, and the ethics committee noted this would also include information on people who were stopped with nothing found, which could entail “elements of police bias”.  Hannah Couchman, the advocacy and policy officer at the human rights organisation Liberty, said: “The proposed program would rely on data loaded with bias and demonstrates exactly why we are deeply concerned about predictive policing entrenching historic discrimination into ongoing policing strategies. “It is welcome that the ethics committee has raised concerns about these issues, but not all forces have similar oversight and the key question here should be whether these biased programs have any place in policing at all. It is hard to see how these proposals could be reformed to address these fundamental issues.” Tom McNeil, the strategic adviser to the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, said: “The robust advice and feedback of the ethics committee shows it is doing what it was designed to do. The committee is there to independently scrutinise and challenge West Midlands police and make recommendations to the police and crime commissioner and chief constable.” He added: “This is an important area of work, that is why it is right that it is properly scrutinised and those details are made public.” The ethics committee recommended more information be provided about the benefits of the mode. “The language use in the report has the potential to cause unconscious bias. The committee recommends the lab looks at the language used in the report, including the reference to propensity for certain ethnic minorities to be more likely to commit high-harm offences, given the statistical analysis showed ethnicity was not a reliable predictor,” it said. In February, a report by Liberty raised concern that predictive programs encouraged racial profiling and discrimination, and threatened privacy and freedom of expression. Couchman said that when decisions were made on the basis of arrest data, this was “already imbued with discrimination and bias from the way people policed in the past” and that was “entrenched by algorithms”.
She added: “One of the key risks with that is that it adds a technological veneer to biased policing practices. People think computer programs are neutral but they are just entrenching the pre-existing biases that the police have always shown.” Using freedom of information data, Liberty discovered that at least 14 forces in the UK are either using algorithm programs for policing, have previously done so or have conducted research and trials into them."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/20/predictive-policing-tool-could-entrench-bias-ethics-committee-warns

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.