July, 15 2014, 08:23am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Donald Campbell: +44 (0) 207 553 8166 / donald.campbell@reprieve.org.uk
Government's Legal Aid Plans "Unlawful" and "Discriminatory," Rule Judges
British judges today ruled that a proposed cut to legal aid known as the 'residence test' is "unlawful" and "discriminatory." The measure, which was pushed through the Commons without a debate last Wednesday (9 July), would block anyone not resident in the UK from receiving legal aid. This would mean that people who had been wronged by the UK Government - such as victims of rendition and torture - could be shut out of court, unless they are very wealthy.
LONDON
British judges today ruled that a proposed cut to legal aid known as the 'residence test' is "unlawful" and "discriminatory." The measure, which was pushed through the Commons without a debate last Wednesday (9 July), would block anyone not resident in the UK from receiving legal aid. This would mean that people who had been wronged by the UK Government - such as victims of rendition and torture - could be shut out of court, unless they are very wealthy.
The policy has come in for criticism from two Parliamentary Select Committees: the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) warned last month that "the residence test will inevitably lead to breaches by the United Kingdom of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child," while the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) has said of the case put forward by the Government that it "does not find these arguments persuasive."
Additionally, an internal Ministry of Justice document has revealed that no savings have been identified as a result of the policy, and it is likely to cause "an increase in costs" to the Legal Aid Agency.
Today's ruling came in response to a Judicial Review brought by the Public Law Project, a legal charity.
Commenting, Cori Crider, Strategic Director at Reprieve said: "This is welcome news. The 'residence test' would seriously damage the principle that no-one, not even the Government, is above the law. Deserving cases - such as victims of 'rendition' operations in which the UK was complicit - would be denied their day in court. The Government must think again."
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
LATEST NEWS
IDF Allowed 100 Civilian Deaths for Every Hamas Official Targeted by Error-Prone AI System
"The IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option," an Israeli intelligence officer said. "It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations."
Apr 03, 2024
As the Biden administration issued its latest assurance that officials are pushing Israel to be "precise" in its selection of targets in Gaza, an investigation into the Israel Defense Forces' use of a previously undisclosed artificial intelligence system found that the mechanism has replaced "human agency and precision" with "mass target creation and lethality."
Four months after +972 Magazine and Local Call, detailed the IDF's use of an AI system called the Gospel, which generates dozens of buildings and structures for the military to target in a single day, the two Israeli media outlets revealed that another AI machine called Lavender, which has also played a part in Israel's slaughter of at least 32,975 Palestinians since October.
Unlike the Gospel, reported +972's Yuval Abraham, "Lavender marks people—and puts them on a kill list."
Abraham spoke to six Israeli intelligence officers who have served in the IDF during Israel's current assault on Gaza and have had "first-hand involvement with the use of AI to generate targets for assassination."
"Lavender has played a central role in the unprecedented bombing of Palestinians, especially during the early stages of the war," wrote Abraham. "In fact, according to the sources, its influence on the military's operations was such that they essentially treated the outputs of the AI machine 'as if it were a human decision.'"
"It was known in advance that 10% of the human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas military wing at all."
The system was designed to mark suspected military operatives in Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as potential bombing targets.
But the IDF gave "sweeping approval for officers to adopt Lavender's kill lists" in the early days of Israel's bombardment campaign, and gave "no requirement to thoroughly check why the machine made those choices or to examine the raw intelligence data on which they were based."
Before bombing the houses of suspected armed group members, the intelligence officers did a brief assessment of the data to determine that the AI-selected target was male.
"A human being had to [verify the target] for just a few seconds," a source identified as B. told +972. "At first, we did checks to ensure that the machine didn't get confused. But at some point we relied on the automatic system, and we only checked that [the target] was a man—that was enough. It doesn't take a long time to tell if someone has a male or a female voice."
"I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day," B. added. "I had zero added value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time. If [the operative] came up in the automated mechanism, and I checked that he was a man, there would be permission to bomb him, subject to an examination of collateral damage."
B. and the other sources acknowledged that the system was prone to error.
If the target had given his phone, which Lavender used to identify Hamas and PIJ suspects, to "his son, his older brother, or just a random man," said B., "that person will be bombed in his house with his family. This happened often. These were most of the mistakes caused by Lavender."
The system marked 37,000 Palestinians—and their homes, with family members potentially inside—as targets in the first weeks of the war, when the IDF "almost completely relied on Lavender."
The intelligence officers told Abraham that the IDF was "not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity," despite Israel's persistent claims that they are targeting military outposts and other noncivilian infrastructure.
"On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option," an officer identified as A. told +972 and Local Call. "It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations."
As a result of the military's reliance of Lavender, wrote Abraham, "thousands of Palestinians—most of them women and children or people who were not involved in the fighting—were wiped out by Israeli airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war."
The investigation also found that, according to two of the sources, the IDF decided in the early weeks of the war that "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians"—an unprecedented approach by Israel to so-called "collateral damage."
"A ratio of 20 civilians killed for one target works out to about 95% civilian deaths," said enterpreneur Arnaud Bertrand.
For senior Hamas officials that were targeted, the army authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians.
IDF officers, including the sources, accepted that Lavender's calculations about targets were accurate only 90% of the time, +972 and Local Call reported.
"In other words, it was known in advance that 10% of the human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas military wing at all," wrote Abraham.
One source defended the military's use of Lavender, saying investing "manpower and time" in analyzing whether a suspected junior militant is a legitimate target was not worthwhile.
"In war, there is no time to incriminate every target," said the intelligence officer. "So you're willing to take the margin of error of using artificial intelligence, risking collateral damage and civilians dying, and risking attacking by mistake, and to live with it."
