6 Aug 2022

German government’s new “infection protection measures” let coronavirus run wild

Tamino Dreisam


The summer wave of the coronavirus in Germany is already pushing hospitals to the breaking point, and the death toll of 700 per week is 12 times higher than at the same time a year ago. Despite this, the government is preparing for an even greater wave of deaths. The package of measures announced Wednesday by Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (Social Democratic Party, SPD) and Justice Minister Marco Buschmann (Liberal Democratic Party, FDP) is not an infection control law, but an epidemic-spreading law.

Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) talks with Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) before a cabinet meeting July 27 (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

The provisions, which are to replace the current Infection Protection Act that expires on September 23, represent a further relaxation of the measures that have been in place until now. The only two measures that will still be mandatory nationwide in the future are a requirement to wear a mask on long-distance public transport, in hospitals and care facilities, and “3G” regulations (vaccinated, recovered or tested) in hospitals and care facilities.

On paper, the individual German states are allowed to take certain other measures—mandatory mask wearing on local public transport, mandatory testing, and mandatory use of masks in schools, restaurants and cultural institutions (from which vaccinated and recovered persons are excluded, however). But the experience of the pandemic to date has shown that state-specific coronavirus measures are generally not applied.

States may only enact measures beyond the limited ones mentioned in the law if there is a threat of overburdening the health care system or critical infrastructure. In plain language, infection can run through the population up until the health care system is on the verge of collapse or the maintenance of capitalist profit maximization is in jeopardy.

But even then, no action would be taken that might interfere with profit accumulation. “All these things that are understood by the term lockdown—curfews, plant closures, school closures—all these things, we don’t think are appropriate anymore,” Bushman declared, summing up the viewpoint of the entire ruling class.

The new Infection Protection Act is to apply until next Easter. This means that even if there is an unprecedented wave of deaths in the winter, no new measures will be taken.

In fact, a fatal wave is already occurring this summer. Although the official 7-day incidence rate has recently dropped somewhat to 451 per 100,00 inhabitants due to the summer vacation, it threatens to rise again even more with the end of the travel season and the return to schools. Nevertheless, 137 districts have an incidence level above 500, and one is even above 1,000.

However, the officially reported incidences have long since ceased to reflect the actual numbers infected. Testing is now only mandatory in very few areas, testing capacities have been cut across the board, and even free public tests have been abolished. The extremely high test-positive rate of 54 percent also underscores the enormous number of unreported cases.

The actual extent of infections can be guessed at, among other things, by the growing number of outbreaks in medical treatment facilities as well as in nursing homes and those for the elderly. In these, there were 150 outbreaks last week (144 in the previous week) and 26 deaths. In nursing homes and homes for the elderly, there were 370 outbreaks (305 the previous week) and 58 deaths.

The burden on hospitals also shows the seriousness of the situation: the adjusted hospitalization incidence rate has been stagnant at 12.5 for several days, equivalent to 10,000 hospitalizations per week. The number of patients receiving intensive care continues to rise and now stands at 1,395, with 457 ICUs currently reporting limited operations, 331 partially limited operations and only 385 regular operations.

The rising numbers are pushing more and more hospitals to the edge of their capacity. On Monday, the Bavarian Hospital Association said that emergency rooms in Bavarian hospitals were currently overloaded due to the coronavirus wave and staff shortages. The number of hospitalizations in Bavaria is currently greater than at the height of the Delta wave last winter.

Some hospitals have had to postpone scheduled operations and ambulances must travel longer to find a hospital ready to receive patients. The Allgäuer Zeitung reported Tuesday that hospitals in the Lindau district in Bavaria’s western Allgäu were so overloaded that ambulances had to transport patients as far away as Reutte, across the border in Austrian Tyrol. A third of the emergency patients in recent days had to be accommodated in hospitals outside the district.

In addition to the direct consequences of a coronavirus infection, the subsequent long-term effects are also becoming increasingly apparent. Children, who usually have comparatively milder illnesses due to the disease, are particularly affected by the long-term consequences. Last Wednesday, the medical journal The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health published a study by Danish scientists involving 11,000 infected individuals, which is considered the largest study of Long COVID to date.

The study came to a dramatic conclusion. About 40 percent of 0 to 3-year-olds, 38 percent of 4 to 11-year-olds and 46 percent of 12 to 14-year-olds were still dealing with long-term effects more than two months after infection. Symptoms ranged from rashes and abdominal pain to memory problems and difficulty concentrating.

Numerous doctors and other experts report the drastic long-term effects they observe. Stephan Gerling, a senior physician and paediatric cardiologist at the KUNO Klinik St. Hedwig in Regensburg, and head of the Long COVID paediatric outpatient clinic there, told Der Spiegel, “Many children don’t notice anything at all as long as they are sitting. But they can’t even manage to go for a six-minute walk anymore—let alone play and romp like other children.”

In an interview with Merkur.de about the consequences of Long COVID for younger individuals, Dr. Jördis Frommhold, chief physician for lung diseases at the Median Clinic in Heiligendamm and expert on Long COVID, also reported, “With young people it is often like this after Omicron: They drag themselves to work, somehow that is still possible. They still manage their duties, but then they sleep at home for the rest of the day.”

She goes on to warn, “Long-term effects in coronavirus are still not talked about enough. But in the future, we’re going to have a lot of absences from work because of Long COVID. You must plan for that. Hundreds of thousands of people are affected. And it’s becoming more and more.” Studies show that once people are reinfected with coronavirus, the likelihood of Long COVID doubles. Already, more than a million people are suffering with Long COVID symptoms in Germany alone.

The ruling class is not only aware of the catastrophic consequences of its herd immunity policy of allowing deliberate infection, it is purposefully pushing it to extremes as part of its cutthroat profits-before-lives orientation. “There will be a great many absences among hospital staff, and at the same time, the number of COVID patients in normal and intensive care units will increase significantly,” Lauterbach stated. At the same time, he hailed the new Infection Protection Act, which is preparing the ground for precisely this development, as “very good.

US-China relations at breaking point

Peter Symonds


The reckless and provocative trip by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strained relations between the United States and China to breaking point.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, center, walks with Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, left, as she arrives in Taipei, Taiwan, Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2022. [AP Photo/Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs via AP]

The Chinese government has reacted with Pelosi’s visit by ending dialogue with Washington in key areas, including military-to-military talks, climate change, cross-border crime and drug trafficking, and the repatriation of illegal migrants. Beijing has also imposed unspecified sanctions on Pelosi herself.

“Despite China’s serious concerns and firm opposition, Pelosi insisted on visiting Taiwan, seriously interfering in China’s internal affairs, undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, trampling on the One China policy, and threatening the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait,” a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson declared.

The eight countermeasures announced yesterday specifically cancel China-US Theatre Commanders meetings, China-US Defense Policy Coordination talks and China-US Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings. The Politico website reported that multiple calls by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair General Mark Milley have not been returned by their Chinese counterparts.

The breakdown of direct military-to-military contact further heightens the danger of an incident or accident leading to a broader conflict amid the tense standoff between Chinese, US and Taiwanese forces triggered by Pelosi’s visit.

The US is maintaining a major naval presence in waters near Taiwan, featuring the aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, with its full complement of warplanes, along with the warships of its accompanying strike group. White House spokesperson John Kirby announced further anti-China provocations, with US naval and air transits of the Taiwan Strait in the “next few weeks.”

China is staging its own largest-ever military drills in six areas close to Taiwan, due to continue until noon local time on Sunday. These involve the dispatch of military aircraft into the Taiwan Strait, the firing of missiles into waters to the east of Taiwan, including over the island itself, and the deployment of naval ships into the areas, disrupting international flights and shipping.

In a pointed warning to the US and Japan, several Chinese missiles reportedly landed inside the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), surrounding Japan’s southern islands near Taiwan, sparking a protest from Tokyo. The largest US military bases in Japan are sited on Okinawa, which is part of Japan’s lengthy southern island chain.

Taiwan’s defence ministry reported it had scrambled fighters to warn away Chinese aircraft that it said had entered the island’s self-declared Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ), some of which also had crossed the median line in the Taiwan Strait separating the island from the Chinese mainland. The ministry said a total of 68 Chinese military aircraft and 13 navy ships had conducted missions in the strait.

The East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone as shown in pink boundaries (Source: Wikipedia - CC BY-SA 2.0)

The risk of a military clash is increased by the extremely confined space in which such manoeuvres are taking place. The Taiwan Strait is just 130 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. The nearest inhabited Japanese island, Yonaguni, is only 110 kilometres to the east of Taiwan.

Moreover, the Taiwanese ADIZ, which has no standing in international law, not only hugs the Chinese mainland, including heavily-fortified islets just kilometres from major Chinese cities, but covers a significant portion of the Chinese mainland itself. In many cases, Chinese aircraft cannot even take off without “intruding” into the ADIZ.

In a statement steeped in hypocrisy and cynicism, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned the Chinese exercises, saying: “There is no justification for this extreme, disproportionate and escalatory military response… now, they’ve taken dangerous acts to a new level.”

At the same time, Blinken reiterated that the US intended to stage further provocations by sending its military through the narrow waters between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland and encouraging its allies to do the same.

Despite initial expressions of concern about the inflammatory character of Pelosi’s trip, the Biden administration backed it and authorised the mobilisation of US military aircraft and warships as part of the visit. Now the White House, its allies such as Japan and Australia, and the US and international media repeat the lie that the visit in no way changed the status quo surrounding Taiwan.

In reality, the trip is another major nail in the coffin of the One China policy that underpinned the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and China in 1979. Beijing insists that Taiwan is an integral part of One China of which it is the legitimate government—a position that the US accepted de-facto when it broke diplomatic and military relations with Taiwan and removed its embassy and its armed forces from the island.

Beijing has repeatedly warned that it will reintegrate Taiwan by force if Taipei ever declares formal independence from China. The visit by the highest-ranking US official in 25 years is just the latest in a series of steps by the Trump and Biden administrations calculated to call the One China policy into question. That included a public acknowledgement last year of the presence of US troops on Taiwan—a territory that de facto the US recognises as part of China.

Taiwan would be part of China today if it were not for US imperialism. The protocols reached between the US and its allies at the end of World War II recognised that Taiwan—the Japanese colony of Formosa since 1895—was part of Chinese territory. In the wake of the 1949 Chinese Revolution, the defeated Kuomintang armies fled to Taiwan, where Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek presided over a brutal military dictatorship.

For nearly a quarter century, successive US administrations maintained the fiction that the Chiang Kai-shek dictatorship was the legitimate government-in-exile of all China. That changed in 1972 when President Nixon visited China and forged a quasi-alliance with Beijing against the Soviet Union. Taiwan and the One China policy was central to the protracted negotiations that finally culminated in the establishment of formal US-Chinese relations in 1979.

The Biden administration is now deliberately undermining those foundations. In doing so, it is goading Beijing into taking military action to reunify Taiwan and prevent the island being drawn into Washington’s web of anti-China alliances throughout the Indo-Pacific. Taiwan is not only critical to China strategically but is home to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which has a virtual monopoly on the production of the most advanced semiconductors vital for countless commercial and military applications.

US imperialism is consciously exploiting Taiwan and endangering its population, in the same way as it has used Ukraine to provoke a war with Russia. It is seeking to provoke a conflict over the island and drag China into a military quagmire that will weaken and fracture the country that Washington regards as the chief threat to the “international rules-based order” on which its global domination rests.  

Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan marks a dramatic escalation in the US provocations against China, but Washington will not stop there. As it increasingly renders the One China policy a dead letter, the US is arming Taiwan to the teeth, as part of its decade-long military build-up throughout the Indo-Pacific region for a war with China with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Amnesty International report exposes Ukraine’s violations of international law, deliberate use of civilians as human shields

Clara Weiss


The human rights organization Amnesty International released a report Thursday showing that “Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals.”  

Amnesty International’s findings corroborate an earlier report by the United Nations which also provided evidence that the Ukrainian army has been using civilians as human shields in the conflict. Both of these recent reports come on top of extensive documentation of war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army and its neo-fascist paramilitary forces, particularly against Russian prisoners of war.

Written in cautious language, Amnesty International’s report is a damning exposure of the criminal character of the imperialist proxy war in Ukraine in which the civilian population is but a pawn for the imperialist powers and their lackeys in the Ukrainian oligarchy and military.

As one resident of the city of Bakhmut told Amnesty International, “We have no say in what the military does, but we pay the price.”

The report was compiled by researchers investigating Russian strikes in the Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv regions between April and July. In the words of Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard, “We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas.”

This pattern includes the use of hospitals as de facto military bases—a clear violation of international law—which Amnesty International has confirmed for five locations. According to the report, “In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital.”

The report also found that the Ukrainian army “has routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area.” While not entirely prohibited by international law, the use of schools and residential buildings by the military is only deemed legitimate when the army has no other options. Moreover, the military is obliged to do everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, including through evacuations and by giving effective warnings of attacks that might endanger civilians.  

However, the researchers found evidence that Ukrainian forces had launched “strikes from within populated residential areas as well as basing themselves in civilian buildings” that were, in most of the documented cases, kilometers away from the actual front lines. According to Amnesty, there were “viable alternatives … that would not endanger civilians.” Moreover, the organization was “not aware” that the armed forces had asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings, which constitutes a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.  

The report noted, “At 22 out of 29 schools visited, Amnesty International researchers either found soldiers using the premises or found evidence of current or prior military activity—including the presence of military fatigues, discarded munitions, army ration packets and military vehicles.”

The report continues, “In a town east of Odesa, Amnesty International witnessed a broad pattern of Ukrainian soldiers using civilian areas for lodging and as staging areas, including basing armoured vehicles under trees in purely residential neighbourhoods, and using two schools located in densely populated residential areas. Russian strikes near the schools killed and injured several civilians between April and late June—including a child and an older woman killed in a rocket attack on their home on 28 June.”

The response by the Ukrainian government to the report has been nothing short of hysterical. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky denounced the report in an address to the nation, claiming that it turned the “victim” into the “aggressor.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba fumed on Twitter that the report “distorts reality, draws false moral equivalence between the aggressor and the victim, and boosts Russia’s disinformation efforts.”

In reality, Amnesty International denounced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the report but insisted that this “does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.” The report also stresses that the violations of international law by the Ukrainian army “in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks.”

It should also be noted that the overwhelming majority of the organization’s reports on the war so far have focused almost exclusively on war crimes by Russia, and Amnesty International itself is by no means an impartial observer. Most notoriously, it restored the “prisoner of conscience” status for the right-wing Russian anti-Putin critic Alexei Navalny, an avowed racist, after coming under intense political pressure last year.

Significantly, the Ukraine office of the organization vehemently opposed the publication of the report. Its head, Oksana Pokalchuk, declared, “We did everything we could to prevent this report from going public.”  

The fact that Amnesty International ended up releasing the report despite serious internal divisions and immense political pressure indicates that the real situation on the ground in Ukraine is, if anything, far more disturbing than even what this report suggests. It should also be noted that the German news magazine Der Spiegel, which has played a prominent role in the anti-Russia war propaganda in Europe, admitted in a report on Friday, rather grudgingly, that its own reporters had made similar findings as Amnesty International and that the conduct of the Ukrainian military “raises legitimate questions.” 

The hysterical response by the Ukrainian government points to extreme nervousness on the part of the Ukrainian oligarchy and its imperialist backers about the political implications of the report. The testimonies cited by Ukrainian civilians indicates that there is significant anger about the country’s military conduct and growing popular opposition to the war in Ukraine itself.

Above all, however, the report exposes the criminal character of the war and deals a major blow to the relentless war propaganda in the media. 

Day in and day out, the working class in Europe and the US is being bombarded with news about alleged Russian war crimes, while neo-fascist paramilitaries like the Azov Battalion are praised by the Associated Press and the New York Times for their “bravery.” The entire edifice of this imperialist war propaganda has been based on the lie that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was entirely unprovoked and that all the death and destruction in this war are to be blamed entirely on Moscow. 

Yet the Amnesty International report leaves no doubt that, whatever the war crimes by the Russian army—and there is no question that such crimes have been committed—a significant number of the civilian casualties of this war, which now number over 5,000 dead and over 7,000 wounded, were caused by the conduct of the Ukrainian military. 

Moreover, anyone reading the report must ask the question: Why does the Ukrainian military behave in such a way? If there was any truth to the claim that this war was about the defense of “democracy” and the “rights” of the Ukrainian population, such conduct would either not take place at all or be immediately condemned by the Ukrainian government and its General Staff. 

The reality is that the US, which has deliberately provoked this war after laying waste to half a dozen societies in the Middle East and North Africa, and the Ukrainian oligarchy could care less about the millions of lives now being destroyed and the thousands killed in the war against Russia. 

In a rare moment of truth, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov recently described his country as a “testing ground” for Western arms manufacturers, which have reaped major profits from the tens of billions of dollars in money for weapons that NATO has pumped into the Ukrainian military. 

The real aim of the war, which was deliberately provoked by NATO, is to bleed Russia dry. The strategy is to pump Ukraine full with advanced missiles and weapons in order to engineer a military defeat with horrific losses in the hope that this would precipitate a major domestic crisis, which can facilitate the ongoing regime change operation by the imperialist powers. 

From the standpoint of Washington and the other imperialist powers, the war in Ukraine is but the opening shot in a new scramble to carve up Russia and China in a new re-division of the world. With the relentless anti-Russian war propaganda and the glorification of the supposedly heroic martyrs of the Ukrainian army, world public opinion is to be prepared for a far bigger war that threatens a nuclear catastrophe. The Amnesty International report has dealt a significant blow to this sinister propaganda effort.

Preparing deportation law, France targets imam Hassan Iquioussen

Samuel Tissot


On Friday, a judge in an administrative tribunal suspended the French government’s emergency expulsion order against imam and ex-school teacher Hassan Iquioussen. Iquioussen was born in Dadian in Northern France and has lived here for 58 years. He faces expulsion to Morocco, where he has never lived and has publicly criticized the King.

Iquioussen has five children and nine grandchildren who all reside in France and are citizens. His father forced him and his siblings to refuse their right to French citizenship at 18. He has since unsuccessfully attempted to claim citizenship twice, once in 1984, and once in 1990. He has previously taught French language at high school level.

French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

On October 31 last year, Iquioussen’s house was raided and searched by gendarmes, who found nothing incriminating. Earlier this year, the Nord prefecture refused to renew Iquioussen’s residence permit, alleging that he gave “hateful speeches against the values of the Republic, including secularism,” denied “equality between women and men,” and developed “anti-Semitic” and “conspiracy theories about Islamophobia.”

On May 3, the Macron government began an expulsion procedure against him. Then on July 28, interior minister and ancient member of the Royalist Action Française, Gerald Darmanin told the National Assembly that Iquioussen “will be expelled.” After Moroccan authorities confirmed they would accept the imam, on August 1 Darmanin stated that Iquioussen will be “expelled manu militari [by force] from the national territory.”

Iquioussen has denied all these allegations. Lucie Simon, the imam’s lawyer, stated, “He strongly and seriously contests each of the elements contained in the expulsion order, which are not only old but also taken out of context, truncated by cut sentences and often unverifiable.”

Yesterday morning, it seemed the government’s campaign would be successful: the European Court of Human Rights, to which Iquioussen’s lawyers had also appealed, refused to intervene in the French government’s emergency expulsion of the imam.

However, Darmanin’s plan was halted later on Friday morning, when a judge in the Paris administrative tribunal suspended the government’s expulsion order, at least temporarily. This judgment was then rapidly appealed by Darmanin, who repeated allegations of anti-Semitism, sexism, and religious extremism in a tweeted statement on Friday afternoon.

According to journalist Camille Polloni, who has seen the text of the judge’s order, the judge ruled against the government because there was no evidence to support the state’s accusations of anti-Semitism or religious extremism against Iquioussen. The judge agreed with the imam’s lawyers that every quote except one attributed to him by the government were taken out of context and did not amount to a “provocation to hatred.”

The only comment the judge found did contravene this standard was a remark inviting women to stay in the home. However, the judge concluded that this did not “justify the expulsion order.”

Darmanin has very publicly pursued Iquioussen in the context of a renewed offensive against immigrants by the Macron government. The government had planned to introduce a new draconian immigration law targeting basic democratic rights this week but has now delayed the examination of legislation until the end of August. This action was ostensibly to facilitate “debate.”

The bill proposes to eliminate immigrants’ right to appeal expulsion, the sole legal means by which Iquioussen has been able—for the time being—to remain in France. It also proposes the removal of exemptions to deportations, for example marriage to a French citizen or arrival in France before 13 years of age. In an interview with Le Figaro on August 3, Darmanin said he is “ready to imagine additional quotas for each profession or sector under tension [from a lack of available labor].”

The real reason the bill has been delayed is not for debate, but in order for Darmanin and the Macron government to conduct a highly publicized anti-immigrant campaign to prepare public opinion for a wide-ranging attack on immigrant rights.

Marion Ogier, a lawyer from the Human Rights League, noted that Darmanin’s pursuit of the imam sought to “create a media echo to promote his immigration bill” by announcing the imam’s expulsion “publicly, on social networks, even before notifying him.”

The pursuit of Iquioussen is only one facet of this criminal campaign. Since late July, Darmanin has led a foul campaign against the population of the La Guillotèrie district of Lyon, where on July 20 an altercation between three plain clothes police officers and around 20 individuals took place.

The officers were in pursuit of a man they accused of petty theft in the district. Seeing three people in pursuit of a man, members of the local population intervened to protect the fleeing man, which led to fighting between the police and locals. This incident, in which no one was seriously injured, was then hysterically seized on by the pro-Macron and far-right press as a “lynching,” though no one was killed during the event.

Darmanin travelled to Lyon, where he told residents of the need to strength measures to expel “foreign criminals.” Darmanin also seized on the incident to drastically increase the number of police officers in the city, sending 70 more cops into the district to “retake control.”

In his interview with Le Figaro, Darmanin blamed immigration, not widespread poverty and distress amongst the poorest sections of French society, for crime, “Today, foreigners represent 7 percent of the French population and commit 19 percent of acts of delinquency. To refuse to see this would be to deny reality.” On August 4, on CNews he stated: “If [immigrants] do not respect our values and our laws, they must leave. Common sense.”

What is unfolding is a draconian attack on fundamental democratic rights by a government that is inciting far-right sentiments. The state sought to remove a French-born resident, who hasn’t been charged, let alone convicted of a crime, due to his alleged disaccord with the French state’s “values.” Only the imam’s successful appeal against the order, a right the government is seeking to overturn, has temporarily prevented his expulsion.

The Iquioussen case and Darmanin’s anti-immigrant campaign shows how, emboldened by his April victory, Macron and his allies are seeking to deepen and extend the French state’s anti-Muslim campaign. In all its essentials, this is the same fascistic policy proposed by the Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN).

Macron’s law is going to a National Assembly crammed with deputies of his own party, of the RN and of Jean Luc Mélenchon’s New Popular Union, which has supported previous anti-Muslim legislation. There is clearly an enormous danger that immigrants’ right to appeal deportation will be eliminated.

In the case of Iquioussen, despite the judge’s verdict he remains at huge risk of deportation to Morocco in the coming days and week. Embarrassed by the ruling against its highly publicized pursuit of the imam, the Macron government will do everything in its power to overturn the ruling.

5 Aug 2022

Meta Research PhD Fellowship Program 2023/2024

Application Deadline:

20th September 2022 11:59pm PST

Eligible Countries:

Any

To be taken at (country):

Any country (excluding US embargoed countries)

Research Areas:

  • CommAI
  • Computational Social Science
  • Compute Storage and Efficiency
  • Computer Vision
  • Distributed Systems
  • Economics and Computation
  • Machine Learning
  • Natural Language Processing
  • Networking and Connectivity
  • Security/Privacy
  • Research Outside of the Above: relevant work in areas that may not align with the research priorities highlighted above.

About Meta Fellowship: 

The Meta Research PhD Fellowship is a global program designed to encourage and support promising doctoral students who are engaged in innovative and relevant research in areas related to computer science and engineering at an accredited university.

The program is open to students in any year of their PhD study. We also encourage people of diverse backgrounds and experiences to apply, especially those from traditionally under-represented minority groups. Applications are evaluated based on the strength of the student’s research statement, publication record, and recommendation letters.

Winners of the Fellowship are entitled to receive two years of paid tuition and fees, a $42,000 annual stipend to cover living costs, various opportunities to engage with Meta researchers, and an invitation to the annual Fellowship Summit

Type:

PhD, Fellowship

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

You are eligible to apply for the program as long as you are:

  • Enrolled in a PhD program at an accredited university in the fall following the application cycle (i.e., Fall 2023)
  • Engaged in research related to computer science and engineering in areas relevant to Meta, as specified in the Available Fellowships section

The program is open to students at all accredited universities around the world.

You would not be eligible if you are:

  • Graduating before the fall following each application cycle
  • Planning on working at another competitor company part-time while participating in the Fellowship
  • A contingent worker at Meta. We cannot pay the CW wage and the stipend concurrently.
  • A Meta AI Resident
  • Planning on doing a part-time internship with a competitor during the academic year (fall/spring). You can do an internship at another company in the summer before Fellowship or in the summer between academic years during Fellowship. This includes internship extensions into the fall.

We will not be offering awards to candidates whose research is outside the specified research areas described in the Available Fellowships section. Please review each Available Fellowship description carefully to ensure you are aligned with the correct research area.

We are currently unable to provide funding for undergrads, graduates in different disciplines, or alternative funding such as small grants.

Number of Awards:

Not specified

Value of Meta Fellowship:

Payment

Tuition money will be paid directly to the school. The total stipend of $42,000 will be paid to Fellow via direct deposit, unless otherwise specified. Stipends must be paid directly to Fellows. Stipend payment(s) are sent once a tuition invoice is received for the respective fall term each year.

The award funds are delivered during the fall term of the awarded year(s) and conclude at the end of the Spring term. If a Fellow graduates in the middle of the academic year, they will receive their full tuition for the semester, and half of their stipend amount (in alignment with the semester).

Transferring universities during the Fellowship should generally not pose an issue with payment. Please contact academicrelations@fb.com for more information.

Use of Funds & Other Restrictions

  • The $42,000 stipend cannot be redirected to the university’s lab as gift funding. Stipends must be paid directly to Fellows.
  • Tuition and stipend/travel funds cannot be combined and paid to the university.
  • Fellows do not receive equipment directly from Meta, but they are free to use their stipend to buy themselves a computer or any equipment necessary for conducting their research.
  • Fellows cannot join Meta’s savings account plans (e.g. 401k, Health Savings Account, etc.) since they are not Meta employees.

Duration of Award:

Facebook Fellowship Award to cover two years!

How to Apply for Meta Fellowship:

Applications Must Include

  1. CV or resume. There is no page limit to the resume or CV. In this case, it may be worthwhile to have a longer CV to complement your achievements or any publications you would like to share.
  2. Research statement. Statements of research should be 500 words or less and should clearly identify your area of focus, its importance to the field, and its applicability to Meta as it pertains to one of the Available Fellowships. Note that references or citations count toward the 500-word limit. To optimize the word count for research statements, references and citations should be added to CVs, which do not have a word or page limit.
  3. Two letters of recommendation. One of the letters of recommendation needs to come from a PhD advisor or a research advisor. The other may come from another professor or an industry contact.

For application guidance from Fellows and Meta reviewers, see Application Tips below.

  • The 2023 application opens on August 3, 2022, at 9:00am PDT. Applicants may prepare to apply by creating a SurveyMonkey Apply account. During the application process, applicants will be asked to provide references’ contact information. Once the application is submitted, references will receive an email to upload their letters in SurveyMonkey Apply by October 6, 2022. Please visit SurveyMonkey Apply for more information on references and how to apply.
  • Applications close on September 20, 2022. After the application deadline, changes to applications will no longer be accepted. There is no interview associated with the Fellowship review process.
  • Winners are notified in mid-January 2023. Winners will be announced on the Meta Research blog. Due to the volume of submissions, we’re unable to provide individual feedback on proposals.

Visit Meta Fellowship webpage

The Officer of the Future: Facial Recognition and the Border-Industrial Complex

Todd Miller



Photo by Jan Canty on Unsplash

Nowadays, most travelers entering the U.S. have to undergo this weird thing: after officials take a headshot, software determines the geography of your face, including the distance between your eyes, the distance from your forehead to chin, and different facial landmarks. Your facial signature then becomes a mathematical formula, and can be compared to a database of tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of known faces, or if you are crossing the border with your visa, passport, or even driver’s license photo.

Sounds like this has the potential to be creepy, right? Well, to set the record straight, House Homeland Security Committee member Clay Higgins (R-LA) argued before Congress in July that it’s just fine, just a matter of convenience.

“The image that has been presented to the citizens that we serve is that this is some sort of nefarious technology and big brother is watching you,” the congressman explained. “But really it’s using photographic images that travelers willingly have provided, or are available on their passports or visas, or driver’s licenses. We already have that information.”

Higgins wore a black coat, a blue button-down shirt, and a spotted tie. As he spoke during this hearing titled “Assessing CBP’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology”, he looked at Daniel Tanciar, the chief innovation officer of Pangiam, a company founded in 2020, which aims “to revolutionize the future of operations, security, and safety at airports, seaports, and land border crossings through the use of emerging technologies.” This company works with Customs and Border Protection on its sweeping, unprecedented deployment of facial recognition technology. That Pangiam is in the mix on this shouldn’t be a surprise. The company’s CEO is former CBP commissioner Kevin McAleenan. If you don’t remember, he was the guy in charge of border enforcement when agents were tearing apart families in 2018.

Rep. Higgins stressed the efficiency and convenience of this expanding technology, which is affecting more and more people. “It just speeds up the traveler’s passage through the security checkpoint,” he said.

At the International Summit on Borders that I attended in Washington, DC, in June 2018, there was a panel titled “The Border Force Officer of the Future.” I was taken aback when one of the panel’s participants, an immigration official from Canada, said that with the direction of global border control, “The face that God gave you the day you were born will be your passport.”

Though chilling, this seemed far-fetched. Four years later, however, I see that I did not realize how fast it was all arriving, fueled by the public-private partnership exemplified by Higgins and Tanciar, a partnership that is powerful yet hidden. Never once at the hearing was Tanciar asked about his financial stake in the facial recognition system he was promoting. In his testimony, Tanciar gushed that “over 100 million travelers have been successfully processed by CBP’s use of this technology. While there are always improvements that can be made, CBP has implemented a well-performing program that meets the congressional biometric mandate while maintaining privacy, civil liberties, and data security.”

Facial recognition has become the primary biometric technology for CBP. Everyone who enters the country has their picture taken, though supposedly people can opt out (that often isn’t obvious, thanks to a lack of signage; I cross the border constantly and have never seen anything about opting out). The surveillance technology has also been deployed at 32 airports for people exiting the country. CBP partners with airports and airlines to add another layer to this private-public nexus.

During the hearing, Rebecca Gambler of the Government Accountability Office testified that CBP “is in the early stages of pilot testing the technology for other areas of the land environment.” She did not give details about what that means. According to internal documents, during previous secretive tests of facial recognition in Arizona and Texas, authorities obtained a “massive amount of data,” including images of “people leaving for work, picking up children from school, and carrying out other daily routines.” And DHS has called for companies to develop medium-sized drones with facial recognition cameras.

Market forecasts, such as this one from Grand View Research, predict that the global facial recognition market will nearly triple its worth in seven years—from $4.45 billion in 2021 to $12 billion in 2028. As GVR explains, “The market for facial recognition technology is growing enormously. … From its application in social media and mobile technology to security applications at airports, law enforcement, and targeted marketing campaigns, the deployment of facial recognition technology is inevitably part of our future.”

There were, however, witnesses at the July hearing, such as Jeramie Scott of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who were not so keen on a future of constant techno-surveillance. In his testimony Scott described facial recognition as a “dangerous surveillance technology” and said it poses “serious threats to our privacy and civil liberties.”

And Jesse Franzblau, senior policy analyst at the National Immigrant Justice Center, told me that:

“CBP uses the technology heavily to track migrants along both sides of the U.S. southern and northern borders, and employs the technology at U.S. international and foreign airports, subjecting travelers to dangerous tools that sweep up massive data into U.S. databases with little scrutiny. The technology has an inherent racial, gender, and age bias, compounding existing discriminatory practices common among CBP and ICE agents.”

Facial recognition is but one component of a much larger border apparatus composed of walls, drones, armed agents, jails, and an expulsion system that regularly separates family members. It is difficult to separate the one from the other.

Franzblau also zoomed in on the border-industrial complex and stressed that it is vital for members of Congress “to closely examine the link between DHS employees and the surveillance tech industry. The revolving door between DHS officials and companies that benefit from the surveillance tech contracts fuels a toxic cycle of policy choices driven by profit over humanity.”

These links went undiscussed at the July hearing. Higgins did, however, ask what happens if the recognition technology makes an error. “And if for some reason [a traveler’s] image is not recognized or flagged with a false identity, they are pulled out of the line and go through a normal check of a human being. Is that correct?” he asked Tanciar.

“Yes, that is correct,” Tanciar replied. All would be fine was their consensus. Before Tanciar was hired at Pangiam in 2020, he worked at CBP’s biometric entry and exit program for four years. Like his boss McAleenan, he was a living example of the revolving door, in which CBP officials pass from public institutions to private corporations with ease, and presumably grease the wheels of the contract conveyor belt.

Pangiam claims that its technologies are “futureproofed,” because their artificial intelligence can replicate human intuition. It can protect you, the Pangiam website says, from “both today’s threats and, for the first time, the threats of tomorrow.” The border officer of the future is already here and it is public and private, human and automated, dystopic, and profitable.