While collateral damage has long been a reality in violent conflicts, parties are bound by international humanitarian law that states they must distinguish between civilians and combatants.
Alex Hanna, director of research for the Distributed AI Research Institute, said the report illustrated the possible "future of AI warfare" for the U.S. and other powerful countries.
Bertrand suggested the "disturbing" report called to mind the Nazis' methodical massacre of Jewish people during the Holocaust.
"It's industrialized extermination," said Bertrand, "the likes of which we haven't seen since... you know when."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Warns Climate Crisis Threatens US Nuclear Reactors
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise," the report reads.
Apr 03, 2024
The nation's nuclear reactors may be at risk due to the climate emergency, according to a report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.
The report claims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to consider these risks as it regulates nuclear power plants going forward. There are currently 94 nuclear reactors in the United States that could be affected.
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events," the report reads. "Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns."
Extreme weather event like floods can pose safety risks to #NuclearPower plants. #ClimateChange is likely to make these natural hazards more severe.
Our new report looks at how @NRCgov could better address climate risks to nuclear power plants: https://t.co/lZhGAjtNkF pic.twitter.com/MOjambENtG
— U.S. GAO (@USGAO) April 2, 2024
The report notes that many new reactors are currently being developed, which increases the need for the NRC to properly regulate those reactors.
It says that the NRC has mostly used historical data to "identify and assess safety risks," which would not account for the climate risks that are likely to threaten reactors in the future. The report claims most reactors could be negatively impacted by future climate risks.
Beyond Nuclear, which advocates against nuclear power and weapons, said in a statement that that GAO's findings and recommendations confirm what the group has been litigating with the NRC—that "the agency cannot continue to ignore the safety impacts on nuclear power plants from the worsening climate crisis."
"These risks include a worsening of natural hazards and encompass heat and cold, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise, according to the GAO, all of which could seriously jeopardize the safe operation of the nation's current fleet that is going through extreme license renewals—and any future new... nuclear reactors if not properly safeguarded," the group said.
Plans to triple the amount of nuclear power in 22 countries by 2050 that were announced at the most recent United Nations climate summit have been denounced as "dangerous" and not a realistic solution to address the climate emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Campaigners Cheer FCC Plan to Vote on Restoring Net Neutrality Rules
"A healthy democracy requires a well-informed and educated public, but that's not possible without an open and accessible internet."
Apr 03, 2024
Open internet advocates on Wednesday welcomed the Federal Communications Commission's plan to vote on reestablishing FCC oversight of broadband and restoring net neutrality rules on April 25.
"The pandemic proved once and for all that broadband is essential," said FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, who announced the restoration effort in September, shortly after the U.S. Senate confirmed Anna Gomez to a long-vacant seat on the five-member commission. The following month, the pair joined with Commissioner Geoffrey Starks to start the rulemaking process.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the internet remains fast, open, and fair," Rosenworcel explained Wednesday. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open internet."
The three Democratic commissioners aim to reverse a deeply unpopular rollback that happened under former Republican President Donald Trump by reclassifying broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act and preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking legal content, creating fast lanes, and throttling speeds.
"We've been fighting for this moment since Trump's FCC threw out strong Title II rules and abandoned net neutrality back in 2017—and really for nearly 20 years since net neutrality first came under threat," Free Press Action co-CEO Craig Aaron
said of the upcoming vote. "We welcome and celebrate the FCC's decision to move ahead and make sure that internet users will again be protected against harms by big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon."
"Under these strong but flexible FCC rules, every ISP will be responsible for making resilient networks available to people on just and reasonable terms," he noted. "And they won't be able to pick and choose what any of us can say or see online. Net neutrality is a guarantee that the phone and cable companies will carry our data across the internet without undue interference or unreasonable discrimination."
Aaron warned that "without this clear authority over broadband access, the FCC is vastly weakened in its ability to protect internet users from ISPs' privacy invasions, promote broadband competition and deployment, and take action against hidden junk fees, data caps, and billing rip-offs."
Public Knowledge legal director John Bergmayer similarly applauded the commission's effort, stressing that "broadband is now a necessity for work, education, entertainment, healthcare, social connection, and civic engagement."
"Title II classification is the foundation of net neutrality," Bergmayer said. "With this legal tool, the FCC can reassert its role as the nation's top cop on the broadband beat. It will help the FCC more fully address digital redlining, ensuring that broadband access is not denied or degraded to low-income areas, or based on people's race or other protected characteristics."
"It will give the FCC clearer authority to promote network reliability and resiliency, so that users have a consistent internet experience that is ready for times of crisis and recovers quickly from outages," he continued. "It will also help the FCC combat cyber attacks and address other national security risks that could cripple our increasingly internet-dependent economy and society."
"Title II is also a pro-competition tool. It will help the FCC streamline the deployment of new broadband networks and reduce barriers to competition," Bergmayer added.
The FCC's vote is scheduled to happen just months away from the November presidential election, in which Trump is expected to again face Democratic President Joe Biden, who called for restoring net neutrality with a 2021 executive order.
"The internet is a gateway to democracy for many and every voter has the right to a free and fair internet. From looking up information about candidates to finding polling sites, this net neutrality proposal will make it easier for every voter to participate in our modern democracy," said Common Cause Media & Democracy Program director Ishan Mehta.
"We strongly encourage the FCC to restore net neutrality and return control of the internet to the people," he added. "Especially in a major election year, the FCC must do all it can to protect every voter's right to basic information online."
Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, now a special adviser to Common Cause, agreed that the pending rules are especially important for those participating in elections.
"A healthy democracy requires a well-informed and educated public, but that's not possible without an open and accessible internet," he said. "We look forward to strengthening a healthy communications ecosystem for all voters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular